Skip to comments.
Bush Unveils $674 Billion Economic Plan
Reuters via Yahoo ^
| 1/7/03
Posted on 01/07/2003 11:04:15 AM PST by B-bone
Bush Unveils $674 Billion Economic Plan
CHICAGO (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Tuesday proposed a $674 billion boost for a struggling U.S. economy with measures including an end to taxes that shareholders pay on dividends -- a move denounced by Democrats as a politically motivated windfall for the rich.
"I will ask members of both parties to work with me to secure our economic future. We cannot be satisfied until every part of our economy is healthy and vigorous," Bush said in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago.
The "growth and jobs" package aims to kick-start the U.S. economy by encouraging consumer spending, promoting investment that will create jobs and helping the unemployed.
It will include the acceleration of across-the-board rate cuts, immediate tax relief for married couples and families with children, and bigger incentives for small businesses to invest in new equipment.
In all the White House says it will give 92 million taxpayers an average tax cut of $1,083 this year. Up to 35 million people who get income from dividends could benefit.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; economicplan; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-225 next last
To: freeper12
A tax cut now, without corresponding spending cuts, is no different than going out any running up your credit card to buy something you can't afford. The bill eventually comes due. No one is running up the charge card. On the contrary, Bush is reducing it's spending limit.
Now the house has less to spend on pork. They'll have to work with less- Tax payers get to keep more. That's a good thing.
To: muawiyah
Great post. 60% of stock owned (90%+ of share holders?) will get no bennifit under Bush's plan. It truly is a plan for only the richest in America. It will as you suggest reduce the bennifit of stock holding for the great majority of americans.
This plan should make the dividends themselves untaxable for the corporation. This way 100% of shareholders will bennifit. Your 401K will bennifit because the dividends will be larger since the corps will avoid the current 15% tax or so.
To: freeper12
If we can't reduce the national debt during huge boom times like the 90's, what hope is there of ever reducing it? Who was president during most of the 90's? Was it his goal to decrease federal spending by encouraging fiscal constraints over Congress' spending bills (other than eviscerating the military)?
To: Wphile
What is the expensing allowance?
184
posted on
01/07/2003 1:21:51 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
(www.fairtax.org: It is time for a Fair Tax!)
To: ohioWfan
>>you don't admit to having fundamental objections to the President because he doesn't agree with you?
I have objections to some of his polcies. I think he is an honorable man however.
I read the "insult" to mean, "I object to the president, because I want to be the president and I am not". I don't wish to be the president...and I don't have ALL the answers either...I don't want to be a barber either, but I know when I got a bad haircut....if I misunderstood the statement, and it wasn't an insult, I'll take your word for it..but then I don't understand what you/he meant?
To: Dog Gone
The only way to make these dividends untaxed would be to somehow keep track of dividends separately in your 401k then not tax them when you withdraw the money. I have seen no indication that 401k's were going to be modified have you?
To: Rockitz
Remember how as the economy was booming through the 90s, conservatives were saying that this was in spite of Clinton. Now, why do we act differently when a Republican is in the White House? How about some consistency on the right? Clinton inherited the Reagan tax break (the economical "nudge"), creating a great economy via giving money back to the private sector.
Yes, it started 2 years before Clinton took office, but Clinton recieved the chunk of it - and the credit- believe it or not!
Then, Clinton gave us the biggest tax increase in American history, taking money back out of the private sector - starving spending, building, and innovation.
Now , Bush has inherited the Clinton rcession.
He'll give the money back like Reagan.
Whoever gets the next election will have another great economy.
If it's a democrat, he'll clam credit for it again, and he'll ruin it.
Then, a Republican will come back and fix it again!
Two tax relief presidents in a row would make every American rich! That usually doesn't happen. When the ecomony is booming, social leeches line up at the voting booths demanding even more free stuff, and the cycle starts again.
To: Rockitz
>>The massive debt that has been amassed by the citizens of this country is going to come due with devastating consequences and the president, federal reserve, etc
That is my fear as well. IMO, the consumer, corporate, AND govt debt is not sustainable given current trends.
Trust me, I don't intend to bash bush...I voted for him, but can't help but feel that what we are witnessing is a slow speed train wreck happenening right before our eyes...and because everyone is going to get a few extra bucks in there pockets, they don't seem to care.
To: snippy_about_it
HEHEHEHE...(screaming) Show me the MONEY!!!!!!!!!! Go W babe GO!
To: GraniteStateConservative
"Mostly, but we only have surpluses if the economy is good anyway. Deficit spending is fine during an economic downturn as long as interest rates are low (and they are).I'm not sure I agree. We have been accumulating deficits for years. And as it is, we tax payers pay almost as much on interest on the debt each year...that we pay for defense spending. That's disgusting! And interest rates might go up...making this even worse.
190
posted on
01/07/2003 1:32:09 PM PST
by
hove
To: EBUCK
Bush Unveils $674 Billion Economic PlanThis is the part I don't get ---is the plan going to cost the government $674 Billion? Tax rate cuts shouldn't take all that much money to do. And of course all social programs need to start getting hacked away at -----I think one good thing would be to combine all welfare programs to eliminate all the duplication in paperwork and they all serve the same people anyways ---combine HUD, food stamps, TANF, SSI, Medicaid and all the rest under one program and it would end tons of paperwork.
191
posted on
01/07/2003 1:33:32 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: freeper12
There's a difference between wanting to BE the President and wanting the President to be like YOU. The latter is what appears to be the truth based on your posts. Most of us understand that while we may have differences with him, we know we can
trust him. Your previous posts don't seem like you think you can.
Nonetheless, neither of those implications.....either that you want the President to do what you think is best, or that you have aspirations to be the President is an insult.
I'll leave the rest of the discussion to you and Gretchen.
To: FITZ
Yes that is the cost to government (which I might add, they hope to make up in increased revenue) 674 Billion.
All social programs should be handled at the state level and in each states manner of choice, without fed interference, influence. Why should I, in Oregon have to pay for New Yorks moronic policies by supporting its welfare system? I shouldn't and neither should they have to support my states silly/socialist policies.
EBUCK
193
posted on
01/07/2003 1:37:28 PM PST
by
EBUCK
(On guard in Oregon.)
To: hove
We have been accumulating deficits for years. The only way to get it back down is to repair the '98 recession. If we can't rebalance it via tax relief, how do you suppose we do?
If Republicans start dropping social programs overnight, the populus would panic, Democrats would take their place, and you get ready to just sign the back of your paycheck and send it to the DNC.
To: GraniteStateConservative
I suppose you could have missed the point more but, I don't see how.
To: anoldafvet
"They had some idiot Democrap B*tch who was screaming about how Bush and the Republicans shoved the first round of tax cuts down our throats in 2000, and now they were going to do it again. Apparently Edwards agrees with this line of thinking."Yeah I caught that. It's not really a line of thinking though...it's just a line.
To: hove
>>And as it is, we tax payers pay almost as much on interest on the debt each year...that we pay for defense spending.
From some quick stats I found on the web, it appears we are paying something north of $300 BILLION dollars each year in interest payments...lets pretned somehow that we could get spending under control, and no longer had debt service...Instead of having everyone excited about a $670Billion reduction in taxes over ten years, we could have $3 TRILLION over ten years...(10 times $300B)....and every year thereafter, I might add.
To: Dog Gone
Since so many tens of millions of Americans have their sole link to the capital markets through their 401(k) plans, the fact that this issue was not brought up means that the reform is not intended to benefit them in any way at all.
Which means, of course, that we here at FR need to start leaning on our Senators and Representatives to get ourselves included in this latest piece of federal largess.
To: ImphClinton
The only way to make these dividends untaxed would be to somehow keep track of dividends separately in your 401k then not tax them when you withdraw the money. I have seen no indication that 401k's were going to be modified have you? No, but funds are ALREADY tracked separately in your account depending on tax status, so the default position is that dividends would simply switch categories.
We'll have to wait and see what actually passes Congress, but the assumption that dividends within 401(k)s will be taxed is clearly premature, and probably wrong.
To: GretchenEE
"And he is smoother than some of the raspy dems who croak and screech their putrescence -- it's harder to detect his scummy agenda, which makes him an easier pill to swallow for TV interviewers and unthinking audiences who like somewhat pretty faces with a big smile. All of which renders him the more dangerous."Absolutely. He's perfect for CNN, whos dedicated viewers are about as mindless as you can get.
No matter what he says though, or how smoothly he says it, the fact is that not only has he never done anything of note, he does not have the experience or the tools to run this country.
I HOPE we've had ENOUGH of slick lawyers occupying the White House.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-225 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson