I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
More tax cuts! Whee! (end sarcasm)
Bush must be afraid or something, maybe some of the Republican party (ie McCain-ies) are starting to float away.
I don't think that it is at all brilliant policy. When you look at places like http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/0312...2/
nyf015_1.html saying the primary recipients of the tax cuts want things like social security it seems quite foolhardy actually.
These old people that would benifit from the tax cuts just want to make sure that they can safely retire.
Not so brilliant.
I think most people were underwhelmed by the last set of tax cuts. Then you have conservative economists going on record saying that the budget deficits have reached "idiotic" proportions.
With the right Democratic strategy and emphasis, the budget deficits can become Bush's Achilles heel.
Republicans are fond of saying "its your money, take it back."
It's time for Democrats to remind people that it's your debt, too, and you're going to be paying interest on it through the nose till there's nothing left for Social Security or health care.
Keep asking people, what sort of future are we looking at for your children? Is it worth the $200 check you might get in the mail this year?
Wonder why the Bushies aren't quoting that Islamist tool, Grover Norquist?
Social Security - he's going to dump it all into fortune 500 companies after the election. They will call it "Gold Accounts" or some other nonsense. He cant do it right now because he cant get it through the Senate. Hes counting on a big Southern win, carrying seats....
"More tax cuts" is beginning to sound like the strategy of "Shut down the government, nobody'll miss that!"
People aren't quite so stupid as to believe all of their tax money is better off in their own pockets. True, they are sometimes mule-headed and stingy; but more often than not they understand the link: lower taxes, more potholes, larger classrooms, etc., etc. They may be suspicious that more money is always the answer to a problem, but they understand no problems get helped by the government with unfunded good intentions.
Bush apologists keep talking about the $300 or so "refunds" everyone gleefully spent. Right. On even a modest household budget, that pays the monthly minimum on a credit card, and not much more. Taxes won't be cut to zero, and more cuts won't do that much for the average "kitchen table."
To all the evil tax-cutters:
What pays for the highways? Bridges? Schools? Military? Farm subsidies? Disease reasearch? Environmental cleanup/research? Most scientific research? handouts to boeing and airlines so white people can have $80,000/year jobs?
Is it corporations that care soo very much? Is it charity and charitable donations?
Taxes. Taxes pay for our prosperity.
And people are more prosperous in scandinavia because of HIGHER taxes.
Corporations pay your st00pid salary - they don't voluntarily pitch-in to make sure the road you have to drive everyday is paved and clean.
If you cannot understand that - crawl back under your rock.
"Tax cuts" is a misnomer. In reality, it is "tax redistribution". The states and municipalities need to make up for loss of federal funds somewhere. Where does that come from? State income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. The former two tend to be on the more regressive side.
Do you think if (I'm tempted to say "when") one of the democratic presidental candidates beats Bush, they would have to raise taxes?
Isn't that what Clinton did after Bush 1 and Reagan?
...in scandinavia you are prosperous because you can rest assured that both retirement and you health are taken care of....
...in the US it's all about who can afford the new tickle-me-elmo at christmas...CONSUMERS ALL!!!
Why's everybody so bent outta shape for? All they gotta do is get Big Al to privatize the mint so they can keep up with the demand to crank out all that peach colored money to cover all bets. See how e-z it is? Now about that BarneyCam.....
There's no tickle-me-elmo, there's a dancing elmo. He's dancing because he's happy to be bought and then he'll be no longer dancing because the kids would have gotten bored of him.
Also the tax cuts are making college much more expensive to go to (which is why I'm going to transfer somewhere else, cheaper).
I guess this is one guy who never took a history course throughout his lifetime. One thing is to be successful is to learn from history and not do what your precedessors did (Reagan, tax cuts didn't work, Bush II, tax cuts STILL DON'T WORK you moron)
Atrios says tax redistribution is bad, but he clearly allows his irrational Bush obsession blind him to the fact that previous presidents have cut, raised and at times done nothing about taxes.
sorry, but we will never tire of nerdpickling.
adding to the voice above who states...taxes pay for roads,schools, military,..etc.
For all those wealthy rethugs and stockholders...taxes pay for those wonderful billion dollar government contracts that are doled out to the likes of Helliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group,GE,Boeing, Raytheon,etc. Gee don't those taxes we all pay ultimately make your investment portfolio grow?
Who does he think is going to fill Cheney's pockets if there isn't any money in the federal budget? Maybe this is why he didn't want any of that Iraq money in the form of loans, he wants to make sure that Bushco gets its money before it's all gone.
Mark Twain said something about becoming a Jacobin after reading Carlyle the sixth time. I'm getting there just by reading the papers. He also advocated killing off the Russian royal family "down to the last pup." if I remember correctly.
Not quite there yet but don't push me.
Also,there is the small matter of the nearly 7 trillion dollar national debt which is the place yearly budget deficits disappear from the political landscape.
Once again, you can mark us all down as shocked! Shocked, I say! that Bush's economic plan is to just cut taxes some more.
But what you will all find really shocking is how well yet more tax cuts actually play out in the heartland. Sadly, a substantial portion--perhaps even a majority--of voters will say gimme, gimme, gimme. And they'll happily vote for Bush if he promises yet more cuts for every remaining year of his second term.
Far too many people are now incapable of managing their finances. If they were, they wouldn't be sitting on credit-card debt that swallows a third of their income in interest payments alone. So, if they can't see the connection between running up their credit cards and the bills that show up in the mail, what makes you think they'll see any connections between the $200 tax refund and the gaping hole in the highway that swallowed their SUV?
Whoever follows Bush as president will be a one-term president. At this point, the measures needed to get the country back on anything resembling a stable footing will be so painful that the half-wit voters will send the poor bastard packing at the first opportunity.
I would gladly pay 30% of my income every month in trade for free education, free health care, renewable energy R&D, etc.
The problem is that I need to become employed again. They say the job market is improving. If this is the case I would like to know how a person such as myself, college educated, is having problems finding a job anywhere. I was told no @ McDonald's...I appearently do not posess the skill set necessary to say "Fries with that."
snip or those who have lived in scandinavia
would americans tolerate scandinavian taxes if they understood the benefits and trusted the tax collectors?
I hope Karl Rove's dick withers and drops off.
I was told no @ McDonald's...I appearently do not posess the skill set necessary to say "Fries with that."
The problem is you made it into a truncated statment. Try: "Do you want fries with that?" And smile. Practice in front of the mirror--that's what I'm doing. Someday we'll all have McJobs with low pay and no benefits, and Bush will say "See? 100% employment!"
Why do you all hate America so much??
Oh thank you NTodd. It's all so clear now. "Do you want...Do you want.."
kei & yuri -- I think that any reasonable and forward thinking american citizen would not only tolorate, but embrace, scandinavian taxes. I'm an american who would.
Drug dealing and money laundering are great ways to supplement the ol' income especially this time of year (prescription synthetic opiates make great stocking stuffers!) 
So, all you cyberhippies quit yer bitchin' and get off your lazy asses. 
Why do we keep calling them TAX CUTS.
They are NOT TAX CUTS. They are TAX HIKES.
Every dollar less that the Federal government takes in will have to be paid back WITH INTEREST that can only be done by RAISING TAXES later. The so called tax cuts are simply DEFERRED TAX LIABILITIES.
Of cource cutting services is one way of RAISING TAXES. If you pay the same and get less than you got before that is a price increase.
Once again the center and the left let the right-wingers dictate the terms of the debate by total control of the rhetoric. These are TAX HIKES, people.
Or better yet, Alan, reverse tax cuts
Or, the best yet -- the south park underpants gnomes' tax cut plan:
Step 1 Cut taxes.
Step 3 Profit.
I'm sure that before the election rolls around next November, Bushco will be trying to sell tax cuts as the prescription for cleaning up their mess in Iraq. That's their one-size-fits-all solution to any problem.
Satan Claus - thank you for helping the Underpants Gnomes "meme" (I hate that word) catch on. The Underpants Gnomes business model is apparent in virtually every "plan" this administration has - for Iraq, the economy, etc.
Karl Rove has a dick??
I thought he was one.
did any of y'all see the Danziger cartoon a while back where some staff member comes running into the Oval Office yelling "Mr Preznit, there's a runaway train in Ohio, we have to do something" and aWol goes "those poor people, they must need a tax cut"
True to form from the anti-American, anti-capitalist, crony socialist President.
preznit giv me monee
http://www.danzigercartoons.com/
...anziger978.html there's the link
you idiot socialist libruhls. George Bush wants to give you something for nothing and you think that's a bad thing?
He's bought my vote.
"Since my President announced his new tax cut proposals, I will not fail to mention that tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with his distant acquaintance Ken Lay's Enron debacle." Dreadna Pickle, intrepid AP Reporter.
all i want for x-mas is PROGRESSIVE TAXES.
I earnestly hope and pray that this plan is never enacted.
I don't want to take the chance, however miniscule, of being injured when monkeys fly out of my butt.
OK here's an idea for an ad, on how Dean or whoever wins the Dem nomination, can counter this tax cut with a bit of jujitsu:
"Uncle Sam has a credit card. We owe $7 trillion on it. That's over $23,000 of debt for every American. George Bush is going to add another 500 billion dollars to that debt in 2004. And now he wants to give us a cash advance on our credit card. Only he calls it, 'a tax cut'. But it's really a tax increase. For you, your children, and their children. Because in the future, your taxes will have to go up - WAY UP - to pay for that cash advance, as well as the $1 trillion in debt the Bush administration has added to our national credit card. And a good part of that tax increase will be used just to pay the interest on all that debt.
"We can't afford another four years of George Bush and his future tax increases."
Or something like that. It's probably well over 30 seconds but you get the idea.
>>Why do we keep calling them TAX CUTS. They are NOT TAX CUTS. They are TAX HIKES.
LOVE this meme! . . . We have got to start chanting that as long as we have a deficit, BushCo's tax cuts aren't cuts at all; they are taxes hikes on the future.
That is finally simple enough for 'Murkins to understand. We're borrowing to pay for Chimpy's tax "cuts."
THEN, when Rovians try to spin their way into "growing" the economy out of the deficit, people will start listening to the real economists who are forcasting dire straits for our debtor nation.
And Dems coast to victory!
And no meds for me today! Yet.
by the way the
national debt clock
seems to indicate we'll hit the 7 trillion figure by early January. Happy New Year.
The national debt was $5.8 trillion on 9/28/01, just prior to the first Bush regime's budget. So, in just over two years, the national debt that was accumulated over 225 years, has increased by about 20%.
chrississippi - how about "mortgaging our future"? I've heard that before, and it's fairly succinct.
I don't just do Google bombs... a while back I blogged Strong GDP Growth Proves Democrats Were Right
Rob the country blind while they are in office. Make the conditions so deplorable so that once they are voted out of office, the next president (most likely a Democrat) will be blamed for it.
Then the sheep will vote them back into office for more tax cuts.
Well all those economist that think Bush is going to turn it around in the next 4 years and stop all sending and borrowing should know that isn't going to happen and vote likewise for sanity.
National Debt:
beginning of 1st Reagan budget, 12/31/81 - $1.03 trillion
end of last Reagan budget, beg. of 1st Bush 41 budget, 9/29/89 - $2.86 trillion - an increase of 178% in 8 years, or an average of $229 billion per year under Reagan.
end of last Bush 41 budget, beg. of 1st Clinton budget - $4.41 trillion - an increase of 54% in just 4 years, or an average of $387 billion under Bush 41.
end of last Clinton budget, beg. of 1st Bush 43 budget - $5.81 billion - an increase of 32% in 8 years, or an average of $175 billion under Clinton.
(it's worth noting that $1 trillion of the debt under Clinton, was incurred during his 1st term)
in just over 2 years of Bush Jr. budgets, the national debt is, as of 11 Dec, $6.95 trillion. That's an increase of $690 billion, or 20%. In just 2 years and 2 months of Bush 43 budgets.
So, that's $4.52 trillion of national debt, or 65% of the entire national debt, racked up under the last 3 Republican Presidents.
The projected deficit for FY 2004 will add another $500 billion to our national debt.
And now he wants to mortgage our future yet again with another cash advance on our national credit card, in a deeply cynical ploy to bribe voters to vote for another term.
Now you guys are getting it. Another term that someone suggested when I wrote this on Brad DeLong's blog was the term BIRTH TAX.
The REPUBLICAN BIRTH TAX ensures that each child born in 'murica well be MORE IN DEBT than the child born just before.
Death tax my ass.
Tax cuts grow the economy. Always have, always will.
At some point, too great a tax cut would undermine the ability grow out of the deficit but we are light years from that problem at this juncture.
Ariel... what are you smoking?
Please explain to this person what tax cuts does to this country, in terms of schools, highways, etc.
***Please explain to this person what tax cuts does to this country, in terms of schools, highways, etc.***
Well, if you would study economic history you might learn that EVERY cut in the marginal tax rate in the past 40 years has been followed in short order by a more than offsetting increase in taxes collected. People have more so they spend more, the economy grows and tax revenue grows. Couldn't be a simpler and better example of cause and effect in the entire field of economics.
haha, now ariel's just making shit up.
Let's go back to 1981 shall we, when the "biggest tax cut in history" was enacted. Revenue plunged. What happened in 1982? Oh, yeah, we had the " biggest tax increase in history."
***People have more so they spend more, the economy grows and tax revenue grows.***
Atrios, care to point out the flaw in this statement or would you rather delve into the economic growth statistics of the Reagan era? You lose either way.
Ariel,
So you can avoid looking like a fool in the future, I will try and explain this to you. No serious economist in the world believes that at current rates, a tax cut would actually lead to greater revenue through economic growth that would swamp the static expectations of revenue loss. Don't believe me? Go check the CBO's figures - they ran a multitude of dynamic models and not one of them predicted significant revenue increases over and above what the standard static models predicted. Most predicted no difference, with some predicting less revenue.
The reagan era was not an era of tax cuts - it was an era of tax redistribution where the 1981 tax cuts for the rich were followed in 1982 by massive tax increases (biggest in history, remember?) on the middle class and poor. The reagan era was also not an era of stupendous growth. the entire period from 1972-1993 was pretty anemic, relative to the periods before and after. Growth has been higher under dem administrations than republican administrations. Clinton-era growth, after that big nasty tax increase, was higher than Reagan's, etc...
***No serious economist in the world believes that at current rates, a tax cut would actually lead to greater revenue through economic growth that would swamp the static expectations of revenue loss.***
A baldface lie, Atrios. Should it be necessary I can cite any number of distinguished economists that not only advise further stimulative tax cuts, but have publicly opined their faith in the "Laffer Curve".
any number of distinguished economists
The "Club for Growth" doesn't count.
Ariel,
Saying there are economists who approve of tax cuts is not the same thing as saying economists agree that tax cuts actually increase revenues.
But, I look forward to your list. And, no, Larry Kudlow doesn't count as a "distinguished economist."
You may click on the homepage link to get the CBO's dynamic scoring report.
You going to disqualify Milton Friedman in advance as well?
come on just make your list
A baldface lie, Atrios. Should it be necessary I can cite any number of distinguished economists that not only advise further stimulative tax cuts, but have publicly opined their faith in the "Laffer Curve".
Ariel
Distinguished economists will, no doubt, well remember the Reagan surplus. Huge, wasn't it?
Never believe social science theories that had their birth on a coctail napkin.
For starters;
The fore-mentioned Friedman, Paul Craig Roberts, Martin Anderson, Robert Mundell, et al.
Ariel,
If you can find where milton friedman says that he believes we're on that side of the laffer curve at current tax rates, then you will have one distinguished economist on your list.
Now, now, don't get confused - you're arguing that tax revenues will increase by *more* than the tax cut, not that *some of the revenues loss could be made up by increased growth*. Many economists would agree with the latter statement, but it isn't the one you made.
Ariel,
No, you can't just list them, you have to actually tell me what they wrote or said, not just pull their names out of your ass.
***Tax cuts result in people having more so they spend more, the economy grows and tax revenue grows.***
All you brilliant liberal brains out there have yet to challenge the logic of the above statement. A tough nut to crack ain't it?
***No, you can't just list them, you have to actually tell me what they wrote or said, not just pull their names out of your ass***
Sorry Atrios, but if their names are unfamiliar to you than you are so insufficiently up-to-speed that further educatonal efforts on my part would be futile. Google them.
Ariel,
Congratulations. If you limit your claim to that statement you are now Proud Keynesian. You may wear the button with pride, and if you were born a few years earlier you could've worked with FDR's economic advisors.
All you brilliant liberal brains out there have yet to challenge the logic of the above statement. A tough nut to crack ain't it?
Ariel
Doesn't experience count for anything with you people? Tired, failed. Were you conscious in the 1980s? Remember, even Don Regan said they got just about everything they asked for and it was a disaster.
Ariel,
I know their names, you just haven't told me what any of them have said.
ok Ariel,
The tax cuts are bad in this type of economy. You'd think tax cuts would encourage people to spend?
That's not the case, they want to save as much as they can and when they don't spend, the economy isn't so good because consumers aren't buying.
get it?
When consumers aren't buying, the existing taxes on the goods don't go out to help the schools, etc. If you enact more tax cuts, it will mean less buying, less schools, and less fixing up highways, etc
and a side note: why the fuck are people saying that the recent economic boom is the best in 20 years? Did they just fucking go over Clinton's head or something? He must have not been very good at fucking... err I think I took the f-word too far...
Sorry
***Ariel,
I know their names, you just haven't told me what any of them have said.***
Well Atrios, you make a point. Having just won the iron butt award on another thread I am simply too worn out to articulate the case for supply side economics as set forth by my earlier references. I concede to your overwhelming perspicacity.
shorter ariel:
I'm tired of making shit up.
***The voucher program has been tried. I'm surprised you didn't know that.***
Is profane rudeness mandatory in this blog or just your preferred mode of behavior?
Typo - meant to reply:
**8shorter ariel:
I'm tired of making shit up.**
Is profane rudeness mandatory in this blog or just your preferred mode of behavior?
you're making shit up... just state the facts, ma'am.
"Birth Tax", that is good, I'm going to start using that one in conversations and see how my co-workers react.
From what I understand, the most effective tax cuts have occured when the top marginal rate has been extremely high and has been cut by percentages of double digits. (ex, Kennedy and Reagan). Bush's first round of cuts decreased the top rate by somewhere around 4.5%(don't have numbers at hand) and the middle-class rate around 4% (Thus the outcry that "more" tax cuts went to the rich). This kind of tax cut, while popular, is not large enough to have the Laffer curve effect.
Therefore, these tax cuts are not designed to have any significant impact on the economy. They're designed to make stupid people think that Bush is doing them some kind of favor.
Presumably, if we cut out ALL taxes, the government would be awash in surplus revenues.
Step 1: Get rid of all taxes.
. . . . . .
Step 3: Mo money, mo money, mo money!
Let's see----we had a surplus-Bush said we needed to cut taxes. Surplus went down, Bush was quoted by Ari Fleischer as believing "the way to get back to an era of surpluses" was with tax cuts. We now have massive deficits, Bush wants to cut taxes. Do tax cuts remove money from the Treasury, then put it back, as the taxes are cut? If so, why don't the Bushies follow their own logic?---cut taxes to zero, resulting in massive economic growth, which will increase tax revenue, which we can get rid of by.......tax cuts! BUSH IS FULL OF SHIT, AND ONLY TRYING TO BUY THE VOTES OF MORONS LIKE ARIEL< WHO CAN"T SEE THRU THE BS.
**They're designed to make stupid people think that Bush is doing them some kind of favor.**
Emily, sure glad to know that you're not one of those 'stupid" people out there in flyover country. In fact I am in awe of your brilliance!
It is a sad fact that there will always be too many voters who fall for the "tax cuts increase government revenue" horse hooey like Ariel.
Yes, tax cuts stimulate economic growth. There is plenty of evidence to support that. But the numbers don't lie, and paying off your Visa with your MasterCard really really doesn't work. Neither will tax cuts get us out of deficits. Even Bush officials know this. Grover Norquist knows this.
But they know idiots, and idiots fall for pleasing rhetoric. Hook, line, and sinker like friend Ariel. I've known street hustlers who would know just what to do with him/her. It ain't pretty but it sure is profitable. Unfortunately when Bush & Co are the hustlers, the rest of us who know better are dragged into it.
Hey Ariel. Name three things OTHER than tax cuts that stimulate economic growth. Can you? If you manage, then maybe you can tell us why tax cuts are better for our present situation.
***Name three things OTHER than tax cuts that stimulate economic growth***
1) massive government spending in the public sector
2) Prosperity in the equity markets
3) Low interest rates
Ariel, the result of Reagan’s tax cuts was deficits. Even with his massive tax hikes that followed the Regan plan resulted in increased debt (deficits every year). Cutting taxes did not increase revenue. Bush’s tax cuts have resulted in increased debt. Cutting taxes did not increase revenue. Can you explain why a method that repeatedly fails to result in the predicted outcome should continue to be used?
***Can you explain why a method that repeatedly fails to result in the predicted outcome should continue to be used?***
Ah Lori, you cleverly leave out a small detail. Every time in recent history when taxes were lowered, spending increased significantly. So the bar was effectively raised unfairly, at least for comparison purposes. Reagan's tax hike was necessitated by an out-of-control Democratic congress busting the budget on spending. Same thing is happening now only the Dems don't control congress.
If you truly compare apples to apples, the tax cuts ALWAYS pay for themselves.
2) Prosperity in the equity markets
LOL - How about two chickens in every pot?
You really are tired. Why don't you take a nap.
***Tax cuts result in people having more so they spend more, the economy grows and tax revenue grows.***
All you brilliant liberal brains out there have yet to challenge the logic of the above statement. A tough nut to crack ain't it?
------
Sorry Atrios, but if their names are unfamiliar to you than you are so insufficiently up-to-speed that further educatonal efforts on my part would be futile. Google them.
Ariel
Ariel, the burden of providing proof for your assertions is on you, not Atrios or me or anyone else.
You're too lazy to Google your economists yourself and cut -n- paste. What a putz.
Is profane rudeness mandatory in this blog or just your preferred mode of behavior?
Ariel
shorter Ariel: "Hey, look! It's Michael Jackson!"
Ariel, if you are just going to lie then we can’t have an honest discussion. None of your assertions is true, but I’m willing to let you attempt to back them up. First, you need to show that the Reagan tax cut paid for itself by showing that (allowing for inflation) without Reagan’s additional spending the revenue would have been greater after his cuts. Second, you need to explain how the Democrats were going crazy with spending when their budgets were within 3% of Reagan’s. Finally, you need to do the same calculations for Bush’s tax cuts and his spending.
Finally, you need to explain the following conundrum: if tax cuts always pay for themselves, why isn’t a zero taxation rate ideal (I wasn’t the one who forced you to use an idiotic absolute. But I will remind you that absolutes are always wrong)?
While you are busy with your assignment Ariel, you need to take into account the increased economic activity owing to the government spending and discount the taxation benefits from said spending. Please feel free to show your work. Otherwise we are simply going to have to discount your assertions as baseless partisan blather.
Ariel is exactly right, those things do stimulate economic growth. Interest rates are at historic lows, all the financial markets are perking up, and government spending is going up. And it worked - GDP went up in the third quarter, therefore no more recession, yes? But, when the Bushies tout the economic recovery, they fail to mention that NONE of this was caused by the Bush tax cuts, because they were too small to have a significant effect on a trillion plus dollar economy. Interest rates are low thanks to the Fed, and government spending has increased to the tune of $87 billion..from what? Oh yeah, the WAR. You should have put that on your list too, because that ALWAYS works.
Anyway, let's assume that things really are better now - a jobless recovery is better than no recovery, right? So, now that we took care of the recession, we need to deal with that nasty deficit. Tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, but can they eliminate a deficit? Empirical evidence suggests that they can't.
So, since we're out of recession, what's the purpose of this tax cut? I return to my original argument that it is an attempt to pursuade - I shouldn't have said stupid, I meant badly misled - people to think that Bush is doing something for them, when it is a shamelessly self-serving attempt to win popularity points.
It's the same sort of thing as "surprising" the troops on Thanksgiving - it makes a great headline so that he can say, "See how much I care about these guys?" but does it really do anything for them? Does it get them better care for their families while they're away? Does it get them shorter terms of duty? Does it increase their likelihood of not getting blown up any given day. Nope. Doesn't do anything but look good on paper. Just like these tax cuts.
***So, since we're out of recession, what's the purpose of this tax cut?***
If letting me keep more of my hard-earned income is a "shamelessly self-serving attempt to win popularity points", than I guess that makes me a huge fan of "shamelesss" publicity stunts.
Why exactly is it so wrong for me to desire to keep 65% of me earinings instead of 62%?
As for the Thanksgiving Surprise, why don't you ask some of troops in Iraq if it mattered to them? Emily, you may have no interest in their morale, but i'm glad that feeling isn't universal.
***Otherwise we are simply going to have to discount your assertions as baseless partisan blather.***
Like there is really ANYTHING I could say to you that would really seep into that dusty hatbox you call a brain!?
I'm a conservative on a loony left blog. I couldn't get you to agree with me on today's date.
It's the 13th, innit? Says it right there by your name.
As for "keeping your hard-earned money," every time I hear that, I always have to wonder why no one ever thinks to ask where that "hard-earned money" goes. The list off goofy pork Atrios lists above is just the tip of the iceberg, friends and neighbors. Just the stuff your local government spends money on, if you were to do the research, would curl your hair (or straighten, as the case may be).
First, you don't even know me. Don't assume that I don't care about the soldiers just because I think Bush had ulterior motives for going there. I thought we were trying to have a somewhat intellectual conversation here, not play the "you don't care about the America as much as I do!" game. Are you going to call me a traitor next, because I don't buy into the Laffer curve?. Everyone who takes the time to post an opinion here or anywhere else obviously cares a great deal about their country, or they wouldn't bother.
Second, even if his motive was to boost their morale, and not to get his picture taken with a turkee, it doesn't seem like it worked too well, at least not for everyone. Check out this link:
http://www.estripes.com/article....5&
article=19144
Third, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you or anyone else wanting to keep their money. Hey, I'll admit it - I spent my $300 last year. However, I'd GLADLY give up another tax cut if it meant that some of the families of these guys (and girls) could get a better deal than what they have now. I was looking around and discovered that military families only receive $250 a month (up from $100) to help cover expenses while soldiers are away. Some of these guys will be gone for a year, and their families will get a whopping $3000.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/p.../
pr_030911.html
I bet that's a real morale booster.
Here’s an idea, rather than throwing up your hands in defeat, you could defend your arguments. If you demonstrate how Reagan’s spending was the fault of the Democrats; that would help. If you demonstrate that the tax cuts paid for themselves under Reagan while simultaneously accounting for inflation and discounting the stimulative effects of the increased spending; that would help. If you could demonstrate that Bush’s tax cuts have paid for themselves, under the same conditions; that would help. If you could explain the notion that tax cuts return the surplus to the people and simultaneously increase revenue; that would be a miracle.
The fact that you are a far right loon asserting the downright barmy notion that “tax cuts ALWAYS pay for themselves” on a moderate board doesn’t help, but at least try to defend yourself. Otherwise why bother posting at all?
Actually, for all you great students of history, the case could be made on the avilable evidence that tax cuts generally lead to recession, while high tax rates produce prosperity. Consider:
The two greatest periods of peace-time prosperity and economic growth were the 1950s (Eisenhower) and the mid- to late 1990s (Clinton). The top marginal rate under Ike was something like 70%.
Why exactly is it so wrong for me to desire to keep 65% of me earinings instead of 62%?
arrrg.
nothing be wrong with that, me laddie. what be wrong is when ya puts the entire country in debt for the next 10 years just so's you can have an extra twenty clams in yer paycheck. just buy a cheaper brand of whisky, ya feckken elitist!
me should be learning to close me italics tags. arrg.
***A baldface lie, Atrios. Should it be necessary I can cite any number of distinguished economists that not only advise further stimulative tax cuts, but have publicly opined their faith in the "Laffer Curve".
Ariel***
Read Friedman a little more closely, Ariel. Not only does he think that the idea that tax cuts stimulate economic growth is "generally wrong," he thinks that supply-side policies are only "generally" right.
I'm not sure I would call that "publicly opining faith in the Laffer Curve." It sounds more like a "I guess it could work" to me...and I'd say it's a somewhat of slap in the face to the notion that these tax cuts will stimulate growth; in fact, Friedman says he is not sure what the effect of a tax cut will be.
What Friedman REALLY thinks is that tax cuts are good because eventually the public will become so angry about rising deficits that government will have to curb its spending. So when I complain about the huge deficit, I'm actually doing my duty to make sure the tax cuts work! I'm so glad I'm not undermining our preznit after all.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/ed...ml?
id=110002933
Why are you arguing with Ariel?
You can't refute a theology.
Trying to refute a theology is like trying to milk a cement cow. It'll ruin your hands, you'll get nothing out of it, and the damned cow won't even notice.
In theological circles, the greater the mystery, the greater the faith, the greater the faith, the greater the merit that accrues to the believer. Believing totally absurd things generates the greatest merit of all.
Its all about having a plan. Once the campaign starts the arguments over the numbers will begin. People's eyes will glaze over, the media will ignore everything Bush says about the plan and make up shit about what the Democrats say about, and we'll have the lock box and fuzzy math all over again. Simple rule: if a Repulican says it, its trouble for you.
"Why exactly is it so wrong for me to desire to keep 65% of me earinings instead of 62%?"
what's wrong is that you are not willing to give up anything that money is paying for in orderfor you to have a little extra cash in your pockets. You still want a bigger military and good roads and good schools and corporate welfare and on and on. In short, you are a lunatic living in a fantasy world.
I wouldn't be so bothered about the tax cuts, in fact I would welcome them, if:
a) they weren't so incredibly slanted towards the wealthy - if you really want to stimulate the economy and give 'relief' to taxpayers with tax cuts, you give them to the middle class. Bush's tax cuts are a stimulus to investors. Wall Street is not the same thing as the economy.
b) the Republicans would demonstrate some of that vaunted fiscal discipline they claim to have. At least when Democrats spend government money, they are honest enough to raise taxes in order to pay for it. The numbers prove that Republicans are even bigger spenders than Democrats; and what's worse, they want to give voters something for nothing; more government spending and paying for it with borrowing instead of taxing.
So, enjoy your little cash advance on the government credit card, Ariel. In a few years you'll be paying through the nose for it.
I see Ariel hasn't provided a single quote, not one, from his favorite economists. One would think that if he knew as much about economics as he claims to, he'd be able to toss off a quote or two.
Well, at least all the hot air he's blowing helps keep me warm on a cold winter evening.
I snoozed thru macro, but here's what I believe about Keynes: deficit spending in bad times makes sense if there's the political will to run small surpluses in good times (something Clinton did mostly right, though I'd have preferred that the surpluses were larger because of the need to plan for the baby boomers' Social Security).
If debt stays in line as a % of GDP, it's not the worst thing in the world, but Bush is on the verge of institutionalizing massive deficits. This is stupid.
Atrios---where'd you get the graph?
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
