As I stated before, I don’t have any idea how the economy works, and I don’t think the “experts” have much of an idea about this either. But one thing that I have noticed is a slight trend the last few decades. What is more important to note is how the media and politicians play with it. I recall clearly when Clinton was a lame duck and throughout the 2000 election that we were entering a recession. “Indicators,” like the shipping industry, were showing that we were entering a recession, and it wouldn’t matter who won the election. Naturally, the fans of Clinton don’t much recall the bubble popping, but it actually happened on Clinton’s watch, as did the actual wrongdoings that became the scandals with Enron and WorldCom. To be clear, I am drawing no link other than a time-line. Of course, on the other side the Bush administration and friends haven’t forgotten that he inherited a recession, and then successfully maneuvered the country out of it. Bush and crew would credit the tax cuts. Now as the economy screeches to a halt on Bush’s watch, he is calling for even more tax cuts. I don’t think that tax cuts are the answer. But again, I am no expert. It seems though that tax cuts can’t be the answer to every economic problem. After all, there are only so many taxes to be cut. I also understand that the tax cuts were not just “for the rich” as has been the mindless and uninformed mantra of the anti-Bush crew. He actually cut taxes for the poor more than he did for the rich, if you use the percentage as the appropriate measure. In fact, Bush’s tax cuts benefited the poor far more than Clinton’s tax policies ever did. That’s a fact. That is a fact, however, that does not take into account spending on programs, which is a different subject. However, if you use dollar amount to measure tax cuts, then you can say Bush’s cuts were for the rich, but also that the rich pay nearly all the taxes (for which I do not feel bad or lose sleep). It’s all spin. The inheritance of a receding and arguably “weak” economy is something that Bush, Clinton and Reagan can all claim, but now Obama or McCain will be able to claim it as well. How the next president acts may effect the economy. If it is McCain, will he cut taxes more? If it is Obama will he raise taxes? Does the tax rate actual affect the economy? What happened during WWII? The income tax for the top earners hit 94%, but FDR pulled us out of the Depression and won the war. I don’t know that there is a direct link between the two, but I do know that both sides will try to spin the reality to fit their agenda. In times like this I hope people will actually take the time to educate themselves as they form their opinion. I have compiled the links below to help people start their research. And in the spirit of transparency, which I try to hold myself to on this site, I want everyone to know that I supported the first Bush tax cut. I also favor eliminating the inheritance tax (“Death Tax”). I was not a fan of the second Bush tax cut. I am reconsidering the whole “tax question” myself. I think we need a new system of taxation, but that will need to be the subject of a future article. Here are the links:

Income Tax Rates in History

List of Recessions

Stock Market History

“Death Tax”

GDP History – A Great Research Tool

National Debt Clock

Who Pays the Taxes?

No, Really, Who Pays the Taxes?

Here's my guess. If the economy goes up, Obama's rating will too. If the economy goes down, so will Obama's rating. Now let's watch it right here. It may not happen immediately, but it will usually follow.

Subscribe to my RSS Feed