Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
Remember the centerpiece of Clinton's economic plan? It was his deficit reduction program. Well, it was an incredible success as the graph above shows. Republicans of course screamed at the time that his taxes were going to destroy the U.S. economy. Did it happen? Nope.
Nevertheless, the first thing that Bush did in 2000 was to cut taxes to improve the economy. What happened? We started to slide into a recession. Then Bush wanted to cut taxes to prevent a recession. What happened? We entered a recession. Then he wanted to cut taxes to bring us out of a recession. What happened? The recession got worse.
When is the U.S. media going to stop their knee jerk assumption that cutting taxes is good for the economy, and increasing them is bad? Wasn't the postwar period, when the marginal top rate was the highest in history, a period of tremendous economic growth?
/snip
Scott McClellan says that Bush is going to attack the deficit by "promoting economic growth." Presumably that means by cutting taxes.
|
Fox News aside, since when has the "U.S. Media" had the assumption that tax cuts are good for the economy?
anyways....
1) Well, we already now about the second paragraph being devoid of factual information, so we won't beat that horse any more.
2) Postwar periods are usually good for an economy (at least in the case of the U.S.). Marginal rates had nothing to do with it.
3) Per the graph: The graph poses an extremely flawed argument in that the true comparison must be made in relationship to GDP. If you look at a chart that uses this type of comparison it paints an entirely different picture--but that wouldn't help your argument now would it?
4) Economic growth is measured in the rate of change for per-capita GDP. I see you want to make a point about economic growth, but I don't see any information to back that up. Have you even looked up the statistics for measured economic growth in the U.S.?
5) Bush is proposing that spending be increased by no more than 1%. Maybe he is starting to get a clue in that area. Your presumptions aren't, once again, based on anything factual.
What has happened around here?
I go away for a little while, come back to read a few posts, and see stuff like this.
How can you start a debate when the majority of your original post is proven to be utter B.S.? And this isn't the only one. I just looked at another thread where the original starting argument was completely made up.
yikes, and this is a worthwhile topic for discussion