|
Amaros -> RE: Economics for Estring (9/22/2006 10:31:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Estring
Wow, a thread devoted to me! Wonderful.
I don't share kedicat's dour assessment of the state of the US economy. Last I checked, it was doing pretty well.
I still am amazed at the opposition to tax cuts. That money is our money. The tax cuts just mean we get to keep more of what we earn. And on one of the threads I gave information on the percentage of taxes that are paid by the richest here in the US. Why shouldn't those who pay the most in taxes benefit the most from a tax cut? Makes sense to me.
And the question of why Kennedy's endorsement of tax cuts were right, yet Bush's endorsement is wrong is a good one. The answer is, they are both right. Bush inherited an economy that was in a recession. Add to that the happenings of 9/11, and you have a sick economy. The tax cuts were exactly what you do to jumpstart a sluggish economy. Why is that so hard to understand? Especially when it works?
Now if Bush would quit spending like a Democrat on steroids, we could really be on to something.
So, you didn't read any of that or what? The economy wasn't in recession, when Bush "inherited" it, it was on a roll in fact - consumer spending barely hiccuped when the tech bubble popped, housing markets remained strong, demand for durable goods, etc., even the labor market recoverd rapidly - growth was such that thre was enough demand to absorb pretty much everybody who had been laid off - because the labor market had been streched so tight previously - hell, half of high school seniors were employed full time, there was nobody left to fill jobs just before the bubble burst.
How long you need to recover from a popped bubble, 4 year? 8 Years? Quit yer whining, the lack of backbone evident in this constant crying about liberals is nauseating, it's hard to watch supposedly full grown men act like two year olds - stand up and take some responsibility for chrissakes.
Go back and read my previous posts, then ask your question.
|
|
|
|
