"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:17:22 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers,
the
growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse?

If you'll recall, Jon, the point I initially made was that you've been
claiming the economy was in the crapper for the last 7 years. You don't
seem
to like that suggestion. So let me ask you. Has the economy been in the
crapper continuously for the last 7 years as you've consistently claimed?


Continuously? Absolutely not. There are always fluctuations. I never made
that claim. Feel free to show me the post where I did.

So, now that I've answered your question, answer mine.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:17:55 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I'll go with the following.

Why am I not surprised.


Still waiting for your answer...

To what question?


Nice try: "Is the economy better or worse?"

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:41:27 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers,
the
growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse?

Well, lessee. After declining for 6 years, the unemployment numbers are
increasing. The average unemployment rate over Bush's 8 years even stands
a
chance of reaching the 5.2% average rate of the Clinton years. On the
other
hand, the second quarter's growth was surprisingly good.

Whether the mortgage "crisis" is growing or has plateaued is at this point
an open question. Depends very much on whether you think the banks have
finally written down their portfolios enough to entice new capital so they
can increase their lending. From what I'm seeing, I think chances are that
they haven't. It'll take about another year for increased allowances for
loan losses to work their way through the system. My suspicion is the your
buddies like Barney Frank and Jim Shumer may succeed in putting off the
necessary write-downs by Fan and Fred, pushing that drag on lending out
further as well.

As to the deficit, yes, it's up. Neither party has exercised spending
restraint. And based on the direction Obama is headed I see it continuing
to
climb for a number of years if he's elected. Historically, revenues have
gone up when marginal income and capital gains tax rates are cut, and down
when they're raised.

Tell me, do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who
don't
pay taxes is a "tax cut?"


Still waiting for your answer.

Your question isn't a fair question, because it makes assumptions that are
not true.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:12:05 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Tell me, do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who
don't
pay taxes is a "tax cut?"


Still waiting for your answer.

Guess you haven't been reading very carefully.

Your question isn't a fair question, because it makes assumptions that are
not true.

What assumptions are those? Do you seriously intend to make the argument
that because he's gonna hand money to a few people who do pay taxes, he
doesn't intend to hand out money to folks who don't pay taxes?

Is handing out money to people who don't pay taxes a "tax cut," or isn't
it?


Yet another bs response. Are you planning on answering my question or should
I let you win?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 9 Sep 2008 14:39:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:41:27 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute the unemployment numbers,
the
growing mortgage crisis, the huge deficit that's getting worse?

Well, lessee. After declining for 6 years, the unemployment numbers are
increasing. The average unemployment rate over Bush's 8 years even stands a
chance of reaching the 5.2% average rate of the Clinton years.

Except the "jobs" are different. The Bush Administration worked hard
tyo do things like classify working at McDonalds as a "Manufacturing
Job".

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:33:15 -0400, said:

Except the "jobs" are different.

Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All.

Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who
don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?"


Why not? Liberals believe that adjusting government spending in one
bureaucracy or another from an annual increase of 15% to an annual increase
of 12% is a budget "cut."

--
Gregory Hall

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:33:15 -0400, said:

Except the "jobs" are different.

Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All.

Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who
don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?"


Dave, can you explain to me how it is, that in america, one can earn
$30,000, spend it all and yet pay no taxes? Are there special lines at
the supermarket market marked "no sales tax at this register"? Do their
landlords get a special dispensation and not have to pay property taxes
on the places they rent, or on their rental income? Do manufactures
have special plants that pay no taxes because the make goods for those
who earn less than 30K?

If you look at the whole picture, those at the bottom pay a greater
percentage than those at the top.

Cheers
Marty

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:12:05 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:


Well, lessee. After declining for 6 years, the unemployment numbers are
increasing. The average unemployment rate over Bush's 8 years even
stands
a
chance of reaching the 5.2% average rate of the Clinton years. On the
other
hand, the second quarter's growth was surprisingly good.

Whether the mortgage "crisis" is growing or has plateaued is at this
point
an open question. Depends very much on whether you think the banks have
finally written down their portfolios enough to entice new capital so
they
can increase their lending. From what I'm seeing, I think chances are
that
they haven't. It'll take about another year for increased allowances
for
loan losses to work their way through the system. My suspicion is the
your
buddies like Barney Frank and Jim Shumer may succeed in putting off the
necessary write-downs by Fan and Fred, pushing that drag on lending out
further as well.

As to the deficit, yes, it's up. Neither party has exercised spending
restraint. And based on the direction Obama is headed I see it
continuing
to
climb for a number of years if he's elected. Historically, revenues have
gone up when marginal income and capital gains tax rates are cut, and
down
when they're raised.

Tell me, do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who
don't
pay taxes is a "tax cut?"


Still waiting for your answer.

Guess you have a problem with reading comprehension. The answer is above.
Apparently you just didn't like the answer.

Now, let me ask again:

do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who
don't
pay taxes is a "tax cut?"


Still waiting for your answer:

Do you dispute the unemployment numbers, the growing mortgage crisis, the
huge deficit that's getting worse?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:33:15 -0400, said:

Except the "jobs" are different.

Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All.

Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who
don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?"


I've already answered... still waiting for yours.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 9 Sep 2008 18:01:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:33:15 -0400, said:

Except the "jobs" are different.

Maybe you can answer the question I put to Jon, Not at All.

Do you swallow that line that handing out money to folks who
don't pay taxes is a "tax cut?"

I haven't heard that line. Who said it? What else did they say that
might affect the context?