DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**DYjLN8rF** · 03-17-2006, 06:16 PM

According to an article from ABC News, "The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States." Now that's one helluva sobering thought. Yeah, and one helluva proof that the mass media is either biased or stupid. As written, that's false. With a little explanation, the misstatement is easily explained, but in the meantime, the sheeple are left with a ten-fold magnification of a reason to dislike Bush. The 30K figure applies to the 9 tril, not the increase.

Granted, 30K debt per capita is not a good thing, and W has violated his oath of office in the process of getting it there, but he's had plenty of willing accomplices in both ruling parties over the years for things to get that far.

It's a cliche to talk about Democrats as "tax and spend", but "tax and spend" is far better than "tax cut and spend"... A cliche perhaps, but that doesn't make "tax and spend" inaccurate or any less bad. And the worst word of either phrase is "spend", so in a perverted twist of logic, "tax cut and spend" really is better, because it hastens the bankruptcy that it will apparently take to bring the general public to their senses as far as cutting back that ruinous spending.

Unfortunately, 'supply-side' theory doesn't actually work. It depends on what you mean by 'work'. Tax cuts do help stimulate the economy, generally making everyone better off. But claims that W's tax cuts would be 'self-paying' in short order due to the enormous economic boost they would entail and the taxes on that activity, yes, those claims were B.S. from day one. That only happens when the pre-cut tax rates are extremely high, which was not the case.

03-17-2006, 06:16 PM	#5
DYjLN8rF Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 448 Senior Member	According to an article from ABC News, "The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States." Now that's one helluva sobering thought. Yeah, and one helluva proof that the mass media is either biased or stupid. As written, that's false. With a little explanation, the misstatement is easily explained, but in the meantime, the sheeple are left with a ten-fold magnification of a reason to dislike Bush. The 30K figure applies to the 9 tril, not the increase. Granted, 30K debt per capita is not a good thing, and W has violated his oath of office in the process of getting it there, but he's had plenty of willing accomplices in both ruling parties over the years for things to get that far. It's a cliche to talk about Democrats as "tax and spend", but "tax and spend" is far better than "tax cut and spend"... A cliche perhaps, but that doesn't make "tax and spend" inaccurate or any less bad. And the worst word of either phrase is "spend", so in a perverted twist of logic, "tax cut and spend" really is better, because it hastens the bankruptcy that it will apparently take to bring the general public to their senses as far as cutting back that ruinous spending. Unfortunately, 'supply-side' theory doesn't actually work. It depends on what you mean by 'work'. Tax cuts do help stimulate the economy, generally making everyone better off. But claims that W's tax cuts would be 'self-paying' in short order due to the enormous economic boost they would entail and the taxes on that activity, yes, those claims were B.S. from day one. That only happens when the pre-cut tax rates are extremely high, which was not the case.
	Quote