"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