Replies

The GOP has supported the EITC before with the notion that it keeps people just off welfare from giving up and returning to welfare. When you consider payroll taxes (EITC doesn't cover 100% of payroll tax liability) and state sales taxes, these voters do have tax burdens. This tax cut is just an extension of this.

In fact, it's the most unexplainable thing in politics that poor states like the Dakotas and the South support Republicans ("the party of the rich" as we're called) for president while places like New York-- which sends more tax dollars away than they get back than any other state-- votes Democrat (as do other high income-- and high-income tax states).

Bush has used Keynesian arguments plenty of times for his tax cuts. The last time rebates were sent out in 2001, only 20% were actually spent on consumption because the low income people who would actually spend all of their checks, didn't get those rebate checks. If Bush believes Keynes' notion that consumption can give a short-term stimulus to the economy, then he should give money to lower income voters.

Consumer-spending stimulus is not what we need. In my view, it's really more the >tone< of Delay's comments than their substance which is truly objectionable.

The stimulus we need is business/industrial investment stimulus, the kind that creates jobs. We need more manufacturing, more high value services, more durable goods, more high value IT, more dark fiber lit. The accelerated depreciation schedules in the tax cut bill were a decent start.

Bush has used Keynesian arguments plenty of times for his tax cuts.

To be honest with you, I never liked this idea of his using some of Keynes saying or arguments, especially since Bush does nor follow not believe in Keynesian economics. He is more or less from the Henry Hazlet/Milton Friedman school, which Adam Smith would be the founder of.

Keynesian economics is simply a glossier more advanced version of marxism without alot of the mumbo jumbo, but concept wise, hits the same socialism points.