Funny thing, how come Bush & Cheney's massive spending has not given a
similar boost to the economy?


Kubez wrote:
Uh, maybe because no government has ever spent a country into prosperity?


LOL maybe not. Reagan came a lot closer than Bush & Cheney have done.

Familiar with the concept of velocity, as applied to M1 & M2? Usually
gov't expenditure increases velocity as well as increasing aggregate
national demand. But this time around the wheel, apparently Bush &
Cheney's spending is not feeding the same money-go-round that all the
rest of us are riding on.



... The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about
50%, What a job killer that is.


You just plain don't have the facts.


Kubez wrote:
Actually he does. You missed the word "overall" which combines federal,
state and local spending.


And why is state & local taxes part of the U.S. Treasury issue? That's
retarded... is it President Bush's fault if you live in a high tax
state? You'll notice (if you pay attention) that he lives in a low tax
state...



Your exclusion of state and local spending was already pointed out.
However, you make a second mistake by equating cutting taxes with cutting
(or at least controlling) the budget.

Not a mistake... and besides, I have mentioned spending several times.


.... And in
addition to the thirteen standard appropriations bills, we have the Iraq
and Afghanistan operations being funded "off-budget", and the shell games
being played with the alleged "surpluses" in Social Security.

Which of the two is more important? Fiscally, I mean, not as a moral issue.


Bush/Cheney (I find it interesting that in every mention you pair the two)

Not every time. And they come as a set, it is undeniable that Vice
President Cheney is huge driving factor in this administration...
indeed, many believe that he is calling all the shots.


Bush/Cheney ....
have increased spending - even ON-budget discretionary spending - faster
than Clinton. This is quite easy to verify.

The combination of cutting taxes and increasing spending has only served
to increase the debt and deficit.

Yes, and currently more than 20% of the federal budget outlay is for
debt repayment... which ought to be the final nail in the coffin for
those screeches of "US Treasury bonds are worthless" but somehow I doubt
it will be... this level of debt is already painful, at what point does
it become crippling?


This is why it is SPENDING that matters, not today's arbitrary tax rate.
The bill must be paid at some point.

Agreed. So what's the answer? Certainly not 3 1/2 more years of
off-budget not-against-terrorist war, plus whatever else Bush & Cheney
dream up; but hey it's too late to get off this bus now. Maybe at the
next stop, somebody good will get on

Regards
Doug King