PDA

View Full Version : Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher Govt revenue



Qtec
11-30-2010, 01:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Reagan proved <u>nothing of the kind</u> and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.</span>” </div></div>

[At this point the wingnuts will stick their fingers in their ears and start humming.]

There's more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #990000"><u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Reagan Budget Director</span></u></span>: GOP Has Abandoned Fiscal Responsibility By Adopting ‘Theology’ Of Tax Cuts</span>

As Congress prepares to take up extension of the Bush tax cuts during its lame duck session, Republican lawmakers have been unanimous in demanding that the cuts for the richest two percent of Americans be extended, claiming they are necessary for economic growth and that tax cuts (miraculously) pay for themselves.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>While independent economists have shown these arguments to be false,</span> today on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>President Reagan’s former budget director took on his own party for pushing this <u>faulty logic.</u></span> David Stockman, who led the all-important Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and was a chief architect of his fiscal policy, criticized today’s GOP for misreading Reagan’s legacy by adopting a “theology” of tax cuts. Stockman has spoken out before, but took perhaps his strongest stance yet against his own party today, saying <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“I’ll never forgive the Bush administration” for “destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party.”</span> <u>He also broke with Republican orthodoxy on a number of key issues:</u>

– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”

– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”</span>

– <span style='font-size: 20pt'>On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”</span>

– <span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 23pt'>Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves. </span></span></div></div>

with video (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/28/stockman-slams-gop-taxes/)


The Bush tax cuts were not needed. They were purely a pay off to his base, the elite.

Q

Qtec
11-30-2010, 07:22 AM
bump....... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

llotter
11-30-2010, 08:36 AM
The Reagan cuts only confirmed that lower taxes stimulate the economy which is good for the American people. What is easy to understand is that it is the private sector that creates ALL prosperity and it is the public sector that is always a burden so should always be kept at a minimum.

keith
11-30-2010, 08:44 AM
I just can't seem to get it right. First my wife and I tried the left wing way. We spent like drunken fools. Soon we had more bills than paycheck each month.
We had to go to the China loan shark to stay afloat.
That was not working, so we tried the right wing way. If cutting taxes would create more income, I could go to my boss, and have him cut my wage. I thought about a 20% cut would get me back on track. Hell my boss was great about it. He was happy to cut my pay by 50%, so I would be rich in no time.
Well crap that didn't work out so well.
Another trip to the China loan shark for more cash to keep my head above water.At least he is a good guy. He said that I could morgage my kids, their kids, and several more generations to get the loans.
I thought about just spending less than I make each month, but my wife said that she would not vote for that.

Yoy guys have any advice on how to get out of this mess?
Keith

llotter
11-30-2010, 08:52 AM
buy a large insurance policy and drop dead.

keith
11-30-2010, 08:56 AM
I see you have been talking to my wife.
Keith

llotter
11-30-2010, 09:00 AM
it's gone beyond talking.

sack316
11-30-2010, 09:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just can't seem to get it right. First my wife and I tried the left wing way. We spent like drunken fools. Soon we had more bills than paycheck each month.
We had to go to the China loan shark to stay afloat.
That was not working, so we tried the right wing way. If cutting taxes would create more income, I could go to my boss, and have him cut my wage. I thought about a 20% cut would get me back on track. Hell my boss was great about it. He was happy to cut my pay by 50%, so I would be rich in no time.
Well crap that didn't work out so well.
Another trip to the China loan shark for more cash to keep my head above water.At least he is a good guy. He said that I could morgage my kids, their kids, and several more generations to get the loans.
I thought about just spending less than I make each month, but my wife said that she would not vote for that.

Yoy guys have any advice on how to get out of this mess?
Keith
</div></div>

Interesting description there, and I suppose in practice this seems to be how it winds up working (or not working) unfortunately.

But the analogy assumes the money just goes to whatever hands and then is just gone.

The left's idea is to (generally) tax more and take in more into government hands. At which time they will dole out the money where it sees fit and create prosperity for all that way... and that prosperity leads to more government revenue. (and it will all continue to cycle back around)

The right's idea is to (generally) tax less and keep more in the individual's hands. AT which time individuals will dole out their money directly into business, and create prosperity for all that way... and that prosperity leads to more government revenue. (and it will all continue to cycle back around)

Both work in theory, neither seems to end up working "as planned" in practice because, and to borrow your analogy, you and your wife find any and all reason to continue to spend more regardless of what else is happening out there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought about just spending less than I make each month</div></div>

Now there is a novel idea!

Sack

sack316
11-30-2010, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yoy guys have any advice on how to get out of this mess?
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">buy a large insurance policy and drop dead. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I see you have been talking to my wife.
Keith </div></div>

Best exchange in a while on here... thanks for the laugh this morning guys!

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-30-2010, 10:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Reagan cuts only confirmed that lower taxes stimulate the economy which is good for the American people. What is easy to understand is that it is the private sector that creates ALL prosperity and it is the public sector that is always a burden so should always be kept at a minimum. </div></div>

Reagan Grew the deicit by 187%

Gayle in MD
11-30-2010, 10:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just can't seem to get it right. First my wife and I tried the left wing way. We spent like drunken fools. Soon we had more bills than paycheck each month.
We had to go to the China loan shark to stay afloat.
That was not working, so we tried the right wing way. If cutting taxes would create more income, I could go to my boss, and have him cut my wage. I thought about a 20% cut would get me back on track. Hell my boss was great about it. He was happy to cut my pay by 50%, so I would be rich in no time.
Well crap that didn't work out so well.
Another trip to the China loan shark for more cash to keep my head above water.At least he is a good guy. He said that I could morgage my kids, their kids, and several more generations to get the loans.
I thought about just spending less than I make each month, but my wife said that she would not vote for that.

Yoy guys have any advice on how to get out of this mess?
Keith
</div></div>

Interesting description there, and I suppose in practice this seems to be how it winds up working (or not working) unfortunately.

But the analogy assumes the money just goes to whatever hands and then is just gone.

The left's idea is to (generally) tax more and take in more into government hands. At which time they will dole out the money where it sees fit and create prosperity for all that way... and that prosperity leads to more government revenue. (and it will all continue to cycle back around)

The right's idea is to (generally) tax less and keep more in the individual's hands. AT which time individuals will dole out their money directly into business, and create prosperity for all that way... and that prosperity leads to more government revenue. (and it will all continue to cycle back around)

Both work in theory, neither seems to end up working "as planned" in practice because, and to borrow your analogy, you and your wife find any and all reason to continue to spend more regardless of what else is happening out there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought about just spending less than I make each month</div></div>

Now there is a novel idea!

Sack </div></div>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-D1jCZ31Uw


Who pays for subsidies for corporations, who outsource American Jobs, hide money off shore, two thirds of which pay no taxes?

If it's all about Jobs, no Republican President created as many jobs as Bill Clinton, who created more than both Bush's and Reagan, combined.

Is it fiscally responsible to lie the counytry into an un-necessary war, for oil contracts, for cronies?

Bush, himself, told Wall Street CEo's
"some peoploe call you elites, I call you my base"

Fiscal Responsibility does not mean destroying the Middle Class, which is exactly what Reagan, Bush, Bush did to this country.

G.

Gayle in MD
11-30-2010, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just can't seem to get it right. First my wife and I tried the left wing way. We spent like drunken fools. Soon we had more bills than paycheck each month.
We had to go to the China loan shark to stay afloat.
That was not working, so we tried the right wing way. If cutting taxes would create more income, I could go to my boss, and have him cut my wage. I thought about a 20% cut would get me back on track. Hell my boss was great about it. He was happy to cut my pay by 50%, so I would be rich in no time.
Well crap that didn't work out so well.
Another trip to the China loan shark for more cash to keep my head above water.At least he is a good guy. He said that I could morgage my kids, their kids, and several more generations to get the loans.
I thought about just spending less than I make each month, but my wife said that she would not vote for that.

Yoy guys have any advice on how to get out of this mess?
Keith
</div></div>

Interesting description there, and I suppose in practice this seems to be how it winds up working (or not working) unfortunately.

But the analogy assumes the money just goes to whatever hands and then is just gone.

The left's idea is to (generally) tax more and take in more into government hands. At which time they will dole out the money where it sees fit and create prosperity for all that way... and that prosperity leads to more government revenue. (and it will all continue to cycle back around)

The right's idea is to (generally) tax less and keep more in the individual's hands. AT which time individuals will dole out their money directly into business, and create prosperity for all that way... and that prosperity leads to more government revenue. (and it will all continue to cycle back around)

Both work in theory, neither seems to end up working "as planned" in practice because, and to borrow your analogy, you and your wife find any and all reason to continue to spend more regardless of what else is happening out there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought about just spending less than I make each month</div></div>

Now there is a novel idea!

Sack </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Jeffersonian anti-federalists feared that a strong national government would lead our fledgling nation back towards monarchy. Instead they wanted government closer to the people where it would better serve their interests rather than interests of the moneyed merchants and traders.

That not good enough for Tea Party and other conservative activists today: They're against all government, at all levels. They don't want government to provide much of anything except maybe a vast military industrial complex. But public schools, environmental protection, social services for low and moderate income people? Fugetaboutit!

The Wall Street-led crash has created the perfect climate for this crusade to eviscerate the public sector, especially at the state and local level. It's ugly and getting uglier.

With 29 million American unemployed or forced into part-time jobs, tax receipts have plummeted more steeply than any time since the Great Depression. State and local governments are slashing their services--at the very moment when people most desperately need them. This is the very definition of a fiscal crisis.

In a saner world it would be obvious to everyone that state and local governments are not to blame for this mess. They didn't cause the Great Recession--Wall Street did. And if you can't see that, then you're enveloped in an ideological cloud so thick that no facts can penetrate. Even Alan Greenspan, the life-long anti-government libertarian, has confessed that under his watch as Fed chair, Wall Street ran wild, touching off a global economic calamity. So let's not argue about this any more.

State and local governments are far from perfect, of course. More than a few got suckered into Wall Street's financial engineering schemes. Some foolishly invested their pension funds in toxic assets. Some allowed their debt to pile up, even while balancing their budgets. Many states, if not most, have been letting their super-wealthy residents pay too little at tax time. Even before the Great Recession, middle and lower income residents shouldered a heavier tax burden than the super-rich (who, of course, deduct their state and local taxes from their federal taxes -- assuming they pay any taxes at all).

These problems can be addressed without destroying state and local governments. But now that a genuine budgetary crisis has hit 42 out of 50 states, the knives are out. It's not just about fixing problems. It's about revenge.

In New Jersey, where I live, we're watching Governor Chris Christie try to devour the teachers union as if it were a slice of his favorite cheesecake. He's not worried that his plan to cut the state's education budget by a whopping $820 million might harm our children. No, he's loving the crisis because now he can stick it to teachers all over the state. You choose, he tells them: Do you want wage and benefit cuts, or layoffs? And sorry, parents: If your kid's after-school tutoring program closes, you know who to blame. It's those greedy teachers. (In our town the teachers union made concessions and 85 teachers still will lose their jobs.)

We'll feel the awful effects of state and local budget cuts all over the country, in virtually every area of public life. Parks will be closed and privatized. Libraries will cut hours or close altogether. And we'll all be trained like Pavlov's dogs to detest government as we wait on longer and longer lines for basic services and have to tangle with stressed out government employees whose jobs have become a living hell. (When you have a lot of time to kill, try getting your New Jersey license renewed.)

When you strip away all the loose talk about getting our fiscal house in order, Governor Christie and many other conservatives see this as a golden opportunity to crush the last bastion of trade unionism in America. Only 7.2 percent of private sector workers were in unions in 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Pretty grim, from a union point of view. But in the public sector, 37.4 percent of workers are unionized -- with the teachers leading the way.

Christie's no dummy. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how to use this financial crisis to gut public sector workers' wages and benefits. The argument is simple: Why should private sector workers who've lost most of their benefits have to pay taxes to support decent healthcare plans and pensions for those lazy public workers? Hey, those teachers even get the whole summer off!

It's certainly true that private sector workers' benefits are vanishing before their eyes. In 1991, 88 percent of Fortune 500 workers got medical coverage if they retired before Medicare kicked in. Now it's 33 percent. In 1998, 68 percent of Fortune 500 workers had pension plans. Now only 42 percent had them. Meanwhile, public workers not only have pensions, they have good pensions: 80 percent still have "defined benefit" retirement plans. (Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago) So at a time when other workers are watching their 401(k) retirements tank (assuming they have any at all), public workers are still slated to get a fixed monthly pension check. How dare they! Better that we all should have next to nothing than have those pampered teachers get more than we do!

It's a pathetic argument, but it works.

You hate government? You hate unions? Fine. But do you hate yourself as well? As this race to the bottom accelerates, the budget-cutting mania will act as a gigantic anti-stimulus program, sucking jobs out of the public and private sectors. It's estimated that in 2010 and 2011, the states' budget shortfalls will total $375 billion. That will just about wash out the positive job impact of the federal stimulus program.

Job loss leads to reduced tax revenues, which leads to more job loss. No wonder most economists predict we'll suffer through years and years of high unemployment. (And if you think that the private sector is going to pick up the slack as workers' purchasing power goes down, please pass me whatever you're imbibing.)

If we could just get over our blinding hatred of unions and public sector workers, we might see that we do in fact have the money we need to rebuild our ramshackle infrastructure, enhance public education and create a new green economy. It's right there--in the hands of the few. Since 1979 the wealth of the top 1/100th of one percent of all earners increased by 384 percent, while the median earner gained only 12 percent in real wages! (New York Times, ) And yet the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 top taxpayers with the very highest incomes has declined by nearly half over the past two decades--even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger, according to new IRS data. The 400 wealthiest Americans alone have more than $1.3 trillion (not billion) in wealth - just 400 people!

A surcharge on these super-rich individuals could help fund our collapsing public sector. Plus, as a matter of simple justice we should have our Wall Street barons pay reparations for the damage they have done and still are doing. After all, they've just walked off with $150 billion in bonuses derived directly from our bailout money.

The moment is right for the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to make a very simple case: Wall Street crashed our economy and knocked a giant hole in every state budget. Let's tax Wall Street's gambling and bonuses to make the states whole. Under Nixon, it was called revenue sharing. Let's do it again, and avoid a grim future of service cuts and job loss.

Dream on, you say? Maybe. But each of us actually has a choice. We can either sit and watch as our state and local governments are turned into slaughterhouses, or we can work together to compel the financial elites to pay their fair share. Those of us who are ready to tackle our billionaire bailout society need to form a progressive populist alternative to the Tea Party, and fast.

Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009.

</div></div>

sack316
11-30-2010, 03:16 PM
what did that have to do with my post?

It was about government, how it handles money/taxes, and the basic logic behind either party's agenda/ economic plans when they are in power.

Any comments on that? Because if you disagree with my perception on their general plans I'm glad to hear it, as it was JMHO in refernce to Keith's analogy... and not my take on a "who is right and who is wrong" ideology.

Sack

LWW
11-30-2010, 04:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Reagan cuts only confirmed that lower taxes stimulate the economy which is good for the American people. What is easy to understand is that it is the private sector that creates ALL prosperity and it is the public sector that is always a burden so should always be kept at a minimum. </div></div>

Reagan Grew the <s>deicit</s> deficit by 187% </div></div>

Reagan never passed a budget. The POTUS does not set the budget.

LWW

LWW
11-30-2010, 04:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who pays for subsidies for corporations, who outsource American Jobs, hide money off shore, two thirds of which pay no taxes?

G. </div></div>

100% of US corporations pay no taxes ... they are merely involuntary tax collectors.

LWW

LWW
11-30-2010, 04:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it's all about Jobs, no Republican President created as many jobs as Bill Clinton, who created more than both Bush's and Reagan, combined.

G. </div></div>

None of them ever created a job. They did work with congress to allow a business climate which allowed job creation.

LWW

LWW
11-30-2010, 04:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is it fiscally responsible to lie the <s>counytry</s> country into an un-necessary war, for oil contracts, for cronies?

G. </div></div>

Certainly not ... who did that?

Oh, wait, Jimmuh Cahtuh ... when he forced out the Shah and installed Khomeini because the Shah wouldn't put Jimmuh's backers ahead of the Iranian people.

LWW

LWW
11-30-2010, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush, himself, told Wall Street CEo's
"some peoploe call you elites, I call you my base"

G. </div></div>

1 - Got a link to that?

2 - Explain why they backed Clinton and Obama?

LWW

LWW
11-30-2010, 04:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fiscal Responsibility does not mean destroying the Middle Class, which is exactly what Reagan, Bush, Bush did to this country.

G. </div></div>

Then explain why the economy floundered under Carternomics ... thrived under Reaganomics ... floundered under Bush/Clinton until the democrooks lost congress ... thrived while the R's held congress ... and then collapsed after the democrooks were voted in?

What's that?

You can't?

I know.

LWW

sack316
11-30-2010, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush, himself, told Wall Street CEo's
"some peoploe call you elites, I call you my base"

G. </div></div>

1 - Got a link to that?

2 - Explain why they backed Clinton and Obama?

LWW </div></div>

Actually, it was said... of course it was at the Alfred & Smith memorial dinner. I think we've found one of the people from that other thread that would be fooled by parody without getting that it's a joke /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Of course, if we're gonna quote that dinner as serious material, then here's a few gems from Obama:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I was originally told the venue would be Yankee Stadium. Can somebody tell me what happened to the Greek columns that I requested?"

“Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger,I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the planet Earth.”

“If I had to name my greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I’m a little too awesome.”

Obama took on another McCain criticism: the attack, earlier this election season, that he’s nothing more than a celebrity.

“I have to admit that that really hurt,” Obama said. “I got so angry about it I punched the paparazzi in the face on my way out of Spago's. I’m serious. I even spilled my soy chai latte all over my shih tzu. It was really embarrassing.”

</div></div>

Context, context, context... makes such a difference....

Sack

LWW
11-30-2010, 04:40 PM
That's why I asked Gee for a link ... I honestly think she would have stepped in the tiger trap.

LWW

llotter
11-30-2010, 05:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Reagan cuts only confirmed that lower taxes stimulate the economy which is good for the American people. What is easy to understand is that it is the private sector that creates ALL prosperity and it is the public sector that is always a burden so should always be kept at a minimum. </div></div>

Reagan Grew the deicit by 187% </div></div>

That may be true, Gayle, but it was entitlement growth that was the cause. In spite of the growth in military spending, total discretionary decreased by 5% of the budget while entitlements increased by that same amount.

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 12:53 AM
The entitlement argument doesn't fly.

There is more waste and corruption in defense spending, than in any other government expenditure.

It is humanly corrupt, to have a higher priority on killing people, than on feeding our own poor, and aged.

The Military Industril Complex, is the entire crux of our economic problems.

Creating more handicapped people, Veterans, to care for for the rest of their lives, and creating more people who are ill, through warring and polluting, exploited by corporate, fascist pigs, is more costly than anything else.

Pick any economic problem, they all come back to thieving corporate greed, and corruption, all of them.

G.

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush, himself, told Wall Street CEo's
"some peoploe call you elites, I call you my base"

G. </div></div>

1 - Got a link to that?

2 - Explain why they backed Clinton and Obama?

LWW </div></div>

Actually, it was said... of course it was at the Alfred & Smith memorial dinner. I think we've found one of the people from that other thread that would be fooled by parody without getting that it's a joke /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Of course, if we're gonna quote that dinner as serious material, then here's a few gems from Obama:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I was originally told the venue would be Yankee Stadium. Can somebody tell me what happened to the Greek columns that I requested?"

“Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger,I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the planet Earth.”

“If I had to name my greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I’m a little too awesome.”

Obama took on another McCain criticism: the attack, earlier this election season, that he’s nothing more than a celebrity.

“I have to admit that that really hurt,” Obama said. “I got so angry about it I punched the paparazzi in the face on my way out of Spago's. I’m serious. I even spilled my soy chai latte all over my shih tzu. It was really embarrassing.”

</div></div>

Context, context, context... makes such a difference....

Sack
</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">LOL, just saw this, Sack.

I suppose I should have given a link, or indicated it was a kind of fry, comedy style dinner, but I actually think, while I knew the context, that it was one of the few times Bush told the truth, and I think both his policies, and decisions, back that up. </span>

pooltchr
12-03-2010, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

it was a kind of fry, comedy style dinner,
</div></div>

I think the term is "roast".

Steve