The tax cuts are speeding up the economy and that's a fact.

The GDP grew at a rate of over 7% in the third quarter.
This represents a rate only equaled 19 years ago after
President Reagan's tax cuts.

If you want a thriving economy just allow the people to
keep their money. They will certainly spend it.

S.Simon


"two wheels" wrote in message ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

When the economy is humming along, the deficit cures itself. That's
what the tax cuts were for--to prime the economic pump. Tax and
tariff policy is about the only power government has over the
economy. They can slow down the economy with tax increases (as in
California) or speed it up with tax cuts. That's it.

two wheels


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...id=749&e=1&u=/
nm/20031030/bs_nm/economy_dc

Economy Rocketed Ahead in 3rd Quarter
By Tim Ahmann

excerpt:
- ----------------------

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its
fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as
consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying
spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday.

U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate in
the July-September period, the Commerce Department said. It was the
steepest climb since the first quarter of 1984 and more than double
the second quarter's 3.3 percent rate.

Three other reports on Thursday also suggested a firmer recovery was
taking root -- new claims for jobless benefits and a help-wanted
index suggested some stability in the labor market, while companies
spent more on wages and benefits.

The jump in GDP (news - web sites) growth, which also reflected a
big gain in business spending, outstripped forecasts on Wall Street,
where economists had looked for a rise closer to 6 percent.

- ----------------------



On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:31:56 -0500, "Schoonertrash"
wrote:

So what? Does it matter? Of course not. It hasn't mattered for
well over
sixty years. Didn't matter under Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagain,
Carter, Ford,
Johnson, Nixon (did I leave out anyone?), Eisenhower . . .
correction . ..
Nixon did something to correct it partially and Kennedy tried to do
so.

Measured against GNP as a percentage it's nothing. That's the
arguement
Doug used on me last time. Once you invoke that you are home
free. The
rest is just silliness like worrying about five or ten nukes in N.
Korea.
Hell . . .I'm used to worrying about ten thousand plus of the
things pointed
at me. Neither do I worry about the National Debt or the annual
budger
imbalances . .. .


[SNIP]


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQE/oVKg0IEDbd7J/jkRAjIIAJ9iEQBsx59F7tzVYCdl0kchrdJIdwCg/KGK
71q1Rr2jByjpLPvlm6yZ/4Y=
=TnEI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

You need a refresher course in Macro Economics.

"two wheels" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

When the economy is humming along, the deficit cures itself. That's
what the tax cuts were for--to prime the economic pump. Tax and
tariff policy is about the only power government has over the
economy. They can slow down the economy with tax increases (as in
California) or speed it up with tax cuts. That's it.

two wheels


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...id=749&e=1&u=/
nm/20031030/bs_nm/economy_dc

Economy Rocketed Ahead in 3rd Quarter
By Tim Ahmann

excerpt:
- ----------------------

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its
fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as
consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying
spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday.

U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate in
the July-September period, the Commerce Department said. It was the
steepest climb since the first quarter of 1984 and more than double
the second quarter's 3.3 percent rate.

Three other reports on Thursday also suggested a firmer recovery was
taking root -- new claims for jobless benefits and a help-wanted
index suggested some stability in the labor market, while companies
spent more on wages and benefits.

The jump in GDP (news - web sites) growth, which also reflected a
big gain in business spending, outstripped forecasts on Wall Street,
where economists had looked for a rise closer to 6 percent.

- ----------------------



On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:31:56 -0500, "Schoonertrash"
wrote:

So what? Does it matter? Of course not. It hasn't mattered for
well over
sixty years. Didn't matter under Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagain,
Carter, Ford,
Johnson, Nixon (did I leave out anyone?), Eisenhower . . .
correction . ..
Nixon did something to correct it partially and Kennedy tried to do
so.

Measured against GNP as a percentage it's nothing. That's the
arguement
Doug used on me last time. Once you invoke that you are home
free. The
rest is just silliness like worrying about five or ten nukes in N.
Korea.
Hell . . .I'm used to worrying about ten thousand plus of the
things pointed
at me. Neither do I worry about the National Debt or the annual
budger
imbalances . .. .


[SNIP]


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQE/oVKg0IEDbd7J/jkRAjIIAJ9iEQBsx59F7tzVYCdl0kchrdJIdwCg/KGK
71q1Rr2jByjpLPvlm6yZ/4Y=
=TnEI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

It is reflected in the pool of monies available for use in capitol
improvments, mortgages and such. Also if the fed has a huge defecit to pay
on, things suffer, things like social security, law enforcment, and
borderpatrol.
"Schoonertrash" wrote in message
...
So what? Does it matter? Of course not. It hasn't mattered for well
over
sixty years. Didn't matter under Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagain, Carter, Ford,
Johnson, Nixon (did I leave out anyone?), Eisenhower . . . correction . ..
Nixon did something to correct it partially and Kennedy tried to do so.

Measured against GNP as a percentage it's nothing. That's the arguement
Doug used on me last time. Once you invoke that you are home free. The
rest is just silliness like worrying about five or ten nukes in N. Korea.
Hell . . .I'm used to worrying about ten thousand plus of the things
pointed
at me. Neither do I worry about the National Debt or the annual budger
imbalances . .. .

All you have to do to get rid of it is do like the last administration.
Take it "off budget" and ignore it. Then you can claim a budget surplus.
In point of fact there has never been a budget surplus when the books are
balanced. Take a quick look at the Dept of Treasury website. End of
conversation. The rest is just meaningless BS.

As long as the majority of the nation thinks we are solvent, we are
solvent
(faith standard versus gold standard or rabbit skin standard or wampum
standard or whatever else). Now of course the electronic symbols on
computer tapes have been given the same status as printed money or (in the
old days) coined money (not since what? 64 or 65 have we minted coins) or
against tokens (look like coins but no intrinsic value).

Let's suppose the situation gets really, really bad. Two types of
things,
make that three, will happen.

Employment gets low enough there will be a war and employment will rise
dramatically. Might be a shooting war, might be a war on poverty, might
be
a war against kangaroo rat infestations. Doesn't matter.

Individual programs get too hard to handle then the original intent will
be
enforced. For Example Social Security is for " those who are destitute".
Read the original law that established the program. Do away with those at
the top who really don't need it and voila! No problem. Course if you
retire on $25,000 or so plus a year plan on getting shafted.

Finally look at the example of Nixon and Kissinger when they did away with
the Johnson Debt. Simply create an artificial shortage of a basic
commodity. Float scare rumours of $2.00a gallon gas, let the price float
from 35 cents to nearer one dollar and then you can raise the taxes on
fuel.
Can't tax fifty cents on thirty five cent a gallon gas can you? Scare
people into thinking $5 a gallon gas is around the corner . . .let it
settle
at $2 plus and bing taxes can now raise to $1 plus.

Another name for this is debt devaluation or 'your investment ain't worth
as
much as you thought when you loaned out the money." That's another phrase
for PERS or IRA or any other retirment fund investment. The whole thing
is
BS of the highest magnitude.. .. .and not worth worrying about. Want a
real
scare? The unfunded debt of the nation is now hovering around 50
trillion.
Unfunded military retirement, unfunded Social Security, unfunded Railroad
Retirement, unfunded Medicare and Medicaid. And that's only through the
lifetime of the baby boomers.

In truth, the only debt worth worrying about is your own. $10 Big Mac's
anyone? What is worth worrying about is how much per foot is the cost of
a
sailboat and where in the world you can make what you have left last as
long
as you need it.

Can anyone properly define the term "money?"

MST

The ONLY thing worth worrying about is when enough people say, "The
emperor
(government) has no clothes." Once enough people realize the government
has
not intention of paying their bills .. . . . . . .

Well. . .no one said everything lasts forever . . But in the immortal
words
of Alfred E. "What me Worry?"

and military readiness. But it does not affect congressional salaries.

Schoonertrash wrote:

So what? Does it matter? Of course not. It hasn't mattered for well over
sixty years. Didn't matter under Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagain, Carter, Ford,
Johnson, Nixon (did I leave out anyone?), Eisenhower . . . correction . ..
Nixon did something to correct it partially and Kennedy tried to do so.

You should try some facts. Carter almost balanced the budget, and so did
Clinton. The main fiscal skulduggery used each time was to project foreign
balance of payments and use the Social Security surplus to reduce the size of
the liability balance.




Measured against GNP as a percentage it's nothing. That's the arguement
Doug used on me last time.

No, Doug most definitely did not say anything of the kind. Doug said something
more along the lines that national debt should be measured against GNP (or it's
counterpart GDP) to be meaningful, and for the US it's still quite small.


Once you invoke that you are home free.

Hardly.

What you seem to be saying is "Republican national debt is fine & wonderful, but
those Democrats just screw everything up and then lie about it."


....The
rest is just silliness like worrying about five or ten nukes in N. Korea.
Hell . . .I'm used to worrying about ten thousand plus of the things pointed
at me.

Ten nukes is definitely an improvement over ten thousand, but that hardly means
that we should relax and stop trying to do anything about those ten nukes. Ten
nukes is BIG problem amigo.


Neither do I worry about the National Debt or the annual budger
imbalances . .. .

You won't be happy when it erases your pension.

DSK

Clinton never came close to balancing the budget and raised the national
debt by a third or more. Raising the debt and not balancing the budget is
something he had in common with every other administration. Has nothing to
do with Democrat or Republican. The knee jerk blaming of the 'other side' of
the coin argument is meaningless. It's still the same coin. He also
refunded the national debt with short term, high interest bonds instead of
long term low interest bonds and and fudged the unemployment figures. .
...let's see. . .funded the Mexican bail out with the social security fund
and the railroad retirement fund Most of that money never left the US
though but went to pay off the loaning institutions such as the home
corporation of the then Treasury Secretary. Bet his stocks didn't suffer.
But on balance . . .. So what? Does it matter? Not really.

Carter . . . carter .. . carter . . oh yes wasn't he the one who presided
over double digit inflation, was more despised by the military than was
Clinton and holds the record for screwing up more foreign policy than any
other President in memory ('cept maybe Ford) ... thought so. Sorry, ten
nukes means little to me. How they got the ten nukes is of some
importance though. The fact that they (North Korea) even exists as a
government and how that happened has meaning to me. Bullets, bombs,
landmines, and seamines mean a great deal to me but I've managed to dodge
them all through the years ('cept for two). I guess you have to have been
there. Come to think of it the items in question were reportedly made by
out of scrap metal shipped to a supporter of the opposition under dear ole'
Tricky Dick. A pox on both your houses.

You are right about my pension and social security though. The one pitfall
of government employment, military, civilian, social security or otherwise
is this . . . . are you really going to get paid? Well so far so good ..
.. . Dec 1st is another question. Think that guy Rubin would loan some of
the money back?

Actually I have and abiding faith in the government Donkeys and Elephants
alike to keep the game going. They really don't have any other choice do
they?

And that's where I'll leave it . . .They really don't have any other choice.