8/1     Regarding stimulating the economy, how about creating new
        infrastructures like super highways, subways, dams, and other
        things that we have not been building since the 30s and 40s?
        It will create a LOT of job opportunities for the poor. I mean,
        this whole tax cut thing does nothing for people who are laid off,
        and the only people really benefiting from it are the people who
        already have a lot of money or people who have stable jobs.
        \_ why work so hard when we'll get it for free soon enuf
        \_ And who's going  pay for this? local gov't? According to
           Davis we're broke. Anyway, the public works programs of the 30's
           have been largely discredited by economists as failed social
           experiments. Dams, btw, cause major ecological disasters for
           people living downstream. Also, remember that there's a long
                        \_ and upstream
           term cost to junk like subways and highways. If they're not
           maintained they break down, and it only makes sense to build
           this if there's a need for it.
                \_ Germany dithered for years about building the Transrapid
                   (look it up) citing ecological damage, economic necessity,
                   (their train system is in chaos compared to 10 years ago),
                   labor problems, bla bla bla.  The Chinese, meanwhile, told
                   Siemens to go ahead and just do it, and now have a working
                   super-high-speed rail corridor near Shanghai.  In the 1930s,
                   before people knew the damage dams did, FDR went ahead and
                   blew wads of cash on big prestigious projects, giving the US
                   a massive boost in electrification, as well as a ton of jobs
                   that helped kick-start the economy, critics be damned.  Now
                   for 10 points, what's the lesson here?  -John
           \_ Which economists? Milton Friedman maybe. Many (most?) economists
              disagree with your statement.
        \_ bush does not care about the poor or what's really good for
           the economy. fuck the republicans. All they want is $$$ for
           themselves. They don't give a fuck about people who gets laid
           off or otherwise have no money. Short of a revolt, there's nothing
           to be done. wait for the next election.
           \_ I think you should step forward and kill him to save us all.
              Afterwards I'm sure everyone will understand when they have jobs
              and stuff from the policies you implement such as...?
              \_ building infrustrature, pump $$$ into the economy (instead
                 of tax cuts, wars), there are a billion things to do.
              \_ How about tax cuts for the middle class?
              \_ remember how shitty the economy was when Clinton took over?
                 guess you are too young to remember those times. There ARE
                 things to be done. It's just Bush has his own agenda and is
                 not doing any of it. Rich people don't give a shit. Actually
                 rich people does not like booming economy because it makes
                 them less 'rich' compare to the rest of the people.
                        \_ Clinton inherited 2 quarters of 4% GDP growth,
                           lest we make up facts.  The first act of his
                           presidency was to RETROACTIVELY raise taxes.
                           This depressed economic for quite some time, to
                           the point his 1996 reelection was in doubt.
                           Don't let the facts get in the way of your
                           beliefs.
                 \_ I actually think you are right. "Old money" gets annoyed
                    when there are too many new millionaires sniffing around.
                 \_ Clinton didn't actually do anything.  It was all cyclical,
                    with some perception mixed in.  -John
        \_ here's an idea, instead of giving the poor people a break (e.g.
           creating jobs for them), how about substantial tax raise for the
           rich? I mean, 90% of US is owned by 5% of the US population
           anyways. Oh wait, they also control (via lobby, SIG, etc) our
           politicians. Nevermind.
        \_ You are amazingly stupid.  The rich who get more $$ in their cut do
           what with the money?  Put it in mattresses?  No, moron.  They invest
           it, create business opportunities, etc.  That creates jobs, without
           corrupt Gov't middle-men (re: The Big Dig).
           \_ All those Coach handbags, Cartier watches and Tiffany Diamonds
              don't really do much for the economy. I am not convinced
              "the rich" are any wiser investors than bad ole' gubment.
              \_ Ah yes, because no one is employed manufacturing, shipping, or
                 selling those things, right?  Enough with the class warfare.
                 \_ Amazing how tax cuts for the rich are called "returning the
                    people their money" while tax cuts for the middle class
                    are called "class warfare." You can tell when the other
                    side has no facts to back up their position. They have
                    no other choice but to turn to ad hominem attacks.
                    \_ Hello Mr. Pot.  Meet Mr. Kettle.  I didn't call tax cus
                       for the middle class class warfare.  The claim that rich
                       people spend all their money on luxuries is class
                       warfare.  How you can have a tax cut for the middle class
                       that does not benefit the rich more?
                       \_ Cutting payroll taxes for instance, since income
                          above $78k is not taxed. The claim that luxuries
                          do not stimulate the economy is not class warfare,
                          simply an observation that you do not have any
                          reply to except to charge "class warfare."
                          \_ you're a few years behind, dude.  Try 87k,
                             and that is because Social Security pays
                             based on how much you put in.  Hence, a max.