Re: Hillary Catches Yet Another Republican lying

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 03/16/05 

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:22:46 GMT

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:34:29 GMT, Michael E Craney
<mcraney@hotpop.com> wrote:

>In article <1110924524.330511.317740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>cliff84373@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> As most of us will probably recall Fed Chief, Alan Greenspan, went
>> along with the charade when Republicans were saying that Bush's massive
>> tax cuts for the rich wouldn't cause big budget deficits.
>
>To be accurate, tax cuts never caused a large budget deficit before (the
>net result was always between a point or so of prior revenue)

To be accurate and not lie like a rug, that is false. It happened
after the Reagan tax cuts.

>so it's
>rather difficult to blame someone for thinking X would happen when X had
>always happened in the past.
>>
>> Now Greenspan is visiting Capitol Hill and acting like the sky is
>> falling and warning about social security and deficits that aren't
>> sustainable that will cause rising interest rates and he's also pimping
>> for Bush's plan to destroy Social Security.
>
>To be fair, the sustainability of SS has very, VERY little to do with
>the tax cuts. You'd have to put the tax cuts back, plus a lot more, to
>fix the SS fiscal imblalance.

Another lie. SS is not funded by the tax that was cut.

>Here's one reputable economist (one of Greenspan's WE) that has
>something to say on the topic:
>
>****************
>Nobel Prize Winner: Tax cuts were too small
>October 14, 2004
>
>The 2004 Nobel Prize for Economics winner, Edward Prescott, said on CNBC
>that the Bush tax cuts were too small.

Edward Prescott is a lickspittle of the idle rich who claims the Great
Depression was when working people all spontaneously decided to go on
vacation.

'Nuff said.

> "What Bush has done has been not very big, it's pretty small,"
>Prescott told CNBC financial news television.
>
> "Tax rates were not cut enough," he said.
>
>As I've said before, tax cuts were great for the economy. The wealthiest
>Americans are now paying a larger share as a result of the Bush tax cut:

That is a flat-out lie. The wealthiest Americans now pay almost no
tax at all. It is mid- and high-income _working_people_ who pay
almost all the income tax.

Prescott is lying filth.

> A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office...shows
>that Bush?s tax cuts have been ?progressive? ? that is, they have
>shifted the share of the overall federal income tax burden toward the
>wealthy and away from lower-income earners.

Another flat lie. Working people who have mid- to high _earned_
incomes, who are paying almost all the income taxes, are not the
wealthy. The wealthy are those with high unearned, repeat, _un_earned
incomes. And they pay almost no income tax. Over 90% of the tax code
consists of ways to avoid paying tax on unearned income,

>Do I agree with increasing/escalating tax cuts? Yeah, I probably do.
>It's been shown to spur on the economy & tax revenues time and time
>again:
>
> * lower taxes gives people more a greater share of their income
> * larger incomes lead to increased purchased and savings
> * increased savings mean banks have more money to loan and do so
>more freely
> * increased loan availability leads to capital spending by
>businesses
> * increased capital investments lead to larger revenues
> * larger revenues lead to more taxes collected by the government
>
>It happens every time.

Every time taxation of _earned_ income is reduced. Not when taxation
of _un_earned income is reduced.

-- Roy L

Relevant Pages

  • Needed: A Fiscal framework
    ... health, pensions, income support, and other social services. ... The U.S. has a chronic fiscal deficit because federal taxation, ... Rather than arguing about the value of taxes or spending, ... implications of tax cuts, for example, depend importantly on whether they ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Bush sets nation at ease regarding economy
    ... Top 20% of income earners with incomes of $215K or more, ... not to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but whether to make them permanent ... Bush and Obama have properly said that they will let them ... Clinton is in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Bush sets nation at ease regarding economy
    ... Bottom 60% of income earners with incomes of $58K or less, ... not to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but whether to make them permanent ... Bush and Obama have properly said that they will let them ... Clinton is in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Bush sets nation at ease regarding economy
    ... Bottom 60% of income earners with incomes of $58K or less, ... not to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but whether to make them permanent ... Bush and Obama have properly said that they will let them ... Clinton is in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Bush sets nation at ease regarding economy
    ... Top 20% of income earners with incomes of $215K or more, ... not to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but whether to make them permanent or ... Bush and Obama have properly said that they will let them expire. ... Clinton is in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)