>Unless you can show statistical significance, it means absolutelly ZERO.
Some facts: Profit as a percentage of GDP is up, wages as a percentage of GDP are down. The jobs created in Bush's "recovery" pay, on average, $9,000 less than the ones lost. 1.6 million jobs have been lost in the last 4 years in the private sector.
Clearly the administration's policies do not favor the working class.
>You most certainly HAVE saved $1,000 over what you'd have saved under the previous tax code. Unless, of course, you're blaming Bush for your school taxes and petroleum costs (which would be indicative of a total misunderstanding of what caused those costs to rise).
Net, Under the Bush administration, it's more expensive for me to live than it was under the Clinton administration. Why is that so difficult to understand?
>Ari didn't say this, I'd wager a year's income on it.
I heard the quote myself on the radio. I could've misheard it, but I don't think I did.
>The indisputable facts are that tax cuts stimulate economies. Period. End of story.
The question is, how much do they? And what ratios need to be given to what groups to make that happen? And where's the point of diminishing returns? Where do you stop?
>What is wrong with you that you would argue the other side of that when every 12th grader knows it.
Show me your 12th grader. I'll show you a PhD student in economics that's doing his dissertation on why Reaganomics is a crock.
>You have to use your mind and look more deeply than what you get from CNN and the NYT.
Sorry -- I need to read more Newsmax, NYPost, and watch more Fox News.
-Z |
