OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

In message SMS

You mean "for his loss".

This is a two-part question. First the national debt must be paid off. In
order to do that you can either raise taxes or cut spending. Since it has
been established that raising taxes is detrimental to the economy, spending
cuts are the way to go. Spending cuts also make it easier to accomplish
the post-national-debt-payoff phase: eliminating the income tax completely.

No. Elimination of the income tax would be the best thing that could be
done to stimulate the economy, and it would result in revenue to the
government equivalent to 1999 levels.

Your argument seems to lean on guilt-by-association (the "neo-con"
reference) rather than stand on its own strength. I reject deficit
spending in its totality, and demand immediate, deep, across-the-board
spending cuts to bring the budget to balance NOW.

 

You should consider real-world economics and not be fooled by those more
in favor of income redistribution. You might even consider taking a
real college economics class once you graduate from high school in a few
years.

 

FINALLY someone who understands economics.

 

Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer. LOL!

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending
without the revenue to fund it.

 

I am all for investigating any way to decrease spending.

In most cases, these nasty little wars are more of a defense than an
offense, though. Let's face facts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
are doing a great job in keeping the bulk of the terrorist community
tied up. When those actions are done, you will see a marked increase
in Islamic terrorism in North America.

Most of the public justification for the war was plain bullshit, and I
am not sure that the war is justified even if I'm right, but it makes
sense to call it for what it is...

And while National Defense (or Offense if we're to use your words) is
quite expensive, it is at least a constitutional role of the Federal
government, while many of the things they are spending gobs of OUR
money on are absolutely NOT.

 

Untrue, because when the last federal luxury tax was in effect,
Cadillac had economist Alfred Laffer perform in a commercial where he
said Cadillacs were exempt from the tax, and Laffer was not a
celebrity during the Carter years. This occurred when Bush I was
President.

 

The Reagan tax cut dropped the top rate to 50%, but in reality few of
the wealthy paid even that much when the top was 70%, or even 90%, as
it was in the 1950s, thanks to wasteful tax shelters. The top rate
was cut to 28% during the second Reagan term, as part of a tax reform
plan that also eliminated any tax advantages for capital gains. On a
percentage basis, Reagan raised taxes as much as Clinton did.

 

Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. The Dems are in control of both
houses. They are responsible for the budget.

 

"We"? Who is that? The internet is accessible to the whole world, you
know.

 

According to Joe, it was during Clinton.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you believe.
When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to pass
higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many
recent vetoes

 

The luxury tax was on items that sold above $40,000 and it was passed by the
DIMS

 

Your source is?

 

The national debt never has to be paid off, but it probably is
desirable to have it be a much lower proportion of the GDP than it is
now (roughly 60%, or double what it was before the Reagan
revolution). Interest on the national debt is a transfer of wealth
from the poor to the rich and currently amounts to roughly (very
roughly) $1,000 a person annually. Lowering the debt/GDP ratio will
allow for interest rates to be lower, and that can't be bad for
consumers and business.

It has not been established that raising taxes is always or even
usually detrimental to the economy.

Spending cuts are difficult because powerful politicians are behind
spending, especially the most wasteful spending. Also taxes can be
hard to cut without incurring deficits.

Cite proof from someone who has a good track record of forecasting
revenue. Cutting taxes hasn't resulted in revenue gains unless the
top marginal rate was very high or the average rate was very, very
high, and neither situation exists today. Any tax cuts will have to
be accompanied by some spending cuts to avoid deficits.

 

Or vote for the Democrats for uncontrolled spending AND taxation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

And the dimwit in the White House has vetoed how many higher spending bills?

Jeff

 

And the dimwit in the White House has vetoed how many higher spending bills?

Jeff[/QUOTE]

I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have
a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB.
--

 

If they Fox News runs it again, catch Chris Wallace's "Porked: Earmarks
for Profit"

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have
a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB.[/QUOTE]

Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
(2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.

BTW, a lot of the pork that was passed by Congress includes the pork
passed by both parties.

Jeff