[Cacophonous]

complete and total drivel, BUT the case for making the cuts permanent.....

I'm puzzled by this reaction; is it because the author's opinion does not march lockstep with that of President Bush? Even though he makes the case for a permanent tax cut, it's drivel?

Why must support for the President be of the complete and total sycphant variety? Why can't a fella say to the President (like Mr. Adkins is doing): "Mr. President, heaven knows I love a tax cut as much as the next guy, and God bless you for working to get one for us. But maybe you haven't entirely thought this through (I know you've a lot on your mind). Or maybe your advisors - also very busy people - haven't completely gone through this. For sustained economic growth, the American people need the assured stability of a permanent tax cut. The one-time shot in the arm is nice, but short-sighted."

Or would this be "complete and total drivel" as well?

And, as Mr. Adkins wrote, we haven't even discussed the spending yet.

[DB]

It could work another way, especially for the capital gains tax reduction. Since people think the reduction could be short term there could be huge movements of capital assets to take advantage of the lower rates while they last. Those massive movements could both stimulate growth by unlocking capital assets to new uses while at the same time providing the government large tax receipts due to the large overall movement.

It alone could be a sharp kick in the pants for the US economy.

While many of the points of the article correct the analysis of the overall affect I think is much harder to judge.

[DB]

Sorry... Stick "are" between "article are correct"...

[KeyWest]

Total drivel because he has his facts wrong right up front. The taxes sunset by 2007 and if made permanent, come out to over 760B in ten years, and that is just a guess by most. It could be over 1 trillion. Plus, just look at what has happened since the cut. Everything started moving up the day it was passed and not one penny of the tax cuts are in people's hands.

Perception is everything. If you think you will have more, you have more.

[ilgipper]

His argument fails because it is not divided evenly over 10 years, as he shows in his example. It has a much larger immediate impact. Additionally, I do not believe spending behavior is based on people looking 3-7 years down the road; most spending decisions are made on what's in the bank account now. More money in the account, more spending.

[BenLurkin]

Granted we should cut spending. Heck, we should eliminate some entire Federal Departments and Agencies.

In the meantime let's get our money back. Let's cut off the blood flow to the cancer of big government.