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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (48772)	7/17/2013 12:37:30 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

>> We were actually running surpluses when he came into office Actually, we weren't. We were "projected" to have surpluses. Which was ridiculous at the time. Any hope of a surplus, ever, was out the window with the Clinton recession. Bush inherited a recession and tax cuts are a valid way of creating economic stimulus, if the tax cuts are properly targeted. The first round of Bush tax cuts were not, and Bush was warned of that up front by his economic advisers, but went forward with them anyway. While it clearly did curtail the bleeding from both the recession and the events of 9/11 (which, taken alone, could have been expected to have had substantial negative economic consequences), it was the smaller 2003 cut that really had more of a stimulative effect. The cost of both wars for both wars since 2001 has been about 1.5 Trillion; of course, about 1/3 of that occurred under president Obama. >> The Taliban has now gotten a foothold in Pakistan and will come back into and dominate Afghanistan once again as soon as we pull out. And we should get the hell out and let them, and if they become a problem we can go back and deal with it. >> In Iraq we've put the Shiites into power and that has strengthened Iran. Repeating a falsehood does not give it credibility.

To: RMF who wrote (48772)	7/17/2013 12:16:38 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

I think Bush did the tax cuts for the rich simply because he saw his job as transferring as much money to the rich as possible. He said: "I don't think the government should have so much money and I am giving it back to the people who paid it (the rich)." Three big tax cuts to the rich that cost us more than the wars. The Republicans have been cutting taxes on the rich for 50 years. But Bush took it the whole way as he also had a Republican congress for six years. Greenspan said the invasion of Iraq was to get the oil; but it was also a way to feed the military industrial complex. More money to his rich friends. Bush also did as little as possible to regulate anything including the banks. Cheney got a 30 million severance pay when he quit Haliburton. The Haliburton got the largest multi billion dollar contract in Iraq. Quid pro quo. And if you remember Bush told those who did not join his coalition they could not share in the oil (spoils of war). It just didn't turn out like he expected. His economics professor at Harvard said Bush was an elitist and felt he had a special right to be rich and powerful. This is not unusual. Look at Englands royal family or how the aristocracy ruled Europe for hundreds of years. The aristocracy was on top Bourgeoisie was todays middle class The Proletariat were the serfs and peasants And people did not marry out of their class. FDR was seen as a traitor to his class when he fought for the poor.