Subject:
|
Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:30:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
<snip>
> Of course the original point was the only way for the Government to help the
> economy is to cut taxes. Anything else is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
> Unless of course they go into deficit spending. Even the previous "study" you
> cited stated that they did not take into account state and local tax rates,
> which really invalidates any conclusions they could make.
>
> -Mike Petrucelli
K, I don't follow American issues *that* closely, but didn't Bush sr. talk about
"VooDoo Economics", and wasn't the basis of "VooDoo economics" tax cuts for the
rich, such that the 'resultant monetary surplus' in the wealthy would instigate
'more jobs' and as such, be better for the 'common Joe', i.e. "Trickle Down"
economics? And wasn't that shown to not work? Didn't the percentage of people
holding the wealth of the US go from a moderately small number of people to an
extremely small number of people--i.e. didn't the richest just get richer and
left the extra large majority of the poor working sods in the same boat or
poorer? Haven't some economic theorists hypothesised that there will be no
'middle class' in the near future, you'll either be poor or very wealthy?
Anyway, nothing has changed since Bush sr. lambasted VooDoo economics (and still
implemented it right afterwards, iirc), and jr. is doing exactly the same thing.
And it's still VooDoo and only a moron would try something that's been proven
wrong. Hey, go stick a fork in an electrical outlet, George, I hear it's good
for ya!
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
