It is not acceptable for that sentence and a third grade English teacher could have told you that.

I suggest you find a 3rd grade English teacher, ask them, then enroll

If this is the economy "on it's feet," I would hate to see what a bed-ridden economy looks like.

A tax cut that leads to a deficit will cause short-lived growth to the detriment of long-term stability. Go ask an economist.

A tax cut to revive the economy is a fine idea, but only if a) it will not lead to a deficit, or b) it will lead to a temporary deficit that will be corrected later on.

You keep talking about how tax cuts will lead to more spending and that will result in greater revenue.

If that is the case, how come the budget projections for the next decade all show huge deficits unless taxes are raised and spending is reined in?

Businesses don't pay taxes. I sincerely hope you realize this. Tax them more or less it doesn't matter. Tax them less and the wealthy shareholders make more money. Tax them more and they are forced to spend more of their money to avoid being taxed on it.

The ideal situation for a corporation is to show a 0 profit. In that case expenses (salary, R&D, supplies) exactly cancel out revenue. Such a corporation would pay no taxes whatsoever.

The whole point behind taxing corporate profits is to make it expensive for companies to hoard profits. That keeps currency in circulation where it can help the economy, instead of in a bank account where it can not.

I could keep explaining economics to you but I doubt you care.

-Don

 

I don't have a problem with tax cuts. I honestly don't. I would personally like to see the federal budget slashed in half so I could keep a lot more of my own money.

I do, however, have a problem with tax cuts that, by all projections, lead to half trillion dollar deficits for the next decade. You want tax cuts, fine but then you need to cut the budget as well.

The other problem I have with the Bush tax cuts is that they favor those who are least likely to spend it (those making over $150k a year). Under Bush's tax cuts, corporations would not pay taxes on dividends.

Warren Buffet wrote a great essay about this. He said Bush's tax cuts would allow him to put 300 million dollars in his pocket. "So what?" he asked. What is he going to do with another 300 million dollars? He would just end up sticking it in the bank.

Tax cuts should be given to the poor and middle class. Not because they deserve it more, but because they are more likely to spend it.

Heh, I might take you up on that.

-Don

 

There is that word again “Hate”, anyway no I do not mind my tax dollars going towards an education that is carried out in a religious environment. To me it does not matter the environment of where the education is carried out in but the “quality” of education.

I see your not for individuals having a choice in this country so why are you even worried about the Bill of Rights?

Again your comprehension is running a bit thin again. Liberals and people like yourself run away from problems because you all offer NO solution to a situation, rather you and others like you would rather throw more money at a problem and walk away “feeling” good about your liberal values. It is all about “feelings” with you people and not accountability.

I offered a solution so how about you try to come up with one to counter it. What would you do to improve the current situation with public schooling? It should not cost the amount of money it does today so you need to reduce the spending and improve the “quality” of education, so what is your plan?

Yes, my use of the word “repel” was acceptable in the sentence and context I used it in. So are you now an English professor and economist as well?

Well you could but since you can not seem to grasp one of the fundamental concepts that leads to a bad or held back economy (tax hikes), less jobs, less federal revenue you will never see the light on the foundation of what it takes to maintain a successfully growing economy.

Tax cuts never result in deficits, only spending results in deficits. Yes the federal government needs to take in some revenue to pay for expenses that are necessities, such as the military, but they could do just fine with half the revenue they are taking in now.

What you should be upset about is the fact that spending never gets cut or reduced, it NEVER happens, the reason the future projections show deficits is NOT because of tax cuts but the failure of the federal government to control SPENDING.

The great economy of the 90’s was in large part due to President Reagan and his tax cuts, yes President Reagan had deficits as well and that was the result of those in Congress continually raising spending above the take in of federal revenues. President Reagan proved that by cutting taxes it brought in MORE federal revenue. It is very simple math when one wishes to take an “honest” look…

When your yearly in flow of federal revenue is say 8% then your spending can NOT exceed 8%, any third grade teacher could teach you that…

 

Tax cuts should be giving to anyone that actually pays taxes and it should be the same percentage across the board. The poor that I “think” you are referring to do NOT pay taxes and thus they do NOT deserve a tax cut regardless.

The reason being is if you do not pay taxes there is none to cut so it is simply another social program that causes MY taxes to be raised. If someone who is poor and does NOT pay taxes wishes to see a tax cut then they had better find another job or get a second job so they are actually paying taxes to receive a tax cut.

 

My tax dollars should not be spent so that schools can spend an hour a day preaching to other kids. It is up to parents to teach their children about religion, not a school.

I offered you the solution, you have ignored it. The problem is not the institution but parental involvement. Why do you think good schools are good and bad schools are bad? The level of parental involvement.

Those private schools that are good aren't better because they are private. They are better because the parents care enough to get involved. What do you think would happen to those schools when anyone with a voucher started attending?

Catholic schools (at least in NYC) do not require parents to become involved and are every bit as bad (often a lot worse) than public schools.

I think parents need to step forward and fix their own schools. You think they should be allowed to run away to another school. That is the difference between you and I.

You offered no solution. You offered a plan to run away with absolutely no proof that it would do any good. As I have already said, the majority of Catholic schools in NYC offer a worse education than their public counterparts.

Do you have any idea what the United States spends per student on public school education? As of 2000 is was $6k per year. This is compared to $8k in countries such as Denmark, Norway, Austria and Switzerland.

You are so naive You honestly believe economics are this simple don't you? Economics is a balancing act. You need to balance revenue, spending, inflation, interest and a half dozen other factors. Cutting taxes doesn't spur an economy by itself any more than cutting the interest rate does.

I would try to explain to you inflation and other concepts in economics but once again, you just do not seem to care.

I agree with you. The Bush administration has no plans to cut the budget and is planning on growing it faster than Clinton did. Are you sure you still agree with Bush?

Reagan left this country with a debt that will take decades to pay off. If this is your idea of good economics, we have nothing to talk about. (There was a reason for the huge spending, and I am not saying it was a mistake, just that it should not be looked to as an example of good economics).

None of Reagans tax cuts helped this country. Believe whatever you want to.

We are talking about the same president who went around making decisions based on Astrology right?

Tell that to Bush, _not_ to me. Under Clinton the Budget increased at a total annual rate of 4%. Under Bush, the general budget will increase at a rate of 4%, but discretionary spending will increase at a rate of 20%. Mind telling me who is wrong here?

-Don

 

Now you are comparing teachers conditions to the unemployed due to catastrophies or otherwise. Yes, in that comparison they are lucky, so are we all.
Try being unemployed for two months with a yearly salary of 25 to 30 G's and see if you like it, let alone survive.
Bottom line, money can't buy an excellent public education, but it sure will give it a start.

1depd, Pay teachers a base salary and bonuses and incentives for standardized test score results from their students. Hummmm! Not bad on paper, but I'd want to teach the AG classes in that case. How about those inner city teachers that don't have the same student base population to start with. There may be some merit to that theory, but it's rough and needs a ton of work to even begin to fly.
There goes creativity and exploration out the window, everyone will be teaching to the salary/testing schedule.

 

This is starting to sound suspiciously like a flat tax proposal. In that case I agree. We should raise taxes on anyone making less than $150k a year and we should lower the taxes of people making over $150k a year. All in favor?

Poor is anyone making under $40k. Middle class is anyone from $40k to $150k.

People making less than $40k pay no taxes? Huh.

-Don

 

XLT,

Just so we know where you stand:

1. Should we abolish unions?
2. Should spending be reined in?
3. Is a balanced budget important?

-Don

 

sirket:

You really make no sense at all with the argument of ”my tax dollars should not fund a school to preach for an hour a day” Sorry but that holds no water at all. Public schools do much more preaching then most religious schools do. They preach about how its ok to be gay, to have two mommies or two daddies, that is ok to have sex if you use protection and the list goes on.

None of what I mentioned above that is preached about in public schools everyday across America belongs in public schools, it belongs just where you state religion belongs ”In the home”

That is why every parent should have the right to send their child to any school they wish, be it public or a religious school. Since I have no voice what is preached about in a public school you should neither have a voice about what someone’s child is taught so long as that child’s parent is ok with it.

Here is the thing you need to understand, you do NOT get a choice of where your money is spent once it has been taken away from you in the forum of taxes. It would be best if you learned that and understand it. So please no more poor excuses of how you would like to run away from the school problem.

You have not yet offered a solution to the poor job public schools are doing. I have, which is allowing parents the “freedom” of choosing where their child is educated. That is not running away but rather like in any other business voting with your wallet. When one business is ran poorly and another is run correctly I can elect to do business with the successful one. It is also called competition, another fundamental value that liberals HATE.

Should parents be involved in their child’s school? Absolutely, but not all parents have that kind of time (thanks liberals for all the high taxes that keep mommy and daddy both working to stay up with things) Take about running away from a problem and offering no solution, that was amazing…

Schools are accountable for the education the children receive, not the parents. You offer a typical liberal excuse ”Not my fault, it’s the other guy”. I do agree parents should be involved as much as they can but that is NOT an answer to the poor jobs the public school system is doing, that is running away from the problem with your tail between your legs screaming IT’S NOT MY FAULT…

So, I have a solution and you have yet to offer one…

As far as tax cuts and helping the economy I am done trying to explain that one to you. The truth and proof is right there smacking you up side the head and you still don’t get it, or refuse to accept that simple economical fact of life…

President Bush’s tax cuts are the MAIN reason the economy is bouncing back as it is, and doing much better then most people even thought possible, just as they did for President Reagan who ended the cold war with the Soviet Union, money well spent protecting you and your family and insuring you can continue your pursuit of happiness…

 

People who make $40,000 a year are poor? WTF

 

You getting confused on the meaning of FLAT? Flat means even, the same plain if you will, thus a flat tax will tax everyone equally. If it's a 12% tax then someone making $30,000 pays $3,600 (12%), and someone making $200,000 pays $24,000 (12%).

Ok, lets make this a little more simple, for every $100 someone makes they pay $12 in taxes. Don’t matter how many of those $100 bills you collect in a year you will pay $12 to the federal government for every one of them.

Why would you practice discrimination against someone that may have collect a few more $100 bills then the next person. All you liberals love that, you all love discriminating against everyone…

 

1. Should we abolish unions?

Yes to all federals and state unions, No to private unions, that is an individual choice for a person to make on their own in the private sector.


2. Should spending be reined in?

Yes, all spending except for the military and Home Land Security should be reined in.


3. Is a balanced budget important?

Depends on the circumstances. During times of war then NO a balanced budget is not important if it would mean less funding to the military and Home Land Security then was actually needed to fund them.

Otherwise then yes a balanced budget is important and one that neither party has been able to do. The republicans were able to balance the budget on Clinton’s watch and control the democrats from run-a-way spending but now they have failed and the democrats being the big spenders they are anyway are having fun at the party…

 

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. You won't believe it but it's the truth. Besides, if you keep your personal spending in check, it can be done.

 

I am fully aware of the idea behind a flat tax plan. If we wanted to generate the same revenue we with a flat tax, then those making less than $150k a year would see their taxes increase, and those making more than $150k a year would see their taxes decrease. That sound good to you? Would you like to pay more in taxes?

You are pretty dense aren't you? Flat tax proposals aren't exactly complicated. What you fail to understand is that a flat tax system would see your taxes raised if we wanted to meet the same revenue targets.

-Don

 

In NYC? Absolutely.

I was simply lumping tax brackets though. The actual brackets can be found here:
http://www.fairmark.com/refrence/2003rate.htm

Check out "Head of Household" and look at the numbers.

-Don