| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5376
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:51 pm: | 
|
The Medicare Drug Welfare Bill was a transfer from grandchildren to grandparents -- the most prolific voting block in the US. It's not means-tested (because that smacks of welfare) so it's easier to sell. See: "Lieberman wants middle class entitlements to grow."
No conservative is up for grants or subsidies to specific individuals or farmers or business. Across the board tax cuts -- that's a different story. You're not giving people money earned by others, you're allowing them to keep what they earn. |
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 297
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
right on. those geezers deserve nothing. what did they ever do for us to deserve a handout? |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Did anyone else see this? It occurs to me that hmmmm, Cheney's home state, energy subsidies, great schools etc. While surely in part because of federal tax cuts and weird administration priorities, (Iraq) aid to states, and schools, is sucking wind. Here in Maplewood, we pay tons of tax for what? Honestly, if you read this article and just don't wonder a little, I'd be surprised. Remember it's your money, why keep it in Washington when it can go to Wyoming? No child left behind and all, in Wyoming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/national/16wyoming.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4558
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:50 pm: |
|
GOP Man has a point. Haven't we heard enough of this "greatest generation" crap. First they get the GI bill, and now they want a comfortable retirement too. Sheesh, where will it end?
Next thing you know we'll all be grandparents and expect our grandchildren to help support us. Then, they'll become grandparents and expect their grandchildren to help support them.
It's a vicous cycle. At some point there won't be any grandchildren, because they won't find it profitable enough to be one. And how are you going to stop them? |
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 298
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
tom, for a lib, you're starting to make sense. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4560
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Thank you, and God bless the United States of America. |
ina
Citizen
Username: Ina
Post Number: 318
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Operation Overblown
BAGHDAD — Operation Swarmer is turning out to be much less than meets the eye, or the television camera, for that matter.
Iraqi and Coalition forces launched Operation Iraqi Freedom’s largest air assault operation in southern Salah Ad Din province March 16. Named Operation Swarmer, the joint operation’s mission was to clear a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra.
Operation Swarmer included more than 1,500 troops from the Iraqi Army’s 4th Division, the U.S. 101st Airborne Division and 101st Combat Aviation Brigade. The Soldiers isolated the objective area in a combined air and ground assault.
More than 50 Attack and assault aircraft and 200 tactical vehicles participated in the operation. Troops from the Iraqi Army’s 4th Division, the “Rakkasans” from the 187th Infantry Regiment and the “Hunters” from the 9th Cavalry Regiment assaulted multiple objectives. Forces from the Iraqi 2nd Commando Brigade then completed a ground infiltration to secure numerous structures in the area.
Initial reports indicate a number of weapons caches were captured, containing artillery shells, IED-making materials and military uniforms. Iraqi and Coalition troops also detained 41 suspected insurgents.
That sounds exciting! But according to a colleague of mine from TIME who traveled up there today on a U.S. embassy-sponsored trip, there are no insurgents, no fighting and 17 of the 41 prisoners taken have already been released after just one day. The “number of weapons caches” equals six, which isn’t unusual when you travel around Iraq. They’re literally everywhere.
(Digression: Just to clear some things up, “air assault” does not equal air strikes. There are no JDAMs being dropped, and there are no fixed-wing aircraft involved at all, except maybe for surveillance. An air assault is the 101st Airborne’s way of inserting troops into a battlespace. There is so far no evidence of bombardment of any kind. Also, it’s a telling example of how “well” things are going in Iraq that after three years, the U.S. is still leading the fight and conducting sweeps in an area that has been swept/contained/pacfied/cleared five or six times since 2004. How long before the U.S. has to come back again?)
As noted, about 1,500 troops were involved, 700 American and 800 Iraqi. But get this: in the area they’re scouring there are only about 1,500 residents. According to my colleague and other reporters who were there, not a single shot has been fired.
“Operation Swarmer” is really a media show. It was designed to show off the new Iraqi Army — although there was no enemy for them to fight. Every American official I’ve heard has emphasized the role of the Iraqi forces just days before the third anniversary of the start of the war. That said, one Iraqi role the military will start highlighting in the next few days, I imagine, is that of Iraqi intelligence. It was intel from the Iraqi military intelligence and interior ministry that the U.S. says prompted this Potemkin operation. And it will be the Iraqi intel that provides the cover for American military commanders to throw up their hands and say, “well, we thought bad guys were there.”
It’s hard to blame the military, however. Stations like Fox and CNN have really taken this and ran with it, with fancy graphics and theme music. The generals here also are under tremendous pressure to show off some functioning Iraqi troops before the third anniversary, and I won’t fault them for going into a region loaded for bear. After all, the Iraqi intelligence might have been right!
But Operation Overblown should raise serious questions about how good Iraqi intelligence is. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by earnest lieutenants that the Iraqis are valiant and necessary partners, “because they know the area, the people and the customs.” But when I spoke to grunts and NCOs, however, they usually gave me blunter — and more colorful — reasons why the Iraqi intelligence was often, shall we say, useless. Tribal rivalries and personal feuds are still a major why Iraqis drop a dime on their neighbors.
So I guess it’s fitting that on the eve of the third anniversary of a war launched on — oh, let’s be generous — “faulty” intelligence, a major operation is hyped and then turns out to be less than what it appeared because of … faulty intelligence.
on www.back-to-iraq.com |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5379
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:57 pm: |
|
ae35unit -- your 'lefty' posting is all wet. Tax cuts are a key to conservatives, but not to the point of 0%. Feds taking 30% of your income, state at 6+%, sales tax, property taxes, inferior schools necessitating private school with after-tax dollars... That kind of taxation is something we want to bring down as 1) we think it's immoral and 2)it hurts economic growth and 3) it doesn't result in the optimum level of returns to the Treasury.
If we wanted to starve government and create fiscal messes, why spur increased economic activity and revenue flows to the Treasury?
That 'starve the beast' strategy is something I doubt was seriously pursued, but even if it was, it wouldn't work. Congress will spend regardless of the level of revenues. The Senate just passed a budget 16B above what Bush asked for.
In recent history, what new budget has ever been less than the last one?
As for Bush's fiscal discipline on the spending side in cohoots with Republicans (and Democrats who never needed an excuse to spend more), I have no answer for it except "STOP!"
And the REAL threat to this country is entitlements. What's that Lefty's answer to that? Tax increases without end? Talk about a fiscal mess. |
Tommy O'Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13032
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:00 pm: |
|
How do you base morality on a number? What percentage of taxation is moral, in your view, and how do you arrive at that number?
|
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 299
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:24 pm: |
|
of course taxes are immoral. in the New Testament, Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's, and that means Jesus didn't want us to pay taxes. I think even God would now acknowledge we need roads and cops, so He'd probably now say that about 5% would be moral. but 30%+? that's evil. |
ina
Citizen
Username: Ina
Post Number: 319
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
GOP Man you always make me smile. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 4:02 pm: |
|
cjc
"If we wanted to starve government and create fiscal messes, why spur increased economic activity and revenue flows to the Treasury?"
If you are basing your argument, for lack of a better word, on the idea that there is in fact increased economic activity, which is arguable, and somehow this arguable activity is increasing revenue flows to the treasury, that's weak. The economy is neither bad nor good. Don't confuse recent stock market strength with economic strength. The fact is this administration is spending wildly and they're borrowing to do it. Clinton essentially raised taxes and there was an economic boom. I could get into a long and fact based conversation about this economy, but I fail to see how Bush tax cuts have helped or trickled down or done anything positive. (except 15% div and cap gains, that I like) Also, I do think the "starve the beast "strategy is very much in play. Think about it, if the government fails, which this one is doing with great style, neocons can simply say, see government doesn't work. No, this government doesn't work. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 6:24 pm: |
|
CJC:
Thanks for your fullsome reply. While I continue to believe that your reactions and phrasing smack of the latest Limbaugh 3 hour rant, I respect your point of view on several of the issues you responded to.
However, where you say, "Where the Left fits into all this is they run on a campaign of "you're miserable, you can't make it on your own, so elect me and I'll give you stuff that other people and your children and children's children will pay for. Leave the decisions to me." Sure, some people need help at some point (and fewer at all points) and there's a role for government to play. The Left, though, creates a political power-base that will regenerate itself. You tell people they're losers, they raise their kids to think they're losers unless they get 'lucky,'and you plan on the government taking care of you. You can't blame these people for that, as they're conditioned to expect it.
This has been particularly effective in the black community, where they've been complaining about the same things for years and voting for the same party for years, a party that ran congress for a 40 year stretch and provided $5T in wealth tranfers.
It's not limited to low income minority groups. One of Joe Lieberman's dreams as he was running for higher office was to extend entitlements into the middle class. Guess he's got you on board. Planning on an entitlement is not comforting to me at all on a variety of levels," ...
I fail to see a fundamental difference between that "left sided" approach and the approach of the current administration that is beloved by the right for institutionalizing entitlements to corporations, allowing tax breaks for giant entities whose record of moving good jobs offshore is well documented, and who every day are the prime recipients of the largesse heaped upon them by the "Bush league."
This administration has cornered the market on providing entitlements to large corporations in exchange for nothing except perhaps some tee times for GWB and DC, as well as for some quid pro quo contributions to the RNC.
The entitlements lavished upon corporate America by the administration have resulted in lost jobs, enhanced security for executive management of those companies, and depleted job possibilities for American workers.
The only places where jobs are being created is in small companies who struggle to survive in the face of the largesses this administration is lavishing upon its corporate sponsors.
Slight change of topic, but it would not surprise me to see GWB wearing a tee shirt with the phrase:
"courtesy of corporate America: I stand watch while jobs fly out of the country." |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Thank you ina-- Ive been checking out the op too.
Did anyone fire a shot? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Any casualty reports? From the big operation . . .. . |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Foj:
latest casualty report: GWB stubs his toe, again. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4142
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
I find it interesting that there is next to nothing about this operation in the papers today. It seems like the military or the White House was engaging in some theatrics to bolster support for the war. Or maybe this is some charade to make us believe the Iraqi Army will hang together without U.S. support. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5380
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 7:04 pm: |
|
ae35unit -- the powerful argument I take from you is "The economy is neither good nor bad."  I'm not taking the stock market as the sole determining factor of what constitutes a good economy. Many times, the market is the indicator of where the economy is going. GDP comes to mind as something that might indicate the economy is good. Unemployment below 5%. And....yes...revenues to the Treasury increasing. It's good out there.
I can't believe I actually had to go through that.
And to say the government is being starved at all -- borrowing or not, it doesn't matter in this discussion at this point in time or the near future (well, let's ignore Social Security as the public did) -- with a 2.8T budget is ridiculous. It's funded, albeit on borrowed money, and it's not the best use of taxpayer money. I think the taxpayer by and large is the best use of money.
Levels of funding ("starving") and proving government is incompetent are entirely different things. To link them supposes that if we throw money at it, it will be better. If it failed, it was underfunded. Education shoots that theory to bits.
Innisowen -- What -- you a regular listener of LImbaugh?Whatever conservative I sound like, the argument is what it is and what it has been far back as I can remember in the 80s. Wish I got paid for it like Limbaugh does. And you sound like a taller Robert Reich (a guess on my part) and so what?
I'm not not a fan of subsidies that both sides are fond of giving away. But it happens, and when a congressman or Senator can screw a single company you get lobbying which is a protection-money racket. Labor does it, business does it, and it will always be part of the territory. However, tax breaks where you allow them to keep money they are earning rather than taking money from someone else and giving it to them is entirely different. What do you mean by "entitlements' anyway? You talking about subsidies? Grants? Cash infusions to save a dying industry? Tariffs and that Byrd Law that goes to ballbearing companies? How can you compare that to the entitlements government offers to the public -- which aren't right either.
"The only places creating jobs are small companies who struggle against (insert something like Wal-Mart or Big Oil or Big Pharma or....)" You're just so very wrong.
Are you saying we're losing more jobs in the US than come in here. I don't believe the numbers are on your side. Or how about the warmed over "we don't make anything in this country anymore"? Manufacturing as a percentage of GDP in an ever expanding economy (with slight interruptions) remains in the range it has for some time. Between 14-17% I think I last read. It's true you don't need as many unskilled laborers to run the line and jobs are lost there, but we still manufacture in this country.
And mark up the entitlements going out to the people against what goes out to 'large corporations.' Who's getting the most? And I think the people are suffering for it by living their lives in a way that fosters dependency on a government that doesn't have their best interests at heart or the country's for that matter when it's run by The Left. Like a tariff on imports to save Harley Davidsons or Big Auto Makers in the 80s. It's just one of the reasons they both make lousy products. Ditto BIg Steel. Harley is doing well, but they still make lousy bikes. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 7:14 pm: |
|
tjohn- I forgot, what operation were we talking about?
"Operation didnt fire a shot, but we stole the news cycle from Russ and his censure", ahhhhh nevermind. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13044
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Good job, Innisowen. You got cjc madder than I've ever seen him. He dropped his sarcasm and spoke directly.
I don't mean that harshly, cjc. You're smart and articulate, and I appreciate that. I happen to disagree with much of what you say, though not all. I like the analogy of lobbying to protection money.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5382
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
For the record, I was spirited rather than angry. When I'm angry, my sarcasm is more front and center. Have to go that route or I'd be banned. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13048
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Yes, spirited is a much better word.
|
1billionserved
Citizen
Username: 1billionserved
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
ae35Unit,nice picture of a red tit you use for your profile picture. Too bad I can't figure out what kind of liberal b.s. you're spouting. But keep on truckin' or somethin', whatever.
GOP man, you're my man. A common sense Republican who knows we have to stay to course in Iraq to win the ultimate freedom and keep all the oil. I've made a heck of a lot of money from being a Repuiblican, and I can see you're my kind of people. Let's keep out all those types we don't need, know what Im sayin'? GOP man, you're my man. A335Unit can go jump in a lake with all those other Democrats. |
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 422
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Ipostore! |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6003
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 8:32 pm: |
|
1billionserved...it says an awful lot about your political acumen if you think GOP man is serious.
 |
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 300
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Duncan,
I think it is you who are out to lunch. 1billion and I are obviously on the same page. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 12:54 am: |
|
Tom Reingold, from your post above:
"Good job, Innisowen. You got cjc madder than I've ever seen him. He dropped his sarcasm and spoke directly."
I do listen to Limbaugh and Hannity when I am in the car, for it's important, as my father used to say, to know what the enemy is saying and doing.
What made my jaw drop was reading cjc's posting above on "victimology" and the "power of the individual." It amazed me because it is straight out of the daily scripts of Limbaugh.
And since CJC said, "the argument is what it is and what it has been far back as I can remember in the 80s"... I had to laugh.
Limbaugh has been the principle purveyor of that "argument" since he stopped spinning records and became a radio mouth for the neocons in the early 80's.
So I just put 2 and 2 together, and CJC thinks I got 5 instead of 4.
My apologies to CJC, but it is a ripe coincidence. It may also be a case of "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse."
Or as Michel de Montaigne, one of my favorite writers, always said: "Que Sais-Je?" |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 1:21 am: |
|
IIRC Rush started talk radio in hmmmmm, '83. Right after the fairness doctrine was repealed. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 2:08 pm: |
|
cjc- Don't spar with me when it comes to economics if you're going to use Rush Limbaugh numbers. Figures don't lie but liars figure or whatever your preferred version of that is. Employment numbers are terrible economic indicators because, I can't believe I have to tell you this, but when people stop collecting unemployment compensation they're treated by that calculation as if they've found work. Bush unemployment numbers are about 150 basis points higher than Clinton numbers as well. Also, a non rhetorical question- (cjc, that means I want an answer), how can you prove that more money is going to the treasury especially in light of the fact that based on bill, note and bond refundings we are borrowing more? What you're saying is something like, I'm spending more on my credit card, but don't worry 'cause my minimums are getting higher. All of what I said can, and will be turned into some amorphous- "things are good out there" statement by people who want to protect this president more than they want to protect this nation. Here's a fact: in the Clinton era real GDP increased 30% from his inauguration until Bush The Second. So far under W, that's just over five years since he's been in office, real GDP is up 13%, so he's got to make up a 57% shortfall in less than 40% of the time just to break even. Bush economic numbers are actually quite lame. I wasn't even a big Clinton fan, it's just that he had the sense not to mess up a good thing, which was actually a positive economic environment that he stepped into, which should have been Bush The First's legacy.
Here's another telling unintended truth "you're my man. A common sense Republican who knows we have to stay to course in Iraq to win the ultimate freedom and keep all the oil."
Says a lot, don't it.
|
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 430
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Ace, how much oil is there for us to "keep" in Iraq? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5390
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
ae25unit -- revenues are increasing to the Treasury to an all-time high. When you hit the link, go to the bottom and take the last link they provide to show revenues at 2.15T.
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js3039.htm
A crack economist like you surely knows that you can spend more money than you 'earn' even after you get a 'raise,' right? Ask your significant other to show you how it works.
Things economically are good out there. If they weren't, Democrats would be making more of an issue about the economy and how a massive tax hike could save the guy down the street. To say otherwise is to be inaccurate.
Clinton can thank the Republicans of 1994 for the cap gains tax cut that gave him revenues to be able to attain a surplus. If Bush had the same stinginess in Congress on spending that Clinton had, he'd be farther along deficit wise.
I'd expect Clinton to have good numbers on GDP. He came into office when the Bush 41 Recession had ended in the Spring before he took office and he left Bush 43 with a recession on the way out. 9/11 didn't help Bush 43 either. And how much of Clinton's economy was fraud?
As for your parting quote, can I put your arguments on the same plane as tulip and Robert Livingston and be accurate? |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
cjc- You're right, it's an all time high, but it's a significantly slower rate of growth. Do you not understand that? I also tried to avoid any source of information that was a "White House Press Release". If you extend that graph you posted to 1990 or 1940 you would see how growth is leveling off, sure, it is still growing, only more slowly than almost any time in American history.
"Things economically are good out there." -I'll agree they're not bad.
The thing that helped the Clinton economy was the lowering of interest rates by the Fed in the run-up to the '92 election to help Bush 41 and his tepid economy.
What did you ask? About Clinton's economy being a fraud? You're in a glass house on that one, I'll cut you some slack.
"As for your parting quote, can I put your arguments on the same plane as tulip and Robert Livingston and be accurate?"
You would not be accurate. I'm pretty conservative. It's just that with folks like you, if you disagree with this administration you're a liberal. Being a liberal to you has nothing to do with a persons political view points.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5391
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
I stay away from WH Press releases as a rule too, but a Treasury Figure on Receipts is hard to lie about, no matter who's in the WH.
I'd like to see your graphs on GDP and growth over the years. I know Greenspan panicked whenever growth approached anything over 4% as inflationary. I thought we were in the close to that for the 90s. What was it before my personal history of awareness (1976)?
And I said HOW MUCH of Clinton's economy was a fraud in relation to the 2000 meltdown of telecom, dot.com, etc.
Finally, you bristle at overgeneralizations about people's political philosophies were they to disagree with Bush, and then you make an overgeneralization about my supposedly labeling anyone that disagrees with the Administration a liberal with "it's just that with folks like you...." Nice piece of work there, ae35unit. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Actually, I think you teed your self up pretty good for the whack about "folks like you". If you're right and I did over generalize, OK, didn't mean to sweepingly generalize. Greenspan freaked out, up until the crash of 2000 anyway, when capacity utilization crossed about 83%. Listen cj, don't spar wid me.
|
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1522
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 4:22 pm: |
|
cjc,
It wasn't a fraud under Clinton, just a whole lot of overvaluation. If it were a fraud, we'd all be in soup lines about now.
While I don't think presidents have a whole lot of sway over the economy, the Clinton administration was particularly in tune to the information economy (particularly when compared to the predecessors). |
Always Right
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 302
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 7:42 pm: |
|
cjc is absolutely right. everyone knows the more you cut taxes, the more revenue goes to the government. In fact, it's one of the few issues I've broken with my president on, because I don't believe he's cut taxes enough. that's why we have the huge deficit that we do. if only he would have cut taxes even more deeply, the treasury would be awash in cash, and the deficit would have disappeared. in fact, if he cut taxes deeply enough he might generate so much revenue that he'd even have enough left after paying off the deficit to afford his greedy geezer Medicare bill. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4581
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:53 pm: |
|
And there's really no limit to the benefits of tax cuts. If we only had the guts to go past zero and make the tax rate a negative number, the government would have more money than it could possibly use! |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10996
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 5:15 am: |
|
Snow's speech and the graphs neglect to show the effect of the first Bush tax cut. The economy continued in recession. LOL
I am yet to be convinced that the tax cuts have a positive effect on the economy. Given reasonable fiscal policy, which we had with Greenspan, the economy is going to move in cycles tax cuts or not. I only hope that the new Fed Chairman has the fortitude to avoid political pressure in his decisions.
To me this is a classic chicken and egg scenario.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5392
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 9:48 am: |
|
ae35unit -- Sparring? I'm wiping the floor with you. I've got one admission and one retraction from you so far, and your semi-agreement on my last point about Greenspan freaking. Don't know what your background is, but you're losing to a non-economist.
Worldcom, Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphi Communications......that was overvaluation and the corporate scandals didn't touch anyone else. Not a damper at all on the economy. Is that your assertion dave23? |
Freshwater Films
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6031
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 4:29 pm: |
|
cjc...wiping the floor with you??
Thats funny. I also liked your saying in this thread that you stay away from White House Press Releases, and in another thread that you wrote them, and in still another that they stole from you.
Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Duncan , it's actually
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
I only knew that because of Felix Unger. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5404
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Duncan -- no inconsistency there. I don't use WH or Administration press releases hardly at all, but you can't really fudge the numbers effectively on total receipts coming into Treasury. Too many people look at that on both sides of the aisle. See anyone disputing it?That's why I used it. I certainly didn't quote Secretary Snow.
As for my political rhetoric, I write my own and don't need anyone's help with it. That's the round-about-point I'm making. I especially don't need any help from a WH that can't defend itself as successfully as it could.
Maybe you can do better than ae35unit, Duncan? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page