This document says it all :

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls

Christian

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]De la
> part de joe andress
> Envoyé : mercredi 10 septembre 2003 17:15
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : Re: [HP3000-L] OT: [HP3000-L] Gas Price Whining
>
>
> Excellent response. Too bad the political types can't seem to
> understand
> that the more money they steal in the form of taxes, the less
> we have to
> spend, the less we spend, the less customers businesses have
> to sale to, the
> less sales, the less tax and other revenues are taken in. The
> less customer
> goods sold, the less business growth and the list goes on.
>
> All for the sake of a tax increase, the 'lesses' goes on.
>
>  I have not followed the democratic wanna-be s very much as
> they have all
> harped on Bush bashing. Not one that I have heard/read about
> has really
> offered anything of substance that would really change the
> projected course
> of events.
>
> As for the economy goin into the dump, I think most reality
> based people
> will acknowledge that the .com bust has a major impact on the slide.
>
> Does anyone know what the deficit as a percentage of gnp
> represents compared
> to the same percentages over the last 10 years.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Wonsil" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 8:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: [HP3000-L] Gas Price Whining
>
>
> > HP-3000 Systems Discussion wrote:
> > > Well, I may be a bit far from the fray, but
> > >
> > > 1) It's my understanding that the Administration which recently
> > > turned a deficit into a surplus was mostly composed of Democrats.
> >
> > No, it was a dot.com boom.  Here is a graph of the US income vs.
> > expenditures through last year:
> >
> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/char
> ts_C/c2.html
> > Federal spending has usually outpaced revenues but when the
> dot.com boom
> > happened, capital gains revenues skyrocketed and the
> "wealth-effect" took
> > over.  When people looked at their stock valuations, they
> felt comfortable
> > spending, the economy took off and more revenues filled the
> government
> > coffers.  Not only that, people were making so much money
> that the welfare
> > state had to advertise for more clients.  (I received
> earned-income-tax
> > credit adverts in my utility bills back then.)  Back in the
> Reagan era, he
> > said that the only way out of the deficits was to increase economic
> > activity.  He was correct.  He felt that taxes were a drag
> on the economy
> > (as many of the posters in this thread has previously
> mentioned) and if
> you
> > lower taxes then you raise economic activity.  This was not
> a new idea.
> > President Kennedy did this in the early sixties and it was
> very successful
> > then too.  The problem during the Reagan era is that there
> was suppose to
> be
> > three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax
> cuts.  The graph
> > shows that they never happened.  President Bush (GWHB)
> capitulated on his
> > "No new tax" pledge in exchange for lower spending.  It too did not
> happen.
> > And again today, the spenders just won't stop.  The graph shows that
> > spending keeps going up every single year.  The funny thing
> is watching
> the
> > Democrats cry about spending on Iraq.  After each of Bush's
> huge spending
> > plans, the Democrats have shouted "It's not enough!".  Take the new
> > prescription drug plan that buys drugs for seasoned
> citizens regardless of
> > income level.  This plan may cost $400 Billion and probably
> more so we can
> > pay Bill & Melinda Gates drugs.  Meanwhile, low income
> families get squat.
> > Don't worry, they'll add that in the next round and add to the $400
> Billion
> > in costs.
> >
> > > 3) Back to basics : to turn a deficit into a break-even, I know of
> > > very few ways : cut down spending, or increase revenue. Or a
> > > combination of both. Or trim spending more than you trim revenue.
> > > Now, I see your Administration cutting revenue (tax cuts) AND
> > > increasing spending. Does that seriously make sense ?
> >
> > Let's be clear, there is a distinction between raising taxes and
> increasing
> > revenue.  Many of the States raised taxes on cigarettes.
> Their thinking
> was
> > this:  if there are 1000 packs sold with one dollar of
> taxes then if we
> > raise the taxes to two dollars we'll raise revenue to
> $2000.  But then
> > reality sets in, doubling the taxes reduces the amount of
> cigarettes sold.
> > So the manufacturer cuts some jobs since demand is lower.
> The unemployed
> > buy less and pay fewer taxes.  Not only are these people
> not paying taxes,
> > they are drawing from the reserve.  As an exercise to the
> reader and those
> > running for Governor of California: if raising taxes has a
> negative effect
> > on economic activity and therefore revenues then what
> should one do to
> > increase economic activity and therefore revenues?
> >
> > I think Bush can be beat next year but someone has to offer
> something
> better
> > and for the most part all of the current opponents are
> running anti-Bush
> > campaigns.  They need to put forth a vision that is more
> than just an
> > absence of GWB.
> >
> > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> > * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
> >
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *