Trend Macro has this from the 13th:

This paper presents new evidence on how corporate payout policy responds to the differential between the tax burden on dividend income and that on accruing capital gains. It describes the construction of weighted average marginal tax rate series for the period since 1929, and it suggests that the enactment of the Job Growth of Taxpayer Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 should raise the after-tax value of dividends relative to capital gains by more than five percentage points. The impact of this change on payout depends on the elasticity of dividend payments with respect to the after-tax value of dividend income relative to capital gains. Time series estimates suggest an elasticity of more than three, and imply that the recent tax reform could ultimately increase dividends by almost twenty percent.

http://papers.nber.org/papers/W10321

I only hope the Bush campaign incorporates this perspective in advertising for a second term. Making a direct link between Bush tax policy and an expanding economy is one thing, a more direct link between a robust stock market and these same policies should be part of these efforts.

Yet another Grover Norquist organization heard from.

Ho hum.

But let's not attack the messenger--even though the messenger has not once--but twice--compared taxes to the Holocaust.

Let's assume, for a moment, the ASA is headed by Joe Noname. The ASA predicts John Kerry would be bad for shareholders. There's no evidence to support this.

However, there is hard, indisputable evidence that Bush has wreaked havoc on shareholders. During three years of his appointment, the stock market has lost $4.5 Trillion (with a 'T') in stock valuation.

Case closed. Grover says Kerry "might" be bad for shareholders. Bush has proven he is.

Not so fast, Jade - case not closed.

1998 - 1999 - remember Y2K and all the hard/sofware spending to compensate?

Greenspan flooded the market cos he thought there was going to be a run on the banks. Tightened up in early 2000. How many were there, 13??? Dot.com went boom, there was no reason for biz to spend more on computers because they were up to their gills in tech. 2001 we were effectively nuked.

As to appointed, would you rather have had the FLA legislature do it? Cos that's where it was headed.

I'm surprised we're still hanging on.

My head is still spinning trying to decipher that first comment. I think it means that investors will get more money that they can invest in more employment for Chinese workers.

On the Florida matter, it seems to me that the legislature solution would have been preferable. It is their state, their election, their law, and their business--and it would have saved the U.S. Supreme Court the embarrassment of staining itself for all of us to see.

Gore didn't deserve to win. Among other shortcomings, he failed to take advantage of Mr. Clinton's support nationally and he didn't cater to the voters in Tennessee who genuinely believed he would take their guns away. Ask Tennesseeans randomly why they didn't vote for Gore and I promise you that the gun issue will be the first thing cited for probably two-thirds of them.

Semi - Scalia already explained it, the Supremes took the hit.

They had to.

Semi - if it's my comment, go read the paper. It should be made more clear by the author(s).

Nothing personal--this stuff is inherently complex and tortuous to explain. That's why it doesn't mean much to the guy on the stool at the Waffle House.

Ho Hum, yet another group of unsupported lies by Jade. Who woulda thunk it?