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.

RE: Campaign Money Watch