Is this a wise amendment?

[Joe]

Leave it the Hell alone. The economy is a chaotic system, and all the economic prognosticating by all the Nobel prize-winning economists won't change that.

Why leave it alone; cutting taxes is the only really effective tool the federal government (not the federal reserve) has to give some boost to the economy.

So the people who lost their retirement funds and jobs should blame the recession and not dirty accounting practices by Enron?

They should be blaming Enron, obviously. That doesn't change the fact that this recession wasn't caused by corporate mistrust; if anything, it was caused by trusting corporate financial statements too much. These dirty accounting practices were going on all throughout the Clinton years, and although people had called into question the insanity of Worldcom and Enron's books, no one gave a damn.

Enron was running a fucking PE ratio of 500 to 1 at one point. That kind of number would have never been trusted 10 years ago, before irrational exuberance (as we now call it) hit.

First outlaw any and all lobbying, then we can talk about cutting spending. Hell, cutting the War on Drugs alone might even do it.

Disallow competing factions to have a voice in the government? James Madison would be smiling.

And no, cutting the war on drugs alone wouldn't do it. If I'm not mistaken, the federal government spends only about 20 billion a year on the drug war, hardly the kind of number we're looking for.

But will the effect give the government more money than if it had simply left the tax rates alone? That's the gamble, and people who gamble to pay their debts don't usually come out on top.

Hard to say. In any case these are some seriously small tax cuts we're talking about here, and George Bush probably won't even get the number he wants. I doubt the effect on the budget will be very great, provided we at least limit the growth of spending, since we won't outright cut it.

[Durandal]

Why leave it alone; cutting taxes is the only really effective tool the federal government (not the federal reserve) has to give some boost to the economy.

Because it's not guaranteed that the money lost from cutting taxes will be regained in the ensuing economic boost. Again, people in debt shouldn't gamble.

They should be blaming Enron, obviously. That doesn't change the fact that this recession wasn't caused by corporate mistrust; if anything, it was caused by trusting corporate financial statements too much. These dirty accounting practices were going on all throughout the Clinton years, and although people had called into question the insanity of Worldcom and Enron's books, no one gave a damn.

The economy took a nose-dive in the wake of those scandals. While they may not have been sole causes, they most certainly did contribute to the economic downturn by putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

Disallow competing factions to have a voice in the government? James Madison would be smiling.

Then cutting spending is impractical and virtually impossible. Too many lobbies have too much influence in Congress for money-sucking federal programs to be cut.

And no, cutting the war on drugs alone wouldn't do it. If I'm not mistaken, the federal government spends only about 20 billion a year on the drug war, hardly the kind of number we're looking for.

It's not just the money spent; it's the taxable opportunity available. Tax the shit out of drugs and they'll still be cheaper than they are today. Then cut taxes.

Of course, the biggest black holes for money would be the bureaucracies. Good luck getting rid of those.

Hard to say. In any case these are some seriously small tax cuts we're talking about here, and George Bush probably won't even get the number he wants. I doubt the effect on the budget will be very great, provided we at least limit the growth of spending, since we won't outright cut it.

They're small tax cuts for most people except for the upper class. The people in the upper class didn't get there by spending hoards of money. It sounds bad, but to stimulate the economy, you need to give tax cuts to people with poor financial sense, who will run off and spend it.

[Joe]

Because it's not guaranteed that the money lost from cutting taxes will be regained in the ensuing economic boost. Again, people in debt shouldn't gamble.

A tax cut for anyone, rich or poor, is going to be beneficial in some way. Taxes impose a deadweight loss on the economy without exception, and anytime you cut taxes, you're removing some of that deadweight loss.

The economy took a nose-dive in the wake of those scandals. While they may not have been sole causes, they most certainly did contribute to the economic downturn by putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

True, but it was bound to happen after the bust, and it certainly wasn't Bush's fault. It still isn't the chief cause of the recession.

Then cutting spending is impractical and virtually impossible. Too many lobbies have too much influence in Congress for money-sucking federal programs to be cut.

Sure it is. Deregulate and depoliticize the respective industries of the lobby groups in question and they'll have no reason to have a financial stake in our elected officials.

As for pork barrel spending, well, all the campaign finance reform in the world isn't going to end that. Politicians will still try to get themselves re-elected through pork; the only solution is for the voters to stop voting for politicians who do exactly what they were elected to do in the first place.

It's not just the money spent; it's the taxable opportunity available. Tax the shit out of drugs and they'll still be cheaper than they are today. Then cut taxes.

Doubtful; excise taxes don't generate a great deal of revenue for the federal government.

They're small tax cuts for most people except for the upper class. The people in the upper class didn't get there by spending hoards of money. It sounds bad, but to stimulate the economy, you need to give tax cuts to people with poor financial sense, who will run off and spend it.

The upper class are the ones who pay the bulk of the taxes, and they're the ones with the means to create jobs and wealth, as much as people hate and despise them.

As I said, the net effect on the economy of a tax cut is always going to be beneficial. And we're only talking about roughly 55 billion dollars a year here, anyway. As long as the government limits the growth of spending, the deficit shouldn't grow too much because of the tax cuts. It will grow for many other reasons entirely.

[Ignorant twit]

Because it's not guaranteed that the money lost from cutting taxes will be regained in the ensuing economic boost. Again, people in debt shouldn't gamble.

It is just as big a gamble that not cutting taxes will drag out the down turn longer and lead to lower revenues. Historically every permanent tax cut I recall has lead to an upswing in government revenue. Thus far the odds on that gamble look very appetizing to me.

They're small tax cuts for most people except for the upper class. The people in the upper class didn't get there by spending hoards of money. It sounds bad, but to stimulate the economy, you need to give tax cuts to people with poor financial sense, who will run off and spend it.

The size of the tax cut is irrelevant unless it is so small you can lose it in the couch cushions. Let's say everybody gets 100 bucks back. They can either buy something additional to their normal spending habits with that 100 bucks, pay outstanding bills, or save it.

They buy something more ... great more demand hence it becomes more profitable to do business ... hire more workers.

They pay off bills, either they were going to pay off the bill eventually ... and thus at some later point in time they now have cash to buy something additional or cash to save.

Saving it. That 100 bucks goes into the bank. The bank pools it with the 100 bucks from a few million other people. The bank now has more funds to loan out so people can do more to create new jobs.

The only reason we hear about the tax cut the rich receive is because the tax system already is top heavy. The money will still have the same effect. Eventually it either gets spent, or it gets saved.