ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] QUOTE: On April 24, 2003, President Bush traveled to Timken
] Company’s Canton plant to promote his tax plan. In a speech to
] workers, he promised that the tax cut plan “means more money
] for investments, more money for growth and more money for
] jobs.”
]
] Numerous studies have refuted that claim, showing that while
] the President's tax cuts rewarded wealthy Americans with tens
] of thousands of dollars in tax windfalls, the rest of America
] actually received relatively little. The average Bush tax cut
] for the wealthiest one percent of Americans is $938,000,
] reports Citizens for Tax Justice.

Reads like slight of hand to me. "Studies" (You needed a study for this?) which show that wealthy Americans received larger tax cuts (in raw dollars, not percentagewise) in no way refute a claim that the tax cut plan "means more money for X, Y, or Z."

The questions are, have the tax cuts translated into growth, and has the growth translated into jobs? I'd honestly like to see a study that addresses that question instead of constantly having different theories about fiscal policy being thrown around as matters of faith rather then of fact.

My intuitive feeling is that economic growth has occured because we're reaching the end of inventory surplusses which existed at the time of the crash, and the investment environment has become less uncertain. And, no this hasn't translated into jobs.

But I'd much rather be operating on research rather then intuition.

Decius wrote:
] ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] ] QUOTE: On April 24, 2003, President Bush traveled to Timken
] ] Company’s Canton plant to promote his tax plan. In a speech
] to
] ] workers, he promised that the tax cut plan “means more money
]
] ] for investments, more money for growth and more money for
] ] jobs.”
] ]
] ] Numerous studies have refuted that claim, showing that while
]
] ] the President's tax cuts rewarded wealthy Americans with
] tens
] ] of thousands of dollars in tax windfalls, the rest of
] America
] ] actually received relatively little. The average Bush tax
] cut
] ] for the wealthiest one percent of Americans is $938,000,
] ] reports Citizens for Tax Justice.
]
] Reads like slight of hand to me. "Studies" (You needed a study
] for this?) which show that wealthy Americans received larger
] tax cuts (in raw dollars, not percentagewise) in no way refute
] a claim that the tax cut plan "means more money for X, Y, or
] Z."
]
] The questions are, have the tax cuts translated into growth,
] and has the growth translated into jobs? I'd honestly like to
] see a study that addresses that question instead of constantly
] having different theories about fiscal policy being thrown
] around as matters of faith rather then of fact.
]
] My intuitive feeling is that economic growth has occured
] because we're reaching the end of inventory surplusses which
] existed at the time of the crash, and the investment
] environment has become less uncertain. And, no this hasn't
] translated into jobs.
]
] But I'd much rather be operating on research rather then
] intuition.

Ryan: Fiscal policy is THEORY and thus truly is FAITH. There are at least three major accepted models of fiscal and monetary policy. All three accepted models are at odds with one another. You should ask my friend (t at the supernicety dot com) about it sometime.

Regardless, the hard and humorous facts for purposes of this story are these: Bush spoke there about jobs and his tax policy. His taxs policy has not driven job growth-- we are at a negative in necessary job growth each month (350k jobs needed each month to replace the ones lost plus population growth). The place where he spoke had a $#||load worth of jobs lost. Oh yeah, and Bush's friends have the highest executive to normal worker pay ratio in the world.