Replies

What are you talking about?

Your going to say with a straight face (and against almost all economist) that 45 Billion dollars has no effect on the economy?

And that is just the $300.00 checks. Then we have $400.00 per kid (I got $1,200.00 of my money back, I know those that got $1,600.00) and the Tax cuts.

We have had rebates and cuts, both effecting the economy, with more to come.

You are so concerned with covering for Arnold you have sold out Reaganomics.

Dude! Get your soul back, it aint worth it.

No, I am saying its insane to hold the inane belief that "ALL TAX CUTS AT ALL TIMES ARE GOOD SOLID ECONOMIC POLICY!" Those $300 checks in what 2001 or whatever did not stimulate job creation or economic growth... you don't have to be an economist to know 2001 and 2002 were largely dumpers for job creation and business expansion in the United States. If you think they were.. better look again at the numbers.

I have not sold out "reganomics" In fact I pointed out succinctly that there is a large difference between reducing marginal tax rates and just cutting refund checks... a point you clearly seem to have missed. Portraying all tax reductions as the same as marginal tax rates reductions is nonsense.

One time checks do nothing to spur investment, or expansion. No company is going to go open new factories or hire new employees based on a one time check bounce.. it would be unwise and foolish for them to, knowing full well they will likely need to lay them off next month. Sorry if you can't see the larger picture, that's not my problem. I could cut a check for 10k to every tax payer in america, and I would not "CREATE" a sustained economic boom, at best a temporary spending expansion that would contract right back like before after that $$ was gone... and that is not sound long term growth policy.

There a hundreds of different types of taxes on thousands of things and they all are not "marginal tax rates" that enact them.

I don't know why I am wasting my time, it is blindingly obvious you just can't seem to accept that not all taxes or tax policies are covered by some theory based and hinged on one type of tax.

But getting back to the real topic of the thread which was your repeated allegations that Buffet is a socialist and unable to do the job he has been tapped for... you still haven't offered one iota of proof of this allegation other than political dogma, which sorry is not fact.