"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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


I do live in a high tax state. We did limit growth of the property tax, so
the people who had been in their homes for years, would not be priced out of
them. But we have an 8.75% sales tax in my county, we have an over 10%
income tax rate, and lots of those taxes are required by unfunded mandates
from the Federal Government. Overall, we're screwed!