<p>browninfall,</p>
<p>Too much taxation is bad. Too little, if you have an important interest (such as security), is also bad. There comes a point where the marginal returns on further tax cuts diminish and you’re not getting much out of cutting them further.</p>
<p>No one ever explained “correlation…causation…yada yada to me”. Must be public schooling.</p>
<p>So the Reagan years were good ones. Thank you. He was a great man. God bless America.</p>
<p>“Killing this dude is but a little blip in the radar. $25M…for what? There are probably ten more Zarquawis in training already…as we speak.”</p>
<p>We created him. He was a little nothing before we blew him up to proportions way beyond his actual influence, either in Iraq or abroad. Now that he is gone, we are busy creating 10 new ones. </p>
<p>It’s attractive to have an enemy with a face. He was virtually on our payroll: we paid him, through the oil money siphoned off from the pipelines to the trucks, then held for ransom. As Rummy said, the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenue. And he was right. The insurgents ARE being paid for with Iraqi oil revenue. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.</p>
<p>browninfall,</p>
<p>I went to public schools all the way through to my first degree, and will continue at a public school for my master’s. Excuses excuses. :p</p>
<p>The problem with saying that a tax cut is the reason that the economy did will in this year or that year is the lag between policy, policy implementation, and effect. People regularly attribute the relatively good economic growth of the 90s to Clinton, yet ignore the dot com boom. It’s then Bush’s fault that the boom led to bust.</p>
<p>I’m usually wary of assigning kudos or blame to presidents merely because it’s hard to seperate all the variables.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He also singlehandedly ended the Cold War, shot lightning from his butt, and was probably the greatest actor in the history of American cinema, what’s your point?</p>
<p>It doesn’t mean that his policies were the reason the economy grew during his terms.</p>
<p>…and since the economy was better under Clinton than under Reagan, and instead of propping the economy up with money borrowed from our children, we actually paid down some of Reagan’s IOU’s during the 90’s, Clinton must have practically walked on water. (And God blesses America more for me than for you! So there!)</p>
<p>Rats, UCLAri, you posted before me – and made the point better.</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>Keep in mind that while deficit spending is the bane of Democrats everywhere, it is also one of the greatest factors in keeping the US economic engine churning. But, like most other things, moderation is key. Too much, and you threaten to destabilize the dollar and bring the whole thing down. Too little, and you get the same thing.</p>
<p>The problem that I have with the Republicans today isn’t that they engage in the evil bugaboo of deficit spending, but that they’re far less “fiscally responsible” than they claim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks. :)</p>
<p>JFK cut the various tax rates in the 60’s because he recognized that it would increase revenue to the federal trough. President Bush recognized the same thing. It worked. Be happy. </p>
<p>Your desire to have the federal government take more dollars away from us has worked. More dollars are in the hands of your friends in the governmental bureaucracy. Life is good for all of you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JFK realized that there was far too much taxation of the highest quartile, to the point that the motivation to work and generate GDP was diminished (as the marginal returns were low.)</p>
<p>At current taxation rates, it’s questionable whether or not increasing taxes will lead to such a demotivation. I’m not saying that I’m jumping up and down in joy for increased taxes (for any quartile), but you have to recognize that the tax cuts of JFK and Bush were very different circumstances.</p>
<p>The tax rates after JFK’s cut were signifcantly higher than they were before GWB’s tax cuts. It’s another one of those pesky “logic” things like correlation and causation which interfere with the whole “ignorance is bliss” approach to life.</p>
<p>JFK cut tax rates… tax revenue increased. President Bush cut tax rates… revenue increased. Put whatever spin on it that you want. Tax rats were cut and revenue increased. End of story.</p>
<p>browninfall,</p>
<p>You don’t look at the fact that revenue increased per se, but the MARGINAL increase in revenue.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the increases in revenue have actually slowed the 90s, which saw a 3.5% average yearly revenue growth rate. I think that the past year was around 2.9% or so. This is with similar GDP growth rates, as well.</p>
<p>So again, the point isn’t to say that “revenue grew.” It’s to ask, “how much did it grow on the margin?”</p>
<p>I took the time to go and check. Federal government tax revenue didn’t increase after the Bush tax cuts - it fell. Fiscal year 2003 had the lowest tax revenues since 1997. FY 2004 was lower than 1998. FY 2005 was below 2000 and just above 1999. Considering that our population has grown, and the global economy has grown, I’d say that government revenue per capita has fallen significantly under the influence of the Bush tax cuts - particularly when the economic advances of the rest of the world are considered. <a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf[/url]”>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf</a></p>
<p>Oh yeah - in the 90’s we also did it without propping up the economy by selling out our kids.</p>
<p>It will take generations to undo the fiscal damage that this administration has caused to our country. Our grandchildren will still be paying the price.</p>
<p>And the emotional damage to our country? Not so easy to repair. There is a big wound on our national psyche, not to mention our national reputation, thanks completely to GWB and his cronies.</p>
<p>
The “emotional damage” to your psyche is as self-inflicted as it is self-absorbed. Have you seen the trailer for the new documentary “Young Americans” by wounded Marine Pat Dollard? It’s making the Internet rounds, and you can find it if you Google. He has a message for you and yours, too raw to provide a direct link here, though. Easy link at HughHewitt.com</p>
<p>Well, there are some pretty good arguments that Bush has been a less-than-stellar executive as far as IR goes, diminishing our goodwill abroad and all that. </p>
<p>I tend to believe that a lot of his actions (the war on Iraq, Afghanistan) would have been undertaken eventually; he and his administration just bungled the execution, along with Blair and Labour. </p>
<p>As far as domestic policy goes, blame Congress if you choose to assign any blame. They passed the bills, Bush just didn’t veto them.</p>
<p>Complicity all around; you’re right about that UCLAri.</p>
<p>And as much as my personal aversion to the Bush administration makes me wont to attack them mercilessly, I don’t see their foibles as worse than many things that past presidents have done. I just think that they’re far less capable at PR than past administrations have been. Clinton committed perjury, and thereby broke his solemn oath as POTUS-- Yet, he came out on top in the end, beloved by all but his most rabid opponents. </p>
<p>That’s PR, baby. That’s what this administration somehow seemed to overlook. As TR said, “Walk softly, but carry a big stick.” The Bush administration seems to believe instead that they should “Walk loudly, banging cans filled with loud little bits of metal, and whap everything with a telephone pole.” Even if their policies abroad were at many points necessary, or ::GASP:: the right choice, their choice of words to frame those decisions were woefully poor at times.</p>
<p>PR, guys…</p>
<p>
but to be clear
One of these things is not like the other…one of these things just must be wrong
Good call.</p>
<p>.</p>