>
>>> Gord>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you
>>>>>>>> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country >>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>> massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>>>> Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into
>>>>>>> the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just
>>>>>>> check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there.
>>>>>> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of
>>>>>> this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the
>>>>>> prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear
>>>>>> the mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington >>>>>>>> Got
>>>>>>>> Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait.
>>>>>>> I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is >>>>>>> massive.
>>>>>>> There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the
>>>>>>> RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic
>>>>>>> "theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, >>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and
>>>>>>> sales team ever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat >>>>>>> robber-baron
>>>>>>> like pockets through massive government spending economically >>>>>>> directed
>>>>>>> to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put
>>>>>>> billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots
>>>>>>> about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it
>>>>>>> benefits them personally (examples available).
>>>>>> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they
>>>>>> think taxes might rise for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax
>>>>>>> cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small
>>>>>>> relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds >>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really >>>>>>> important
>>>>>>> to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they
>>>>>>> are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty,
>>>>>>> conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money
>>>>>> >from them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but
>>>>>> the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored
>>>>>> a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was >>>>>> only
>>>>>> fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.)
>>>>>> When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a
>>>>>> big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was
>>>>>> long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long
>>>>>> disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't >>>>>>> clever
>>>>>>> enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are
>>>>>>> hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being
>>>>>>> beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals
>>>>>>> at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-)
>>>>>> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>>>>> less evil.
>>>>> And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>>>> still EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president
>>>>> we've had in my lifetime. As I often said, the best president Chinese
>>>>> money could buy. The only reason he actually was able to pay down the
>>>>> debt was the Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend
>>>>> money on entitlement programs without limit.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't know WTF you are talking about. Entitlement
>>>> programs, by definition, are immune to the whims of the Congressional
>>>> appropriation process. These include Social Security and Medicare.
>>>> The only significant change to these benefits in recent years was the
>>>> Republican directed Medicare Drug Plan which provides meager and
>>>> confusing benefits at outrageous cost to the taxpayer and obscene
>>>> profits to the drug companies. Even the Republicans wouldn't have
>>>> voted for this if the Bust Administration hadn't lied about the cost
>>>> and twisted their arms to the breaking point.
>>>>
>>>>> (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country financially and morally.
>>>>> The SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The US Government is not
>>>>> supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please reread the
>>>>> Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL >>>>> welfare.
>>>>
>>>> If everyone in America is a piglet by your analogy, then it sounds
>>>> like the GENERAL welfare is being promoted.
>>>
>>> No - only that of those sucking on the teats and not those going out and
>>> working for what they get. The term "welfare" has a bastardized meaning
>>> today due to gubmint programs. Originally it simply meant wellbeing -
>>> not programs of handouts.
>>>
>>> Bill Putney
>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>
>> And Gordon McScrew hasn't noticed I don't even bother to reply to his
>> liberal rantings. If Gordon McScrew and JoeNoBedroom are indicative of
>> what the average American are thinking, then as a country, we're done
>> for. And I'm finding more and more 'common' people are thinking like >> them.
>>
>> Charles the Curmudgeon.
>
> I fear that you are right about that. We will know if Obama gets elected.
> The fact that it's a toss up at this point that he might may have the same
> implication. And in what ways will McCain be much better in certain > categories?
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')