Analysis says CAFTA would cost money

That's not the point. The point is that reducing these tariffs is not likely to result in a substantial decrease in the tax burden overall, and could in fact make the difference between making the income tax cuts permanent and failing to make them permanent.

Yes, it is the point. This is the reason I asked so many questions of you in my last post. Lowering barriers to trade increases trade. Increased trade/commerce increases wealth. Increases in wealth delivers increases in government revenue.

If we want to reduce the tax burden, the best way to do that is to a) reduce spending

Agreed. Unfortunately, we do not have politicians with the fortitude to stand up to those who feel they are entitled to things for free - mostly old folks. People talk about wanting smaller government but don't you dare try and take their program away.

Of all the taxes that could be cut, tariffs are the least intrusive on our lives, and the most protective of our sovereignty

I couldn't disagree more. History has proven that a country's wealth is directly correlated to the the amount of economic freedom they practice. Protectionism, of any kind, stifles competition, consumption and the creation of wealth.

And every cut in tariffs is will make it politically harder to cut the income tax

Exactly the opposite is true. Reducing barriers to trade increases business activity which generates wealth for individuals and revenue for the government. Increased trade will allow the government to enact further tax cuts - and my preference is the income tax.

I don't know where you've been but this debate has been going on for a long time in the business community and with special interests.

But not in the public forum. There's a reason why Bush (never mind the Dems or the sugar industry) hasn't been making speeches about it until recently. Of course, as you pointed out, it's not like he's exactly shouting about it from the rooftops even now. That's kind of odd, don't you think, seeing as how if the public was as much on Bush's side as you say they are, Bush could easily use this as an issue to trounce the Democrats on.

But alas, his administration doesn't have the same estimate of public opinion that you do. As the Washington Times reported a few months back:

"The window of opportunity right now is open. With CAFTA, the longer it sits around and the longer the forces against it marshal themselves, the more difficult the fight could be later on," said an administration trade official, who asked not to be named.

This is only about democrats hating the guy who beat them twice in the past five years and outrage that this same guy had the audacity to stand up to big sugar and threaten their pork.

If you really know as much about this issue as you claim to, then you're being brazenly (though unsurprisingly) dishonest. The FTAA has the support of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, and a whole host of other prominent Democrats. And there's a reason why the Democrat-controlled Congress waited until a lame-duck session in 1994 to approve our membership in the WTO.

There's also a reason why CAFTA is facing opposition from a number of Republican Reps. It's not because of sugar.

This is the reason I asked so many questions of you in my last post. Lowering barriers to trade increases trade. Increased trade/commerce increases wealth. Increases in wealth delivers increases in government revenue.

All sounds great in theory, but according to the article of the thread, the CBO projects a $4.4 billion revenue shortfall. Do you have anything solid, I mean beyond vague theorizing, to show that they're wrong?

[Of all the taxes that could be cut, tariffs are the least intrusive on our lives, and the most protective of our sovereignty]

Speak in plain language. Explain why revenue tariffs (as opposed to protective tariffs) are more intrusive on our lives (dollar for dollar of revenue) than any other type of tax.

But not in the public forum.

The Bush administration controls the MSM?

There's a reason why Bush (never mind the Dem's or the sugar industry) hasn't been making speeches about it until recently.

When did Bush send it to congress for consideration? Up until that time, Costa Rica had balked at approving the agreement. Congress will not consider new trade agreements until those on the other side have agreed to the terms. There could, and probably are, many other reasons for the time this has taken but, I don't think Bush understood just how much hate the Dem's have for him and how badly they want to defeat an important agenda item like this trade agreement. There are usually about 40 Dem's who can be counted on to support FTA's. It's not happening this time because the rat party has intimidated them into towing the rat line despite what they know to be true.

Identify the states with sugar cane and sugar beet industries. Then, look at the list here and tell me where the votes against CAFTA are coming from.

Without the issue of protecting corporate welfare for the sugar cartel, this agreement passes without any problem. Your paranoia about overlord agencies and one-world governments notwithstanding.

But alas, his administration doesn't have the same estimate of public opinion that you do.

Whatever. When was the last time congress refused to approve a free trade agreement? Candidates who support FTA's have always done better than protectionists. I give the American people more credit for this than you. I could care less what you think about that. The fact that 100 million Americans shop at Wal-Mart every week tells me that low prices and access to more goods beats protectionist demagoguery every time.

The FTAA has the support of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry

I thought Kerry voted against CAFTA. Why would this matter though? There has always been a group of Dem's to support free trade agreements even though their masters in the labor unions mostly opposes them.

This time the democrats hatred of Bush (being totally out of power for the first time in how long?) has forced them to force those who support freer trade to back away from their beliefs and change how they vote. Very sad indeed.

There's also a reason why CAFTA is facing opposition from a number of Republican Reps. It's not because of sugar.

Then, instead of limiting your contribution on these threads to questions and unsubstantiated assertions, why don't you offer some facts to support your implication this time. Tell us, why are some republicans voting against the CAFTA?

You guys are always being asked to prove where the WTO has usurped our sovereignty or to explain exactly how NAFTA has hurt our country. All we get in reply is scenarios where these agreements could, might or possibly deliver some deleterious effects to our country. In the decade since NAFTA, we have been a more prosperous nation than in the decade prior to NAFTA.

Funny that Bush bashers and protectionists, such as yourself, will accuse those who support this agreement as being (unsurprisingly) dishonest when we're the only ones offering facts to back up our claims. Is your side wrong, or does posting propaganda from lefty, anti-trade sites like Brookings, EPI, the AFL-CIO and Public Citizen make you uncomfortable?

All sounds great in theory, but according to the article of the thread, the CBO projects a $4.4 billion ~~revenue~~ shortfall in tax collections

That's more accurate. The CBO is not a nonpartisan organization and is regularly incorrect in their estimations.

The real question that should be asked is if removing barriers to trade increases trade. Then they should ask if increased trade creates wealth. Then, finally they should ask if increases in personal wealth increases tax receipts for the federal government. I can post articles and studies from conservative sources all day long that back me up. Can you post anything from these same sources that says it doesn't?

Explain why revenue tariffs (as opposed to protective tariffs) are more intrusive on our lives (dollar for dollar of revenue) than any other type of tax.

Maybe you could explain what the difference is between a "revenue" tariff and a "protective" tariff is. Both generate revenue for the government at the expense of consumers. This money, IMO, could be better utilized elsewhere in the economy than with a government that can't seem to control spending.

My argument on this thread has been that in 2001 and 2003 Bush significantly reduced our income taxes. Further reductions right now, although desirable, are not politically possible. Even making them permanent now is iffy given the size of our budget deficit. As a supply-sider I would like to see our economy grow out of the budget deficit. It's shrinking dramatically right now now because the Bush tax cuts have spurred economic growth. Passing FTA's at this time will reduce barriers to trade, increase commerce and revenues for the feds which will reduce the budget deficit and help our side champion making the cuts permanent. Removing tariffs is a more plausible means of reducing taxes now than trying to reduce income tax cuts. I would consider this to be less intrusive.

This idea is not vague theorizing. Why not spend some time at The Heritage Foundation website and learn more about how this process happens outside the classroom. Then, for once, you will have learned for yourself rather than forcing others to continuously prove your feelings incorrect. I hope my language is clear enough this time.

The Bush administration controls the MSM?

You can't possibly be serious. If Bush feels that an issue is important enough to tell the public about, he will make sure the public knows about it. How many times did he mention CAFTA or the FTAA during the campaign? I think he's only mentioned it once during his weekly radio addresses since the election, and that was only recently.

You saw the WTimes report. Unless you're accusing that newspaper of being anti-Bush (fat chance), it shows quite clearly what the administration's strategy is on this issue. And it's not a strategy that assumes the public will be solidly behind these initiatives. If it was, then you'd be seeing the Republicans hammering the Democrats over this mercilessly. It's just not happening.

I thought Kerry voted against CAFTA.

I said he supports the FTAA. And he does. Along with a bunch of other high-level Dems.

The CBO is not a nonpartisan organization and is regularly incorrect in their estimations.

You've yet to say how they're incorrect in their estimation here. Please back it up with something solid.

And while you're at it, you might want to explain what, if anything, the subtle difference you're trying to suggest is between a "revenue shortfall" and a "shortfall in tax collections".

Maybe you could explain what the difference is between a "revenue" tariff and a "protective" tariff is.

A protective tariff is a tariff whose rate is beyond the level of maximum revenue that can be got from the item being taxed. A revenue tariff is at that level or below. Now please answer the question I asked. (Hint: That would actually require comparing its effects to the effects of other types of taxes)

Haven't you been saying (maybe it was someone else - forgive me if that's the case) that the income tax cuts have improved revenues? If not, then it just seems odd that you're insisting that reducing tariffs (which, as you said, are the same as taxes) will increase revenues, but reducing the income tax has not.

You've yet to say how they're incorrect in their estimation here. Please back it up with something solid.

The CBO has a long and solid history of making predictions that are never even close. They have been wrong with every budget estimate (both deficit and surplus) I've ever seen. It is commonly understood that their predictions are useless. I couldn't care less if their estimate is accurate or not though. Here's why:

From the article:
Overall, CAFTA would cost the U.S. about $4.4 billion over the next 10 years, primarily in lost tariffs, the CBO said.

Lost tariffs? Hmmmm... sounds to me like the conservative way to express this would be to say instead, that passing the CAFTA will save consumers $4.4 billion. Since all American's are consumers this is really a tax cut. Besides, since when should conservatives worry about the government not getting enough of our money? The other side does that pretty well without our help.

the subtle difference you're trying to suggest is between a "revenue shortfall" and a "shortfall in tax collections".

I'm not trying to be subtle and there is no difference between them except that the former is a euphemism for the latter. Wording helps sell ideas. This is nothing less than soft peddling the harsh truth that tariffs are taxes. Period. That wording alone should tell you all you need to know about an organization (CBO) that exists only because of government.

A protective tariff is a tariff whose rate is beyond the level of maximum revenue that can be got from the item being taxed

Silly me. I thought the open and free market was supposed to determine what the maximum revenue for a product or service is, not the government.

A revenue tariff is at that level or below.

A tariff is a tariff is a tariff is a tariff. It is a tax on the consumer/taxpayer which generates revenue for the government at the expense of the consumer/taxpayer. There is no need to compare the effects of each since they both raise prices. I say leave that money in the pockets of those who earned it and allow them to determine what's best. They can spend it or invest it. This is better for our economy than the money going to government who will, most likely, use that money to support inefficient businesses (sugar cartel), social entitlement programs or any number of other things that will only hurt our economy.

Haven't you been saying (maybe it was someone else - forgive me if that's the case) that the income tax cuts have improved revenues?

I hope that's what I'm saying because this is absolutely what's happening now. This is also the basis of supply side economics which worked so well for Reagan.

it just seems odd that you're insisting that reducing tariffs (which, as you said, are the same as taxes) will increase revenues, but reducing the income tax has not.

Maybe I haven't been concentrating on the clarity of my writing in my previous posts. For the record: Reducing the income tax in 2001 and 2003 has stimulated the economy and is generating huge inflow's of revenue for the federal government. This is happening just as Laffer and other supply side economists said it would. Every month, it seems, the government is reducing the estimated budget deficit because these inflows are so much stronger than predicted. This is good!

Reducing barriers to trade (eliminating or reducing tariffs) will produce the same effect because doing so will increase the amount of trade. I am for cutting taxes whenever and wherever possible. Of course, wanting to do this and selling it to congress and the public are two different things. Even though the budget deficit is dropping, selling additional income tax cuts would be problematic at this time. However, we can do the same thing by eliminating tariffs with trade agreements like CAFTA. This, IMO, is why the CBO has issued this report. They want to alarm people that the government will be losing more money at a time of significant budget deficits. They are not nonpartisan. Once the budget deficit is smaller and, hopefully, government spending is controlled, we can achieve additional reductions in federal income taxes or make the current ones permanent.

If Bush feels that an issue is important enough to tell the public about, he will make sure the public knows about it.

I think Bush underestimated the antipathy of the rats and thought he could count on more votes from them. I think he also underestimated the power of the sugar cartel. Who could possible object to a 1% increase in the amount of sugar we import when we pay 2-3 times more than the rest of the world. It boggles my mind as well his, I'm sure. The entire agriculture industry and other agricultural interests are aligned against big sugar on this one. It is just unbelievable. You take those votes out of the equation and this passes easily. He thought he could take on an industry that accounts for just 0.03% of all farms in this country. He was wrong.

How many times did he mention CAFTA or the FTAA during the campaign?

Again, how long has it been since we rejected a free trade agreement. I think Bush might have felt he didn't need to sell this as much as he did. I can't say for sure - neither can the WT.

I think he's only mentioned it once during his weekly radio addresses since the election, and that was only recently.

People listen to the weekly radio address?

We could argue about strategy all day. The fact is that the rats are primed to defeat Bush on this issue to embarrass him. Thats why a guy like Kerry, who supports the FTAA, votes against CAFTA. If this does not pass, you watch how the media makes this the most important issue of the year after paying little, if any, attention to it.

[protective tariff is a tariff whose rate is beyond the level of maximum revenue that can be got from the item being taxed]

Silly me. I thought the open and free market was supposed to determine what the maximum revenue for a product or service is, not the government.

Maximum tax revenue is what I was referring to, obviously.

There is no need to compare the effects of each since they both raise prices. I say leave that money in the pockets of those who earned it and allow them to determine what's best.

Except my whole point is that this would only work out to be a tax cut if government actually does cut spending, and if it doesn't make it harder politically to make the income tax cuts permanent.

For the record: Reducing the income tax in 2001 and 2003 has stimulated the economy and is generating huge inflow's of revenue for the federal government.

Then why did you say earlier, "Even making them [the income tax cuts] permanent now is iffy given the size of our budget deficit"?

I don't know if you're aware of this, but you're arguing two contradictory principles in this discussion. You're saying that cutting the income tax makes it more difficult politically to cut taxes in the future, but that cutting tariffs somehow makes it easier to cut taxes in the future. It's either one or the other.

Even though the budget deficit is dropping, selling additional income tax cuts would be problematic at this time. However, we can do the same thing by eliminating tariffs with trade agreements like CAFTA. This, IMO, is why the CBO has issued this report.

Not according to your logic. You're saying CAFTA would increase government revenues. Wouldn't CBO be happy about that? Have any of the FTA's we've signed so far ever resulted in a reduction in the size of the federal government?

Who could possible object to a 1% increase in the amount of sugar we import when we pay 2-3 times more than the rest of the world. It boggles my mind as well his, I'm sure.

That's because you're assuming, disingenously, that that's the only possible consideration anyone could have in regard to CAFTA.

I think Bush might have felt he didn't need to sell this as much as he did.

Sell CAFTA?? The object of a political campaign is to sell yourself. You know, "Vote For Me" and all that, remember?

Let's just proceed from the assumption you're setting up. You say that the only people to speak of who'd be opposed to this are the people involved in the sugar industry, and that everyone else in the country thinks it's such a great thing. Indeed, it "boggles your mind" that any normal person could be opposed to it. Wouldn't you think, then, that the President would have been touting it as one of the great things he wants to accomplish for America? Wouldn't he be have been mocking Kerry as being beholden to the special interests who want it defeated? So why didn't he?

For that matter, why isn't he lambasting the Dems now if this is such a slam-dunk with the public?

If this does not pass, you watch how the media makes this the most important issue of the year after paying little, if any, attention to it.

Sure, I'll take that bet. You'd lose, though.

Except my whole point is that this would only work out to be a tax cut if government actually does cut spending

I don't know about you but my tax withholding went down after the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I now get to keep more of my money. Tax cuts increase government revenue. We could, if government would just limit spending increases to the rate of inflation, grow our way out of the budget deficit. If government decides to cut spending as well, we'll get there faster.

Then why did you say earlier, "Even making them [the income tax cuts] permanent now is iffy given the size of our budget deficit"?

Because it's true. With the Dem's aligned against Bush and spineless Rino's with their finger constantly in the air, reducing income taxes after the 2001 and 2003 cuts would be very difficult, IMHO. Add to that a budget deficit and it becomes an even harder sell. Even though the deficit is shrinking, it's still something that the Dem's and the MSM can exploit.They will never admit that the tax cuts are what got this economy moving again.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but you're arguing two contradictory principles in this discussion

Nope.

You're saying that cutting the income tax makes it more difficult politically to cut taxes in the future, but that cutting tariffs somehow makes it easier to cut taxes in the future. It's either one or the other.

No. I am saying that additional tax cuts at this time, IMO, would be a difficult sell. I think we need more tax cuts to keep the economy growing. I just don't think the president can sell that idea at this time even though it would be the right thing to do.

Instead of trying to cut income taxes at this time (which I am arguing is politically difficult) we can reduce tariffs (another form of tax cuts) which will stimulate the economy, increase revenue and shrink the budget deficit. By eliminating or significantly shrinking the budget deficit, it will be, IMO again, easier to get congress to eliminate the sunset provision on the current cuts and for them to consider more income tax cuts.

You're saying CAFTA would increase government revenues

Yes, removing barriers to trade will increase commerce, wealth and result in increased tax revenue from sources other than tariffs.

Wouldn't CBO be happy about that?

You'd think. But look at the way they worded their statement in this article. Lost tax revenue vs. tax reduction for consumers. The CBO is not nonpartisan.

Have any of the FTA's we've signed so far ever resulted in a reduction in the size of the federal government?

I think that would be pretty hard to prove one way or another. I think the size of government as a % of GDP has grown consistently over the decades. I could find a chart but am too tired to bother now. One things for sure, FTA's have increased commerce and wealth for this country which has helped us keep up with the government's profligate spending.

That's because you're assuming, disingenously, that that's the only possible consideration anyone could have in regard to CAFTA

I guess the reps from cane and sugar beet states could also believe in black helicopters and that Elvis is alive and living with aliens. Anything is possible. However, you'd have to fully ignore the political realities of this issue to believe than anyone who represents cane or beet farmers is primarily against this for any other reason. You're the one being dishonest here - with yourself.

Sell CAFTA?? The object of a political campaign is to sell yourself. You know, "Vote For Me" and all that, remember?

Campaigns are about ideas as well. Remember that vision thing? Selling ability, BTW, is what separates successful people from unsuccessful people.

You say that the only people to speak of who'd be opposed to this are the people involved in the sugar industry, and that everyone else in the country thinks it's such a great thing,

I never said any such thing. You need to read and comprehend better. Our elected representatives will vote yes or no on this for many different reasons. I'm saying that if the sugar provision, to allow more imports, wasn't in the agreement, Bush would have all the votes he needs to pass this.

Many will still vote against it because they hate Bush or because, like some here, they think Simon Bolivar and the OAS will drag them out of their house at night and steal their property in the name of the WTO - and that U.S. courts will support it. Others, will vote against it because they want to protect industries other than sugar from competition. Still others will vote against it just because they're ignorant. Without sugar though, there would be no vote counting at the 11th hour.

Wouldn't you think, then, that the President would have been touting it as one of the great things he wants to accomplish for America?

He's been on the road doing just that. It may be too little too late. If so, then that's too bad for everyone.

For that matter, why isn't he lambasting the Dem's now if this is such a slam-dunk with the public?

Maybe he is. I don't spend a lot of time following the media's account of his speeches. Right now though, rather than mock them, I think he's trying to sell the undecideds. If you looked at my earlier link, you'd see there's a lot of them and they're the ones who'll decide how this ends. Mocking them, yet again IMHO, is not the best way to influence those who are on the fence. My opinion on this may change if it loses. Of course, hindsight is always 20-20.

Sure, I'll take that bet. You'd lose, though

So you don't think that the MSM would take the defeat of an issue of such importance to Bush as an opportunity to slam him? Especially when we haven't voted down a FTA in decades? Are you one of those who believes the MSM is really controlled by conservatives?

No. I am saying that additional tax cuts at this time, IMO, would be a difficult sell.

Yet you say that cutting taxes further by reducing tariffs will make tax cuts an easier sell. Either people are paying attention to the fact that tax revenues are increasing, in which case further income tax cuts would be quite an easy sell, or they're not paying attention to that fact, in which case cutting tariffs will only contribute further to the impression that the deficit is getting worse. It's one or the other. Pick one.

[Wouldn't CBO be happy about that?]

You'd think.

So in other words, your theory failed to predict reality. But of course, that's someone else's problem, right?

But look at the way they worded their statement in this article. Lost tax revenue vs. tax reduction for consumers.

You're saying that because you don't like the way they phrased their statement, it's therefore inaccurate? The job of the CBO is to examine the implications policies will have for the government's finances. That's why it's called the Congressional BUDGET Office. Get it?

Their job has nothing to do with advocating for or against a particular policy. They're simply charged with examining one aspect of its effects - namely, its effects on government finances. To do otherwise would exceed their mandate.

Nice spin. Whenever anything bad happens after an FTA goes into effect, say it would have happened anyway. Whenever anything good happens, cite it as proof that the FTA was such a great thing.

Campaigns are about ideas as well.

The primary goal is to get yourself elected. That means touting things that you know people would be in favor of. Assuming, that is, that people actually would be in favor of it. Bush's reluctance to mention it in the campaign demonstrates that his impression of the measure's popularity differs markedly from your impression.

[You say that the only people to speak of who'd be opposed to this are the people involved in the sugar industry, and that everyone else in the country thinks it's such a great thing,]

I never said any such thing.

So does this mean you don't think the American people are solidly behind this? If so, what did you mean when you said you had more faith in the American people than I did? I'm the one who's noting that Bush scrupulously avoided taking this idea to the people. You're the one who's defending him for it.

[For that matter, why isn't he lambasting the Dem's now if this is such a slam-dunk with the public?]

Maybe he is. I don't spend a lot of time following the media's account of his speeches.

What about FR's accounts of them? I find it odd that you're such a supporter of him, and such a supporter of CAFTA, and a Freeper, but somehow manage to miss all the threads that get posted showing how he's been going after the Dems on an issue that he's got such easy public support over.

Oh wait, those threads don't exist. I wonder why.

Mocking them, yet again IMHO, is not the best way to influence those who are on the fence.

LOL! That certainly doesn't stop you from trying!

So you don't think that the MSM would take the defeat of an issue of such importance to Bush as an opportunity to slam him?

For the record, you said that they would make it "the most important issue of the year". Either way, though, they would have little to slam him on. If the public is largely in favor of it, as you claim, then such an effort would backfire. On top of which, the public may have a certain level of gullibility, but even they would at least begin to wonder why such an important issue was only being covered after everything happened.

Yet you say that cutting taxes further by reducing tariffs will make tax cuts an easier sell.

In the future, once the budget deficit shrinks more...yes. Then congress can consider cutting income taxes again without a backlash from the MSM and the economically ignorant.

It's one or the other. Pick one.

Cutting tariffs (taxes) will increase commerce which will increase revenue for both individuals and the feds. Why would that give anyone, other than complete morons, the impression that the budget deficit is getting worse? My opinion is just that. You can accept it or not. I make my living based on what can be sold. I am much more pragmatic than idealistic.

So in other words, your theory failed to predict reality. But of course, that's someone else's problem, right?

You really get hung up on that theory word, don't you? I have no idea what you are talking about above but suffice it to say that the CBO has an agenda and reducing taxes is not on it. It is most definitely their problem. Maybe you agree with them that it is better to let the governments decide how to spend my money than me. Or, maybe not, since you have never told what you are for, just what you are against.

You're saying that because you don't like the way they phrased their statement, it's therefore inaccurate?,

Their statement is inaccurate if you are a conservative. If you believe that my money belongs to the government you might agree with the CBO.

The job of the CBO is to examine the implications policies will have for the government's finances. That's why it's called the Congressional BUDGET Office. Get it?,

Only someone who works as hard as you do to sound naive would believe that the CBO is nonpartisan or reliable.

You should change your screen name to Pollyanna. Do you think that government taking our money is revenue (implying that is that it is earned) or taxes (implying that it is confiscated)? Does reducing the tax burden stimulate the economy? Is reducing taxes a good thing for conservatives to advocate? Will the government try and keep as much of our money as possible? Is the CBO a government agency?

Whenever anything bad happens after an FTA goes into effect, say it would have happened anyway. Whenever anything good happens, cite it as proof that the FTA was such a great thing.

For someone so bereft of facts, you sure are quick to criticize. Why don't you show us where FTA's have hurt us economically. If you think FTA's are responsible for increasing the size of government then prove it. If you think FTA's have hurt our economic growth, reduced wages and created unemployment then prove it. I'll gladly consider anything you offer to back up your suggestions. Otherwise, just give it a rest as I have become weary of answering subtle variations of the same questions over and over. Saul Alinsky would be proud of you. I just think you're lazy.

Why would that give anyone, other than complete morons, the impression that the budget deficit is getting worse?

You just keep contradicting yourself over and over again. Or if you're not, then please answer the following questions:

1. Is the deficit getting worse or better?

2. If the deficit is getting better, are people aware of this fact, or do they in fact think it's getting worse?

3. If they're aware that it's getting better, then why would further reductions in the income tax be a "hard sell", as you say?

Maybe you agree with them that it is better to let the governments decide how to spend my money than me.

More hype. You're just assuming that that's what they think, because you don't approve of the way they worded their report. I already explained to you why they did.

Do you think that government taking our money is revenue (implying that is that it is earned)

The word "revenue" implies no such thing. It simply means money that comes in, regardless of how it comes in. If it's good enough for the drafters of the Constitution (See Article I.7), then it's good enough for me. Unless you think those guys were just a bunch of socialists, too.

Why don't you show us where FTA's have hurt us economically. If you think FTA's are responsible for increasing the size of government then prove it.

You're the one who's making assertions about what FTA's have done, not I. Either you can back them up, or you can't.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.