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: Mark Konrad who wrote (398633)	4/24/2003 11:41:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Re: "1) I believe the economy does need across-the-board non-targeted tax reduction stimulus as the President has been pitching for a while now." >>> Yep. Me too. (But I'd prefer more of it go to sectors that will drive demand up faster... and I'd like to see economically destructive special interest tax loopholes closed - to put businesses on a level playing field - and the whole massive, overly-complicated tax code given a major cleaning.) e "2) I also support the increased spending for defense as well as the wars on terrorism and the Afghanistan/Iraq campaigns." >>> OK... as long as it is cost-effective spending (no more rigging test results to keep the gravy train flowing, no more bureaucratic sand-bagging against Rumsfeld's 'next generation' reforms). And, remember, we already spend more on our military than the next 20 largest military budgets in the entire World added together.... IMO, much of our defense against terrorism (port security, chemical plant security, nuclear plant security) has been WAY UNDER BUDGETED. >>> Sadly, an accident waiting to happen. Re: "#1 is an admitted game of "chicken" betting on increased revenues from a growing economy to balance lower tax rates. I am also hoping GW will either be able to reduce federal spending with Congress now (something he keeps hinting at) or get enough fiscal conservatives in office in '04 to reduce spending before the budget goes too far overboard and the economy stalls again. >>> Too bad Bush is spending like a drunken sailor ($150 B. per year more than Clinton's highest spending), spending like our last President from Texas: LBJ. >>> Now, the President's own hand-picked economists in the GAO - running their new 'dynamic scoring' economic models which assume that tax cuts always PRODUCE higher growth ultimately, and thus reduce the revenue loss in later years to government - are calculating that over the next 10 years, approximately every dollar in lower taxes produces enough higher growth to return about 40 cents of that forgone tax revenue.... But even if we give them the most optimistic benefit of the doubt, and bump that up to 50/50, o even 60/40, it STILL means that reckless can't continue. >>> The costs of financing the ever-growing federal debt, and crowding out capital for private investment... eat up all and more of the benefits of lower taxes if spending is not brought under control. >>> Of course, it's no secret to find out that politicians prefer deficit spending... 'something for nothing' is always popular with the irresponsible. Re: "#2 is somewhat of an investment, imo. A large front-end cost that should ultimately return savings in future years (putting aside the moral and humanitarian benefits for this discussion). Properly managed, the reduction in Middle East tensions as the apparatus of warfare are eliminated should result in less foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, etc., and less of a need for US military presence. Plus, there will eventually be a side benefit of growing commerce and trade with nations that are not perennially at war. This is admittedly a hopeful and longer term view but then again, a lot has happened in just 30 days." >>> That's if tensions in the region reduce anytime soon :) Time will tell, there are great opportunities, but the occupation will be very expensive ($200B. +) and risky for a number of reasons. Re: "I think the size of the US economy (GDP) with the excess manufacturing capacity, productivity gains, unemployment rate and current interest rates buys us some time (even with the President's tax cuts) to work on #1 and build upon #2." >>> Yep. IMO, 'til '05 or '06. Re: "To be quite frank, I thought Bush was a better choice than Gore but I did not expect him to manage the office as firmly, resolutely and efficiently as he has so far (gotta give him his due). What I am wondering (and hoping) is whether he will be able to run roughshod over Congress (that's really what he needs to do) and get both a tax cut AND spending cuts. And that is something President Reagan, for all his successes and popularity, was not able to do." >>> Reagan never had an all-Republican Congress, and many Republican Governors... Bush should have it easy, by comparison.