I have said time and time again Bush's decisions as they pertained to the budget were stupid, i have never supported them, and i think they were flat out wrong. Now that we have your only argument out of the way lets hear the argument, for raising taxes amidst a recession.
Not stupid, just the product of a right wing mental defect... Only a mental defect would explain cutting taxes and starting two expensive wars... ...and don't give me that lie about trickle down. The tax cuts didn't pull us out of the recession in 2001, the fake housing market and people refinancing pulled us of the recession. The tax cuts didn't translate into new jobs in the business sector...never have more jobs been exported out of America than during the mentally defective right wing's reign of 2001 to 2009 under Bush... Fugging mentally defective klannish...that's why the klannish should not be allowed to breed with each other...it just propagates the mentally defective gene pool...
I agreed with you originally, no need to argue a point which i am not making. Now why dont you create an argument for raising taxes on corporations amidst a terrible recession.
I guess stories like these are just lies huh? You libtards are fucking retarded, you think that you can keep bringing up the fact that bush was an idiot as though it saves the fact that Obama is crippling the economy. Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone. In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees." Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines. The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program. "We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year." Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation. A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed. Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage. "Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said. http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html
Still awaiting Gabfly and all the economics books he has read, to explain away the current situation in Canada.
Perhaps you'd like to participate in a poll I conducted about supply side, trickle-down "economics" under my previous user name: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...83&perpage=6&highlight=galbraith&pagenumber=1 In a nutshell, Galbraith said it best: "After feeding oats to the horses, one should not gaze too closely at what trickles down to the sparrows."
Poll results: Supply-side economics is a legitimate economic theory 54.00% Supply-side "economics" is nothing more than an excuse to enrich the already entitled. 46.00%