Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

apocalypse dude · 05-29-2002 03:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ErnieMcCracken:
And I'd feel much better if you didn't reproduce and spread your "armchair quarterback" politics on others!

If you want to address these issues we can:
--Inexplicably Large tax cut at inopportune moment
What made them inexplicable and inopportune? He was trying to spark the economy while still giving a few bucks back to the tax payers. I know I spent mine to help the economy did you? Yes.. your refill for Viagra does count.
<hr /></blockquote>Way too large of a tax cut. Downturns in the economy are to be expected. Especially after an 8 year expansion. A small tax cut to spark the economy is a good idea. A tax cut which is too large endangers programs which Americans have learned to rely on(social security, etc) is not. If the tax cut is large enough to cause large deficits, what you may end up with is increased long term interest rates..which will ultimately create a drag on the economy. Bad fiscal policy could also convince foreign investors to pull $$ out of the us, squashing growth. I also would have liked the tax to be less regressive. More would have gotten spent that way. We are looking at deficits, as predicted by many in congress. BTW: Mine went into my Money Market account.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
-Protectionist Steel tarriffs(while telling the rest of the world to open their markets no less!)
I agree this was a bit ballsy, so you're not going to get too much of a debate from me regarding it. But if this is the worst he does.. I'm very content.
<hr /></blockquote>Thumbing his nose at the rest of the world, while asking for help in the war on terrorism and to open their markets. Makes America look pretty arrogant.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
-Inexplicably large farm subsidies
Again, what are your parameters for determining that the subsidies were "inexplicable".
<hr /></blockquote>Basically we set aside $170 billion dollars to pay agriculture companies to grow more crops when the market tells them to grow less crops. This creates artificial price stabilization. This has a similar effect on foreign farms as tarrifs do. Their product costs more to make because they are not getting subsidized. Canada was particularily upset about this.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
-Failure to show any confidence in American economy for fear that recession becomes "his"
Again, what is your basis for this accusation? BTW... the recession was well underway during the whole "Who Won Florida" debacle.
<hr /></blockquote>This one is less concrete. Its been my experience that bush talks down the economy. He seems afraid that he will get blamed for a downturn that is not his.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
-Completely unopen to the idea of opening markets to cuba(little help for bro here)
Are you privy to all the info regarding Cuba and what they've done positive and negative? Of course you're not. If you're going to base your belief that he should be more receptive to the idea of increased relations with Cuba on Pres. Carter's speech, then you are more naive than I thought. What did you expect Carter to say when he went to Cuba, and for that matter, gave his speech FROM Cuba!?! It was a show on both ends. Yes I'm sure something positive did come from it, and it will probably turn out to be a positive step in the grand scheme of the negotiations.<hr /></blockquote>While I agree that nobody will ever confuse Castro with Grandma Moses, I think that the embargo is just hurting the cuban people at this point. The embargo was created because Cuba was a threat to our national security during the cold war. This quite simply is no longer the case. Our embargo may also be illegal on the basis that it is against WTO bylaws to block trade w/ another nation unless they are a threat to national security.

Edited to correct some grammar.

[ May 29, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: apocalypse dude ]

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Hmmmmmmmmmm, gotta find a different dead horse.......
Author	Message