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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (67680)	10/23/2008 6:48:18 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

It just occurred to me to ask you something. Are you by any chance registered to vote in the US? After all, 8 of the 911 hijackers were registered. You've traveled here and for all I know could be registered too. Please don't take this as a suggestion.

To: thames_sider who wrote (67680)	10/23/2008 12:47:49 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

Do you think that the last 8 years in the US have seen sound economic policies? Some sound and some not so sound. Have the top level tax cuts resulted in any noticeable improvement in wealth for the majority, or an improvement in unemployment rates as a result of job creation and investment, or indeed an increase in productive investment? Are you measuring against what existed before the tax cuts, or against the more important but hypothetical and very uncertain levels that each would have been at without the tax cut? Either way there has been improvement (measuring from after the tax cuts), but they are two different questions. Also the tax changes are, in terms of the general economy of the US, a change at the margin, not a fundamental or massive change which would overwhelm all other issues. Rates where cut but not slashed, taxes where not simplified, and even a larger cut combined with simplification (and spending discipline) would often not in the short run be decisive. If you could maintain such a policy over the long run (which probably isn't likely in the real world), many of the other factors would tend to balance each other out more than they do in the short run, and the smaller but steadier positive effect would tend to lead to important improvements (but even then not exactly "measurable improvements" because the key issue in measuring the success of a policy, is not comparisons to the past", but comparisons to what would have happened without the policy, and you can only make educated guesses about such hypotheticals. In terms of the overall health of the economy tax cuts (at least tax cuts that aren't from very high rates, don't include tax simplification, and don't go hand in hand with spending restraints) are often over rated. OTOH the idea that tax cuts are generally an unwise and harmful policy is just silly. I'm assuming you accept as fact that the deficit has already ballooned in these 8 years Yes, but it wouldn't have if there had been control of the spending side.

To: thames_sider who wrote (67680)	10/23/2008 8:33:38 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

ts, I see that Tim F has already provided an excellent response to your deceptively selective querries. <<< "Do you think that the last 8 years in the US have seen sound economic policies?" >>> The simple answer is yes & no. Although I think that the Bush Admin has allowed Gov't spending in many areas to grow far too much, there are several major reasons that the deficit grew [and Bush's economic policies were dramatically affected] that are quite understandable. And as usual you, like most leftists, want to ignore those critical factors in order to make things look much worse than rational thinking people do. Bush took over with a recession already in place. The stock market bubble had already burst deepening the recession further. Then we had the $ trillion plus effects of 9/11 nearly crippling the economy. Then we had the multiple major corporate scandals about to shock the markets & the economy further [all of which began during the Clinton Admin but came to roost under Bush]. Without effective Gov't intervention which included a massive spike in spending things would have gotten much worse. Obama was planning [and continues to plan] a massive increase in Gov't spending. Most of it will be on Gov't run programs that will be a near total waste of our tax dollars because the Gov't is incapable of performing almost any task efficiently or effectively than the private sector [or if left for the private sector to resolve on their own w/o any Gov't intervention or assistance]. And Obama's socialist policies have already been proven by history time & time again as complete failures. And Obama's socialist tax policies will, if implemented, only make a bad situation far worse.

To: thames_sider who wrote (67680)	10/23/2008 8:46:27 PM
From: Sully-	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

<<< "Have the top level tax cuts resulted in any noticeable improvement in wealth for the majority, or an improvement in unemployment rates as a result of job creation and investment, or indeed an increase in productive investment?" >>> Sorry bub, but that sounds more like LWE, MSM & DNC Talking Points rather than a rational, reality based question. There were no "top level tax cuts" made by the Bush Admin. There were across the board tax cuts which quickly resulted in a massive increase in Gov't revenues & an upturn in the economy across the board. Looking at the tax cuts from a reality based prospective, the resulting effects were quite successful for a vast majority of Americans. And they would have been even more successful if they had been coupled with a massive reduction of growth many Gov't programs [and in many cases steep cuts or complete elimination of many programs altogether].

To: thames_sider who wrote (67680)	10/23/2008 8:54:26 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

<<< "For that matter, would you say the stock market verdict indicates satisfaction with the policies of the last 8 years?" >>> I'm quite sure that this will be your version of reality regardless of the facts. I think the downturn in the stock market is almost completely due to the sub-prime crises, which had its genesis in the Clinton Admin & was allowed to continue out of control thanks to a Dem Congress that refused to take action time after time when they held the critical positions of power to act, but didn't.

To: thames_sider who wrote (67680)	10/23/2008 9:02:24 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

<<< "I'm assuming you accept as fact that the deficit has already ballooned in these 8 years, having started from a position of annual surplus at the turn of the century." >>> Nope. There was no surplus at the turn of the century for starters. Every year of the Clinton Admin the Gov't continued to increase that amount it borrowed. So no matter how you slice it the deficit increased under Clinton every single year. And if it weren't for a Republican Congress the deficit would have been far larger. And my previous answers to your LWE queries have already explained why the deficit grew under Bush. The only reasons I fault him are for his reluctance in curbing Federal spending, but instead allowing it to grow excessively. And it will pale in comparison to Obama's plans to massively add to this out of control growth in spending.