tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7636034916123920380.post1017407634202007755..comments2008-09-14T12:49:35.183-07:00Comments on Just the facts ma'am.: The $5 million questionLKThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05791517233920008067noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7636034916123920380.post-27446374985921023122008-09-14T12:49:00.000-07:002008-09-14T12:49:00.000-07:00THIS is the cute statement:"we want to keep people...THIS is the cute statement:<BR/><BR/>"we want to keep people's taxes low, increase revenues."<BR/><BR/>How will revenues increase, if not by taxation? That IS the mode of Federal revenue, there is none other that I have ever heard of... The Fed does not manufacture and sell items to other countries (except weapons... hmmmm... maybe that is the cash cow...), so where is this ghostly revenue that is glibly spoken of in the same breath as "lowering people's taxes"?<BR/><BR/>This is the kind of statement that gets my ire.<BR/><BR/>In the State of California, the people are taxed, then taxed again, and then again. The State is supposed to fund public education, but does so disproportionately and poorly. This means that local city government has to step in with parcel taxes, the only option available to cities. So, the State has taxed the citizen, and then the city taxes the citizen again. <BR/><BR/>The highways are falling apart, but the Fed is too busy with the war on terror to think about the roads and bridges that were once built by the army corps of engineers. So, back the state. State places bond initiatives on the ballot. That is CREDIT, folks. Then the bonds become due. Where does the money come to pay the bonds off? Tax, tax, tax.<BR/><BR/>So, even in just these very few (I can, unfortunately, provide more) examples you can see the illogic behind ANY person's statement (Rep, Dem, Green, other) that revenue can be increased without taxation.<BR/><BR/>SHOW ME how it is possible, I say.qoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06687807550095367481noreply@blogger.com