Ron Paul For President in 2008

[Final-Fan]

I suppose I was being intellectually lazy in posting the Wikipedia chart that touched all this off. I do apologize for that. I hadn't done so before because I figured I was admitting fault by acceding so readily to your demand that I account for Congress's input.

At this time I am disinclined to argue further about how the numbers of the budget history should be interpreted [edit: politically, I mean, not how we are calculating them]. Please do not interpret this as unconditional surrender or cowardice, as I'm sure I'm just as tired as you are of all this. It's just that I fear that that deate, as well as the debate on what policy would be best for the future, have likely been poisoned by our mutual enmity, even in the event our opinions aren't totally irreconcilable to begin with.

But as for "crushing tax liability", I think that the richest 2-5% of Americans can afford to pay way more than they currently do. My evidence? Taxes HAVE been way higher on the very rich than in past portions of the 20th century, and I don't recall a time in that period when multimillionaires were being "crushed" by their taxes. That goes triple for the estate tax.

Only one question remains for me to ask: Do you in fact support endless deficit spending? Based on your posts, it sounds to me that you are, on the grounds that the lower tax rate will drive economic growth to outpace debt growth [edit: at a rate greater, presumably, than the rate at which the hypothetical debt-free economy would outpace zero]; and that politicians will be scared off of increased spending by the presence of those deficits. [edit2:  Also, I believe, the increased revenue would have to outweigh the interest payments.]  But clearly I might be mistaken.