OT and BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:kurtullman-3B8A12.16482101092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
> In article <1157124336.615742.102020@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "-hh" wrote:
>
>> jim wrote:
>> >
>> > Then I made an assumption based on your defense of this tax and was
>> > wrong.
>>
>> Thanks. Please just 'look before you leap' next time.
>>
>>
>> > Sorry, you are simply someone that apparently loves taxes.
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't love taxes either.
>>
>> However, what I dislike even more strongly than paying taxes is failing
>> to take responsibility for our own actions.
>>
>> Currently, we have a collective failure to take personal responsibility
>> for our own spending today, in no small part thanks to rewarding
>> politicians who give us "feel good" tax cuts that are ultimately bad
>> for us in the long run. As a direct consequence, the US national
>> deficit has exploded to over $8.5 trillion, and while we enjoy our own
>> "well-being", we are ultimately saddling our children with the burden
>> of paying off debts that are of *our* making.
>
> Actually this is almost all spending (for which GW and especially
> the GOP Congress should be held with their feet to the fire). Last
> year, REVENUES had returned 2000 levels, a the height of the bubble. The
> Joint Committee of Taxation in the US Congress, who "scores" such things
> prior to passage and estimates tax-fiddling-related on impacts on
> revenue, said this would not happen for at least 10 years. In they
> thought negative (and cumulative) revenue decreases through 2009. Oops.
> Pretty much every survey and study done (in fact at least from the
> mid-70) has shown that if you kept the growth in government spending to
> inflation, you would grow out of whatever deficit was current at the
> time of the study within 5 or 6 years.
> So, tax cuts, just like every one from JFKs forward has resulted in
> an increase in revenue well over what the studies indicated would
> happen. BTW: Did I mention that none of the tax increases have
> increase revenue anywhere near what the JCT said they would.
>
>
>>
>> You can go here to see what the "per citizen" share is right now of the
>> Federal Deficit:
>>
>>
>>
>> For a family of four, multiply that number times four.
>>
>> At the current 6 month T-bill interest rate (4.92%), this means that
>> for a family of four, $450 of their monthly budget is spent just on
>> interest payments on the Federal debt. No deficit reduction yet, so if
>> rates jump back up to where they were in the 1980's, this can easily
>> climb to $1000 per month. And gosh, we're in an interest rate upswing
>> right now...
>>
>>
>> > There is nothing embarrassing about being against excess taxation.
>>
>> It is IMO *highly embarassing* for an adult to purposefully live "high
>> on the hog" by allowing a huge debt to be run up which our children
>> will struggle to pay off, which will result in a much reduced quality
>> of living for them.
>>
>> Our generation has become so self-serving and "tax cut greedy" that
>> we've materially proven Nation-wide (to the tune of $8.5T) that we
>> consider our own luxury and quality of life to be more important to us
>> than the long term well-being of our own children. Shame on us.
>>
>> And see all those Gen-Y's not moving out of Mom & Dad's home? That's
>> the evidence that the longstanding US tradition of each generation
>> living better than the last has ended ... on our watch. But we'll try
>> to shirk responsibility for that too...we'll claim that we were
>> "victims" or some other BS to dodge accountability for our decisions.
>>
>> I find it absoultely incredulous that anyone even has the audacity to
>> complain about a 5% increase in the price of a [bleeping] luxury item.
>> Anyone who thinks that they have an "inalienable right" to a vacation
>> should go talk with their ancestors who survived the Great Depression.
>>
>>
>> -hh
|