EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13517 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (10 years 18 hours ago) and read 1043 times:
Way to spin the data to make it sound bad. Now let's look at it OBJECTIVELY:
Report: IRS data shows first-ever consecutive-year drop; loss of jobs blamed.
July 29, 2004: 12:59 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Americans' overall income shrank for two consecutive years after stocks plunged in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened since the current tax system was put in place during World War II, according to a published report Thursday.
In other words, the reason for incomes dropping overall is the LOSS OF JOBS that came for two years following the stock drops of 2000 - OTHERWISE KNOWN AS A RECESSION.
Last I checked, job losses during a recession were commonplace. The drop in overall income, as indicated above, was BLAMED SQUARELY ON THESE JOB LOSSES.
Bush's economic plan, particularly the tax cuts, have cushioned the blow of a recession - even Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said so!
As usual, nice try - but you're woefully incorrect.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 17 hours ago) and read 1024 times:
Bush actually saved the economy by invading Iraq. Iraq, the second largest oil producer was about to convert from the US dollar to the Euro for oil trade hard currency. That would have meant a great deal of US dollars would have flowed back into the US from foreign countries, devaluating it.
The US already has a death grip on Saudi Arabia for the same reason. The US economy is propped up in the oil industry and when it collapses or converts to another form of hard currency, the US economy will follow...
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 15 hours ago) and read 1007 times:
It is very good for president Bush is saved the economy by invading Iraq. It is need to make hring with their new job and etc. It is good deal for more money with economy and way back of old companies. It should need to make good reason with president Bush and keep them make more improved with US economy.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (10 years 12 hours ago) and read 970 times:
One of the things that you will probably never convince otherwise of is how much worse the US economy would have been in 2000-2003 if Bush hadn't pushed through his economic programs.
By all logic with all of the hits from 9/11, the accounting scandels (Tax years before 2000 mostly), the tech bubble bursting before he took office, the economy by all logic should have been much worse off then it actually was.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 hours ago) and read 971 times:
Again people, pay attention.
The article is a rehash of 2-year old data.
The New York Times, reporting data from the Internal Revenue Service, said gross income reported to the agency fell 5.1 percent to $6.0 trillion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available, down from $6.35 trillion in 2000.
The U.S. was in a recession in 2002, and was at the end of the boom in 2000. Of course there is going to be a decrease in profits and free income, the basis for taxes. This news is out of date. If you want timely figures, go here. http://bls.gov