The ubiquitous question...

[Maestro]

Are you better off now than you were, say under the last Democratic administration? I am not an economist. Nor do I pretend to be actually very good with numbers or my money although I try. It is just not my strong suit. However, all we here from the right is that the economy is growing. There are more jobs available now than ever. Tax cuts will further spur investment and buying since theoretically more money is the in the pockets of consumers.

Well, all I know is that my income has increased but has remained relatively stagnant and certainly has not out-paced my cost of living. I have experienced a huge jump in insurance, both health and home. My prescription drug costs are simply criminal. My fuel costs are astronomical and this includes the gas for vehicles and electricity for my house. My food bill is higher as is the tuition at a local university to which I now owe several thousand. Actually I paid them, but of course, with credit since I didn't have the money on hand.

But since I am not an economist, I really can't explain or better debate with someone who contends that the * economic policy is sound. Nonetheless, I am may have found myself a good starting point for economic debates. I found this little gem of an article, freely available in PDF format that relatively painlessly describes why the * economic policy is not good for us.

Here is a snippet.

December 21, 2005 | EPI Briefing Paper #168

The boom that wasn't
The economy has little to show for $860 billion in tax cuts

by Lee Price

Since 2001 President Bush and congressional leaders have promised that enacting each of a series of tax cuts would strengthen the economy by bringing faster growth, more jobs, and greater investment. With Congress again debating whether to extend past tax cuts and enact new ones, it’s time to review how much the last four years of tax cuts have affected the U.S. economy and budget outlook. Unfortunately for most Americans, the tax cuts since 2001 have not made today’s economy stronger. Over the last five fiscal years, the tax cuts have had a direct cost of $860 billion and (with interest costs) a total effect on the deficit of $929 billion. By creating excessive permanent deficits, they have lowered our future standard of living.

Ouch!

Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/dukg4

[FormerDittoHead]

1. That money was reinvested in manufacturing... in China! n/t

[Nikki Stone 1]

10. I'm inclined to agree with you. The taxcut argument only works in a closed

economic model, where the money distributed in national tax cuts actually makes it into the economy of that nation (through increased spending of the nation's citizens). All bets are OFF if the money goes outside the national economy.

American infrastructure is deteriorating so that capital can be sent elsewhere.

[Deja Q]

2. Shrubbiepoo recently said the tax cuts were responsible for the explosion

of the economy. Ergo the tax cuts ought to be made permanent.

Meanwhile we hear more about the LACKLUSTRE holiday season, how the dollar has dipped BIG-TIME - AGAIN - against the euro, and so on.

And what economy? It's by, of, and for the executive (aka the "investor".) It's not about product quality. It's a game for them to make money at all our expense. We're pawns to be discarded.

[Maestro]

3. They seriously could care less about us.

If they did, they would focus more attention inwards and not on their own orgasmic plans to rule the world.

[Cleita]

4. No brainer for me. I have less income and everything costs

more since the Bush regime fell on us. I watch young people around me struggle to survive with fewer and worse paying jobs. Housing prices keep buying a home out of the reach of most young families unless relatives help them out.

[Maestro]

5. I agree with you

but I never had any cogent arguments against the * policy. It was simply anecdotal. Now I have more ammo.

[thefool_wa]

7. Housing

My family and I went looking to buy a house in the NW a year and a half ago. It boiled down to us having to get a house that was too small for our family in a part of town I wouldn't walk trough, let alone live in, and our mortgage would be an "affordable" $1000/month.

Pardon my french, F*CK THAT! Now, the same house we looked at then would run us almost $1250 in mortgage payments. This world sucks. When they say trickle down they must be talking about the residue on your taint after you get screwed by Repug economics.

Bastards.

[thefool_wa]

6. No way!

I make less now than I did in 1998 (albeit I left a defense job in DC to move home to WA state), but about what I did here in 1997. The rub? My company has capped my position and put all positions that would be "promotions" at a LOWER pay rate than I am currently at. So if I move up even two rungs on the f**king corporate ladder, I will receive no more pay.

Oh, and, if I move around in the industry, I can expect to take a pay cut for at least the next two years.

PLUS I have to chime in on the following:

(My income) has not out-paced my cost of living. I have experienced a huge jump in insurance, both health and home. My prescription drug costs are simply criminal. My fuel costs are astronomical and this includes the gas for vehicles and electricity for my house. My food bill is higher...

I had to go on state medical because the 'best deal' my company could get for medical was $375 per month. OH, and I now have 2 kids and a wife all supported with one income (mine) because my wife and I refuse to buy into the two income family ideal as we feel it is not worth the sacrifices it demands on our children (not to mention any job she gets makes us just enough for child care). All this and somehow we stay above water (for now) with no credit cards or outstanding debt (and it is TOUGH).

short answer: HELL NO I'M NOT BETTER OFF!!!

Democrat economic policy is way better. I miss Uncle Bill.

[ddeclue]

8. Absolutely NOT! Bush Economy SUCKS

My salary rose 500% under Clinton and I was only ever out of work for 3 months total in 8 years.

My salary fell 25% under G.W.Bush and I have been out of work 6 months in 5 years.

Meanwhile everything has gotten much more expensive, rent, insurance, and especially GAS.


An Engineer in Florida
Doug De Clue

[area51]

11. What ddeclue said. (n/t)

[skids]

9. 860 billion

Spread over a working age population of 200 million, that's about $4k per person over the duration of the tax breaks. If the tax breaks worked as the repug liars claim, that and more (due to the fantastic magic of "growth") should have been realized as increased income or benefits (or lower costs.)

So much for the rich investing in the economy.