Do you realize how ridiculous this argument is? Who in their right mind would be angry at LESS revenue flowing into federal coffers? I, for one, am not angry at all. In fact, if they would also cut spending, I would be happy as a ****** in jail!

If revenue had stayed constant between 2000 and 2003, no tax increase, would have been positive cash flow.

Revenue 2000-2.424 Trillion Revenue 2003-1.955 Trillion

TAX CUT = 2003 LESS REVENUE

DIfference between Revenue and Spending in 2003 about 600 Billion = Deficit

Less revenue is reflected in the graph, geeeesssshhhh!

I did not say they were the same after the tax cuts! According to the US Government and Heritage Foundation they were less. JUST LOOK AT THE GRAPH ON THE HERITAGE WEB SITE. I guess you don't understand my explanation and that is fine, just look at the graph.

Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts REDUCED the revenue, for the third time.

JUST LOOK AT THE GRAPH. If you would like I could fax it to you. DA!

You proved my point. If revenues AFTER tax cuts are the same, or more, than they were BEFORE tax cuts, lower rates led to higher revenues. This isn't rocket science.

Shut down the Department of Commerce, the IRS, the REA, Dept. of the Interior, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Treasury, State & Homeland Security. Create two departments, Department of Domestic Affairs & Department of Foreign Affairs. Reduce the waste at the Pentagon and stop buying crap that our military doesn't even want. Ban all lobbying of individual congressman and senators by corporations, which does not limit your individual right to petition the government.

We should privitize Social Security & Medicare, do away with the prescription drug plan, create a plan to insure children & also adults who fall though the cracks, privitize health care, increase our use of technoloy, get government of health care, housing and education and end all foreign aid. Also, we should deport all illegals and fine any company that hires them $250,000 for each illegal they employ, without

Tax cuts DO lead to higher revenues. Federal tax receipts hit a record high in 2007. How would that be possible with tax cuts? By allowing workers and businesses to keep more of their own money, the economy benefits. People who lack understanding of economics think spending is the most important thing. Not true. Even the "rich" can only spend so much. The remainder goes into a bank, where it is lent out to start businesses and buy homes, or the stock market, where it is used as business capital, or directly into a new business, where it spends to create a startup and buys new equipment and hires people.

Even if the revenue difference was ZERO, we should still embrace tax cuts. Less money for the government means more money for us. Less money for the government leads to less power for the government.

As I answered you last week and WVUFAN in this blog just look at the revenue and expenditure for the US on Heritage Foundation (Conservative think tank whatever that is!) and explain what you mean by less tax more revenue, the opposite is true. Hard to fool yourself, right?

Just look at the graph and quit listening to the "talking heads!"

Best one of the day......It's called capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down!!!!

How about "if we don't bail out the market things will be worse. Based on what?

Well, Berkshire is down 30% or so this year? Buffett is brilliant as a value investor. He stinks as a macroeconomist. He complains that his secretary pays a higher tax RATE than he, failing to mention that her $60,000 salary is in WAGES and his $45 million income is from CAPITAL GAINS and DIVIDENDS. Of course her actual rate would be higher! But who pays more taxes? She might pay $11,000 where he pays $6.25 million.

He also believes in higher taxes. Well, the facts show that higher tax rates lead to lower tax revenues and vice versa. The only reason our deficit has increased post Bush tax cuts is that spending has increased exponentially.

Do you know that the government doesn't budget like you or I? If you need to buy a $200 microwave, you save up and buy it. If the government bought the same microwave, it would budget $200 for this year. Once the microwave was purchased, however, that $200 would remain in the budget in each subsequent year!

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N), which has avoided major acquisitions in the financial sector in recent months, may have had a $3.5 billion two-day paper profit on six major banking and financial services investments.

As the chart shows Kennedy, Reagan and the Bush tax cuts have caused LESS revenue for the US Government when passed. Truth shall make you a better voter in the booth!!!

"Tax cuts from JFK, Reagan, and Bush have ALWAYS increased REVENUE." WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF THAT STATEMENT?

Spending has been increasing for most years, some flat-line years. 2002 the difference in spending and revenue was about 600 billion, same year for tax cuts. Don't know how else to show you the information! Look at the Reagan years and you will notice spending increases while taxes decreased.

I like tax cuts! Problem is you can't cut revenue and not cut spending.

What evidence is that these tax cuts are invested in US companies?

Just look at the chart and tell me what it is I don't understand!

Just as President Clinton receives too much credit for balancing the budget, President George W. Bush receives too much blame ...

BUSH 2 was the one who made the speech in 2002 about needing to have more people own homes.

I agree that these banks need to fail.

Both parties are at fault so let us do something bold and replace all the current elected officials and send a message, at every level.

If the taxpayers bail out a company, all of the top executives should give back every dime of their earnings for the last 5 years. Why should we sacrifice so that they can keep their millions?