From: "Gary Britt" 

No its the facts, as I demonstrated below.  The articles of faith in this
regard are yours.  However, I suspect you know the truth and just choose to
ignore it since it doesn't fit your socialist world view.

Gary

"Adam"  wrote in message
news:43970a28{at}w3.nls.net...
> I take it this is yet another article of faith for you rather than
> demonstrable facts.
>
> The ID of economics.
>
> Adam
>
> Gary Britt wrote:
>
> > Nothing in what you quoted addresses the central question under Reagan
which
> > was what happened to the amount of government receipts after the tax
cuts.
> > The amount of taxes (receipts) collected by government went UP after the
tax
> > cuts.  Lower tax cuts equals MORE government revenues.  The deficits
were
> > caused by SPENDING being increased by MORE than the INCREASE in tax
> > receipts.  Reagan vetoed numerous spending bills and shut down the
federal
> > government with those vetoes on more than one occasion.  However, he was
> > unable to stop the democraps & MSM's demagoguery on spending.  Every
time he
> > proposed a cut in the growth (note not a real cut but a cut in the size
of
> > increases) of any federal program, the press and the democrats would run
> > constant stories about how he was cutting spending (which was a lie) for
> > some homeless kid and his parents who never worked.  The democraps and
the
> > MSM still cooperate on this kind of LIE to this day with regard to cuts
in
> > spending INCREASES.
> >
> > The other stuff in the quote below is just as wrong and disingenuous (by
the
> > authors of the material not you) as was the stuff on deficits.  If you
> > selectively present statistics you can fool anyone who doesn't bother to
> > think about the central elements that are left out of the information.
> >
> > The fact remains that every time, EVERY TIME, that tax RATES are cut,
the
> > federal governments receipts of tax payments do NOT go down.  Instead
they
> > go UP.  This has been proven under Kennedy's rate cuts, under Reagan's
rate
> > cuts, and now again under Bush's rate cuts.  So if democraps raise tax
> > rates, that means receipts go DOWN.  If on top of that they maintain or
> > increase spending, deficits go UP MORE than they would have if tax rates
> > were cut or held steady and the spending increases remain the same in
both.
> >
> > Gary
> > "Adam"  wrote in message
> > news:4396c81c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> >>Gary Britt wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My economics are fine, its your lack of knowledge of the
USA economy,
> >
> > tax
> >
> >>>rates, and size of government revenues from taxation that
is not fine.
> >>>
> >>>When the USA government lowers tax rates the amount of
money collected
> >
> > goes
> >
> >>>UP not down.  Tax rate hikes have the opposite effect.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Proof please.
> >>
> >>If you speand more than you earn you get into debt. To then pay off that
> >>debt you must earn more than you spend.
> >>
> >>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html
> >>
> >>"Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of
his second term.
> >>First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of
> >>GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the
> >>federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP.
> >>Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to
> >>an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration
> >>added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The
> >>share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased
> >>from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988."
> >>
> >>Note the levels of debt rising under reagan.
> >>
> >>Basically all lowering taxes did was to help privatise gov debt while
> >>convincing the pols that they could thus speand more.
> >>
> >>Adam
> >
> >
> >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5