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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alomex who wrote (159978)	2/14/2004 2:20:54 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

In fact quite a few republicans in Congress have criticized the large Bush deficits. Paul O'Neill has done so, as well as Alan Greenspan. AFAIK, no Republicans in congress, or AG for that matter, have suggested Bush's tax cuts were a bad idea or that they have failed to stimulate the economy. Nor have they suggested we should raise taxes now or in the future to "solve" the problem of future deficits. It is only Democrats - particularly those running for President - who have suggested such things. The criticism from Republicans has centered on spending plans. Of course, congress controls the purse strings - they need to agree amongst themselves as to what programs should be cut back (or out) to minimize the deficit. Paul O'Neill, OTOH, was fighting the tax cuts just as the seriousness of the market collapse was becoming apparent to everyone else and just as we were falling into recession. In other words, he was arguing for higher taxes than Bush & Co thought appropriate under the circumstances, missing entirely both the dangers to the economy of holding taxes high and the stimulative effects cuts invariably have on the economy. Now he's bitter because, rather than taking his bad advice, Bush canned him. Sorry if I don't find his criticism to be either objective or credible. Lastly, I'd add that, given a market collapse and a recession, and the resulting shortfall in federal revenues vs. what had been "projected" during the bubble, the recent (and near-term) deficits can't be reasonably blamed on either the tax cuts or Bush's discretionary spending decisions. We would have had deficits the last few years even without Bush's tax cuts and spending plans - probably higher had Bush not taken action to stimulate the economy (actions O'Neill opposed). Going forward, I think you will see current revenue projections miss significantly on the low side just as they did on the high side when they were made during the bubble. Furthermore, any economist will tell you that deficit spending is one of only a handful of tools the government has to stimulate the economy. Deficits are not inherently bad if incurred during a recession and early recovery to stimulate the economy. The trick is to restrain spending when the economy picks up and congressmen start salivating over the growing revenues.