The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

As well as failure to monitor cash flow and adjust the master game plan to
reflect changing conditions in the economy.
When Greenspan suggested a tax cut, back during the Clinton years, it was
because we were running a surplus.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

As well as failure to monitor cash flow and adjust the master game plan to
reflect changing conditions in the economy.
When Greenspan suggested a tax cut, back during the Clinton years, it was
because we were running a surplus.

If you're going to use Greenspan's remarks to validate your argument, then
you also need to include Greenspan's remarks in February of this year:

"I am in favor, as I've indicated in the past, of continuing the tax cuts
that are in dispute at this particular stage"

He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he
promotes tightened spending.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:34:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead,
he promotes tightened spending.

Great, so do you think the President will listen to him this term? Or, do
you, like myself, think there will be a tax *increase* hidden in that "tax
overhaul" he's been talking about?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:34:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead,
he promotes tightened spending.

Great, so do you think the President will listen to him this term?

Yes. A 1% bump in discretionary spending is tantamount to a cut if GDP is
growing at better than 3%.

Or, do
you, like myself, think there will be a tax *increase* hidden in that "tax
overhaul" he's been talking about?

There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes
(like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:17:11 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes
(like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated.

Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Actually, it's my
understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system
overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:02:40 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:17:11 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes
(like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated.

Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Actually, it's my
understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system
overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax.

YAY!!!!

Later,

Tom

thunder wrote:
Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-)

Yep, another variation on a common theme. Bear in mind though, gov't
debt drives up inflation which has the same effect as a tax increase.


... Actually, it's my
understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system
overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax.



Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
YAY!!!!

??? A national sales tax would be a disaster. The ad valorum tax
structure is one of the things that are killing the European economy
(although it's not bad for *us* because it makes the U.S. more competitive).

A flat rate income tax sounds great until you look at it in any detail,
when you realize that it would have to be be around 28% in order to not
have a tremendous shortfall. Also, the morality sucks... it is
effectively a penalty on the less wealthy.

DSK

national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or 30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich. A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about 8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax. If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary lengths to
pay even less. :-)

"I am in favor, as I've indicated in the past, of continuing the tax cuts
that are in dispute at this particular stage"

He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he
promotes tightened spending.


Fine, Greenspan and I agree that the budget is being mismananged. Cut taxes as
much as you want- no problem- but for every dollar cut in income there has to
be an equal reduction in spending or else....or
else we'll get exactly what we've got right now, a situation clearly out of
control.