that's funny, because it was the JFK tax cuts that ended that recession.
hmmmmm.
On 4/30/07, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, he said these things to me was right after the Eisenhower
Recession that you mention.
Paul Nelson wrote:
> What's your point?
>
> This young man, apparently, hadn't yet experienced the recession of the
> 50's.
>
> Paul Nelson
> Cell 708-670-6978
> Office 708-425-4198
> nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cpf0000-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cpf0000-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Booth Martin
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:05 AM
> To: Open discussion among iSeries Users
> Subject: Re: [CPF0000] Finally, my Senator speaks for me.
>
> A young man of the Great Depression, and a Democrat forever after, made
> this point: "Damn right my taxes have gone up. But no where near what
> my income has gone up! Plus we have roads, electricity, and we just
> won WWII. You tell me whats wrong with all that?"
>
> qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> cfuture wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> --The Income Tax;
>>>
>>>
>> This one stuck out for me, perhaps because taxation necessarily enables
>> most of the rest.
>>
>> As much as I dislike a lot of what was in the list and as much as I'd
>> prefer lowering my taxes, I find it hard to actually argue for income
>> tax elimination.
>>
>> True, there are deductions and credits that are questionable; but at
>> least it's a visible tax. I trust hidden taxes less -- with them, I have
>> no good way of knowing when I'm paying a hidden tax. I have no good way
>> to know how I can reduce my personal tax burden. I have no way to plan
>> for the coming years.
>>
>> And when I try to imagine what the status of the U.S.A. today would be,
>> as measured against other world powers, if we had paid much less tax
>> during the past 50-70 years, it doesn't add to an argument for a smaller
>> tax burden.
>>
>> The entire world changed in the 20th century. A weak U.S.A. federal
>> government would have brought a far different 21st century.
>>
>> I don't like thinking that, but it's hard to avoid.
>>
>> The growth from 150M U.S.A. population in 1950 to 300+M now, meant
>> building an entire duplicate country in just over 50 years. Every house,
>> every road, every building -- essentially everything had to serve two
>> people where only 1 was served in 1950. And old ones were wearing out
>> and had to be replaced. And we had to finance progress -- research into
>> radically new technologies, new manufacturing procedures, new
>> agricultural techniques -- in order to stay ahead of the curve.
>> Everything in other parts of the world was happening faster and we had
>> to go faster too. And manage everything reasonably well, considering.
>>
>> I don't have much of a point to make. Maybe I'm just saying that it sure
>> could have turned into a bigger mess ahead of us if things had gone
>> differently. Maybe we didn't do too bad.
>>
>> Tom Liotta
>>
>>
>
>
--
---------------------------------
Booth Martin
http://www.Martinvt.com
---------------------------------
--
This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
