Unexpected tax revenue to shrink U.S. budget deficit

MarketWatch.com (by Dow Jones) ^ | 7/8/06 | Staff???

[GSlob]

You never know - these Venetians were very cunning and might have hit upon some taxation our glorious congressional staffers would kill to plagiarize.

[MadLibDisease]

Unexpected by who? Not me, damn twits. Tax cuts ALWAYS work.

[lewislynn]

Well... That's great cause I ain't never had no poor people hire me fer nuthin!!!

Hire'n people fer nuthin is what makes people rich.

[SierraWasp]

Well... There ya go!!! Works everytime they're tried!!! I want everybody ta git rich and they ain'ta gonna git there with everybody on the GovernMental teat pullin on these energetic individuals from the git-go!!!

Git offa their backs so's they can git rich but not to donate it to liberal leftist foundations and PBS like Bill Gates and the Oracle of Omaha are doin!!! That's gonna end up not helpin much of anybody more than once!!! What a waste of Billions!!! (unless it's used to TEACH people ta git rich)

[SierraWasp]

Wull... As yew know... I ain't had no lernin, nohow!!!

[dalereed]

" not to donate it to liberal leftist foundations and PBS like Bill Gates "

Did you notice that Gates, the liberal creep, is funding LaRaza?

[SierraWasp]

No! But did you notice this Guy Paulson that the President has appointed to replace Snow, is another Goldman Sachs dude that just liquidate half a billion of his GS stocks and then was voted $17 Million as a bonus by the GS board.

The thing that I'm working up to here is... This honyock tells the Senators in his confirmation hearings that... get this now... "Tax cuts do not pay for themselves!" I see this as a headline of MarketWatch.com and then it disappears a little later when I go to grab it and post it here for FReepers to peruse!!!

Yes, this is the Goldman Sachs dude that's all plugged into China and it's governmental economic Communists. Remember the "Red Chinese?" Why am I uneasy with GWB appointing this dubious dude to this key position... why???

I wonder if he is surprised by this article like the MSM writers and editors that produced it... I wonder... Do you wonder, too??? It make you wonder, doesn't it!!!

[dr_who_2]

Don't worry, they'll make up for it by another huge spending increase in time.

[SierraWasp]

This is why I worry about the guy I'm talkin about in #47, above!!! Remember how that insider in GHW Bush's admin talked father Bush into renegging on his "read my lips" promise to all of us?

The Bush boys display one disturbing trait that Dubya has done pretty good on so far. renegging! But I still get nervous when appointees tell Democrat Senators stuff like "Tax cuts don't pay for themselves!"

I don't feel any better about that, than when the "Oracle of Omaha" Buffet tells Schwartznegger CA needs to rescind Prop 13 because Cauleeforneeuns don't pay enough in property taxes!!!

[RWR8189]

A budget deficit less than 2.5% of GDP is small potatoes.

[verum ago]

liberal knee jerk reaction: IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!
.....several seconds pass......
[quietly] oh s@#$, it really is, isn't it?!

[Republican Wildcat]

Tax cuts increase revenue to the treasury. The proof continues.

[skr]

I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. --Ronald Reagan

[Conservative Goddess]

Thanks for the ping! Supply Side University is presenting a summer "lecture" series on this very subject.

"Let's cut taxes" introduction found here:

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=5091

Part I found here:

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=5105

Part II found here:

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=5117

Part III found here:

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=5125

[maine-iac7]

Now if only they would do something about the spending...

we need to insist they give Bush the line item veto he's asking for and watch the deficit plummet -

this is bad news for the Rats who have done everything in their power to increase the deficit - for a political hammer

[Still Thinking]

Yeah, I love how he talks about two beach homes he own very near each other, and because of Prop 13 he pays like five times the property tax on one that he does on the other. I agree that this is a flaw in Prop 13, but he leaps from that to assuming that it's the one with the low tax bill that's wrong, which is completely stupid. I assume it's the one with the high tax bill that should be brought down. Why should the state get a windfall just because a home changes hands? They're not all of a sudden building more roads, schools, etc.

[SierraWasp]

I fully agree!!!

[SierraWasp]

I thought Congress already gave the Line Item Veto to Clinton who signed it and the Supreme Court vetoed it as too much power with the Executive Branch over the doings of the Legislative Branch.(I almost typed "Legislative Breach")

[Conservative Goddess]

The line-item veto violates Article I, Section 7, which says:

"...Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill...."

A line-item veto violates the bi-cameralism required by this section. If we want to give the President the line-item veto, then we must amend the Constitution.

[maine-iac7]

Legislative Branch.(I almost typed "Legislative Breach")

Truth has away of slipping out ;o)