Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On 2008-06-12, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:

> Maybe we should stop sending troops all over the world to protect the
> investments of the wealthy. Since we spend more on offense than the
> rest of the world combined, spending less would mean lower taxes. The
> rich can go protect their investments themselves, using their kids.

I am all for investigating any way to decrease spending.

In most cases, these nasty little wars are more of a defense than an
offense, though. Let's face facts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
are doing a great job in keeping the bulk of the community
tied up. When those actions are done, you will see a marked increase
in Islamic terrorism in North America.

Most of the public justification for the war was plain bullshit, and I
am not sure that the war is justified even if I'm right, but it makes
sense to call it for what it is...

And while National Defense (or Offense if we're to use your words) is
quite expensive, it is at least a constitutional role of the Federal
government, while many of the things they are spending gobs of OUR
money on are absolutely NOT.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Bill Putney wrote:
>
>Do you recall the "luxury" tax that was put on yachts - I think during
>the Carter admin?
>
Untrue, because when the last federal luxury tax was in effect,
Cadillac had economist Alfred Laffer perform in a commercial where he
said Cadillacs were exempt from the tax, and Laffer was not a
celebrity during the Carter years. This occurred when Bush I was
President.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

SMS wrote:
>Peaceful Bill wrote:
>
>>It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start
>>cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start
>>cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues
>>will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce.
>
>You've fallen for the big con.
>
>The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate
>the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised
>taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing
>of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his
>very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>
The Reagan tax cut dropped the top rate to 50%, but in reality few of
the wealthy paid even that much when the top was 70%, or even 90%, as
it was in the 1950s, thanks to wasteful tax shelters. The top rate
was cut to 28% during the second Reagan term, as part of a tax reform
plan that also eliminated any tax advantages for capital gains. On a
percentage basis, Reagan raised taxes as much as Clinton did.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

SMS wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the
>>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>
>> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer.
>
> Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending
> without the revenue to fund it.

Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. The Dems are in control of both
houses. They are responsible for the budget.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Joe wrote:
> On 2008-06-12, Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote:
>> Joe wrote:
>>> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head.
>>>>> Clearly, it is...
>>>> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's
>>>> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down
>>>> with new taxes...)
>>>>
>>>> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting
>>>> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what
>>>> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against
>>> punitive taxes. <snip>
>> Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes."
>
> Right. We already have plenty as it is. Get a dictionary. Look up
> "More". I'll wait for you.

"We"? Who is that? The internet is accessible to the whole world, you
know.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

rantonrave@mail.com wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> Do you recall the "luxury" tax that was put on yachts - I think during
>> the Carter admin?
>>
> Untrue, because when the last federal luxury tax was in effect,
> Cadillac had economist Alfred Laffer perform in a commercial where he
> said Cadillacs were exempt from the tax, and Laffer was not a
> celebrity during the Carter years. This occurred when Bush I was
> President.

According to Joe, it was during Clinton.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you believe.
When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to pass
higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many
recent vetoes

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:VWh4k.13693$co7.2922@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the
>>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>
>> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer.
>
> Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending without
> the revenue to fund it.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

The luxury tax was on items that sold above $40,000 and it was passed by the
DIMS


<rantonrave@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9625b9a8-df0c-43d3-bbdd-6d7d9ecdc53b@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>Do you recall the "luxury" tax that was put on yachts - I think during
>>the Carter admin?
>>
> Untrue, because when the last federal luxury tax was in effect,
> Cadillac had economist Alfred Laffer perform in a commercial where he
> said Cadillacs were exempt from the tax, and Laffer was not a
> celebrity during the Carter years. This occurred when Bush I was
> President.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Your source is?


<rantonrave@mail.com> wrote in message
news:52a96e70-44d0-4b65-bd40-2299b3104434@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> SMS wrote:
>>Peaceful Bill wrote:
>>
>>>It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start
>>>cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start
>>>cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues
>>>will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce.
>>
>>You've fallen for the big con.
>>
>>The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate
>>the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised
>>taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing
>>of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his
>>very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>>
> The Reagan tax cut dropped the top rate to 50%, but in reality few of
> the wealthy paid even that much when the top was 70%, or even 90%, as
> it was in the 1950s, thanks to wasteful tax shelters. The top rate
> was cut to 28% during the second Reagan term, as part of a tax reform
> plan that also eliminated any tax advantages for capital gains. On a
> percentage basis, Reagan raised taxes as much as Clinton did.
>

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Klark Kent wrote:

> In message news:wbb4k.7598$uE5.3573@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> burned some brain cells writing:

> > Just how low do you think taxes should be cut?
>
> This is a two-part question. First the national debt must be paid off.

The national debt never has to be paid off, but it probably is
desirable to have it be a much lower proportion of the GDP than it is
now (roughly 60%, or double what it was before the Reagan
revolution). Interest on the national debt is a transfer of wealth
from the poor to the rich and currently amounts to roughly (very
roughly) $1,000 a person annually. Lowering the debt/GDP ratio will
allow for interest rates to be lower, and that can't be bad for
consumers and business.

> In order to do that you can either raise taxes or cut spending. Since
> it has been established that raising taxes is detrimental to the economy,
> spending cuts are the way to go.

It has not been established that raising taxes is always or even
usually detrimental to the economy.

> Spending cuts also make it easier to accomplish the
> post-national-debt-payoff phase: eliminating the income tax completely.

Spending cuts are difficult because powerful politicians are behind
spending, especially the most wasteful spending. Also taxes can be
hard to cut without incurring deficits.

> > Do you believe that there a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus?
>
> No. Elimination of the income tax would be the best thing that could be
> done to stimulate the economy, and it would result in revenue to the
> government equivalent to 1999 levels.

Cite proof from someone who has a good track record of forecasting
revenue. Cutting taxes hasn't resulted in revenue gains unless the
top marginal rate was very high or the average rate was very, very
high, and neither situation exists today. Any tax cuts will have to
be accompanied by some spending cuts to avoid deficits.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:02:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Bill Putney wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the
>>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>
>> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer.
>
>Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending
>without the revenue to fund it.

Or vote for the Democrats for uncontrolled spending AND taxation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Mike hunt wrote:
> Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you believe.
> When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to pass
> higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many
> recent vetoes
>

And the dimwit in the White House has vetoed how many higher spending bills?

Jeff

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

In article <aUC4k.1310$cm.406@trndny09>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Mike hunt wrote:
> > Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you
> > believe.
> > When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to
> > pass
> > higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many
> > recent vetoes
> >
>
> And the dimwit in the White House has vetoed how many higher spending bills?
>
> Jeff

I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have
a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB.
--

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> ...Spending cuts are difficult because powerful politicians are behind
> spending, especially the most wasteful spending.

If they Fox News runs it again, catch Chris Wallace's "Porked: Earmarks
for Profit"

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

dbu wrote:
> In article <aUC4k.1310$cm.406@trndny09>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike hunt wrote:
>>> Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you
>>> believe.
>>> When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to
>>> pass
>>> higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many
>>> recent vetoes
>>>
>> And the dimwit in the White House has vetoed how many higher spending bills?
>>
>> Jeff
>
> I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have
> a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB.

Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
(2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.

BTW, a lot of the pork that was passed by Congress includes the pork
passed by both parties.

Jeff