I'm sure people were happy about them, but that doesn't mean that they are economically efficient. The fact is, throughtout economic history, rebates have never really worked to provide a lasting stimulus to the economy. While I don't have a link for you, and while I don't know if this will be sufficient proof for you, I can tell you from personal experience that the rebates were a Dem proposal that were not in the original Bush plan. I know this because I worked as an intern in the National Economic Council at the White House all of last year and was there when the tax package was first negotiated, and then later passed. On a side note, I am not too happy that my old boss, Larry Lindsey, got the boot from the econ team. He was a hell of a guy.
Man....I wish it would come to that. maybe everyone would realize that neither side is worth defending. And then maybe.... ...there wouldn't be all of these threads that I'm too weak and powerless to keep from clicking on.
Even at the reduced rates, the surplus will return once the economy recovers and people go back to work. In times of recession governmental resources become strained. Once the recovery occurs, government recoups as well.
Yeah, but the tossed coins calm the peasants massed outside the gates when you take power amidst strange circumstances.
And Rockets10 stated more than once that the rebates were a Dem idea. So how do you reconcile that with your very Marie Antoinette-ish post?
Um, and who said I agreed with Rockets10 undocumented assertion? I don't agree that it was a Dem. idea. Even if it *was* at some point, the magnitude and timing were put forward by the fledgling administration. And dude, back off, Ref. Or I'll change my vote!
Even at the reduced rates, the surplus will return once the economy recovers and people go back to work. In times of recession governmental resources become strained. Once the recovery occurs, government recoups as well. Except Bush has already said its time for more tax cuts and that we should be giving back "your money". So if he gets his way, he'll run a zero-surplus budget during good times and a deficit during bad times, which just keeps building the national debt. We should know from the 80's and 90's that the theory that we'll just "make it back" during the good times doesn't work.
I think that the Republican tax cut strategy is an excellent political strategy. They want to burn into the minds of the voters that they cut taxes while their counterparts raise taxes. All this is superifical, since the long term consequences of tax cuts is a larger national debt. In the bigger picture, the Republicans take a similar approach to the environment. It appears they figure that they will be dead when the enironment is shot to hell and the federal government goes bankrupt. Hey, they got theirs; its the next generation who will have to clean up the mess. And they called themselves conversatives. Go figure.
I'll believe that when I see it. Besides...why is the government trying to amass billions of dollars in surpluses? Do they believe that they need the money more than the people who forked it over? While the Dems talk tough about it and continue to drive their SUVs and use tons of electricity and plastics...and anything else that requires oil.
I can't believe people are still talking "surpluses"--I thought this language went out over the last few years as the rosy surplus projections have been obliterated by reality. We have a major debt my friends, we have generally spent somewhere between 12-18% of our federal revenue each year on nothing (interest) instead of anything of substance (be it the military, social programs, whatever floats your boat) since the mid 80s, and we have yearly budget deficits again. Once we get a national surplus, or close to one, which will take years of individual budget surpluses--then we can return to the above argument. As for now this sentiment reflects 1) either tremendous ignorance about the total budget/national debt situation, or 2) IMO terrible long term fiscal planning. Guys remember it is “Chameleon Conservatives”. Semantics is important in politics—just look at how effectively republicans have equated liberalism to radical pie in the sky thinking (misguided at best, unAmerican at worst) in much of the national dialogue. “Chameleon Conservative”, “Chameleon Conservative”, “Chameleon Conservative”—Democrats and liberals are going to have to try to get as good in this rhetorical game as Republicans—anyone have Carville’s e-mail.
Just wanted to point out that the only military men who were on food stamps were young men at the bottom of the totem pole (i.e. privates in the Army) who also had large families already (wife and 3+ kids). While I certainly agree that military men deserved a raise (if you look, most of Clinton's military cuts were for weapons programs and unnecessary bases), I don't think there's any entry-level job that pays enough money for a family of 5. Maybe these men should have invested some of their salary in a pack of rubbers.
Not the guys that my buddies knew. I believe they had a wife and ONE kid. With inflation...no raise = effective pay cut of 3% a year or so.
The GOP is much better at demonizing and sanitizing than the Dems, there's no doubt about that. Tax relief and the death tax are two of my favorite examples.
While I am not advocating long-term fiscal deficits, are you aware that they are actually beneficial right now? The reason being that if there was no gov't deficit the Fed would have to invest in the private markets which could be very problematic. Even Mr. Greenspan himself strongly disagreed with paying down the debt, back when we actually had surpluses, for this very reason. Having a gov't debt is not the worst thing in the world people!! Like I said before, that doesn't mean I advocate fiscal irresponsibility though. I just think we should focus on real problems right now, rather than a gov't deficit during a recession that always happens anyway. I think that there is a reason that only the politicians seem to have made a big deal about the deficits. Namely that, it is the least of our economic problems and is ok in the short term.
Maybe in your fantansy world ... Or do you truly believe supply side/ trickle down economics (that Reagan made up to justify his "economic" plan) actually works?
