Text 14277, 80 rader
Skriven 2007-05-09 11:40:27 av Kurt Ullman (647.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
In article <1c5243dq8avm1q2fktm5o3k2djdjc0hmqp@4ax.com>,
 Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 May 2007 09:57:11 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Josh Hill wrote:
> >
> >We're not talking zero taxes.   Your argument could be extended to say that 
> >it would be a wonderful thing to collect 100% of income as taxes. You can't 
> >apply either the extremes to this situation. Extremes are usually dangerous.
> >
> >No one has suggested to eliminate taxes.
> >
> >It is fact though that when taxes have been lowered, revenue has gone up. 
> >Even JFK recognized this and learned from it.  It is true now...we are at 
> >record high revenues after the tax cuts.
> 
> In Kennedy's case, yes. In Bush's case, no. Economists say that Bush's
> tax cuts /reduced/ revenues from what they otherwise would have been.
> 
> You just can't reduce this to a right-wing sound bite, Carl. Economics
> isn't that simple.

  Yet you manage to do just that with unnamed economists and the 
assertion that there is some sort of consensus, if not unanimous 
agreement on this subject. 

> 
> >I find it most interesting that even with *record* revenues... the emphasis 
> >is on raising taxes, apparently for the sake of raising taxes and not 
> >increasing revenues.  It always seems to be about raising taxes.
> 
> When the deficit is excessive from an economic perspective, you raise
> taxes or cut services.
   No, you raise taxes. There never has been a time where they cut 
services or even eliminated programs that were no longer needed or 
working. 

>
> Not really. People's response is "reverse the tax cuts for the rich
> that have given us record deficits and indirectly increased taxes for
> the poor and middle class."
   Again, the statements that fit in with your perspective but are 
pretty much entirely free of any actual substance. 

>
> 
> The Democrats are better than today's Republicans when it comes to
> pork, yes. Far from perfect, but better. Which is true of most of the
> choices we have in life, no?
  I haven't seen any indication of that. Indeed, the last major Pork 
fest, the Transportation Bill, the Dems as well as the GOP. This bill 
alone makes the best argument for a balanced budget amendment precisely 
because they both did so well. 


> 
> That, quite simply, is not the case.

   YASFS (Yet another substance free statement)

> >That's one reason I'm for a divided government.  I said that when the GOP 
> >had
> >all three branches.
> >
> >Neither party should have all three.
> 
> Our nation's best years occurred when one party controlled both the
> presidency and the Congress. We need two parties, but one of the
> reasons for that is that one will be better than the other. In
> Lincoln's day, it was the Republicans; in more recent years, it's been
> the Democrats.

     Ahh, for most of Clinton's term there was a divided Congress you 
gonna say that was lousy time? Actually, especially since WWI, the times 
when the same party controlled both houses of Congress and the White 
House have been relatively few.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)