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: greenspirit who wrote (278242)	7/20/2002 5:45:48 AM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 769667

<<Actually I've read quite a few people dishonestly say the tax cuts are the sole cause of our deficits.>> When you wrote: "Others, (who are largely looking at it through partisan political eyes), would probably say the miniscule tax-cut was the sole cause of the deficit increasing" Didn't you mean to say that people are attributing current deficits to the part of the tax cut already implemented? I haven't seen anyone say that, except for those building straw men. <<It's still an open questions whether our tax cuts will generated revenue long term, or reduce revenues.>> Changing the subject aren't you? I said that projected deficits can absolutely be tied to the tax bill. Bush's own budget office is projecting that revenues will be down, in part due to the tax bill. These are projections. The actual numbers, of course, remain to be seen. <<The deficit continued to grow throughout the Clinton years.>> This is wrong too. Did you mis-speak, or do you actually mean this? I agree that Social Security surpluses shouldn't be counted as part of general revenue. That's why i was so disgusted when Bush used the SS surplus to claim we had plenty of money for a tax cut, when half of that projected surplus was SS. Why not cut payroll taxes since that's where so much of the so-called surplus was coming from? Does it bother you that Bush counts the SS surplus to rationalize returning the "people's money" and then turns around and says that since the SS surplus money isn't really there, SS is in trouble? It sure as hell bothers me. I expect more from such an allegedly good and honorable man. <<Reagan grew the economy and dramatically increased revenue to the government while cutting taxes.>> Wrong again. Federal revenue dropped for the first two years after his tax cut, and didn't regain its 1981 levels until 1985. Furthermore Reagan signed what was labeled by Jack Kemp as the biggest tax cut in the history of man in 1983, which is when tax revenues began to rise again. But why let facts get in the way of a good myth? <<Congress (led by spendoholic Tip O'neil) increases spending like an Emeldo Marcus dropped off in a Kinney shoe store.>> Poor Ronald Reagan, didn't even have the balls of a Bill Clinton to veto a bad budget bill. Reagan did sign those budgets, didn't he? The rest of your post is a dissembling barely coherent rant. I'm clearly talking about a lack of confidence on Wall Street, not Bush's poll numbers. Don't plummeting stock prices define a lack of investor confidence? Obviously when Bush goes to Wall Street to give a speech during market hours intended to boost investor confidence and the market tanks, we can say he failed. As for the dishonest accounting in the Bush budgets, i gave a couple examples in post 277985 in this very subject. And his claiming the SS surplus as general revenue when describing projected surpluses is another example of his shoddy budget accounting. <<The market doesn't wait for a President to give it confidence.>> I guess we both agree Bush would be well advised to stop giving speeches intended to boost investor confidence as they won't work, and they make him appear impotent. Steve