Why is W caving to Dems and opposing cap gains tax cut and other needed tax cuts? (my title)

chicago sun-times via drudge ^ | Oct. 11, 01 | Bob Novak

[churchillbuff]

Didn't W learn from Reagan that cutting the top rates helps the economy - - - and didn't he learn from his father that caving to the Dems on taxes can kill a presidency?

[churchillbuff]

W had better be careful. If the economy's in the tank this time next year, the GOP could lose the House - - - and Dems in control of that body for the last two years of his term could mean NO SECOND TERM. A lot of them, I'm confident, would love to find an excuse for impeachment payback - - - trump up a "scandal" and hold high-profile hearings on the Bush administration. Maybe even an excuse for an impeachment resolution. All of this sounds far-fetched now, with W's 90 percent rating - - but remember his dad had a similar high mark, a year or so before losing re-election.

[dbbeebs]

If the economy's in the tank this time next year, the GOP could lose the House

That's the idea. The 'Rats will do anything to regain power.

[churchillbuff]

I agree that the Dems don't want the ecnomy to improve - - but the point of this thread is, WHY IS W PLAYING ALONG? WHY ISN'T HE STRONGLY PUSHING FOR MEANINGFUL TAX CUTS THAT COULD LIFT US OUT OF THE ECONOMIC DOLDRUMS? It's deja vu all over again - - - his father resisted aggressive action to cut taxes, even when a recession was lingering prior to the 1992 election.

[lowbridge]

House Democratic Whip David Bonior, running for governor of Michigan, pledged: ''We're going to fight like hell to make sure working people get their fair share.''

....of the government shaft.

[churchillbuff]

Compared to other threads this morning, this one doesn't seem to be generating much interest. Guess people don't want to criticize W right now - - - - and I understand that, I'm supportive of his anti-terror campaign too. But if he doesn't shown more support for REagan-like tax cuts, all this popularity he's enjoying could be as short-lived as his father's. Freepers aren't doing him any favor by averting their eyes from - and refraining from discussing - the fact he may not be on the right course, economically.

[dbbeebs]

Bush should be speaking out, but his economic adviser and treas sec. are jellyfish when it comes to growth.

[lowbridge]

As Abraham Lincoln once said (after Union troops kidnapped a Confederate Diplomat off of a British ship, then released him after protests by the British government): "One war at a time."

[gfs543]

If a president with a 90% approval-rating doesn't have the guts to fight for his tax-cut proposals, God help us.

[Cicero]

The ideal outcome from the Dem point of view is that they get to reward the folks who vote for them (and pay no taxes) at the same time that the economy tanks. Then they can blame the disaster on Bush and collect a bunch of congressional seats in 2002.

It's one thing to be civilized, decent, and cooperative with people who give you the same consideration in return. It's another thing to give in to people who are in the habit of always taking and never giving.

No. Bush should do the right thing and not worry too much about the Democrats. If his poll numbers drop, they will stab him in the back anyway, first chance they get.

[marajade]

No he won't. Everyone knows the economy is in the tank because of 9/11, no one will pay a political price.

[doc11355]

Everyone knows the economy is in the tank because of 9/11, no one will pay a political price.

With all due respect, this is nonsense. The liberal domination of the media, coupled with the propaganda machine of the Democrats in Congress, will GUARANTEE that prevailing public opinion will blame Bush and the Republicans for ANYTHING negative that happens to the economy prior to the upcoming election.

If you'll recall, Bush the Elder went down in flames over a minor, transient downturn in the economy that was corrected well before the election. Not only did the media refuse to report the improving economy, but they trumpeted Clinton's lie that it was "the worst economy in years". Enough people bought this propaganda that Bush was toast. It could happen again quite easily.

[marajade]

The drop in retail sales are directly related to the 9/11 incident.

[Mulder]

If these guys are serious about fighting a "war that has no end", then they need the economic base to do so.

The best way to achieve that is by cutting the capital gains tax, reducing corporate taxes, and speeding up the tax cuts passed earlier this year.

[Lizavetta]

''We're going to fight like hell to make sure working people get their fair share.''

Can someone explain to me why "working people" are entitled to their "fair share" of tax cuts and rich people, who evidently are NOT working people, are not entitled? Those in the $100K, $200K on up tax bracket are getting screwed in taxes.

[what's up]

Businesses are about to get a very large break with this bill which allows them to deduct all computers and such within the same year they are purchased. Previous to this and expense such as this had to be depreciated over time.

This will cause a large spending spree in the tech sector.

[churchillbuff]

"The drop in retail sales are directly related to the 9/11 incident."

Maybe so, but people who are out of work 12 months from now are not going to be friendly to incumbents - - ie, if the economy hasn't turned around, the GOP could lose the House. If Bush isn't thinking very hard about how to avoid that prospect - - primarily with real, signficant tax cuts for investors and other job-creators - - then he's cruising for a bruising during the last two years of what could be a one-term presidency.

[churchillbuff]

You know, in a sense it's comparatively easy to stand up to Bin Laden - he being such a central-casting villain who deserves everything coming to him. But there's a sense in which it will take more spine for W to stand up to Daschle and the Dems who are fighting against efforts to revive the economy. W MUST SHOW GUTS AT HOME AS WELL AS ABROAD, OR THIS RECESSION WILL LINGER - AND EVENTUALLY HAVE HIS NAME ON IT.

[jackbill]

I'm getting a bit disappointed with Novak. After seeing him diss the President on Crossfire the other night, I will take him with a grain of salt. While discussing limiting security briefings he agreed totally with Bill Press, that the President was wrong.

They both were under the mistaken impression that Bush was irritated about some Congresscritter telling the Wash. Post that there was a 100% chance of another attack. Neither Novak nor Press were aware that he was pi$$ed about something that the Post learned, and did not print.

As for capital gains rate changes, there may be two factors which lead the President to not push them.

1. How do you use them to immediately impact the economy? They wouldn't be effective in getting cash into the economy until April, 2002.

2. How much capital gain is out there? I know that I don't have much, if any, to speak of for my stock portfolio. I suspect that the economists have told the President that for now, capital gains are a dried up cow. The only people who could possibly gain would be owners of rental properties who would like to sell.

Did I not see (in a newspaper this morning) that the House has worked up a tax cut whick includes lowering the 27.5% bracket to 25% immediately?

Also, it removes capital gains taxes from corporations, which would free up investment money.

[marajade]

"Maybe so, but people who are out of work 12 months from now are not going to be friendly to incumbents..."

There's employment out there if people are willing to work. We still have 20% vacancy rates where I'm employed and are still recruiting.