O D wrote:

Yea I guess someone hasd to finish Kerrys tour. And someone had to
finish the tour of 57,000 other good people.
Thank god your asshole george and dick
found a way out. Otherwise they might not be here to screw up the
country.


Yeah, and don't forget Bill in that list too...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I am not a Republican - I can only recall voting that way once in my
life. I am not fond of GWB II's actions as president, especially as
regards to domestic policy and spending. Yet, I may actually vote for
him this coming election. Why? Because the political Left in this
country needs a severe spanking. It has become a craven, weak, immoral,
and generally reprehensible political movement and I want nothing
further to do with it.

Not everyone who opposes Bush is a Leftie. I have been a Republican
most of my life. There are millions of us.

Within weeks of 9/11, we heard the Idiot Left talking about how it was
"our fault" and that we needed to "understand Islamic pain" and so
forth.

If you want to see something else that might make you mad, check out
what Falwell and Robertson had to say on the same topic:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ertson-wtc.htm

As Falwell and Robertson show, stupidity can be a bipartisan trait.

(snipped the rest)

(Doug Miller) wrote:

I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .

The whole business of free lunches is a relative issue. Nobody likes
the idea of a lazy welfare recipient. On the other hand, I've seen a
proud bricklayer crushed because he had to accept food stamp
assistance. It didn't look like he was getting a free lunch to me.
YMMV.

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.

Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
the President.

No, on the contrary ... the President is responsible to submit the
budget, and his budget proposal begins the Congressional budget
process. In addition, he must either approve it or veto it. There's
a good summary of the responsibilities for the budget process at
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RS20175.pdf

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Nate Perkins wrote:

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.

I suppose you could move to some country that doesn't have any taxes
(if you could find one).

Again - you need help with the math. Approximately 50% of
the Federal Budget has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "national
security and a stable government". Simply by phasing out
Social Security (privatizing it) and by eliminating all the other
entitlements with the stroke of a pen, you could reduce federal
taxation a corresponding 50%. The objection is not to
taxation per se - it is to taxation as a vehicle for wealth
redistribution far beyond any congressional mandate.

Hmm? http://www.truthandpolitics.org/2004...ys-summary.php

Remember that the Social Security and Medicare expenditures don't come
from income tax, but instead come from payroll tax (which is a flat
tax).

The biggest slices are then military, medicaid and social welfare, and
service payments on the national debt.

....

I do agree that the definition of rich is fluid in these discussions.
I won't even get into the ranting about wedlock children and Idiot
Liberals. The notion of a flat VAT tax has been floated a couple of
times and it's pretty universally disliked, unless you are middle
class and like the idea of a national sales tax in the 20-26% range or

I LOVE that idea. I am middle class, and the total Federal tax burden
I carry (income + sin taxes + gasoline taxes + excise taxes + ???) is
likely well north of 40%.

Heh, no the 20-26% is just what would be required to offset your
*federal income tax*. The others would still be on top of that.
Still seem like a good idea?
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/gale/20040812.htm

Nate Perkins wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Nate Perkins wrote:

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.

I suppose you could move to some country that doesn't have any taxes
(if you could find one).

Again - you need help with the math. Approximately 50% of
the Federal Budget has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "national
security and a stable government". Simply by phasing out
Social Security (privatizing it) and by eliminating all the other
entitlements with the stroke of a pen, you could reduce federal
taxation a corresponding 50%. The objection is not to
taxation per se - it is to taxation as a vehicle for wealth
redistribution far beyond any congressional mandate.

Hmm? http://www.truthandpolitics.org/2004...ys-summary.php

Remember that the Social Security and Medicare expenditures don't come
from income tax, but instead come from payroll tax (which is a flat
tax).

What does that have to do with anything? Tax is tax. Hiding it so that the
individual voter doesn't have his nose rubbed in it doesn't mean that it
doesn't still ultimately come out of his pocket.

The biggest slices are then military, medicaid and social welfare, and
service payments on the national debt.

...

I do agree that the definition of rich is fluid in these discussions.
I won't even get into the ranting about wedlock children and Idiot
Liberals. The notion of a flat VAT tax has been floated a couple of
times and it's pretty universally disliked, unless you are middle
class and like the idea of a national sales tax in the 20-26% range or

I LOVE that idea. I am middle class, and the total Federal tax burden
I carry (income + sin taxes + gasoline taxes + excise taxes + ???) is
likely well north of 40%.

Heh, no the 20-26% is just what would be required to offset your
*federal income tax*. The others would still be on top of that.
Still seem like a good idea?
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/gale/20040812.htm

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:

I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the

delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .

The whole business of free lunches is a relative issue. Nobody likes
the idea of a lazy welfare recipient. On the other hand, I've seen a
proud bricklayer crushed because he had to accept food stamp
assistance. It didn't look like he was getting a free lunch to me.
YMMV.

Nothing "relative" about it -- when someone is given something that he has not
earned, it's a free lunch. And there is *nothing* in the Constitution that
authorizes the government to take money from the pocket of one American, and
give it to another American. Nothing.

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.

Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
the President.

No, on the contrary ... the President is responsible to submit the
budget, and his budget proposal begins the Congressional budget
process. In addition, he must either approve it or veto it. There's
a good summary of the responsibilities for the budget process at
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RS20175.pdf

Again -- check the Constitution. It does *not* require the President to submit
a budget

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Nate Perkins"

I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
the contrary.


You don't suppose there's other factors involved? Like expenditures?
Why do you refuse to look at government spending?



Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
of deficit growth.Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.


Deficit growth sounds alot like spending too much money to me.
Reagan, like Bush, had to also spend heavily on the military.


Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
debt.


He's trying too hard to please too many people in my view. Nobody wants
their favorite program cut. Your challenge is to explain how Kerry will make
things better. So far I've heard zip from either you or him.

"Nate Perkins"
If you want to see something else that might make you mad, check out
what Falwell and Robertson had to say on the same topic:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ertson-wtc.htm

As Falwell and Robertson show, stupidity can be a bipartisan trait.

(snipped the rest)


That would only make someone mad if they were led by their emotions.
The media jumped on it because they love any kind of dirt they can get,
especially Christian dirt. As Christians they believe that God favors
morality and disfavors immorality. What they said wasn't politically correct
and by implying a call to morality it infuriated the secularists. Thay also
blamed immorality for hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, etc. and that did
get some press but didn't have quite the emotional appeal of 911.

I find it ironic that people respond so emotionally over these issues.
A Muslim, Hindu or Christian can say whatever they want but If I don't
believe in it I'm certainly not going to get worked up over it. I prefer to
get worked up over the ones who commit violent acts.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ...
"Nate Perkins"

I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
the contrary.


You don't suppose there's other factors involved? Like expenditures?
Why do you refuse to look at government spending?

If you look at my other posts in this thread I think you will agree
that I am very willing to look at government spending. It is way too
high. I am a fiscal conservative and would love to see smaller
government. What boggles me is that so many guys who claim to be
fiscal conservatives are still willing to support George Bush,
although he has increased government spending far worse than "Slick
Willie." He's as bad as a "Liberal Democrat" on this.

Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
of deficit growth.Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.

Deficit growth sounds alot like spending too much money to me.
Reagan, like Bush, had to also spend heavily on the military.

Right, a deficit is the difference between government receipts and
government spending. Reasonable presidents have understood that the
two need to be reconciled. Dubya (apparently) doesn't.

Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
debt.

He's trying too hard to please too many people in my view. Nobody wants
their favorite program cut. Your challenge is to explain how Kerry will make
things better. So far I've heard zip from either you or him.

We agree on one thing, then. Bush panders as bad as any of his
predecessors, and (based on spending increases) arguably worse. You
guys are painting me as a Leftie but even *I* didn't support Bush's
reckless expansion of prescription drug benefits. I didnt support his
tariffs on Canadian lumber, I didn't support his expansion of farm
subsidies, I didn't support his protectionism of steel. But somehow I
am the "Leftie" and you guys are the conservatives. Boggles the mind.

Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
more than about real issues. Still, Google is your friend. Or you
can go to the source at
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/econ...nsibility.html

(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:

I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the

delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .

The whole business of free lunches is a relative issue. Nobody likes
the idea of a lazy welfare recipient. On the other hand, I've seen a
proud bricklayer crushed because he had to accept food stamp
assistance. It didn't look like he was getting a free lunch to me.
YMMV.

Nothing "relative" about it -- when someone is given something that he has not
earned, it's a free lunch. And there is *nothing* in the Constitution that
authorizes the government to take money from the pocket of one American, and
give it to another American. Nothing.

The relative part is simply that the value of the benefit depends on
whether or not you are receiving it. Of course you only want to pay
for the services you actually use, who doesn't? Of course you don't
like the idea of "welfare bums" -- who does? But the harsh reality is
that if you lost your job and if you had a serious illness (say
cancer) then you'd be darned glad you could get Medicare. Because the
"evil gubmint" would keep you from dying in a gutter somewhere. So,
relatively speaking when you don't need it, then it's worthless
welfare -- but if you did need it then it's a different story. That's
why it's relative.

Don't get me wrong -- I am *not* arguing for bigger government. In
fact I would love to see smaller, more efficient government. What I
am arguing is the original point that "it's not the government's
money." In fact people ought to understand that they have an
obligation to pay for the services they receive from the government,
just like they have to pay for everything else. If you want to see
smaller government and reduce the "free lunches" then vote for someone
who will do that (of course Dubya hasn't been exactly stellar in this
area).

You are quite right that there is nothing in the original Constitution
that allows for a federal income tax. It's instead covered in
Amendment 16. Of course, the Constitution itself, without all the
Amendments, is void of a lot of things that we now take as common
sense (for example, the Bill of Rights of course comprises the first
10 amendments).

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.

Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
the President.

No, on the contrary ... the President is responsible to submit the
budget, and his budget proposal begins the Congressional budget
process. In addition, he must either approve it or veto it. There's
a good summary of the responsibilities for the budget process at
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RS20175.pdf

Again -- check the Constitution. It does *not* require the President to submit
a budget

The link clearly points out the law requiring the President to submit
a budget proposal that starts the budget process in the House. This
refutes the original posted point that Congress, not the President, is
responsible for originating the budget.

Now if you want to say that only the items that are in the original
Constitution are valid points of law, I think you would be on very
shaky ground. How about the Bill of Rights? The Electoral College?
Abolishing slavery? The right of women to vote?

Yes you can add Bill in there too. At least I can say that to both
parties but some of you cannot bear to admit a republican screwed up.

Try RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON.
From what party ?????
And what did GERALD FORD do for Nixon?

Just what you wanted an UN elected President,

Seems like the republicans have this down pat, as far as getting their
stoolie in office unelected or appointed by the supreme court.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
more than about real issues. Still, Google is your friend. Or you
can go to the source at
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/econ...nsibility.html

Why I had no idea that he had actually "talked" about reducing the debt.
He's definitely my guy now. What else has he talked about? I don't suppose
he's talked about being for jobs, too? I wish there was someplace I could
go to see all of the great things he has talked about. I wonder if that
johnkerry.com web site will have any more issues he has talked about?

todd

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 24 Aug 2004 18:14:40 -0700, (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

... snip

... said vet was greatly suprised about the content of
the citation. He thought he had received the citation for his jumping in
the water and working to save the boat hit by the mine. He did not see the
citation as it was written and disputes the contents of the citation that
says there was intense enemy fire.

But this makes clear the fact that whether or not there was enemy
fire is not relevant. Thus the criticism that there was no enemy
fire is not relevant and therefor dishonest.


You are confusing awards here.


No, I am not.

The purple heart requires injuries
inflicted in the presence of enemy fire (the exception you mention noted).
The boat *was* hit by a mine, that counts as enemy fire; the second vet's
actions were a result of that enemy action and were certainly valourous.
What surprised him was that the citation indicated that they were under
"intense enemy fire from both banks", this is what he indicates was untrue.


It is clear that there was much confusion in that incident. Those
who concluded there was no enemy fire and those who concluded there
was, may be equally honest. But those who attribute to Kerry,
statements made in reports by others, are plainly dishonest.


Where is your evidence that others made those statements in the reports?
It is possible that the report for the second vet's citation was taken
verbatim from the report for Kerry's citation -- that doesn't provide any
citation of original authorship.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...925-314110.php

Still, the single eyewitness listed on Thurlow's Bronze Star
recommendation is not Kerry. It is an "R.E. Lambert."

But Michael Medeiros, one of Kerry's crewmates on his PCF-94,
told USA Today that when a mine went off and badly damaged
PCF-3, "that started a massive ambush. There were rockets and
light machine-gun fire plus small arms."

http://forums.santacruzsentinel.com/...1&t=001277&p=1
(reprinting from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug21.html)

In "Unfit for Command," O'Neill describes the after-action
report as "Kerry's report." He contends that language in
Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets
flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's
after-action report."

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of
the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry.
It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are
JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the
Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the
initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not
present.


In particular, the man Kerry pulled from the water says he was thrown
into the water by a second explosion, after the mine explosion, and
shots were fired at him while he was in the water.

I rather hope that was NOT friendly fire.

The man had been thrown in the water and was potentially disoriented.
The swift boats indicated that they did fire into the banks to suppress any
potential fire that they were afraid might take place. It is highly likely
the guy in the water mistook the fire from the boats for incoming fire
while he was trying to get himself oriented.


I still rather hope that was NOT friendly fire.



Those vets have nothing to gain from the stand they are taking, many of
them have served highly distinguished careers and are risking reputations
by coming forward publicly to what is a heavily Kerry favoring media (as
evidence of this, these people approached the media months ago with this
information but couldn't even get an interview.

I think they are retaliating for Kerry's anti-war activity.

And I'll add that the present administration, protestations aside,
undoubtbly appreciates their efforts. Having this on their resume
might prove highly advantageous in the future. Of course that swings
both ways.



Accusations of lying aside, don't you think that they might be just a
little bit miffed with a person who served with them for less than 4
months, then returned to the states and accused them of committing war
atrocities, then 35 years later attempting to run on his war record as a
war hero and involving them by using pictures of them in those ads?

As I said above, I think that is their point of view. I don't know
how many would or have gone as far as lying though.

Again, the accusation that all of those men are lying.

Which accusation and which men? For that matter, which accuser?
Somewhere in this business pretty much everyone is accused of lying
by someone.



--

FF

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , philski
wrote:

I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's skirt
in my opinion.

Wow, so many errors, it's hard to know where to begin.

How exactly did GWB "hide behind his daddy's skirt"? The war ended some
fifteen years before GHWD became President.


There's a Dubya in each and every AWOL -- especially the ones who defended
Dallas from those pesky invaders from Tulsa.

Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.


-- Steve
WRONG begins with Dubya

There's a Dubya in every AWOL




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"SNIP
Yes, it's good to do both because after scouring the known universe
for dirt they couldn't find evidence of drugs and no liberal seems to have
problems with Kennedy driving his car into the river and killing a gal.
/SNIP

Unlike Bush & Cheney, "Kennedy" isn't a convicted drunk driver behind the
wheel of the Ship of State.

-- Steve

WRONG begins with Dubya

There's a Dubya in every AWOL




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

snip

well, you should ask old time az people about mccain.

How true!!
As one of "The Keating Five", McCain certainly is not squeeky clean.
He just managed to squirm off of the hook with the least damage 'cuz his
re-election bid was the farthest out at the time.

For the non-"Old Fart Desert Rat Arizonans", the huge real estate/banking
scandals on the late '80s that sank the market, ruined thousands of small
investors -- they wre all centered around Charles Keating and
company/famliy -- all good flamboyant big-mouthed members of the religious
right!

They sought -- and were granted -- favors by McCain. The bust they caused
led to a massive real estate market collapse that ruined thaousands of
"small fry" and other common little retired "no account" investors who lost
their life savings because of Fat Cat Greed.

(How quickly the guilty forget!)


dags 'keating five':
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/sp...cainbook5.html

dags 'cindy mccain drugs': http://www.peele.net/lib/mccain.html

he's not the purest candidate either.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az


-- Steve
Mesa, Arizona




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Nate Perkins"
"Fletis Humplebacker"
"Nate Perkins"

I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
the contrary.


You don't suppose there's other factors involved? Like expenditures?
Why do you refuse to look at government spending?


If you look at my other posts in this thread I think you will agree
that I am very willing to look at government spending. It is way too
high. I am a fiscal conservative and would love to see smaller
government. What boggles me is that so many guys who claim to be
fiscal conservatives are still willing to support George Bush,
although he has increased government spending far worse than "Slick
Willie." He's as bad as a "Liberal Democrat" on this.



As I mentioned before the military has absorbed much of the expense
while Bill reduced it so I would not go as far as to say he's as bad but
fiscal conservatives generally support Bush because the alternative is
the most liberal senator in the house with the track record to prove it.



Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
of deficit growth.Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.


Deficit growth sounds alot like spending too much money to me.
Reagan, like Bush, had to also spend heavily on the military.


Right, a deficit is the difference between government receipts and
government spending. Reasonable presidents have understood that the
two need to be reconciled. Dubya (apparently) doesn't.


That's your opinion. We'll see what the next four years in office brings.
I still don't know what Kerry would do to make things better. Are we
supposed to believe he'll be different than he was his whole political life?


Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
debt.

He's trying too hard to please too many people in my view. Nobody wants
their favorite program cut. Your challenge is to explain how Kerry will make
things better. So far I've heard zip from either you or him.


We agree on one thing, then. Bush panders as bad as any of his
predecessors, and (based on spending increases) arguably worse. You
guys are painting me as a Leftie but even *I* didn't support Bush's
reckless expansion of prescription drug benefits. I didnt support his
tariffs on Canadian lumber, I didn't support his expansion of farm
subsidies, I didn't support his protectionism of steel. But somehow I
am the "Leftie" and you guys are the conservatives. Boggles the mind.


A true conservative isn't going to reject Bush and endorse Kerry. Kerry
isn't going to spend less no matter how much you dislike George W.



Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
more than about real issues.


It's all over every news source I've seen. If Kerry was so out front with
specifics, where are they. It isn't enough to say "I am for good things
and better economies and more peace blah blah blah."


Still, Google is your friend. Or you
can go to the source at
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/econ...nsibility.html



The web site doesn't explain how cutting 98 percent of people's taxes
will balance the budget or pay for education. The website is politically optimistic
of Kerry and hostile of Bush but vague on details. Surely a reasonable mind
would be skeptical. Corporations are made up of shareholders. They pay taxes
like everyone else. Please explain how punishing corporations is going to create
jobs, decrease deficits or pay for anything? The point of view is typical of liberal
ideology where it sees monies as a finite source that needs to be distributed by
government, over achievers need to face increasingly difficult financial hurdles while
under achievers need to be compensated in the interests of "fairness". It doesn't work.
It's juvenile at best and deceptive at worst. It's all about class envy and thinking
the rich guy won life's lottery and cheated you out of your fair share. Democrats
that promote it are being highly irresponsible. Fiscally conservative Democrats
are watching their party march further and further away from them. Ask Zel Miller
or any number of Democrat office holders supporting Bush this year. Do you really
think John F. Kennnedy would have a home in todays Democratic party? You
are kidding yourself if you think so, no fiscally conservative Democrat was invited to
speak. To those who follow the liberal leaders of today they dislike Bush because
they think he's moved his party far right but in reality it's their leaders who have
been moving further and further left.

In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:

You spend a lot of time noticing that the rich pay more taxes than the
poor do ... and yet you don't understand that a tax cut for the rich
costs has more deficit impact than does a tax cut for the poor.

A tax cut applied to those who pay little or no tax, obviously has little or
no impact of any kind, on the deficit or on anything else.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:


[ snip ]

You assume this is a zero-sum game. i.e. if less money is taken from the
taxpayers, then less is available in the future for the government. The
tax cuts enacted in the early '80s show the fallacy of this argument.

No they don't.

The
top tax rate was cut from 50% to 28% which should have resulted in a
devastating loss of revenue for the tax coffers.

And it did.

What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.

Myth, not fact. Look here for the facts:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0.

[ snip ]

As a percentage, the tax cuts benefited all taxpayers equally. The fact
of the matter is that in 2001 (the latest data for which IRS figures are
available):
The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes yet
only earns 86% of all income

This statistic only looks convincing until you realize that they leave
out almost half of the taxes on incomes. They are leaving out Social
Security/FICA.

[ snip ]

Chris
--
To reply, change 'nospam' to 'woh.rr'.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:05:16 GMT, Chris Wood wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:


[ snip ]

You assume this is a zero-sum game. i.e. if less money is taken from the
taxpayers, then less is available in the future for the government. The
tax cuts enacted in the early '80s show the fallacy of this argument.

No they don't.

See below.


The
top tax rate was cut from 50% to 28% which should have resulted in a
devastating loss of revenue for the tax coffers.

And it did.

No it did not, you might not like that fact, but it is a fact.


What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.

Myth, not fact. Look here for the facts:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0.


No, fact, not myth.
From your own reference. Table I, revenues, the Reagan tax cuts started
in 1982. The following are the revenues for just prior to following:

Year Revenue ($B)

1980 517.1
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.5
1985 734.1
1986 769.2
1987 854.4
1988 909.3
1989 991.2

Now, you will note that in 1983, the year after the tax cut, revenue did
go down, however, in subsequent years, revenue continued to increase even
in 1986, the year that there was a recession.

[ snip ]

As a percentage, the tax cuts benefited all taxpayers equally. The fact
of the matter is that in 2001 (the latest data for which IRS figures are
available):
The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes yet
only earns 86% of all income

This statistic only looks convincing until you realize that they leave
out almost half of the taxes on incomes. They are leaving out Social
Security/FICA.


??? Half the tax on incomes? This is simple math, 7.5% is NOT 1/2 of 28%,
thus SS/Fica cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to 1/2 of the
taxes on incomes paid by wage earners. The "rich" pay SS/FICA on the same
amount of income as everybody else. Only after exceeding a certain
threshold do they no longer pay the OASD portion, but continue to pay the
Medicare portion. Then again, if you contend that government revenue went
down after the Reagan tax cuts, I can see how you would also say that the
7.5% is half the tax on incomes. Now, before you jump in here and scream
about the fact that SS tax is really 15%, 7.5% of that 15% is NOT being
paid by the taxpayer, but by those eeevil corporations employing those low
wage earners. The fact is, the "rich" are still paying the same amount of
SS/FICA as all other wage earners, since no one's SS taxes are being cut,
the "rich" are going to also pay a larger share of the SS/FICA taxes as
well since they earn more.

Again, the statistics given are for INCOME taxes.

[ snip ]

Chris

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:05:16 GMT, Chris Wood wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.

Myth, not fact. Look here for the facts:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0.

No, fact, not myth.
From your own reference. Table I, revenues, the Reagan tax cuts started
in 1982. The following are the revenues for just prior to following:

Year Revenue ($B)

1980 517.1
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.5
1985 734.1
1986 769.2
1987 854.4
1988 909.3
1989 991.2

Now, you will note that in 1983, the year after the tax cut, revenue did
go down, however, in subsequent years, revenue continued to increase even
in 1986, the year that there was a recession.

Those figures aren't adjusted for inflation, the last pre-tax cut year
was 1981, and payroll taxes are included (whose rates went up). Real
(inflation-adjusted) income tax revenues were lower in each of the
first five years after the tax cut (1982-86) than they were the year
prior to the tax cut (1981).

Josh Rosenbluth

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:13:35 -0700, Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Not really. It's appropriate to bring up Clinton when Bush is attacked
for his service record. There wasn't a peep out of the left on Bill's
avoiding the draft. It's hard to find a better example of hypocrisy,

I can find a better example of hypocrisy. Dick Cheney claims to have
supported the war in Vietnam, unlike Clinton, who did not support it. And
yet, Cheney had "other priorities" than serving in Vietnam, and pursued
deferments at least as assiduously as Clinton.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:25:28 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Again from his testimony before Congress:
"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not
just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything
that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this
country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so
many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking
umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a
continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of
violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones,
harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings,
the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many
units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and
parcel of everything."

Seems pretty all-encompassing there.

Yeah. And as someone who served a year in Vietnam, I agree with him. Men
take responsibility for their mistakes. Boys don't. We have boys running
the country right now. I'm tired of it.

"ray" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:13:35 -0700, Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Not really. It's appropriate to bring up Clinton when Bush is attacked
for his service record. There wasn't a peep out of the left on Bill's
avoiding the draft. It's hard to find a better example of hypocrisy,

I can find a better example of hypocrisy. Dick Cheney claims to have
supported the war in Vietnam, unlike Clinton, who did not support it. And
yet, Cheney had "other priorities" than serving in Vietnam, and pursued
deferments at least as assiduously as Clinton.


Kerry sought a deferment to study for one year and was turned down. He then
enlisted. Edwards requested and received a college deferment. As it turned
out, many people exercised their option for a deferment at that time.
Clinton is the only one who actually dodged the draft.

However, I would be perfectly happy to forget the draft status/service of
all of the candidates and discuss the issues.

Al Reid wrote:

Kerry sought a deferment to study for one year and was turned
down. He then enlisted. Edwards requested and received a
college deferment. As it turned out, many people exercised
their option for a deferment at that time. Clinton is the only
one who actually dodged the draft.

However, I would be perfectly happy to forget the draft
status/service of all of the candidates and discuss the
issues.

The draft stuff doesn't much interest me much either. There were
a lot of good people who felt (strongly) that we shouldn't have
been in Viet Nam and did everything they could to avoid becoming
participants themselves. There were also a lot of good people who
went willingly because they felt it was their duty. There
were/are people in both groups worthy of admiration and respect.

On the other hand (given that they both served) I am interested
in /how/ these guys served. I'm interested in whether or not
they're capable of exercising real courage when their world (and
ours!) becomes a particulary frightening place - or whether
they'll lie to avoid responsibility - or whether they'll hunker
down gibbering to themselves and leave the rest of us to deal
with the danger and the consequences of their denial.

I don't care about deferments. I don't particularly care about
medals (which I perceive as at least partially political). I
especially don't care about Purple Hearts - it takes no talent at
all to get hurt in combat. I'm sorry that people do; but getting
hurt isn't an indicator of human quality.

It does concern me that one of the candidates appears to be
trying to /sell/ fear to the electorate. It leads me to wonder
just /whose/ fear he's trying to peddle; and whether that's an
indication of a lack of courage in the candidate...

[Dos centavos]

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

On 30 Aug 2004 07:21:50 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:05:16 GMT, Chris Wood wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.

Myth, not fact. Look here for the facts:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0.

No, fact, not myth.
From your own reference. Table I, revenues, the Reagan tax cuts started
in 1982. The following are the revenues for just prior to following:

Year Revenue ($B)

1980 517.1
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.5
1985 734.1
1986 769.2
1987 854.4
1988 909.3
1989 991.2

Now, you will note that in 1983, the year after the tax cut, revenue did
go down, however, in subsequent years, revenue continued to increase even
in 1986, the year that there was a recession.

Those figures aren't adjusted for inflation, the last pre-tax cut year
was 1981, and payroll taxes are included (whose rates went up). Real
(inflation-adjusted) income tax revenues were lower in each of the
first five years after the tax cut (1982-86) than they were the year
prior to the tax cut (1981).


You are correct, the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, these are raw
revenue numbers. The Inflation rate decreased after the 1982 tax cuts.
The poster I was responding to contended that there was a devastating loss
of revenue after the 1982 tax cuts. As shown above, with the exception of
1983, which makes sense because that was the first full year for tax-cut
induced growth to ramp up, revenue continued to increase. Payroll taxes
(SS and Medicare) may have gone up, they only went up marginally (6.8 to
7.5% I think, I'm too tired to look up the exact number) while income taxes
were drastically reduced, thus an 0.7% increase in payroll taxes cannot
begin to have accounted for the entire amount of revenue increase.
Remember also, that beginning with the 1982 tax cuts, the tax rate tables
were indexed for inflation, eliminating the "bracket creep" that had been
prevalent during the high-inflation rate 70's when peoples' tax rates
increased while their spending power decreased.



Josh Rosenbluth

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 30 Aug 2004 07:21:50 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:05:16 GMT, Chris Wood wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.

Myth, not fact. Look here for the facts:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0.

No, fact, not myth.
From your own reference. Table I, revenues, the Reagan tax cuts started
in 1982. The following are the revenues for just prior to following:

Year Revenue ($B)

1980 517.1
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.5
1985 734.1
1986 769.2
1987 854.4
1988 909.3
1989 991.2

Now, you will note that in 1983, the year after the tax cut, revenue did
go down, however, in subsequent years, revenue continued to increase even
in 1986, the year that there was a recession.

Those figures aren't adjusted for inflation, the last pre-tax cut year
was 1981, and payroll taxes are included (whose rates went up). Real
(inflation-adjusted) income tax revenues were lower in each of the
first five years after the tax cut (1982-86) than they were the year
prior to the tax cut (1981).

You are correct, the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, these are raw
revenue numbers.

Which means they aren't valid for assessing the impact of the tax cut
on revenues (Econ 101).

The Inflation rate decreased after the 1982 tax cuts.
The poster I was responding to contended that there was a devastating loss
of revenue after the 1982 tax cuts. As shown above, with the exception of
1983, which makes sense because that was the first full year for tax-cut
induced growth to ramp up, revenue continued to increase.

Repeating, inflation-adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each
of 1982-86 than they were in 1981.

Josh Rosenbluth

In article , ray wrote:

Yeah. And as someone who served a year in Vietnam, I agree with him. Men
take responsibility for their mistakes. Boys don't. We have boys running
the country right now. I'm tired of it.

You gotta be kidding. After eight years of Clinton's antics, it was a real
relief to see the Bush administration take office -- my first thought was that
the grownups are back in charge.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Larry Blanchard"

ray

Yeah. And as someone who served a year in Vietnam, I agree with him. Men
take responsibility for their mistakes. Boys don't. We have boys running
the country right now. I'm tired of it.

You gotta be kidding. After eight years of Clinton's antics, it was a real
relief to see the Bush administration take office -- my first thought was that
the grownups are back in charge.

Thanks - I needed a good laugh this morning :-).


I laughed at your laughter. Thanks for the chuckle!

(Doug Miller) wrote in message ...
In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:

You spend a lot of time noticing that the rich pay more taxes than the
poor do ... and yet you don't understand that a tax cut for the rich
costs has more deficit impact than does a tax cut for the poor.

A tax cut applied to those who pay little or no tax, obviously has little or
no impact of any kind, on the deficit or on anything else.

Sigh. One more time.

When you give a tax cut to people who have little money on hand, they
tend to turn around and spend it. That's a stimulative tax cut. It
can have a large impact on pulling the economy out of a recession.

When you give a tax cut to rich folks, sometimes they spend a portion
of it and sometimes they save or invest it ... possibly stimulative in
the long run, depending on how much you believe in trickle down
economics. Certainly not very immediately stimulative in a recession.
It can actually be detrimental if it is coming at a large enough
expense to the debt.

Everyone will agree that the rich pay a lot more taxes than do the
poor. Therefore, a tax cut for the rich has a greater impact on the
overall deficit than does a tax cut for the middle class and poor.

Now the subjective part comes in when you suggest that everyone could
have lower taxes if we just cut government so that the "evil 'gubmint
doesn't get any more of my money." Most people agree that a leaner,
more efficient government would be a good thing. The main problem is
that the same leader that the conservatives look to (Bush) has just
expanded entitlements more than any president in the last 40 years.
As a moderate, this makes me think he's just irresponsible and lacks
credibility. So if you talk about smaller government and "getting
government off the people's backs" at the same time you are growing it
by leaps and bounds, do you really have credibility? Is Bush your
true conservative?

Nate Perkins responds:


that the same leader that the conservatives look to (Bush) has just
expanded entitlements more than any president in the last 40 years.
As a moderate, this makes me think he's just irresponsible and lacks
credibility. So if you talk about smaller government and "getting
government off the people's backs" at the same time you are growing it
by leaps and bounds, do you really have credibility? Is Bush your
true conservative?

Is anyone a true fiscal conservative? What do we do in the face of the feds,
for example, deciding not to invest in safety any more, no laws about seat
belts because enforcement costs tax bucks? No controls on air traffic
controllers because that costs tax bucks? No food checks because that costs tax
bucks? No public health efforts at all, because they're not mandated in the
Constitution?

Conservatives who back Bush are either blind or hallucinating, IMO.
Libertarians who want the world to let them alone, let them keep all they
"earn", are even stranger.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:

Everyone will agree that the rich pay a lot more taxes than do the
poor.

So stipulated.

Therefore, a tax cut for the rich has a greater impact on the
overall deficit than does a tax cut for the middle class and poor.

If you assume that economics is a zero-sum game, yes. But that assumption is
incorrect.

Now the subjective part comes in when you suggest that everyone could
have lower taxes if we just cut government so that the "evil 'gubmint
doesn't get any more of my money."

Should be obvious that government would be smaller, cheaper, and less
intrusive, if it restricted itself to performing the functions authorized it
by the Constitution.

Most people agree that a leaner,
more efficient government would be a good thing. The main problem is
that the same leader that the conservatives look to (Bush) has just
expanded entitlements more than any president in the last 40 years.

Not to mention signing the blatantly unConstitutional McCain-Feingold bill.
I hear you.

As a moderate, this makes me think he's just irresponsible and lacks
credibility. So if you talk about smaller government and "getting
government off the people's backs" at the same time you are growing it
by leaps and bounds, do you really have credibility? Is Bush your
true conservative?

Certainly not. Nor do I believe that he is the best possible man for the job.
I *do* believe, however, that he is a considerably better choice than the
available alternatives, either now or four years ago. The voters tend to favor
those candidates who promise them the most (whether that be security,
prosperity, freedom, tax cuts, handouts, or whatever), and often ignore those
who speak realistically.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On 31 Aug 2004 05:57:29 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 30 Aug 2004 07:21:50 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:05:16 GMT, Chris Wood wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.

Myth, not fact. Look here for the facts:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0.

No, fact, not myth.
From your own reference. Table I, revenues, the Reagan tax cuts started
in 1982. The following are the revenues for just prior to following:

Year Revenue ($B)

1980 517.1
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.5
1985 734.1
1986 769.2
1987 854.4
1988 909.3
1989 991.2

Now, you will note that in 1983, the year after the tax cut, revenue did
go down, however, in subsequent years, revenue continued to increase even
in 1986, the year that there was a recession.

Those figures aren't adjusted for inflation, the last pre-tax cut year
was 1981, and payroll taxes are included (whose rates went up). Real
(inflation-adjusted) income tax revenues were lower in each of the
first five years after the tax cut (1982-86) than they were the year
prior to the tax cut (1981).

You are correct, the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, these are raw
revenue numbers.

Which means they aren't valid for assessing the impact of the tax cut
on revenues (Econ 101).

The Inflation rate decreased after the 1982 tax cuts.
The poster I was responding to contended that there was a devastating loss
of revenue after the 1982 tax cuts. As shown above, with the exception of
1983, which makes sense because that was the first full year for tax-cut
induced growth to ramp up, revenue continued to increase.

Repeating, inflation-adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each
of 1982-86 than they were in 1981.

Josh Rosenbluth

OK, one more time, Inflation adjusted revenue, inflation numbers from
http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/hist1913.cfm :


Year Rev, Delta % change Inflation % Real
Increase
1975 279.1 - - - -
1976 298.1 19.0 6.37% 5.80% 0.57%
1977 355.6 57.5 16.17% 6.50% 9.67%
1978 399.6 44.0 11.01% 7.60% 3.41%
1979 463.3 63.7 13.75% 11.30% 2.45%
1980 517.1 53.8 10.40% 13.50% -3.10%
1981 599.3 82.2 13.72% 10.30% 3.42%
1982 617.8 18.5 2.99% 6.20% -3.21%
1983 600.6 -17.2 -2.86% 3.20% -6.06%
1984 666.5 65.90 9.89% 4.30% 5.59%
1985 734.1 67.60 9.21% 3.60% 5.61%
1986 769.2 35.10 4.56% 1.90% 2.66%
1987 854.4 85.20 9.97% 3.60% 6.37%
1988 909.3 54.90 6.04% 4.10% 1.94%
1989 991.2 81.90 8.26% 4.80% 3.46%

Not knowing how the above table will translate to other newsreaders,
looking at only the % real increase:
Year Inflation adjusted increase
1975 -
1976 0.57%
1977 9.67%
1978 3.41%
1979 2.45%
1980 -3.10%
1981 3.42%
1982 -3.21%
1983 -6.06%
1984 5.59%
1985 5.61%
1986 2.66%
1987 6.37%
1988 1.94%
1989 3.46%

So, in the years prior to the tax cut, inflation-adjusted revenue both
increased and decreased from a hight of 9.67% to a loss of 3.1%

Following the tax cuts, in year by year inflation adjusted rates, income
increased by as much as 6.37% (in 1987) to a decline of 6.06% (in 1983, the
first full year of the tax cuts, but came back to a 5.59% real increase
over inflation in the following year.

So, although revenues in 1981 were up 13.7% over revenue in 1980,
inflation in 1981 was 10.3%, thus real revenue only increased by 3.42%
compared to the prior year (which actually lost ground relative to
inflation). Even more telling are the inflation numbers which dropped from
double digit 10%+ down to around 4% in subsequent years.

Now, given these facts, how can one still spin them to show that revenue
was catastrophically reduced by the Reagan tax cuts?

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 31 Aug 2004 05:57:29 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:

Repeating, inflation-adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each
of 1982-86 than they were in 1981.

Not knowing how the above table will translate to other newsreaders,
looking at only the % real increase:
Year Inflation adjusted increase
1975 -
1976 0.57%
1977 9.67%
1978 3.41%
1979 2.45%
1980 -3.10%
1981 3.42%
1982 -3.21%
1983 -6.06%
1984 5.59%
1985 5.61%
1986 2.66%
1987 6.37%
1988 1.94%
1989 3.46%

You have again lumped together income and payroll taxes. Let's re-do
that table with only income taxes (starting with 1982, the first year
of the tax cut), and let's also add cumulative percentage compared to
1981.

Year % from prior year Cum % from 1981
-------------------------------------------
1982: -6.6% -6.6%
1983: -10.4% -16.3%
1984: 3.7% -13.2%
1985: 7.8% -6.4%
1986: 1.6% -4.9%

So, in the years prior to the tax cut, inflation-adjusted revenue both
increased and decreased from a hight of 9.67% to a loss of 3.1%

Following the tax cuts, in year by year inflation adjusted rates, income
increased by as much as 6.37% (in 1987) to a decline of 6.06% (in 1983, the
first full year of the tax cuts, but came back to a 5.59% real increase
over inflation in the following year.

So, although revenues in 1981 were up 13.7% over revenue in 1980,
inflation in 1981 was 10.3%, thus real revenue only increased by 3.42%
compared to the prior year (which actually lost ground relative to
inflation). Even more telling are the inflation numbers which dropped from
double digit 10%+ down to around 4% in subsequent years.

Now, given these facts, how can one still spin them to show that revenue
was catastrophically reduced by the Reagan tax cuts?

The catastrophe was the debt grew by leaps and bounds immediately
after the tax cut, in large part because of the tax cut as evidenced
by the lower revenue in each of (post tax cut) 1982-86 compared to
(pre tax cut) 1981 (the cumulative effect is what impacts the debt).

Your analysis amounted to nothing more than noting single-year revenue
growth for a few selected years before the tax cut (9.67% in 1977,
-3.1% in 1980, 3.42% in 1981) and a few selected years after the tax
cut (6.37% in 1987, -6.06% in 1983, 5.59% in 1984). What meaning does
that have with regards to the debt?

Josh Rosenbluth

In choosing a elected official, my personal oppionion is to choose a
man/woman of character, are they telling me the same thing today, tomarrow,
next week, are they doing what they think is right or what the poles say is
right. For me that is far more important then what the position are I
didn't agree with what most of what Jessy Venturea stood for, but I
supported him because I knew exactly what he stood for, one of my favorate
sayings is "a devil you can trust is better then a saint you can't" Clinton
may not have inhaled but blew smoke for 8 years, Kerry changes positions in
the same speech, so who are you left with Bush or Nader, and honestly if
your undecided at this point Vote Nader, let him know somebody loves him it
would make is day!

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

Yeah. And as someone who served a year in Vietnam, I agree with him. Men
take responsibility for their mistakes. Boys don't. We have boys running
the country right now. I'm tired of it.

You gotta be kidding. After eight years of Clinton's antics, it was a real
relief to see the Bush administration take office -- my first thought was
that the grownups are back in charge.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Richard Clements wrote in message ...
In choosing a elected official, my personal oppionion is to choose a
man/woman of character, are they telling me the same thing today, tomarrow,
next week, are they doing what they think is right or what the poles say is
right. For me that is far more important then what the position are I
didn't agree with what most of what Jessy Venturea stood for, but I
supported him because I knew exactly what he stood for, one of my favorate
sayings is "a devil you can trust is better then a saint you can't" Clinton
may not have inhaled but blew smoke for 8 years, Kerry changes positions in
the same speech, so who are you left with Bush or Nader, and honestly if
your undecided at this point Vote Nader, let him know somebody loves him it
would make is day!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ng_flip_flops/

It's all in the advertising you believe.

Nate Perkins" wrote in message
m...
Richard Clements wrote in message
...
In choosing a elected official, my personal oppionion is to choose a
man/woman of character, are they telling me the same thing today,
tomarrow,
next week, are they doing what they think is right or what the poles say
is
right. For me that is far more important then what the position are I
didn't agree with what most of what Jessy Venturea stood for, but I
supported him because I knew exactly what he stood for, one of my
favorate
sayings is "a devil you can trust is better then a saint you can't"
Clinton
may not have inhaled but blew smoke for 8 years, Kerry changes positions
in
the same speech, so who are you left with Bush or Nader, and honestly if
your undecided at this point Vote Nader, let him know somebody loves him
it
would make is day!


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ng_flip_flops/

It's all in the advertising you believe.

Yep. When I want the straight story on President Bush, I head straight for
a former Kerry staffer. Forget Kerry flip-flopping in the same speech...try
the same sentence. "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted
against it." Hard to get around that one.

todd

On 1 Sep 2004 06:11:20 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:

.... snip
e debt).

Your analysis amounted to nothing more than noting single-year revenue
growth for a few selected years before the tax cut (9.67% in 1977,
-3.1% in 1980, 3.42% in 1981) and a few selected years after the tax
cut (6.37% in 1987, -6.06% in 1983, 5.59% in 1984). What meaning does
that have with regards to the debt?

Josh Rosenbluth

A) A few selected years? I showed all years starting from 1975, could have
gone back farther, could have gone forward more, but the story would have
been the same. I also showed *real* per year revenue growth based upon
inflation adjusted value of that year's revenue. Even in your case, you
show that revenue started growing.
B) Why is it only income that should be considered for debt computations?
If *I* don't make as much money *I* don't SPEND as much money. Now, the
next argument you will raise is that Reagan broke the bank by spending
money we didn't have on defense in a huge indefensible defense build-up.
The fact is that if Reagan could have just increased spending on defense,
we would not have added to debt, or added minimally. The problem was that
in order to get his defense spending approved (something that he viewed as
paramount to the survival of this republic), he had to compromise and allow
entitlements to also be raised.

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 1 Sep 2004 06:11:20 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:

Your analysis amounted to nothing more than noting single-year revenue
growth for a few selected years before the tax cut (9.67% in 1977,
-3.1% in 1980, 3.42% in 1981) and a few selected years after the tax
cut (6.37% in 1987, -6.06% in 1983, 5.59% in 1984). What meaning does
that have with regards to the debt?

A) A few selected years? I showed all years starting from 1975, could have
gone back farther, could have gone forward more, but the story would have
been the same.

I am not arguing with the years you showed in the chart. I am taking
issue with your subsequent analysis of those numbers because 1) you
only used pre-tax cut 1977, 1980, 1981 and post-tax cut 1983, 1984,
1987 and 2) you did nothing more than repeat the figures from the
selected years without explaining what/how conclusions can be drawn
from them.

I also showed *real* per year revenue growth based upon
inflation adjusted value of that year's revenue.

That's good. But, you still included payroll taxes whose rates went
up under Reagan. You need to limit your analysis to income tax
revenues.

Even in your case, you
show that revenue started growing.

If you wait long enough (6 years in Reagan's case), revenue will
eventually get back to pre-tax cut levels. However, debt has exploded
in the meantime. Moreover, if revenue in years 6+ would have been
bigger without the tax cut than with it, even the additional debt in
years 6+ would also be bigger without the tax cut than with it.

B) Why is it only income that should be considered for debt computations?
If *I* don't make as much money *I* don't SPEND as much money. Now, the
next argument you will raise is that Reagan broke the bank by spending
money we didn't have on defense in a huge indefensible defense build-up.
The fact is that if Reagan could have just increased spending on defense,
we would not have added to debt, or added minimally. The problem was that
in order to get his defense spending approved (something that he viewed as
paramount to the survival of this republic), he had to compromise and allow
entitlements to also be raised.

Firstly, spending and revenue must both be considered. The debt
explosion under Reagan was caused by both the military expansion and
tax cut.

Secondly, non-military spending, exlcusive of Social Security and
Medicare, decreased under Reagan. And, the Social Security and
Medicare surpluses (they are funded through payroll taxes) grew under
Reagan. Therefore, the debt explosion had nothing to do with
non-military spending.

Josh Rosenbluth

"Nate Perkins"

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ng_flip_flops/

It's all in the advertising you believe.


I realize this appeals to your mindset but none of the quotes are sourced so
we can't read the comments in context, or if they are even accurate. I wonder
what the author was hiding.