October 24, 200422 yr By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer WASHINGTON - Despite the stark differences in economic plans from President Bush (news - web sites) and John Kerry (news - web sites), growth and job creation should turn out pretty much the same no matter who takes the White House. AP Photo Private economists also say the federal budget deficit, mentioned infrequently during the campaign, will bedevil the winner of the Nov. 2 election. Experts who have analyzed the spending and tax proposals of both candidates say the plans, if enacted by Congress, would have a similar effect on growth, but the gains would come in different ways. "If both candidates were to follow through on everything they have promised, then the economy would be roughly the same four years from now under either plan," said Mark Zandi, head of Economy.com, a private forecasting company. Global Insight, an economic consulting firm that has fed the details of the two economic plans into a computer forecasting model, reached the same conclusion. "The economic impacts of the Bush and Kerry budget plans are so close as to be almost indistinguishable," said Nariman Behravesh, the firm's chief economist. Under the Economy.com analysis, the economy as measured by the gross domestic product will have average growth rates of 3.1 percent over the next 10 years under the Bush plan and 3.2 percent under the Kerry plan. Global Insight forecasts growth rates of 2.9 percent under both plans. Zandi projects that Kerry's plan will create an average of 1.5 million jobs each year over the next decade, compared with 1.3 million for Bush's. The Global Insight model puts the figure at 1.4 million, resulting in 146 million jobs by 2014. All of those forecasts would represent an improvement over the actual experience of the past four years in which the economy, struggling with a recession and then weak job growth, has seen a net job loss of 821,000 since January 2001. The growth predicted for the plans would come about from different approaches. Bush's centerpiece proposal is to make the tax cuts of his first term permanent, at a 10-year cost of nearly $1 trillion. That would increase growth by promoting higher capital spending through a more attractive investment climate. Kerry's plan would rely on greater government spending, in part from spending $653 billion to expand health care coverage. "The Bush plan helps boost the stock market, profits and capital spending while the Kerry plan provides a bigger boost to government spending," Behravesh said. The wealthy would not be treated the same under the Bush and Kerry plans. The Democratic senator from Massachusetts is campaigning on a pledge to roll back the rate cuts for households earning more than $200,000 per year. Clint Stretch, director of tax policy at Deloitte Tax in Washington, said a family of four earning $40,000 annually, was saving $2,000 under the Bush tax cuts and would continue to see those savings under Kerry's plan. Stretch estimated that a family with earnings of $575,000 annually is now saving $19,300 under Bush's tax cuts, but would lose about 70 percent of that relief and see its tax bill increase by $13,700 under Kerry's plan. Private economists see both candidates failing to control the federal deficit. The Republican incumbent and his challenger are campaigning on a pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2009. Analysts, however, do not see either man coming close to achieving that pledge. The deficit set a record in dollar terms of $413 billion in the just completed 2004 budget year. Global Insight forecasts that the deficit would climb to $451 billion in 2009 under Kerry's programs, while dipping only slightly to $384 billion under Bush. Looking out five more years, the deficit figures grow even more ominous as the retirement of the baby boomers starts to put severe strains on Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare. Global Insight projects a 2014 deficit of $633 billion under Kerry's programs and $570 billion under Bush. Many analysts believe that despite the absence during the campaign of discussion about the deficit, the next president will be forced to make some painful choices to deal with the problem. "Whoever gets elected will end up raising taxes," predicted Tim O'Neill, chief economist at Harris Trust in Chicago. Zandi predicted that if action is not taken, the deficit will figure prominently in the 2008 presidential race, given the pending retirement of baby boomers. "The budget deficits will be coming to a head just as the baby boomers are starting to retire and the problems will grow exponentially after that," he said. "We have some very hard choices ahead of us." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ction_economy_2
October 24, 200422 yr Global Insight projects a 2014 deficit of $633 billion under Kerry's programs and $570 billion under Bush. :o
October 24, 200422 yr Global Insight projects a 2014 deficit of $633 billion under Kerry's programs and $570 billion under Bush. :o 600145[/snapback] Kerry keeps making promises and they need to be payed for somehow....so much for cutting the deficit.
October 24, 200422 yr Global Insight forecasts that the deficit would climb to $451 billion in 2009 under Kerry's programs, while dipping only slightly to $384 billion under Bush. :confused
October 24, 200422 yr Zandi projects that Kerry's plan will create an average of 1.5 million jobs each year over the next decade, compared with 1.3 million for Bush's. Look I can cut and prune to show my sides right as well.
October 24, 200422 yr Global Insight forecasts that the deficit would climb to $451 billion in 2009 under Kerry's programs, while dipping only slightly to $384 billion under Bush. :confused 600201[/snapback] There are times in this country's history where expansion causes us to spend money, but once we reach a plateau, we quickly pay off alot of the debt with the fruit of the expansion's efforts. You never want to pay off the debt entirely because it can make our credit go down, make it harder for Americans to get loans with private banks, and interest rates could skyrocket.
October 24, 200422 yr My turn: Stretch estimated that a family with earnings of $575,000 annually is now saving $19,300 under Bush's tax cuts, but would lose about 70 percent of that relief and see its tax bill increase by $13,700 under Kerry's plan. More money for the rich. Woot!
October 24, 200422 yr People earning over $200,000 are not these rich elitist. People earning $300,000 pay a much higher tax rate than a multi-millionaire, and work much harder.
October 24, 200422 yr People earning over $200,000 are not these rich elitist. People earning $300,000 pay a much higher tax rate than a multi-millionaire, and work much harder. 600348[/snapback] Democrats don't understand economics Chewie, all they see is groups and that rich people are bad. If I ever earned $300,000 a year (I wish, we earn around $50,000-75,000 a year based on how well we do in real estate and mortgage brokering along with adding that to the pensions we get) I would want to keep more of my money so I could hire that accountant I want full-time, or get a better office space and tools to provide a better service for my clients. But under the Democrats, if I made that much, I would have to pay it in taxes to Washington.
October 24, 200422 yr When was the last time the deficit actually decreased? I'm tired of hearing the candidates, especially Kerry since he says it the most and is less capable of actually doing it, insist that they can cut the deficit in half.
October 24, 200422 yr People earning over $200,000 are not these rich elitist. People earning $300,000 pay a much higher tax rate than a multi-millionaire, and work much harder. 600348[/snapback] No one said 200,000 were the rich elite, 575,000 is. But 200,000 is high class.
October 24, 200422 yr Author I though the article was a good look at whats good and Bad about both Bush and Kerrys economic plan...With all the biased news going around these days and all these news agency's choosing sides.....it is refreshing to look at an article that looks at the good and the bad of both sides..
October 24, 200422 yr People earning over $200,000 are not these rich elitist.? People earning $300,000 pay a much higher tax rate than a multi-millionaire, and work much harder. 600348[/snapback] No one said 200,000 were the rich elite, 575,000 is. But 200,000 is high class. 600357[/snapback] 575,000 isn't really that "elitist". The democrats think its all luck how much you end up making. (Gephart said it himself) The fact is, people who earn that much work their areses off to get there and don't need people to tax all of them to support someone who dropped out of high school and never got a damn job. When you get to the people making money in the millions, they are the more elite, but they aviod paying taxes as much as possible.(and mostly all liberal; B4P). It's so ghey than someone making around $300,000 pays a 30% tax rate, while someone with $750 pays a 12.4% rate. (Just an example. :plain )
October 25, 200422 yr My turn: Stretch estimated that a family with earnings of $575,000 annually is now saving $19,300 under Bush's tax cuts, but would lose about 70 percent of that relief and see its tax bill increase by $13,700 under Kerry's plan. More money for the rich. Woot! 600346[/snapback] Don't the rich pay the most taxes?
October 25, 200422 yr My turn: Stretch estimated that a family with earnings of $575,000 annually is now saving $19,300 under Bush's tax cuts, but would lose about 70 percent of that relief and see its tax bill increase by $13,700 under Kerry's plan. More money for the rich. Woot! 600346[/snapback] Don't the rich pay the most taxes? 600385[/snapback] yup, it is based on percentage...look at my post with the graph on it.
October 25, 200422 yr Democrats don't understand economics Chewie What I do understand is that since Calvin Coolridge, all 6 democrats were the top job producers of presidents which is a 3 in 10000 shot of that being by random(done by staticians). What I do understand is that Clinton balanced the budget, drove up wages and created 2.4 jobs. What I do understand is that out of all the countries on OECD, we pay the second lowest taxes only behind Mexico and seeing that their people die to get a chance to come over here, I'd say they thought were doing a good job on Economics. Yet even though we pay the second lowest taxes out of the top econonomic countries, you say our taxes are too high and it's democrats fault. What I do understand Cape is that Lincoln Chafee never heard one complaints from his republican and undecided base to lower taxes when he was running for Senate during the clinton tenure "because they liked the way the economy was rolling in The 90's" What I do understand is PResident Bush has run up a defecit trying to pay for these tax cuts because he simply doesn't know how to cut programs what's not working. I do understand since his taxcuts we've lost 3 million private jobs. I do understand when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy the economy responded by creating 20 million jobs. I understand that CAPE, what about that don't you understand?
October 25, 200422 yr My turn: Stretch estimated that a family with earnings of $575,000 annually is now saving $19,300 under Bush's tax cuts, but would lose about 70 percent of that relief and see its tax bill increase by $13,700 under Kerry's plan. More money for the rich. Woot! 600346[/snapback] Don't the rich pay the most taxes? 600385[/snapback] yup, it is based on percentage...look at my post with the graph on it. 600410[/snapback] It was a rhetorical question, I know how the tax code works.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.