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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Apr 26, 10:20*am, Mark Sieving wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:48:00 -0400, Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT net wrote: Sure. Federal revenues today are higher than they were in 2000. That's because Bush cut taxes. This is what is technically referred to as a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy. Federal tax revenues for 2007 were about $100 billion more than in 2000. *Federal tax revenues were about $1,000 billion more in 2000 than they were in 1992. While there's no doubt that an excessive tax rate will reduce total revenue, total tax revenue has been increasing pretty steadily for the past forty years, regardless of whatever tweaks have been made to marginal tax rates. *The exception to that steady increase was in GW Bush's first term, between 2000 and 2003, when total revenue dropped about 400 billion dollars. The problem comes when people think in terms of the gross economy and gross taxes/tax rates. The believe created during the Reagan years that all taxs cuts will cause economic growth that will in turn increase tax revenue was based a wrong understanding of the Laffer curve. This combined with some very poor economic education is the reason for this myth continuation. Not all taxs cuts will increase tax revenues or grow the economy. The think we must remember is the economy is made up of hundered of millions of individuals, each of which operates in what they consider their own self interest. What we know as the gross national product (GNP) is the summation if all these individual income. Now while must people think every body acts the same in the everybody else, the reality is that everybody acts different, because nobody situation is the same. Therefore it is impossible to model our economy using gross method, it can be done only by complex multi dimension models that take these individual differneces into account. Now consider that with our progress tax rates system, some of those individuals, the rich productive ones, are given less incentive to produce that those which are taxed less becuse of the high tax rates they are force to pay on income.. The rich therefore start producing less, or at least producing less of what is taxed ( ie income). This result of course in decreased government revenue since there is less to taxs, And since the wealth poeple control such a large percentage of the GNP, they produce a extremel high proportion of the governement take revenue. Which means as they produce less, the governments revenues fall even quicker. From these points it becomes clear that if the lawmakers want to increase government revenues, they must reduce the tax rate paid by the rich and forget making tax cut for the poor. One more thing, since the rich will be provided with increased incentive to generate income, they will naturally increase the income they produce. That inturn will increase the GNP which is the measurement of the size of the economy most often used. This is why cutting taxes of the high income people, the 'rich', is responsible for 'economic growth.' |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
"Dave" wrote in message ... "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS Monterey. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
"Dave" wrote in message
... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS Monterey. I see that William McKinley was left off the list. He served in the Civil War enlisting as a private, but by the end of the war he mustered out as a captain. It should be noted that his regiment of volunteer infantry from Ohio was commanded by Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, who has been listed above. ALV |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
"Andrew Venor" wrote in message . .. "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS Monterey. I see that William McKinley was left off the list. He served in the Civil War enlisting as a private, but by the end of the war he mustered out as a captain. It should be noted that his regiment of volunteer infantry from Ohio was commanded by Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, who has been listed above. ALV Thanks. I didn't know about McKinely's service. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |