"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
wrote in message
legroups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you will
about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were dealing with
someone who had some business sense

Whaaaaat? Bush has an MBA from Harvard, and *Clinton* is the one with
"business sense"? Yeah, right. Clinton has so much business sense, he
thought
that nationalized health care would be a *good* thing for us. Uh-huh.


And your president's the guy who teaches that you can lower your income
(in
what I will agree is a controlled fashion, i.e.: tax formulae), but crank
up
your spending in a way that is completely unpredictable and has no end in
sight.

Lower tax *rates* produce higher tax *revenues* because they stimulate
economic growth. That happened with Kennedy's tax cuts in the early 60s;
it
happened again twenty years later with Reagan's tax cuts; and it's
happening
again now with Bush's tax cuts. There's an article in this morning's paper
about it: "Unexpected tax revenue puts dent in federal deficit" - story
came
from the Washington Post, to whom I'm sure the revenue *was*
"unexpected" -
liberals never believe that cutting tax rates increases tax revenues,
despite
abundant evidence that it does.

We shall see if this is just a hiccup. People who know what they're talking
about, like Greenspan, often warn about this phenomenon.