wrote in message
oups.com...

Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits.

I agree.



Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo.


Thanks for stating the obvious.

If the
government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more
money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money).

Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will increase
tax receipts as the economy expands.


If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease
spending by as much or more than the tax cut.

A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just the
opposite occurs.



I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax
cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now
are tax cuts and spending increases.

Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus as the
economy grows.

But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending,
they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next year's
increase in spending.




Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq,
sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any
entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending.


Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year.

Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your
practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that
I know, don't be insulted.....).

Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years (age
40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my income
should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-)

Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k
a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once
in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household
budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her
that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during
the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can
claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not
the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many
years go by.

If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues and
spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes through
cycles.

I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it down
in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which to
spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay the
piper.

The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can therefore
borrow ad infinitum.

Right now our government is like a couple of hillbillies who
accidentally acquire $200,000 in credit cards. As they're spending each
card to the max and hauling home truck loads of useless consumer junk,
they can't believe how "rich" they suddenly are.

Sounds like John Q. American to me......

wrote:
Dan J.S. wrote:
The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady
rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)...

That's ridiculous.
The economy moves into and out of recession without tax cuts.
Prior to GWB's tax cut, how many recessions subsided *without* any tax
cuts?
Plenty.

Right now our government is like a couple of hillbillies who
accidentally acquire $200,000 in credit cards. As they're spending each
card to the max and hauling home truck loads of useless consumer junk,
they can't believe how "rich" they suddenly are.

If tax receipts are up, government spending is up far, far, far more.
Train wreck, dead ahead.

that's just silly, and I think you know it.

Dan J.S. wrote:

The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady
rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)...



Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?

A *tremendous* increase in gov't spending has booted the economy
somewhat... after a significant lag (about 3 years)... and is a lower
marginal gain per deficit dollar than observed in history.

DSK

Dixon wrote:
So no, my moderately liberal friends, Bush falls far short of Hitler
in many respects.


Sure.

Adolf Hitler enlisted in his country's army and actually fought in a war.

Hitler was a talented public speaker.

Hitler wrote a book. Bush can barely read.

Hitler announced his political principles, and stood by them.

The differences are obvious.

DSK

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote:

[
Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler


I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was
in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books
do.

The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years, from
a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He
invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German
Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today.

As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush is
incompetent (AND an Idiot).

And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy any
day.

Lloyd

Lloyd,
You would chose Hitler over Bush? Wow, that is more fanatical than Harry.


"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote:

[
Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler


I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was
in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books
do.

The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years, from
a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He
invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German
Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today.

As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush is
incompetent (AND an Idiot).

And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy any
day.

Lloyd

The "Bush is stupid" mantra.........are the liebrals ever going to wake
up???

"Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" wrote in message
...
Lloyd,
You would chose Hitler over Bush? Wow, that is more fanatical than Harry.


"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote:

[
Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler


I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was
in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books
do.

The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years,
from
a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He
invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German
Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today.

As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush
is
incompetent (AND an Idiot).

And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy
any
day.

Lloyd

Lloyd Sumpter,
It was probably the syphilis that made her crazy. I hope you didn't have sex
with that woman.
JIMinFL


"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote:

[
Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler


I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was
in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books
do.

The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years, from
a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He
invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German
Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today.

As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush is
incompetent (AND an Idiot).

And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy any
day.

Lloyd

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:21:48 -0700, Lloyd Sumpter wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote:

[
Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler


I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was
in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books
do.

The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years, from
a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He
invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German
Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today.

As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush is
incompetent (AND an Idiot).

And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy any
day.

Lloyd

It's this attitude that got him elected.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan