"Art,
After nam we decided on conducting war using different methods. We went back to the old stupid way just like the british during our revolution.
Tell me how was Clinton so successful holding down the credit card wile affording SS and other things that help the tax payers.
The crooks don't want anything that helps the American people. The party that takes your money and makes excuses for being broke.
THE NEW CREDIT CARD LIMIT TODAY 8.965T now that is conservative.
much better than dried sperm on a blue dress."
Yes, it concerns me too . . I am convinced we are going in the wrong direction as well in terms of spending . . we are agreeing vehumently here . . . I am equally convinced you don't improve productivity by taking more away from people the harder they work . . . The dried sperm was a personal problem with President Clinton and none of my business . . . I view it as morally wrong . . but like the folks who enjoy teenagers in orgies . . 'figure that's their thing and not mine to dictate . . .
Paul
No problem Paul . . . here's my logic: Even though the Federal government alone DID NOT take in more revenue because of the
tax cut in 2005, (I'm pretty sure that's what you were pointing out) revenues from taxes OVERALL were higher. The unemployment
rate is at historically low levels. More people working, not being taxed at a higher rate, means more money is available to
spend. Home ownership is at historic high levels. Business is doing well per upside surprises by companies across the economic
spectrum. We have the broadest valuation increase in years in the stock market because of this. We have more in our pocket so
we spend more (the savings rate has also declined . . so the funds are being spent and taxed.) Revenues are therefore
increasing from sales tax, property tax, state tax on more people working, etc. etc. The Fed tax cut has indeed increased revenue
because it stimulates the economy. This leads to higher consumption and more demand for goods and services which leads
to more employment and eventually more income to the Fed itself . . . however, not instantly. As I said, it's a long term program.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/promoting.htmlThrough a growing economy, Federal receipts are once again rising at a steady rate. Combined with spending restraint, rising
revenues will reduce the near-term budget deficit. By addressing the near-term deficit and the long-term imbalances in entitlement
programs, America will further reinforce our prospects for a strong economy in the years ahead.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/treasury.htmlSince 2001, the President has signed three tax bills to boost the economy. In combination, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) provided substantial
tax relief and immediate stimulus to the economy, improving the potential for economic growth in the long-run. These Acts
reduced taxes by an average of $1,544 for 109 million taxpayers in 2003. In addition, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act
(JCWAA) of 2002 provided businesses investment incentives as well as extended unemployment insurance benefits.
http://www.freemarketproject.org/news/2005/news20050705.aspPresident Bush put in tax rate cuts, the economy has recovered and the tax revenue is up. So it wasn't a tax cut, it was a tax
rate cut! and it worked perfectly, tax revenue increased. Now if we can just get Congress to cut spending....
http://www.econlib.org/library/ENC/CapitalGainsTaxes.html"Excessive spending has been the real culprit behind federal deficits. Even with the passage of President Bush’s tax cuts,
total federal revenues in 2005 are projected to be 52 percent higher (adjusting for inflation) than in 1995. And according
to research by John Berthoud of the National Taxpayers Union, if the federal government had merely limited total spending
growth over the past six years to 3.2 percent annually, the Congressional Budget Office would today be projecting a small
surplus for Fiscal Year 2005 instead of a substantial deficit."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060208-7.htmlhttp://www.freemarketproject.org/news/2005/news20050626.aspSo, that's my logic and some of the basis for it. . . it makes sense to me that more money in my pocket translates to more spending on my part . . . I can prove that personally . . . I can also prove I pay more sales, property, and other taxes than I did before.
If there's an error there please let me know . . . I would be pleased to pay less sales, property, and other taxes . . . and so would the record number of people who are employed today.
