Can't resist when this close to 100 posts

Reeltruth- I too have enjoyed our banter. I do pity you however for being so misinformed. Your arguments are terrifically emotional but sadly incorrect. I supplied source material wherever I could on all of my above "Facts" and will complete and/or enhance them for your benefit if needed. If you have a disagreement with any of them feel free to cite, chapter and verse, your supporting documentation. If you would like more specific supporting documentation on any subject from me, just ask and I will be happy to oblige. As you have probably surmised by now, I enjoy a good debate. I just insist on using facts when possible.
Regarding the booming economy of the nineties. Outside the hiccup between 1990 and 1994 most economists agree(most notably Alan Greenspan) that the nineties are a continuation of the eighties and the policies enacted by Reagan in 81 and 82.(there's that dirty "R" word again) Regarding the spiraling deficits, treasury receipts from 1981 to 1989 DOUBLED while congressional spending TRIPLED.(see GAO or OMB records 1980-1989 on receipts and congressional record or omnibus spending bills of same period for spending numbers) Please note that the congress was controlled by demo's all but two of those years. While the lack of defense spending has accounted for some of the reduced deficits of late, much can be attributed to refinancing the long term govt debt to short term low rate debt, thus lowering the overall debt owed when including interest. Please note here that defense spending as a percentage of GDP is now the lowest since the 1930's and readiness and morale is the lowest in modern history.(we have thousands of servicemen on FOODSTAMPS for petes sake!!!!) We also finished paying off the S and L debacle (a problem of both parties) in 1992 which had an annual cost roughly equal to the current annual defense budget. Add to this the lowering of some minor taxes (since the 94 elections and not a second before) and the subsequent trickle down effect of that freed-up capital (creating jobs and taxpayers) and the still booming economy and treasury receipts are projected to go up dramatically for the forseeable future. According to some reputable albeit right leaning research institutes, had congress just frozen spending in 1989 not only the deficits but the national debt would now be nearly gone. (personally, I don't believe that the deficits are really gone since the SSI trust fund dollars must be used to make it happen) A little piece of sobering reality about the power of politicians and their appetite for our money.

In your earlier post, you stated that "there could never be a fair flat tax until there is a more fair and equitable system of compensation and wealth distribution according to societal benefit" or something close to that. I humbly request that you expound on that theory and how it would benefit any of us or all of us. Please include how much would be enough compensation and who would decide "societal benefit". Also please tell me if the compensation and wealth distribution would be equal for all and if not, who would decide who gets what. If, in fact, you propose that all of us get the same amount, why not just have the govt supply all things and eliminate compensation altogether?

This theory is not often proposed in western cultures and you have piqued my interest. I will give you advance notice that this request is an attempt to force you embarrass yourself trying to explain it and your predictable discomfort will not last long. You may respond in an email if you would prefer not to fill up this thread with your response.

As I'm sure you've noticed, I pay particular attention to such matters. If you insist on trying to dispute the facts I present, please come prepared. If I may be so bold, may I suggest that you get and read The wealth of nations written by Adam Smith. First published in 1776 it is a virtual textbook on the American economy as it was designed.

As for Slade.....I will gladly open my mind and wallet to any CONSERVATIVE candidate who wishes to oppose him. Until then I will be forced to support him while holding my nose. (or continue the write in campaign for myself)

Can't wait to see the magic 100 posts happen on this uncomfortable yet needed thread.

Good day,
L

[This message has been edited by wit45cal (edited 08-03-2000).]