Are the 2003 Bush tax cuts creating jobs?

[mrbowler]

Sort of like the end of the funny video I watched...lies, all lies

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[bobbcat]

Is it up to the POTUS and his administration to provide jobs, mrbowler?


Could be that the real culprit here is globalization and new sources of real competition.

Exerpt:

Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing.

Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

Is it up to the POTUS and his administration to provide jobs, mrbowler?


Could be that the real culprit here is globalization and new sources of real competition.

Was just showing the difference of how many jobs estimated to be created by the taxes cuts-compared to what has actually occurred. I would assume that many factors including the above were considered.

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

Is it up to the POTUS and his administration to provide jobs, mrbowler?

It's up to them to provide the economic stability to enable jobs to be provided.

Could be that the real culprit here is globalization and new sources of real competition.

Exerpt:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

That didn't start in 2003, it started about 10 years ago.

[mayfly]

I didn't feel like typing it all out again, so I copied another post I wrote.

President Bush pulled our economy out of possible disaster. What were we all thinking September 12th? People were speculating that we would never recover back to the way we were after the terrorist attacks. Everyone was warning others that our stock market was going to crash. The big deal was "just buy one share". Then after that there was the poision in the mail scare, and then snipers. No one wanted to open their mail, people were scared to let their kids go to the mailbox. People were scared about being gunned down by some unknown sniper.

President Bush took all that and brought us to a place that is normal and stable. We are shopping normally, our kids get the mail. We feel safe. Home Owners are at an all time high right now. He made sure there were jobs, all those jobs taken away during the HUGE wake of September 11th have pretty much evened out.

A vote for Kerry is saying you think you are getting too much money in your paychecks, and want more taken out to support public assistance. Its not a vote for jobs.

[monkee]

I guess that's the problem with projections. You can't forsee every possibility.

On the other hand, if (God forbid) Kerry is elected, I'll be eagerly awaiting the same kind of comparison based on his claims that he's going to create millions of jobs. Should be interesting to see how far off he is in his projections.

[bobbcat]

Thought this was a good article: I don't agree with all of it, but does make you think

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Maybe this will help answer some questions-then again maybe not.

Hope you don't mind the fact I posted my response here, mrbowler. The PM feature does not allow enough space.

I think this guy has some interesting theories, but not sure just how many of those would actually pan out. I recall from American history that there was all sorts of handwringing as the Industrial Revolution was unfolding. There is a natural tendency to fear change, but change is inevitable.

I have a gut feeling that when the rest of the world catches up with the technological and social level that the US and other industrialized nations have (read China and India), that a lot of these problems (wide gaps in labor expenses) will resolve on their own. Globalization is an inevitable force that modern technology has wrought. Just think, we are all in a virtual room together, as we can communicate instantly.

It probably will not turn out to be a bad thing afterall. Of course, the West had better wake up and smell the coffee in regard to the war on terrorism. Until the Islamofascists are defeated once and for all, do not plan for this war to end. If we lose, all this bit about globalization won't matter, because not enough of us will be alive to make a difference.

A vote for Kerry is saying you think you are getting too much money in your paychecks, and want more taken out to support public assistance. Its not a vote for jobs.

Remember too, that a vote for Kerry also is saying that you support heavy UN involvement in US troop activity and foreign affairs. As we all should know by now, the UN is extremely corrupt and is a body that has never held the interests of the US in very high regard.

[chippers21]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

It's up to them to provide the economic stability to enable jobs to be provided.



That didn't start in 2003, it started about 10 years ago.

The real CULPRITS are:
globalization of industry
the bursting of the internet balloon
and
9/11/ terrorisms growth in the world

No President, Clinton or Bush or the next one, had/has/will have any positive control over the above. We are just riding this out. And doing pretty well considering.

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

I have a gut feeling that when the rest of the world catches up with the technological and social level that the US and other industrialized nations have (read China and India), that a lot of these problems (wide gaps in labor expenses) will resolve on their own

So does that mean the United States standard of living will decline, and the standard of living will improve for the others?

[bobbcat]

I believe it will be the latter, mrbowler, not the former. There is no reason for our standard of living to decline, unless of course, we allow ourselves to be slaughtered by the Islamofascists. That is a distinct possibility with a Kerry presidency.