Post #74,966
1/16/03 6:37:58 PM
|
Billions, herr Bush blew it all for you and the tax breaks.
Yes sir, der F\ufffdhrer, er ah I mean the President who gave us the tax breaks and told us that his math was perfect and that there wouldn't be any more deficit, now has to face the harsh reality that Gore was correct in that the tax breaks and other parts of Bush's programs made no sense in cutting down the deficit.
I doubt Bush will win the re-election in 2004. The Democrafts will find a way to blame him for the 911 attacks, the deficit, and the war in Iraq and North Korea and other things. They may even say that he's been asleep at the wheel since he was elected?
[link|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
|
Post #74,970
1/16/03 6:50:20 PM
|
You seem to be forgetting something...
...[link|http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1b103101.html|that wasn't forecasted]. Put that price tag easily the half trillion dollar difference between the expense and economic impact.
Sure...he gave us tax cuts. Usually what happens during the necessity of "economic stimulus".
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #75,089
1/17/03 9:48:49 AM
|
So lemme get this straight...
Your own cite claims that the $176BB surplus is reduced by $124BB as the cost of the attacks. Hmmm..that leaves $52BB surplus.
Now, lets assume that the $101BB "economic stimulus program" is passed. That would leave a $49BB deficit, making sure that the fat cats remain fat at the expense of the middle class.
So, how did he squander another $251BB. Oh, yeah...Eliminate tax on dividends! That's the ticket!
[link|http://www.msnbc.com/news/858252.asp|Alan Sloan in Newsweek calls Duh's so-called plan "Booboo Economics"]. I see you and Duh got your MBA from the same mail-order firm.
jb4 "They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink." Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
|
Post #75,219
1/17/03 4:56:56 PM
|
What surplus? When?
Look here and tell us all about "fuzzy math"... [link|http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/|http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/]
Care to comment?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #75,230
1/17/03 5:35:39 PM
|
Well, the surplus BeeP himself cited in his link!
It may be fuzzy math, but it's his fuzzy math!!!
jb4 "They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink." Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
|
Post #75,292
1/17/03 10:44:58 PM
|
Hoo! Raww!
...rare is the dollar of corporate profits that bears a tax burden heavier than the burden on an employee's wages. [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/kinsleymichael/|Michael Kinsley]
|
Post #75,425
1/18/03 4:23:47 PM
|
Dig a little.
look at the dates...look at the shortfalls.
Chances are...even if Bush had done NOTHING...that there would be no surplus this year...and possibly >ever<.
Erase 9/11, the Afghan conflict, and the tax rebates...the current state of the economy was NOT part of the "fable" that was the Clinton surplus.
It was based upon a belief in miracles...that there would be no recession and that the econ growth figures of the 90's would be maintained...and that the internet bubble on the market would never burst.
It was based on FICTION.
So, if you want to blame this on Bush. Go ahead. It seems to make you feel better.
Did he make this years shortfall larger? Sure, he cut taxes. How much of the revenue shortfall is simply tax related? Very little.
If you research the effects of massive tax cuts you soon find that the 2 largest cuts occurred, oddly enough, right before the 2 longest growth periods for the economy...those being the cuts of Kennedy and Reagan. So economic history seems to be on Bush's side here even if you are not.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #75,443
1/18/03 6:21:40 PM
|
Umm are you really gonna assign *causality* to those
two items, prima facie?
|
Post #75,320
1/17/03 11:45:22 PM
|
Hard to figure out the point
Put that price tag easily the half trillion dollar difference between the expense and economic impact. Explanation?
...rare is the dollar of corporate profits that bears a tax burden heavier than the burden on an employee's wages. [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/kinsleymichael/|Michael Kinsley]
|