well in theory the tax cut should stimulate the
ecconomy, there by gaining more tax revernue at lower
rate. just as an example: you got say ten people
paying tax. cut the rate stimulate the ecconomy. that
adds to the taxpayer pool getting say now 13 people
paying taxes and making up for the lower rate that the
10 would have paid. however, for that to work you
still need to hold the budget atwhere you started.
that part of the equation has been ignored by this
admin and this congress. the congress passes spending
bills that spens more, using what the extra
stimulation of the tax cut creates and then some and
the pres does not veto it. defeats the purpose of the
tax cut.
   there are lots of conservatives that are saying to
ourself "what the hell is going on here?" we have a
right to wonder if our conservatives elected officals
have went crazy.
--- Kat <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> We are operating at a deficit that is the biggest in
> many years. I'm not
> happy with that at all.
>
> And we have tax cuts?  How, pray tell, are we going
> to pay for all those
> services?  I'm mainly afraid that essential social
> welfare programs are
> going to get cut even more and so are educational
> programs.  Our
> children are suffering.
>
> Kat
>
> ken barber wrote:
> > if i miss read, i do appologize to both mag and
> her
> > paper. thanks, deri. it makes it much better if we
> are
> > talking about the same thing and i do fell better
> to
> > know that her paper is accurately reporting. i do
> > appologize mag.
> >   so if we are talking 3 billion a month is
> actually
> > lest than the roughly 2/3 billion a day that was
> > appropriated.
> >    it is not easy to think in the billions, but
> the
> > total budget is over 3000 billion. that is 3
> trillion,
> > or was it 5 trillion.
> >    any way you take it, i am not happy with the
> bush
> > admin for letting spending get so much. if i live
> > beyond my means, the banks would eventually cut me
> > off. the government just prints more money. that
> is
> > what the gold standard did for us, it restraind
> the
> > printing of money hap hazardly. as a conservative
> i
> > can not be happy about that, however i'll refer
> back
> > to kyles post of the head start program. one of
> the
> > few government programs that works well. i have no
> > children who would be in it, but, i'd leave that
> > program just as it is. find some that are not
> working
> > and cut those. and by working, i mean doing what
> was
> > origonally planned.
> > --- Deri James <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Ken,
> >>
> >>If you read Mag's post again I think the paper she
> >>read claimed 3 bn a month
> >>(not per day!!). Seems, from your figures,
> elements
> >>of the US press are
> >>trying to downplay the true cost of the war. ;-)
> >>
> >>Cheers
> >>
> >>Deri
> >>
> >>On Monday 21 Jul 2003 10:39 pm, you wrote:
> >>
> >>>might be a bit of a little bit of exaggeratin for
> >>>effect, or a lie if you wish. the house of
> >>>represenatives passed a suplemetal budget for 85
> >>>billion to carry 120 days of "active combat." we
> >>
> >>are
> >>
> >>>now spending let than "active combat" rate. my
> >>
> >>math
> >>
> >>>says that 85 billion for 120 days is less than a
> >>>billion a day. we are spending even less. as a %
> >>
> >>of
> >>
> >>>gnp this is the cheapest war we have ever fought.
> >>
> >>>>[log in to unmask] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>One of my helpers was on a plane with some
> >>
> >>GI's
> >>
> >>>>who had just come home. They
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>told her we are sending video games, air
> >>>>
> >>>>conditioning, cell phones so they can
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>phone home, etc.... This came up when I was
> >>>>
> >>>>looking at a headline in the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>paper 3 billion a month to keep this war
> >>
> >>going. It
> >>
> >>>>boggles my mind.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com