In Economics

Bush’s actions have placed America in a devastating position by altering its funding to the top 10% households. We, as a nation, must find ways to adapt to the ever-changing effects to the fluctuating income rates of the bottom 90% of households that are strained through his tax cuts. Middle-income families are harnessing a 23% loss of income due to the tax cuts; what will come of their living conditions? The lower ends of households have experienced some unfortunate hits to their income capabilities because of the tax cuts. Now, more of the concern has gone from what is Bush’s real objective in handling these new ventures. In some ways, I feel that Bush has taken the nation by storm by making complementary movements to increase the income of the $1,000,000,000+ households to gain their favor. The motivations behind this economic trivia could be examples of the supply and demand scenario in which he supplies more loopholes for the rich and they will demand his stay in office. This conclusion may seem a bit far fetched, but it accurate considering the changes our nation will undergo if his tax cuts remain permanent. If permanent tax cuts exist, the existence of a constrained economy could harm our nation’s lead in industrial developments. He places younger generations in a bind through reducing funding (the $90 billion lost in tax reductions) from getting a good education. President Bush’s actions are seemingly inappropriate and this has robbed individuals with lower-paying jobs in need of additional benefits. Not to seem negative, but I feel he has done this to keep his ‘friends’ of the wealthy families on the top of their game. Why would a president strip his own nation of their needed funding? Many people will lose out on jobs (reduced budgeting/outsourcing), benefits ($90 billion from taxes), and help (Social Security). I feel that this could hurt our nation in more ways than one. More issues may arise that are unforeseen at the moment, but it is possible that we will endure a long and hard recovery. According to the article, the government has lost $90 billion dollars each year he has been in office. President Bush entered office in 2000; six times $90 billion is plenty of money we could have used to better our nation or the world. For instance, what will happen to financial aid that is available to college students? Will college students have to pay out of pocket fees although the 90% bottom households are losing funds through tax cuts? This could be one issue many economic students and studies should be undertaken to determine the frets it will place on our position as a world leader. In accordance to lost financial aid, some students will not have the adequate qualifications to get the appropriate technical training to excel in a technological world. Our New Economy will lead to an unstable and incomparable society of education-lacked generations. Another issue will be the benefits taken away from lower-paying jobs. Many of these individuals pay high insurance fees in order to secure preventative health care. Certain programs such as Blue Shield as well as Blue Cross will find less funding an appropriate answer for senior citizens and low-income families impossible. Besides these obvious effects of the tax cuts, we have to worry about the future. Should we start bracing ourselves for a turbulent economy with a lack of funding in the bottom 90% who are working hard to contribute to the nation? The answer lies in the equilibrium that will eventually happen within the government. Â