"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined
during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly?

John H

Bush the Second absolutley outperformed
Bill Clinton in the national debt category.
Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years as
it
increased in *eight* under Clinton.

Discretionary spending (aka--pork-barrel spending) was lower under Bush than
it was under Clinton. The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

So, you are admitting that the current state of the economy IS Bush's
fault. I'm glad you finally realize that.

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:13:13 GMT, "dixon"
wrote:

Looks like we actually had some responsible presidents on both sides, until
around about 1982 and then again around 2000. The blue chart that allows for
inflation tells quite a story.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html


Dixon


Sure hope b'asskisser sees that page. Maybe he'll learn something.

John H

Unlike you, I fully understood, and didn't need a graphic
representation. Did YOU learn anything from it?

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?

"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.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined
during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly?

John H

Bush the Second absolutley outperformed
Bill Clinton in the national debt category.
Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years
as
it
increased in *eight* under Clinton.

Discretionary spending (aka--pork-barrel spending) was lower under Bush
than
it was under Clinton. The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

So, you are admitting that the current state of the economy IS Bush's
fault. I'm glad you finally realize that.

Yes, Bush can take credit for 3 straight years of solid GDP growth, and 15
straight months of net jobs growth.

"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 17:14:32 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Yes, Bush can take credit for 3 straight years of solid GDP growth, and 15
straight months of net jobs growth.

But he can't take blame for......................anything.

bb

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