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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (206675)	10/15/2004 1:21:37 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573535

>I'm guessing you haven't studied statistics yet (or, perhaps it isn't your strong suit); obviously anecdotal means ZIP. Nothing. Even if you heard it from your 1000 best friends. When compared to theory, and not law, anecdotal evidence can mean quite a bit. And let me tell you, it means a lot to the electorate. >That's a red herring. It goes how far it goes. But the fact is that Bush has been directly responsible for the working poor and middle class keeping MORE OF THEIR MONEY. OK. I saved $1000 in income taxes on someting like $65K of income last year because of the Bush tax cut. However, my school taxes went up by $300, and the amount I pay per year in gas has gone up about $500, and the amount I paid on heating (thanks to the situation in the Middle East) will likely go up at least a few hundred this winter. Have I actually saved any money? No. >The liberal lies that the tax cuts targeted the wealthy. And if you know a damned thing about economics there is no doubt in your mind that the stemming of the Clinton recession was driven by Bush's tax policy. Dude, in one of Ari Fleischer's final press conferences before he left the White House, he had said that the last tax cut affected the middle class a lot... when pressed harder in the next one, and shown facts that the cut did disproportionately help the rich, he said something to the effect of, "Oh, the last tax cut was for the middle class. This time was the wealthy's turn." I don't care what you say -- cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations does not help the middle and lower classes. >Well, it is a fact that economists are known for their inability to draw workable conclusions. But it is inescapable that tax cuts work to reduce the effects of the downturns in the economic cycle. There is simply no doubt about this. It is known fact. First, the Bush administration was going to cut taxes to reduce the surplus. Then, when the surplus disappeared, cutting taxes was their solution to recovery. Is there anything cutting taxes doesn't solve? Wouldn't the optimal taxation level be 0%? Why don't you vote for Peroutka? -Z

To: i-node who wrote (206675)	10/15/2004 1:48:10 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573535

re: But it is inescapable that tax cuts work to reduce the effects of the downturns in the economic cycle. There is simply no doubt about this. It is known fact. Well then, since Bush has ended the recession, then we should let the tax cuts expire. Or haven't the Bush tax cuts ended the recession? Which is it? John PS Greenspan testified that he didn't believe that tax policy was a good tool for managing the business cycle, BTW. He must not be up on the "known fact".