Screaming Penguin

Well, I am not interested in our previous flame stuff either. I think you have useful things to say and I appreciate the opposite viewpoint being expressed here. I would like to thank you for that (and for the record, you should post stories with your viewpoints too, you dont have to just respond to me, login and post an article, anyone can, and then this site would have more views, which is what its about).

All that aside, I just dont think what we are getting is ENOUGH money to stimulate anything. I dont think businesses will start releasing capital spending until there is demand for their goods or services, and I dont think this cut will do it.

I DO think its a turn in the right direction, lower taxes, but without curing the mismanagement of services the government offers and making them more efficient lowering the revenue they have will just increase the deficit.

I WILL JUST QUOTE WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS TAX CUT, HE ALSO SAID IT WOULD NOT WORK

"As a result, Bush lowered his sights to $550 billion and traveled widely to sell it. In Ohio, he said senators supported $350 billion 'might have some explaining to do' because the 'little bitty tax relief package' wouldn't be enough to spur economic growth."

Taken from ABC NEWS - http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030529_65.html

So the President may now be playing politics and saying how great this cut is, because thats his job, but even HE DOESNT BELEIVE IT WILL HELP.

both are ridiculous agreed. i took an increase of 66% in the tax rates across the board to mean, current rates plus another 66% on top of that. i understand your calculations and you may be correct, i dont know.

either way its ludicrous and obviously it would never happen. so spending is going to have to GREATLY decrease AND management is going to have to get MUCH MORE EFFICIENT. (also things that will likely never happen, so who knows what WILL happen?)

I think your scenario will work in a simple form of 'village' economics, however our economy is so globally complicated now and so driven by wall street that I am not sure the custs will have the impact we want. If you're considering building a plant to increase capacity you are looking at a lot more factors than some of your customers getting a $400 check, espcially if you know 2 years from now that extra money will be gone. I personally think a lot of the confidence in the economy during the 90's came from that big push to eliminate deficit spending - if you feel your government is in control and making smart decsions you are more likely to take capital risks (like building a new plant). It's uncertainty that really kills economic growth. Just look at the price of oil, as soon as the risk factor came down so did the price. I really would like someone to explain to me why the Republicans (the anti-big govt. people right?) are not making a big push for bringing spending under control. I have a theory - both parties are exactly the same and they are both afraid of appearing extremist - so what you end up with is Democrats that are more fiscally conservative (because they don't want to be percieved as big spenders) and Republicans who are big spenders (because they don't want to be perceived as cold hearted)

Back to the inital post, I think you can take these statistics with a grain of sand - as soon as there is real growth that 66% number will shrink drastically.

I remember thinking a few year ago when all those projections called for us running a surplus and debt free in so many years that it was probably bogus, but it didn't stop congress from spending lots of it...