Buffett is respected enough that if he makes a direct statement against a pending presidential budget, that budget must be very poor. I don't think that his statements were politically motivated in this case, this tax cut is just a particularly bad idea.
Supply side economics destroyed Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. A massive increase in government spending in 1983 slowly turned the Argentina economy around, despite protests from the world bank and IMF that it wouldn't work. Supply side is irresponisble economics and wishful thinking.
The corruption was complicit with IMF and Worldbank "suggestions" that Argentina sell most of it's national infrastructure(power, water, phone, etc) to foreign investors in order to save money and reduce government spending while making utilities cheaper for the public. Pinochet also followed the "suggestion" that they deregulate banking laws, which allowed most of the countries capital to head straight to banks in new york, paris, london, and germany. They did cut taxes a lot and basically gave businesses a free hand with the economy. The result was a 20% jump in the poverty level. The price of basic utilities soared through the roof when put into the hands of foreign companies and the infrastructure deteriorated due to layoffs designed to increase profitability. In 1983 Pinochet could no longer go against the public interest without losing his head, so they tried the radical idea of creating the equivalent of 500,000 u.s. government jobs in order to jumpstart the economy. He also took back control of the banks. Much to the dismay of free market economists, it worked. Argentina is still in the process of recovering from the disastrous experiment in deregulated free market economy. The moral of the story is that businesses do what's best for business. It takes government regulation to keep them in line.
Heretic, I don't think you can compare the South American experience to contemporary American economics. Their business culture, legal system, and socioeconomic structure is so different from ours, that a comparison is impossible. A better example is the Japanese economy in the mid-90s. Clinton sent a team of economists to help the Japanese turn their economy around. Guess what Clinton's team suggested? That is right- tax cuts.
I hate to break it to you pgagabriel, but SS won't be there for anyone under the age of about 35 No thanks for repeating this old urban myth. This has been a very clever campaign on the part of the Republicans and conservatives to do the one thing that can really insure that social security won't be around-- convince people to abandon it. Gore proposed giving much of the surplus to extend full benefits to I believe 75 years. Bush wanted to give the surplus back to the backbone contirubuting class of his Party. Bush succeeded. Social security can exist with some changes such as raising the retirment age. It is true that if peope live much longer this will have to be done. In studying social security, never forget that Republicans mostly voted against the act and whenever feeling cocky, start coming out against it.
I am a staunch republican and I am for a tax cut but against the dividend plan. This is so easy to prove that it largely benefits the wealthy. I am also a CPA by trade so I do quite a few personal tax returns and there are not a lot of people making under $70,000 (single filers) who have many (any) dividend income. The largest people it would benefit are the business owners who could pay themselves more thru dividends (this avoiding SS and medicare taxes) and not paying taxes on the dividends. Now the corporation still pays it taxes, but it has always had to do that. It won't fly, and I hope W sees that pretty soon. If not he may get roasted in debates for re-election.
Maybe it's the "sacraficial lamb" so to speak. You know, ask for the double what you really want so that you get what you actually want? At some point, maybe Bush will "compromise" on the dividend tax to get the rest of the program through? I'm not so sure the SS is a good idea or ever was. You can argue that it has helped a ton of people or that a ton of people depend on it but maybe they depend on it because it's there? In other words, if it was never there maybe those people would have found other means to support themselves instead of putting their fate into the hands of government. Also, the fact that you said it needs some work is an example of how badly it was conceived. It was just a bad idea (or at the very least a VERY badly conceived idea) that is doomed to failure without being artificially propped up. Plus the fact that it discourages people the people who really need to save from saving for themselves. There is absolutly no way a person can survive on SS alone but there are so many people who are under that illusion (self delusion, actually, as they really know it won't support them but they convince themselves that it will so they don't have to take responsibility for themselvs). And while I'm ranting... how about that stupid prescription drug benefit that both parties keep working on. If there was ever any form of corporate welfare this is it! You want to ensure the prescription drugs stay expensive (with little or no market control) then just let the government subsidise them. When you don't have to pay for something (because someone else does) that something only gets more expensive. Why do you think orange juice costs so much at a hotel or aspirin costs so much at a hospital? Because the people who buy them don't use their own money. It's either insurance or expenced. No one in their right mind would pay $7 for OJ or $3 for an aspirin if it came out of their own pocket. If the government subsidises prescription drugs it will just ensure they stay expensive and that the drug co.s stay rich. I'm sure that right now prescription drug companies are donating TONS of money to both parties to ensure that bill passes.
Prescription Drugs remain expensive because people have no alternative but to buy them. Its not like buying cars, if cars were too expensive, market forces would eventually drive the prices down because people would find alternate means of transportion. For market forces to drive the price of prescription drugs down, people would have to eventually make the choice of not to live, and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. And your hospital analogy is wrong because orange juice is expensive in the hospital for the same reason its expensive in the airport, or because popcorn is expensive in the movie theatre, and food is expensive at an amusement park. You have no other choice but to buy their products.
I don't think this deserved its own thread, but it fits right in with this one. White House Budget Director Steps Down WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House budget director Mitch Daniels announced his resignation on Tuesday, rounding out a reshuffling of President Bush (news - web sites)'s top economic advisers. No reason was given for his departure, though administration officials said Daniels was considering running for governor in Indiana in 2004. "Mitch Daniels did this morning inform the president that he will be leaving the White House in 30 days. The president tremendously appreciates Mitch's service to the nation," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) told reporters. "It's too soon to speculate about successors," Fleischer added. Daniels' tenure as head of the White House Office of Management and Budget was marked by heated battles with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress over the administration's tax and spending priorities. Democratic critics accused Daniels of short-changing key domestic programs and blamed Bush's tax cuts -- advocated by the budget director and other top administration officials -- for turning budget surpluses into record deficits. His departure follows the resignation earlier this year of Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. In December, Bush pushed out Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, White House economic aide Lawrence Lindsey and Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) Chairman Harvey Pitt.
If George W. Bush goes down like his Dad, because of the economy after having ultra high popularity after a gulf war it would be almost creepy.
