These are complex questions that I can't answer. I believe the Clinton =
Administration did a much better job at managing the economy than has =
Bush. The Bush Administration's approach has been very unstable.
LelandJ
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michael Madigan=20
To: ProFox Email List=20
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Tony Small's Tax Cut Estimator
OK, Leland, let's say that the statement is not proveable.
Then by the same token, anyone blaming the Bush tax cuts on a
decrease in revenues has no proof either.=20
--- "Leland F. Jackson, CPA" <smvfp (AT) mail DOT smvfp.com> wrote:
> Hi,=20
>=20
> Making a generalized statement like below is meaningless.=20
>=20
> < Every tax cut in history has resulted in increased revenue
> to the
> < Federal Government. So, we will actually be lowering the
> debt.
>=20
> There are far two many variable involved for such a
> statement. Consider the following:=20
>=20
> The Federal Reserve System creates money through the Federal
> Reserve Banks, which loan money to the other banks at specified
> interest rates. To a bank money is its inventory. The regular
> banks then sell it inventory (e.g. money) to corporations and
> individual seeking financing. If the loan is sold, the borrower
> repaid the loan over time including interest.=20
>=20
> This above scenario puts money into the economy, but the
> amount of money in the economy if a function of how much the
> money turns over through exchanging of goods and services.=20
>=20
> When times are good, jobs are plentiful and people feel safe
> to spend their money on good and services, which keep the GDP
> up. This is good. When times are bad, people defer spending
> except for necessities. This is not good.
>=20
> We can't have a complete equation without throwing in the
> government's effect on money, which is the government claim to
> our GNP. I suppose the government has an account with the
> Central Federal Reserve Bank in which it deposits all taxes. If
> good budgeting practices were uses, the money would be
> collected from the taxpayers, deposited into Uncle Sam's
> account, and then spend during the year to provide the services
> that are best suited to government, like our national defense.
> At the end of the year Uncle Sam's account would be reduced
> back to zero a balance (e.g. an exactly balance budget).=20
>=20
> However, when Uncle Sam can not live within his mean, he
> continues to spend beyond the zero balance which create a debt
> owed back to his account (e.g. at some point we will be asked
> to pay this back, or Uncle Sam will be asked to reduce spending
> until his account is back to zero). Uncle Sam is the only
> person allowed to create a bank account that run into the red
> territory, as anyone else doing so can be placed in prison.
> When Uncle Sam runs deficit, he reduces the value of the dollar
> held in the public sector by putting more money into the
> economy while simultaneously consuming GNP (e.g. the great
> hidden tax).=20
>=20
> As you can see there are many variables when talking about
> economics and it would take quite a sophisticated simultaneous
> algebraic or calculus equation to make sense of it all. And
> then there is the psychological mode of the country that also
> messes with the equation.=20
>=20
> Alan Greenspand has a lot of control of the money supply by
> setting interest rates at which other bank can barrow fund.
> However, in a stagnate economy, (e.g. an economy lacking normal
> growth) about the only loan being made are one to keep
> companies going, not loans to start new business.=20
>=20
> Boy, it must be great to be privileged.=20
>=20
> LelandJ
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Chet Gardiner=20
> To: ProFox Email List=20
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [OT] Tony Small's Tax Cut Estimator
>=20
>=20
> Here are some of his sources:
>=20
> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
>=20
> http://www.freerepublic.com/
>=20
> and for the "left wing" point of view:
>=20
> http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Stephen Russell" <srussell@lotmate.com>
> To: "'ProFox Email List'" <profox (AT) leafe DOT com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [OT] Tony Small's Tax Cut Estimator
>=20
>=20
> > Where do you come up with this information?
> >=20
> > Stephen Russell
> > S.R. & Associates
> > Memphis TN 38115
> > 901.246-0159
> >=20
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: profox-bounces@leafe.com
> [mailto:profox-bounces (AT) leafe DOT com]On
> > Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:14 AM
> > To: ProFox Email List
> > Subject: Re: [OT] Tony Small's Tax Cut Estimator
> >=20
> >=20
> > Every tax cut in history has resulted in increased revenue
> to the
> > Federal Government. So, we will actually be lowering the
> debt.
> >=20
> > --- "Leland F. Jackson, CPA" <smvfp@mail.smvfp.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > Remember, the payment is coming from deficit spending
> which
> > > creates a debt that we all owe back to ourselfs. You
> might end
> > > up repaying the advance many times over, due to
> compounding
> > > interest. Your tax refund could easily be deducted from
> funds
> > > you have paid social security by either a reducted
> benefit or
> > > no benefit. Enjoy.
> > >
> > > LelandJ
> >=20
> >=20
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > "I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in
> Baghdad."
> > Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (Baghdad Bob)
> >=20
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Leland F. Jackson, CPA |
