Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

8/1/01 - "Dems argue Bush's tax cut will sow seeds for return of Gov red ink."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 01:02 AM
Original message
8/1/01 - "Dems argue Bush's tax cut will sow seeds for return of Gov red ink."
Edited on Wed Jul-20-11 01:03 AM by Clio the Leo
Found a very interesting article tonight (this morning?) that knocks a big hole in theory that Bush's tax cut would not have harmed the economy if 9/11 had never happened.

The problem? The Gov. was ALREADY having to borrow money to pay for Bush's tax rebates by AUGUST of 2001.

This is a scan of an article from the time so cant copy/paste it here, but it's def worth a read...

"US to Borrow Billions to Cover Tax Refund Checks."

..... we tried to warn them! (share with your friends!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. He was put in office to get that tax cut, start some wars & screw up
social security. 2 out of 3 ain't too bad for a nitwit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree.
They did not steal the election with good intentions in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes, but he sure tried with that traveling snake oil act with the fancy-dancy banners.
And, after they lost top billing status, it dawned on them to use the angry nutbags collectively as a stand-in for the medicine show. The teabaggers were born. And here we are, with Michele Bachman running for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. yeah, but since when is being correct politically useful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Of course.
The entire budget projections were based on crappy projections and, had they been printed on toilet paper with non-smudge ink might have been useful as toilet paper.

Many still find them useful for some purposes, mostly by assuming they're were good as gold.

The tax cuts made the same assumption: That they were good. The (D) had to assume the projections were good at times and bad at others. The reason they were bad is that they projected another 10 years with no recession, even though the leading indicators had already strongly suggested recession and, well, we'd already had a record post-WWII run of growth with no recession.

It made for some ticklish argumentation. (R), who argued the projections were crappy, had to say they were good after all when it came to justifying tax cuts. (D), who argued the projections were great, had to say, "Not so fast, maybe they're not." The veritable gushing geysers of hypocrisy were stupendous to behold.

In any event, the recession talked about from 8/00 or before hit in 2/01. Then we had tax cuts (with more rounds of tax cuts later). And then a tax rebate, which was "stimulus" for the recession.

This, of course, leads to the same kind of ticklish argumentation as before. Stimulus is good and great, except when it isn't. $800 billion with $125 billion in tax cuts is a good thing. But 10 years ago a smaller stimulus was a horrible thing. Some of the excuses were that instead of tax cuts sent out it should have been in smaller amounts; or instead of giving money to people the government should have given money to different people; or just paid for and hired additional people. Whatever. We've heard the arguments over and over, including in 2/08 before *that* small-yet-budget-busting stimulus package. You pick your economic theory and you get what you set out to get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 30th 2014, 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC