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: JBTFD who wrote (649645)	10/22/2004 3:01:01 AM
From: RMF	Respond to of 769670

I don't think Bush's tax cuts were EVER meant as stimulus to the economy. I believe they were meant as a way to SHRINK the government. It was the same with Reagan. FIRST they would STARVE the government in sort of a tough-love scenario. THEN...........OTHER PEOPLE would have to do the DIRTY WORK of ACTUALLY cutting stuff. It's sort of a SLIMY...SLEAZY way to get to an end... BUT...the end these guys have wanted to get to would require some GUTS.. When it comes down to it they're GREAT at the EASY part....CUTTING TAXES....but they are absolute GUTLESS scmucks when it comes to the DIRTY work. These Republican Creeps are great at dirty work when it involves spreading rumors in S. Carolina that McCain may be gay or has an illegitimate black child, but they are GUTLESS when it comes to actually carrying through on their agendas (unless they can use something like 9/11 as cover). When I say Republican Creeps I'm not referring to Bush I or most of his guys. Or Reagan's. I'm talking about the SLIME that walks the earth in THIS administration ONLY.

To: JBTFD who wrote (649645)	10/25/2004 11:12:31 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<< Take his tax cuts for instance. They were poorly designed as an economic stimulus. >> Not in my opinion. The cuts were for everyone that paid income taxes. The cuts were for consumers and for people that create jobs. Both of these cuts have the result of stimulating the economy. I think that the economy would be in worse shape if these cuts had not been made. << And a very large percentage went to the top income earners in the country. >> Actually, on a % basis, the cuts for the middle and lower class were much larger. Only looking at the $ and ignoring the % does can these numbers be twisted to look like they leaned towards the rich. << millions who have lost their jobs and Bush was against the most recent unemployment benefits extension. >> Extending the unemployments forever does not inspire people to get back on their feet and find a job. I have friends that stayed unemployed as long as they had unemployment; played golf or whatever. Then, as their unemployment benefits were ending, they found jobs and are happily employed to this day. Since unemployment is lower than the average unemployment in the 70s, 80s and 90s, WHY should we keep extending benefits over and over again? Dave