Quote:
Originally posted by Griff
... The absence of a tax, until fairly recently, wouldn't be considered a subsidy. This kind of thinking assumes that a persons production or in this case property, belongs to the state, which to my over-simplifying, emotional mind  is the equivelent of servitude to the state. I will cheer a Republican when he cuts taxes, any taxes. I won't be pleased with or support the GOP until more of them behave like Rep. Ron Paul and start seriously trying to reduce spending. ...
|
Appreciate what Gilmore was selling as a tax cut - the spin not consistent with reality. He did not cut taxes across the board while cutting spending. He cut taxes selectively - declaring he was making it easier for the poor to buy a car but; but subsidizing the rich - the more expensive the car, then the higher the "tax cut". Furthermore he "tax cut" by stealing from the VA retirement funds. IOW he was really only increasing spending. What kind of tax cut is that?
The only 'tax cut' that is an effective economic boost is one that also cuts spending where the spending does not contribute to economic growth. Ask a politican to define what is and is not economically viable? He will first consult his political contributors.
In a parallel case - when we talk about genetics - what are we talking about? In Europe, it is a poltical discussion abot GM. In America, it might be about the Human Genone Project. But more interestingly, is a shortage of knowledge on the subject - especially on cloning and real genetic research.
Anyone remember Reagan - the man who himself cannot remember that he stifled stem cell research that could have prevented his current brain disease. That research has been forced into limited laboratories in Norway, etc because Reagan was too religious - too political and too uninformed - to permit innovative research.
What does this have to do with tax cuts? Those same Reaganite politicans that have all this 'religious' opinions on genetics - and on tax cuts - but know nothing about genetics or economics. Thank goodness that Greenspan exists. Those silly politicans FEEL that a 'selective' tax cut will solve economic problems - regardless of whether economic problems even exist. These same FEELings then go in search of reasons to justify their FEELings. Political laws about genetics and about tax cuts are both based upon ignorance - and who pays for their campaign costs - the truth be damned.
When was the last time that a politican noted that recessions are created by a shortage of innovative products? Ahhh - but that would mean a politican cannot 'fix' the economy. So instead they lie about the virtues of tax cuts.
We have long since learned that politicans can only screw up the economy or leave it status quo. Their first priority should be to stop weakening the economy - to pay off the debts. Those unpaid debts do more to undermine the economy than anything else - except politicans.
Tax cuts do not solve economic problems - and that is based repeatedly in history - dispite the hypothetical reasoning to the contrary that also is not supported by history.
One would have to be a 'bought and paid for' politican (or simply unintelligent) to promote tax cuts to stimulate the economy - an economy that has plenty of stimulous from Greenspan. But then Bush has yet to display intelligence or a grasp of political or economic problems. Hopefully this will change in the next two years when he starts addressing his job rather than repaying political debts.
Who set new records for campaign contributions without matching government funds? The most 'bought and paid for' president we every had - who is curiously promoting silly tax cuts in the tradition of VA's Gilmore - the current Republican party chairman.