Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On 1/4/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
Reducing the total tax burden seems like a good idea, but only *after* you
have reduced spending. The plan for Reagan and Bush I&II administrations
has been to massively increase defense spending and to either reduce tax
rates or hold them down, thus increasing the deficit enormously.
If by "Bush 1" you mean George H. W. Bush, than I think you are wrong.
Bush the Elder famously got in trouble for actually doing something
about the deficit (raising some taxes after promising not to), and his
war actually way self-financing.
This
merely shifts the tax burden to the future. Why do people like that? It
is reckless and wasteful. Wake up.
This is a good point. There is a reasonable argument for running
deficits in some short term situations (e.g., a recession hits) when
you know you will have offsetting future revenue to put the system
back into balance. There is essentially no good argument for cutting
taxes when the economy is growing and there is a huge structural
deficit.
jking
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact