NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Tax receipts *are* up. Which means that from now on it will be awfully hard
for Democrats to whine that tax cuts cause deficits.

Increased spending...from wars, and military build-ups, and natural
disasters...cause deficits. But not tax cuts.


Nonsense.

The government can increase spending as much as it likes, as long as it
has the revenues to pay for it.

Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits.
Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo. 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).
If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease
spending by as much or more than the tax cut.

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.

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.

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.....). 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.

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.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

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.


chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral.




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.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

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.


chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral.




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.


Nope, is not static thinking. Is the truth. Hurts does it not? The tax
cuts were pulling us out of a recession that was happening at the end of the
Clinton Years. Unfortunately, the Congress, and Bush have showed absolutely
no fiscal restraint! The first Gulf war spending bill was 20% pork. The
Highway Transportation bill was at least 26 Billion of pork. All the
Congress Persons who did not stand up and complain about the pork when the
bills were in discussion, should go to jail for fraud when ever they
complain about the spending of money by the Federal Government. And that is
both Republicans and Democrats!

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

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.


chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral.




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.


Nope, is not static thinking.

Thinking that a tax cut automatically equals a drop in tax revenue is Static
Thinking

Is the truth. Hurts does it not? The tax
cuts were pulling us out of a recession that was happening at the end of
the
Clinton Years.

I agree

Unfortunately, the Congress, and Bush have showed absolutely
no fiscal restraint! The first Gulf war spending bill was 20% pork. The
Highway Transportation bill was at least 26 Billion of pork. All the
Congress Persons who did not stand up and complain about the pork when the
bills were in discussion, should go to jail for fraud when ever they
complain about the spending of money by the Federal Government. And that
is
both Republicans and Democrats!

I agree