"Robert Sturgeon" wrote

Since the tax cuts have both improvd the economy and
resulted in more revenues to the government, making them
permanent is one of Bush's (few?) Good Ideas.


I don't know where you get "more" revenues to the government, but I'm glad
you didn't say something silly like "enough" revenues to the government.

Your personal share of the national debt is now around $27,000. When Bush
took office, it was about $16,000. Have Dick and Dubya's tax cuts saved
_you_ $11K ?

If you have any kids, each of _their_ shares of the debt also went up $11K,
by the way. How big were _their_ tax cuts?

-- TP

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:36:03 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote

Since the tax cuts have both improvd the economy and
resulted in more revenues to the government, making them
permanent is one of Bush's (few?) Good Ideas.


I don't know where you get "more" revenues to the government, but I'm glad
you didn't say something silly like "enough" revenues to the government.

There will never be "enough" revenues for people who always
want the government to spend more.

Your personal share of the national debt is now around $27,000. When Bush
took office, it was about $16,000. Have Dick and Dubya's tax cuts saved
_you_ $11K ?

My net worth is more than 3 times as high as it was in 2001,
and that's a gain of much more than $11,000. I have no way
of knowing how much of that results from the tax cuts.

If you have any kids, each of _their_ shares of the debt also went up $11K,
by the way. How big were _their_ tax cuts?

They're both doing much better than they were in 2001.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

tonyp wrote:

I don't know where you get "more" revenues to the government,

Taxes are collected on money moving. More movement means more revenue.
It's the same way Walmart makes money on lower prices: they make up in
volume.

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote

There will never be "enough" revenues for people who
always want the government to spend more.


The last 2-3 Clinton years disprove _that_ notion.


Your personal share of the national debt
is now around $27,000.
When Bush took office, it was about $16,000.
Have Dick and Dubya's tax cuts saved _you_ $11K ?

My net worth is more than 3 times as high as it was in 2001,
and that's a gain of much more than $11,000. I have no way
of knowing how much of that results from the tax cuts.


Karl Rove will tell you that practically _all_ your net worth increase was
due to the tax cuts. But you're not dumb enough to believe him, are you?


If you have any kids, each of _their_ shares of the debt
also went up $11K, by the way.
How big were _their_ tax cuts?

They're both doing much better than they were in 2001.


I am sincerely glad for them, but they're each doing $11K less well than
they think they are.

-- TP

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:26:18 -0800, Offbreed
wrote:

tonyp wrote:

I don't know where you get "more" revenues to the government,

Taxes are collected on money moving. More movement means more revenue.
It's the same way Walmart makes money on lower prices: they make up in
volume.

It's no use. If the rich end up with more money, that's
BAD, even if the government also ends up with more money.
It's just envy, writ large.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/