Another 15,000 Jobs Lost Via Panasonic

[Nevada_Ballin]

.... along with 27 plants worldwide. I understand the Senate GOP wanting a more direct, short term, job-building/tax cutting stimulus package but i think they need to pass what's on the table now with an asterisk on things they want to adjust later. The entire world is feeling the effects of our economic problems.

The GOP is getting too partisan and wasting time at a moment when we need something done now.

[SUPDOG]

.... along with 27 plants worldwide. I understand the Senate GOP wanting a more direct, short term, job-building/tax cutting stimulus package but i think they need to pass what's on the table now with an asterisk on things they want to adjust later. The entire world is feeling the effects of our economic problems.

The GOP is getting too partisan and wasting time at a moment when we need something done now.

Do you really believe that signing the bill as it is is a good thing? It is not a stimulus billl, it is a long-term big government bill. That is simply the reality.

The dems on the hill are using fear tactics to get the pork they want passed. I thought Obama was against pork. Wasn't that part of his campaign rhetoric? :confused:

As far as the asterisk comment, I strongly disagree. If you trust the democrat congress to "go back" and review the asterisks, you do not fully understand the socialist intentions of the current democrat-led congress.

Even 11 dems in the House wouldn't sign this economic killing cancer plan. You yourself even seem to be tentative about it with your asterisk comment.

To rush into socialism, simply because we are feeling the effects of democrat policies that have hurt our economy would be like going from the frying pan into the fire IMO.

Obama is a puppet for the dems and desires big government and wasteful spending. This is what I said all along.

[jerseyjay14]

I agree... bigger government isnt the awnser. if i wanted to live in a socialist country, id move to one

[Nevada_Ballin]

Do you really believe that signing the bill as it is is a good thing? It is not a stimulus billl, it is a long-term big government bill. That is simply the reality.

The dems on the hill are using fear tactics to get the pork they want passed. I thought Obama was against pork. Wasn't that part of his campaign rhetoric? :confused:

As far as the asterisk comment, I strongly disagree. If you trust the democrat congress to "go back" and review the asterisks, you do not fully understand the socialist intentions of the current democrat-led congress.

Even 11 dems in the House wouldn't sign this economic killing cancer plan. You yourself even seem to be tentative about it with your asterisk comment.

To rush into socialism, simply because we are feeling the effects of democrat policies that have hurt our economy would be like going from the frying pan into the fire IMO.

Obama is a puppet for the dems and desires big government and wasteful spending. This is what I said all along.

i believe that not doing anything is worse. The whole GOP tax cut policies for the last 6 years did nothing to prevent the situation we're in now. Following that road has proven not to be an answer.

As for becoming a socialist country, we signed up for that years ago by encouraging this global economy that's been jacking us over and following through with the patriot act.

[SUPDOG]

i believe that not doing anything is worse. The whole GOP tax cut policies for the last 6 years did nothing to prevent the situation we're in now. Following that road has proven not to be an answer.

As for becoming a socialist country, we signed up for that years ago by encouraging this global economy that's been jacking us over and following through with the patriot act.


YOu will never convince me that socialism is better than not doing anything.

If someone is on fire, we shouldn't try to put them out with gasoline because it is the only liquid available.

From what I have heard the "job generating" is based around roads and bridges. You can't do any sort of paving projects in the north with the weather conditions we are experiencing. Let us take some time and make sure that we are doing it right.

Obama and the dems are using the fear tactics that liberals critized Bush for when it came to the war on terror. The only difference is, is that the dems are truly using fear to get this disgusting marxist loving bill to pass. A bill that we would have to fund for years to come. Let us be smart as opposed to being impulsive.

I thought the GOP tax cuts generated a TON of revenue for the government, right? The problem was pork projects and big govt spending. There is a ton of responsibilty at the feet of democrat philosophy put into practice that led to a sub-prime mess. That is why the economy is in a bind, NOT because of tax cutw.

This porkulous bill is full of meatly and pointless projects. Yes, let us fight this bill to the bitter end. I don't trust in Obama's strategy to generate jobs anyway, I bets the money will get wasted bigtime.

[resnor]

Nevada, this bill is the biggest hoax the American people have seen in along time...only something like 10% of the bill would be spent by 2010. The vast majority of the money won't be spent for 10 years.

Tell me, though, how does spending millions of dollars on contaceptives help stimulate the economy? When you answer that, I'll ask you a couple more.

It wasn't the tax cuts that sent the economy down the tubes. If you really believe that, then there's no point in discussing these issues with you.

[Nevada_Ballin]

YOu will never convince me that socialism is better than not doing anything.

If someone is on fire, we shouldn't try to put them out with gasoline because it is the only liquid available.

From what I have heard the "job generating" is based around roads and bridges. You can't do any sort of paving projects in the north with the weather conditions we are experiencing. Let us take some time and make sure that we are doing it right.

Obama and the dems are using the fear tactics that liberals critized Bush for when it came to the war on terror. The only difference is, is that the dems are truly using fear to get this disgusting marxist loving bill to pass. A bill that we would have to fund for years to come. Let us be smart as opposed to being impulsive.

I thought the GOP tax cuts generated a TON of revenue for the government, right? The problem was pork projects and big govt spending. There is a ton of responsibilty at the feet of democrat philosophy put into practice that led to a sub-prime mess. That is why the economy is in a bind, NOT because of tax cutw.

This porkulous bill is full of meatly and pointless projects. Yes, let us fight this bill to the bitter end. I don't trust in Obama's strategy to generate jobs anyway, I bets the money will get wasted bigtime.

i'm not trying to convince you of anything. Your buddy GW and his treasury sec are the ones who set the socialism precedent by pushing through that last sim package. Passed in 3 days by Congress (voted yes by Obama and McCain, a bill also loaded with pork) on a no-strings/no-oversight package in for the financial institutes and they ended up squandering the first half of it away on themselves. It helped no one.

But here's the thing, the "pork" in this bill does create jobs from a local basis all the way to regional and some national. It has short-term and long-term setups - it's not simply a band-aid. It also includes items that were already appropriated and approved last year, it's listed in this package simply as a release valve to get the money out.

I dunno if you want to go item by item through the 700 pages of this package so i'll just ask this - what's in it specifically that you don't like? Be absolutely specific. And then please share a better solution.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Nevada, this bill is the biggest hoax the American people have seen in along time...only something like 10% of the bill would be spent by 2010. The vast majority of the money won't be spent for 10 years.

Tell me, though, how does spending millions of dollars on contaceptives help stimulate the economy? When you answer that, I'll ask you a couple more.

It wasn't the tax cuts that sent the economy down the tubes. If you really believe that, then there's no point in discussing these issues with you.

Find me the exact text for this in the bill - from the version that the House passed. I want to read exactly what it says. I have the version the House passed open right here but a search for the word "contraceptives" returns nothing.

Also, no one said the tax cuts sent the economy down the tubes. I said it was supposed to be a fix for it and it did not fix anything. Nice try at twisting what i said though :)

[SUPDOG]

Well, yes, we can all agree that if you put government money into projects it will create jobs. However, there is much pork in the bill that the spending, especially at this time, will not justify the miniscule, part time jobs that it may provide.

$87 billion for Medicare outlays and related spending
$20 billion toward nutrition assistance program (food stamps)
$2.8 billion to expand broadband Internet service in rural areas
$4 billion for programs “to develop rural communities…”

$3 billion for grants to improve the criminal justice system
$3 billion for grants to fund science and technology research
$1 billion for periodic censuses and programs
$1 billion for programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
$1 billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services program
$2 billion for “other activities”

$43.9 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE),
$4.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers
$500 million for the Bureau of Reclamation
$8.7 billion to promote energy efficiency and conservation at federal facilities and to support small businesses

$8.4 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs)
$6.6 billion would fund various programs, including capital improvements and maintenance for the Forest Service and National Park Service, the Superfund program, and wildland fire management
$20.4 billion for programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services
$4.6 billion for employment and training programs administered by the
Department of Labor
$20 billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools
$17.6 billion for Pell grants and other student financial assistance and facilities at post-secondary institutions including federal student loan programs
$29.1 billon for other education programs aimed particularly at elementary and secondary education
$6.0 billion for military construction projects of the Department of Defense
$1 billion for the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) to maintain and repair VA medical facilities and cemeteries
$276 million would be provided to the Capital Investment Fund for specific information-technology (IT) projects
$224 million would be provided for construction requirements of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
$30 billion for highway construction
$13.1 billion for other transportation programs administered by DOT
$11.2 billion for housing assistance programs administered by HUD
$5.2 billion for grants to states and cities for activities related to community development
$41.2 billion per year for 10 highway programs at the state and local level
$10.4 billion per year for transit programs at the state and local level
$39.5 billion available to states each twice a year to help them balance their books
$7.5 billion in each year would be reserved for incentive grants to be given to states on a competitive basis in fiscal year 2010, based on states meeting specified criteria in how they spent their initial allocations
$2.3 billion “emergency” spending for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program
a variety of tax credits for desired behavior
additional unemployment benefits


This is obviously a "blanket". When you get down to the reality of where the money will go, the ends IN NO WAY justifies the means. I heard therer were millions of dollars going to the development of a dog park. Wasteful government spending in a time when we can't afford waste.

Bush got scared into becoming a fiscal liberal by the end of his term. I will not deny that reality. However, for you to use that as "the reason" to turn to socialism is ridiculous. It seems you are using Bush AGAIN to justify things. Let's talk about what the DEMS and Obama are doing NOW, as opposed to trying to blame it on Bush. This is a democrat bill of long-desired "goodies" and THEY are the ones responsible for it. NOT the GOP or Bush. The liberal democrats.

[Nevada_Ballin]

that's a nice post sup, but first things first on that list is to take out everything that was already appropriated for a year ago and is just in the bill for release. That could take a while..... lol... if i get some time today i'll try to pull those ones out.

[SUPDOG]

that's a nice post sup, .

:eek:
:eek:

This is sweet! I like this nicey Nevada!:)

[resnor]

I don't really get your reasoning, Nevada. You're saying that Bush's bill was a move towards socialism, so, we should jump right on board with Obama's? Get outta here. I was against the first stimulus bill. And rightfully so. Remember that bill? We HAD TO pass that bill if we wanted to save the economy...guess what...IT DIDN'T WORK!!! Now, we're being told, PASS THIS STIMULUS BILL SO WE CAN SAVE OUR ECONOMY!!! This bill IS a bandaid, and, in the long run, will only serve to lengthen the recession.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I don't really get your reasoning, Nevada. You're saying that Bush's bill was a move towards socialism, so, we should jump right on board with Obama's? Get outta here. I was against the first stimulus bill. And rightfully so. Remember that bill? We HAD TO pass that bill if we wanted to save the economy...guess what...IT DIDN'T WORK!!! Now, we're being told, PASS THIS STIMULUS BILL SO WE CAN SAVE OUR ECONOMY!!! This bill IS a bandaid, and, in the long run, will only serve to lengthen the recession.

there's a huge difference between the 2 bills.... I think Obama's is more geared toward putting the results in the hands of America as a whole (creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, continuing the effort towards energy independence, etc) instead of the "save the financial institutions" bill that did absolutely nothing for the people or for business. Obama's package isn't throwing money at Wall St firms again. It's more like a "re-creation" package. We absolutely need to re-create ourselves and that's going to cost money no matter how you slice it.

[resnor]

You guys are all aware that the Congressional Budget Office is against this "stimulus" bill, right? The CBO is controlled by Dems, too, so don't go trying to pass it off as Republicans trying to sabotage it. The CBO actually said that this "stimulus" bill would hurt the economy.

[theanalogkid]

i believe that not doing anything is worse. The whole GOP tax cut policies for the last 6 years did nothing to prevent the situation we're in now. Following that road has proven not to be an answer.

As for becoming a socialist country, we signed up for that years ago by encouraging this global economy that's been jacking us over and following through with the patriot act.

Actually not doing anything is probably the better solution. Anything government touches, it screws up big time. I have no doubt this bill is nothing more than a screw up. The government is only prolonging the situation by trying to decide where to allocate funds.

The government should be letting these banks, car companies, and other companies fail. They took the rewards all these years, they have to take the risks too. Besides since US automanufactures barely manufacture any cars in the US anymore (the Ford Mustang for instance is 6% American), having them go out would probably help close the trade deficit.

Why give money to weak business, when there is perfectly strong business out there. The government should be cutting costs like getting out of Iraq, ending social security, and other welfare programs. If you want business to stay in America, stop forcing them to pay 30% more to workers to compensate for taxes.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Actually not doing anything is probably the better solution.


Couldn't disagree more.... there's 11 million people out of work (not counting those who are not on UE benefits). These people need jobs or soon we will have a semi-anarchaic country. Homelessness will rise, crime will rise. People get desperate when it comes to their own survival man. When a man has been out of work for 8 months, his family evicted from their home and cannot even get into a shelter, he's gonna do something to get a dollar in his pocket one way or another. It may not be the smartest decision he makes but to a desparate man, sometimes there are no decisions left to be made.


The local news here just had a story about a homeless census some org took in the streets. Here's what they found of 101 Reno homeless people they located on Jan. 29:

41 said they were homeless for the first time, with most reporting it was because they were unemployed in the past six to 12 months. Many of those people worked in an industry related to housing, such as construction.

The local shelters reported that they turn away about 200 people a week. (Here is where desparation to survive comes into play)

For a small little city like Reno, NV to see this trend, i can only imagine what larger metro areas are going to look like 6-12 months from now if nothing is done.

[resnor]

So...you're gonna completely disregard what the Congressional Budget Office said?

We NEED to let this ride out. Putting a bandaid on it, and prolonging the inevitable will not make anything better.

[SUPDOG]

Actually not doing anything is probably the better solution.

Why give money to weak business, when there is perfectly strong business out there. The government should be cutting costs like getting out of Iraq, ending social security, and other welfare programs. If you want business to stay in America, stop forcing them to pay 30% more to workers to compensate for taxes.

Amen, well except for the Iraq part. Get out of Iraq when the job is completely done first, yes then get out. However, it is likely Obama will pull out to soon. He can't wait to recieve the political praises.

Anyway, the rest is pretty much on point. Let the UAW, and the CEO's of GM, etc. reap what it sowed.

[Nevada_Ballin]

man, i'm starting to think that no one here knows what's really in the simulus package outside of what talking heads incorrectly tell them is in it....

Like i said before, a lot of the things people are complaining about are things that were already appropriated for a year ago (like money for veterans living in the Phillipines... it's in this package for release because it was already approved a year ago )

Yea, there's some things that can be trimmed out but when you're talking $900 billion, why does reducing it $800 billion matter ($800b is where it's at now with the new Senate revisions)? Either way it's a lot of money and it's going to take a lot of money no matter how you dice it up.


Understand this money isn't like the last stimulus package where the money was for financial institutions. This package is more of an "investment in Americans" deal than a bailout of bad business practices. It's really not fair to compare the two in that light because they are so different in their nature.


The overwhelming share of the $108 billion in reductions from the present Seante revisions would come from the spending side of the ledger. The end result is a bill about the same size as the nearly $820 billion House package but tilted far more toward tax reductions, which would be more than 40% of the total.

Discretionary funds governed by the Senate Appropriations Committee are cut by about $83 billion, a 23 percent reduction that includes a $40 billion cut from a state fiscal stabilization program and the virtual elimination of a $19.5 billion public school and higher education construction program opposed by Republicans. Hopefully Congress revisits the education appropriations later and passes them - i hate the idea of cutting education in this country.

They also removed $5.8 billion in public health funds to fight preventable diseases - i guess this is where the condom thing was.

So changes have been made. What do you think now?

[theanalogkid]

Hopefully Congress revisits the education appropriations later and passes them - i hate the idea of cutting education in this country.


Hopefully Congress never looks at spending more money in education again. The US is one of the biggest spenders in education, because the education cartel has driven spending sky high, but student achievement lags behind significantly compared to nations that spend far less. Education is not by any means underfunded nor does throwing more money at it going to solve the problem.


So changes have been made. What do you think now?

I think the whole notion of spending more money to try and solve a problem is complete garbage, when you have a nation that is 70% consumption and at a 400% GDP to Debt Ratio you can spend 10 trillion dollars and it won't do anything to stimulate the economy. You can continue to disagree, but come back at the end of the year, and tell me if anything has really improved.

Only time and destroying the large amount of debt the federal government, states and well people in general have can solve this mess.

Oh and BTW, where is the government going to get the funding for this? Probably a good chunk is going to come from the banking industry, and well the government crowds out private sector borrowers, and many loans and credit get used to pay employees salaries. If private companies can't borrow cause the 800lb gorilla can pay any interest rate they want you'll probably lose more jobs.

[resnor]

And we still are going to ignore the CBO's findings on the bill...

You know how much money we could give to TAXPAYERS if we just divided the package amongst taxpayers? Here's an idea...why not pay off people's student loans? That would free up a ton of money for people. The bill is a bad idea.

[theanalogkid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FItcsoiDZDQ

The man speaks the truth.

[Nevada_Ballin]

And we still are going to ignore the CBO's findings on the bill...

You know how much money we could give to TAXPAYERS if we just divided the package amongst taxpayers? Here's an idea...why not pay off people's student loans? That would free up a ton of money for people. The bill is a bad idea.

Yes we are.

Why?

Because like everything else here, it's based on assumption.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

But...

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010. The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.


This was also written before the Senate revisions made yesterday (listing what has been changed below). But again, it's only assumption that cannot be based on any precedent because we've never seen anything quite like this before. Basically their guess is as good as anyone elses.


A list of some programs that have been cut, either entirely or partially:

Partially cut:

• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)


Fully eliminated

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters

• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization

• $50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $100 million for distance learning

• $98 million for school nutrition

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology

• $50 million for detention trustee

• $25 million for Marshalls Construction

• $300 million for federal prisons

• $300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program

• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program

• $10 million state and local law enforcement

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees

• $4.5 billion for General Services Administration

• $89 million General Services Administration operations

• $50 million from Department of Homeland Security

• $200 million Transportation Security Administration

• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $20 million for working capital fund

• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement

• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management

• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start

• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity

• $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants

• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)

• $16 billion for school construction

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

• $1.25 billion for project based rental

• $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization

• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing

• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)


The only cuts i would have liked to have seen remain are those that involved construction because those are job creators for the builders and job keepers for the suppliers...

[resnor]

Well, at least now I know where you're coming from, NB. So, we will ignore the people in the know who oppose the bill. Good idea. By the way, what good is short term growth, if it is bad for the economy in the long run?

Bigger, more intrusive government is NOT the answer.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Well, at least now I know where you're coming from, NB. So, we will ignore the people in the know who oppose the bill. Good idea. By the way, what good is short term growth, if it is bad for the economy in the long run?

Bigger, more intrusive government is NOT the answer.

They DON'T "know" ... that's the point - it's only an assumption... it doesn't validate anything.

Obama has surrounded himself with many people from the Clinton economic team, those are some of the best people to ever lay out an economic agenda in our history. If you want to talk about people "in the know", you can put them on that list also. But just like the CBO, their info is based on estimates and assumptions - they just have a different outcome that you simply refuse to agree with based on partisanship.

[theanalogkid]

They DON'T "know" ... that's the point - it's only an assumption... it doesn't validate anything.

Obama has surrounded himself with many people from the Clinton economic team, those are some of the best people to ever lay out an economic agenda in our history. If you want to talk about people "in the know", you can put them on that list also. But just like the CBO, their info is based on estimates and assumptions - they just have a different outcome that you simply refuse to agree with based on partisanship.

Then why was the US sliding into a recession at the end of the Clinton Administration?

Tell me how a recession caused by a loose monetary policy (ie the Feds dropping rates for 1% and hold them there for a long period of time after 9/11), and excessive government spending going to be solved by an even looser monetary policy, and even more government spending. Doesn't make sense, you can't fix the problem by continuing the same policy. So much for that "change" we can believe in huh?

[Nevada_Ballin]

Then why was the US sliding into a recession at the end of the Clinton Administration?

Tell me how a recession caused by a loose monetary policy (ie the Feds dropping rates for 1% and hold them there for a long period of time after 9/11), and excessive government spending going to be solved by an even looser monetary policy, and even more government spending. Doesn't make sense, you can't fix the problem by continuing the same policy. So much for that "change" we can believe in huh?

If we were sliding into a recession at the end of the Clinton Admin, why didn't the GOP president and Congress do anything about it? Wait, they did - they removed regulations and that's why we are where we're at today.

You've heard the old saying that you've got to spend money to make money - the thing is how you spend it. This present stim plan is nothing like the one under Bush... not even close. It is about jobs and tax cuts, not about throwing money at banks in hopes that they start lending money to companies in a second hope that they might hire a couple of people. We've seen zero results from that.

Now, we're looking at funding infrastructure projects that are already set to go as well as healthcare and alternative energy projects.... this is putting the task of overcoming the slump by putting people back to work at jobs that pay more than flipping burgers. That's not "loose spending" imo, that's investment in ourselves.


.

[resnor]

More deficit spending is not the answer. Also, I'm a little sick of you and Gtrght, and other libs, throwing Bush's fiscal policies in my face. Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. Not to mention, it's a little ludicrous to say that Bush's fiscal policies were bad, but then defend Obama's fiscal policies that are even worse.

Removing regulations wasn't the Republicans. Are the Republicans culpable in it? Sure. They should have manned up, and said no to the Dems when they were trying to get the deregulation of the housing market through. Instead, many Republicans went right along with it. However, at the end of the day, it was the Democrats ideas that were being passed. Frankly, it's not so much deregulation that killed the housing market...it was the government meddling in the system. Had the government not authorized Fannie and Freddie to buy bad mortgages, then banks wouldn't have been so willing to give them. Banks didn't care who they loaned to, as they knew they could just turn around and dump the bad mortgages onto Fannie and Freddie..

By the way, tax cuts always increase revenue to the government...something we really need right now.

As to the "don't know," sure, I guess you can argue that, since they don't have a crystal ball to look into the future. However, it's kinda like saying that I can't say that if I shoot you in the face with a gun that you will die.

[theanalogkid]

By the way, tax cuts always increase revenue to the government...something we really need right now.

Wrong, tax cuts don't always increase revenue. If they government collects no taxes, they get no revenue, for example. The laffer curve is an illustration of this.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf - a good read from the CBO on the effectiveness of tax cuts on revenue.