Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On 25 Aug 2004 12:29:52 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
For
similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
increases while not providing spending stimulation.

I don't know about you, Nate, but I cashed that check and spent it.
Sounds pretty much like it provided at least some "spending
stimulation". I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in that regard either.

Yes, I agree that the child tax credit refund checks were stimulative.
No question. But let's put this in context: the child tax credits
benefited about 26 million tax filers with an average check of $615.
Total cost was $16 billion. Taxpayers earning over $1M (0.1percent of
households, or 184,000 beneficiaries) received at total of $17billion
in cuts, an average check of $93,500. This comes from
http://www.cbpp.org/7-31-03tax.htm ... which I admit is left-leaning.
However, a similar report by the President's own supposedly neutral
Congressional Budget Office shows that the tax burden is
preferentially benefiting the very wealthy, and the relative tax
burden is shifting to the middle class:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news...on_taxes.reut/

Philosophy aside on whether or not the middle class or the rich
deserve a bigger cut, it's still worth noting that all of these cuts
are coming directly out of the national debt. These are a tax cut
fully borrowed against the debt, and most of it does go to the
wealthy.

Yeah, the economy
may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.

I do too, and I don't see what you're seeing.

Glad you are prospering. Many others are not. Neutral statistics
clearly show that this recovery is tepid at best.