Jeff Rigby wrote:
... Does everyone on the left
have such bias that they can't think straight. DO they think the rest of us
are idiots?


No, we think the idiots are the people who believe in WMDs, "the
insurgency is on it's last legs," tax cuts for the rich stimulate the
economy (sure they do, after 5 years and huge increased gov't spending),
that the Vice President has a "right" to keep national policy meetings
totally secret, etc etc.

There are already many fascist governments in the world. Why don't you
people move there, instead of trying to change the United States?

DSK

Dixon wrote:
So no, my moderately liberal friends, Bush falls far short of Hitler
in many respects.


Sure.

Adolf Hitler enlisted in his country's army and actually fought in a war.

Hitler was a talented public speaker.

Hitler wrote a book. Bush can barely read.

Hitler announced his political principles, and stood by them.

The differences are obvious.

DSK

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...



Now why do I always hear from the left that the rich were given a tax
break
by Bush? He did it to stimulate the economy! Does everyone on the left
have such bias that they can't think straight. DO they think the rest of
us
are idiots?



Liebrals tend to be static thinkers......they think that any change in
policy.....tax, minimum wage etc, will not have any effect on the economy
except for the change itself......i.e. a tax hike will simply bring in more
$$$, a minimum wage hike will simply raise the standard of living for the
minimum wage earner.

Unfortunately for the liebrals, the economy is dynamic......if you raise
taxes on one segment, market forces will simply move the money to where it
is taxed less. Raise the minimum wage and you simply increase prices
across the board and or move jobs overseas where the labor is
cheaper..........freeze prices and suddenly "new" (repackaged, renamed)
products appear on the shelves with higher prices.

Only the brain dead left don't get it.

Paul,

The thing that amazes me is when someone who appears to be intelligent, can
not figure this out. Recently someone who is strongly against sending jobs
overseas made a strong sales pitch on a very nice trawler built overseas.
He justified the fact that it was ok to buy a boat built overseas, because
there were no US made trawlers. He failed to realize the reason there were
no US Built Trawlers because any company that did not export the jobs
overseas would have gone bankrupt.

He failed to realize, any company who does not remain competitive in the
global economy will become as extinct as the US built trawlers. This
reminds me of the people who were against US companies replacing
manufacturing jobs with machines during the 60's. They believed the US
companies and jobs were someone protected from all foreign products. The
Japanese Auto companies proved how dangerous this mentality can be.

"Those who cannot remember the past are destined to repeat it."


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...



Now why do I always hear from the left that the rich were given a tax
break
by Bush? He did it to stimulate the economy! Does everyone on the left
have such bias that they can't think straight. DO they think the rest of
us
are idiots?



Liebrals tend to be static thinkers......they think that any change in
policy.....tax, minimum wage etc, will not have any effect on the economy
except for the change itself......i.e. a tax hike will simply bring in
more
$$$, a minimum wage hike will simply raise the standard of living for the
minimum wage earner.

Unfortunately for the liebrals, the economy is dynamic......if you raise
taxes on one segment, market forces will simply move the money to where
it
is taxed less. Raise the minimum wage and you simply increase prices
across the board and or move jobs overseas where the labor is
cheaper..........freeze prices and suddenly "new" (repackaged, renamed)
products appear on the shelves with higher prices.

Only the brain dead left don't get it.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:56:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


Only the brain dead left don't get it.

Well you talk the talk, but you just can't seem to walk the walk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr1.html

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady
rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)...

That's ridiculous.
The economy moves into and out of recession without tax cuts.
Prior to GWB's tax cut, how many recessions subsided *without* any tax
cuts?
Plenty.



Right now our government is like a couple of hillbillies who
accidentally acquire $200,000 in credit cards. As they're spending each
card to the max and hauling home truck loads of useless consumer junk,
they can't believe how "rich" they suddenly are.

If tax receipts are up, government spending is up far, far, far more.
Train wreck, dead ahead.

Tax receipts *are* up. Which means that from now on it will be awfully hard
for Democrats to whine that tax cuts cause deficits.

Increased spending...from wars, and military build-ups, and natural
disasters...cause deficits. But not tax cuts.


Nonsense.

The government can increase spending as much as it likes, as long as it
has the revenues to pay for it.

Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits.
Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo. If the
government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more
money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money).
If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease
spending by as much or more than the tax cut.

I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax
cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now
are tax cuts and spending increases.

Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq,
sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any
entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending.

Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your
practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that
I know, don't be insulted.....). Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k
a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once
in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household
budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her
that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during
the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can
claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not
the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many
years go by.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Let me see if I understand this properly.

You are bashing President Bush by extolling the virtues of Adolf
Hitler who was a genocidal maniac.

???

Where in my above post did I say that *anything* Hitler did was good,
much less "extoll the virtues of Adolf Hitler."



There is a serious disconnect somewhere and I'm sure it's not with me
because frankly, I find this so offensive I can't even describe it.

Think about it some more.

Maybe if it really really bothers you, you'll think before you vote next
time.

DSK

wrote in message
oups.com...

Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits.

I agree.



Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo.


Thanks for stating the obvious.

If the
government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more
money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money).

Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will increase
tax receipts as the economy expands.


If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease
spending by as much or more than the tax cut.

A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just the
opposite occurs.



I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax
cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now
are tax cuts and spending increases.

Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus as the
economy grows.

But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending,
they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next year's
increase in spending.




Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq,
sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any
entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending.


Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year.

Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your
practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that
I know, don't be insulted.....).

Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years (age
40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my income
should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-)

Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k
a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once
in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household
budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her
that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during
the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can
claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not
the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many
years go by.

If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues and
spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes through
cycles.

I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it down
in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which to
spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay the
piper.

The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can therefore
borrow ad infinitum.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits.

I agree.



Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo.


Thanks for stating the obvious.

If the
government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more
money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money).

Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will
increase
tax receipts as the economy expands.


If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease
spending by as much or more than the tax cut.

A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just the
opposite occurs.


chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral.




I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax
cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now
are tax cuts and spending increases.

Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus as
the
economy grows.

But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending,
they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next year's
increase in spending.




Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq,
sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any
entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending.


Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year.

Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your
practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that
I know, don't be insulted.....).

Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years (age
40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my
income
should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-)

Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k
a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once
in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household
budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her
that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during
the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can
claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not
the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many
years go by.

If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues and
spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes through
cycles.

I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it
down
in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which to
spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay the
piper.

The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can therefore
borrow ad infinitum.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
The problem with liberals today is that they honestly believe that
they, and I assume you include yourself as one, believe that anything
is fair game when denigrating President Bush.


You mean the way that right-wingers assumed that anything was fair game
when denigrating President Clinton? Including incitement to
assassination, and impeachment for getting a blowjob?


I don't think there is one person in this newsgroup who will stand up
and say that your comparison is fine and dandy - that you made a valid
point.

What *was* my point?

So far, you've insisted that I've "extolled the virtues of Adolf Hitler"
which I find to be a repugnant statement and an insult, and also not the
truth. You seem to have avoided answering that part.

DSK