"ObiWan Kenobi" wrote in message

Ever dollar spent by government, whether under a budget deficit or a
balanced budget, is a dollar that's unavailable to the person who earned
it.

Simple solution----- abolish government.

"NOYB" wrote in message news:WnVAe.21884

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

..... The tide of economic growth ...... now expected to erase as much as
25% of the red ink


Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said ".....the soundest way
to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics
obviously works,

It worked for the country under Kennedy, it worked for the country under
Reagan, and now it is working once again for the country under Bush. Only
two categories fail to see it -- the obtuse, and those who need to retain
high taxes and a complicated tax code for punative nd social engineering
purposes.

Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics
obviously works,


Ever heard the old saying, 'Don't count your chickens before they're
hatched'? If it does happen, it'll be good news... not necessarily proof
that supply side economics works, but merely proof that the huge
increase in gov't expenditure under the Bush Administration *has*
returned some $$ to the overall economy, after all.


John Gaquin wrote:
It worked for the country under Kennedy

Maybe.

... it worked for the country under
Reagan,

Actually, it *didn't* work under Reagan. Reagan left the country with a
much bigger debt. However, he did grow the economy by increasing
expenditure... hmmm now where have we seen that before...


.. and now it is working once again for the country under Bush.

No, it is *projected* that the deficit *might* not be as big as once
thought.

That's like proclaiming the good news that your doctor told you, you
only have cancer on one side....


... Only
two categories fail to see it -- the obtuse, and those who need to retain
high taxes and a complicated tax code for punative nd social engineering
purposes.


Or those who are not quite convinced that Bush The Almighty is
infallible & perfect, and have a smattering of acquaintance with the
actual facts.

DSK

NOYB wrote:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge
BY JED GRAHAM

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

So much for record budget deficits. The tide of economic growth and surging
corporate and individual tax revenues are now expected to erase as much as
25% of the red ink the government was planning to expend this year.

Three-quarters of the way through fiscal 2005, the Congressional Budget
Office says the deficit will come in well shy of $350 billion and may fall
below $325 billion. The White House, which had forecast a record $427
deficit, will update its view Wednesday.

Some see the better-than-expected federal revenues as evidence that
President Bush's tax policy is working as advertised.

"This is exactly what the White House said would happen," said Heritage
Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "They said the tax cuts would
stimulate productivity, fuel economic growth and lead to smaller deficits."


Tax revenues through the first nine months of the fiscal year are up $204
billion, or 14.6%, from last year to $1.6 trillion, CBO estimated.

More than one-fourth of that improvement has come from corporate income tax
receipts, which are up $58 billion, or 40.8%, from a year ago.

Individual income taxes are up $105 billion, or 17.6%, from last year. The
payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs are up $34 billion, or 7%.

"It's a dramatic story," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at
Stanford Washington Research Group. "Whether you believe in supply-side
theory or not, supply-side-tax-cutting advocates are going to be
emboldened."

Valliere now expects the president to reach two years early his "modest"
pledge of cutting the deficit in half as a share of GDP by 2009.

Bush made the commitment during his bid for re-election at a time the White
House was projecting a deficit of 4.5% of GDP, although the 2004 deficit
ended up to be $412 billion, or 3.6% of GDP. CBO figures suggest the 2005
deficit may slip below 3% of GDP.

For an administration that had to deflect attacks about being fiscally
irresponsible in Bush's first term, the turn in the deficit is welcome news,
and the stakes couldn't be any higher. Closing the deficit is critical to
the president's goal of making his first-term tax cuts permanent and
cementing his legacy as a tax cutter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical
truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and
the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics
obviously works, and the Laffer Curve is an accurate model of what happens
when taxes are decreased. Hopefully the current data will put the
naysayer's argument to rest.



Doctor to patient: Remember last month when we told you that tests
revealed you had diabetes, AIDS, throat cancer, lung cancer, brain
cancer, colon cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, swollen
tonsils and the mumps?

Patient, (glumly): How could I ever forget that?

Doctor: Well, I've got some good news for you! Your tonsils are no
longer inflammed, and we think you are recovering from the mumps.

Patient: Hallelujah! I'm well!


You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money
like a bunch of drunks. That's far more direct than wondering whether
or not the tax cuts might stimulate the economy enough to begin
covering some of the bad checks the Repub-majority congress are writing
and the Repub prez is signing.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics
obviously works,


Ever heard the old saying, 'Don't count your chickens before they're
hatched'? If it does happen, it'll be good news... not necessarily proof
that supply side economics works, but merely proof that the huge increase
in gov't expenditure under the Bush Administration *has* returned some $$
to the overall economy, after all.


John Gaquin wrote:
It worked for the country under Kennedy

Maybe.

... it worked for the country under Reagan,

Actually, it *didn't* work under Reagan. Reagan left the country with a
much bigger debt. However, he did grow the economy by increasing
expenditure... hmmm now where have we seen that before...


.. and now it is working once again for the country under Bush.

No, it is *projected* that the deficit *might* not be as big as once
thought.

That's like proclaiming the good news that your doctor told you, you only
have cancer on one side....


That *is* good news. Once it crosses the midline, the prognosis becomes
extremely bleak.

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge
BY JED GRAHAM

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

So much for record budget deficits. The tide of economic growth and
surging
corporate and individual tax revenues are now expected to erase as much
as
25% of the red ink the government was planning to expend this year.

Three-quarters of the way through fiscal 2005, the Congressional Budget
Office says the deficit will come in well shy of $350 billion and may
fall
below $325 billion. The White House, which had forecast a record $427
deficit, will update its view Wednesday.

Some see the better-than-expected federal revenues as evidence that
President Bush's tax policy is working as advertised.

"This is exactly what the White House said would happen," said Heritage
Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "They said the tax cuts would
stimulate productivity, fuel economic growth and lead to smaller
deficits."


Tax revenues through the first nine months of the fiscal year are up $204
billion, or 14.6%, from last year to $1.6 trillion, CBO estimated.

More than one-fourth of that improvement has come from corporate income
tax
receipts, which are up $58 billion, or 40.8%, from a year ago.

Individual income taxes are up $105 billion, or 17.6%, from last year.
The
payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs are up $34 billion, or
7%.

"It's a dramatic story," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist
at
Stanford Washington Research Group. "Whether you believe in supply-side
theory or not, supply-side-tax-cutting advocates are going to be
emboldened."

Valliere now expects the president to reach two years early his "modest"
pledge of cutting the deficit in half as a share of GDP by 2009.

Bush made the commitment during his bid for re-election at a time the
White
House was projecting a deficit of 4.5% of GDP, although the 2004 deficit
ended up to be $412 billion, or 3.6% of GDP. CBO figures suggest the 2005
deficit may slip below 3% of GDP.

For an administration that had to deflect attacks about being fiscally
irresponsible in Bush's first term, the turn in the deficit is welcome
news,
and the stakes couldn't be any higher. Closing the deficit is critical to
the president's goal of making his first-term tax cuts permanent and
cementing his legacy as a tax cutter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical
truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -
and
the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics
obviously works, and the Laffer Curve is an accurate model of what
happens
when taxes are decreased. Hopefully the current data will put the
naysayer's argument to rest.



Doctor to patient: Remember last month when we told you that tests
revealed you had diabetes, AIDS, throat cancer, lung cancer, brain
cancer, colon cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, swollen
tonsils and the mumps?

Patient, (glumly): How could I ever forget that?

Doctor: Well, I've got some good news for you! Your tonsils are no
longer inflammed, and we think you are recovering from the mumps.

Patient: Hallelujah! I'm well!


You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money
like a bunch of drunks. That's far more direct than wondering whether
or not the tax cuts might stimulate the economy enough to begin
covering some of the bad checks the Repub-majority congress are writing
and the Repub prez is signing.


The increased spending is almost completely due to the war. Aside from
that, discretionary spending is virtually no different under Bush than under
most of the other administrations that preceded him.

wrote in message

You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money
like a bunch of drunks.

Now there's a bit of irony! I recall thirty-odd years of responsible folk
of all stripes making the same suggestion to one Dem-controlled Congress
after another, only to be brushed off with some condescending patter about
meaningful and necessary social programs.

Now the foe is on the other shoot.

Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term..."

Oh Mr. Krause, I'm sure we will.

BTW, congrats to whom ever won the Canon SLR Flash drawing. CHEERS!

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side
economics
obviously works,


Ever heard the old saying, 'Don't count your chickens before they're
hatched'? If it does happen, it'll be good news... not necessarily
proof
that supply side economics works, but merely proof that the huge
increase
in gov't expenditure under the Bush Administration *has* returned some
$$
to the overall economy, after all.


John Gaquin wrote:
It worked for the country under Kennedy

Maybe.

... it worked for the country under Reagan,

Actually, it *didn't* work under Reagan. Reagan left the country with a
much bigger debt. However, he did grow the economy by increasing
expenditure... hmmm now where have we seen that before...


.. and now it is working once again for the country under Bush.

No, it is *projected* that the deficit *might* not be as big as once
thought.

That's like proclaiming the good news that your doctor told you, you
only
have cancer on one side....


That *is* good news. Once it crosses the midline, the prognosis becomes
extremely bleak.


Another reason the liebrals are doomed to failure.........increased
guvmint spending grew the economy BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge
BY JED GRAHAM

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

So much for record budget deficits. The tide of economic growth and
surging
corporate and individual tax revenues are now expected to erase as much
as
25% of the red ink the government was planning to expend this year.

Three-quarters of the way through fiscal 2005, the Congressional Budget
Office says the deficit will come in well shy of $350 billion and may
fall
below $325 billion. The White House, which had forecast a record $427
deficit, will update its view Wednesday.

Some see the better-than-expected federal revenues as evidence that
President Bush's tax policy is working as advertised.

"This is exactly what the White House said would happen," said Heritage
Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "They said the tax cuts would
stimulate productivity, fuel economic growth and lead to smaller
deficits."


Tax revenues through the first nine months of the fiscal year are up $204
billion, or 14.6%, from last year to $1.6 trillion, CBO estimated.

More than one-fourth of that improvement has come from corporate income
tax
receipts, which are up $58 billion, or 40.8%, from a year ago.

Individual income taxes are up $105 billion, or 17.6%, from last year.
The
payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs are up $34 billion, or
7%.

"It's a dramatic story," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist
at
Stanford Washington Research Group. "Whether you believe in supply-side
theory or not, supply-side-tax-cutting advocates are going to be
emboldened."

Valliere now expects the president to reach two years early his "modest"
pledge of cutting the deficit in half as a share of GDP by 2009.

Bush made the commitment during his bid for re-election at a time the
White
House was projecting a deficit of 4.5% of GDP, although the 2004 deficit
ended up to be $412 billion, or 3.6% of GDP. CBO figures suggest the 2005
deficit may slip below 3% of GDP.

For an administration that had to deflect attacks about being fiscally
irresponsible in Bush's first term, the turn in the deficit is welcome
news,
and the stakes couldn't be any higher. Closing the deficit is critical to
the president's goal of making his first-term tax cuts permanent and
cementing his legacy as a tax cutter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical
truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -
and
the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics
obviously works, and the Laffer Curve is an accurate model of what
happens
when taxes are decreased. Hopefully the current data will put the
naysayer's argument to rest.



Doctor to patient: Remember last month when we told you that tests
revealed you had diabetes, AIDS, throat cancer, lung cancer, brain
cancer, colon cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, swollen
tonsils and the mumps?

Patient, (glumly): How could I ever forget that?

Doctor: Well, I've got some good news for you! Your tonsils are no
longer inflammed, and we think you are recovering from the mumps.

Patient: Hallelujah! I'm well!


You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money
like a bunch of drunks. That's far more direct than wondering whether
or not the tax cuts might stimulate the economy enough to begin
covering some of the bad checks the Repub-majority congress are writing
and the Repub prez is signing.


The increased spending is almost completely due to the war. Aside from
that, discretionary spending is virtually no different under Bush than under
most of the other administrations that preceded him.

"The increased spending is almost completely due to the war."

Yeah, no schidt. Avoiding for the moment any question about whether we
would have had a war in the first place if certain parties hadn't
insisted on it........

During wartime, you cut back on other expenses. Wars cost real money,
in addition to precious and irreplaceable human lives. To adopt a
policy of fighting the war "off the books" and spending as if it were
peace time on everything else, cutting taxes and revving up govt.
spending everywhere in sight
(except social and environmental programs), is goofy accounting by any
standard.

While you break your arm patting your party on the back. consider that
since the
Iraq war is being fought "off budget", why does anybody believe the
expenditures are even reflected in the current *budget* deficit?