Sam, all your points are wrong, however I choose to highlight this one. The above quote, Sam, puts your great economic skill on display for all to see. For you to be able to understand the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th order effects of the tax cuts' impact on the economy is nothing short of groundbreaking! Scholars from all the top universities would love to get their hands on the research and documentation that you put into this analysis. Can you please post it, if you don't mind? I'm especially interested in how the economic growth which was directly spurred by these tax cuts plays into your analysis. We all saw the impressive GDP gains which the economy realized once the tax cuts passed through the system. Once taxes come due, this will obviously boost tax revenue to the government. Sam, my point is this -- the tax cuts had a very dynamic impact on the economy. The economy's growth has been very strong over the past few quarters. Very strong. Additionally the dividend tax cuts helped improve the efficiency of the capital markets, and created greater transparency for corporate decision-making. Access to capital = efficient investment, productivity gains, increased profits, increased shareholder wealth, increased consumption. A simple chain, Sam. Very simple. For you to only highlight a 'negative' related to the tax cut -- even if you are 1) wrong 2) hopelessly naive and ignorant on the topic of economics and finance and 3) extremely short-sighted in your analysis -- only shows your willingness to say anything to slander the President. A GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR
the tax cuts had a very dynamic impact on the economy Net negative job growth for his four year term. I would have to agree with you here. Very dramatic indeed. Wall Street is even agreeing with your conclusion, seeing the Dow dipped below 10,000 yet again.
Poor attempt at trolling. What an ingorant folly to assume that the stock market and the economy are positively correlated. Over the history of the market this has been proven inaccruate.
actually he said dynamic Jorge can you explain why the CBO says "Tax Cuts Are The Single Largest Way Policymakers Have Increased Deficits." http://www.cbpp.org/1-28-04bud.htm
This really is a well written piece. When it speaks of the wasted opportunites and lives, that is what really strikes a chord in me. To think what we could have built with the compassion of the world after 911... To think what our nation could be like now under somebody like McCain. Sigh. Anyway, some points I don't agree with: [/b] I disagree. If there's one thing that Wild Bill's trigger happy foreign policy garners us, it's the fear of our enemies. Well, it's hard to say that N Korea is afraid of anybody, but I think that in any case, nobody is more motivated to get nukes because of Bush's policies. But it would be correct thinking- the only way anybody is going to get handled with kid gloves like Kim Jong Il instead of run over and removed from power like Sadaam is nukes. Nuclear capability is the only thing that can really protect you from the US military. I think it's a stretch to say Bush's re-election would affect the market. This is great, though: This is so true. It's so sad that Bush really had the opportunity to become one of the great leaders, he really had the chance to do something great. Instead he proved himself the tool that democratic voters thought he was back in 2000.
Trader_J, I don't pay for the "premium" content in the Economist online, but I've read the latest issue in, shockingly, the actual magazine, made from paper. It has an article titled, America’s election and the economy-Undecided voters and an indecisive recovery-Oct 9th 2004. In it, the Economist surveys a group of respected experts on the subject. Two thirds of those surveyed, if I remember the percentage correctly, thought that Bush's policies were wrong and, although they had some things to say about Kerry's, they preferred Kerry's plan for the economy to Bush's. That is from the Economist. Do you have a problem with that publication? I have always thought that it was one of the world's most respected magazines, of any kind. They seem to disagree with you. If anyone has access to their premium, online content, and could post the article I mentioned, I would appreciate it. Some of you need to get a grip on yourselves, and make your arguments without the personal slams, if you wouldn't mind. I have nothing to do with running things here, thank god, but we have made great progress towards the goal of making the forum a place that some of the "non-regulars" have found worthy of posting in recently. So, let's... Keep D&D Civil!!
The Economist is the best magazine out there. Their (new) US boss is a friend of mine from my MBA program. I think that a survey result is not conclusive evidence of the correctness or incorrectness of an economic argument, though.
What's conclusive is that nobody who was not 1. uninformed, or 2. lying, would characterize US GDP growth -- regardless of its cause -- over the last 4 years as "impressive" and "very strong", when such growth has, in fact, been well below the postwar average.
No one is talking about 4 years here. Very nice attempt at distortion there, Sam. If that's all you've got, then once again you have a loser on your hands. We are talking about the past several quarters. The inherited economic disaster and 9-11 skew the first two plus years. This is obvious to all but the most partisan. btw -- Anyone see the post-debate bounce that Bush got in the CNN poll? I guess "losing" the debate really helped! Silly libs...
You can make all the excuses you want, but other presidents had excuses too, there was the great depression for one. There was Pearl Harbor, WWII, N. Korea, Viet Nam, an Energy crisis, etc. Yet through all of those the presidents didn't make excuses and managed to create jobs.
What bounce? It was in the margin of error and any bounce is noticeably absent in the latest polls. This race is tied like the 9th inning of the last two Red Sox - Yankees games and like the Yankees GW Bush was well ahead in in some polls prior to the debates. So I wouldn't go about trying to crow about the debates.
Are you a Yankees fan that hates the pres. or are you a Red Sox fan who loves the pres? Or do you hate both and the combination just drives you crazy? Would it be better if I said the race is tied like 6th inning of last nights Stros - Cards game?
Didn't think this deserved it's own thread... The Orlando Sentinel, which has not endorsed a Democrat for President in 40 years, came out for John Kerry on Sunday. And so did the Washington Post (no shock there...) And the Seattle Times. And the Portland Oregonian, which endorsed Bush in 2000.
NY Times endorsing a Socialist, globalist, weak-kneed wuss of a Democrat? Say it ain't so! What a surprise...... The newspaper "of record" is a worthless left-wing rag sans standards.
so far, 24 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 have now endorsed Kerry only 2 papers that backed Gore have flipflopped and backed Bush another trend is previous Bush backers now backing no-one
