The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"devil" wrote in message
news

When you cut taxes without reducing spending, where does the shortfall
come from?


You're confusing tax rates with tax revenue. Reagan cut tax rates, tax
revenue then rose, rising tax revenue does lead to deficits.

You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
deficits.That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and
the difference between the two is the deficit.
Econ. 101.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
deficits.


Rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.



That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and
the difference between the two is the deficit.


Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
deficits.


Rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.

I was just quoting you, bright boy!

That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and
the difference between the two is the deficit.


Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

I was just quoting you, bright boy!


And you didn't read the following message?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

I was just quoting you, bright boy!


And you didn't read the following message?

No, would you mind translating the vacant spaces for me?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
deficits.


Rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.



That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and
the difference between the two is the deficit.


Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits.

Mike1 wrote:

Sara wrote:

James Martinez wrote:

One of the biggest objection to vouchers has been that public taxes
should not be used to send children to private or parochial schools.
Sorry, but I think public taxes should go to public school systems....



Seeing as "taxes" is a euphemism for "stolen loot", it "should" go
nowhere save straight back to the people who were ripped off, while
those who think they should have a school that I have no use for (in the
same way that I think I should have a new La Crosse weather-station that
you would have no use for) should go out and buy it with their own
money. Oh, and the thieves responsible tarred and feathered and set
alight.


My tax dollars support the public schools, because somewhere in those
public schools is a future dentist, doctor, policeman or policewoman, or
a future biomedical engineer. I may not need any of them today, but I
sure might need them tomorrow.

My tax money is an investment in *my* future health, happiness, and
well-being as well as being an investment in the children of my country.
Not stolen loot - it's a nest egg.




--
Phyl

Alt.TV.ER Homepage & Quotes:
http://www.digiserve.com/er/erdex.html
http://www.digiserve.com/er/oped/quotes.html

My tax dollars support the public schools, because somewhere in those
public schools is a future dentist, doctor, policeman or policewoman, or
a future biomedical engineer. I may not need any of them today, but I
sure might need them tomorrow.

My tax money is an investment in *my* future health, happiness, and
well-being as well as being an investment in the children of my country.
Not stolen loot - it's a nest egg.

Your tax dollars are being misused to maintain an educational monopoly.
Interesting that the political left screams loud and long about monopolies,
while selectively ignoring public education. Which should now be more
accurately referred to a public indoctrination.

Seeing as fewer students are leaving public education with the skills
necessary for further study in the jobs you mentioned, I would encourage
you to look elsewhere for these services. And the long-standing response
of throwing more money after a problem has shown not to work. Student in
asia and europe continue to out perform US students, while learning in
educational settings which spend much less per student than the US. And
US students with the highest SAT and ACT test scores are often the product
of home schooling. Or private schooling.

The NEA has a tight grip on the 'nads of the democratic pary. And along
with the trail lawyers association they could play 'make a wish and pull'.
Do not look seriously for either educational or court reform from your
political preference. Although it would not hurt for you to raise your
personal liability insurance and expect much less from public education.

Phyl wrote:

Mike1 wrote:

Sara wrote:

James Martinez wrote:

One of the biggest objection to vouchers has been that public taxes
should not be used to send children to private or parochial schools.
Sorry, but I think public taxes should go to public school systems....




Seeing as "taxes" is a euphemism for "stolen loot", it "should" go
nowhere save straight back to the people who were ripped off, while
those who think they should have a school that I have no use for (in
the same way that I think I should have a new La Crosse
weather-station that you would have no use for) should go out and buy
it with their own money. Oh, and the thieves responsible tarred and
feathered and set alight.



My tax dollars support the public schools, because somewhere in those
public schools is a future dentist, doctor, policeman or policewoman,
or a future biomedical engineer. I may not need any of them today, but
I sure might need them tomorrow.

My tax money is an investment in *my* future health, happiness, and
well-being as well as being an investment in the children of my country.
Not stolen loot - it's a nest egg.




You're directing this logic at someone who advocates having no public
school system--do you really think he will grasp the concept of
investing in society?

On 20 Jan 2004 20:54:55 -0800, (James Martinez)
wrote:

Thank you for
turning America into a country where ethnic identity is now paramount.

You raise an interesting point that others have raised and you do it
from an insider's perspective.

Please give some insight into how (or whether) to deal with situations
where people were being denied the right to vote based on race, or
people were put in inferior or undefunded schools based on race or
economic status, or people were denied certain jobs because of race,
religion or gender without developing a sense of racial, economic or
gender identity? In other words, how does a government stop people
from abusing or exploiting people based on group identity without
creating or expanding the idea of a group? Or should they try? Are you
overall glad the government did get involved?