Are we expriencing the greatest Economy the world has ever seen???

Question

The past 25 years have been the best stock market for investors in U.S. history. The Dow Jones industrial average hit bottom on Aug. 12, 1982, at 776.9, while interest rates were at 15 percent. Since that date, the compounded rate of return from the last quarter of 1982 until this summer, circa 2007, has been 11.8 percent. Taking into account inflation, the rate of return has been 8.5 percent!!!

Thiswas the result of policy decisions in the 1980s, 90s and more recently - confirming the fact that lower tax rates on capital and labor, sound monetary policies, with open market initiatives and liberalized trade leads to stronger economic growth and rising values in equities.

When Ronald Reagan took office the top tax rate was 70 percent and the capital gains rate was near 50 percent. The soft money policies of the Carter administration had left us with rising unemployment and inflation rate of 16 percent(i.e. stagflation.) (Carter is the worst Prez Ever!)

Despite several events from Y2K to 9/11, from Hurricane Katrina and the rising defense spending in the war on terror, the U.S. economy is the model for the world as more and more nations from Brazil and India to Russia, China, and Eastern Europe begin to emulate our entrepreneurial pro-growth economic ideas.

So please think carefully before we hand over the White House to tax and spend Democrats, along with there bloated social welfare programs and handouts! Let's keep the economic party going!!

Answer 1

Nice trolling, neocon!

Why don't you ask the Chinese about our economy, they own it!

Answer 2

For the wealthiest 5%, that own the majority of the Stocks and Bonds, the economy under W Bush has been great. As for the rest, the reason most Americans think the economy is fair to poor is simple: For most Americans, it really is fair to poor. Wages have failed to keep up with rising prices. Even in 2005, a year in which the economy grew quite fast, the income of most non-elderly families lagged behind inflation. The number of Americans in poverty has risen even in the face of an official economic recovery, as has the number of Americans without health insurance. Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000.

But how is this possible? The economic pie is getting bigger -- how can it be true that most Americans are getting smaller slices? The answer, of course, is that a few people are getting much, much bigger slices. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation's CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush's tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush's tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year -- the richest five percent of the population -- will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year -- eighty percent of America -- will receive barely a quarter of the cuts. In the Bush era, economic inequality is on the rise.

"Trickle Down Economic" is as Bush's father once said "voodoo economics."
There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well. The wealthiest have tax accountants to gain them loopholes, so few would pay that rate. As it is most large Corporations pay no taxes at all.

Answer 3

The Global economy is certainly bigger and more vibrant than ever. I don't think America has quite adapted to it's new place in that economy, though, nor is it ready to deal with the realities of it going forward.

Blaming Carter for stagflation, like crediting Clinton with the 90's internet boom, or blaming Bush for 9/11 is putting far to much responsibility on the office of President. The President simply doesn't control the economy, and can't really influence it much. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, for instance, has a lot more influence - and though apointed by the President serves for 8 years - the President who appoints a chairman will never have the opportunity to replace him with someone else!

Answer 4

1% of Americans are, so it's a yes for them. The unemployment rate isn't a great economic indicator since all of the unionized manufacturing jobs have been replaced w/ low-paying service jobs since free trade opened up, and interest rates don't really mean anything when it's not in your means to get a loan for a house, or a car, etc. (the whole concept of buying money is ridiculous, but it sure helps maintain the status quo). Also, if you are implying that we need more presidents like George W., you should know he hardly follows the basics of conservative philosophy: "In 1987 Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 earmarks --- pork --- costing $1.4 billion. The bill President Bush signed contained 6,371, costing $24 billion. The total cost of the bill --- $286 billion --- is more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the combined costs of the Marshall Plan and the interstate highway system." Although Ron Paul wouldn't be a bad choice if you want someone who's a true conservative.

Answer 5

Deficit spending is a pyramid scheme and when the credit cards max out, those who don't have enough in their Swiss annuities can expect to feel the bite of depression.

90% of the population live from paycheck to paycheck, and accept a 4% raise each year while CEO salaries have increase 2900% since the 80s and many now make more while they sleep than most Americans earn all year.

Putting more money in the hands of the rich is great for capital formation (and there are some economies of scale) but it has social costs. A society with huge disparities is less stable. Our schools are the worst in the world (who cares, wealthy kids all go to private schools anyway). There are homeless on the streets, since we can't afford social programs for them. We are constantly at war, and our health care and immigration systems are in shambles.

Truly, the effective tax rate on the wealthy dropped from 70% to 15%, since most of their income is from capital gains and dividends.
But you, my friend, are paying a higher percentage of tax than you were in 1982. (after figuring in employment and sales taxes that barely affect the wealthy).

So, IMHO, if you earn less than $100,000 a year and support Reagonomics, you are just a sucker.

Answer 6

May I also point out that the dollar is falling rapidly because the current economy is being maintained by the US debt to foreign nations.

China has huge leverage over the US government. If China was to dump the US debt, we would be in a depression within a week. Million would starve to death and our government would be able to do nothing.

Answer 7

Uh huh and while old " trickle down was in office the unemployment rate continued to rise, hitting a high of 10.4 %. When he left, he got it " all " the way back to where it was when he took office and only took eight years. Yea! Ronnie!

Answer 8

In terms of size and the general well being of the population, yes but it has an Achilles heel: oil and a depressant: globalization.

Answer 9

Thats exactly how people in Holland felt at the height of the Tulip Mania.

Answer 10

Don't uncross those fingers yet, Trump, record debt both individual and national, if you select the numbers that fit your model all is good but there is equal cause for concern.middle class wages stagnant for several years, loss of pension plans, boomers retiring, Asia owning large blocks of US debt. real estate foreclosures up, your dancing in rented shoes.

Answer 11

The greatest increases in the economy in the past 25 years was under Clinton.