Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
This is how biased you are, you don't even see the other side of the argument. You are looking at % in terms of total dollars, rather than reductions to the marginal rates being paid.
|
So, do you really think that, in his stump speech, the "benefits" of his tax plan to which Bush II was referring were the reduction in marginal rates paid -- of which you allege "most" does indeed " go to those at the bottom" -- rather than the actual reduction in taxes paid?
Have you ever heard an administration official make this argument? I never have heard it, I'm not sure that I understnd what you mean, and would not have conceived of it -- so it is not an issue of bias. DO you have any basis for believing that id what Bush actually meant? Or, are you just defending what appears to be a flatly false statement by just making shit up?
It makes no sense to say that the President was telling the truth bcause he was using words in a way that no normal person would understand them.
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
So if we grow 5% in one quarter, followed by 4.9% and 4.8% in subsequent quarters, we are in a recession? You better check your sources. Negative growth means a contraction, which just so happens to be a synonym for recession.
|
Club -- I try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but it seems to me that you are being unusually stupid on this point. What you have just said is in no way related to what I said. I said that a recession is defined as two quarters of negative growth, or "contraction". Your example is of three quarters of positive, though slightly slowing, growth. So, what's your point? Has there been some new revision to the GDP figures thqt I missed, which would showthat there was never actually a recession in 2001? Last I recall, the right was using as Bush's defense the figures showing that the economy was "already in a recession"by March, 2001.
S_A_M
