Bush Unveils $674 Billion Economic Plan

Reuters via Yahoo ^ | 1/7/03

[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.

[concerned about politics]

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.

We're married with kids. I don't feel left out at all.
As far as 401K's, we just decided to do our own. We make more profits that way anyway. 401K's aren't what they're cracked up to be. A lot of brokers aren't even trying. They actually lost our money.
That's when we decided to do our own investing. We've been raking in the money ever since, while those still in the 401K are running about even - at best.

[Wphile]

Companies currently are allowed to use Section 179 expensing allowance which allows for $25,000 in capital purchases to be directly expensed. The stimulus package last year allowed an additional 30% on new equipment to be expensed. Not sure how long this is good for. May have been a one year deal. Bush wants the Section 179 figure to go from the $25,000 to $75,000.

So, if a business spends $100,000 on equipment, they can expense $75,000 of it immediately rather than setting it up as a depreciable item and taking annual depreciation expense for 5 or 7 years.

[nutmeg]

Today was just the set. The spike will be in the President's State of the Union address when Bush will have an opportunity to set the record straight.

That's true... the President's State of the Union address should be coming up soon. Hope the sheeple will be tuning in! :-)

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Bush Unveils $674 Billion Economic Plan

And every democrat i talked to today is mad as hell about it!

[GraniteStateConservative]

I omited "and childless" from my statement. Both are Democrat constituencies. Families are the bedrock of the GOP. The only women that vote GOP are mothers of children at home.

[PatrioticAmerican]

#111 - So true.

[Rockitz]

...a slow speed train wreck happenening right before our eyes...

Sad, but true. It stinks that the GOP always takes the fall for failed RAT policies, but here we go again. My fear is that the turnaround will be too late for W to get reelected.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

very impressed with his package bump

[keats5]

Ya know, YaYa, you're right. Those rats are really targeting the elderly where it hurts. First they want to mess with social security by proposing a payroll tax cut, while at the same time taxing their life-long retirement savings stock dividends.

[sam_paine]

Don't get me wrong...I like tax cuts...just wish he did something really bold and got rid of the spending first....

If this is not strategery, then it's sure as hell good luck and fortune in Bush's enemies.

The Dims reflexively shout "deficit baaaaad!" Which plays right into conservatism when coupled with tax cuts. IFFF the tax cuts coincide with a spurred economy then they will have obviously "worked" and to avoid their own bogeyman of a deficit, dims will be forced to either repeal the tax cuts, cut spending, or shut the hell up....and they won't do (a) or (c)!!!!! (But if tax cuts do not spur the economy then we got a whole nuther ball of wax, all bets off.)

[Justice]

The enacting of monetary law has no effect on the economy?

Strange concept.

[apackof2]

And every democrat i talked to today is mad as hell about it!

You talk to Democrats? :>)

I'll take their tax cut money if it makes 'em happy!

[Rockitz]

The enacting of monetary law has no effect on the economy?

Read #177 again. It has a delayed effect- certainly not immediate like the public has been led to believe.

[Torie]

Has anyone expressed any concern about the size of the deficit this all portends, or is this thread supply side central and/or deficits don't matter no matter how large city?

[Rockitz]

It sounds as though we are in agreement, but I don't think any of the talking heads get this concept. Rush sure doesn't and I haven't heard of anyone else espousing this philosophy either. Are there any FReeper economists out there who could write a nice essay on this "delayed response to economic policy" idea?

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Republicans solution for a lagging economy: "Let's cut taxes so more money will circulate throughout the economy."

Democrats solution for a lagging economy: "The Republicans made the economy bad! Vote us back into office so we can raise your taxes."

[GraniteStateConservative]

The WH is supply-side central. That's all that matters.

Only in good economic times do we have an opportunity to have surpluses. Bush has asked for Draconian holds on spending increases, and maybe they'll pass in Congress, but I doubt it.

If we can get oil to about $20/barrel and pass his $670B tax plan, the economy will be sizzling in 2004 and the deficit won't matter.

[Capt.YankeeMike]

thats because Pelosi and Ferraro and Boxer ARE dumb, that is the main reason they appear to be dumb, because they are IN FACT, DUMB (i.e. stupid, ill-informed)

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I believe President Bush is making a huge mistake in implying that the president actually has that much influence on the economy.

I guess you missed this quote:

"The role of government is not to manage or control the economy from Washington, D.C., but to remove obstacles standing in the way for faster economic growth. That's our role."