A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 25th 08, 12:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Dan[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
Dan ha scritto:
Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)


Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
and "increases in federal revenue" ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.


Well, with any change in the tax codes, people with large stakes of
sedentary investments are encouraged to shift them around. basically, a
tax cut on investments acts as a moratorium/amnesty: we'll forgive you
if you pay us. If rates are 50% and you have $1 million in profits, you
might be enticed to sell those assets if you lower the rate to 25% (for
an almost instantaneous gain of 25% on those assets).

Conversely, if rates are low, and you hold a gain, if the government
raises rates, then you are enticed to sell NOW to lock in the lower rate.

Such activities create a bunch of secondary profits (markets, brokers,
managers who manage the "new" money), so it looks, temporarily, that the
economy has grown when all that was done was to pass paper around. The
government take from this new activity is very short term, but the
tax-cutters point to it as proof that lowering taxes generates
additional revenue (failing to mention that the increases are temporary,
at best).

Please to note that the "spending orgy by the congress" was, in fact,
not an increase in spending independent from the tax cuts, but was a
part of them. Note also that Reagan never submitted a budget that was
ever even close to what was passed in Congress - Congressional budgets
were always WAY lower than Reagan wanted. Note also that Reagan gets
credit for the tax cuts (passed by Congress) but no blame for the
spending, which increases were mostly his bloated military boondoggles,
which EVEN the Pentagon stated openly were obscenely more than they
needed or wanted...

Acolytes of St. Ronnie are an interesting breed... Like other religious
fanatics, they ignore the facts to maintain their belief in the
canonical infallibility of their cult leader.

Dan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" Robert M. Gary Piloting 168 February 5th 08 05:32 PM
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" Robert M. Gary Instrument Flight Rules 137 February 5th 08 05:32 PM
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale >pk Aviation Marketplace 0 October 16th 06 07:48 AM
2007 Defense Budget: Changes in Aircraft Programs. Mike Naval Aviation 0 January 6th 06 06:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.