posted
Apparently I suffer from a mental defect that the current Administration find, annoying.
I have a memory.
And I have a tendancy to use it.
Four years ago, when President Bush was just Govenor Bush, he told the world that he wanted big tax cuts.
And he wanted it done then because the enconomy was booming. A booming economy gave us a tax surplus. The Government doesn't need the extra money, so when the economy is booming is the time to cut taxes.
Then, as the election neared, it became obvious that the economy was taking a down turn.
And soon to be President Bush argued NOW is the time to give big tax cuts. Tax cuts will help spur investment and keep the economy from going into a recession.
After the election, the economy began to waiver. In 2001 the internet bubble burst and Wallstreet was rocked with giant corporate scandals, and 9/11 didn't help the economy as it slipped into a full recession.
And President Bush argued NOW is the time to give big tax cuts. Stop the recession. Recovery can only be brought on by big tax cuts.
Now, the economy is recovering. Especially according to President Bush's own statements, the recession is all but over. And yet, today, he continues to push for his tax cuts to be made permanent. More, he wants to add new ones to them. Why?
Because NOW is the time to give big tax cuts. Encourage the recovery, spike investment.
So, according to my memory, you should give tax cuts when the economy is good, and when the economy is bad, and when the economy starts to turn bad and when the economy starts to turn good.
When don't you give Tax cuts?
When isn't NOW the time?
I guess Robesepierre is right, that the only real economic plan that succeeds is to cut taxes to nothing.
Of course, Robespierre also suggests cutting Government spending to almost nothing. Apparently that part of the plan hasn't made it to the Presidential agenda, yet.
There is a lot of talk about President Bush's honesty and trustworthyness. Yet its tactics like this, when used on projects that he puts so much of his reputation on, that makes me not want to trust him or see him as honest.
If he continues to change the reasons why he supports things, how can he really expect people with any memory to believe him?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a 'categorical pledge' were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April. . .
For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. Parsons swallowed it easily, with the stupidity of an animal. The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it fanatically, passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grammes. Syme, too-in some more complex way, involving doublethink, Syme swallowed it. Was he, then, alone in the possession of a memory?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Annie
