Congress: Useless as tits on a bull

[SDW2001]

OK, so I checked Drudge today and saw this:


RADIO SHOWDOWN: SENATE LEADER, DEMOCRATS DEMAND RUSH LIMBAUGH APOLOGY...

LIMBAUGH DENIES ATTACK ON TROOPS...

HOUSE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING NATION'S TOP HOST...

Sen. Harkin on Senate Floor: 'Maybe Limbaugh was high on drugs again'...

So here's the thing. I cannot take it anymore. Not from the Dems, not from the GOP. We're in the middle of a global war on terror, we have porous borders, a credit crunch, rising energy prices, a potential conflict with Iran, we're not doing jack shit about immigration, out of control social spending and about ONE MILLION OTHER PROBLEMS to deal with....

So what does Congress do? We have one party that puts it's majority leader out front to attack a goddamned talk radio host over his comments, and the other tries to pass a resolution commending him! Bravo! That's doin' work, ya'll!

I am beginning to come around to the view that we need to completely clean house. I've always been critical of the Vote Out All Incumbents kind of thinking, but seriously dude....WE HAVE TO SHUT THESE PEOPLE UP...ALL OF THEM. Shut the fuck up and get to work. Fix immigration and border security. Fix social security. Create a real energy policy for the short, mid and long term. Hell, go out a sing God Bless America again like you did on 9/12/2001....even that will be better than this.

Has it always been this bad? Anyone? :mad::mad::mad:

[/rant]

[ronaldo]

OK, so I checked Drudge today and saw this:



So here's the thing. I cannot take it anymore. Not from the Dems, not from the GOP. We're in the middle of a global war on terror, we have porous borders, a credit crunch, rising energy prices, a potential conflict with Iran, we're not doing jack shit about immigration, out of control social spending and about ONE MILLION OTHER PROBLEMS to deal with....

So what does Congress do? We have one party that puts it's majority leader out front to attack a goddamned talk radio host over his comments, and the other tries to pass a resolution commending him! Bravo! That's doin' work, ya'll!

I am beginning to come around to the view that we need to completely clean house. I've always been critical of the Vote Out All Incumbents kind of thinking, but seriously dude....WE HAVE TO SHUT THESE PEOPLE UP...ALL OF THEM. Shut the fuck up and get to work. Fix immigration and border security. Fix social security. Create a real energy policy for the short, mid and long term. Hell, go out a sing God Bless America again like you did on 9/12/2001....even that will be better than this.

Has it always been this bad? Anyone? :mad::mad::mad:

[/rant]

It has always been bad, just not this bad. These people are all bunch of idiots.
I agree vote them all out and start over from scratch.

[screener]

No mention of Bush?

Is he irrelevant now?

Is he the bull or the tits.

[@_@ Artman]

Has it always been this bad? Anyone? :mad::mad::mad:

[/rant]

Yes, it's good to see these glimmers of clarity from you. But don't get your back all out of whack (I hope safe and successful operation honestly).

After your surgery and recovery, stay off them pills and soon you'll see the fog of 6 years be lifted. :smokey:

I think the system is completely broken. They have no focus or drive. Blinded by power, greed and stupidity. The only thing that will change this clowncar of a government is an electoral change or complete anarchy.

A third (forth, fifth...) party would help...:\

[Fellowship]

OK, so I checked Drudge today and saw this:



So here's the thing. I cannot take it anymore. Not from the Dems, not from the GOP. We're in the middle of a global war on terror, we have porous borders, a credit crunch, rising energy prices, a potential conflict with Iran, we're not doing jack shit about immigration, out of control social spending and about ONE MILLION OTHER PROBLEMS to deal with....

So what does Congress do? We have one party that puts it's majority leader out front to attack a goddamned talk radio host over his comments, and the other tries to pass a resolution commending him! Bravo! That's doin' work, ya'll!

I am beginning to come around to the view that we need to completely clean house. I've always been critical of the Vote Out All Incumbents kind of thinking, but seriously dude....WE HAVE TO SHUT THESE PEOPLE UP...ALL OF THEM. Shut the fuck up and get to work. Fix immigration and border security. Fix social security. Create a real energy policy for the short, mid and long term. Hell, go out a sing God Bless America again like you did on 9/12/2001....even that will be better than this.

Has it always been this bad? Anyone? :mad::mad::mad:

[/rant]

My thing is:

MoveOn.org can say what the hell they wany in the NYT.

Rush Limbaugh can say what the hell he wants on his show.

What is the waste of time is when the media, talking heads, political leaders waste time discussing crap like this which has no business consuming the time of this government with as much as it needs to do to clean the house it has trashed.

Mock outrage is a waste of time for everyone and it distracts from the business which does need to be tended to.

You say: "I am beginning to come around to the view that we need to completely clean house"

I say: Ron Paul needs your vote.


Fellows

[NOFEER]

the less they do the better for us.....when ever they do anything we get hurt....how about a law that says what ever they force us to do they also must do....they must follow their own laws.

[SDW2001]

Yes, it's good to see these glimmers of clarity from you. But don't get your back all out of whack (I hope safe and successful operation honestly).

After your surgery and recovery, stay off them pills and soon you'll see the fog of 6 years be lifted. :smokey:

I think the system is completely broken. They have no focus or drive. Blinded by power, greed and stupidity. The only thing that will change this clowncar of a government is an electoral change or complete anarchy.

A third (forth, fifth...) party would help...:\

:lol::lol::lol: I like that term.

[SDW2001]

My thing is:

MoveOn.org can say what the hell they wany in the NYT.

Rush Limbaugh can say what the hell he wants on his show.

What is the waste of time is when the media, talking heads, political leaders waste time discussing crap like this which has no business consuming the time of this government with as much as it needs to do to clean the house it has trashed.

Mock outrage is a waste of time for everyone and it distracts from the business which does need to be tended to.

You say: "I am beginning to come around to the view that we need to completely clean house"

Agreed up til here....



I say: Ron Paul needs your vote.


Fellows

He has a lot of attractive qualities. I just think the guy goes too far. He's not just libertarian, he's an isolationist. He makes good points about wars needing to be declared (usually), foreign oil dependance, etc. Where he goes off the deep end is his call to disband the CIA, NSA, pull all troops out of...well, everywhere, etc. It sounds good but it's not realistic. He's also not electable, so I would view it as a wasted vote I think.

[Jubelum]

No mention of Bush?
Is he irrelevant now
Is he the bull or the tits.

:lol: What a silly obsession.

See that big "CONGRESS" in the thread title.

Let's say it all together.... "C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S"

[screener]

:lol: What a silly obsession.

See that big "CONGRESS" in the thread title.

Let's say it all together.... "C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S"

Just as silly as your Chilean Sea Bass obsession.

[trick fall]

Incompetence, stupidity, greed, corruption etcetera, etcetera cross all party lines.

[SpamSandwich]

OK, so I checked Drudge today and saw this:



So here's the thing. I cannot take it anymore. Not from the Dems, not from the GOP. We're in the middle of a global war on terror, we have porous borders, a credit crunch, rising energy prices, a potential conflict with Iran, we're not doing jack shit about immigration, out of control social spending and about ONE MILLION OTHER PROBLEMS to deal with....

So what does Congress do? We have one party that puts it's majority leader out front to attack a goddamned talk radio host over his comments, and the other tries to pass a resolution commending him! Bravo! That's doin' work, ya'll!

I am beginning to come around to the view that we need to completely clean house. I've always been critical of the Vote Out All Incumbents kind of thinking, but seriously dude....WE HAVE TO SHUT THESE PEOPLE UP...ALL OF THEM. Shut the fuck up and get to work. Fix immigration and border security. Fix social security. Create a real energy policy for the short, mid and long term. Hell, go out a sing God Bless America again like you did on 9/12/2001....even that will be better than this.

Has it always been this bad? Anyone? :mad::mad::mad:

[/rant]

You sound like you're coming around... to the Libertarian viewpoint. Congratulations.

[SpamSandwich]

Agreed up til here....



He has a lot of attractive qualities. I just think the guy goes too far. He's not just libertarian, he's an isolationist. He makes good points about wars needing to be declared (usually), foreign oil dependance, etc. Where he goes off the deep end is his call to disband the CIA, NSA, pull all troops out of...well, everywhere, etc. It sounds good but it's not realistic. He's also not electable, so I would view it as a wasted vote I think.

Ridiculous. No vote is wasted. Voters, on the other hand... :lol:

[Jubelum]

Just as silly as your Chilean Sea Bass obsession.

I'm getting 4 Sea Bass per mile, thank you.

(And a months-old signature is not an obsession... posting the same "but what about BUSH!" in every thread is.)

[midwinter]

Whew! I'm glad SDW came to his senses about this after the Republicans voted to condemn the MoveOn.org ad!

[Jubelum]

The Texas Transsexual Bovine Association has an issue with the lack of sensitivity within the title of this thread...

Udderly amazing. :no:

[shetline]

You sound like you're coming around... to the Libertarian viewpoint. Congratulations.
How is complaining about Congress not getting anything done "coming around... to the Libertarian viewpoint"? Doing nothing is precisely what a Libertarian Congress would be all about -- at least after a burst of activity to dismantle practically everything just before sitting on their asses and obstructing everything else.

[iPoster]

IMHO, the only thing that will change government and get actual work done, short of an actual revolution, would be banning political parties. Use a percentage of federal taxes and private donations to create one fund pot that all campaign donations are put into, divide it evenly between all candidates. Ban all PACs, 527s and corporate donations.

Political parties today exist solely to serve themselves and the special interests that fill their party coffers, NOT to listen to the people. Members are expected to toe the party line, no original thought, actual problem solving, or free thinking allowed (see McCain in 2000). This goes for both parties. Make the politicians run on their own actual ideas instead of party platforms. Of course, it would probably require a revolution to make it happen, the present ruling class would never allow their power base to erode.

:mad::mad::mad:

IRT the Ron Paul discussion, I just had to post this:

http://www.rockwoodcomic.com/toons/07-1001.GIF

[southside grabowski]

This is all about our pathetic leaders (All parties included) making something out of nothing to avoid doing anything. Pander to the base on the trivial and avoid hard decisions.

[midwinter]

Whew! I'm glad Southside came to his sense before the Senate did something really useless like vote to condemn the MoveOn.org ad!

[Jubelum]

Whew! I'm glad Southside came to his sense before the Senate did something really useless like vote to condemn the MoveOn.org ad!

If nothing else, the Democrats are getting better at maneuvering... like getting a 12 year old to do the radio address and smearing Limbaugh for comments taken miles out of context. Hey, fight fire with fire I say.

[southside grabowski]

Whew! I'm glad Southside came to his sense before the Senate did something really useless like vote to condemn the MoveOn.org ad!

My post was all inclusive.

[midwinter]

My post was all inclusive.

Did I say it wasn't? I said it was late.

My point is that when Republicans were doing dumb stuff like this a few weeks ago, none of you conservatives said a damned thing. Now that tyhe Dems have started doing it, too, NOW you guys are coming out and complaining about wasted time.

[giant]

posting the same "but what about BUSH!" in every thread is.
Whereas packing each post full of tired republican talking points and impulsive defenses based on inaccurate speculation is the mark of a truly trailblazing and independent thinker.

[@_@ Artman]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20071001/ltr071001.gif

[screener]

Whereas packing each post full of tired republican talking points and impulsive defenses based on inaccurate speculation is the mark of a truly trailblazing and independent thinker.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Jubelum]

Whereas packing each post full of tired republican talking points and impulsive defenses based on inaccurate speculation is the mark of a truly trailblazing and independent thinker.

...As opposed to packing each post full of the same tired left-wing crap that failed through most of the 20th Century, and making incredible claims absent any nod to human nature is also truly trailblazing, independent thought.

[Jubelum]

Farm analogies?

It works in fly-over country... :smokey:

[Fellowship]

This is all about our pathetic leaders (All parties included) making something out of nothing to avoid doing anything. Pander to the base on the trivial and avoid hard decisions.

100% CORRECT!

This is why the "base" on either side needs to grow a pair and start to think on their own... instead of being played by these worthless political leaders as they set aside true issues / problems for the purposes of dealing with trivial BS.

Fellowship

[jimmac]

Whereas packing each post full of tired republican talking points and impulsive defenses based on inaccurate speculation is the mark of a truly trailblazing and independent thinker.


He doesn't want to see that part because he's an independent libertarian.;)

[@_@ Artman]

Dear U.S. Senate,

Stop wasting your time on this shit. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/02/16699/)

Sincerely,

The American People

P.S. End the occupation or we'll have you all fired
and working at McDonald's. :mad:

[SDW2001]

You sound like you're coming around... to the Libertarian viewpoint. Congratulations.

I really am more of a libertarian anyway. Always have been.

[SDW2001]

Whew! I'm glad SDW came to his senses about this after the Republicans voted to condemn the MoveOn.org ad!


I don't think it was needed, but it's also not the same thing. Limbaugh is a talk show host, not the commander of American forces in Iraq giving a progress report on the war. I see a difference in preemptively and publicly attacking someone like that....which can arguably harm the war effort and be used as enemy propaganda.

[iPoster]

I don't think it was needed, but it's also not the same thing. Limbaugh is a talk show host, not the commander of American forces in Iraq giving a progress report on the war. I see a difference in preemptively and publicly attacking someone like that....which can arguably harm the war effort and be used as enemy propaganda.

http://i23.tinypic.com/dlrkfd.jpg

[SDW2001]

http://i23.tinypic.com/dlrkfd.jpg

Oh stop. I'm not talking about criticizing the man or the war itself. I'm talking about calling him a traitor in the New York Times. Now tell me that's the same as the Limbaugh thing....even if he did make the comments in the context the Dems claimed.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/100507_ObamaTEXT.jpg

[jimmac]

It has always been bad, just not this bad. These people are all bunch of idiots.
I agree vote them all out and start over from scratch.

I agree.

However right now with what we have an independent can't possibly be a serious candidate. All that will do is sap votes from one side or another.

It's just that time and again the GOP put someone like Bush in office and that's far scarier than anything the Democrats come up with. So I generally side with the Democrats so we don't have something like we have right now.

I think you'll see this same attitude in recent polls of the American people.

[SDW2001]

I agree.

However right now with what we have an independent can't possibly be a serious candidate. All that will do is sap votes from one side or another.

It's just that time and again the GOP put someone like Bush in office and that's far scarier than anything the Democrats come up with. So I generally side with the Democrats so we don't have something like we have right now.

I think you'll see this same attitude in recent polls of the American people.

I agree with point one. Point two is your opinion, which you're entitled to....I would just like to know who you mean other than Bush? Gore was sort of scary with not knowing who he was and saying anything to get elected (he was smart though, I give him that). Kerry was douche bag and despite the arrogant boston elitist thing he had going on, I don't think he was/is very intelligent at all. Clinton was wholly undisciplined and really screwed us up security wise, but he had charisma and moved towards the right economically in his second term.

In any case, for me it comes down to two extremely flawed parties, one of which will protect the country and keep taxes low, and one that won't. Both will spend like drunken whores and Chip 'n Dales and both like power more than getting things done. I just don't see how you come to to conclusion that dems are the lesser two two evils.

[screener]

In any case, for me it comes down to two extremely flawed parties, one of which will protect the country and keep taxes low, and one that won't. Both will spend like drunken whores and Chip 'n Dales and both like power more than getting things done. I just don't see how you come to to conclusion that dems are the lesser two two evils.

If they both spend like drunken whores, wouldn't the party that pays as it spends be better in the long run?

Or are you okay with the kids or grandkids, or great grandkids pay for fiscally irresponsible actions that put a coupla more bucks in your pocket now.

[SDW2001]

If they both spend like drunken whores, wouldn't the party that pays as it spends be better in the long run?

Or are you okay with the kids or grandkids, or great grandkids pay for fiscally irresponsible actions that put a coupla more bucks in your pocket now.

Oh come on. You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? Which party balanced the budget in the first place? Hint: It wasn't The Democratic Party and it wasn't Bill Clinton.

[screener]

Oh come on. You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? Which party balanced the budget in the first place? Hint: It wasn't The Democratic Party and it wasn't Bill Clinton.

Is balancing your budget the same as decreasing your debt?
Balancing your payments is the first step to decreasing said debt.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

While the debt did go up every year during Johnson’s time in office (1963-69), he was the last president before Clinton to submit a balanced budget, and Johnson did this during a time of a very hot Cold War. Johnson’s average was a debt increase of 3% for the six years he served. He had a Democratic Congress to work with all his years in office.

In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.

When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8].

Dispute this, please.

[screener]

SDW, at least give it a shot.

More thoughtless opinions he can't back up, par......

[jimmac]

I agree with point one. Point two is your opinion, which you're entitled to....I would just like to know who you mean other than Bush? Gore was sort of scary with not knowing who he was and saying anything to get elected (he was smart though, I give him that). Kerry was douche bag and despite the arrogant boston elitist thing he had going on, I don't think he was/is very intelligent at all. Clinton was wholly undisciplined and really screwed us up security wise, but he had charisma and moved towards the right economically in his second term.

In any case, for me it comes down to two extremely flawed parties, one of which will protect the country and keep taxes low, and one that won't. Both will spend like drunken whores and Chip 'n Dales and both like power more than getting things done. I just don't see how you come to to conclusion that dems are the lesser two two evils.


Ok well Nixon comes to mind right off the bat as someone who ordered men to break into a private establishment without going through the courts ( that's breaking and entering ) for the purpose of influencing a presidental election.

And he said years later he was justified and would do it again.

There are others but like I've said before we've already been over this in triplicate and you always try to downplay it and make excuses for their actions.

For some reason they always seem to come up with guys that must have you conform to their way of thought. Also they seem to be under the mistaken idea that they are above the law.

Because of their basic implications those things for me are scary in a leader.

[SDW2001]

Ok well Nixon comes to mind right off the bat as someone who ordered men to break into a private establishment without going through the courts ( that's breaking and entering ) for the purpose of influencing a presidental election.

And he said years later he was justified and would do it again.

There are others but like I've said before we've already been over this in triplicate and you always try to downplay it and make excuses for their actions.

For some reason they always seem to come up with guys that must have you conform to their way of thought. Also they seem to be under the mistaken idea that they are above the law.

Because of their basic implications those things for me are scary in a leader.


Wait...you're actually bring up Nixon? You're really letting a man's actions from 35 years ago determine your choice of political party today?

[SDW2001]

Is balancing your budget the same as decreasing your debt?
Balancing your payments is the first step to decreasing said debt.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm








Dispute this, please.

You absolutely MUST be kidding me.

1. That is wholly unsupported. While it's true that debt went up dramatically during Reagan's time, there were many reasons for it. Reagan actually believed in balancing the budget. However, he soon came to see the Soviets as the greater threat. Winning the Cold War required us to outspend them militarily to demonstrate that our system could handle it, and their couldn't. It worked. Reagan was also dealing with a Democratic Congress...don't forget that.

As for today, I've been very critical of overspending. However, there are again some valid reasons. The WOT is expensive, and we had a recession developing when Bush came into office. That doesn't excuse this administration's penchant for discretionary spending and expanding entitlements, but it's a factor. Also, revenue has not been the issue...spending has. Revenue has go up dramatically during Bush's tenure.

2. What a lollipop view. Clinton pushed for and got a massive tax increase....one of the biggest in history..and on the MIDDLE class. The first few years of his administration were not exactly stellar economically. It wasn't until 1996 that economic growth exploded as a result of the dot-com and tech booms. Supporters of Clinton are unable to point to a single thing he did to aid the economy. The issue here is that you're confusing the economy with fiscal policy. They're not one in the same. You're also crediting him with things h frankly had no part in.

As for the budget: Clinton was forced to come to center-right economically to win reelection. He was unpopular through 1995 due to the tax increase and the Hillarycare fiasco. It turns out that the Republican Congress was the entity that pushed for a got a balanced budget as part of their Contract with America. It's true that he endured "personal attacks," but I don't see what that has to do with anything. He brought much of it on himself. Secondly, GWB has endured at least as many if not more, and the economy has been even better in some ways than during the "fantastic" 1990s. Unemployment, job creation, the market, etc....it's been at least as good. And unlike Clinton, it was a result of the two big tax cuts that actually resulted in more, not less revenue.

3. "A failed economic policy." What exactly is that? Tax cuts stimulate the economy. It's a fact. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. Tax cuts do not result in less revenue in the long term because the overall economy and tax base grows. It's proven.

And this is the problem with your argument: The deficit is NOT the result of tax cuts, it's the result of overspending. It's the result of things like the medicare prescription drug bill, pork projects, welfare, etc. But liberals from what I can see do not want to change these things. I'm not denying that Republicans as of late have been behind these things. I fully realize that....that's one reason they lost the most recent election. But the problem is not "failed economic policies." It's failed fiscal policies...in other words...spending.

[screener]

You absolutely MUST be kidding me.

Supporters of Clinton are unable to point to a single thing he did to aid the economy.

Try this, on Clinton, by Bruce Bartlett.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200407070838.asp
I had an interesting experience last week. I wrote an article for the New York Times on Bill Clinton’s economic record. I concluded that looking only at this aspect of his presidency, he wasn’t so bad. In many respects, he was better than George W. Bush has been. Reading this, a number of commentators mistakenly thought that I now think Clinton was a good president. This is a misreading of the point I was trying to make.

I simply recited the facts. The budget went from deficit to surplus on Clinton’s watch and lower spending played a key role. He even abolished an entitlement program through welfare reform. By contrast, the deficit has exploded under Bush, in part because spending has risen well above what can reasonably be justified by the recession, Iraq, and homeland security. And he is the first Republican president in history to create a new entitlement program (for prescription drugs).

He goes on to say,

But much of the 2001-2003 tax cuts was wasted on worthless give-aways that did nothing either to improve the tax system or stimulate growth.

It was then that I started looking more fondly at the Clinton experience. Like disco music, it seemed awful compared to what came before. But compared to what came after, it looks a lot better.

Now Bartlett is no democrat, but on economic policy, well, you can read.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. It's a fact.

On tax cuts,

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”[13]

Commenting on President Bush’s claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, the Economist magazine recently wrote, “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.”[14]

The President’s own Council of Economic Advisors concluded in its Economic Report of the President, 2003, that, “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”[15] The CEA chair at the time was conservative economist Glenn Hubbard.

Now I consider the two links above are unbiased and the authors are knowledgeable in the facts, opinions they state.

Here's a quote from a source you probably think is biased, but what the hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09chait.html?hp
Yet there is no more debate about this question among economists than there is debate about the existence of evolution among biologists. Most economists believe that it is theoretically possible for tax rates to be high enough that a reduction in rates could actually produce more revenues. But I do not know of any tenured economist in the United States who believes this is true of the Bush tax cuts.

[jimmac]

Oh come on. You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? Which party balanced the budget in the first place? Hint: It wasn't The Democratic Party and it wasn't Bill Clinton.

We all have heard from you on what happened in the Bizzaro World!;):lol:

Hint : It didn't go that way here.

[jimmac]

Wait...you're actually bring up Nixon? You're really letting a man's actions from 35 years ago determine your choice of political party today?

That doesn't make it irrelevant.:grumble:

Also on many subjects you've referenced this far back and more.

Besides as I said there have been many other examples right up to and including our current dilemma. Do you really want me to bring those up?

It would be like derailing the thread and I'm sure you don't want that.;)

[@_@ Artman]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
Wait...you're actually bring up Nixon? You're really letting a man's actions from 35 years ago determine your choice of political party today?

http://www.scribblingfoxes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/FordCheneyRumsfeld.jpg

This...:smokey:

[Jubelum]

This...:smokey:

Whew... I thought you might be... well, nevermind....

http://sothathappened.typepad.com/main/images/nixon_elvis_lrg_2.jpg

[@_@ Artman]

I Officially Give up On the Democrats (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10361)

It's going to take a generation to move these spineless Democrats out of office. Unfortunately, that is our only alternative. You can't vote for a Republican these days and the Democrats make you embarrassed to ever be associated with them.

Jack Goldsmith is one of the most conservative lawyers in the country. He was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel for George W. Bush. He is telling you that what the Bush administration did for years in its first term was definitely illegal (that's why he demanded changes in their practices when he was at OLC) and strongly suggesting that what they are doing now might also be illegal.

So, what is the Democratic response? They are considering changing the law to make it legal in hindsight. The equivalent would be if the Republicans tried to pass a law saying it was acceptable to lie under oath after they saw Clinton perjure himself in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Could you imagine?

Of course, not. Because the Republicans are fighters. As loathsome as their policies have been for these last six years, at least I respect their willingness to fight for their side. I also respected President Clinton when he fought back against them, whether it was when Newt Gingrich shut down the government or when they tried to remove him from office.

Read this New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/washington/09cnd-nsa.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1192028680-6ATTvMotKcNrvcxq1WyihA&pagewanted=print). The Democrats are going to help Bush break the FISA law. They are going to change the law so that he doesn't have to get a warrant. They are going to ignore the fourth amendment and current federal laws. Why would you help the least popular president in history? Why would you allow him to keep breaking the law?

The answer is at the end of the article. Interest groups that are working closely with the Democrats explain their primary concern - being called weak on terror. But don't you see, you are weak! Miserably weak. Not because of any actions you might or might not have taken on the war on terror, but because you keep caving into an administration that has no political capital because you don't have the nerve to fight for your principles.

They're not weak. They're complicit.

The democrats and republicans are both members of the same political party, call it the Corporate Party, or the Status Quo Party, or the Imperialism Party. Whatever.

Token opposition to each other is just what they do to get elected. That's all. Their goals are the same; they want to subjugate the world to America, and America to their wealthy paymasters.

The last six years' blatant power grab by the Bush administration was a move which they disagreed with only because they felt it was a bit too bold, and risked backlash. They supported its essential goal.

They want you to believe that they are weak, because that makes it look like they are fighting to control the Bush administration, like they are on your side. They are not weak, and they are not on your side. They are your enemy, and they share every major goal of the Bush administration.

[jimmac]

I Officially Give up On the Democrats (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10361)



They're not weak. They're complicit.

The democrats and republicans are both members of the same political party, call it the Corporate Party, or the Status Quo Party, or the Imperialism Party. Whatever.

Token opposition to each other is just what they do to get elected. That's all. Their goals are the same; they want to subjugate the world to America, and America to their wealthy paymasters.

The last six years' blatant power grab by the Bush administration was a move which they disagreed with only because they felt it was a bit too bold, and risked backlash. They supported its essential goal.

They want you to believe that they are weak, because that makes it look like they are fighting to control the Bush administration, like they are on your side. They are not weak, and they are not on your side. They are your enemy, and they share every major goal of the Bush administration.

Sorry I still think the republicans come up with worse choices and I can site examples.

Of course the conservative element here would try to gloss over these issues but that's still my opinion.

So simple question for you. Which would you rather have had for the last 8 years. Bush or Bill Clinton?

And for this question ( at this point in time ) neither is not a realistic option for your answer as that would never have happened.

The republicans want you to vote for an independent. To throw your vote away. It's all they have left.

There is a basic particle of truth in what you say but as I've said before not voting democrat this time will help give you another republican and the same situation we've had for the last 8 years.

If you like that or believe there is really no difference then go ahead. But I firmily believe there would have been no war with Iraq had we had a republican in the Whitehouse for the last 2 terms. There are a lot of other things I could add to that item.

[@_@ Artman]

Sorry I still think the republicans come up with worse choices and I can site examples.

Of course the conservative element here would try to gloss over these issues but that's still my opinion.

So simple question for you. Which would you rather have had for the last 8 years. Bush or Bill Clinton?

And for this question ( at this point in time ) neither is not a realistic option.

Good question. The answer is Al Gore. BUT, the question itself is way too hypothetical. We would just not know who would have changed the course of history. Only theorize.

[jimmac]

Good question. The answer is Al Gore. BUT, the question itself is way too hypothetical. We would just not know who would have changed the course of history. Only theorize.


I think you can be reasonably sure Iraq was a Bush exclusive. Otherwise Clinton would have done it during his 2 terms in office.

Assuming both sides are really the same.;)

[Jubelum]

They're complicit.


Ding! Ding! Ding!

That, friends, is the reason that none of the Democratic contenders would vow to end the war in Iraq if elected. For all the wailing and gnashing to teeth in DC, we are doing very little different, besides having cute little sleep-overs and demagoguing the massive expansion of SCHIP. Congrats.

Now, politics is full of "coming to your senses," and the Democrat leadership has come to theirs re: the reality of Iraq. Now it is time for those leaders to break the news to their supporters- who mostly voted for them to end the war. Those supporters are about to find out that... oh, never mind.

Did I mention that you are right and we're never leaving? Especially with how hard we've had to work to get that pretty new Barbie Dreamhouse of an embassy built. Never. Leaving. Not in our lifetimes.

[@_@ Artman]

Did I mention that you are right and we're never leaving? Especially with how hard we've had to work to get that pretty new Barbie Dreamhouse of an embassy built. Never. Leaving. Not in our lifetimes.

http://www.antiwar.com/comment/0900631b805e1807L.jpg

OMG...it's real... (http://www.antiwar.com/comment/jcpenney.html)

:lol::D:\:embarrass:no:

[jimmac]

http://www.antiwar.com/comment/0900631b805e1807L.jpg

OMG...it's real... (http://www.antiwar.com/comment/jcpenney.html)

:lol::D:\:embarrass:no:


We'll see. I think what you're saying also has a particle of truth. Let's see if it really plays out like that.

The notion is built on a lot of assumptions. Also the conservatives would love independent votes taken away from the democrats in the next election because they know it's not going to go their way. I think that's the real reason you have people like SDW suddenly " coming to their senses ". They still love and support this occupation. So for them basically what you're saying is ok.

[SDW2001]

.

Try this, on Clinton, by Bruce Bartlett.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200407070838.asp


He goes on to say,



Now Bartlett is no democrat, but on economic policy, well, you can read.



On tax cuts,

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm


Now I consider the two links above are unbiased and the authors are knowledgeable in the facts, opinions they state.

Here's a quote from a source you probably think is biased, but what the hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09chait.html?hp

I'm not denying there were a number of positive outcomes with Clinton, such as welfare reform, balancing the budget, good growth and unemployment numbers, etc. I'm saying it wasn't his actions and initiatives that caused it.

As for Mankiw, I am aware of his comments. The facts don't support his arguments though. Revenue has gone up dramatically and deficits are less than predicted, even with runaway spending. Historically, cuts do benefit the economy, which creates more taxpayers. Really...having this argument is just silly anymore. Look at federal revenues in the 1980s. They doubled after Reagan's cuts. End of story.

[SDW2001]

Time to retire the feigned incredulity, don't you think?

OK, agreed. ;)

We all have heard from you on what happened in the Bizzaro World!;):lol:

Hint : It didn't go that way here.

The facts are the facts jimmac. You can't change what actually happened. Balancing the budget and welfare reform were Republican initiatives. Sorry, dude. That's just the way it is.

That doesn't make it irrelevant.:grumble:

Also on many subjects you've referenced this far back and more.

Besides as I said there have been many other examples right up to and including our current dilemma. Do you really want me to bring those up?

It would be like derailing the thread and I'm sure you don't want that.;)

I'm still not sure where you're going. You're saying the Richard Nixon's actions are determining your choice of party now. I don't see how that can be. It would be like me refusing to vote Democrat because I didn't like Carter. It's not that we forget about these people, but they shouldn't be determining who we're voting for now.

And yes...go ahead and compare the two currently. I'll enjoy that.

Sorry I still think the republicans come up with worse choices and I can site examples.

Do it.



Of course the conservative element here would try to gloss over these issues but that's still my opinion.

I for one will be happy to debate any issue with you in depth.



So simple question for you. Which would you rather have had for the last 8 years. Bush or Bill Clinton?

I don't see why that is a valid choice. Was Clinton running again? The choice was Gore v. Bush or Bush v. Kerry. It's all about choice....it's one guy vs. the other. Maybe you thought Clinton was running. That would explain it ;)



And for this question ( at this point in time ) neither is not a realistic option for your answer as that would never have happened.

The republicans want you to vote for an independent. To throw your vote away. It's all they have left.

No, they don't want that at all. They absolutely do NOT want a third party, because that all but ensure a Hillary victory come next year.



There is a basic particle of truth in what you say but as I've said before not voting democrat this time will help give you another republican and the same situation we've had for the last 8 years.

A particle perhaps. I wouldn't say it will be "the same." And if it's change on security issues you're looking for, I wouldn't look to Hillary. I actually think she'd be less likely out pull out of Iraq than any Republican at this point.


If you like that or believe there is really no difference then go ahead. But I firmily believe there would have been no war with Iraq had we had a republican in the Whitehouse for the last 2 terms. There are a lot of other things I could add to that item.

You mean "had a democrat" I assume. You might be right...but whyat are you going to do...vote out of anger? Hillary wont' stop there war, jimmac. So now you're down to domestic issues, on which she is basically a socialist. Oh, and you'd have to listen to that voice of hers. ;) Does that appeal to you?

[screener]

I'm not denying there were a number of positive outcomes with Clinton, such as welfare reform, balancing the budget, good growth and unemployment numbers, etc. I'm saying it wasn't his actions and initiatives that caused it.

As for Mankiw, I am aware of his comments. The facts don't support his arguments though. Revenue has gone up dramatically and deficits are less than predicted, even with runaway spending. Historically, cuts do benefit the economy, which creates more taxpayers. Really...having this argument is just silly anymore. Look at federal revenues in the 1980s. They doubled after Reagan's cuts. End of story.

Nothing but opinion, Clinton did nothing positive and Mankiw, who's profession is economics is wrong, and you, a music teacher knows best.
Excuse me, snort.

Clinton reduced the debt the last three years in office, to 5.7 trillion dollars from 6 trillion.

The debt under Bush is now over 9 trillion dollars and no sign of coming down.

Yeah, you know best.

[jimmac]

OK, agreed. ;)



The facts are the facts jimmac. You can't change what actually happened. Balancing the budget and welfare reform were Republican initiatives. Sorry, dude. That's just the way it is.



I'm still not sure where you're going. You're saying the Richard Nixon's actions are determining your choice of party now. I don't see how that can be. It would be like me refusing to vote Democrat because I didn't like Carter. It's not that we forget about these people, but they shouldn't be determining who we're voting for now.

And yes...go ahead and compare the two currently. I'll enjoy that.



Do it.



I for one will be happy to debate any issue with you in depth.



I don't see why that is a valid choice. Was Clinton running again? The choice was Gore v. Bush or Bush v. Kerry. It's all about choice....it's one guy vs. the other. Maybe you thought Clinton was running. That would explain it ;)



No, they don't want that at all. They absolutely do NOT want a third party, because that all but ensure a Hillary victory come next year.



A particle perhaps. I wouldn't say it will be "the same." And if it's change on security issues you're looking for, I wouldn't look to Hillary. I actually think she'd be less likely out pull out of Iraq than any Republican at this point.



You mean "had a democrat" I assume. You might be right...but whyat are you going to do...vote out of anger? Hillary wont' stop there war, jimmac. So now you're down to domestic issues, on which she is basically a socialist. Oh, and you'd have to listen to that voice of hers. ;) Does that appeal to you?


Sorry SDW I'm not buying the " You've come to your senses " idea.:lol:

And Clinton did balance the budget. Sorry but that's the way it was. Like I've said I saw Alan Greenspan recently on " Meet The Press " and he still says Clinton had some of the most sound economic policies of any president. And SDW if we get Hilary we get those again!

As for Hilary I really don't care what she sounds like. I care more about what comes out of a person's mouth like " Smoke em' out! ";)

As for the rest we've already talked about things like Ronny Raygun and the Federal Reserve or The Iran Contra " I can't remember ". Then there was Bush sr and his ineffective term in office. And lastly then we come to our current hairless ape Bush Jr.

These are just samples because really we've been all over this. I would debate with you in depth but the fact of the matter is we've already been there / done that. I really don't want to hear your " Facts " ( again ) laced with a good dose of you subjective opinion. It would be a waste of my time and would only end with you calling me a " Dick " or whatever.

You know what though? I think it will be a democrat next time and I do think it'll be Hilary.

If conservatives don't like it well..... they brought it on themselves.

[SDW2001]

Nothing but opinion, Clinton did nothing positive and Mankiw, who's profession is economics is wrong, and you, a music teacher knows best.
Excuse me, snort.

Clinton reduced the debt the last three years in office, to 5.7 trillion dollars from 6 trillion.

The debt under Bush is now over 9 trillion dollars and no sign of coming down.

Yeah, you know best.

First, don't be condescending and do not insult what I do. I'm no less qualified to comment on this topic than anyone here. Speaking of which, what do you do for a living?

Now: You claim that I am espousing opinions only. This is demonstrably false. I am talking about actual hard data points. I am talking about federal revenues and tax rates. I am talking about actual initiatives, publicly announced and lobbied for by the Republican Congress as part of the Contract With America.

By contrast, you are spouting off unsupported generalities and opinions by stating "Clinton balanced the budget." But that's really disingenuous because while he signed the bill, it wasn't his idea. Also, "he" was only able to "do" that because of the recovering economy and partly from a short term windfall from a massive tax increase on the middle class. I still haven't heard you comment on that one, champ.

Oh, and even if you could demonstrate that balancing the budget was solely and Clinton initiative, that's still not the same as an "economic" initiative. It's a matter of fiscal policy. What did he do to aid the overall economy?

Sorry SDW I'm not buying the " You've come to your senses " idea.:lol:

I've never been without them. I merely am more fed up with Congress than ever before.



And Clinton did balance the budget. Sorry but that's the way it was.

Wow, convincing argument. See my response above, to screener.



As for Hilary I really don't care what she sounds like. I care more about what comes out of a person's mouth like " Smoke em' out! ";)

So she's running against George Bush then? That's the point you seem to forget. Beyond that, have you listened to "what's coming out of her mouth?" Baby bonds? Taking private profits of oil companies? Raising taxes? National healthcare? Not pulling out of Iraq? Not apologizing for her vote and admitting she was wrong? What exactly do you LIKE in what you've heard? I'm just asking.



As for the rest we've already talked about things like Ronny Raygun and the Federal Reserve or The Iran Contra " I can't remember ". Then there was Bush sr and his ineffective term in office. And then we come to our current hairless ape Bush Jr.

I'm honestly not sure of what point you're making, except that you actually believe All Republicans Are Dumb and Evil™



These are just samples because really we've been all over this. I would debate with you in depth but the fact of the matter is we've already been there / done that. I relly don't want to here your " Facts " laced with a good dose of you subjective opinion.

We haven't discussed anything in depth because it is you, sir, you cannot separate fact from opinion. There are plenty of people I disagree with here, but we can still have substantive debate because they an make that distinction. For example, Shawn and I disagree about many issues, but we can still have a good debate. In any case, I remain open to any issue you'd like to discuss...solutions to problems, appropriate policy, etc.



You know what though I think it will be a democrat next time and I do think it'll be Hilary.

If conservatives don't like it well..... they brought it on themselves.

I'm not so sure. She has a good chance given the situation we have at present. That said, her negatives are exceptionally high. As for bringing it on ourselves, I don't know about that one either. I might agree that Republicans brought it on, but not conservatives. Conservatives are the folks that got screwed by the Republican party for the last two to four years.

[SpamSandwich]

I Officially Give up On the Democrats (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10361)



They're not weak. They're complicit.

The democrats and republicans are both members of the same political party, call it the Corporate Party, or the Status Quo Party, or the Imperialism Party. Whatever.

Token opposition to each other is just what they do to get elected. That's all. Their goals are the same; they want to subjugate the world to America, and America to their wealthy paymasters.

The last six years' blatant power grab by the Bush administration was a move which they disagreed with only because they felt it was a bit too bold, and risked backlash. They supported its essential goal.

They want you to believe that they are weak, because that makes it look like they are fighting to control the Bush administration, like they are on your side. They are not weak, and they are not on your side. They are your enemy, and they share every major goal of the Bush administration.

Art, I'm beginning to really respect you... (already respected your command of visual commentary). :smokey:

[jimmac]

First, don't be condescending and do not insult what I do. I'm no less qualified to comment on this topic than anyone here. Speaking of which, what do you do for a living?

Now: You claim that I am espousing opinions only. This is demonstrably false. I am talking about actual hard data points. I am talking about federal revenues and tax rates. I am talking about actual initiatives, publicly announced and lobbied for by the Republican Congress as part of the Contract With America.

By contrast, you are spouting off unsupported generalities and opinions by stating "Clinton balanced the budget." But that's really disingenuous because while he signed the bill, it wasn't his idea. Also, "he" was only able to "do" that because of the recovering economy and partly from a short term windfall from a massive tax increase on the middle class. I still haven't heard you comment on that one, champ.

Oh, and even if you could demonstrate that balancing the budget was solely and Clinton initiative, that's still not the same as an "economic" initiative. It's a matter of fiscal policy. What did he do to aid the overall economy?



I've never been without them. I merely am more fed up with Congress than ever before.



Wow, convincing argument. See my response above, to screener.



So she's running against George Bush then? That's the point you seem to forget. Beyond that, have you listened to "what's coming out of her mouth?" Baby bonds? Taking private profits of oil companies? Raising taxes? National healthcare? Not pulling out of Iraq? Not apologizing for her vote and admitting she was wrong? What exactly do you LIKE in what you've heard? I'm just asking.



I'm honestly not sure of what point you're making, except that you actually believe All Republicans Are Dumb and Evil™



We haven't discussed anything in depth because it is you, sir, you cannot separate fact from opinion. There are plenty of people I disagree with here, but we can still have substantive debate because they an make that distinction. For example, Shawn and I disagree about many issues, but we can still have a good debate. In any case, I remain open to any issue you'd like to discuss...solutions to problems, appropriate policy, etc.



I'm not so sure. She has a good chance given the situation we have at present. That said, her negatives are exceptionally high. As for bringing it on ourselves, I don't know about that one either. I might agree that Republicans brought it on, but not conservatives. Conservatives are the folks that got screwed by the Republican party for the last two to four years.


Yes it's been a couple of years since we've discussed things in depth but the memory makes realize it would be an exercise in futility. You can't get past your blinders and it colors everything you look at.

As for the last paragraph there really isn't much of a chance of the republicans holding on to the Whitehouse. I frequently talk to a friend about our little sparing matches and his reply about the republican chances are " As if anyone with any sense would believe that's still possible ".


As for the Clinton's record and the economy I'm sorry but as Screener says I think I'll trust the expert's opinions over yours. And yes he did increase taxes but the middle class did benifit from it's outcome. It pays to pay for things! Imagine that!

No. I know that Bush won't be president much longer ( Thank God! ) but I don't want another republican in there carrying out the same stupid polices. We need someone in there that will help heal some of the damage that's been happening for ( what will be by then ) the last 8 years. After that we can think about things and alternatives like a 3rd party.

[screener]

First, don't be condescending and do not insult what I do. I'm no less qualified to comment on this topic than anyone here. Speaking of which, what do you do for a living?

By expecting me to believe what you say unquestionably is called what?
Perhaps arrogant and condescending?

If you aren't qualified in an area then you back it up with facts gleaned from sources that are better informed.

If you consider that an insult, so be it.

Now: You claim that I am espousing opinions only. This is demonstrably false. I am talking about actual hard data points. I am talking about federal revenues and tax rates. I am talking about actual initiatives, publicly announced and lobbied for by the Republican Congress as part of the Contract With America.

You're talking about hard facts, show me yours, I showed you mine.

By contrast, you are spouting off unsupported generalities and opinions by stating "Clinton balanced the budget." But that's really disingenuous because while he signed the bill, it wasn't his idea. Also, "he" was only able to "do" that because of the recovering economy and partly from a short term windfall from a massive tax increase on the middle class. I still haven't heard you comment on that one, champ.

An unsupported generality,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment
Major economic growth and spending controls such as welfare reform, favored by both the President and Congress, allowed for a balanced budget (when the Social Security surplus was counted as revenue) by early in Clinton's second term - considerably earlier than what Clinton's own projections for this had indicated and, afterwards, a surplus which actually allowed the retirement of some government debt.

Also the massive tax on the middle class,
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/clintons_tax_increase.HTM
The radical right has lied constantly about Clinton's first budget's tax increases. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they continue to claim that the tax increase hit the middle class, while in reality the Clinton tax increase was targeted at the most wealthy Americans. Let the record speak for itself. The tax tables from the 1040 booklets for the 1992 and 1993 tax years should be all the evidence necessary to tell who told the truth.


Go ahead, look up the tax tables from those years.

Oh, and even if you could demonstrate that balancing the budget was solely and Clinton initiative, that's still not the same as an "economic" initiative. It's a matter of fiscal policy. What did he do to aid the overall economy?


Ask Bartlett. or
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.

I know, he was only responsible for the bad stuff.

[SDW2001]

Yes it's been a couple of years since we've discussed things in depth but the memory makes realize it would be an exercise in futility. You can't get past your blinders and it colors everything you look at.
:lol::lol:

Dodge. Name an issue. I'm waiting.




As for the last paragraph there really isn't much of a chance of the republicans holding on to the Whitehouse. I frequently talk to a friend about our little sparing matches and his reply about the republican chances are " As if anyone with any sense would believe that's still possible ".

I don't see how you support that conclusion. She has a good chance, but he negatives make it tough for her. Republicans will simply not vote for her. Period. She is a a polarizing figure, and the Republicans plan to take full advantage of that.




As for the Clinton's record and the economy I'm sorry but as Screener says I think I'll trust the expert's opinions over yours. And yes he did increase taxes but the middle class did benifit from it's outcome. It pays to pay for things! Imagine that!

Experts can't change the facts, jimmac. And really...tell me, as a middle class person, how I "benefited" in the slightest. I agree that deficits are undesirable, but explain how "Clinton's plan" actually helped me.



No. I know that Bush won't be president much longer ( Thank God! ) but I don't want another republican in there carrying out the same stupid polices. We need someone in there that will help heal some of the damage that's been happening for ( what will be by then ) the last 8 years. After that we can think about things and alternatives like a 3rd party.

You haven't answered the question. What do you like about Hillary? She is certainly not going to "heal the damage" as you put it. If you think she will, please identify how.

[SDW2001]

By expecting me to believe what you say unquestionably is called what?
Perhaps arrogant and condescending?

If you aren't qualified in an area then you back it up with facts gleaned from sources that are better informed.

If you consider that an insult, so be it.

Care to answer my question? What do you do for a living and what qualifies you to debate the issue better than me?



You're talking about hard facts, show me yours, I showed you mine.
:lol:

You posted opinions. Jesus Christ! Do you really need me to look up the revenue numbers for you? Are you that intellectually lazy?

Fair enough: When Reagan came into office, revenues were about $450 billion a year. By the end of his terms, after the tax cuts, revenues were about $900 billion. Go look at the data yourself.




An unsupported generality,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment

Supported by both does not mean that it was his idea. And it's still fiscal policy as opposed to economic stimulus.



Also the massive tax on the middle class,
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/clintons_tax_increase.HTM

Factually, this is bullshit. Clinton even publicly apologized for his tax increase...it's just that it was so "necessary."

Go ahead, look up the tax tables from those years. In fact, I'll do it for you:

President Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly, the trend toward lower marginal tax rates had been reversed, but, as it turns out, only temporarily.

Source: US Treasury.

Oh, and as for the cause of the good fiscal picture:


Despite the higher tax rates, other economic fundamentals such as low inflation and low interest rates, an improved international picture with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the advent of a qualitatively and quantitatively new information technologies led to a strong economic performance throughout the 1990s.

Now, here are some more data points:

Top tax rate, through 1992: 31%

Top tax rate after Clinton increase: 39.6%

The Clinton tax increase also added new brackets. Prior to the package, there were three brackets...15%, 28%, and 31%. After, there were five...15/28/21/36/39.6. That means that a household earning over $89,000 (approx) a year saw a dramatic tax increase. Now, I know to a good poor lib like yourself, that sounds "rich." But consider that two average teachers in the Northeast might make $50,000 a year each. Those people got taken for thousands of dollars. So much for a tax on the "rich."

By contrast, Bush's proposal lowered the bottom brackets to 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 31% and 35%. It saved middle and middle-upper income thousands of dollars. I myself saw an immediate $600 a year raise from the original tax cuts. Then I saw more in 2003.


Ask Bartlett. or
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html


I know, he was only responsible for the bad stuff.

Yes, but what did he do to get those results? We had an economy that was in tech-boom mode. That had nothing to do with "William Jefferson Clinton." The man was lucky. Without the natural business cycle upswing and the tech/dot-com boom, Clinton would be considered an irrelevant and ineffective President. But he got lucky, didn't he?

[screener]

Care to answer my question? What do you do for a living and what qualifies you to debate the issue better than me?

Are you that intellectually lazy?

Clinton would be considered an irrelevant and ineffective President. But he got lucky, didn't he?

What I do is irrelevant as I'm not "intellectually lazy", where have I heard that before, Artman's term, I think, getting frustrated with you for not providing proof of your positions.
Copying, pasting a link is pretty easy, you ought to try it.

If you found a source to back up what you believe, than provide the link.

All you've done, yet again is give some facts without a link.
Why?

[jimmac]

:lol::lol:

Dodge. Name an issue. I'm waiting.



I don't see how you support that conclusion. She has a good chance, but he negatives make it tough for her. Republicans will simply not vote for her. Period. She is a a polarizing figure, and the Republicans plan to take full advantage of that.



Experts can't change the facts, jimmac. And really...tell me, as a middle class person, how I "benefited" in the slightest. I agree that deficits are undesirable, but explain how "Clinton's plan" actually helped me.



You haven't answered the question. What do you like about Hillary? She is certainly not going to "heal the damage" as you put it. If you think she will, please identify how.


I can't tell you how you benefited in your situation which is obviously isolated ( I love this one after your " Out of the way " comment about Oregon regarding the recession ) and you don't feel the effects that most of the rest of us do.

The thing you don't get ( the other thing my friend always says about you is " He actually still thinks that's still a possibility? " ) is making it tough on someone is that " The republican Party is on fire and it's raining gasoline " . God I love that thread title. Nail on the head.

I'm not dodging anything. I just refuse to play ball with someone who always before found it impossible to be objective. I've listened to you with others and you still can't be objective.

Psst! The experts say the same thing SDW! What do you think they were talking about in reference to his good economic policies?:no:

In 2008 we'll be moving on without you I guess.;)

[jimmac]

What I do is irrelevant as I'm not "intellectually lazy", where have I heard that before, Artman's term, I think, getting frustrated with you for not providing proof of your positions.
Copying, pasting a link is pretty easy, you ought to try it.

If you found a source to back up what you believe, than provide the link.

All you've done, yet again is give some facts without a link.
Why?


Exactly!

Here's a link for him!

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

[jimmac]

Good question. The answer is Al Gore. BUT, the question itself is way too hypothetical. We would just not know who would have changed the course of history. Only theorize.


I wish he would run now. It would be a shoe-in!

Also there would be certain sense of justice since he won the popular vote back in 2000.

Not Bush.

[jimmac]

Tits on a bull would be amusing now that I think of it.


Are you saying you're bullish on tits?:lol:

[SDW2001]

What I do is irrelevant as I'm not "intellectually lazy", where have I heard that before, Artman's term, I think, getting frustrated with you for not providing proof of your positions.
Copying, pasting a link is pretty easy, you ought to try it.

If you found a source to back up what you believe, than provide the link.

All you've done, yet again is give some facts without a link.
Why?

Whatever. You know those figures I've provided are accurate. I've already posted the actual links over the years, and I'm not going to do it again just to satisfy your need to have a pissing contest.

I can't tell you how you benefited in your situation which is obviously isolated ( I love this one after your " Out of the way " comment about Oregon regarding the recession ) and you don't feel the effects that most of the rest of us do.

You still don't get it. MY situation is not unique. I am middle income. There are literally millions of people like me who benefited. If there is a factor you feel make my non-representative of people in my income bracket, please post it.



The thing you don't get ( the other thing my friend always says about you is " He actually still thinks that's still a possibility? " ) is making it tough on someone is that " The republican Party is on fire and it's raining gasoline " . God I love that thread title. Nail on the head.

Stick to your own arguments. I care not about your "friend."



I'm not dodging anything. I just refuse to play ball with someone who always before found it impossible to be objective. I've listened to you with others and you still can't be objective.

:lol::lol: This coming from someone who clearly doesn't even know what "objective" means. Oh, and pssst: One doesn't have to be "objective' when stating his personal opinion. One merely needs facts to support it. I've offered to debate any ISSUE with you three times now, and you've refused. The reason, imo, is that you don't care to actually talk about issues. You want to post one liners, such as "no one's buying today" and "give it up, SDW...jeez!" and "Bush is going down."




Psst! The experts say the same thing SDW! What do you think they were talking about in reference to his good economic policies?:no:

In 2008 we'll be moving on without you I guess.;)

The "experts" can't change the facts, jimmac. Revenues and tax rates are a matter of historical record. They're expressing opinions, many of which rely on subjective statements ;) and microanalysis of the data at hand.

Exactly!

Here's a link for him!

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

Gee...let me guess. Opinion? Written with clear pro-Clinton POV? Subjective statements? Check! Check! Check!

[screener]

I wish he would run now. It would be a shoe-in!

Also there would be certain sense of justice since he won the popular vote back in 2000.

Not Bush.

I don't know about shoe in.

You'd have to deal with crap like Jubelum's Sea Bass crap.

Remember, the right wing is good at spreading said crap to the dopes that buy it by hiding behind the enablers that allow it.

[screener]

Whatever. You know those figures I've provided are accurate. I've already posted the actual links over the years, and I'm not going to do it again just to satisfy your need to have a pissing contest.

Whatever.....

and you call me intellectually lazy.

[SDW2001]

Whatever.....

and you call me intellectually lazy.

So let me get this straight: You are asking me to repost information that is common knowledge? Info on federal revenues and tax rates is readily available. Yet, you stick to the "you're not posting links" tactic because you're holding out some small hope, however miniscule, that you might be right. But you're not. In fact, by not posting the data, I'm saving you some major headaches. I think in the interest of your self-esteem, you should look up the data on historical tax rates and government revenues (especially in the 1980s) and then just send me a PM to admit your were wrong. :)

[screener]

So let me get this straight: You are asking me to repost information that is common knowledge? Info on federal revenues and tax rates is readily available. Yet, you stick to the "you're not posting links" tactic because you're holding out some small hope, however miniscule, that you might be right. But you're not. In fact, by not posting the data, I'm saving you some major headaches. I think in the interest of your self-esteem, you should look up the data on historical tax rates and government revenues (especially in the 1980s) and then just send me a PM to admit your were wrong. :)

Go ahead, Make my day.

Bring it on.

[SDW2001]

Go ahead, Make my day.

Bring it on.

Fair enough, champ. Here are two charts to get you started:

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8428/r2lc5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1292/r3pq0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Now, let's look at some more....on the Reagan tax cuts:

*Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. Source: US OMB.

*Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990

*This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990


Oh, but of course: The rich pay less and poor pay more. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/306/bg1415cht3xa3.gif (http://imageshack.us)



But wait...there's still more....

Total revenues in FY 2001: 1.991 Trillion. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/pdf/hist.pdf

Throughout the recession, revenues decreases to about 1.7 Trillion. However, after the 2003 tax cuts, revenues began to go up, not down once again. Federal Revenue for FY 2006 was approximately 2.2 Trillion, or more than 10% higher than when tax rates were considerably higher in 2001.

Lessons: The economy affects revenue, tax cuts boost the economy. Higher tax rates, while often producing a short term windfall, depress economic activity and thereby reduce revenues in the long term. If you follow the revenue tables, you'll see that when recessions occurred, tax revenue fell. So the primary goal has to be to keep the economy moving. Just raising rates is short-sighted.

All that said, we're overspending. But that's another thing.

[midwinter]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc.jpg

[jimmac]

Whatever. You know those figures I've provided are accurate. I've already posted the actual links over the years, and I'm not going to do it again just to satisfy your need to have a pissing contest.



You still don't get it. MY situation is not unique. I am middle income. There are literally millions of people like me who benefited. If there is a factor you feel make my non-representative of people in my income bracket, please post it.



Stick to your own arguments. I care not about your "friend."



:lol::lol: This coming from someone who clearly doesn't even know what "objective" means. Oh, and pssst: One doesn't have to be "objective' when stating his personal opinion. One merely needs facts to support it. I've offered to debate any ISSUE with you three times now, and you've refused. The reason, imo, is that you don't care to actually talk about issues. You want to post one liners, such as "no one's buying today" and "give it up, SDW...jeez!" and "Bush is going down."



The "experts" can't change the facts, jimmac. Revenues and tax rates are a matter of historical record. They're expressing opinions, many of which rely on subjective statements ;) and microanalysis of the data at hand.



Gee...let me guess. Opinion? Written with clear pro-Clinton POV? Subjective statements? Check! Check! Check!



Like I said you can't be objective ( shrugs ).:rolleyes::no:

[Jubelum]

SDW- you've been undermatched. ;)

[SDW2001]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc.jpg

Expand that chart to 12 degrees variance an go back more than 1,000 years...then tell me you're still concerned.

Like I said you can't be objective ( shrugs ).:rolleyes::no:

:lol: I think you actually might have proved my point better than I could. Kudos!


SDW- you've been undermatched. ;)

Yeah really. As I've said, with each post he proves my assertions about him more and more. jimmac wouldn't know a hard data point if it bit him in his liberal white pimply ass.

[jimmac]

Expand that chart to 12 degrees variance an go back more than 1,000 years...then tell me you're still concerned.



:lol: I think you actually might have proved my point better than I could. Kudos!




Yeah really. As I've said, with each post he proves my assertions about him more and more. jimmac wouldn't know a hard data point if it bit him in his liberal white pimply ass.


:lol:

Jesus!:lol:

God you guys are so full of yourselves! How could you judge world events when you can't even get past your own egos!

But when you're backed into a corner ( about the way things are going I have no delusions about changing your minds ) you've got to either run for cover or fein superiority.;)


Sorry SDW you lost all these arguments long ago when you couldn't effectively reply to the multiple times I've supplied you with hard data.

Hint : Saying it's an anti war site doesn't change the fact that hard data with links was referenced there so you could check it yourself.

It really doesn't bother me however. Because soon Dubbya and his little house of cards will be gone and we might acutally have an adult running things again.

And no Jube I still can't read your posts. Only when someone quotes you ( fortunately not many do ). It's so funny all the times you said you were through with me and you kept coming back. When it was very simple. You could have done the same thing and put me on your ignore list. Then you wouldn't have to reply to me at all. But that wasn't really the point was it?;)

A troll doesn't want to stop talking to the other side. That's no fun!;)

[Jubelum]

And no Jube I still can't read your posts.

Here's a another cookie for knowing how to use the board.

*this post has been Pounce-Delayed for 10 minutes to "let you finish", before I get chided for not having a life for posting on a message board by someone else, who themselves is on the same message board.*

[@_@ Artman]

Buddy, can you spare a dime? (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10122007/watch.html)

I am chilled, as I'm sure you are Mr. Chairman, every time I hear a public official or Wall Street eminence utter the reassuring words "the economic fundamentals are sound." Those same words were used by President Hoover and the Captains of Finance in the cold winter of 1929. They didn't restore confidence. The fact is the economic fundamentals are sound if you look at the real economy. It is the financial economy that is dangerously unsound.

[franksargent]

Fair enough, champ. Here are two charts to get you started:

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8428/r2lc5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1292/r3pq0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Now, let's look at some more....on the Reagan tax cuts:

*Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. Source: US OMB.

*Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990

*This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990


Oh, but of course: The rich pay less and poor pay more. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/306/bg1415cht3xa3.gif (http://imageshack.us)



But wait...there's still more....

Total revenues in FY 2001: 1.991 Trillion. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/pdf/hist.pdf

Throughout the recession, revenues decreases to about 1.7 Trillion. However, after the 2003 tax cuts, revenues began to go up, not down once again. Federal Revenue for FY 2006 was approximately 2.2 Trillion, or more than 10% higher than when tax rates were considerably higher in 2001.

Lessons: The economy affects revenue, tax cuts boost the economy. Higher tax rates, while often producing a short term windfall, depress economic activity and thereby reduce revenues in the long term. If you follow the revenue tables, you'll see that when recessions occurred, tax revenue fell. So the primary goal has to be to keep the economy moving. Just raising rates is short-sighted.

All that said, we're overspending. But that's another thing.

.. but you need to really consider your sources; The Heritage Foundation (HF)? The WH?

I've done my own Excel spreedsheets (several months ago) and I can attest that they in no way represent the HF plots, please provide link(s) to the original report/analysis, if you don't mind. :D

So based on your first figure, revenues took SIX YEARS to return to what they were in 2000! And for some reason you ASSUME the economy would NOT have rebounded without said tax cuts? So the basic question is what change in percentage did the tax cuts add back into the overall GDP? Not a whole lot I'd imagine.

For instance, in 2006 US GDP was 13-14 Trillion dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29), so let's be conservative :D and say GDP was $13T, just to humor you. Now from your first figure Corporate taxes look like they were ~$300B (I am being slightly under conservative (e. g. picking a higher number than the first chart suggests)) in 2006. And again being under conservative total tax revenues were ~$2.4T.

Are you with me so far? :\

So on the corporate side 100 * $0.300T (corporate share according to your first figure) / $13T (GDP) = 2.3 percent, NOT the 14+ percent shown in your second figure, care to explain that one?

And 100 * $2.4T / $13T = 18.5 percent, while the total drop in revenues (again being slightly conservative :D) were 100 * $0.4T / $13T = 3 percent of GDP over a THREE YEAR PERIOD or essentially a 1 % boost to our economy due to the GWB "revenue generating tax cuts"

Also the second figure does not mimic the corporate revenues in your first figure, care to explain that one?


And why does your third figure EXCLUDE the tax years from 2000 forward, care to explain that one? Actually you don't need to as I've already done the OBJECTIVE analysis for those years, and perhaps you might guess what that would show, don't you?

Come on, I'm sure you can guess why those tax years are omitted, surely you can, can't you?

Well let me give you the short answer, it's because the quintiles diverge significantly, for the lower 4 quintiles there flatlined, while the upper quintile sees the only real increases.

The proof is in a previous thread that I posted to several months ago.

So to put it in terms that even you can understand, the rich are in fact getting richer, while the poor are still staying poor! :D

And finally one would need to cast these figures on a per household per capita basis to account for the increased number of households (you know it's called population growth :\) during any timeline of analysis.

Have a nice day in your dreamworld over there on Fantasy Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_Island)!

[Jubelum]

How many times do tax cuts have to help the economy before some of you will accept it? Gimme a number, and we'll work towards it. :rolleyes:

[franksargent]

How many times do tax cuts have to help the economy before some of you will accept it? Gimme a number, and we'll work towards it. :rolleyes:

... and then you all can just abolish the federal government, and state governments, and local governments!

We all get to take permanent tax holidays, now if you could solve the death part of life! :err:

At least TRY to add some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, for the sake of argument. :\

[FormerLurker]

Let's start with something from "the father of Reaganomics", supply-sider Bruce Bartlett:

How Supply-Side Economics Trickled Down
By BRUCE BARTLETT
Published: April 6, 2007

AS one who was present at the creation of “supply-side economics” back in the 1970s, I think it is long past time that the phrase be put to rest. It did its job, creating a new consensus among economists on how to look at the national economy. But today it has become a frequently misleading and meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy.

Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates — the tax on each additional dollar earned — as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity.

The original supply-siders suggested that some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues. For example, cutting the capital gains tax rate might induce an unlocking effect that would cause more gains to be realized, thus causing more taxes to be paid on such gains even at a lower rate.

But today it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax cuts raise revenue. Last year, President Bush said, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” Senator John McCain told National Review magazine last month that “tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues.” Last week, Steve Forbes endorsed Rudolph Giuliani for the White House, saying, “He’s seen the results of supply-side economics firsthand — higher revenues from lower taxes.”

This is a simplification of what supply-side economics was all about, and it threatens to undermine the enormous gains that have been made in economic theory and policy over the last 30 years. Perhaps the best way of preventing that from happening is to kill the phrase “supply-side economics” and give it a decent burial.

It’s important to remember that at the time supply-side economics came into being, Keynesian economics dominated macroeconomic thinking and economic policy in Washington. Among the beliefs held by the Keynesians of that era were these: budget deficits stimulate economic growth; the means by which the government raises revenue is essentially irrelevant economically; government spending and tax cuts affect the economy in exactly the same way through their impact on aggregate spending; personal savings is bad for economic growth; monetary policy is impotent; and inflation is caused by low unemployment, among other things.

These beliefs led to many bad economic policies. In particular, they lay at the root of stagflation, that awful combination of high inflation and slow growth that bedeviled policy makers in the 1970s. Based on insights derived from the Nobel-winning economists Robert Mundell, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan and Friedrich Hayek, the supply-siders developed a new program based on tight money to stop inflation and cuts in marginal tax rates to stimulate growth.

As the staff economist for Representative Jack Kemp, a Republican of New York, I helped devise the tax plan he co-sponsored with Senator William Roth, a Delaware Republican. Kemp-Roth was intended to bring down the top statutory federal income tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent and the bottom rate to 10 percent from 14 percent. We modeled this proposal on the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut of 1964, which lowered the top rate to 70 percent from 91 percent and the bottom rate to 14 percent from 20 percent.

We believed that our tax plan would stimulate the economy to such a degree that the federal government would not lose $1 of revenue for every $1 of tax cut. Studies of the 1964 tax cut showed that about a third of it was recouped, and we expected similar results. Thus, contrary to common belief, neither Jack Kemp nor William Roth nor Ronald Reagan ever said that there would be no revenue loss associated with an across-the-board cut in tax rates. We just thought it wouldn’t lose as much revenue as predicted by the standard revenue forecasting models, which were based on Keynesian principles.

Furthermore, our belief that we might get back a third of the revenue loss was always a long-run proposition. Even the most rabid supply-sider knew we would lose $1 of revenue for $1 of tax cut in the short term, because it took time for incentives to work and for people to change their behavior. When President Reagan proposed a version of Kemp-Roth in 1981, every revenue estimate produced by the Treasury showed large revenue losses from its enactment, based on standard models. The independent Congressional Budget Office produced figures that were almost identical.

Moreover, we were adamant that only permanent cuts in marginal tax rates would stimulate the economy. We thought that temporary tax cuts, tax rebates, tax credits and such were economically worthless, and we strongly opposed them.

Today, hardly any economist believes what the Keynesians believed in the 1970s and most accept the basic ideas of supply-side economics — that incentives matter, that high tax rates are bad for growth, and that inflation is fundamentally a monetary phenomenon. Consequently, there is no longer any meaningful difference between supply-side economics and mainstream economics.

There is no question in my mind that we never could have overcome the stagflation of the 1970s as quickly or with as little pain as we did without the supply-side idea. But supply-side economics has done its job, just as Keynesian economics did in the 1930s. Those who campaign as its champions are fighting a fight long won — and it is time for supply-side rhetoric to go, with its essential truths embodied in mainstream economics and its perversions discarded for good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06bartlett.html

[FormerLurker]

A few more facts I would enjoy your attempts to refute:

Last year, Senator John McCain earned widespread ridicule for publicly embracing Jerry Falwell, whom he had once described as “evil.” But an equally breathtaking turnabout occurred earlier in the year, when Mr. McCain embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once denounced as an unaffordable giveaway to the rich. In an interview with National Review, Mr. McCain justified his reversal by saying, “Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues.” It was the political equivalent of Galileo conceding that the Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth.

Mr. McCain is not alone. Every major Republican contender — Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney — has said that the Bush tax cuts have caused government revenues to rise. No prominent Republican office-seeker dare challenge this dogma for fear of offending the economic far right.

Yet there is no more debate about this question among economists than there is debate about the existence of evolution among biologists. Most economists believe that it is theoretically possible for tax rates to be high enough that a reduction in rates could actually produce more revenues. But I do not know of any tenured economist in the United States who believes this is true of the Bush tax cuts.

Granted, economic growth sometimes causes revenues to rise faster than expected after a tax cut, as has happened since the 2003 tax cut. But sometimes revenues fall faster than expected after a tax cut, as they did after the 2001 tax cut. And sometimes revenues rise faster than expected after a tax increase, as they did after the 1993 Clinton tax increase.

Even very conservative economists who have worked for the Bush administration — including Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush who is now an adviser to Mr. Romney — have publicly stated that today’s tax revenues would be even higher were it not for the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09chait.html?ref=opinion

[SDW2001]

:lol:

Jesus!:lol:

God you guys are so full of yourselves! How could you judge world events when you can't even get past your own egos]

But when you're backed into a corner ( about the way things are going I have no delusions about changing your minds ) you've got to either run for cover or fein superiority.;


Sorry SDW you lost all these arguments long ago when you couldn't effectively reply to the multiple times I've supplied you with hard data.

Hint : Saying it's an anti war site doesn't change the fact that hard data with links was referenced there so you could check it yourself.

It really doesn't bother me however. Because soon Dubbya and his little house of cards will be gone and we might acutally have an adult running things again.

And no Jube I still can't read your posts. Only when someone quotes you ( fortunately not many do ). It's so funny all the times you said you were through with me and you kept coming back. When it was very simple. You could have done the same thing and put me on your ignore list. Then you wouldn't have to reply to me at all. But that wasn't really the point was it?;)

A troll doesn't want to stop talking to the other side. That's no fun!;)

jimmac,

Another amazing achievement on your part. You posted 218 words without making a single comprehensible point. Congrats!

[Jubelum]

... and then you all can just abolish the federal government, and state governments, and local governments!

We all get to take permanent tax holidays, now if you could solve the death part of life! :err:

At least TRY to add some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, for the sake of argument. :\

RP? Didn't say nothin about the man. I'm explicitly talking about tax cuts, so I'm not really sure what you are responding to?

[franksargent]

RP? Didn't say nothin about the man. I'm explicitly talking about tax cuts, so I'm not really sure what you are responding to?

The general discussion (I'm assuming) was about tax cuts generating INCREASED federal revenue. At least that's been, you know who's, argument for like forever, with nary a link or data to support that gross and erroneous conjecture.

And when, you know who, does provide some "data" Guess what?

Gee whiz, it's been boiled down through who knows how many additions, subtractions, quotients, and multiplications of indeterminate origin(s).

When that happens, the analysis loses the underlying information, basically it loses any OBJECTIVE basis, since I can not reconstruct the underlying data set(s) anymore.

As is the case here, as I have already pointed out in my previous post. :\

Anyone well versed in data analyses will tell you that, but Mark Twain said it best; Lies, Damn lies, and ...

Bias with intent, lies of omission, whatever.

If you want to isolate the discussion to only part of the economic equation(s), go right ahead, but you have more unknowns than knowns, I'm not aware of of that being a solvable problem! :D

[SDW2001]

The general discussion (I'm assuming) was about tax cuts generating INCREASED federal revenue. At least that's been, you know who's, argument for like forever, with nary a link or data to support that gross and erroneous conjecture.

And when, you know who, does provide some "data" Guess what?

Gee whiz, it's been boiled down through who knows how many additions, subtractions, quotients, and multiplications of indeterminate origin(s).

When that happens, the analysis loses the underlying information, basically it loses any OBJECTIVE basis, since I can not reconstruct the underlying data set(s) anymore.

As is the case here, as I have already pointed out in my previous post. :\

Anyone well versed in data analyses will tell you that, but Mark Twain said it best; Lies, Damn lies, and ...

Bias with intent, lies of omission, whatever.

If you want to isolate the discussion to only part of the economic equation(s), go right ahead, but you have more unknowns than knowns, I'm not aware of of that being a solvable problem! :D

If you can't comprehend the data above, which is unbelievably simple to do, then that frankly is not our problem. Tax cuts do end up increasing revenue as demonstrated in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's and 2000's. It's happened every time. There is a short term negative effect on revenue, because the tax cut has not yet had time to impact the economy and expand the tax base (just as an increase produces a short term windfall). In the long term, revenue goes up as demonstrated by the above data.

[FormerLurker]

Edward Lazear, the current chair of President’s Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has stated, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.”*

N. Gregory Mankiw, President’s Bush’s former CEA chair and a well-known Harvard economics professor, has written that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues… rise in the face of lower tax rates.”* Mankiw compared an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”*

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record.* In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off.* The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut.* During the current recovery (with its tax cuts), the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly.*

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax-f3.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax-f4.jpg


http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

[franksargent]

If you can't comprehend the data above, which is unbelievably simple to do, then that frankly is not our problem. Tax cuts do end up increasing revenue as demonstrated in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's and 2000's. It's happened every time. There is a short term negative effect on revenue, because the tax cut has not yet had time to impact the economy and expand the tax base (just as an increase produces a short term windfall). In the long term, revenue goes up as demonstrated by the above data.

Hey, SDW you name the test, the time, and the place, and I'll simply kick your figurative ass, no question on that one. You clearly have little to NO understanding of statistical methods and data analysis, as in you're complete lack of understanding of your posts of OTHER people's "so called" works that would NEVER pass the scientific peer review process, and you wonder why they're called "STINK TANKS!".

It's called multivariate analysis, you're strong on bluster, but MIA on FACTS! Come back when you have some REAl data, TYVM! :p

PS - That you can't even fathom my albeit brief (nee terse) analysis above is a clear indication of your lack of ..., what kind of coursework and level do you teach at anyway?

[Jubelum]

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax-f4.jpg


Beautiful chart... here's one more- a bit dated, but you get the idea:

http://www.geocities.com/gsimmonssc/taxes_paid.jpg

You mean that people that pay more taxes get a greater amount back when the rate is cut? Say it ain't so!

[franksargent]

Beautiful chart... here's one more- a bit dated, but you get the idea:

http://www.geocities.com/gsimmonssc/taxes_paid.jpg

You mean that people that pay more taxes get a greater amount back when the rate is cut? Say it ain't so!

PROGRESSIVE income tax, who da thunk. :\ Source?

[jimmac]

jimmac,

Another amazing achievement on your part. You posted 218 words without making a single comprehensible point. Congrats!

Maybe you're just too dumb figure it out?;)

[jimmac]

Hey, SDW you name the test, the time, and the place, and I'll simply kick your figurative ass, no question on that one. You clearly have little to NO understanding of statistical methods and data analysis, as in you're complete lack of understanding of your posts of OTHER people's "so called" works that would NEVER pass the scientific peer review process, and you wonder why they're called "STINK TANKS!".

It's called multivariate analysis, you're strong on bluster, but MIA on FACTS! Come back when you have some REAl data, TYVM! :p

PS - That you can't even fathom my albeit brief (nee terse) analysis above is a clear indication of your lack of ..., what kind of coursework and level do you teach at anyway?


You'll never get him to admit it.

[Jubelum]

PROGRESSIVE income tax, who da thunk. :\ Source?

Yes, but you posted a chart that implied the "tax cuts for the rich" tripe again. If the taxation if progressive, do you think that the tax cuts should not be progressive as well? :???: