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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (109738)	10/28/2007 10:38:31 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Skeeter, When we went into the recession, IMHO there was some justifiable fear on both sides of the aisle. The stock market was taking quite a hit and then 9/11 occurred. I think every president (republican or democrat) would have cut taxes/raised spending in that scenario because that is the "generally accepted mainstream remedy" for dealing with slowdowns. They RUN DEFICITS. The only difference would have been the specific taxes they cut and the spending programs they increased. I strongly disagree with this kind of thing, but that's the reality on both sides of the aisle. Personally, I leave the war spending off the table when I look at the deficit. The war had nothing to do with the strategy for dealing with the recession. It would have happened even if the economy was booming. It's a seperate discussion (one that we've been having). The real debate on economic actions comes after the economy started recovering. Should spending have been retrained sharply and the tax decreases rolled back as soon as the economy recovered? IMHO, as soon as the economy started to recover, there should have been an all out assault on spending growth. That was the mistake Bush made. He was and still is a heavy spender. That's one reason he is so unpopular. It's not just the war. Many on the right can't stand him because he's spending more money than the worst government expanders from the left ever did. If they cut spending growth, Then the deficit would have been a lot smaller. We would probably still have a deficit because during the Bush presidency there hasn't been massive "stock options compensation" and other stock related capital gains taxes flooding the treasury like during Clinton's term, the demographics are starting to become more negative on the spending side, and he added the war spending. But it would have been a lot better. Personally I have no problem with cutting taxes that increase savings and investment (like he did) as long as they are accompanied by spending decreases. Basically, I think shrinking the government helps long term economic growth and increases freedom. But they must be accompanied by spending cuts.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (109738)	10/29/2007 7:25:48 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Skeets, Well, we haven't spent The Peace Dividend, yet. <VBG> Has anyone felt any of the money trickling down to them, under the idiotic Laffer Curve?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (109738)	10/30/2007 8:38:36 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

skeeter, Anyone that thinks that $1 in the hands of an effective efficient capitalist is not worth more than $1 in the hands of an idiot in terms of future economic growth is probably the latter. ;-) The only problem with the "theory" as marketed by "politicians" on the right is that the benefit is not dollar for dollar. If you cut taxes by $1 and it becomes savings and investment instead of government consumption, it creates greater growth "over time", but it doesn't generate enough growth to produce $1 of additional revenue. So you wind up with a short term deficit, but less than a $1. That's why the goal should be to cut government consumption (spending) and taxes for a net of zero. That way you get the benefit of more efficient use of capital but without the deficit. Unfortunately, the republicans are not interested is balanced budgets. They are typically only interested in reducing taxes and generating "short term" economic growth. The democrats are not interested in balanced budgets or economic grwoth. They are interested in expanding government, having more control over the wealth of society, reducing economic freedom, making more people dependent on their programs so they can be elected in the future when republicans try to cut them, imposing their values on tax payers that might want to make contributions to other areas etc....