STEPHEN MOORE: The president needs new tax-cutters

The Financial Times ^ | December 9, 2002 | Stephen Moore

[MadIvan]

I have even a better idea - President Bush should ditch the income tax altogether. Still, a good article.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[goldstategop]

Excellent! Here's to hoping G.W makes good on this advice next year.

[constable tom]

I concur on all three legs of this proposal. Now is the time to signal a more aggressive approach to stimulating the US economy. Ideally, it would be nice if this was accompanied by a real attempt to shrink the size of the federal government and reduce the tax burden accordingly, but that may not be politically attainable (not a strong enough majority in either house to overcome Democratic objections).

[Demidog]

This president wants a more aggressive economic stimulus plan to revive the 4 per cent economic growth of the 1980s and 1990s and, just as important, to bring the bulls back to Wall Street.

He's aggressively stimulating the economy alright. He's practicing the FDR method by increasing government spending at dizzying levels. FDR learned that his tactics weren't working and that War was the only fix for the economy.

[MadIvan]

He's aggressively stimulating the economy alright. He's practicing the FDR method by increasing government spending at dizzying levels. FDR learned that his tactics weren't working and that War was the only fix for the economy.

I warned you. Now are you going to answer the question if you believe that the possession of child pornography should be illegal?

From your posts yesterday we can only assume that you believe the possession of such pornography should be legalised. In which case, you are an amoral sack of filth whom everyone should shun.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

ping!

[Demidog]

Do you respect JR? Taking an argument from one thread and dragging it all through the forum is something he's said is against the rules here. I've said all I'm going to say to you about the other matter as it is quite clear you are not interested in the answer.

[MadIvan]

Do you respect JR? Taking an argument from one thread and dragging it all through the forum is something he's said is against the rules here. I've said all I'm going to say to you about the other matter as it is quite clear you are not interested in the answer.

If Jim Rob wants to ban me out of defending you, fine. Jim, if you're reading this, if you think this Demidog weasel is correct, go right ahead, pull the trigger on me.

But I will keep on you about this because I can no more keep silent about your presence here than I could keep silent about a Communist showing up. If that is a sincere belief on your part, that the possession of child pornography should be legalised, then I am going to hit you with it every single time you rear your head, because it is disgusting, amoral and should not go unremarked. You should be forced to confront your amorality each and every time you spout off, which is all the live long day.

Ivan

[Happygal]

Why won't you answer Ivan's question?
Seems pretty clear to me. You either think child pornography should be legal, or you think it should be illegal.

Quite a simple one to answer I would imagine.

[Demidog]

Why won't you answer Ivan's question?

Because I've already answered it. He's lying if he claims otherwise. Perhaps he'll be so kind as to direct you to the thread himself.

[Happygal]

Well in the absence to him doing that.
Why don't you answer it for me, and then we can all move on.
Do you support the possession of child pornography. Yes or no?

[MadIvan]

Because I've already answered it. He's lying if he claims otherwise. Perhaps he'll be so kind as to direct you to the thread himself

She's already seen the thread you weasel. You didn't answer anything - you did not want to answer the following question:

Do you believe that the possession of child pornography should be illegal? YES or NO?

You tried to slime your way out of it and did not succeed.

Ivan

[Demidog]

I don't want you banned. That's not the point. The point is, dragging arguments from one thread into another is a bogus tactic and Jim has made it clear he doesn't approve. If I can't appeal to your sense of decency perhaps I can appeal to your respect for Jim's wishes. If that fails then your character is apparent.

xJones, who started this nonsense (when it was clear you guys had no substantial arguments for the topic at hand) should direct you to the threads in question here on FR. I only keep my original work on my FR profile page. If he's got the links I wouldn't mind looking at them again myself.

Otherwise, talk about the article you posted and argue with me about that. I'm not turning this into another dogpile in spite of your ludicrous "warnings."

[Demidog]

She's already seen the thread you weasel.

So this is a calculated plan. How quaint. Do you guys send each other suggested responses by freepmail too? LOL....pathetic.

[ECM]

"I have even a better idea - President Bush should ditch the income tax altogether..."

In our wildest dreams--but this is a step in the right direction.

[Moonman62]

Mr Bush will soon have an economic team that understands both the politics and economics of growth.

Stephen Moore obviously wrote this before the choice for Treasury Secretary was leaked. Peeeeyyyeewwwwww.

[EternalVigilance]

I have even a better idea - President Bush should ditch the income tax altogether

Amen! That deserves a big BUMP---as does this article!

[MadIvan]

I don't want you banned. That's not the point. The point is, dragging arguments from one thread into another is a bogus tactic and Jim has made it clear he doesn't approve. If I can't appeal to your sense of decency perhaps I can appeal to your respect for Jim's wishes. If that fails then your character is apparent.

MY sense of decency? MY character? I'm not the one who supports the legalisation of the possession of child pornography. You have absolutely no right to lecture to me on either morality or decency, when you support such a thing.

If you want to avoid fighting with me, don't talk to me - you indicated you sheer boredom with doing so yesterday because I refused to let you off the hook. And you still have not answered yes or no to the question.

If Jim Rob wants to keep you here that's his affair, not something I shall comment on, nor feel qualified to comment on. However I regard it as a very low tactic on your part, indicative of your low character, to try and intimidate me by invoking him, something which I have not done to you.

I have no desire to talk to someone who I regard as beyond the pale. I would be happy to debate the whole Keynesian issue with someone else, but you are morally offensive. It was bad enough you attempted a smear on Ronald Reagan, the fact that you can't issue a straight answer on the possession of child pornography, and now trying to threaten me with words about Jim Rob means you are utter scum.

As I say, if you want to avoid a fight, don't talk to me. I have nothing to say to you except my utter contempt and scorn.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

So this is a calculated plan. How quaint. Do you guys send each other suggested responses by freepmail too? LOL....pathetic.

As I am sure Happygal will swiftly correct you, she has quite a powerful mind of her own.

Getting an Irishwoman angry is a very bad idea, very bad.

Ivan