Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (149234)	5/28/2001 5:13:35 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I don't care what he is. It was you who are anxious to discuss that, possibly because making an ad hominem attack is easier than addressing specific fiscal, documented budget-proposal elements? (All I did is point out that Klugman is an economist who supports positions liberals find anathema, offering two examples, and that he writes regularly for those rather centrist journals, Fortune and The New Republic. Those items might suggest that he's not a left extremist, but in fact his politics are absolutely irrelevant to this question I asked you earlier): What do you (Cyberken) think about the bolded part? That there is an end that justifies this means, or what? Just curious: <<Here's what they did: they made the tax bill fit within the budget resolution by assuming that the whole tax cut will expire at the end of 2010. That is, they simply waved their hands and made all the revenue that will actually be lost in the last year of the 10-year period — hundreds of billions of dollars — disappear from the accounting. One of my Capitol Hill contacts calls this "the miracle of the loaves and fishes." Need I point out that absolutely nobody who supports this tax bill thinks of it as a temporary measure, to be canceled at the end of nine years? This is white-collar crime, pure and simple.>>

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (149234)	6/2/2001 2:56:51 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

You wrote: You are trying to cloak a liberal argument as something else by screaming that the writer "is not a liberal". I suggest you simply look at what he wrote. You ARE what you write and say. You may like (or fear) what this writer hangs on his wall, but don't make a fool of yourself trying to re-define him. He is what he is... (BTW, is The Weekly Standard's David Brooks a "liberal," too? lol.) Brooks also had contempt for the Bush tax bill, and his piece didn't contradict a single assumption in the Krugman piece. *On to Thomas G. Donlan, editorial page editor at Barron's.* (Is Barron's "liberal"?)** In the June 4 issue, Donlan writes that the bill -- with "luck and patience" [and probably "another tax bill every year as far as the eye can see"] may be able to secure some benefits. But it talks about "stupid bills" [like this one!] and how they get written. Here are some excerpts from Thomas G. Donlan. Which i have to type out. The computer... lets lawmakers cram 10 pounds of goodies into a 5 pound bill without taking responsibility for it... They loaded this bill with provisions that come and go like butterflies... It's as if the nation's lawmakers -- at both ends of PA Ave -- said, "We don't really want lower tax rates, or a less complicated system, or reduction of extra taxation of two-earner families, or an increased child tax credit, or an end to the death tax we say we hate and fear so much. We don't really want to make it easier for people to save for retirement or pay for their kids' college education. If we must do these things, we will do them in the most grudging way... [it] lets the members take credit for... them, even though most will be of little value until they phase in over the next 10 years. SUDDEN REVERSAL The second most remarkable thing about the 2001 tax-cut bill is how all of its laudable provisions come to an abrupt end in 2010 or sooner... ... Taken as a whole, the bill appears to be a self-negating statement... such as "This sentence is a lie..."... if your head spins at that, wait until you do your taxes next year..." Sounds a lot like Krugman to me, just as the Weekly Standard's David Brooks did.