Did Bush's Tax Cuts Work?

Remove all ads!

Laches - I note that you use the word "tuition." This is where the "rubber meets the road" as they say when those who rely too much on such statistics in an effort to prove their point. The college I attented had a very low tuition. Maybe 125.00 per class. Then they start tacking on fees: lab fees, computer fees, parking fees, international fees. Oh, yes they find all sorts of fees. How this translates in the real world is that a class with a tuition fee of 125.00 suddenly becomes almost 400.00. Some of my "tuition" was paid for by my company, but guess what? It did not cover added fees. So the bulk of my classes were not paid for, becuase of the so-called "low tuition" I was paying. Also, one must count books, which can be as much as the class itself. Thus, a class with a 125.00 tuition fee suddenly becomes 800.00 after all is said and done.

My wife's brother is away at college in Georgia. A small liberal arts school. He lives on campus and it is a private school, since his parents did not want him attend a state school. Estimated cost for four years: 250,00.00. That's no myth.

By the way, I understand that the class I used attend for 390.00 is now over 600.00, thanks to the George Bush educational reform here in Texas. That is a sizable increase for a state university. Plus books of course.

 

I do not doubt your numbers Laches in it was a hypothetical situation from my part and a quite long term one at that.

As for the mecian income, hasnt that always since it started to be measured been more or less on an all time high? I assume or hope that your numbers incorporate consumer price index and inflation if not it may be like it is here where real salaries have decreased in the last decade in many sectors, pay raises eaten up by inflation, and we havent even had a very big inflation.

I am also not fond of your use of medians, as it doesnt take into account the difference between how many earns less than 150k a year and how many earns 150m a year. 100 people earning 50 million dollar year is bound to pull up the median even if there are 50 million people earning less than 100k a year.

 

Actually, the Kiplinger quote above refers to "tuition and fees ." The additional costs you reference are part of the "and fees" part.

I could believe that. Which college? Is he from Georgia? If so, then if he had a B average he could have gone to UGA or Georgia Tech, two of the top institutions in the US, for free. There is also Georgia Southern etc. He could've gone over the border to Auburn University or U of Alabama, both very good schools, and paid out of state tuition for $10,000 or so. There are a lot of choices he could've made that were a lot cheaper. He chose to get one of the most expensive educations in the United States. This was his and his parents choice. He had plenty of other options.

It's one thing to say that a college education should be available and achievable - it is. It's another thing to say that anyone should be able to go to any school they want anywhere on the cheap. He had lots of excellent choices but he wanted an exclusive and expensive private school. I'm not sure that anything wrong happened with the system in this instance.

And, you can go to one of those 7% schools where the cost is very, very high. I did my post-grad work at one of those schools. I got out without any debt (scholarships + work). A number of my classmates had significant debt. But, it was our choice to attend a more expensive school.

There are pros and cons involved with a US type system. I wish I could find it; recently I read a book overview by a French author about the state of France's higher education. The endowment at Harvard is bigger than the money poured into all of the French Universities combined. The result, according to the author, is that more and more students from abroad seeking schooling in the US because the US attracts a lot of the top teachers. I'll see if I can find the book synopsis again - it was ~ a month ago.

Frankly, I don't see much wrong with asking someone to invest in his or her own education.

 

Laches - The point was that fees are added dependent upon which programs and which classes a student takes. Also, parking fees can range anywhere from a high of 40.00 a semester to as low as nothing if you are willing to walk a long way on campus. While Joacqin may have confidence in your statistics, I do not. I woudl have to see them for myself, not that I don't believe you. In my particular instance, I ended up paying quite a bit out-of-pocket, because of "low tuition," which was not really all that low. I can't beleive that there is anyone who would believe that a college education is "cheap" these days.

 

Actually, it does. A median is where you put half the people on one side and half on the other. How much you make is irrelevant for the median. Your example that I quoted will raise the average, but those 100 people won't knock the median up any unless every else is also making more than they were.

My school has no parking fees for students or faculty/staff and I could drive my car from my dorm to right next to the classroom building for free.

Not if you're a full time student. I'm paying fixed tuition that will not change regardless of classes, library usage, food, whatever.

BTW, over 67% of all people finishing high school in the US today are going on to college. The vast majority of the rest are going to some sort of trade school.

 

I thought we were talking about Bush taking undue credit for the recent economic growth, not college tuition...

In any event, to add to my original topic, today it was announced that the US unemployment rate has finally dropped to 6% (from 7%). The US added thousands of new jobs in October, and an economic recovery does look likely. I wouldn't say imenant, but things are certainly looking up a little.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/990515.asp?0cv=CB10

I'm not sure exactly how this can be attributed to anything the Bush administration has done in the last quarter (even though they're already taking credit for it), so I was hoping someone could explain this to me. Given the immense Iraq spending, Bush spending more than half of his time campaigning for his reelection campaign and filling his "war chest," etc. Perhaps someone can explain this to me. I'm willing to accept that there is some tangible evidence of the Bush administration making progress and taking initiative domestically, despite all the damage they're doing to environmental policies, civil liberties, etc., but I just can't see it. Throw me a bone here.

ps - No hijacking!!

 

Actually, it was down from 6.1%. I had some trouble with the msnbc site. Here is the WaPo article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11473-2003Nov7.html

@ DR: You said you weren't sure what was done in the last quarter that Bush & Co. are trying to take credit for as it relates to the economy. There is a lag time of ~18 months give or take for the effects of many policy changes to be felt. So, they're saying that the growth is related not to something they did this quarter but instead what was done further in the past. In this case, back in 2000 and 2001.

 

Rastor - My posts were about how tuition was arranged at the college I attended. And thank you for making my point, that colleges differ from each other. Thus, statistics are only a rough guide for expenses. You can see a large contrast between the college you attended and the one I did. I paid about 40.00 for a full semester of parking, and fees varied a great deal at my college. For instance, because I was an English major, books (I could order a few from Amazon at a discount) and fees for me were somewhat cheaper at upper levels. For my wife, who was a science major, her books were way more expensive (sometimes over 100.00 per textboook) and she had a very high cost in lab fees.

DR - There is a theory that college attendance goes up during hard economic times. Increases in college enrollment is somewhat higher during times such as these, when the economy is poor. Also, keep in mind that Bush was our governor here, before this new fool, and left the Texas economy in a very poor state. He bragged about what he had done for education here in Texas, but the results of his "efforts" are a poor showing. As an example, I spoke with one of my ex-professors who told me that altough enrollment was up at the college, instructors were being laid off, and those staying were given higher work loads and more students (larger classes). So we really are still on your topic. Joacqin raised a very valid issue about economics and education, and on both counts Bush has a very poor record.

It really makes me somewhat angry (I am beyond being puzzled) that just because there is improvement some are spinning this into some kind of "economic boom." It is more than spin, for it is dishonest. The market was at around 12,000 when Clinton left office, what is it now? About 9700? That's still a huge drop, despite those who claim the market is up a certain percentage. Also, Unemployment is at 6 percent. What was it in 2000? I think that those who think this is some kind of boom are either in denial or just plain dishonest.

Edit : I noticed that I'd put the market at 9700 while, to bush's faovr, it is at about 9800, and I gave Clinton about 12000 when the market was at around 11500. Sorry for the error.

[ November 08, 2003, 02:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I think that most economists view the market at 11500 to have been over-valued. The prevalent perception is that a correction was required, which has happened, but now is contributing to the recovery. Most Liberals and Conservatives find accord on this.

During the Clinton years the stock market went nuts, investors saw incredible gains, mostly because stocks were percieved as intrinsically valuable. As a result, however, many stocks, and especially mutual funds, were ridiculously overvalued

My 401K loved the Clinton years, but as I now start to invest independently, away from the security blanket of a managed fund, I feel far more secure in this present market.

This may not totally be on the original topic, but I love posting after Chandos!

 

HS - I'm glad that you enjoy my posts, so I will give you yet another. Something really neat happened during the Clinton years: the average worker discovered that stocks could be a good investment. This is in keeping with the idea of an "economic democracy" - the idea that the average worker had the same opportunity as the rich (on a smaller scale). There were days that I actually went to work and returned only to discover that my investments had been working while I was. I often made just as much in the market as I did going to work eveyday, just like a true capitalist. And I have to admit it was fun. Of course the "democracy" ended as soon as the republicans took back the White House. In fact, the day that Bush was appointed Prez, I said to my wife, "you know, we should sell all of our stock because with this guy, bad times are coming." So how was it that I knew more than the real capitalists who thought that Bush was a good thing for the economy?

[ November 08, 2003, 04:30: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

But Chandos, what happened to those $ we made in the stock market during the Clinton years? They are gone, because they unfortunatley were not real. Those dollars earned during that time are no longer in the hands or accounts of the worker, but tied up in some bankruptcy or fraud suite. I'd like to throw Enron out as an example, as it truly is, but you'd just use it to attack the local governor at the time . Enron is an extreme case, but still indicative of what has happened to all of the middle class investors.

That Bull market was a thrill to ride, like a roller coaster (or whatever the big deal at Six Flags over Texas is), but like that thrill ride, when the 60 seconds is over, you get off and realize that you still need to walk on your legs. It is not due to a Republican leadership that we can no longer enjoy obscene gains on shares in a Mutual Fund, it's just gravity.

You mentioned the "average worker" experiencing gains...yup, I saw alot of those on my quarterly reports...but they weren't real. We all FELT like we were getting rich, but the only ones with money still from that era, are currently in state penitentaries or overseas. The downturn that was felt in 2001 would have come whether Bush, Gore or (what the hell) Nader, were president. That was the economic impact from around...18 months before...when Clinton was still eating MacDonald fries and telling White House pages that he was the "Most Powerful Man" in the world.

Oh, by the way...

Don't you mean, annointed?

As my other posts have indicated, I don't sway from placing blame on the current administration when proper or suitable, but not in this case. Clinton started his tenure with a huge "victory" benefit, with the possibility to create budget surpluses larger than imaginable. In time, he will be remembered as failing for having done so little with such a great ammount.

 

Sounds as if you are speaking of Shrub, not Clinton.

 

Sure they worked! They made Jr's rich friends richer and helped tank the economy, necessitating cuts in public works. Exactly as planned.

 

The economic downturn did not start with Bush, we actually started going into a recession during the Clinton administration. As was already said, that would have happened regardless of who was president.