----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:21 PM Subject: Economic Performance of Presidents Re: Plus the NY Times Re: The Washington Post Editorial on Iraq
> At 11:32 PM 2/6/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: > >Fair enough. That cash out happened in 98 and 99. > > I must ask again. What model are you using to predict a "cash out" two > years after the capital gains tax cut takes effect? > > >> This model, however provides no scenario in which capital gains revenues > >> spike two years after the cuts. > > > >I found better numbers later. And yes, I accidentally included '92, which > >I shouldn't have. But, you claimed that the difference in capital gains > >was the whole difference in the 500 billion dollar swing between 2000 and > >2003. > > Actually, my initial claim was that "Clinton did not produce a surplus > because of his expert balance of spending and taxation, rather he had a lot > of help from a stock market bubble." Afterwards, I suggested that I would > bet (but did not affirm) that Bush would not have a deficit had he had the > same capital gains revenues as Clinton. Obviously, I was wrong in that > assessment, and wartime spending now plays a larger role than decreased > capital gains revenues and an economic recession combined in producing the > current deficit. > > By the way, I don't have the numbers handy, but I read today that Clinton & > C0., with his, quote, "expert balance of spending", incrased discretionary > spending at 9% a year during the 90's. Bush, on the other hand, is > keeping increases in discrtionary much less than that (the 2003 figure is > still being negotiated, but it looks to be around 4%.) > > >nd he wants a > >tax cut for his rich friends? > > I thought you wanted to be taken seriously in this discussion? Obviously > not. Sure, I expect to be taken seriously. Let me state it simply. I don't believe that the only thing that seperates poor middle class and rich people is the fact that poor people are real lazy, the middle class is pretty darned lazy, and the rich work hard. I believe the natural tendency of our market economy is to concnetrate wealth in very few hands. I think it is worth using taxes to counter that. What's your belief? > > Given that even _The Economist_ (which opposed the first-round of Bush tax > cuts), as well as several of my liberal friends, support eliminating the > double-taxation of dividends - its crass partisanship to call this a "tax > cut for Bush's rich friends." OK, its a tax cut for the rich, even those who are not friends of Bush. What fraction of the tax cut will benefit people in the bottom 90% of income? In the bottom 90% of wealth? > Perhaps we should talk about pardons for ones' friends instead if you'd > prefer partisanship? > Especially those who were in a position to name names concerning the selling arms to an axis of evil nation in direct violation of US law, just a few years after they held Americans hostage? :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
