|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:09:33 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:49:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:48:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your point as prophesied. "If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in the percent of GDP." ****************************************** ********************************* Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent Body Weight 15 1 6.6% 30 1.3 4.3% 60 1.8 3.0% 90 2.0 2.2% 140 2.3 1.6% 220 2.5 1.1% ****************************************** ****************************** There. Do you get the idea? Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic. The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack. Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was *not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information, such as the actual quantities involved. And this has what to do with economics? Did you organize one of these? Nope -- but as stated earlier, I will be attending one. Nice try at changing the topic though Data re move on anti-war vigils deleted You're the one who brought up the 'personal attack'. I've pointed out that it's not possible to discuss your 'chart' when the data (economic or otherwise) is distorted. I've given you an example of the distortion. You also brought up attending church to pray for the quick return of our soldiers. That's something we all pray for, at least those of us who pray. There are, in our midst, several libs who have strongly expressed their disbelief in such activities. Given that you failed to post any data supporting your position, I'll use what Harry Posted http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html Which I sure don't intemperate as supporting your argument. Now you're leaving without explaining the 'personal attack'. Did the little math lesson come across as a personal attack? given your previous comments -- YES! Well, I certainly didn't mean it that way. It provides a good example of how percents can be used to distort data. It's an effective for showing 8th graders an example of misleading statistics, especially when an actual graph of the percents is constructed. Be sure and look at the chart accompanying: "Receipts, Outlays, Suprlus and Deficit as a % of GDP So while in the previous graph you saw that the government was receiving more and spending more in constant dollars, here you can see that in terms of the economy as a whole, spending has been more-or-less constant since WWII." This is in the data that Harry posted for you. As I can't see his stuff, I'll assume what you said was correct. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:16 +0000, Jim, wrote: Well i seem to recall that Clinton (a democrat) ran a surplus for a couple of years. Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to the Gross Federal Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html What you been ingesting? Every POTUS has added to the debt. Clinton ran it up the first 2 years in office, until the Repubs took over. And the deficit was still there. They used the SS money to cover the excess spending and there was a huge surge from the dot.com excesses which was also spent. LBJ spent a lot more than came in. And Carter gave us 17% inflation. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with his special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43 trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat. Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Also See: http://calc.dickinson.edu/Introducti...Task814/task81 4.html If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. In any case the Federal budget is too fat. Many programs need to be cut. |
"'""""He also makes racially based comments about the black students
he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining "'''''' What about you krause,, all that talk about Thai girls being whores,, And you yourself said you visit Bangkok for 3 days at a time,,, lol,,, typical sex tourists,, Hey krause,, why wouldn't you visit your home country there Germany krause??? I mean prostitution is "legal" there krause,,, lol,,,, it just isn't the same huh krause??? once it becomes legal??? No wonder you are on your third wife there krause,,, "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Jim, wrote: HarryKrause wrote: John H wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your point as prophesied. "If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in the percent of GDP." ************************************************** ************************* Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent Body Weight 15 1 6.6% 30 1.3 4.3% 60 1.8 3.0% 90 2.0 2.2% 140 2.3 1.6% 220 2.5 1.1% ************************************************** ********************** There. Do you get the idea? Yeah. A substitute math teacher who cannot arrange columns. Nice work. IS that *REALLY* your job John? It is, indeed. And by his own admission, he is lousy at it. According to Herring, he is a substitute teacher for the Fairfax County, Virginia, school system, and when he is assigned a job, he mainly babysits his charges. He also makes racially based comments about the black students he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining about social security...Jim is on a military pension. But we'll leave that for another day. |
"'''''That's exactly the strategy. During the Reagan years, it was discussed
quite openly. Spend it all on the military, build up huge debt, and there'd be no money left for necessary social programs.''''''' LOL!!!,, krause the economists,,,communists economists,,, lol,,, krause the damage you have done to the economy,,, lol,,, I mean in your life time (just from what I know) you have held two union cards, lost your family business, went on to teach about family business,, and now you would prefer another power to take over your country and provide you with social programs,, lol,,,, all take all take and no give,, right krause,,, Stick to your lies krause,, that is the only thing you are good at,,, "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 +0000, Jim, wrote: So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your point as prophesied. I'm afraid he won't be able to. Anyway you want to slice it, there is not enough smoke, nor enough mirrors, to hide the fact that Reagan and the two Bushes are responsible for the surge in Federal Debt. I doubt it's an accident. Bankrupting the country is a way to get rid of all those pesky social programs, like education, social security, etc. etc. Now, John, the following link looks at the debt in enough different ways, that only those in true denial will not admit it's Reagan and the two Bushes baby. http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html "Bankrupting the country is a way to get rid of all those pesky social programs, like education, social security, etc. etc." That's exactly the strategy. During the Reagan years, it was discussed quite openly. Spend it all on the military, build up huge debt, and there'd be no money left for necessary social programs. |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:37:58 -0500, " Tuuk" wrote:
"'""""He also makes racially based comments about the black students he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining "'''''' What about you krause,, all that talk about Thai girls being whores,, And you yourself said you visit Bangkok for 3 days at a time,,, lol,,, typical sex tourists,, Hey krause,, why wouldn't you visit your home country there Germany krause??? I mean prostitution is "legal" there krause,,, lol,,,, it just isn't the same huh krause??? once it becomes legal??? No wonder you are on your third wife there krause,,, "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... It is, indeed. And by his own admission, he is lousy at it. According to Herring, he is a substitute teacher for the Fairfax County, Virginia, school system, and when he is assigned a job, he mainly babysits his charges. He also makes racially based comments about the black students he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining about social security...Jim is on a military pension. But we'll leave that for another day. More **** from Krause. Infatuation's a bitch. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with his special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43 trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat. Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Also See: http://calc.dickinson.edu/Introducti...Task814/task81 4.html If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. In any case the Federal budget is too fat. Many programs need to be cut. But the dems cry when program cuts are proposed. The only other solutions is to (you guessed it!) raise taxes. Dave |
" Tuuk" wrote in message ... krause Last I heard you had me in your bozo bin and were ignoring all my posts, then you were printing them giving them all to the cop down the lane, then ignoring them, now responding again,,, come on krause,, what are you ,, some kind of a liar??? Oooops,,, I knew the answer before I asked the question,,,, its obvious,, He just responded directly to a post of mine yet he claims he has me killfiled. |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:
If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All* other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the budget, the House approves it. Then there is the veto and let's not forget who has controlled the House since 1995. Difficult as it may be for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised. In any case the Federal budget is too fat. Many programs need to be cut. |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All* other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time before drawing any cause and effect relationships. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the budget, the House approves it. Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power? Then there is the veto and let's not forget who has controlled the House since 1995. The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the decent bill. A line item veto should be a priority. Difficult as it may be for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised. I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's. Dave |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's. The Volcker Recesssion is what cured inflation. Volcker was a Carter appointment. |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:23:54 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's. The Volcker Recesssion is what cured inflation. Volcker was a Carter appointment. Well yea, a recession usually does curb inflation. But that's not necessarily a good thing economically. It could be argued though that recession and inflation are simply the result of the pendulum swinging the other way. Such is the nature of a free market economy. Reagan ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down economics". Dave |
Dave Hall wrote:
... Reagan ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down economics". You really do live in a fantasy world. Reagan ended the "stagflation" of the early 1980s in the tried-and-true way... by gov't spending & increasing deficits. Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo" economics never worked. Them's the facts. DSK |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All* other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time before drawing any cause and effect relationships. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the budget, the House approves it. Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power? Then there is the veto and let's not forget who has controlled the House since 1995. The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the decent bill. A line item veto should be a priority. Difficult as it may be for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised. I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's. Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy. Dave |
P.Fritz wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All* other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time before drawing any cause and effect relationships. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the budget, the House approves it. Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power? Then there is the veto and let's not forget who has controlled the House since 1995. The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the decent bill. A line item veto should be a priority. Difficult as it may be for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised. I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's. Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy. Dave So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan, or Carter? |
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:25:34 -0500, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: ... Reagan ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down economics". You really do live in a fantasy world. Reagan ended the "stagflation" of the early 1980s in the tried-and-true way... by gov't spending & increasing deficits. And tax cuts....... Gee, sound familiar? Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo" economics never worked. They most certainly worked. History will prove that out. Them's the facts. No, once again you cling to someone's opinion as fact. Dave |
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
P.Fritz wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All* other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time before drawing any cause and effect relationships. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the budget, the House approves it. Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power? Then there is the veto and let's not forget who has controlled the House since 1995. The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the decent bill. A line item veto should be a priority. Difficult as it may be for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised. I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's. Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy. Dave So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan, or Carter? Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the crest of any economic boons. Dave |
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All* other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time before drawing any cause and effect relationships. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the budget, the House approves it. Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power? Then there is the veto and let's not forget who has controlled the House since 1995. The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the decent bill. A line item veto should be a priority. Difficult as it may be for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised. I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's. Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy. Dave So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan, or Carter? Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the crest of any economic boons. Dave Might you agree that the market reflects to some degree the optimism (or lack thereof) investors? Thus CURRENT policy is reflected by the markets perception of the future? This might explain both the dramatic rise under Clinton, and the somewhat less dramatic fall under Bush2. |
... Reagan
ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down economics". You really do live in a fantasy world. Reagan ended the "stagflation" of the early 1980s in the tried-and-true way... by gov't spending & increasing deficits. Dave Hall wrote: And tax cuts....... Gee, sound familiar? So, if "tax cuts" (by which I assume you mean tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%) are big part of why the economy did eventually revive under Reagan, then why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4 years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave? Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo" economics never worked. They most certainly worked. History will prove that out. Really? Ask Greenspan. Of course, his opinions on the economy are only a bunch of liberal ravings, but he's said the 'trickle-down' economics are bunkum... in fact IIRC that is the exact word he used... Them's the facts. No, once again you cling to someone's opinion as fact. Let me put it this way... on matters of national fiscal policy & economics, I take Alan Greenspan's opinion as much much closer to fact that your opinion (which is pretty much an empty parroting of right-wingnut propaganda). DSK |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican presidents. Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All* other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time before drawing any cause and effect relationships. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender. Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the budget, the House approves it. Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power? Then there is the veto and let's not forget who has controlled the House since 1995. The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the decent bill. A line item veto should be a priority. Difficult as it may be for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised. I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's. Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy. Dave So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan, or Carter? Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the crest of any economic boons. Dave The long term boom was do greatly to the Reagan tax cuts...........allowing people to keep more of the proceeds of taking investment risks moved a lot of money out of the bond sector and into R&D and the like. On the other hand, Clinton's tax increase, along with the cap on executive pay deductibility, led to a focus on increasing stock prices, which ultimately led to the market collapse. Liebrals tend to think statically, i.e., that behavior will not change when presented with a tax increase etc. Reality proves that is not true. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:16 +0000, Jim, wrote: Well i seem to recall that Clinton (a democrat) ran a surplus for a couple of years. Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to the Gross Federal Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html Wow another ignorant of history. I hope you are under 30 as that's your only excuse. President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation. He was told by economists that the federal government could deficit spend and that would cause inflation. Because the income tax was indexed (a graduated scale where the more you made the more you paid in income tax) as the dollar became worth less you would be making more dollars and as a result pay more taxes. This would keep the government solvent because everyone would be paying more in income to the federal government. Several conditions were required the first and most important, we couldn't be on the gold standard where the dollar was redeemable for gold at a fixed rate. Imagine if we were still on the gold standard and the house you purchased in 1958 for 16 thousand dollars sold for 100 thousand in 1982. IF we were still on he gold standard then the house would still be worth the same amount of gold and you wouldn't owe any taxes on the sale. But that's not the case and you now owe the government taxes on 84 thousand or 21000 dollars. Think about that. It's a second tax that's caused by the federal government itself. So the government under Johnson and subsequent presidents have been taxing us twice. The first tax is somewhat progressive ( the rich pay more) which the left among us support but the second tax affects the poor the most. Something the left is supposed to abhor. The point is that the left won't criticize deficit inflation spending because it's responsible for building their power base. |
Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to
the Gross Federal Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html Jeff Rigby wrote: Wow another ignorant of history. Apparently, by "ignorant of history" what you really mean is "unindoctrinated by extreme pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda." .... President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation. Wrong. Inflation has been a feature of all economies since the advent of money sometime around 500 BC. Early rulers used to add base metal to gold or silver being stamped into coins, this was called "debasement of the coinage." Don't believe me, look it up. Of course, you'd probably rather continue to ignore the facts. DSK |
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:09:26 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:16 +0000, Jim, wrote: Well i seem to recall that Clinton (a democrat) ran a surplus for a couple of years. Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to the Gross Federal Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html Wow another ignorant of history. I hope you are under 30 as that's your only excuse. President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation. He was told by economists that the federal government could deficit spend and that would cause inflation. Because the income tax was indexed (a graduated scale where the more you made the more you paid in income tax) as the dollar became worth less you would be making more dollars and as a result pay more taxes. This would keep the government solvent because everyone would be paying more in income to the federal government. Several conditions were required the first and most important, we couldn't be on the gold standard where the dollar was redeemable for gold at a fixed rate. Well, I am certainly ignorant of your version of history. We left the Gold Standard in 1971. You do know who was President then, don't you? Hint, it wasn't Johnson. Oh, and while the inflation rate doubled under Johnson, from less than 2% to 4.27%, he was neither the first nor the most egregious inflationary President. |
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:16 +0000, Jim, wrote: Well i seem to recall that Clinton (a democrat) ran a surplus for a couple of years. Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to the Gross Federal Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html Wow another ignorant of history. And basic math..........the author of the site has to go through some great contortions to come up with that rationale that clinton did not increase the gross federal debt. The gross federal debt in 1992 4,001,087 (million dollars), in 2000, it was 5,628,700 (million dollars) An increase in gross debt is an increase in gross debt. I hope you are under 30 as that's your only excuse. President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation. He was told by economists that the federal government could deficit spend and that would cause inflation. Because the income tax was indexed (a graduated scale where the more you made the more you paid in income tax) as the dollar became worth less you would be making more dollars and as a result pay more taxes. This would keep the government solvent because everyone would be paying more in income to the federal government. Several conditions were required the first and most important, we couldn't be on the gold standard where the dollar was redeemable for gold at a fixed rate. Imagine if we were still on the gold standard and the house you purchased in 1958 for 16 thousand dollars sold for 100 thousand in 1982. IF we were still on he gold standard then the house would still be worth the same amount of gold and you wouldn't owe any taxes on the sale. But that's not the case and you now owe the government taxes on 84 thousand or 21000 dollars. Think about that. It's a second tax that's caused by the federal government itself. So the government under Johnson and subsequent presidents have been taxing us twice. The first tax is somewhat progressive ( the rich pay more) which the left among us support but the second tax affects the poor the most. Something the left is supposed to abhor. The point is that the left won't criticize deficit inflation spending because it's responsible for building their power base. |
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:26:35 -0500, P. Fritz wrote:
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:16 +0000, Jim, wrote: Well i seem to recall that Clinton (a democrat) ran a surplus for a couple of years. Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to the Gross Federal Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html Wow another ignorant of history. And basic math..........the author of the site has to go through some great contortions to come up with that rationale that clinton did not increase the gross federal debt. The gross federal debt in 1992 4,001,087 (million dollars), in 2000, it was 5,628,700 (million dollars) An increase in gross debt is an increase in gross debt. That would be my oversight, not the site's author's. My statement should have been qualified "as percent of GDP". Still, in Reagan's two terms the debt more than doubled ($.9 trillion, to $2.6 trillion), under Bush I's one term almost doubled ($4 trillion), and already under Bush II's administration had gone from $5.6 trillion to $7.7 trillion. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't be complaining too loudly about Clinton's 8 year $1.6 trillion increase. http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fac...fed-debt.shtml |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to the Gross Federal Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/480.html Jeff Rigby wrote: Wow another ignorant of history. Apparently, by "ignorant of history" what you really mean is "unindoctrinated by extreme pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda." No, I was taught this in a Problem in American Democracy class in high school 1969. This was a required course in Florida for several years. I am constantly amazed at how little leaning is taking place in public schools in the north. .... President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation. BY DESIGN Wrong. Inflation has been a feature of all economies since the advent of money sometime around 500 BC. Early rulers used to add base metal to gold or silver being stamped into coins, this was called "debasement of the coinage." Of course I learned that in junor high school too. Governments run by people always try to spend more than they have (deficit spend), eventually there is an accounting. Our progessive income tax system is the first to take advantage of this by design. Past economic systems affected all entities, government included. IF the government caused the money to be worth less, they had less to spend too. In our system when the government makes the money worth 10% less it collects 12% in more taxes. A net gain for the government. That makes the worker have to work harder to attain the same standard of living. Ever wonder why a 1950's family only needed one bread winner and today we need two full time workers to make ends meet. While Nixon I believe got us off the gold standard he still tried to balance the budget. Johnson is the first President to not balance the budget by intent. |
Wow another ignorant of history.
Apparently, by "ignorant of history" what you really mean is "unindoctrinated by extreme pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda." Jeff Rigby wrote: No, I was taught this in a Problem in American Democracy class in high school 1969. This was a required course in Florida for several years. I am constantly amazed at how little leaning is taking place in public schools in the north. Considering that I went to public school in the south, you are barking up the wrong tree. Also no matter what school you attend, falsified ideologically slanted malarkey is still falsified ideologically slanted malarkey. Do you genuinely believe that LBJ was the first leader who ever had inflation? .... President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation. BY DESIGN Wrong. Inflation has been a feature of all economies since the advent of money sometime around 500 BC. Early rulers used to add base metal to gold or silver being stamped into coins, this was called "debasement of the coinage." Of course I learned that in junor high school too. Really? Then why do you post nonsense that you claim you already know is wrong? Johnson is the first President to not balance the budget by intent. Wrong again. The Continental Congress started us the deficit-go-round. And considering how much you Bushies hate FDR, I'm really surprised you don't realize that FDR embraced Keynesian fiscal theories ie deficit spending to help with the Great Depression. DSK |
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:17:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan, or Carter? Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the crest of any economic boons. Dave Might you agree that the market reflects to some degree the optimism (or lack thereof) investors? Thus CURRENT policy is reflected by the markets perception of the future? That what I was referring to when I mentioned "perception" in my last paragraph. The problem is that public "perception" is often crafted by the spinmeisters who try to establish a person's image before they even take office. It didn't help Bush or the easing of the recent recession, when congressional democrats were constantly harping about how "bad" the economy was getting (After all a bad economy is good for them politically). Things like this influence people's perception and your "degree of optimism". This might explain both the dramatic rise under Clinton, and the somewhat less dramatic fall under Bush2. Yes, it might to some degree. Democrats have been historically better at putting out spin in their favor. After all, they influence, or are in sync with, most of the major news media outlets. Dave |
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:31:53 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote: So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan, or Carter? Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the crest of any economic boons. Dave The long term boom was do greatly to the Reagan tax cuts...........allowing people to keep more of the proceeds of taking investment risks moved a lot of money out of the bond sector and into R&D and the like. On the other hand, Clinton's tax increase, along with the cap on executive pay deductibility, led to a focus on increasing stock prices, which ultimately led to the market collapse. Liebrals tend to think statically, i.e., that behavior will not change when presented with a tax increase etc. Reality proves that is not true. They also typically fail to account for the lag between when a policy is put into place and when the full effects of that policy are felt. It took a while for Reagan's tax cuts to make a prolonged difference. The same will be true for Bush. Liberals and other economically naive people expect instant results when a policy is enacted. The truth is that it may be several more years before the full impact of Bush's economic policy is realized. As is typically the result, a democrat will assume office just in time to take the credit for the fruition of the policies that his predecessor put into place. Dave |
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:23:50 -0500, DSK wrote:
... Reagan ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down economics". You really do live in a fantasy world. Reagan ended the "stagflation" of the early 1980s in the tried-and-true way... by gov't spending & increasing deficits. Dave Hall wrote: And tax cuts....... Gee, sound familiar? So, if "tax cuts" (by which I assume you mean tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%) No, I mean the tax cuts for EVERYBODY. Everybody got a tax cut, Period. You need to stop reading the democratic playbook and stick to facts. are big part of why the economy did eventually revive under Reagan, then why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4 years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave? It takes time. The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become evident until Clinton took office. Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo" economics never worked. They most certainly worked. History will prove that out. Really? Ask Greenspan. Of course, his opinions on the economy are only a bunch of liberal ravings, but he's said the 'trickle-down' economics are bunkum... in fact IIRC that is the exact word he used... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you give money to those who make jobs, that more jobs will result. More jobs equal more money in more hands. More money means more spending. More spending means more demand. More demand means more manufacturing. More manufacturing means more profit. That's economics 101. Them's the facts. No, once again you cling to someone's opinion as fact. Let me put it this way... on matters of national fiscal policy & economics, I take Alan Greenspan's opinion as much much closer to fact that your opinion (which is pretty much an empty parroting of right-wingnut propaganda). Yet you are strangely silent when Greenspan upholds the principles of Bush's tax cuts and the privatization of S.S. Dave |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Wow another ignorant of history. Apparently, by "ignorant of history" what you really mean is "unindoctrinated by extreme pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda." Jeff Rigby wrote: No, I was taught this in a Problem in American Democracy class in high school 1969. This was a required course in Florida for several years. I am constantly amazed at how little leaning is taking place in public schools in the north. Considering that I went to public school in the south, you are barking up the wrong tree. Also no matter what school you attend, falsified ideologically slanted malarkey is still falsified ideologically slanted malarkey. Do you genuinely believe that LBJ was the first leader who ever had inflation? .... President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation. BY DESIGN Wrong. Inflation has been a feature of all economies since the advent of money sometime around 500 BC. Early rulers used to add base metal to gold or silver being stamped into coins, this was called "debasement of the coinage." Of course I learned that in junor high school too. Really? Then why do you post nonsense that you claim you already know is wrong? Johnson is the first President to not balance the budget by intent. Wrong again. The Continental Congress started us the deficit-go-round. And considering how much you Bushies hate FDR, I'm really surprised you don't realize that FDR embraced Keynesian fiscal theories ie deficit spending to help with the Great Depression. DSK Your right of course. Keynesian policy when properly implemented is a way of managing the economy, to prime the pump when the economy needs it by deficit spending. If the money is properly spent and the economy recovers the money is repaid by increased income to the federal government. In Keynesian, the intent is NOT to create inflation but it's understood that some inflation will be the result of deficit spending. What I am talking about is NOT Keynesian policy but the purposeful spending to support pet projects and to build a power base for political ends by spending money you don't have. Knowing you are purposely going to cause inflation to pay back the excess spending by way of inflation and the progressive income tax schedule. President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation, BY DESIGN |
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:17:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan, or Carter? Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the crest of any economic boons. Dave Might you agree that the market reflects to some degree the optimism (or lack thereof) investors? Thus CURRENT policy is reflected by the markets perception of the future? That what I was referring to when I mentioned "perception" in my last paragraph. The problem is that public "perception" is often crafted by the spinmeisters who try to establish a person's image before they even take office. It didn't help Bush or the easing of the recent recession, when congressional democrats were constantly harping about how "bad" the economy was getting (After all a bad economy is good for them politically). Things like this influence people's perception and your "degree of optimism". This might explain both the dramatic rise under Clinton, and the somewhat less dramatic fall under Bush2. Yes, it might to some degree. Democrats have been historically better at putting out spin in their favor. After all, they influence, or are in sync with, most of the major news media outlets. Dave Which is why the present administration has to supply pre packaged news (AKA propaganda) to their favorite news outlets? |
So, if "tax cuts" (by which I assume you mean tax cuts for the
wealthiest 1%) Dave Hall wrote: No, I mean the tax cuts for EVERYBODY. Everybody got a tax cut, Period. You need to stop reading the democratic playbook and stick to facts. When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later somebody will believe it... are big part of why the economy did eventually revive under Reagan, then why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4 years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave? It takes time. More than 4 years? ... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become evident until Clinton took office. Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s. You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton. Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo" economics never worked. They most certainly worked. History will prove that out. Really? Ask Greenspan. Of course, his opinions on the economy are only a bunch of liberal ravings, but he's said the 'trickle-down' economics are bunkum... in fact IIRC that is the exact word he used... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you give money to those who make jobs, that more jobs will result. It's not "rocket science" Dave, it's economics. Of course, you know a lot more about it than Alan Greenspan, especially when Greenspan contradicts President Bush. Let me put it this way... on matters of national fiscal policy & economics, I take Alan Greenspan's opinion as much much closer to fact that your opinion (which is pretty much an empty parroting of right-wingnut propaganda). Yet you are strangely silent when Greenspan upholds the principles of Bush's tax cuts and the privatization of S.S. Hello? Hello? Where have you been? You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both. But then, listening to a long dull speech containing facts is boring, I'm sure you'd rather get your "facts" from hate-spew talk radio. DSK |
Jeff Rigby wrote:
Your right of course. Of course ;) .... Keynesian policy when properly implemented is a way of managing the economy, to prime the pump when the economy needs it by deficit spending. As a conservative, I tend to sneer at Keynes... some personal reasons behind that too. I agree that his ideas "properly implemented" would be a great way to stimultate the national economy, the problem is that no gov't I've ever heard of managed to do it "properly." What I am talking about is NOT Keynesian policy but the purposeful spending to support pet projects and to build a power base for political ends by spending money you don't have. Well, I can assure youo that LBJ was not the first political leader... nor even the first U.S. President... to do that. In this country, that has been the game since the Continental Congress. ... Knowing you are purposely going to cause inflation to pay back the excess spending by way of inflation and the progressive income tax schedule. President Johnson was the first president to institute the second tax on Americans, called inflation, BY DESIGN That may be, but if so, it's only because he was smart enough (or honest enough, which I doubt) to realize what his policy entailed. Most politicians who embark on inflationary policies deny it strenuously... for example, Reagan & Bush... although right now, with interest rates as low as they are, inflation doesn't seem too great a danger... The problem with President Bush's deficit spending is that it is not stimulating the economy. GDP has not risen at all proportionally with the deficit... but that's a different argument... DSK |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:40:58 -0500, DSK wrote:
So, if "tax cuts" (by which I assume you mean tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%) Dave Hall wrote: No, I mean the tax cuts for EVERYBODY. Everybody got a tax cut, Period. You need to stop reading the democratic playbook and stick to facts. When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later somebody will believe it... Everyone got a tax cut. THAT is a fact. The fact that the people who put more in, got more back is misleading. The bottom line is that you are being disingenuous (as are the writers of the democratic playbook) when you make comments such as "tax breaks for the rich". are big part of why the economy did eventually revive under Reagan, then why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4 years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave? It takes time. More than 4 years? Sure. Why would you think otherwise? ... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become evident until Clinton took office. Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s. You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton. Miffed? I would think that you are the one who's miffed, as you have abandoned your usual methods of quoting biased sources and have resorted to simply parroting the DNC talking points. You're just one step above Harry now. Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo" economics never worked. They most certainly worked. History will prove that out. Really? Ask Greenspan. Of course, his opinions on the economy are only a bunch of liberal ravings, but he's said the 'trickle-down' economics are bunkum... in fact IIRC that is the exact word he used... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you give money to those who make jobs, that more jobs will result. It's not "rocket science" Dave, it's economics. Of course, you know a lot more about it than Alan Greenspan, especially when Greenspan contradicts President Bush. Greenspan has been in agreement with Bush more than not as of late. But again, you fail to acknowledge that. Let me put it this way... on matters of national fiscal policy & economics, I take Alan Greenspan's opinion as much much closer to fact that your opinion (which is pretty much an empty parroting of right-wingnut propaganda). Yet you are strangely silent when Greenspan upholds the principles of Bush's tax cuts and the privatization of S.S. Hello? Hello? Where have you been? You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both. He was very positive about the tax cut. He did warn about increasing the deficit, but agreed that the tax cuts probably lessened the impact of the recession. But then, listening to a long dull speech containing facts is boring, I'm sure you'd rather get your "facts" from hate-spew talk radio. As opposed to your "hate-spew" left wing propaganda rags? Dave |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:52:22 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:17:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan, or Carter? Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the crest of any economic boons. Dave Might you agree that the market reflects to some degree the optimism (or lack thereof) investors? Thus CURRENT policy is reflected by the markets perception of the future? That what I was referring to when I mentioned "perception" in my last paragraph. The problem is that public "perception" is often crafted by the spinmeisters who try to establish a person's image before they even take office. It didn't help Bush or the easing of the recent recession, when congressional democrats were constantly harping about how "bad" the economy was getting (After all a bad economy is good for them politically). Things like this influence people's perception and your "degree of optimism". This might explain both the dramatic rise under Clinton, and the somewhat less dramatic fall under Bush2. Yes, it might to some degree. Democrats have been historically better at putting out spin in their favor. After all, they influence, or are in sync with, most of the major news media outlets. Dave Which is why the present administration has to supply pre packaged news (AKA propaganda) to their favorite news outlets? If that is really true (and I have little reason to believe that it's as bad as the biased mainstreamers have reported), then it is to counter the bias that has existed in the mainstream media. Some might call that "Fair and balanced"........ Dave |
When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the
Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later somebody will believe it... Dave Hall wrote: Everyone got a tax cut. THAT is a fact. The fact that the people who put more in, got more back is misleading. No, it's a fact. As you just said yourself. When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich." ... The bottom line is that you are being disingenuous (as are the writers of the democratic playbook) when you make comments such as "tax breaks for the rich". No, the bottom line is that you're afraid of the simple truth. You want to say "tax cut for all" and ignore the factual details of who benefitted the most. ... why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4 years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave? It takes time. More than 4 years? Sure. Why would you think otherwise? Because in 1990 & 1991, we had a recession that was over & done with and followed by the greatest peacetime economic boom in history. In 2000 & 2001, we had a recession which is only just now beginning to loosen up. ... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become evident until Clinton took office. Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s. You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton. Miffed? I would think that you are the one who's miffed Yeah yeah, I guess one gets miffed when the truth supports one's viewpoints. ... as you have abandoned your usual methods of quoting biased sources and have resorted to simply parroting the DNC talking points. You're just one step above Harry now. Sure sure... BTW where can I read these "DNC talking points"? I haven't heard any. Greenspan has been in agreement with Bush more than not as of late. But again, you fail to acknowledge that. Oh no, I acknowledge that. I also heard him tell Congress about the Bush SS plan being likely to increase the deficit in the short run, and unlikely to change the future imbalance between SS tax revenue & payouts. He also talked a lot about the dollar needing support against foreign currencies and the risks of a continued imbalace of trade... I suspect rather few Bush-Cheney supporters listened to all that, it was rather dry & full of detail. You'd probably have accused him of following the DNC talking points. You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both. He was very positive about the tax cut. Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress to address the revenue shortfall. But who cares about details? Facts are so dull compared to the propaganda you wallow in. DSK |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:46:38 -0500, DSK wrote:
When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later somebody will believe it... Dave Hall wrote: Everyone got a tax cut. THAT is a fact. The fact that the people who put more in, got more back is misleading. No, it's a fact. As you just said yourself. When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich." There's nothing disproportionate about it. It's simple math dealing with percentages. If you paid in $1000 in tax and got back 1% of it, your tax cut amounted to $10. If you put in $100,000 in taxes, that 1% cut amounted to $1000. The RATE remains the same. You also forgot to mention the increases in child credits. I guess you could claim that these were "tax breaks for the kids". ... The bottom line is that you are being disingenuous (as are the writers of the democratic playbook) when you make comments such as "tax breaks for the rich". No, the bottom line is that you're afraid of the simple truth. You want to say "tax cut for all" and ignore the factual details of who benefitted the most. But it's all relative. If you put more in, shouldn't you get more back? $1000 to someone who pays in $100,000 is not much different than $10 is to someone who only paid in $1000. ... why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4 years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave? It takes time. More than 4 years? Sure. Why would you think otherwise? Because in 1990 & 1991, we had a recession that was over & done with and followed by the greatest peacetime economic boom in history. In 2000 & 2001, we had a recession which is only just now beginning to loosen up. Yes, but in 1990, we didn't have the equivalent of 9/11, and the resultant fervor surrounding it. The Gulf War was over quickly and the price of fuel dropped dramatically afterward, spurring growth, and stifling inflationary concerns. Today, we have many different factors. The uncertainty of the Iraq War and terrorism in general (the perception of which isn't being helped by the left wing propagandists and their doom and gloom forecasts), the sharp rise in fuel costs, and the threat of inflation that it brings. Then there's the issue of an increasing global economy and the outsourcing of jobs to places that bring a better return on the investment dollar. This recession has pretty much been over for well over a year now. We are seeing growth in most of the critical numbers. The only factor that seems to be lagging is employment. But you won't fix that until the market either finds it favorable to manufacture here again, or we, as a people adapt to different types of jobs. ... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become evident until Clinton took office. Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s. You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton. Miffed? I would think that you are the one who's miffed Yeah yeah, I guess one gets miffed when the truth supports one's viewpoints. Your definition of "truth" has always been suspect. A more accurate term would be "belief". ... as you have abandoned your usual methods of quoting biased sources and have resorted to simply parroting the DNC talking points. You're just one step above Harry now. Sure sure... BTW where can I read these "DNC talking points"? I haven't heard any. You sure regurgitate them with remarkable accuracy for one who "hasn't heard any". Greenspan has been in agreement with Bush more than not as of late. But again, you fail to acknowledge that. Oh no, I acknowledge that. I also heard him tell Congress about the Bush SS plan being likely to increase the deficit in the short run, and unlikely to change the future imbalance between SS tax revenue & payouts. Yes, it would hit the short term, but it would balance out in the longer term, when the amount of payout starts to decline. He also talked a lot about the dollar needing support against foreign currencies and the risks of a continued imbalace of trade... I suspect rather few Bush-Cheney supporters listened to all that, it was rather dry & full of detail. You'd probably have accused him of following the DNC talking points. No one disputes the problem of the devaluation of the dollar. On the one hand, it attracts foreign investors, which is good for short term growth. On the other hand, it makes the prices of everything we buy abroad (Which is almost everything) rise, which leads to inflation. But it doesn't take anyone special to state the obvious. But it does take some one with vision to find a solution. Fact: Social security, if left alone will eventually collapse under its own weight. Fact: There have been no practical solutions offered by democratic leaders other than simply raising the tax. Fact: Bush's private account proposal is innovative, and shows an ability to think outside the box. For that reason alone, it should be allowed to be objectively considered, without applying scare tactics such as "cutting off seniors", "making wall street rich(er)", "buying off campaign contributors", etc. You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both. He was very positive about the tax cut. Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress to address the revenue shortfall. Hmmm.. A flip flop? Or could it simply be an inability to predict the future? If so, anything anyone predicts can change in an instant if certain conditions change, which makes their remarks not necessarily accurate. But who cares about details? Facts are so dull compared to the propaganda you wallow in. Pot, Kettle, Black. Dave |
Dave, I cannot believe the patience you've shown in this discussion with someone
who obviously cares nothing about truth, facts, etc. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:18:47 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:46:38 -0500, DSK wrote: When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later somebody will believe it... Dave Hall wrote: Everyone got a tax cut. THAT is a fact. The fact that the people who put more in, got more back is misleading. No, it's a fact. As you just said yourself. When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich." There's nothing disproportionate about it. It's simple math dealing with percentages. If you paid in $1000 in tax and got back 1% of it, your tax cut amounted to $10. If you put in $100,000 in taxes, that 1% cut amounted to $1000. The RATE remains the same. You also forgot to mention the increases in child credits. I guess you could claim that these were "tax breaks for the kids". ... The bottom line is that you are being disingenuous (as are the writers of the democratic playbook) when you make comments such as "tax breaks for the rich". No, the bottom line is that you're afraid of the simple truth. You want to say "tax cut for all" and ignore the factual details of who benefitted the most. But it's all relative. If you put more in, shouldn't you get more back? $1000 to someone who pays in $100,000 is not much different than $10 is to someone who only paid in $1000. ... why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4 years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave? It takes time. More than 4 years? Sure. Why would you think otherwise? Because in 1990 & 1991, we had a recession that was over & done with and followed by the greatest peacetime economic boom in history. In 2000 & 2001, we had a recession which is only just now beginning to loosen up. Yes, but in 1990, we didn't have the equivalent of 9/11, and the resultant fervor surrounding it. The Gulf War was over quickly and the price of fuel dropped dramatically afterward, spurring growth, and stifling inflationary concerns. Today, we have many different factors. The uncertainty of the Iraq War and terrorism in general (the perception of which isn't being helped by the left wing propagandists and their doom and gloom forecasts), the sharp rise in fuel costs, and the threat of inflation that it brings. Then there's the issue of an increasing global economy and the outsourcing of jobs to places that bring a better return on the investment dollar. This recession has pretty much been over for well over a year now. We are seeing growth in most of the critical numbers. The only factor that seems to be lagging is employment. But you won't fix that until the market either finds it favorable to manufacture here again, or we, as a people adapt to different types of jobs. ... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become evident until Clinton took office. Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s. You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton. Miffed? I would think that you are the one who's miffed Yeah yeah, I guess one gets miffed when the truth supports one's viewpoints. Your definition of "truth" has always been suspect. A more accurate term would be "belief". ... as you have abandoned your usual methods of quoting biased sources and have resorted to simply parroting the DNC talking points. You're just one step above Harry now. Sure sure... BTW where can I read these "DNC talking points"? I haven't heard any. You sure regurgitate them with remarkable accuracy for one who "hasn't heard any". Greenspan has been in agreement with Bush more than not as of late. But again, you fail to acknowledge that. Oh no, I acknowledge that. I also heard him tell Congress about the Bush SS plan being likely to increase the deficit in the short run, and unlikely to change the future imbalance between SS tax revenue & payouts. Yes, it would hit the short term, but it would balance out in the longer term, when the amount of payout starts to decline. He also talked a lot about the dollar needing support against foreign currencies and the risks of a continued imbalace of trade... I suspect rather few Bush-Cheney supporters listened to all that, it was rather dry & full of detail. You'd probably have accused him of following the DNC talking points. No one disputes the problem of the devaluation of the dollar. On the one hand, it attracts foreign investors, which is good for short term growth. On the other hand, it makes the prices of everything we buy abroad (Which is almost everything) rise, which leads to inflation. But it doesn't take anyone special to state the obvious. But it does take some one with vision to find a solution. Fact: Social security, if left alone will eventually collapse under its own weight. Fact: There have been no practical solutions offered by democratic leaders other than simply raising the tax. Fact: Bush's private account proposal is innovative, and shows an ability to think outside the box. For that reason alone, it should be allowed to be objectively considered, without applying scare tactics such as "cutting off seniors", "making wall street rich(er)", "buying off campaign contributors", etc. You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both. He was very positive about the tax cut. Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress to address the revenue shortfall. Hmmm.. A flip flop? Or could it simply be an inability to predict the future? If so, anything anyone predicts can change in an instant if certain conditions change, which makes their remarks not necessarily accurate. But who cares about details? Facts are so dull compared to the propaganda you wallow in. Pot, Kettle, Black. Dave -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more
in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich." Dave Hall wrote: There's nothing disproportionate about it. It's simple math dealing with percentages. If you paid in $1000 in tax and got back 1% of it, your tax cut amounted to $10. If you put in $100,000 in taxes, that 1% cut amounted to $1000. The RATE remains the same. That's absurd. Take a look at your tax rate booklet... preferably before April 15th... You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both. He was very positive about the tax cut. Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress to address the revenue shortfall. Hmmm.. A flip flop? Yeah, that darn liberal Greenspan! He's probably a terrorist sympathizer! ...Or could it simply be an inability to predict the future? Or it could be that he's frustrated by the Bush Administration's inability to carry out the positive aspects of their announced fiscal plans. We all have to suffer from the negative aspects, no matter how often Greenspan (and others) try to warn them. DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com