This speaks volumes

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy, first off I apologize if I tee'd you off to the point of wanting to ignore me, that wasn't my intention, but my wife always tell sme my emails are more inflammatory than I intend them to be...

"pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. "

I wasn't trying to prove that the tax cuts increased revenue (although I believe that to be true, because the same thing also happened when Bill Clinton slashed tax rates). I was trying to prove you were wrong when you said that the tax cuts decreased revenue. After the tax cuts were put in place, revenue went up and stayed up until the subprime mortgage crisis hit. Then revenues went down. If I can't say that the cuts caused the revenues to go up, why is it OK for you to say that the cuts caused them to go down?

Zimmy, you may be right that if it wasn't for those cuts, the deficit would be less. I can also say that if it wasn't for liberals pushing home ownership for poor people who can't aford it, the economy would not have collapsed, and therefore the deficit wouldn't be as bad as it is.

Again, I'm not saying either side is at fault. What I'm saying is this...the previous generation of career politicians over-spent by at least $283,000 per person, and that is irrefutable fact. In my opinion, a group of politicians has to be pretty incompetent to do that, which is why I think we need a new breed who actually know how life works.

Zimmy, for every quote you post from someone bashiong the tax cuts, I can post 50 quotes from folks blaming liberals for spending too much and for pushing subprime mortgages (which you have not once mentioned as a culprit in all this).

Zimmy, you also completely ignored my irrefutable (I think) math that showed how impossible it will be to grow out of this mess with tax revenue, unless we have massive spending cuts.

Look at the numbers from my previous post. Even if tax revenues doubled (which is impossible) and even if we didn't have to pay interest on our debt (which we do), it would take over 140 years to raise an additional $85 trillion. That's 4 generations from now, our great-great-grandkids, who will still be paying this debt off, and that's IF tax revenues double and with no interest!!!!! So Zimmy, are you telling me that tax revenues will more than double? Or are you OK with taking hundreds of years to pay off this debt? Which is it? WHICH IS IT?

How do you respond to that? Please don't tell me what MSNBC or the New York Times tells you to think...don't post quotes from some mouthpiece...what do you think about that?

If my math is wrong (and I pray that it is), please tell me. If not, please tell me how we raise an additional $85 trillion?

You keep saying "business". Again, many liberals seem to believe that they have an unlimited ATM machine out there called "business" that they can raid whenever they like, and that it's free money with no consequences. It's not true...