know how you do that without lowering taxes ahead of spending to starve the
fire or at least reduce the fuel to it."
You don't think that's putting the cart before the horse? You reduce
spending then you reduce taxes because you don't need that much money
anymore. Hold on.. I guess if even if you reduce taxes first then reduce
spending that's fine too. But not reduce taxes then increase spending. it
doesn't come out right on the balance sheets. It does not seem that Mr. Bush
thinks that spending money the country does not have is much to worry about.
The politics aside. isn't he approving the expenditure of more money than
the country has? This from when the country at least has spending surpluses
with which it was trying to pay down the national debt?
I'm not trying to start an argument.
- Matt Small
_____
From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 3:58 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: TAXES
I agree on fiscal discipline tied to smaller government. However, I don't
know how you do that without lowering taxes ahead of spending to starve the
fire or at least reduce the fuel to it.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 2:50 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: TAXES
Liked it better before :) I'd like to vote republican, but I don't
think it's a fiscal possibility to lower taxes and increase spending.
If the repubs could limit spending, I'd be all for it, but not
lowering taxes at the risk of our offspring paying for it.
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
