[teal]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

It's not only tired, it's flat wrong. The tax cuts don't benefit the top 1%.

huh?! Wasn't the theme of this thread, "let's all be super precise in our language and make sure that we never ever say anything that isn't 100% technically true"???

If so, then please do provide some facts here Geo showing that the top 1% got NOTHING from the tax break. Because that is what you just said. Of course AK was saying a while earlier that "everyone" who had kids got $400 bucks, but of course no one in the top 1% could possibly have any kids. And I seem to remember something about a dividend tax cut. I'm sure that no one in the top 1% of income has any stocks to speak of and didn't benefit from this dividend tax cut.

I could of course be shooting off my mouth here. But I think not. In any case the statement "the tax cut's don't benefit the top 1%" seems to be blatantly false on its face. The top 1% got *something*.

And now for a complete about face... Actually I happen to agree with the statement "the tax cut don't benefit the top 1%". But only in the sense that the tax cuts were a terrible idea that hurt the country as a whole and thus no american benfited from them in the long run. I say this because running a defecit as massive as the tax cut entails I believe is not good for us at all and will come back to bite us in the ***, hard. I prefer my governments to be fiscally responsible and to actually cut spending when they cut taxes not increase it like the current fiscally irresponsible administration has done.

And about the $400 that AK keeps talking about. Yes, many people "benefit" from this tax cut by getting X>0 number of dollars immediately. But that is quite clearly loaned money. No spending cut accompanied this tax cut and the defecit is going to be increased because of it. That is borrowed money. SOMEONE is going to have to pay it back some day, either directly or in the form of a collapsing currency should the government default on its bonds. I bet if I went to AK's house and said, "here's $400 bucks now, don't worry about paying me back now, I'll come along at some future time (probably when you can least afford it), and demand the money back then" that he might have a slightly different view on whether I was "benefitting" him or not.

All this is arguable of course. A case can be made for running a defecit under certain conditions and even in the hypothetical visit AK may need that $400 bucks so much he is willing to take the risk. But I for one am going to be casting my vote in the next election for someonewho at least understands that cutting revenues should be accomanied by some plan for cutting spending. If a politician does not do so then they are a coward for trying to saddle some future leader with the consequences of their bad fiscal management.

[ September 17, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: teal ]