**
That’s the beauty of your tax refund – you people on the Left who don’t need it and want to share it can do so with whomever you choose.
What is the fascination by those in your ideology of spending other people’s money?
And quit portraying those who don’t support such brazen, misguided self-importance as orphan-kickers. I don’t object to a federal government, or all the things in its budget. They’re FUNDED. They took MORE TAX MONEY THAN THE BUDGET REQUIRED. A lot more.
Want to spend more of my money on government? Give it to my city council.
We live, as various people never tire of telling us, in a globalized market. What guarantee does a policy-maker have that cutting taxes to the rich will cause investments within the polity they are meant to be serving?
If Paul Martin tries to improve the Canadian economy by cutting Canadian billionaires’ taxes, how the hell does he know that that money won’t end up invested in the United States, or Japan, or the Cayman Islands, or anywhere but Canada?
Right, right. 2 things. Bush campaigned on “returning dignity to the office.” He therefore is not allowed, in my estimation, to tell even little white lies, let alone a lie about something as important as money.
Second, Clinton didn’t lie about anything important that actually affected me. He lied about a blow job. Doesn’t make it right. Doesn’t make it not a problem. It does, however, make it much less of a problem than lying about my money so he could get elected.
Jab1, I don’t feel it necessary to provide you with a cite. Reagan cut the marginal tax rates, spent the shit out of federal money he didn’t have, and the goddamned recession went away didn’t it? If you need a cite for this, go to the library and read your local newspapers for 1981 thru 1989. Don’t be so thick.
UncleBeer, are you suggesting that Reagan’s record breaking budget deficits, the highest budget deficits in US history, were responsible for ending the recession? Let us bear in mind that the recession didn’t end until the mid '90s, by which point taxes had to be raised and spending shrunk in order to eliminate those deficits. We can certainly argue about what precisely led to the end of the recession, but I haven’t heard anyone (certainly not Alan Greenspan and his enthusiasts) arguing for budget deficits. jab1 is entitled to some cites–whether you wish to provide them or not. Up until very recently “trickle-down” theory has been a kind of laughingstock, and even conservative pundits avoided the term. It’s only in these heady economic times, and with a Republican president now in place, that the term has come back into style. History, as they say, is written by the victors. Though in this case, I’d say, that it’s far too soon to make a call.
If “trickle-down” was so good, why did Bush Sr. call it “voodoo economics” when he was running for president against Reagan? (We all know why he “changed his mind” about it later: He wanted to be VP.)
Mostly 'cause you pay lower taxes on capital gains earned from Canadian investments. Not a foolproof scheme, obviously, if foreign investments pay enough to offset the higher taxes, but it’s a start.
Spending has shrunk? That’s a good one. What shrank was is the percentage amount of the annual increase. Baseline budgeting and all that. You will also note that federal spending became a greater and greater percentage of the GDP every year under Clinton. But actual spending, no matter how you measure it, went up each and every year of the Clinton administration.
And no, I’m not suggesting the Reagan’s deficit spending was responsible for ending the recession. I’m suggesting his tax cuts were. But I do believe a small federal deficit can be a good thing.
Ummm, are you talking about the short recession that doomed Bush, Sr.'s bid for a second term? That ain’t really what I’m referring to. I had in mind the Carter years. Huge interest rates, massive unemployment, runaway inflation, and gargantuan federal income tax rates. All that most certainly went away during the Reagan tenure, not during the Clinton era.
Jab1, you’ve answered your own question with, well, your own question.
Finally, Mandelstam, if you want to debate the causes of the end of the recession, post it in GD. I’d be happy to participate in a more formal manner there. I just don’t see the point of doing that here in the Pit. I consider that wasted effort.
And, milroyj, there is not significant evidence that Mr. Clinton purjured himself. If there had been, there would, of course, be a trial, and, along with it, a conviction. But don’t let that stop you from accusing him. Also, when the fuck did this get to be the Clinton Bashing thread, and when did I defend him? I said it was wrong. I said that his lying/misleading testimony wasn’t insignificant.
My point was that Bush lied. Not that nobody else had ever lied.
Then, on April 12, 1999, Judge Susan Webber Wright held Clinton in contempt of court, ruling that he had “responded to plaintiff’s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process…” For that he lost his law license for five years and paid a $25,000 fine. Hmm, no evidence of perjury there.
So now let’s see your evidence that President Bush “LIED to the American People”.
Oops, sorry Flymaster, I jumped the gun with the last sentence in my post. I reread page one on this thread and your links to the President’s speech. Saying “every single American” will receive a check is definitley stretching the truth. But stretching the truth in a political speech and lying under oath are quite different, IMHO.
Although UncleBeer has counselled against bothering to talk about what ended the recession in this forum, I’m going to go so far as to draw a quick distinction between the voodoo economics part and what actually happened.
UncleBeer has it right about coming out of the recession: the tax cut caused a fiscal deficit which stimulated the economy. Far from being an oddball idea this is a standard result from macroeconomic theory that you would learn in undergraduate macro. In the IS-LM framework a move towards deficit shifts the IS (goods market) curve to the right, increasing aggregate activity and income. In general, spending increases are more effective at this than tax cuts.* There may of course be other reasons why you wouldn’t want to do this, but it is an entirely standard response to get out of a recession by deficit finance.
Notice however that this was exactly the opposite of Reagan’s stated thinking, which is the part that was (correctly IMPO) labelled “voodoo economics”. According to the supply siders, the tax cut would increase tax revenue by stimulating incentives and the economy would recover by virtue of the efficiency and productivity gains. Not many believed it at the time and almost no-one does now.
So to argue that the Reagan tax cut brought the US economy out of recession by demand stimulus is to argue that supply side economics failed, and dismally so.
*[sub]because there is a (1-marginal propensity to save) on the denominator of the dT term and not on the dG term.[/sub]
pic, would you mind reposting your reply in GD, where I’ve opened a thread called, “The Gipper and the Recession (or how you do that voodoo that you do so well).” I don’t want to take part in two discussions of the same thing in two different forums. Thanks.
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that a couple of enormous new industries developed almost out of the blue - computers and all the revolutions in telecommunications. And the ripple effects from both spread and spread.
Clinton gets little credit for that. Bush the Elder gets little blame for that. (Although I do give Clinton and Congress credit for staying the hell out of the way and not fucking it up somehow.)
Those who actually believe the sort of drivel about wealth redistribution provided by Rush Limbaugh and the Cato Institute might actually want to read up on the extent to which there is actually (downward) wealth redistribution in the U.S. before they decide that this wealth redistribution has gotten too zealous.
It always fascinates me how these arguments about taxes bring out all these people who pay taxes to the U.S. government yet apparently live on desert islands and thus accumulate all of their earnings without any reliance on said government to provide things like roads, law enforcement, education (for them and their employees), …
I never knew there were so many such people around!
Oh, that’s right…I see. It’s just stretching the truth when Bush does it, but when Clinton is fucking TRIED, in the REPUBLICAN senate, and they can’t get a conviction, it’s all of a sudden God’s Own Truth? He was NOT GUILTY of purjury, according to the Senate trial. Sounds to me like there’s not sufficient evidence of it. And as for the misleading testimony thing, that’s exactly what he did. He gave misleading testimony. Nowhere does that say purjury, and nowhere did I say that what Clinton did was NOT misleading. It was misleading. But to say that there is significant evidence of purjury is simply not the case, according to our political and legal systems.
That’s where you’re wrong. He was IMPEACHED over this. The House of Representatives, even under evil Republican control, does not sit around waiting to draw up Articles of Impeachment, without significant evidence!
From Websters: (you’re in college, you do have a dictionary, don’t you): perjury: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath: false swearing
From Judge Wright’s ruling: “responded to plaintiff’s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process…”
I dunno, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, sounds like perjury to me, with contempt of court and obstruction of justice thrown in for good measure.
I didn’t mean to get into the whole Clinton thing, but I find that getting your knickers in a bunch over President Bush’s tax speech, to the point where you say he “LIED to the citizens of this country”, ironic at best.
Thanks.