Oh please. The economy is not dead and the use of such inflammatory language here will not kill it, undoubtedly much to your chagrin. (grin)
Firstly, Bush is just a bit player in the larger scheme of things - a big bit player, but a bit player nevertheless. He had to enter Iraq; and now that he is there, he has to stay there until the clean-up job is done. It simply won't do to call us to make the sacrifices we've made only to abandon the entire effort because we are too weak and stupid to see it through.
Secondly, because he is a bit player, Bush cannot really 'turn a jobs situation' anywhere. He can either help government get out of the way so we can turn it, or shift fake money around by force, from my hand to yours, just like Clinton did (or tried to do). With the latter "solution" the problems and terrible inequities would yet persist. Indeed that is exactly why things are as they are. Many people simply are not interested in being vulnerable to those who would force them to give money to unworthy causes. You can't get something for nothing, Lizzie-- a thing you Californians would do well to learn for a change.
Thirdly, I cannot see how Bush's tax cut was truly damaging to growth companies. Surely, some investors will turn an eye toward a dividend bribe, but not all. Very many investors will want to avoid the luster of dividends for the even brighter prospect of returns due to the innovations of growth companies.
Lastly, the abolishment of double taxation on business income is really just a matter of fairness. If "growth companies" were benefiting from this unfairness, then they need to lose the benefit and make a buck the honest way. |
