Text 14178, 88 rader
Skriven 2007-05-07 23:12:33 av Josh Hill (548.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:05:28 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <n3os33hmpmth6avdp95dp53rq4hvkb0396@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:36:55 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>=20
>> >Josh Hill wrote:
>>=20
>> >> And the Repubs answer is taking less, and never spending less. Whic=
h
>> >> leads to some rather obvious difficulties.
>> >
>> >Taking less leads to collecting more (even JFK acknowledged this).
>>=20
>> Ah, spin! That oft-repeated shibboleth is easily debunked: if it were
>> true, then as taxes approached zero revenue would rise. It doesn't.
>> Economists say, for example, that the net effect of the Bush
>> Administration's tax cuts was to reduce government revenue.
>
>    Of course, then Nirvanna should be reached when every penny we make=20
>is taxed.

I didn't say that either. Both propositions are ridiculous.

> Other economists have noted otherwise. For instance a lot of=20
>people note falling of taxes paid per capita, but don't notice that=20
>taxes paid per return filed (a better measure of what is actually=20
>happening at the level of the taxpayer) went up and either way, revenues=
=20
>are more than there were when the cuts were enacted. Spending goes up.=20

It depends entirely on the situation and the tax. The consensus among
economists seems to be that Kennedy's tax cuts were economically
beneficial while Bush's were harmful.

>> >We don't have too few taxes, we have too much spending.
>>=20
>> I have seen no evidence of that. The best that can be said is that we
>> spend too much on pork and war's we'll never fight and corporate
>> welfare. Fortunately, the party that has proven fonder of pork than
>> the Democrats ever were is now out of power in Congress.
>> Unfortunately, the President who never vetoed a spending bill until it
>> interfered with his right to waste lives and money on a senseless
>> conflict still is.
>>=20
>
>       Interesting that you note you have seen no evidence of that and=20
>they go and discuss the evidence to the contrary .

It's not evidence to the contrary: he vetoed the bill because of the
withdrawal provision, not because of the spending.

>        Neither party, any more, has any moral authority to pontificate=20
>on spending. About the only time in the last 60 years that spending=20
>hasn't increased at double digit rates (and more often well into double=20
>digit rates) after inflation was during the time Gramm Rudman was in=20
>place and even that was fleeting.=20

Spending should increase: the economy grows, the country grows, and
fiscal stimuli are frequently necessary. The only real question is
whether the rate of increase is too high or too low.

>> >And people disagree with what we "have" to do, whether government
>> >can do it best,  and which economists to listen to.
>>=20
>> Which is why we have elections.

>   Which also brings about quite a bit of the problems as the=20
>CongressCritters buy our votes with what they bring back from DC.

Absolutely. We're part of the problem. If people were more concerned
over what their legislators do for the country than they are on how
many plum Federal contracts they bring to their district, politicians
would have much less incentive to bring home the bacon.

--=20
Josh

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths,
and how many, what day it=92s going to happen, and=20
how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean,
it=92s, it=92s not relevant. So, why should I waste my=20
beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)