I'll tell you who I don't want managing my money: people who actually lend credence to "supply-side" economics.

Not to mention, how are the Bush tax cuts working to create jobs? We're in our third round of tax cuts, and we still can't create enough jobs to keep pace with new workers entering the workforce.

By any measure, any job-creation policy that doesn't create 150,000 new jobs a month is a failure. In this case, the Bush administration made promises of far greater job growth.

That doesn't mean the tax cuts don't have any merits; they just didn't fulfill their stated goal of creating jobs. Instead of boosting job creation, the tax cuts were used to boost productivity.

You have got three choices in the event of an economic downturn, and you tell me the preferable one.
1) You can cut taxes, put money in the consumer's hands and try to boost the economy.
2) You can tax the crap out of "da-rich", also known as the ones who build factories, employ workers, have an entrepreneurial spirit to create something, and force them to hide their money in their matresses until a better day.
3) do nothing

You don't cut taxes today and expect tomorrow to be rosy. In fact if you look at it realistically, Reagan's tax cuts gave Clinton his booming economy, and Clinton's tax increase gave Bush his recession.

It will be two years minimum before the full effect of Bush's tax cuts will be felt.

Actually, the '91-'92 recession, and Bush I's decision to raise taxes to prevent a ridiculous deficit, gave us the booming Clinton years.

Also, a revenue reduction without spending cuts isn't really a tax cut---it's a tax shift---and it leads to problems down the road.

Deficits aren't bad until they are carried long-term. Eventually, they lead to interest rate hikes to provide incentive to nervous foreign investors.

Interest rate hikes lead to less domestic business investment, which leads to less job growth, which leads to calls for another tax cut to spur job growth, which leads to... you get the picture.

The idea that tax cuts can pay for themselves by spurring enough economic growth relies upon too many simplified assumptions. In other words: "Voodoo economics."

When I get back from lunch, we can discuss why we have more than 3 options to deal with economic downturns.

Greenspan's history has been to use interest rate levels to curb inflation. As employment and salaries went up, he hiked interest rates to curb spending. As the economy cools, interest rates are lowered to spur borrowing and subsequent spending.

I await your response about how a tax increase by Bush I creates a business boom. If that is the case, then tax everyone 95% and watch business boom. Bush raising taxes didn't do a thing, because the Democrat controlled Congress did not curb spending, so there was nothing gained.

When the Republicans gained control of the Congress during the Clinton administration they tried to slow the rate of growth in the school program from 12% to 6%. They were demonized all through the press for cutting the school programs. Only in Dem-speak does a 6% increase equal a cut.