<div dir="ltr">What has busted the budget is an illegal war entered into using known lies by an administration that should be tried in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Eliminate the war spending, which is borrowed from China, and you eliminate about half of the deficit. Eliminate another 20% of a military budget that is larger than all the rest of the world combined, and we have a balanced budget. Unfortunately, the next president, Obama, has been doing a bunch of sabre rattling about Afghanistan. That won't be cheap. So, I don't hold out much hope for that 20% reduction I'm talking about, but at least he'll get us out of Iraq soon. <br>
<br>Plus, Obama's campaign is running Linux severs! :-) Mandatory Linux content.<br><br>Plus, Jon, the economics you are espousing is supply side, aka trickle down, aka voodoo economics. That's been proven, twice now, that it doesn't work. Raising the taxes on the people who have more money than anyone needs does not hurt the macro economy. Cutting taxes on the wealthy just let's them be richer. It doesn't generate more GDP. Putting more of the rich people's money in the hands of the poor and middle class generate GDP, and thus jobs. Supply side economics is about to die, at least for awhile, thank goodness. The second gilded age is about to come to an end.<br>
<br>Peace,<br>Jim<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Jon Pruente <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jdpruente@gmail.com">jdpruente@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:45 AM, lowell <<a href="mailto:lowell@kc.rr.com">lowell@kc.rr.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Could we see some of these facts and their sources, instead of saying "I<br>
> know the facts and you don't!" without proving it?<br>
<br>
Ten myths of the Bush tax cuts -<br>
<a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm</a><br>
Summary of 2006 tax data - <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html" target="_blank">http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html</a><br>
<br>
When I go back to look, my numbers may be a bit off, but my points still stand.<br>
<br>
> administration genuflected to their holy-of-holies (free market laissez<br>
> faire no matter what the current reality may be) and dramatically cut the<br>
> tax *rates* of the upper bracket incomes (the ONLY ones who pay taxes, if I<br>
> understand you correctly) knowing this would drastically reduce tax<br>
> *revenue*. The motive driving this on-the-face-of-it foolish action had<br>
<br>
Nope, I never said the tax cuts were for the rich only. The lower<br>
brackets accounted for quite a lot of the tax relief from the Bush tax<br>
cuts, even if the Democrats want to play like it isn't true.<br>
<br>
> voters agree with this, we'll rig it this way: eliminate its sources of<br>
> revenue (EVERYONE will vote to cut his own taxes, no matter what), keep<br>
> spending like there's no tomorrow (EVERYONE likes it when congressman Billie<br>
> Bob brings in the big bucks to his district), and force it to collapse under<br>
> its own beyond-payable debt. Thus far they appear to be doing a pretty good<br>
> job of following this strategy.<br>
<br>
Cutting taxes that are too high will encourage people to engage in<br>
those even more once the tax burden is lowered. There is a point of<br>
diminishing returns for cutting taxes, but there is also a point on<br>
the side of increasing taxes. Increasing taxes works in the short<br>
term until people move their investments away from those taxed<br>
situations and into less burdensome ones.<br>
<br>
You agree with me and Jeremy that massive spending is a problem.<br>
That's good. I'd also like to point out that I liked reading the<br>
clear and reasoned posts by Matthew Coppel. I don't agree with all he<br>
had to say, but he said it well, and clearly, and didn't attack anyone<br>
in doing so.<br>
<br>
Jon.<br>
<br>
P.S. I'm still waiting on Jeffery to send up some data or links for<br>
his position. If he doesn't, he gets written off as a Kool-Aide<br>
toe-er of the line in my book. That's not particularly bad, though.<br>
It gives me a point of reference, like it has for Luke, who (no<br>
offense) has made it clear that he's an avowed Catholic. I know to<br>
think about that when I read his replies on certain issues.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Kclug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Kclug@kclug.org">Kclug@kclug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug" target="_blank">http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>