[BlackGriffen]

In a practice done once by his father, once by Clinton, and many times by corporate scum like Ken Lay, Bush Jr. has raided the federal employee pension fund in order to cover for the fact that hes spending money like a drunken sailor in a brothel. What makes Bush Jr. stand out from Clinton and Bush the first is that he has done it every year. He promises to give it back, of course, but that would require fiscal discipline...

If he had that, he wouldn't need to raid the fund in the first place.

Link to an article that discusses this.

I guess Bush Jr. just can't let "Kenny boy" outdo him in terms of fiscal failures and malfeasance.

BlackGriffen

[MacGorilla]

He's doing that because congress won't raise the debt ceiling under after the election.

[Mrjinglesusa]

From that article:

"According to the Treasury Department, Bush has had his Treasury secretary dip into the G-Fund every year for the past three years as government spending wildly exceeded revenues.

During this same period, Bush has pushed through a series of tax cuts while pursuing ambitious domestic and foreign-policy agendas, including two wars and an overhaul of the Medicare system.

"I don't know how seriously we can take Bush's attitude toward fiscal responsibility," said Alan Auerbach, an economist at UC Berkeley. "He has very little credibility on this issue."

It's hypocritical for Bush to chastise Kerry for his spending agenda. This President is the most fiscally irresponsible person I have ever seen and he's doing it with YOUR money. Republicans blame the deficit on the war with Iraq. So, do you think wartime is a GOOD time to decrease taxes? Fiscally irresponsible. Bush has done NOTHING good for this economy. Period. Time for a change and this is proof.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
From that article:

"According to the Treasury Department, Bush has had his Treasury secretary dip into the G-Fund every year for the past three years as government spending wildly exceeded revenues.

During this same period, Bush has pushed through a series of tax cuts while pursuing ambitious domestic and foreign-policy agendas, including two wars and an overhaul of the Medicare system.

"I don't know how seriously we can take Bush's attitude toward fiscal responsibility," said Alan Auerbach, an economist at UC Berkeley. "He has very little credibility on this issue."

It's hypocritical for Bush to chastise Kerry for his spending agenda. This President is the most fiscally irresponsible person I have ever seen and he's doing it with YOUR money. Republicans blame the deficit on the war with Iraq. So, do you think wartime is a GOOD time to decrease taxes? Fiscally irresponsible. Bush has done NOTHING good for this economy. Period. Time for a change and this is proof.

Since it doesn't look like it's going to change, and Bush will likely be reelected according to elecoralvote.com and similar polls, how does this make you feel? Also, do you think tax cuts stimulate the economy?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Since it doesn't look like it's going to change, and Bush will likely be reelected according to elecoralvote.com and similar polls, how does this make you feel? Also, do you think tax cuts stimulate the economy?

Nope, they only help the top 1% of people!! The rich pay too little despite the fact the top 20% pay 80% of the taxes.

Bing!

I suppose anyone who owns a business is corporate scum.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Nope, they only help the top 1% of people!! The rich pay too little despite the fact the top 20% pay 80% of the taxes.

Bing!

I suppose anyone who owns a business is corporate scum.

Of course, of course. We all know that they are teh scum. Damn them, employing people for financial gain! Those bastards!!1!

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Of course, of course. We all know that they are teh scum. Damn them, employing people for financial gain! Those bastards!!1!

Yeah. I mean, they don't make their own money! They oppress the proletariat with their bourgeois mentality! Let's make anyone over, say, $60,000 pay 90% of the taxes. Then it'll be equal.

And what's worse, we got an oil puppet and an operative of big ketchup trying to get into the White House! You know the ketchup conspirators are behind all this.

Where were we?

[Anders]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Also, do you think tax cuts stimulate the economy?

Yes it does. Keynes hasn´t lived in vain. Only when you think that the more you pour out the better it gets it will be fatale Just like it was for several european countries lead by socialist-democrats in the 70s and early 80s. A prescription based on lots of borrowed money didn´t work! Controlled Keynes can save an economy, but the key word is controlled. Read up on how it was managed from the early 90s in Denmark with tax cuts mainly for the low and middle class.

Supply side economy, Trickle down economy or simply "Voodoo Economics" otoh doesn´t work. One simple question. If you, as a rich person or a buisness owner suddenly got hold of a lot of money, how would you spend it?

-On consumption?
-On expanding your (domestic) buisness?
-Invest it where you got most bangs for the bucks?

Consumption would stimulate the economy, because consumption is more bound the the domestic economy. But I think economists agree that the richer the person the less of the extra cash will be used on pure consumption. If direct consumption was the goal then the tax cuts would more wisely be given to the lower incomes. But thats nor the goal of SUPPLY side economics (in contrast to keynes or semi keynes policies)

Domestic vs non domestic investments: Investment money is more free floating than consumption money. Simple economic theory ("everything being equal") tells you that it will be invested where the profits are highest. So the risk of that money not being invested in US is highly likely especially if those who would use their money on consumption doesn´t have more money on their hands. Of course if almost all tax breaks was used for domestic investments the the synergy effect would also give the poorer some money in their hands because they would be hired by those investing (the trickle down effect) but the would necessitate the coordination we don´t like in China.