PDA

View Full Version : This is econ. malpractice of the worst kind



Sid_Vicious
10-22-2003, 12:53 PM
http://www.ironwoodpublications.com/pages/856708/index.htm

Ok it's political and it's long, but you can hardly ignore 400 top economists, including 10 nobel prize winners oinions. Anyone willing to read what Bush has done, and is trying to further do to this country, read what's at the bottom of the webpage found through this link...sid

eg8r
10-22-2003, 01:27 PM
I did not have to read any further than the first paragraph to know that they were not telling the whole story...[ QUOTE ]
Thus, in just a little over two years, George W. Bush has added $732 billion to the national debt. That is just slightly less than the $932 billion that was added to the debt by the first 39 American presidents during the first 192 years of our history!
<hr /></blockquote> No where was it stated that this number (the 932 billion) is an adjusted amount to today dollars. Since it is not stated anywhere, then I think it is safe to say they have ignored it on purpose. If so, then they are fooling your with numbers and you are falling for it without doing any logical thinking. What do you think 932 billion dollars in the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s would be worth today?

What about this quote... [ QUOTE ]
When he first proposed his tax-cut plan early in the primary season, he got a very cool reception from both Republicans and Democrats. Many Republicans have since come around and boarded the “tax-cut bandwagon.” However, some highly respected Republicans are still publicly denouncing the plan.



Some Republican Senators are opposing the tax cut because of the damage it would do to the economy and to the federal budget. As a result, they are being targeted by both the White House and conservative Republican organizations. Negative campaign ads are being run in their states, chastising them for standing by their convictions instead of giving a blank check of support to President Bush. <hr /></blockquote> Which Republicans is he referring to???? Who is running these ads???? I am willing to bet it is a democratic group running the ads. Also, where are the Democrats who are supporting the tax cuts? Why aren't they mentioned???? BECAUSE THIS IS A LIBERALLY BIASED ARTICLE. Nothing wrong with that, it is just good to recognize what you are reading.

Here is another gem... [ QUOTE ]
Yet, the President, whose irresponsible economic policies have already done so much damage to the economy, is trying to push through Congress another economic package that is not based on sound economic principles, and is opposed by top economists and the majority of the American people. <hr /></blockquote> Where is the damage that is directly related to the tax cuts. The author is not giving any examples to anything, he is just writing something knowing full well, you have no way of questioning him about it. Some examples of the damage would be great if you could Sid....I am being sarcastical, because I know Sid will not offer anything.

eg8r

eg8r
10-22-2003, 01:40 PM
Hey Sid, since the authors will probably not comment on this, can you please give an example of a tax cut in history that has HURT the American economy????

Here is a quote from your article... [ QUOTE ]
Most importantly of all, the vast majority of mainstream economists oppose the tax cut because of the negative effects it would have on budget deficits and the economy. <hr /></blockquote> Who are these mainstream economists and could you also please try and get us their political affiliations??? The authors offer you no substance and you fall all over yourself believing everything you read.

Just once Sid, answer a question...When in US history has a tax cut hurt our economy?

Even JFK understood that tax cuts were the right thing to do. Here is a very easy to understand quote from JFK... [ QUOTE ]
Kennedy's own words concur this: "It is a paradoxical truth, that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates".
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Qtec
10-23-2003, 12:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
When in US history has a tax cut hurt our economy?
<hr /></blockquote>

You just love to say that, dont you?
Nobody that works is against tax cuts, but there is always a price to pay. Ronnie left the nation with the biggest deficit in history which has only now been surpassed by Ronnie#2, GW Bush. Its always the Dems that have to clean up the books and make the unpopular decisions. The American people as a whole will take the brunt , except the arms industry of course.

Deregulation has resulted in the biggest scandal ever in the buisness world. Enron and all the rest of these huge companies, could only have do what they have done because they were basicaly allowed to by the Govt.

I,ve tried to tell you before that all over the world, American [ and other] companies have been sowing the seeds of anti-Westernism by their complete disreguard for the people who live there.


web page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2869-2003Oct22_2.html)

Funny how Reagan used to be a Democrat . He really showed how much of a union man he was when he sacked the air traffic controlers.
He backed terrorists [ the Contras] and he bargained with terrorists[ weapons for hostages ]. He lied about it [ whats new] and let poor Oliver take the rap for it. Stand up guy.

You have a distinct gift for never letting the facts interfere with your judgement of anybody who spouts the Rep diatribe.
"Cut taxes, strong defense and if you dont agree, you are a liberal looney." LOL

Q

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 05:47 AM
Q,

How long did it take you to notice? Eg8r is a FAN. When you are a fan of something facts and common sense are of no use and have no sway in the fan.....a fan just cheers harder when his team is down....

eg8r
10-23-2003, 05:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You just love to say that, dont you? <hr /></blockquote> You are right. Sid was quoting someone who was stating it had already begun to damage the economy. Well where is the proof? Since you like to chime in, quit sidestepping the question and answer it. Every time I bring up Clinton you or cheesy tell me to quit bringing him up, we are talking about Bush. Since Bush implemented a tax cut, and this fool that Sid quotes says it has damaged our economy, then where is the proof. Take it further and show me a time in history when the tax cut hurt the economy.

eg8r

eg8r
10-23-2003, 05:49 AM
Alright, I promise not to read any more of your post after this.... [ QUOTE ]
Deregulation has resulted in the biggest scandal ever in the buisness world. Enron and all the rest of these huge companies, could only have do what they have done because they were basicaly allowed to by the Govt.
<hr /></blockquote> A large portion of the time that Enron was screwing his employees Clinton was in control and letting it happen. Clinton was the government at that time.

eg8r

eg8r
10-23-2003, 05:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
When you are a fan of something facts and common sense are of no use and have no sway in the fan.....a fan just cheers harder when his team is down.... <hr /></blockquote> This is a classic example of stupidity....I am asking Q for facts. Where is your common sense. It does not take a brain child to see I am looking for facts. When in our history did the economy suffer because of a tax cut? Cheesy, is this going to be another chance for you to stuff your little tail between your legs and hide behind your saying, "Eg8r, I only said that to get you mad!!!".

At least if you have something to say, make sure it pertains to the discussion. You are quick to be negative towards me, and this time stupidity stood in your way.

eg8r

pooltchr
10-23-2003, 05:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> A large portion of the time that Enron was screwing his employees Clinton was in control and letting it happen. Clinton was the government at that time.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Isn't it strange that it's not who is in charge when something is happening, but who is in charge when we find out it happened. Our current "recession" didn't make the news until GW was in office, but the root cause goes back to a time when the "other guy" was there.

Not a "fan" of GW, but given the choice of the two parties in control of this country, I'm a bit more comfortable with the Republican stand on economics. I think both parties seem to want to let government grow and get more involved in our lives. Maybe one day people will wake up and realize that the libertarian party might have something better to offer....mainly LESS GOVERNMENT!

eg8r
10-23-2003, 06:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe one day people will wake up and realize that the libertarian party might have something better to offer....mainly LESS GOVERNMENT! <hr /></blockquote> My thoughts exactly. Bush is big government and that is my problem with him. I cannot believe that in his term, he has not found one single special interest group to cut. I could just imagine how many politically-correct sensitive artists would be looking for real jobs if Boortz was elected President. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Another example of big government was federalizing the airport security. What a waste of taxpayer money.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 06:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
When you are a fan of something facts and common sense are of no use and have no sway in the fan.....a fan just cheers harder when his team is down.... <hr /></blockquote> This is a classic example of stupidity....I am asking Q for facts. Where is your common sense. It does not take a brain child to see I am looking for facts. When in our history did the economy suffer because of a tax cut? Cheesy, is this going to be another chance for you to stuff your little tail between your legs and hide behind your saying, "Eg8r, I only said that to get you mad!!!".

At least if you have something to say, make sure it pertains to the discussion. You are quick to be negative towards me, and this time stupidity stood in your way.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Here are some of those stupid facts:

Economy: the Strongest Economy in a Generation

Closing the Book on A Generation of Deficits -- in 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 1999, we had a budget surplus of $124 billion -- the largest dollar surplus on record (even after adjusting for inflation) and the largest as a share of our economy since 1951. With the President's plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation's publicly held debt by 2015.
More than 20 Million New Jobs -- more than 92 percent (18.5 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. This is the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 244,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.
Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Two Decades -- Since 1993, real wages have grown 6.5 percent - compared to declining 4.3 percent during the previous two administrations. In 1998, real wages were up 2.7 percent -- that's the fastest annual real wage growth in over 20 years.
Unemployment Is the Lowest in 29 Years -- down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent today -- staying below 5 percent for 29 months in a row.
Highest Homeownership Rate in History -- In the third quarter 1999, the homeownership rate was 67.0 -- the highest ever recorded.

......Now here is something reallllly stupid......U rah rah rah....Georrrrrrgeeeeee Buuuuuuush...

Wally_in_Cincy
10-23-2003, 06:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

....Who are these mainstream economists and could you also please try and get us their political affiliations??? ....

<font color="blue">It's pretty obvious what their political affiliations are, though I'm sure they would not admit it, just like mainstream journalists.

If economists could actually predict the future of the economy, wouldn't they all be rich? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Teddy Roosevelt said "Bring me a one-handed economist because they always say </font color><font color="red">'so-and-so is going to happen, but on the other hand' </font color> <font color="blue"> " </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Just once Sid, answer a question...When in US history has a tax cut hurt our economy?

<font color="blue">Considering the tax burden right now, tax cuts are always good. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 06:37 AM
DAMN STUPID FACTS.............EG8R....you may want to pass on reading these facts, they may give you a headache.....LOL

Conservatives are not good for our economy

For some reason many Americans believe that conservatives are mature, fiscally responsible people able to run the world efficiently. I'm not sure why people believe it, but perhaps it's the continual harping by right-wing media pundits, or even the plethora of editorials in the overwhelmingly conservative media. Whatever the reasons, it is just another in a long line of conservative myths, for Democrats clearly have a better record on economic matters than Republicans.

People today seem to have forgotten Reagan/Bush and supply-side economics. Those popular conservative presidents and their policies left us with huge deficits, severe unemployment, falling family incomes, declining industries, and rising indebtedness, both federal and household.

Furthermore, with their policies of rampant deregulation, Reagan and Bush were directly responsible for the savings and loan fiasco that bilked, and continues to bleed, the American people of more than one trillion dollars. It was the looting of the savings and loans by insiders that led to the speculative junk bond frenzy and ultimately, recession.

Many might think that that Reagan/Bush was some kind of anomaly in the broader history. Surely on average, Republicans have done a better overall job managing the economy. If you thought that, you'd be wrong. Let's examine some commonly accepted measures of a prosperous economy, things like the stock market, growth of GDP, unemployment, wages, budget deficits, rates of inflation, and so forth.

A 2002 study by Slate magazine demonstrated that since 1900 Democrats are better for the stock market than Republicans in that "Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&amp;P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return". A 2000 report by the Stock Trader's Almanac, which analyzes Wall Street performance numbers every which way, came up with similar numbers of 13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent. Even if you remove the Hoover administration, the beginning of WWII under Roosevelt, and Nixon's second term when high inflation and rising energy costs sent the stock market spinning, you'd still be 2.7% better off under Democratic administrations according the insurance and financial giant, Northwestern Mutual.

Apparently, having a Republican Congress doesn't help the market either. According to Slate, a Republican Senate showed returns of 9.4 percent versus 10.5 percent for a Democratically-controlled Senate and 8.1 percent for a Republican House against 10.9 for a Democratic House.

Slate also analyzed the growth of real GDP under various administrations and showed that since 1930, the first year good data were available, that under Democratic presidents real GDP growth averaged 5.4 percent, whereas was only 1.6 percent for Republicans. Over the period 1962 to 2001, the average rate of GDP growth under Republican administrations was 2.94%, whereas under Democratic administrations the average growth rate was 3.92%. Even if you use lag times of 3,4, or 5 years as done by others in assigning responsibilities, economic growth was higher under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations.

One measure of fiscal responsibility is the balance between budget deficits and surpluses, for large deficits burden future citizens with either higher taxes or lower public spending on infrastructure and services. From fiscal year 1962 to fiscal year 2001, Republican and Democratic administrations have each had twenty budgets and when corrected for inflation, Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion ($190 billion per year), whereas Democratic presidents increased it by $719.5 billion or $36 billion per year.

Unemployment rates are another good measure of economic growth for when unemployment is low more people have jobs and can then buy more goods: tax revenues also increase. Over the same 40 year period, unemployment during Republican administrations averaged 6.75% and under Democratic administrations averaged 5.1%.

Republicans often claim to be the political party of small government, but is this really true? One measure of the size of government is the number of non-defense employees in the Federal government. According to the 2003 Budget of George Bush, over the period 1962-2001, the federal government increased its number of employees by 369,000. Remarkably, under Republican administrations the total number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000 whereas under Democratic administrations they rose by 59,000. That means that 84% of the employees were added by Republicans!

An important measure of economic stability is the rate of inflation. Under Democratic administrations and using lag times of 3,4, or 5 years, inflation under Democratic administrations was between 3.07% and 3.33%, but under Republican administrations it ranged from 4.36% to 4.6%.

Many conservatives believe that the 1993 tax increase of Bill Clinton was the largest in history, even though it raised taxes only on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of Americans. That is another myth, for according to the Wall Street Journal, the largest tax increase in history was the "deficit reduction package" of Ronald Reagan and the Republican-controlled Senate led by Bob Dole.

Despite conservative claims to the contrary, the successes of the Clinton administration were truly impressive. They produced the longest period of economic growth in American history: 115 months averaging 4 percent per year; created 22 million new jobs, the most in any administration; had the lowest unemployment rates in thirty years, with unemployment for women and minorities dropping to historic lows; paid off more than $360 billion of the national debt and was on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; reduced the federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family to the lowest level in 35 years; twice raised the minimum wage; caused income for all income levels, but especially the average and lower income families, to grow significantly; and produced a $237 million budget surplus in its last budget.

The Clinton record must be mildly discomforting for conservatives, especially after their dire and scare-mongering predictions of recession and disaster; but if so, then they must be downright embarrassed by George Bush's handling of the economy.

Consider that under George Bush, 2.7 million jobs have vanished, our budget surpluses are now trillion-dollar deficits; business investment dropped every quarter over his first two years in office; health care costs have risen precipitously; trillions of dollars of market capitalization vanished; family income declined; joblessness among single, undereducated mothers is up to 18 percent; and there has been an astounding increase in poverty with nearly 35 million now living below the poverty level.

Overall, Bush has the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover and most analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office, recognize that the causes are not terrorism or the recession, but rather, the overall Bush economic plan of tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for corporations that persisted despite these unforeseen events. In fact, if Bush's notion was correct and Osama or Saddam are responsible for our economic malaise, then it would be the first time in modern history that an arms buildup depressed the economy.

All of the data show that Democrats are better stewards of our economy than Republicans. Although, conservative politicians love to flaunt their message of fiscal responsibility and business-like management, any business run by them would have failed long ago.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-23-2003, 06:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>

Here are some of those stupid facts:

Economy: the Strongest Economy in a Generation

Closing the Book on A Generation of Deficits -- in 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 1999, we had a budget surplus of $124 billion -- the largest dollar surplus on record (even after adjusting for inflation) and the largest as a share of our economy since 1951. ....<hr /></blockquote>

Yep. Thank God Newt's Republicans took over Congress in 1994 /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif and kept Hillary from instituting the vision of Hillary, Donna Shalala, and Robert Reich.

...and also strong-armed Clinton into signing welfare reform

Wally_in_Cincy
10-23-2003, 06:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Furthermore, with their policies of rampant deregulation, Reagan and Bush were directly responsible for the savings and loan fiasco that bilked, and continues to bleed, the American people of more than one trillion dollars. <hr /></blockquote>

Actually it was only $50 billion I believe.

Sid_Vicious
10-23-2003, 07:26 AM
A very definitive and well documented read, thanks. This junk today being called American economics by the admin has got to change, else we all will be seeing a hundred year reoccurance...the Depression years come full circle. What dummys we have running the welfare of our country! Any yet just wait and see, some people are so stubborn they'll manufacture excuses against all these statistical facts from the past. There's a word for that but I won't use it...sid

eg8r
10-23-2003, 08:17 AM
Cheese, answer the question. Sid surely won't, he sits around waiting for someone to defend him, and then he chimes in with, "Yeah thats right". LOL

eg8r

eg8r
10-23-2003, 08:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What dummys we have running the welfare of our country! <hr /></blockquote> Maybe they should be coming to you for suggestions. Heck, you are complaining about your own personal retirement in which you are the controller, how could you possibly be able to help out the rest of the Americans???? Don't be so quick to label them as dummy's.

eg8r

eg8r
10-23-2003, 08:26 AM
LOL, you got that right Wally. Cheese is now starting to give Clinton credit for what happened in the economy when just a few weeks ago, he stated he did not give any president credit. The funny thing is...If Clinton was so great, why did the great economy go down the tubes while he was still President. Why doesn't Clinton have to explain the dot com bust and all those lost jobs, but Bush does???

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 08:35 AM
Say eg8r,
I'm kind of stupid...what was that question again? I'm not sure but I think it was something about the economy in general and you requested some facts or something studid like that....take two asprin and repeat every couple hours till the pain goes away......U rah...rah.....rah.....come on everybody....WALLy...U rah! rah.....Gorrrrrrrge Bussususususususuhhhhh........Stuuuuuupiiiiid Factsssss......

eg8r
10-23-2003, 08:57 AM
One thing I find odd about Robert Hillebrands site is that it is quite tough to navigate to the "theright" folder on his website. This is where he posts all his anti-Bush articles. I was just wondering if this is done on purpose so that his customers do not see what he believes in? Is he hiding it?

eg8r

eg8r
10-23-2003, 09:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm kind of stupid...what was that question again? I'm not sure but I think it was something about the economy in general and you requested some facts or something studid like that <hr /></blockquote> When in US history has a tax cut hurt our economy?

It appears my "stupidity" comment really struck a nerve. I guess there was some truth in it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
10-23-2003, 09:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>

......U rah...rah.....rah.....come on everybody....WALLy...U rah! rah.....Gorrrrrrrge Bussususususususuhhhhh........Stuuuuuupiiiiid Factsssss...... <hr /></blockquote>

Uh cheese, you'll notice Dubya was not mentioned in my post.

Wally~~thinks Dubya is spending too much of my money.

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 09:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I'm kind of stupid...what was that question again? I'm not sure but I think it was something about the economy in general and you requested some facts or something studid like that <hr /></blockquote> When in US history has a tax cut hurt our economy?

It appears my "stupidity" comment really struck a nerve. I guess there was some truth in it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Quote eg8r " give me an example of when a tax cut has hurt the economy".....

Me thinks eg8r has now learned to shoot from the hip...Me thinks when he reads 'facts' that don't fit his teams game plan they don't register...It's kind of neat being a fan...you gotta love those fans who just give their mindless support....huh???

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 09:21 AM
Wally,

If you, eg8r and I were sitting in bar throwing afew back I'll bet you and I would ditch him so we could go have some fun.......LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
10-23-2003, 09:26 AM
More sidestepping.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 11:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> More sidestepping.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Sidestepping what...you ask for an example and I give you a current one that we are all living...I could give you another one from the Reagan Administration but geeee... I don't like redunacy....here one more time for your edification is your example:

<font color="red"> The Clinton record must be mildly discomforting for conservatives, especially after their dire and scare-mongering predictions of recession and disaster; but if so, then they must be downright embarrassed by George Bush's handling of the economy.

Consider that under George Bush, 2.7 million jobs have vanished, our budget surpluses are now trillion-dollar deficits; business investment dropped every quarter over his first two years in office; health care costs have risen precipitously; trillions of dollars of market capitalization vanished; family income declined; joblessness among single, undereducated mothers is up to 18 percent; and there has been an astounding increase in poverty with nearly 35 million now living below the poverty level.

Overall, Bush has the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover and most analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office, recognize that the causes are not terrorism or the recession, but rather, the overall Bush economic plan of tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for corporations that persisted despite these unforeseen events. In fact, if Bush's notion was correct and Osama or Saddam are responsible for our economic malaise, then it would be the first time in modern history that an arms buildup depressed the economy.
</font color>


the cheese thinks you should get back to work....your wasting my tax dollars pissing around on the Internet while at work......your cheating GW out of a weapon...

Sid_Vicious
10-23-2003, 11:37 AM
Just how much clearer can an example be than that?! I especially liked your finale,

"the cheese thinks you should get back to work....your wasting my tax dollars pissing around on the Internet while at work......your cheating GW out of a weapon..."

Choice there Cheeze!!!sid

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 12:09 PM
Thanks Sid,

Hey, maybe I should ask for your permission about something.....I've been using your signiture line right after I take successful fliers on the pool table...is OK with you??? LOL... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
10-23-2003, 12:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>
....your wasting my tax dollars ... <hr /></blockquote>

But you sure do like that government <font color="orange">cheese </font color> I bet.

Couldn't resist /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
10-23-2003, 01:02 PM
I saw your example, and I asked for something in our past history. I guess being literal you could call the recent tax cut history, I was meaning a prior one. I should have been clearer. I also think it is a bit premature to gauge this tax cut especially since the economy is coming around right now. Sort of flushes your defense down the toilet.

Now, that I cleared up what I was looking for, give examples of bad economy that are direct results of a tax cut.

I think it is funny to see Q's sidekick Sid, giggling over your replies...As of date, Sid still has never given any sort of back up to any of his rants. Sid had a little chuckle about the on-the-clock joke though, so I guess it was worth it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif As far as being on the clock and wasting money, don't fret too much. I work about 10-15 hours free every week on top of the 40. Do you get paid by the hour?? I don't, so I take breaks as I see fit.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 01:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>
....your wasting my tax dollars ... <hr /></blockquote>

But you sure do like that government <font color="orange">cheese </font color> I bet.

Couldn't resist /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

That's a good one Wally /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif I must admit that back in my hippie days I was living with an earth momma who would get those government commodities....stuff plugs you up pretty good....LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cheesemouse
10-23-2003, 01:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sort of flushes your defense down the toilet.
<hr /></blockquote>

.....were you sitting on one of those gold plated $40,000 toilet seats when you flushed my defense down the toilet? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
10-23-2003, 01:30 PM
LOL. Nope, we don't get the good stuff. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
10-23-2003, 01:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>
That's a good one Wally /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif I must admit that back in my hippie days I was living with an earth momma who would get those government commodities....stuff plugs you up pretty good....LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Until I was about 12 years old I thought "commodities" only had 1 meaning...gov't food. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

My uncle taught school in a 1-room schoolhouse back in the hills of KY. Every month a gov't worker would come by and leave boxes and boxes of that stuff. My uncle made lunches out of it for the kids and gave it to the kids to take home. Trouble was everybody back in them hills was so sick of canned roast beef, peanut butter, and cheese you could hardly give the stuff away. Those folks would much rather eat squirrel or rabbit /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Not much meat on a squirrel. Big bite of bread, little bite of squirrel. LOL

Qtec
10-26-2003, 12:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now, that I cleared up what I was looking for, give examples of bad economy that are direct results of a tax cut <hr /></blockquote>

Bush's Tax Cuts
A Form of National Insanity
By ROBERT FREEMAN

Insanity, said Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. By this measure, the latest Bush tax cuts qualify as certifiably insane.

Where have we seen this deranged fiscal strategy before? Remember Ronald Reagan and Supply Side Economics? In the early 1980s, Reagan promised the nation that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, the economy would grow so much the federal budget would be balanced "within three years, maybe even two."

Sober people were skeptical-and rightly so. Reagan's Republican opponent for the 1980 presidential election, George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called it a "Trojan horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich. Stockman was quickly dismissed.

The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. And the effect on the federal budget was catastrophic.

Jimmy Carter's last budget deficit was $77 billion. Reagan's first deficit was $128 billion. His second deficit exploded to $208 billion. By the time the "Reagan Revolution" was over, George H.W. Bush was running an annual deficit of $290 billion per year.

Yearly deficits, of course, add up to national debt. When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $994 billion. When Bush left office, it had reached $4.3 trillion. In other words, the national debt had taken 200 years to reach $1 trillion. Reagan's Supply Side experiment quadrupled it in the next 12 years.


web page (http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html)

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Rod
10-26-2003, 01:51 AM
Jeez this is terrible! I'm going to need drugs just to sleep! See what you have done to me Q, oh the horror! I hope people pray for me tonite. Well, maybe pray for me tomrrow too, I think I know a dealer on the east side.
hello, hello, was there a Trojan in the 80's, aarg. Oh, mine was Trojans! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Well Q we all get a woody once in a while, yours just happens to be for a different reason. ha ha ha Q tries, or he is trying, you decide. Really Q, everyone luvs ya but you try to hard.

Rod

Qtec
10-26-2003, 05:22 AM
Thanks Rod. I,m going to take that as a compliment. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Its not difficult to repudiate Rep bunkum!

Any way, he did ask Rod. I,m only trying to be helpful. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

[ glad to see you take my posts in the right spirit. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif]

eg8r
10-26-2003, 04:50 PM
Because there is a deficit does not mean the economy is doing poorly. Reagan's tax cuts certainly did not hurt the economy (ask Clinton). The question was asking about the economy.

Bush's tax cut certainly is NOT hurting the economy either.

eg8r

Qtec
10-27-2003, 09:37 PM
scandal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21584-2003Oct26.html)

Rules Circumvented on Huge Boeing Defense Contract


Who does the Govt represent?

Q

eg8r
10-28-2003, 07:06 AM
Q,

After briefly skimming all 5 pages of that article, I could not find one instance of topic that even closely resembled what this thread is about. Why did you post it?

eg8r

Qtec
10-28-2003, 10:03 AM
OK. New thread.

Nightstalker
10-28-2003, 10:36 AM
Why don't people understand that Clinton reaped the benefits on the economy that Bush Sr. helped set up? Economic changes take TIME, and because of that, you have all these ignorants who think that if the economy is good while president "y" is in office then surely he must be the reason for it! This is so far from the TRUTH! Could it be that president "x" had an effect on president "y's" economy? No.....couldn't be! (DENIAL)
Also, when the economy goes bad it does not mean that the current president is to blame for it. Clinton's failure to bust ENRON, EXXON, etc. and having GWB left to clean up the mess is the MAIN reason for the stock market drop, which in turn caused the economy to slump this way. You blind liberals take the cake for ignorance/denial of the facts for any given political/economic situation.

cheesemouse
10-28-2003, 10:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> Why don't people understand that Clinton reaped the benefits on the economy that Bush Sr. helped set up? Economic changes take TIME, and because of that, you have all these ignorants who think that if the economy is good while president "y" is in office then surely he must be the reason for it! This is so far from the TRUTH! Could it be that president "x" had an effect on president "y's" economy? No.....couldn't be! (DENIAL)
Also, when the economy goes bad it does not mean that the current president is to blame for it. Clinton's failure to bust ENRON, EXXON, etc. and having GWB left to clean up the mess is the MAIN reason for the stock market drop, which in turn caused the economy to slump this way. You blind liberals take the cake for ignorance/denial of the facts for any given political/economic situation. <hr /></blockquote>


Ya ya ya.....and if GW is re-elected you blockheads will still be blaming Clinton for crap in GW's last month in office....why won't you blockheads take responsiblity for your actions.....geez....you conservatives fixation on good ole Billy is like some kind of fetish.

Nightstalker
10-28-2003, 01:07 PM
I must have struck a nerve, you've resorted to petty name-calling. How childish, but I expect such a reaction when ignorant people are confronted with facts which prove them wrong.

cheesemouse
10-28-2003, 01:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You blind liberals take the cake for ignorance/denial of the facts for any given political/economic situation. <hr /></blockquote>

Ohhhh.....I SEE....Your quote above isn't name calling.......I quess I am just toooo Ignant and childish to comment on the sanctimonious hipocrisy of you grown up and smart conservatives.....geeezzzzzessssss you guys are unbelievable...

Nightstalker
10-28-2003, 01:57 PM
That is not name-calling, no. Again, you are overwhelmed with your unrealistic outlook.

cheesemouse
10-28-2003, 02:04 PM
At least my Outlook is subject to change when given new useful information....not the case with you BLOCKHEADS, that's why I call you blockheads your minds are like set up concrete it just gets harder and harder with age.

Nightstalker
10-28-2003, 02:06 PM
That's funny, I research and look for new info. Also I am 28, so by your example my head has not totally hardened yet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cheesemouse
10-28-2003, 02:08 PM
then you are not a true conservative /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
10-28-2003, 03:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>

Ya ya ya.....and if GW is re-elected you blockheads will still be blaming Clinton for crap in GW's last month in office.... <hr /></blockquote>

Heck yeah. We like to pick on Clinton. It's fun /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
10-29-2003, 12:04 AM
HaHaHaHaHa.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
10-29-2003, 07:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> Why don't people understand that Clinton reaped the benefits on the economy that Bush Sr. helped set up?

<font color="blue">While I agree that Clinton inherited a good economy, I don't agree that Bush 41 helped set it up. Bush 41 raised taxes. The econmy rebounded not because of Bush but in spite of him.

I used to want to throw up when Clinton and Gore would bellow "Worst economy of the last 50 years" </font color>

Economic changes take TIME,

<font color="blue">Yep. I think it's obvious that the economy is cyclical. The President can do some things to hurt or help to a degree but it can't be controlled . It's also dependent on world politics (such as the oil embargo of the 70's), weather, technology advances (e.g. computers and cell phones), and even 19 idiots flying planes into buildings.</font color>


<hr /></blockquote>