Bush Economics

[Nate]

"Whether measured by wages, income or wealth, for 25 years the share of the
privileged has increased, and everyone else (a roughly 80% majority) has
become relatively worse off." - Juliet Schor, Harvard University

We can look at George A. Akerlof who won the Nobel Prize in economics. He's
from the University of California, and here's what he said about the Bush
tax plan.

"What we have here is a form of looting . The rich don't need the money and
are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their
savings. Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the
United States in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite
badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy
are going in the exactly wrong direction . I think this is the worst
government the U.S. has ever had." That's a Nobel Laureate in economics!

And he's not alone.

Another Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz said, "A few people at the top are
getting just enormous, enormous benefits. You don't need a Nobel Prize to
figure this out . give money to people who will spend it. Link tax cuts to
expenditure. For instance, expanded unemployment benefits, aid to states
and localities, money to low wage workers, investment tax credits, in
particular incremental tax credits, will direct money in areas where it will
be spent."

Giving a massive tax break to the rich simply doesn't work.

[Roedy Green]

Post by Nate
"What we have here is a form of looting . The rich don't need the money and
are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their
savings.

They invest overseas where the interest rates are higher and the
investment is immune to the collapse of the US dollar. This is why
tax breaks to the rich have the opposite from the purported result.


--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

[Steve Richter]

the rich, almost by definition, are the people who make the most of
the money they have. That is, they invest it and make more money. The
government, on the other hand, is a poor investor. So if you want to
grow the economy, that is invest in products and industries that
consumers want more of, you should let the rich keep their money.

how will raising taxes increase job growth? where is the democrat
party think tank that has a coherent plan for growing the economy?
canada and europe appear to be the model that american democrats want
to emulate. yet those economies are poor performers compared to the
US.

-Steve

Post by Nate
"Whether measured by wages, income or wealth, for 25 years the share of the
privileged has increased, and everyone else (a roughly 80% majority) has
become relatively worse off." - Juliet Schor, Harvard University
We can look at George A. Akerlof who won the Nobel Prize in economics. He's
from the University of California, and here's what he said about the Bush
tax plan.
"What we have here is a form of looting . The rich don't need the money and
are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their
savings. Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the
United States in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite
badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy
are going in the exactly wrong direction . I think this is the worst
government the U.S. has ever had." That's a Nobel Laureate in economics!
And he's not alone.
Another Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz said, "A few people at the top are
getting just enormous, enormous benefits. You don't need a Nobel Prize to
figure this out . give money to people who will spend it. Link tax cuts to
expenditure. For instance, expanded unemployment benefits, aid to states
and localities, money to low wage workers, investment tax credits, in
particular incremental tax credits, will direct money in areas where it will
be spent."
Giving a massive tax break to the rich simply doesn't work.

[Nate]

Post by Steve Richter
the rich, almost by definition, are the people who make the most of
the money they have. That is, they invest it and make more money. The
government, on the other hand, is a poor investor. So if you want to
grow the economy, that is invest in products and industries that
consumers want more of, you should let the rich keep their money.
how will raising taxes increase job growth? where is the democrat
party think tank that has a coherent plan for growing the economy?
canada and europe appear to be the model that american democrats want
to emulate. yet those economies are poor performers compared to the
US.
-Steve

Actually, in terms of economic freedom, the U.S. ranks 10th and Sweden ranks
12th. Yet Swedes are happier than Americans. Hmmm.

[Edward Glamkowski]

Post by Nate
"Whether measured by wages, income or wealth, for 25 years the share of the
privileged has increased, and everyone else (a roughly 80% majority) has
become relatively worse off." - Juliet Schor, Harvard University
We can look at George A. Akerlof who won the Nobel Prize in economics. He's
from the University of California, and here's what he said about the Bush
tax plan.
"What we have here is a form of looting .

Yeah, government looting of individual bank accounts through confiscatory
tax policies.

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

Post by Nate
- they will primarily increase their savings.

Banks do not just hide their money under a mattress. You put
money into your savings account and the bank is gonna go off
and invest it to make money for themselves. Rich people who
put millions into the bank provide large sums for the banks
to invest, if the rich people themselves do not directly invest.
And that assumes the rich folks aren't saving through various
investment vehicles, like stocks or bonds, which put money into
the economy.


And this guy is a nobel prize winner?
*boggle*

Post by Nate
Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the
United States in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite
badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy
are going in the exactly wrong direction . I think this is the worst
government the U.S. has ever had." That's a Nobel Laureate in economics!
And he's not alone.

He's insane, is what he is.

Post by Nate
Another Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz said, "A few people at the top are
getting just enormous, enormous benefits. You don't need a Nobel Prize to
figure this out .

You also don't need a nobel prize to figure out that the people at the
top pay disproportionately FAR more in income taxes the the lowest.

For the non-Noble Laureates in the audience, consider:

----
Every day at a few minutes past noon 10 men walk into Daschle's Diner on
the outskirts of Washington, D.C. These are men of habit, a habit which
dictates that they will all order the exact same meals every day, and
every day the final tab will come to the exact same total. The 10 meals
are priced at $10 each, so the tab is $100. One hundred dollars each and
every day.

Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves? Not at Daschle's
Diner. No, sir! At Daschle's Diner the motto is "From each according to his
ability, to each according to his hunger." Each man is charged for his meal
according to his ability to pay!

So, every day the 10 diners finish their lunch and line up in exactly the
same order as they pass the cashier and leave. The first four men walk
right past the cashier without paying a thing: a free meal!

The fifth man in line hands over $1 as he leaves. At least he is paying
something.

Diner number six hands over $3 to the cashier. Number seven pays $7.

Diner number eight pays $12. That is more than the value of his meal, but
he, like those who follow him in line, has been very lucky in life and is,
therefore, in a position to pay for his meal and for a part of someone
else's.

Diner number nine paid $18.

Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the 10 diners. He's
taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when the other
diners were home with their families, and it has paid off. When number 10
gets to the cashier he pays the balance of the bill. He forks over $59.

One day an amazing thing happens. It seems that Daschle has a partner in
Daschle's Diner. The partner runs an upscale restaurant, Trent's Trattoria,
located in a wealthier section of D.C. Times have been good and the
partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner, who
controls 51 percent of the partnership, orders a 20 percent reduction
in the price of meals.

The next day the 10 diners arrive on schedule. They sit down and eat
their same meals. This time, though, the 20 percent price cut has gone
into effect and the bill comes to $80. Eight bucks per diner.

The diners line up at the cashier in the same order as before. For the
first four diners, no change. They march out without paying a cent. Free
meal.

Diners number five and six lay claim to their portion of the $20 price cut
right away. Five used to pay $1. Today, though, he walks out with the first
four and pays nothing. That's one more diner on the "freeloaders" list.

Diner number six cuts his share of the tab from $3 to $2. Life is good.

Diner number seven? His tab before the price cut was $7. He now gets by
with just $5.

Diner number eight lowers his payment from $12 to $9. He moves ever-so-
slightly into the freeloading category.

Next is diner number nine. He's still paying more than his share, but that'
s OK, he's been successful (lucky) and can afford it. He pays $12.

Now – here comes diner number 10. He, too, wants his share of the $20 price
cut, so his share of the tab goes from $59 to $52. He saves $7.00 per day!

Outside the restaurant there is unrest. The first nine diners have convened
on the street corner to discuss the events of the day. Diner six spots diner
10 with $7 in his hand. "Not fair!" he screams. "I only got one dollar. He's
got seven!"

Diner five, who now eats for free, is similarly outraged. "I only got one
dollar too! This is wrong!" Diner seven joins the rumblings; "Hey! I only
get two bucks back! Why should he get seven?"

The unrest spreads. Now the first four men – men who have been getting a
free ride all along – join in. They demand to know why they didn't share
in the savings from the $20 price cut! Sure, they haven't been paying for
their meals anyway, but they do have other bills to pay and they felt that
a share of the $20 savings should have gone to them.

Now we have a mob. The laws of democracy – mob rule – take over and the men
turn on the 10th diner. They grab him, tie him up, then take him to the top
of a hill and lynch him.

At the bottom of the hill proprietor Daschle watches the goings-on,
and smiles.

The next day nine men show up at Daschle's Diner for their noon meal...
----

Get it?

Post by Nate
give money to people who will spend it.

Rich people spend too.

Post by Nate
Link tax cuts to expenditure. For instance, expanded unemployment
benefits,

Already been done.
Repeatedly.

Problem is, you get more of the behavior you reward and less of the
behavior you punish. Rewarding people for not working means... they
will continue to not work!

Post by Nate
aid to states and localities,

It is NOT the federal government's job to pay for state and local
expenses. Read up on the constitution some time.

Post by Nate
money to low wage workers,

Raw socialism!
*cough*

In fact, we actually do do this.
Not just with things like the child tax credit and the earned income credit,
but also the saver's credit.

Post by Nate
investment tax credits,

See the Saver's Credit.

This guy living under a rock?
He's a noble laureate, yet he can't keep up to date with the exactly
the things he is so dearly concerned about?

Give me a freakin' break!

Post by Nate
in particular incremental tax credits, will direct money in areas where
it will be spent."
Giving a massive tax break to the rich simply doesn't work.

Take a look at the stock market over the past year.
Apparently it does work.
It worked for John Kennedy, too.

Oh, and it hardly rated in as "massive". The rich still pay
disproportionately far more then anyone else in income taxes.

Oh, I would also note the distinction between INCOME and WEALTH.
Income tax, of course, does not touch wealth AT ALL. People with
high income are the ones actually working. Those with lots of
wealth are the ones "saving" their money. So increased income
taxes on the "rich" don't really get at the heart of the "problem".

Do you know what it takes to be in the top 1% of income earners?
Roughtly $300K in adjusted gross income. Top 5% break point is
roughly $130K. Hardly gigantic numbers. More then a few two-income
familes exceed the $130K, and they are hardly "rich" in the sense of
Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.


By the way, I would further point out that many professors, especially
at highly reputable universities, make more then $130K AGI, so these
folks are among the evil hated rich folks they rail so much against.
I'd be curious to know how much of their "excess" income that "rich
people don't need" that they donate to the government to help pay for
all these government scams they deem so critical.

Eh?

Do they put their money where their mouth is?

Do they?

[OldAsDirtSchool]

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
"Whether measured by wages, income or wealth, for 25 years the share of the
privileged has increased, and everyone else (a roughly 80% majority) has
become relatively worse off." - Juliet Schor, Harvard University
We can look at George A. Akerlof who won the Nobel Prize in economics. He's
from the University of California, and here's what he said about the Bush
tax plan.
"What we have here is a form of looting .

Yeah, government looting of individual bank accounts through confiscatory
tax policies.

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

One of the repugs most repeated piles of bullshit.
After we pay off Ronnie, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and all of the rest's debt
then you can say it is THEIR money. As of now there is still a large iou
outstanding.
Isn't anybody else tired of hearing deadbeats whine about having to pay
part of THEIR bills?

[Steve Richter]

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
"Whether measured by wages, income or wealth, for 25 years the share of the
privileged has increased, and everyone else (a roughly 80% majority) has
become relatively worse off." - Juliet Schor, Harvard University
We can look at George A. Akerlof who won the Nobel Prize in economics. He's
from the University of California, and here's what he said about the Bush
tax plan.
"What we have here is a form of looting .

Yeah, government looting of individual bank accounts through confiscatory
tax policies.

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

One of the repugs most repeated piles of bullshit.
After we pay off Ronnie, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and all of the rest's debt
then you can say it is THEIR money. As of now there is still a large iou
outstanding.
Isn't anybody else tired of hearing deadbeats whine about having to pay
part of THEIR bills?

I'm guessing that you want to raise taxes to reduce the debt. How is
it that democrats plan to increase jobs by raising taxes? Where is
the democrats economic plan? Do they have any economic theories that
guide their thinking?

-Steve

[OldAsDirtSchool]

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
"Whether measured by wages, income or wealth, for 25 years the share of the
privileged has increased, and everyone else (a roughly 80% majority) has
become relatively worse off." - Juliet Schor, Harvard University
We can look at George A. Akerlof who won the Nobel Prize in economics. He's
from the University of California, and here's what he said about the Bush
tax plan.
"What we have here is a form of looting .

Yeah, government looting of individual bank accounts through confiscatory
tax policies.

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

One of the repugs most repeated piles of bullshit.
After we pay off Ronnie, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and all of the rest's debt
then you can say it is THEIR money. As of now there is still a large iou
outstanding.
Isn't anybody else tired of hearing deadbeats whine about having to pay
part of THEIR bills?

I'm guessing that you want to raise taxes to reduce the debt. How is
it that democrats plan to increase jobs by raising taxes? Where is
the democrats economic plan? Do they have any economic theories that
guide their thinking?
-Steve

More piles upon piles.
Cutting taxes has failed to create jobs. See that little period at the
end of the sentence, in that sentence you should pronounce it.
Roll back the tax cuts. Even the rich were doing ok four years ago and
my daughter was in less debt too.

[Edward Glamkowski]

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

One of the repugs most repeated piles of bullshit.

You dodged the question, of course. What qualifies any one person
to say how much a person does or does not need?

If a person owns a restaurant a works it with his family for 16 hours
a day, 7 days a week and brings in $500K+ a year, are you the one to
say that person didn't really earn that money, that they simply just
"won life's lottery", and they don't need that much anyways?
Because I do, in fact, know several such people.


Immigrants, not surprisingly. Too many American are such lazy whiners
they'd rather just have the government steal other people's money for
them rather than go out and bust their buns to actually earn it.

Oooh, 40 hours a week!
Wow.
I'm so impressed.
Only not.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
After we pay off Ronnie, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and all of the rest's debt
then you can say it is THEIR money. As of now there is still a large iou
outstanding.
Isn't anybody else tired of hearing deadbeats whine about having to pay
part of THEIR bills?

Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

For example, which democratic presidential candidate is proposing
to spend less money then Bush? Hmmm? In fact, for all their whining
about Bush deficits, every single one of them would actually increase
deficit spending above what Bush has proposed!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004601

Whatchya gonna do? Vote for a bigger deficit spender then Bush?
Or do you have the integrity to avoid the hypocrisy and vote third
party? Hmmmm?
http://politics1.com/p2004.htm

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter
I'm guessing that you want to raise taxes to reduce the debt. How is
it that democrats plan to increase jobs by raising taxes? Where is
the democrats economic plan? Do they have any economic theories that
guide their thinking?
-Steve

More piles upon piles.
Cutting taxes has failed to create jobs.

But the jobs were all lost before the tax cuts, so high taxes
was costing us jobs.

Or so your logic would suggest.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
See that little period at the end of the sentence, in that sentence you
should pronounce it. Roll back the tax cuts. Even the rich were doing
ok four years ago and my daughter was in less debt too.

Have your daughter listen to Clark Howard:
http://clarkhoward.com

[OldAsDirtSchool]

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

One of the repugs most repeated piles of bullshit.

You dodged the question, of course. What qualifies any one person
to say how much a person does or does not need?

I didn't dodge anything, you just didn't like the answer.
I made no judgement on how much money anyone has. Your pathetic attempt
to put words into my mouth won't work. I want you to pay your own bills.
Simple. No matter how much you try to spin it, it won't work.
Pay your own bills.

Post by Edward Glamkowski
If a person owns a restaurant a works it with his family for 16 hours
a day, 7 days a week and brings in $500K+ a year, are you the one to
say that person didn't really earn that money, that they simply just
"won life's lottery", and they don't need that much anyways?
Because I do, in fact, know several such people.

Yes, another quaint American success story. Not at all relevant to the
conversation, but rather nice.

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Immigrants, not surprisingly. Too many American are such lazy whiners
they'd rather just have the government steal other people's money for
them rather than go out and bust their buns to actually earn it.
Oooh, 40 hours a week!
Wow.
I'm so impressed.
Only not.

I'd be more impressed if you could stay on topic.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
After we pay off Ronnie, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and all of the rest's debt
then you can say it is THEIR money. As of now there is still a large iou
outstanding.
Isn't anybody else tired of hearing deadbeats whine about having to pay
part of THEIR bills?

Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

Post by Edward Glamkowski
For example, which democratic presidential candidate is proposing
to spend less money then Bush? Hmmm? In fact, for all their whining
about Bush deficits, every single one of them would actually increase
deficit spending above what Bush has proposed!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004601
Whatchya gonna do? Vote for a bigger deficit spender then Bush?
Or do you have the integrity to avoid the hypocrisy and vote third
party? Hmmmm?
http://politics1.com/p2004.htm

See above. Stop spewing.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter
I'm guessing that you want to raise taxes to reduce the debt. How is
it that democrats plan to increase jobs by raising taxes? Where is
the democrats economic plan? Do they have any economic theories that
guide their thinking?
-Steve

More piles upon piles.
Cutting taxes has failed to create jobs.

But the jobs were all lost before the tax cuts, so high taxes
was costing us jobs.
Or so your logic would suggest.

The economy is cyclical, like most natural cycles it will come back.
Logic suggests that you don't run your debts up during a down cycle.
If you get layed off do you decide it is a good time to max out your
credit cards? If so, that tells us a lot about you.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
See that little period at the end of the sentence, in that sentence you
should pronounce it. Roll back the tax cuts. Even the rich were doing
ok four years ago and my daughter was in less debt too.

http://clarkhoward.com

Shove you bull.

[Edward Glamkowski]

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

One of the repugs most repeated piles of bullshit.

You dodged the question, of course. What qualifies any one person
to say how much a person does or does not need?

I didn't dodge anything, you just didn't like the answer.
I made no judgement on how much money anyone has. Your pathetic attempt
to put words into my mouth won't work. I want you to pay your own bills.
Simple. No matter how much you try to spin it, it won't work.
Pay your own bills.

But you *DID* dodge the question.

Why do you think that you, or some Ph.D. economist, or some
senator, knows how much a person "should" have? You seem to
support the idea that some people have "too much" money and
should pay "more" in taxes then they already do.

What qualifies you to say that any given person has "too much"?
To define what is "too much"?

That was always my question, and remains my question.
And you aren't answering it.

If you think that someone paying out 30+% of their income in taxes, while
others collect "refunds" of amounts they never paid, is somehow "unfair",
you've got a world of convincing to do. Just whining that it is somehow
unfair isn't going to convince anybody.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
If a person owns a restaurant a works it with his family for 16 hours
a day, 7 days a week and brings in $500K+ a year, are you the one to
say that person didn't really earn that money, that they simply just
"won life's lottery", and they don't need that much anyways?
Because I do, in fact, know several such people.

Yes, another quaint American success story. Not at all relevant to the
conversation, but rather nice.

It's relevent in the sense that in your initial post, you said that rich
people aren't entitled to their money - that the government needs to take
more of it, because they aren't paying "enough" in taxes. But if someone
is working over 100 hours a week, I'd suggest that person is, in fact, very
much entitled to their money. You think they aren't (that the government
should take their "excess" money), but I think they are.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Immigrants, not surprisingly. Too many American are such lazy whiners
they'd rather just have the government steal other people's money for
them rather than go out and bust their buns to actually earn it.
Oooh, 40 hours a week!
Wow.
I'm so impressed.
Only not.

I'd be more impressed if you could stay on topic.

I'd be more impressed if I didn't have to teach you how to eat, too.
Having to spell out every tiny little detail and make every minute
little connection for you is both tedious and time wasting.

I do prefer to assume my audience has some deductive capability,
but I guess in your case I'll have to be more careful.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
After we pay off Ronnie, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and all of the rest's debt
then you can say it is THEIR money. As of now there is still a large iou
outstanding.
Isn't anybody else tired of hearing deadbeats whine about having to pay
part of THEIR bills?

Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.

I don't have the time right now to download the GPO budget data and go
over it myself - care to provide a citation for this little "fact"?
Something credible please, not Michael Moore or "The Nation".


But anyways, Which of the remaining democratic presidential candidate is
proposing even less spending then Bush? In fact, they would all increase
our deficits far more then what BUsh is doing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004601

You conveniently ignored it, I guess because it doesn't match your
world view, eh?

It's not spewing, it's completely valid, and you are AGAIN dodging the
question.

Which democratic president candidate is gonna do better then what Bush
is doing right now?

Cause if you can't name one, then you'd better not vote for any of them.
At least not if you care to avoid the label of hypocrit.


Finally, I would point out that I talked in terms of parties, you talked
in terms of presidents. Presidents DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY! Only Congress
has that authority - see Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law"

More details in sections 7 (e.g. "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate
in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.") and section 8 (e.g. "The Congress shall have
Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excise").

Take some time out now to read the constitution before responding.
No really, go read the constitution:
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm


Clinton, to take one example, struggled mightily against a republican
controlled congress over spending in 1994 - Clinton wanted to spend more,
the republicans wanted to spend less (the so-called "Contract with America").
In fact, government had to shut down in 1995 and 1996 as a direct result of
this budget fight.

Fact.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

Post by Edward Glamkowski
For example, which democratic presidential candidate is proposing
to spend less money then Bush? Hmmm? In fact, for all their whining
about Bush deficits, every single one of them would actually increase
deficit spending above what Bush has proposed!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004601
Whatchya gonna do? Vote for a bigger deficit spender then Bush?
Or do you have the integrity to avoid the hypocrisy and vote third
party? Hmmmm?
http://politics1.com/p2004.htm

See above. Stop spewing.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter
I'm guessing that you want to raise taxes to reduce the debt. How is
it that democrats plan to increase jobs by raising taxes? Where is
the democrats economic plan? Do they have any economic theories that
guide their thinking?
-Steve

More piles upon piles.
Cutting taxes has failed to create jobs.

But the jobs were all lost before the tax cuts, so high taxes
was costing us jobs.
Or so your logic would suggest.

The economy is cyclical, like most natural cycles it will come back.

I agree.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
Logic suggests that you don't run your debts up during a down cycle.
If you get layed off do you decide it is a good time to max out your
credit cards? If so, that tells us a lot about you.

Actually, getting laid off is often the time when many people run up
debts in trying to cover living expenses.

I haven't had to do so, but it can and does happen.

Obviously not in every case, and plenty of people run up big debts
when they are employed, but it should not surprise anyone when debts
(credit card, specifically) are wrung up during times of unemployment.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
See that little period at the end of the sentence, in that sentence you
should pronounce it. Roll back the tax cuts. Even the rich were doing
ok four years ago and my daughter was in less debt too.

http://clarkhoward.com

Shove you bull.

Open mouth, insert foot.

You clearly have absolutely no idea who Clark Howard is, and I can say
with 100% confidence you did not bother to click the link.

In fact, Mr. Howard is about 99% apolitical in his program - he's a consumer
advocate, "with better ways to help you save more, spend less, and avoid
getting ripped off."


Sheesh - try to help someone and they bite your head off.

This time try clicking the linky:
http://clarkhoward.com

[Bushsucks]

This country is in DIRE NEED of my tax plan: 110% tax on ALL AGI above
$250,000 per year. And a 100% inheritance tax, so that everybody starts
out EVEN. We are supposed to be a contry of SELF-MADE men.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

One of the repugs most repeated piles of bullshit.

You dodged the question, of course. What qualifies any one person
to say how much a person does or does not need?

I didn't dodge anything, you just didn't like the answer.
I made no judgement on how much money anyone has. Your pathetic attempt
to put words into my mouth won't work. I want you to pay your own bills.
Simple. No matter how much you try to spin it, it won't work.
Pay your own bills.

But you *DID* dodge the question.
Why do you think that you, or some Ph.D. economist, or some
senator, knows how much a person "should" have? You seem to
support the idea that some people have "too much" money and
should pay "more" in taxes then they already do.
What qualifies you to say that any given person has "too much"?
To define what is "too much"?
That was always my question, and remains my question.
And you aren't answering it.
If you think that someone paying out 30+% of their income in taxes, while
others collect "refunds" of amounts they never paid, is somehow "unfair",
you've got a world of convincing to do. Just whining that it is somehow
unfair isn't going to convince anybody.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
If a person owns a restaurant a works it with his family for 16 hours
a day, 7 days a week and brings in $500K+ a year, are you the one to
say that person didn't really earn that money, that they simply just
"won life's lottery", and they don't need that much anyways?
Because I do, in fact, know several such people.

Yes, another quaint American success story. Not at all relevant to the
conversation, but rather nice.

It's relevent in the sense that in your initial post, you said that rich
people aren't entitled to their money - that the government needs to take
more of it, because they aren't paying "enough" in taxes. But if someone
is working over 100 hours a week, I'd suggest that person is, in fact, very
much entitled to their money. You think they aren't (that the government
should take their "excess" money), but I think they are.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Immigrants, not surprisingly. Too many American are such lazy whiners
they'd rather just have the government steal other people's money for
them rather than go out and bust their buns to actually earn it.
Oooh, 40 hours a week!
Wow.
I'm so impressed.
Only not.

I'd be more impressed if you could stay on topic.

I'd be more impressed if I didn't have to teach you how to eat, too.
Having to spell out every tiny little detail and make every minute
little connection for you is both tedious and time wasting.
I do prefer to assume my audience has some deductive capability,
but I guess in your case I'll have to be more careful.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
After we pay off Ronnie, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and all of the rest's debt
then you can say it is THEIR money. As of now there is still a large iou
outstanding.
Isn't anybody else tired of hearing deadbeats whine about having to pay
part of THEIR bills?

Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.

I don't have the time right now to download the GPO budget data and go
over it myself - care to provide a citation for this little "fact"?
Something credible please, not Michael Moore or "The Nation".
But anyways, Which of the remaining democratic presidential candidate is
proposing even less spending then Bush? In fact, they would all increase
our deficits far more then what BUsh is doing.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004601
You conveniently ignored it, I guess because it doesn't match your
world view, eh?
It's not spewing, it's completely valid, and you are AGAIN dodging the
question.
Which democratic president candidate is gonna do better then what Bush
is doing right now?
Cause if you can't name one, then you'd better not vote for any of them.
At least not if you care to avoid the label of hypocrit.
Finally, I would point out that I talked in terms of parties, you talked
in terms of presidents. Presidents DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY! Only Congress
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law"
More details in sections 7 (e.g. "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate
in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.") and section 8 (e.g. "The Congress shall have
Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excise").
Take some time out now to read the constitution before responding.
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
Clinton, to take one example, struggled mightily against a republican
controlled congress over spending in 1994 - Clinton wanted to spend more,
the republicans wanted to spend less (the so-called "Contract with America").
In fact, government had to shut down in 1995 and 1996 as a direct result of
this budget fight.
Fact.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

Post by Edward Glamkowski
For example, which democratic presidential candidate is proposing
to spend less money then Bush? Hmmm? In fact, for all their whining
about Bush deficits, every single one of them would actually increase
deficit spending above what Bush has proposed!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004601
Whatchya gonna do? Vote for a bigger deficit spender then Bush?
Or do you have the integrity to avoid the hypocrisy and vote third
party? Hmmmm?
http://politics1.com/p2004.htm

See above. Stop spewing.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter
I'm guessing that you want to raise taxes to reduce the debt. How is
it that democrats plan to increase jobs by raising taxes? Where is
the democrats economic plan? Do they have any economic theories that
guide their thinking?
-Steve

More piles upon piles.
Cutting taxes has failed to create jobs.

But the jobs were all lost before the tax cuts, so high taxes
was costing us jobs.
Or so your logic would suggest.

The economy is cyclical, like most natural cycles it will come back.

I agree.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
Logic suggests that you don't run your debts up during a down cycle.
If you get layed off do you decide it is a good time to max out your
credit cards? If so, that tells us a lot about you.

Actually, getting laid off is often the time when many people run up
debts in trying to cover living expenses.
I haven't had to do so, but it can and does happen.
Obviously not in every case, and plenty of people run up big debts
when they are employed, but it should not surprise anyone when debts
(credit card, specifically) are wrung up during times of unemployment.

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by OldAsDirtSchool
See that little period at the end of the sentence, in that sentence you
should pronounce it. Roll back the tax cuts. Even the rich were doing
ok four years ago and my daughter was in less debt too.

http://clarkhoward.com

Shove you bull.

Open mouth, insert foot.
You clearly have absolutely no idea who Clark Howard is, and I can say
with 100% confidence you did not bother to click the link.
In fact, Mr. Howard is about 99% apolitical in his program - he's a consumer
advocate, "with better ways to help you save more, spend less, and avoid
getting ripped off."
Sheesh - try to help someone and they bite your head off.
http://clarkhoward.com

[Steve Richter]

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

you cant have the level of economic growth we need in this country
with high taxes on the rich. Europe has stagnant population growth,
so it can get away with little to no growth in their economy. The US
population is growing significantly each year. Those people need
jobs. So the tax cuts have to stay. The only answer is to cut
spending. Simply means test the entitlement programs. Then adjust
eligibility each year to the level that will balance the budget.

-Steve

[CJT]

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

you cant have the level of economic growth we need in this country
with high taxes on the rich. Europe has stagnant population growth,
so it can get away with little to no growth in their economy. The US
population is growing significantly each year. Those people need
jobs. So the tax cuts have to stay. The only answer is to cut
spending. Simply means test the entitlement programs. Then adjust
eligibility each year to the level that will balance the budget.
-Steve

That's an incredibly convoluted and disjointed argument, even for
the right-wing. How about supporting it with some facts and logic
connecting one sentence to the next?

[reid decker]

What you are saying is absolutely opposite of the truth..Dumocrats tax
and spend on boondoggles. Eg. Robert Byrd an old fart who should never have
been in government. The same goes for Teddy the swimmer. If anyone needs to
come to his senses it is you. God help this country if Kerry and Jane get
into the presidency. They will cut our defences like Clinton did.
Appeasement does not work. You people hate Bush, and will sacrifice our
country just so you can get into office where you can increase welfare..
Your problem is you think you are more intelligent than anyone else. Your
whole liberal party consists of A.Hs.

Post by CJT

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

you cant have the level of economic growth we need in this country
with high taxes on the rich. Europe has stagnant population growth,
so it can get away with little to no growth in their economy. The US
population is growing significantly each year. Those people need
jobs. So the tax cuts have to stay. The only answer is to cut
spending. Simply means test the entitlement programs. Then adjust
eligibility each year to the level that will balance the budget.
-Steve

That's an incredibly convoluted and disjointed argument, even for
the right-wing. How about supporting it with some facts and logic
connecting one sentence to the next?
--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

[Nate]

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

you cant have the level of economic growth we need in this country
with high taxes on the rich. Europe has stagnant population growth,
so it can get away with little to no growth in their economy. The US
population is growing significantly each year. Those people need
jobs. So the tax cuts have to stay. The only answer is to cut
spending. Simply means test the entitlement programs. Then adjust
eligibility each year to the level that will balance the budget.
-Steve

Well, you got the part about cutting spending right, but the tax cuts do not
need to stay. What Bush did with the tax cuts was gave a 96% tax cut for
the top 5% wealthiest Americans and averaged it out over everybody else so
it would seem like everybody got a remarkable tax break, but they didn't.
Bush is the master of misleading.

Clinton raised taxes in 1993 (5 percent on the richest Americans, and one
percent on the bottom three quarters) and the economy boomed. At the same
time, most members of the GOP (none of which voted for the tax increse)
predicted that the economy would tank. Looks like they were wrong.

[Steve Richter]

Post by Nate

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

you cant have the level of economic growth we need in this country
with high taxes on the rich. Europe has stagnant population growth,
so it can get away with little to no growth in their economy. The US
population is growing significantly each year. Those people need
jobs. So the tax cuts have to stay. The only answer is to cut
spending. Simply means test the entitlement programs. Then adjust
eligibility each year to the level that will balance the budget.
-Steve

Well, you got the part about cutting spending right, but the tax cuts do not
need to stay. What Bush did with the tax cuts was gave a 96% tax cut for
the top 5% wealthiest Americans and averaged it out over everybody else so
it would seem like everybody got a remarkable tax break, but they didn't.
Bush is the master of misleading.
Clinton raised taxes in 1993 (5 percent on the richest Americans, and one
percent on the bottom three quarters) and the economy boomed. At the same
time, most members of the GOP (none of which voted for the tax increse)
predicted that the economy would tank. Looks like they were wrong.

Where have you been the last 4 years? When GWB took office the
economy was just heading into a recession, right? What is the lag
time between a change in the tax code and its affect on the economy?

If Clinton was such an economic genius, why is he or Robert Rubin not
being awarded the Nobel prize in economics? Where are the economic
text books and theories inspired by the Clinton years?

Your not explaining why the economies of western europe, specifically
France and Germany, have such low growth and high unemployment.
Democrats want to emulate those countries in the role the government
plays in the country. The societal structure of the US would not
withstand the economic stagnation we see over there.

-Steve

[Bushsucks]

No. We need to re-institute high taxes on the rich. Like MY plan,
which imposes a 110% tax on all AGI above $250,000 per year.

And if you want to save money, cut "defense" by 75%.

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Problem is, however much republicans are want to spend, democrats
are always out there complaining that republicans aren't spending
enough. So while republicans may be creating a bad situation,
democrats are want to make it even worse.

Bullshit and more bullshit. History proves you wrong.
60% of the total debt accumulated by this country in well over 200 years
of existance has been accumulated by the last three right wing supply
siders. Fact.
No matter how much they try to claim to be fiscally conservative, it is
all bullshit. You have been stupid enough to fall for it. Too bad for
you and us.

you cant have the level of economic growth we need in this country
with high taxes on the rich. Europe has stagnant population growth,
so it can get away with little to no growth in their economy. The US
population is growing significantly each year. Those people need
jobs. So the tax cuts have to stay. The only answer is to cut
spending. Simply means test the entitlement programs. Then adjust
eligibility each year to the level that will balance the budget.
-Steve

[Steve Richter]

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Steve Richter

Post by OldAsDirtSchool

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
"Whether measured by wages, income or wealth, for 25 years the share of the
privileged has increased, and everyone else (a roughly 80% majority) has
become relatively worse off." - Juliet Schor, Harvard University
We can look at George A. Akerlof who won the Nobel Prize in economics. He's
from the University of California, and here's what he said about the Bush
tax plan.
"What we have here is a form of looting .

Yeah, government looting of individual bank accounts through confiscatory
tax policies.

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

One of the repugs most repeated piles of bullshit.
After we pay off Ronnie, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and all of the rest's debt
then you can say it is THEIR money. As of now there is still a large iou
outstanding.
Isn't anybody else tired of hearing deadbeats whine about having to pay
part of THEIR bills?

I'm guessing that you want to raise taxes to reduce the debt. How is
it that democrats plan to increase jobs by raising taxes? Where is
the democrats economic plan? Do they have any economic theories that
guide their thinking?
-Steve

More piles upon piles.
Cutting taxes has failed to create jobs. See that little period at the
end of the sentence, in that sentence you should pronounce it.
Roll back the tax cuts. Even the rich were doing ok four years ago and
my daughter was in less debt too.

How will raising taxes create jobs? Intuitively, raising taxes on
those who have demonstrated they are the wisest investors, will
actually slow economic growth.

Germany and France have higher taxes than the US and presummably have
balanced budgets. Yet their GNP growth rate is less than the US rate.
And joblessness is higher over there than here.

I still dont understand. How will democrats grow the economy?

-Steve

[Nate]

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
"Whether measured by wages, income or wealth, for 25 years the share of the
privileged has increased, and everyone else (a roughly 80% majority) has
become relatively worse off." - Juliet Schor, Harvard University
We can look at George A. Akerlof who won the Nobel Prize in economics.

He's

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
from the University of California, and here's what he said about the Bush
tax plan.
"What we have here is a form of looting .

Yeah, government looting of individual bank accounts through confiscatory
tax policies.

Post by Nate
The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it

So what? It is THEIR money, not yours, not mine, not the government's.
Just who is Akerlof to say how much money is "enough" for one person?

Post by Nate
- they will primarily increase their savings.

Banks do not just hide their money under a mattress. You put
money into your savings account and the bank is gonna go off
and invest it to make money for themselves. Rich people who
put millions into the bank provide large sums for the banks
to invest, if the rich people themselves do not directly invest.
And that assumes the rich folks aren't saving through various
investment vehicles, like stocks or bonds, which put money into
the economy.
And this guy is a nobel prize winner?
*boggle*

Post by Nate
Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the
United States in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite
badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy
are going in the exactly wrong direction . I think this is the worst
government the U.S. has ever had." That's a Nobel Laureate in economics!
And he's not alone.

He's insane, is what he is.

Post by Nate
Another Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz said, "A few people at the top are
getting just enormous, enormous benefits. You don't need a Nobel Prize to
figure this out .

You also don't need a nobel prize to figure out that the people at the
top pay disproportionately FAR more in income taxes the the lowest.

I know it is hard for right wingers to actually learn anything from history,
but we did just have a Democrat who raised taxes in 1993 (with no Republican
votes). He also created jobs at the fastest rate in American history,
balanced the budget, won a war in Bosnia without losing a soldier, got us
out of Somalia (where Bush, Sr. put us). The only President to raise taxes
more than Clinton was (wait for it ...) Ronald Reagan. His economy didn't
do that bad either. Under Bush, we have a net loss in jobs. The first time
any President has accomplished that feat (he promised jobs would be created
at 250,000 a month if his tax cuts passed, but still we're a bit behind
(this month 244,000 to be exact). By the way, all those countries have
lower crime rates, better health, and the citizens live longer. A black
baby born in the USA is more likely to die before his first birthday than a
baby born in South Africa … hmmmm.

[Edward Glamkowski]

Post by Nate
I know it is hard for right wingers to actually learn anything from history,

I know its hard for left wingers to actually read the constitution...

Post by Nate
but we did just have a Democrat who raised taxes in 1993 (with no Republican
votes).

President's don't raise taxes, only congress can do that.
Article I, Sections 7 and 8.

Post by Nate
He also created jobs at the fastest rate in American history,

No president creates or destroys jobs.
The US is not the USSR, we do not have a command economy, and the
president can not outright dictate what private business can or
cannot do.

Even things like affirmative action are laws, which require a multi-
step process to enact that involves the legislature, both houses, and
are not done through presidential edict.

Again, Article I, section 7.

Post by Nate
balanced the budget,

The president does not spend money. At best, he recommends a budget.
But congress doesn't have to play along with the president's request.

Article I, section 9.

Post by Nate
won a war in Bosnia without losing a soldier,

But what about the CHILDREN! All those babies and kids killed by
indiscriminate bombing!! You uncaring, uncompassionate fascist!

And it wasn't a declared war.
And it wasn't a UN sanctioned war.
It was illegal!

What a fascist leader, taking us into an illegal, undeclared war
to KILL INNOCENT BABIES!

Post by Nate
got us out of Somalia (where Bush, Sr. put us).

Clinton had changed the mission in Somalia from humanitarian aid to
chasing after warlords. But he failed to authorize the necessary
support for the troops to fulfill the new mission.

Clinton got us out of Somalia because he screwed it up so badly and
wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to finish the job properly.

Post by Nate
The only President to raise taxes more than Clinton was (wait for it ...)
Ronald Reagan.

Reminding outselves that presidents don't raise taxes, congress does, let's
play your little game.

Reagan had good reason to do it - try to outspend the USSR into oblivion.
And it worked. Frankly, no price is too high for such a success.

Clinton did it basically just because he could.
No wars to support, no enemies to defeat, the economy was not tanking,
everything was good. So why raise taxes when things are good?

In fact, that's exactly the time when taxes can be safely cut. And
historically the times when taxes were cut. But no, not Clinton.
Clinton knew better how to spend our money then do we ourselves, right?
The government knows what's best for its citizens, eh?

Post by Nate
His economy didn't do that bad either.

Presidents don't control the economy.

And it "wasn't that bad" because of the internet bubble.
Which was incredibly real, and the resulting crash was ultimately
unavoidable. Clinton just got lucky that it happened later rather
then sooner.

Post by Nate
Under Bush, we have a net loss in jobs. The first time any President has
accomplished that feat (he promised jobs would be created at 250,000 a month
if his tax cuts passed, but still we're a bit behind (this month 244,000 to
be exact).

Ooh, a valid point.
Finally.
Maybe.

Really we have to wait and see the IRS's compiled statistics after April 15.
That's the only way to know 100% for sure how the job situation has faired.

Not, of course, that the president actually controls job creation anyways.
But you like to play this silly game...

Post by Nate
By the way, all those countries have lower crime rates, better health, and
the citizens live longer. A black baby born in the USA is more likely to
die before his first birthday than a baby born in South Africa ? hmmmm.

Non-sequitor.

[Nate]

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
I know it is hard for right wingers to actually learn anything from history,

I know its hard for left wingers to actually read the constitution...

I know it's hard for wing nuts to accept that the Supreme Court, and not
them, interprets the Constitution. The Constitution is what the Court says,
not what you want it to say.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
but we did just have a Democrat who raised taxes in 1993 (with no Republican
votes).

President's don't raise taxes, only congress can do that.
Article I, Sections 7 and 8.

Literally, you're right. But a President presents his budget and Congress
approves it or doesn't approve it. Clinton's budget was approved with no
Republican votes amid predictions of economic disaster.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
He also created jobs at the fastest rate in American history,

No president creates or destroys jobs.
The US is not the USSR, we do not have a command economy, and the
president can not outright dictate what private business can or
cannot do.
Even things like affirmative action are laws, which require a multi-
step process to enact that involves the legislature, both houses, and
are not done through presidential edict.
Again, Article I, section 7.

Policies -- economic and otherwise -- create the conditions for job growth.
Still, you are once again literally correct, but blind to reality.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
balanced the budget,

The president does not spend money. At best, he recommends a budget.
But congress doesn't have to play along with the president's request.
Article I, section 9.

Yep, he recommended a balanced budget, right? And Bush recommended a big
deficit, and then had to increase his projections of the size of that
deficit three times, and that's without counting money for Afghanistan and
Iraq at $4 billion per month.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
won a war in Bosnia without losing a soldier,

But what about the CHILDREN! All those babies and kids killed by
indiscriminate bombing!! You uncaring, uncompassionate fascist!
And it wasn't a declared war.
And it wasn't a UN sanctioned war.
It was illegal!
What a fascist leader, taking us into an illegal, undeclared war
to KILL INNOCENT BABIES!

You worry about Bosian children but not Iraqi children? Hmmmm. More than
ten thousand died (children and others) in Iraq and are still dying. The
largest estimate of the "colateral" dead in Bosnia is a fraction of that.
An "illegal" war? Tell that to NATO which supported the war and sent
troops, unlike Iraq where the world (it turns out they were correct) wanted
to let the weapons inspectors do their job. Remember, Saddam didn't kick
out the inspectors, they left fearing for their lives from American
ordinance.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
got us out of Somalia (where Bush, Sr. put us).

Clinton had changed the mission in Somalia from humanitarian aid to
chasing after warlords. But he failed to authorize the necessary
support for the troops to fulfill the new mission.
Clinton got us out of Somalia because he screwed it up so badly and
wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to finish the job properly.

Somolia was Clinton's fault? Hmmm. Seems to me Adid was a central figure
from the start, considering he and his men interdicted the humanitarian aid
while people starved.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
The only President to raise taxes more than Clinton was (wait for it ...)
Ronald Reagan.

Reminding outselves that presidents don't raise taxes, congress does, let's
play your little game.
Reagan had good reason to do it - try to outspend the USSR into oblivion.
And it worked. Frankly, no price is too high for such a success.
Clinton did it basically just because he could.
No wars to support, no enemies to defeat, the economy was not tanking,
everything was good. So why raise taxes when things are good?
In fact, that's exactly the time when taxes can be safely cut. And
historically the times when taxes were cut. But no, not Clinton.
Clinton knew better how to spend our money then do we ourselves, right?
The government knows what's best for its citizens, eh?

Post by Nate
His economy didn't do that bad either.

Presidents don't control the economy.
And it "wasn't that bad" because of the internet bubble.
Which was incredibly real, and the resulting crash was ultimately
unavoidable. Clinton just got lucky that it happened later rather
then sooner.

Post by Nate
Under Bush, we have a net loss in jobs. The first time any President has
accomplished that feat (he promised jobs would be created at 250,000 a month
if his tax cuts passed, but still we're a bit behind (this month 244,000 to
be exact).

Ooh, a valid point.
Finally.
Maybe.
Really we have to wait and see the IRS's compiled statistics after April 15.
That's the only way to know 100% for sure how the job situation has faired.
Not, of course, that the president actually controls job creation anyways.
But you like to play this silly game...

Post by Nate
By the way, all those countries have lower crime rates, better health, and
the citizens live longer. A black baby born in the USA is more likely to
die before his first birthday than a baby born in South Africa ? hmmmm.

Non-sequitor.

I see the Soviet Union fell because RR spent them into oblivion. Couldn't
have had something to do with the Communist system, could it? We know today
that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger. They weren't spending with us,
that was PR. They were a country racked by poverty with a military that was
wafer thin, poorly trained, and hungry. The only thing they had that
presented problems for us was the ICBMs and subs neither of which could be
stopped with Reagan's offerings (we still haven't had a successful "kill" of
a missile by a missile (except for the ones in which the incoming missile
has a location beacon).

[Edward Glamkowski]

Post by Nate

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
I know it is hard for right wingers to actually learn anything from

history,

Post by Edward Glamkowski
I know its hard for left wingers to actually read the constitution...

I know it's hard for wing nuts to accept that the Supreme Court, and not
them, interprets the Constitution. The Constitution is what the Court says,
not what you want it to say.

First, the Supreme Court can and does change its positions on certain
issues. Does that mean the constitution suddenly has a new meaning?

If the Supreme Court can changes its own understanding of an unchanging
document, it cannot be taken for granted that its present understanding
is necessarily correct.

The Consitution was written to be understood by the common man, not by
PhD and JD degree holders only. You needn't rely on the Court's rulings -
read it for yourself and make up your own mind. Sometimes the court is
just wrong. In fact, leftists love to decry the USSC when they believe
it is wrong (more on that below).


For example: The Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (H.R. 2356 of the
107th Congress) has a provision (Sec 402(b)(2)(B)(ii)) in it that outlaws
the use of soft money to run radio and television ads for any particular
candidate or political party during the last 60 days leading up to Election
Day (2USC431(9)).

This is absolutely a textbook violation of the 1st amendment, all the more
so when it is realized that the protection of free speech in the 1st was
ESPECIALLY concerned with political speech, of all types of speech.

But, the Supreme Court upheld this abomination. Does that make it
constitutional?
Really?
*REALLY*?


The Supreme Court has also upheld a variety of search and seizure laws
used in the War on Drugs. Leftists have been decrying these very tactics
as unconstitutional for years, despite the judicial rulings in favor of
it.

So clearly the left is more then happy to deny the constitutionality of
laws when it fits their own agenda, even if the Supreme Court over rules
them. I happen to agree with them on the Drug War issue. See, I'm not
a mindless right-wing drone like you seem to want to think I am.

I also happen to believe, probably as at least some leftists do, that the
Campaign Finance Reform Act is blantantly unconstitutional inspite of the
Supreme Court ruling in favor of it.

That's not dumb, that's how we preserve our freedoms - by challenging bad
laws and bad court decisions. Any given ruling is not made in a vacuum,
one has to understand how the prosecution presented its case. If it made
a weak or flawed case, the resulting decision may not satisfactorily reflect
the true constitutionality of a given law, just the interpretation of it
within the context of the arguments presented. Different arguments may
have produced different results.


Leftists who claim to love freedom and liberty so much should understand
that and not have to have it spelled out it painful detail for them.

Guess the left isn't the only one concerned about such things, eh?

Post by Nate

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
won a war in Bosnia without losing a soldier,

But what about the CHILDREN! All those babies and kids killed by
indiscriminate bombing!! You uncaring, uncompassionate fascist!
And it wasn't a declared war.
And it wasn't a UN sanctioned war.
It was illegal!
What a fascist leader, taking us into an illegal, undeclared war
to KILL INNOCENT BABIES!

You worry about Bosian children but not Iraqi children? Hmmmm.

Apparently this went WAY over your head.
I'm done teaching you how to eat.

Post by Nate

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
got us out of Somalia (where Bush, Sr. put us).

Clinton had changed the mission in Somalia from humanitarian aid to
chasing after warlords. But he failed to authorize the necessary
support for the troops to fulfill the new mission.
Clinton got us out of Somalia because he screwed it up so badly and
wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to finish the job properly.

Somolia was Clinton's fault? Hmmm. Seems to me Adid was a central figure
from the start, considering he and his men interdicted the humanitarian aid
while people starved.

I'm not saying Clinton is the cause of what was happening there, I said
he didn't let the military have the resources it needed to do the job
he tasked them with.

Was that really so hard to understand?

[Bushsucks]

Bullshit. The President controls our economy, budget and jobs.

Do you REALLY think that Franklin Roosevelt didn't, via his policies
and programs, almost SINGLEHANDEDLY pull us out of the Great Depression?

If you don't understand THAT, you are a fuckin' MORON who has no
business posting on a public bulletin board.

Clinton fixed our budget, our economy, our unemployment, and our
capital markets. Then Bush was appointed AND FUCKED THEM ALL UP.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
I know it is hard for right wingers to actually learn anything from history,

I know its hard for left wingers to actually read the constitution...

Post by Nate
but we did just have a Democrat who raised taxes in 1993 (with no Republican
votes).

President's don't raise taxes, only congress can do that.
Article I, Sections 7 and 8.

Post by Nate
He also created jobs at the fastest rate in American history,

No president creates or destroys jobs.
The US is not the USSR, we do not have a command economy, and the
president can not outright dictate what private business can or
cannot do.
Even things like affirmative action are laws, which require a multi-
step process to enact that involves the legislature, both houses, and
are not done through presidential edict.
Again, Article I, section 7.

Post by Nate
balanced the budget,

The president does not spend money. At best, he recommends a budget.
But congress doesn't have to play along with the president's request.
Article I, section 9.

Post by Nate
won a war in Bosnia without losing a soldier,

But what about the CHILDREN! All those babies and kids killed by
indiscriminate bombing!! You uncaring, uncompassionate fascist!
And it wasn't a declared war.
And it wasn't a UN sanctioned war.
It was illegal!
What a fascist leader, taking us into an illegal, undeclared war
to KILL INNOCENT BABIES!

Post by Nate
got us out of Somalia (where Bush, Sr. put us).

Clinton had changed the mission in Somalia from humanitarian aid to
chasing after warlords. But he failed to authorize the necessary
support for the troops to fulfill the new mission.
Clinton got us out of Somalia because he screwed it up so badly and
wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to finish the job properly.

Post by Nate
The only President to raise taxes more than Clinton was (wait for it ...)
Ronald Reagan.

Reminding outselves that presidents don't raise taxes, congress does, let's
play your little game.
Reagan had good reason to do it - try to outspend the USSR into oblivion.
And it worked. Frankly, no price is too high for such a success.
Clinton did it basically just because he could.
No wars to support, no enemies to defeat, the economy was not tanking,
everything was good. So why raise taxes when things are good?
In fact, that's exactly the time when taxes can be safely cut. And
historically the times when taxes were cut. But no, not Clinton.
Clinton knew better how to spend our money then do we ourselves, right?
The government knows what's best for its citizens, eh?

Post by Nate
His economy didn't do that bad either.

Presidents don't control the economy.
And it "wasn't that bad" because of the internet bubble.
Which was incredibly real, and the resulting crash was ultimately
unavoidable. Clinton just got lucky that it happened later rather
then sooner.

Post by Nate
Under Bush, we have a net loss in jobs. The first time any President has
accomplished that feat (he promised jobs would be created at 250,000 a month
if his tax cuts passed, but still we're a bit behind (this month 244,000 to
be exact).

Ooh, a valid point.
Finally.
Maybe.
Really we have to wait and see the IRS's compiled statistics after April 15.
That's the only way to know 100% for sure how the job situation has faired.
Not, of course, that the president actually controls job creation anyways.
But you like to play this silly game...

Post by Nate
By the way, all those countries have lower crime rates, better health, and
the citizens live longer. A black baby born in the USA is more likely to
die before his first birthday than a baby born in South Africa ? hmmmm.

Non-sequitor.

[ME]

Anyone who thinks Roosevelt pulled out of the Great Depression is a moron -
really. Some of you people should get a grip on reality. Anyone who has
completed 4 years of college at a quality business school will tell you the
dynamics at work that control the economy are somewhat more complicated than
giving the president blame or praise.

Post by Bushsucks
Bullshit. The President controls our economy, budget and jobs.
Do you REALLY think that Franklin Roosevelt didn't, via his policies
and programs, almost SINGLEHANDEDLY pull us out of the Great Depression?
If you don't understand THAT, you are a fuckin' MORON who has no
business posting on a public bulletin board.
Clinton fixed our budget, our economy, our unemployment, and our
capital markets. Then Bush was appointed AND FUCKED THEM ALL UP.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by Nate
I know it is hard for right wingers to actually learn anything from history,

I know its hard for left wingers to actually read the constitution...

Post by Nate
but we did just have a Democrat who raised taxes in 1993 (with no Republican
votes).

President's don't raise taxes, only congress can do that.
Article I, Sections 7 and 8.

Post by Nate
He also created jobs at the fastest rate in American history,

No president creates or destroys jobs.
The US is not the USSR, we do not have a command economy, and the
president can not outright dictate what private business can or
cannot do.
Even things like affirmative action are laws, which require a multi-
step process to enact that involves the legislature, both houses, and
are not done through presidential edict.
Again, Article I, section 7.

Post by Nate
balanced the budget,

The president does not spend money. At best, he recommends a budget.
But congress doesn't have to play along with the president's request.
Article I, section 9.

Post by Nate
won a war in Bosnia without losing a soldier,

But what about the CHILDREN! All those babies and kids killed by
indiscriminate bombing!! You uncaring, uncompassionate fascist!
And it wasn't a declared war.
And it wasn't a UN sanctioned war.
It was illegal!
What a fascist leader, taking us into an illegal, undeclared war
to KILL INNOCENT BABIES!

Post by Nate
got us out of Somalia (where Bush, Sr. put us).

Clinton had changed the mission in Somalia from humanitarian aid to
chasing after warlords. But he failed to authorize the necessary
support for the troops to fulfill the new mission.
Clinton got us out of Somalia because he screwed it up so badly and
wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to finish the job properly.

Post by Nate
The only President to raise taxes more than Clinton was (wait for it ...)
Ronald Reagan.

Reminding outselves that presidents don't raise taxes, congress does, let's
play your little game.
Reagan had good reason to do it - try to outspend the USSR into oblivion.
And it worked. Frankly, no price is too high for such a success.
Clinton did it basically just because he could.
No wars to support, no enemies to defeat, the economy was not tanking,
everything was good. So why raise taxes when things are good?
In fact, that's exactly the time when taxes can be safely cut. And
historically the times when taxes were cut. But no, not Clinton.
Clinton knew better how to spend our money then do we ourselves, right?
The government knows what's best for its citizens, eh?

Post by Nate
His economy didn't do that bad either.

Presidents don't control the economy.
And it "wasn't that bad" because of the internet bubble.
Which was incredibly real, and the resulting crash was ultimately
unavoidable. Clinton just got lucky that it happened later rather
then sooner.

Post by Nate
Under Bush, we have a net loss in jobs. The first time any President has
accomplished that feat (he promised jobs would be created at 250,000 a month
if his tax cuts passed, but still we're a bit behind (this month 244,000 to
be exact).

Ooh, a valid point.
Finally.
Maybe.
Really we have to wait and see the IRS's compiled statistics after April 15.
That's the only way to know 100% for sure how the job situation has faired.
Not, of course, that the president actually controls job creation anyways.
But you like to play this silly game...

Post by Nate
By the way, all those countries have lower crime rates, better health, and
the citizens live longer. A black baby born in the USA is more likely to
die before his first birthday than a baby born in South Africa ? hmmmm.

Non-sequitor.

[z]

Post by ME
Anyone who thinks Roosevelt pulled out of the Great Depression is a
moron - really. Some of you people should get a grip on reality.
Anyone who has completed 4 years of college at a quality business
school will tell you the dynamics at work that control the economy are
somewhat more complicated than giving the president blame or praise.

maybe so, but Presidents always take credit when the economy is good --
only fair to stick it to em when it's bad ;)

[ME]

You're right, z - absolutely - they do take the credit when things are good.
The thing that is so sad about that is so many Americans believe it. It is
also sad that many people do not develop their own thoughts, allowing the
media and totally fictitious movies supposedly based on facts shape their
views. Or even worse they vote for the politian that "looks" the part or who
runs the slickest ads.

Post by z

Post by ME
Anyone who thinks Roosevelt pulled out of the Great Depression is a
moron - really. Some of you people should get a grip on reality.
Anyone who has completed 4 years of college at a quality business
school will tell you the dynamics at work that control the economy are
somewhat more complicated than giving the president blame or praise.

maybe so, but Presidents always take credit when the economy is good --
only fair to stick it to em when it's bad ;)