Just an economics note. Edward Prescott, recent winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics thinks the Bush tax cuts were too small. According to a Fox Report (they show his interview on the website in their report so please relax already with the conspiracy theories), Prescott says that Regan's tax cut was far better and worked better; it decreased taxes yet gathered the same revenue (because of an increased GDP I believe). He claims further that the '93 tax increase by Clinton 'depressed' the economy. Here's a nice quote:
"The tax rates are too high, they discourage labor supply. Countries with higher tax rates have lower output in employment."
Oh my gosh! De Ja Vu! :) Its like I've heard this before from every freaking Republican I've ever talked to in my freaking life. Except for that one that couldn't talk. :)
Now, it might be argued that not all Repulicans like tax cuts. Ahh...A deliciously logical and purposefully useless argument which I would like to address right now just in case! :)
To this I say, the solution is simple. Just vote for the ones that do. *wicked grin*
So, its like we've been saying all along. Turning the economy is like turning a battleship. Okay, okay, okay not everybody's been saying exactly that but I have and that's what's important. :) Tax cuts, even for the rich, help everybody.
I think I'm having an epiphany. It's.... almost like attributing the current success or failure of the economy to the current government is silly. The word might be foolish. Maybe..... stupid or ignorant. "blatantly unfair and politically convenient" would be a good phrase.
Well, some people will believe anything. No, wait, I take it back. Some people will believe anything as long as it goes along well with their opinion.
So, here again is ensis' grand dilemma. Is Kerry ignorant or is he purposefully misleading us?
Happy voting.
~ensis