If the primary intent of the adjustments is to "set a sprat to catch a
Whale" then why are we stupid Democrats trying to make it an equitable
re-distribution of the welth.  Despite my being a poor black
registered Democrat, I can see clearly that it is either just being
plain venal, or stupid to try to steer the money to where the most
votes are, rather than where it will engender the most jobs.  I became
a Democrat because of JFK, who was wise enough to impliment a cross
the board tax cut, because he understood that a sustained recovery,
required not only those who would buy bread, but also those who would
hire people to make the bread. JFK resisted the temptation to use the
tax cut to buy votes, and instead put the country first, not the
party.
The idiots who keep saying that we can't afford to cut tax when we
have a deficit, can't understand the principle of the lesser of two
evils?  It is not if one can afford to cut tax, instead it is if one
can afford not to.

I have encountered stupid people like my fellow Democrats who advise
me to raise my prices when my business is loosing money.  I did not
realize that that kind of stupidity is rampant even amoung our
leaders.  Maybe it is not stupidity but venality.  My mantra reads:
"there is no such thing as politics, there is either stupidity or
venality"

By the way, although I am a poor Democrat, I am a "toughlover", and
such I call to your attention that JFK, Reagan and now GWB, was more
leanient than Jeasus in his parable of the Ten Talents, wherin the
talents were taken from those who did poorly and given to those who
did well... I think JFK was the last wise and honest Democrat.
Remember GWB is not primarily trying to correct the tax code, he is
trying to fix the economy.

---

Clarification of Question by toughlover-ga on 12 Jan 2003 13:47 PST

In my phrase, "there is no such thing as politics", I ment to say:
there is no such thing as "playing politics" which is just a euphemism
for dishonesty.

If we Democrats obstruct the president's recovery plan with the claim
that it will not work, is this playing politics, or is it downright
dishonest?  How could we say that we are objecting to the recovery
plan to protect the country from economic disaster, when we also
obstructed the HomeLand Security Bill which is to protect us from
external distruction?

Conclusion: we Democrats, obstruct, to protect votes not the country. 
Who could be so unconscionable as to believe that we would not be
elated to see the GOP make a mess of the economy so that we can fix it
in the next democratic administration.  What color is the Emperor's
Clothes?

Not sure if you are trolling or serious.  But this is a serious
comment.

The democratic idea (as opposed to political motivation) behind
opposition to republican economic approaches such as giving large tax
cuts to the wealthiest portion of the population to help the economy
is this:  The economy is demand driven not supply driven.  More
relevantly, there is too little demand stimulus in the economy right
now.  In order to get the economy moving, putting more money in the
hands of people who will spend it is more effective therefore than
putting in those who create capital investment.

In addition, by definition, the wealthy are completely capable of
investing now or at any time if they feel it is appropriate.  It is
appropriate when there is demand.

Republican economic theory, also known as supply side, was made
popular by Ronald Reagan.  It was the justification for the drastic
changes in the tax structure made in the early '80s.  Unfortunately,
it was rather clearly discredited.  Interestingly, President Clinton's
policies which reversed the trend of ever increasing budget deficits
increased the wealth of the country's wealthiest by an astounding
amount.  The reason, in large part is two-fold.  First, by improving
the lot of the lower and middle classes demand was stimulated for
products and thus business investment was rewarded.  Second, by
decreasing the borrowing of the Federal Government pressure on the
capital markets was lessened, causing real interest rates to fall.
(Real interest rates are the difference between stated rates and the
rate of inflation.)  Low real interest rates enable business
investment much more than does an upper bracket tax cut.

In early 2000, the Fed is believed to have upset the situation due to
an incorrect belief that inflation was starting to become a potential
threat to the economy.  This may have precipitated the shakeup in the
internet tech area.  In any event, it probably worsened a correction
that was due to come.  The Fed realized their error and began lowering
rates.

President Bush's election, and the controversy that ensued, caused a
great deal of uncertainty.  Following this was the tragedy of
9/11/2001, the debacle with Enron and the Bush Doctrine - we do what
we want, got a problem with that? - all creating a greatly reduced
demand across the board.

At the moment, interest rates are literally as low as they can go. 
The democratic position is based on the softness on the demand side. 
In order to get the economy back, and jobs created, demand much be
spurred.  The secondary position is that once the economy rebounds, as
it eventually will, the huge reversal of the deficit policy we are not
pursuing will hold the economy back and limit our next expansion.

It is also important to note that the Democratic party is known as an
advocate of the working class.  When the economy slows, and jobs are
lost, it is the middle and lower working class that is hurt the most. 
For this reason it is the  pain and suffering aspect that gets the
most play - we need to help those that are hurting.  While this is a
logical playing to their constituents, it clouds the solid economic
reasons for doing so.  Consumers drive the economy.  Helping consumers
stimulates it.

As a final note, look at foreign economies that are in trouble.  For
the most part what they have in common is limited economic demand and
overwhelming national debt.  There is usually plenty of wealthy
individuals, there is however little investment internal to these
countries.  It is the unmatched consumer demand of this country that
has built our economy.  The fact that we have the world's greatest
economy by itself would argue that taxing dividends or having an
estate tax is not hurting us too badly.

Just one person's thoughts...

Great response Count LeoJ,

I know what you are doing, but I just could not find a word to
describe it.  Then the dictionary came to my rescue.  The word is
sophistry.  However I would ascribe a god-natured label until I
experience your true stripes.

I was impressed by your elequence and knowledge of economics, but
again I had to consult my word bank to judiciously qualify your
presentment.  The word that seem to fit is, verisimilitude.  That is
becaues your utterances are not entirely incorrect.

Let us re-visit the question for the crux of my contention: to
stimulate or to re-distribute.  Even if "we" are convinced that the
GOP's approach won't work, we Democrats should leave them alone to
"their own distruction".

Your demand-driven argument supports the re-distribution side of my
question.  But forced re-distribution is not democratic, it seems to
be communism.  I see that communism works for a while, because its
short term boost encourages the benificisary-masses to vote for that
Political Party.

As we also observe, the Communist System fails eventually because
incentive is moved from the producers to the consumers.  From the man
who turned his ten talents into a thousand, to the man who ate all his
ten talents.

As a Toughlover, I acknowledge that we Democrats tend to give a man a
fish, while the GOP tend to try to teach that man how to fish.

I observe that it is incongruous for we Democrats to try to obstruct
the GOP from "making their own mistakes" (which if true would be
heaven for us) on the grounds that we are sticking up for the
well-being of the nation, when we also obstructed the Home-Land Bill? 
There can be no question, of the urgency, which was ignored despite
the fact that job-rights is useless if our new president become Ben
Laden, while we haggle over workers rights.

Ok, let's examine your angle.  If I read you correctly, you are
saying, If we could set the ulterior motive aside, "there are merits
to them there Shrils"?  Ok, being a Toughlover, I must try to see it
from your angle.  The issue is, supply and demand.  I agree with you
that demand often precede supply, however, wisdom holds that if we
give supply a push then wait for the reaction, to then equalize the
demand, we end up with the see-saw (sine-wave) effect.  This results
in price rise and inflation while the supply is trying to catch up to
the demand.

You should recognize that supply/demand can be a catch 22 also. 
Sometimes supply has to precede demand.  As we have seen, Cell Phones
were litterally supplied for free to get people aquainted with the
security virtues of the device.  Infact the desk telephone was not
demanded while Ma Bell kept it in short supply, but as soon as all the
competitors over-supplied it, everybody then demanded one in every
room.

The above, suggest that the wise man would stimulate both the supply
and demand together (give one man a fish & teach another how to fish).
 This latter approach allows the producers to use their incentive to
over-produce existing products or produce new ones.  Either way this
is less likely to engender price rise and inflation.

Come on LeoJ, hit me again, I am still wiggling.  As barry Faber would
say.

Where are you LeoJ? I promise that if you convince me against my will,
I will not be of the same opinion still.  Only fools loose arguments
without gaining the winner's views.  You know the saying "one did not
loose a son, one gains a daughter-in-law"?  Or did I achieve
confutation?