AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This Economy sure sucks!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This Economy sure sucks! - Page 2  

post #41 of 215
6/6/04 at 10:45am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Oh god!

So now things were good in the 90's because of the republicans?

Geez!

No you can't even elude to that being a possibility, because then you would have to then admit that the economy that bush inherited was partly a result of the previous administrations decisions.

We wouldn't want to put you in that dilemma.

Edit: It is much easier to just blame bush for everything. Go with what is easy, that usually works.
post #42 of 215
6/6/04 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
No you can't even elude to that being a possibility, because then you would have to then admit that the economy that bush inherited was partly a result of the previous administrations decisions.

We wouldn't want to put you in that dilemma.

Edit: It is much easier to just blame bush for everything. Go with what is easy, that usually works.

Look the economy runs in cycles. It's what the president does with those cycles that gives him some control.

During the early 90's we were coming out of a mismanaged Bush cycle and on the upswing. Clinton had the balls to raise taxes and pay our debts. This made the upswing great ( the longest bull market in history ). Let's hope Kerry can do the same with this Bush's legacy ( although it's pretty bad this time around ).

-----------------------------------------------------------
" Edit: It is much easier to just blame bush for everything. Go with what is easy, that usually works. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

If the shoe fits.............
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #43 of 215
6/6/04 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Oh god!

So now things were good in the 90's because of the republicans?

Geez!

You are welcome to find any Clinton quotes or estimates that show something besides budget deficits through the entire 90's. There was even a famous clip put together of him and his various arguments about having to FINALLY balance the budget thanks to some of the Republican deficit hawks. It shows him quoting estimates for a balanced budget in a range of 7-10 years minimum, repeatedly from about 25-30 different speeches.

That isn't one vote, one quote or one anything else taken out of context.

The first year the deficit stopped (and still was not taking out the Social Security Surplus) was 1997. That is past Clinton's entire first term.

Sadly both Republicans and Democrats have given Bush what he wants in terms of overspending. Heck most Democrats are still complaining about UNDERFUNDING. All this has shown is that regardless of party, we need a balanced budget amendment.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #44 of 215
6/6/04 at 11:33am
Quote:
The pay gap? Oh no! We need to pass some laws, dammit! Those greedy CEO's should be forced by the government to pay the workers more. Right? [/B]

SDW, read this article!
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/ne...pensatio.shtml

The article is written by a business columnist, who, being a professional journalist, probably makes a living wage and can live in relative comfort. If he were to earn the annual salary and perks of Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, he would have to work for 675 years !!!! That is the equivalent of him starting work around the time of the Battle of Agincourt during the reign of King Henry V, and continuing until this minute, (with no raises). A lowest paid worker, to earn that kind of money, would have to start working when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome.

How much compensation for a single human being is too much, SDW?

*******

And.....

A massive problem that seems to be too politically incorrent to even mention, but here goes:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/07/Co..._shelter.shtml

Two thirds of major American corporations paid NO Federal Income tax in the 1990s, (under Clinton). This has not changed under Bush. Hundreds of $$ billions are owed, because the wealthiest organizations have the ways and means to cheat and defraud with impunity, or incorporate overseas to avoid paying their dues to America.

These are the real traitors and parasites.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #45 of 215
6/6/04 at 11:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
SDW, read this article!
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/ne...pensatio.shtml

The article is written by a business columnist, who, being a professional journalist, probably makes a living wage and can live in relative comfort. If he were to earn the annual salary and perks of Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, he would have to work for 675 years !!!! That is the equivalent of him starting work around the time of the Battle of Agincourt during the reign of King Henry V, and continuing until this minute, (with no raises). A lowest paid worker, to earn that kind of money, would have to start working when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome.

How much compensation for a single human being is too much, SDW?

*******

And.....

A massive problem that seems to be too politically incorrent to even mention, but here goes:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/07/Co..._shelter.shtml

Two thirds of major American corporations paid NO Federal Income tax in the 1990s, (under Clinton). This has not changed under Bush. Hundreds of $$ billions are owed, because the wealthiest organizations have the ways and means to cheat and defraud with impunity, or incorporate overseas to avoid paying their dues to America.

These are the real traitors and parasites.

That sad line of thinking is swiftly put to rest by the endless and ongoing list of "rags to riches" stories that this country alone produces. Capitalism works. Sorry comrade communism has been proven to be inadequate.
post #46 of 215
6/6/04 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You are welcome to find any Clinton quotes or estimates that show something besides budget deficits through the entire 90's. There was even a famous clip put together of him and his various arguments about having to FINALLY balance the budget thanks to some of the Republican deficit hawks. It shows him quoting estimates for a balanced budget in a range of 7-10 years minimum, repeatedly from about 25-30 different speeches.

That isn't one vote, one quote or one anything else taken out of context.

The first year the deficit stopped (and still was not taking out the Social Security Surplus) was 1997. That is past Clinton's entire first term.

Sadly both Republicans and Democrats have given Bush what he wants in terms of overspending. Heck most Democrats are still complaining about UNDERFUNDING. All this has shown is that regardless of party, we need a balanced budget amendment.

Nick

Yes and it might take more than 4 years to beat this deficit also ( personally I think it will be with us through the rest of my life ). In 97 there was still much of Clinton's second term left so what's your point here?

Proof please of your claims and. And why aren't they doing it now?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #47 of 215
6/6/04 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
From what I recall, Clinton, even after his tax increase was projecting $250-$300 billion dollar per year deficits for as far as the eye could see. The only thing that changed this equation was the change in Congress in 1994. It is the Republican Congress that forced Clinton to trim the deficit.

It's true that Clinton's initial projections only saw a deficit cut in half (or so) rather than eliminated completely. But one thing to keep in mind is that he broke precedent (and post-cedent) and used conservative estimates of economic growth. In fact, the deficit didn't dramatically sink until growth really kicked in much later.

Do you have any evidence that the Republicans forced Clinton to reduce the deficit? The facts, as I remember looking them up before, are that the Republicans didn't really come to any agreements with Clinton for many years. That's where the gov't shutdown came from. The federal budget was just basically on auto-pilot for many years after that initial vote by the Democrats in 1993. When Gingrich and Clinton finally came to an agreement in 1997 (I think it was), that agreement had lots of tax cuts and spending increases. Basically they could come to an agreement if they each got some nice goodies, and those goodies increased the deficit. The other reason they could come to agreement was that the deficit numbers were looking a lot better, and so they could play looser with the budget than had been happening prior to that time.

In the end, though, the time was just different. People actually cared about the deficit back then. Perot, Clinton, Dems and Repubs in Congress, they all talked about reducing the deficit. Now? And I'm sorry, but this time around it's entirely the Republicans' fault.
post #48 of 215
6/6/04 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
It's true that Clinton's initial projections only saw a deficit cut in half (or so) rather than eliminated completely. But one thing to keep in mind is that he broke precedent (and post-cedent) and used conservative estimates of economic growth. In fact, the deficit didn't dramatically sink until growth really kicked in much later.

Do you have any evidence that the Republicans forced Clinton to reduce the deficit? The facts, as I remember looking them up before, are that the Republicans didn't really come to any agreements with Clinton for many years. That's where the gov't shutdown came from. The federal budget was just basically on auto-pilot for many years after that initial vote by the Democrats in 1993. When Gingrich and Clinton finally came to an agreement in 1997 (I think it was), that agreement had lots of tax cuts and spending increases. Basically they could come to an agreement if they each got some nice goodies, and those goodies increased the deficit. The other reason they could come to agreement was that the deficit numbers were looking a lot better, and so they could play looser with the budget than had been happening prior to that time.

In the end, though, the time was just different. People actually cared about the deficit back then. Perot, Clinton, Dems and Repubs in Congress, they all talked about reducing the deficit. Now? And I'm sorry, but this time around it's entirely the Republicans' fault.

Well you mention a bit of the history yourself. The shutdown of the federal government was part of fight over reducing the deficit. We started with things like eliminating entire departments, and as you mentioned after the showdown, basically ended up with keeping the rate of growth to less than that of the economy. So Clinton won and instead of getting massive government reductions in spending, we got a small decrease in the rate of growth. The U.S. economy is so strong, that even that was enough to bring the federal budget back into balance. Clinton may have been dragged to the table kicking and screaming but at least he did allow the slower growth.

As you mention, the times were different, and I fully agree that this time it is completely the Republicans fault. That is why I already said that regardless of party, we need a balanced budget amendment.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #49 of 215
6/6/04 at 12:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
It's true that Clinton's initial projections only saw a deficit cut in half (or so) rather than eliminated completely. But one thing to keep in mind is that he broke precedent (and post-cedent) and used conservative estimates of economic growth. In fact, the deficit didn't dramatically sink until growth really kicked in much later.

Do you have any evidence that the Republicans forced Clinton to reduce the deficit? The facts, as I remember looking them up before, are that the Republicans didn't really come to any agreements with Clinton for many years. That's where the gov't shutdown came from. The federal budget was just basically on auto-pilot for many years after that initial vote by the Democrats in 1993. When Gingrich and Clinton finally came to an agreement in 1997 (I think it was), that agreement had lots of tax cuts and spending increases. Basically they could come to an agreement if they each got some nice goodies, and those goodies increased the deficit. The other reason they could come to agreement was that the deficit numbers were looking a lot better, and so they could play looser with the budget than had been happening prior to that time.

In the end, though, the time was just different. People actually cared about the deficit back then. Perot, Clinton, Dems and Repubs in Congress, they all talked about reducing the deficit. Now? And I'm sorry, but this time around it's entirely the Republicans' fault.

Sure, as long as you don't factor in 9/11, the WoT. You could probably debate the Iraq war but yeah your right, all the republicans fault.

Maybe I forgot the facts, but did no democrats have a say in any of the laws that were passed or actions of this country? I am sure I remember some democrats also going along with most of those things. In a House and senate divided so closely, I am sure of it.

If you came back and say they have to go along with the majority, they don't seem to be doing so with the judicial nominees at present. To me they seem to have the power to use when they want to.
post #50 of 215
6/6/04 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
That sad line of thinking is swiftly put to rest by the endless and ongoing list of "rags to riches" stories that this country alone produces. Capitalism works. Sorry comrade communism has been proven to be inadequate.

No, capitalism only works for a tiny minority. If we choose to indulge in a capitalism-based society, then the pennance of social programs are requisite for civilization, That is, unless we want a world reminiscent of that depicted in the movie "Blade Runner".

Human nature does not allow communism to work, because human beings are all unique and have differing abilities and aspirations. Human nature and the obsession with material acquistion is also the problem with capitalism: when big business assumes too much power, then corruption, criminalilty and greed have no limits.

Extreme socialism (communism) and extreme capitalism (fascism). only work for those in control, ie at the top. Regular people suffer by default under either system. What works for the largest number of people is a mixed economy. What we have in America is a mixed economy which usually cycles around moderate limits, but is now veering sharply towards the extreme capitalism end.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #51 of 215
6/6/04 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Sure, as long as you don't factor in 9/11, the WoT. You could probably debate the Iraq war but yeah your right, all the republicans fault.

Maybe I forgot the facts, but did no democrats have a say in any of the laws that were passed or actions of this country? I am sure I remember some democrats also going along with most of those things. In a House and senate divided so closely, I am sure of it.

If you came back and say they have to go along with the majority, they don't seem to be doing so with the judicial nominees at present. To me they seem to have the power to use when they want to.

-----------------------------------------------------------

" Sure, as long as you don't factor in 9/11, the WoT. You could probably debate the Iraq war but yeah your right, all the republicans fault. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Yeah they've sure milked that one to death.

The war on terror is a lot like the war on drugs was. Unfocused, when it is focused it's on the wrong things, and pretty ineffective.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #52 of 215
6/6/04 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally posted by neutrino23
You have to be careful with that. Reagan cut taxes early but raised taxes nearly every year after that. This was recently pointed out by a Republican congressman.

I think that part of what Clinton did that was good was to reduce the deficit which lowered interest rates which put a huge amount of money in the hands of ordinary people through refinancing their homes. Interest rates around 1990 were about 10 - 11%. At the end of the Clinton administration they were much less, even while the economy boomed.

The problem with Bush's tax cut was that most of it went to a sliver of the richest people in the country. They are only likely to invest that money around the world where they get the best return. To put money in the hands of ordinary people we could have had a one year moratorium on the payroll tax, for example.

Tax cuts are the equivalent of service cuts. I'm an agnostic on both. I think we should find the appropriate level where the pain of taxes is balanced by the blessing of investment in our country.

He did not raise taxes "nearly every year after that". Show me. In fact, I'm not sure the marginal rates went up at all after his cuts. We need more info.

Reducing the deficit did not lower interest rates. Where did you get that from? And actually...at the end of the Clinton administration, the markets started tanking, while the Fed rose rates month after month.

As for the tax cut, where would YOU cut taxes? Of course most of it went to the upper brackets, because the rich pay the taxes. And honestly, your statement is not entirely correct, because I personally received several points marginal rate reduction, as well as huge benefits from changes in laws such as 100% depreciation of equipment. I am definitely a middle income individual, an dbelieve me when I tell you that I saw the benefits of the tax cuts first hand.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #53 of 215
6/6/04 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I disagree. Bush's dad called that voodoo economics. Revenues could have risen due to inflation, increased population, the business cycle, and a host of other factors. Sure, revenues can rise after tax cuts. I just don't believe that cutting taxes increases revenues beyond what they would have been without the tax cuts.

And neutrino is right that when revenues were falling after the initial Reagan tax cuts, he raised them right away, so it's hard to evaluate the effect of those initial tax cuts.

It's not hard to evaluate unless you're trying to spin the data. Even if taxes went up, they were still far below they're original levels. Revenue increases when the economy improves, and tax cuts generally cause that.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #54 of 215
6/6/04 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
1. Reducing deficits keeps interest rates low, which helps the economy in the long run (not the short-run, where deficits help the economy). There's debate on that, and it cuts across party lines, but that's the predominant theory anyway.

2. Clinton was totally responsible for the balanced budgets. Not a single Republican voted for his 1993 plan, and Dems probably lost the Congress due (in part) to that. After that, Congress and Clinton stalemated, and the gov't was shutdown in the standoff. When Congress and Clinton finally did come to an agreement, it made the deficit worse, not better. You could argue that Congress exerted indirect pressure on Clinton by talking about the deficit, just as Perot did. But in the end, it was Clinton who did it.

BTW, Bush is now using Kerry's deficit-reduction votes during that period against him in negative ads.

Wait...are you honestly telling me that it was Clinton's 1993 budget that balanced the budget? I'm thinking you're wrong. You should replace "deficit reduction votes" with "vote for the biggest tax increase in history".
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #55 of 215
6/6/04 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
That's rich coming from you ( no pun intended ). I've been talking to you for what 2 years now? You've been wrong about almost everything. Sure the economy's showing signs of some improvement. You've been predicting it would do this for a year and a half now. If I talk about the sun blowing up long enough that'll probably happen to!

By the way nobody buys your double speak about this deficit not being bad.

Yes we know the Bush rhetoric. Black is white, bad is good. Yada, yada, yada!

The economy has been improving for well over a year and a half. That's why I've been saying it. And really...show me what I've been wrong about. The only one I can "half" give you is WMD in Iraq. I say "half" because we've technically found chemical weapons, but to be fair there have not been stockpiles. So there you go...I've gotten you started. Please continue....
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #56 of 215
6/6/04 at 5:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Look the economy runs in cycles. It's what the president does with those cycles that gives him some control.

During the early 90's we were coming out of a mismanaged Bush cycle and on the upswing. Clinton had the balls to raise taxes and pay our debts. This made the upswing great ( the longest bull market in history ). Let's hope Kerry can do the same with this Bush's legacy ( although it's pretty bad this time around ).

-----------------------------------------------------------
" Edit: It is much easier to just blame bush for everything. Go with what is easy, that usually works. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

If the shoe fits.............


You are delusional. The economy was IN RECOVERY by Election 1992. But, it was not strong enough for Bush 41. Unemployment hadn't yet come down.
Let us not forget jimmac, Bush 41 RAISED taxes. So, what did he do any differently than Clinton? According to your logic, tax increases worked for Clinton, but not for Bush?
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #57 of 215
6/6/04 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
SDW, read this article!
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/ne...pensatio.shtml

The article is written by a business columnist, who, being a professional journalist, probably makes a living wage and can live in relative comfort. If he were to earn the annual salary and perks of Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, he would have to work for 675 years !!!! That is the equivalent of him starting work around the time of the Battle of Agincourt during the reign of King Henry V, and continuing until this minute, (with no raises). A lowest paid worker, to earn that kind of money, would have to start working when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome.

How much compensation for a single human being is too much, SDW?

*******

And.....

A massive problem that seems to be too politically incorrent to even mention, but here goes:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/07/Co..._shelter.shtml

Two thirds of major American corporations paid NO Federal Income tax in the 1990s, (under Clinton). This has not changed under Bush. Hundreds of $$ billions are owed, because the wealthiest organizations have the ways and means to cheat and defraud with impunity, or incorporate overseas to avoid paying their dues to America.

These are the real traitors and parasites.

How much legislation is enough, sammi jo? What would you propose we DO about those ludicorusly paid CEOs? I agree it's nothing short of disgusting, but that's what their employers pay them. Should we set compensation caps?
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #58 of 215
6/6/04 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
No, capitalism only works for a tiny minority. If we choose to indulge in a capitalism-based society, then the pennance of social programs are requisite for civilization, That is, unless we want a world reminiscent of that depicted in the movie "Blade Runner".

Human nature does not allow communism to work, because human beings are all unique and have differing abilities and aspirations. Human nature and the obsession with material acquistion is also the problem with capitalism: when big business assumes too much power, then corruption, criminalilty and greed have no limits.

Extreme socialism (communism) and extreme capitalism (fascism). only work for those in control, ie at the top. Regular people suffer by default under either system. What works for the largest number of people is a mixed economy. What we have in America is a mixed economy which usually cycles around moderate limits, but is now veering sharply towards the extreme capitalism end.

Wow. You are far more extreme than I first realized. Human nature is human nature. It cannot be changed. The desire for material success has built the free world as we know it. Capitalism and the free market economy DO work. Have you not seen the middle class in this country? Where do you think that came from? Capitalism should be regulated, as it is here, but does work.

I'm not even sure where you're going with this, sammi jo. It almost sounds like you're saying that philosophies like communism haven't worked because they haven't been implemented the right way. I hope you're not saying that.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #59 of 215
6/6/04 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You are delusional. The economy was IN RECOVERY by Election 1992. But, it was not strong enough for Bush 41. Unemployment hadn't yet come down.
Let us not forget jimmac, Bush 41 RAISED taxes. So, what did he do any differently than Clinton? According to your logic, tax increases worked for Clinton, but not for Bush?

Just when you thought it was safe to say something stupid.

As I've said before the economy is cyclic. So the only effect a president can have is how he responds to it.

Please don't try to pawn off the 90's recovery and deficit removal on Bush!

He was better than his son however!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #60 of 215
6/6/04 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------

" Sure, as long as you don't factor in 9/11, the WoT. You could probably debate the Iraq war but yeah your right, all the republicans fault. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Yeah they've sure milked that one to death.

The war on terror is a lot like the war on drugs was. Unfocused, when it is focused it's on the wrong things, and pretty ineffective.

Right, jimmac. It's all a political ploy. It's not like there are thousands of animals around the globe plotting the demise of our nation and coming up with new and creative ways to kill civilian men, women and children, all so they can realize their vision of a Super-Islamic Totalitarian State.

Man, we'd be at WAR then!

To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #61 of 215
6/6/04 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Just when you thought it was safe to say something stupid.

As I've said before the economy is cyclic. So the only effect a president can have is how he responds to it.

Please don't try to pawn off the 90's recovery and deficit removal on Bush!

He was better than his son however!


I'm not pawning off anything, I'm just saying Clinton wasn't necessarily responsible either.

Edit: I'd like to add that you dodged the question I asked you regarding tax increases.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #62 of 215
6/6/04 at 6:21pm
Nice way to spam the board - 10 posts in a row
post #63 of 215
6/6/04 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wait...are you honestly telling me that it was Clinton's 1993 budget that balanced the budget? I'm thinking you're wrong. You should replace "deficit reduction votes" with "vote for the biggest tax increase in history".

I'm honestly saying that, because the budget was essentially on auto-pilot for most of the 1990s after that.

BTW, Clinton's wasn't the biggest tax increase in history. According to Bush's Treasury Department (pdf file), Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the biggest in history.

Clinton's tax increase was $32 billion, Reagan's was $37 billion, in real dollars. Clinton's tax increase was 2.7% of GDP, Reagan's was 4.6% of GDP.
post #64 of 215
6/6/04 at 8:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. You are far more extreme than I first realized. Human nature is human nature. It cannot be changed. The desire for material success has built the free world as we know it. Capitalism and the free market economy DO work. Have you not seen the middle class in this country?

The incredible shrinking middle class:
http://www.inq7.net/nwsbrk/2004/apr/12/nbk_8-1.htm
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/20...406_a_main.asp

Quote:
Where do you think that came from? Capitalism should be regulated, as it is here, but does work.

Free enterprise works, yes, and a free market economy is what, in theory, should work best. I have never denied that. BUT where is the free market? Anyone who believes we have a genuinely "free market" here in the USA is naive: privilege, preferred access, insider information, corruption and fraud, subsidies, massive-scale corporate welfare, closed shops etc. etc. renders the large scale market controlled and shackled. The most free "free markets" are small scale affairs, like bazaars, "farmers' markets etc.

An apt definition of the supposedly "free market", and the writer was by no means a socialist:
"[i]"A purely free market is like a free fox in a free henhouse." Louis Schweitzer (former Chairman of Renault, France's largest automobile manufacturer)



Quote:
I'm not even sure where you're going with this, sammi jo. It almost sounds like you're saying that philosophies like communism haven't worked because they haven't been implemented the right way. I hope you're not saying that.

I already stated that communism does not work, (has never worked and will never work), in either large and/or compulsory systems. The only "communist" aspect about the USSR was the label....they were as steeped in just as much privilege, heirarchy, and inequality as any western democracy. Same with China. Cuba is probably about as "communist" as a state can get (thats why the US government hates them so much, far more than our largest trading partner, Red China perhaps). Even Cuba doesn't conform very well to Lenin's ideal.

The only working models of real communism are where a group of people decide to form an egalitarian community, on a small scale, voluntarily, that they want to live that particular lifestyle, and they are free to leave whenever they like if the lifestyle is not for them. There are many small voluntary (often spiritually-based groups with heterarchical structure all over the world that conform to the "communist" ideal far more than any large scale experiment in state-run communism. The kibbutz of Israel is an example, and they are of no threat to anyone. Do I want to live in a commune? No thanks, it's not for me. Do I want to live in a communist state? That's a meaningless question: it is not possible, since there is no such thing.

As for thinking that communism would work if implemented correctly, see above. Consensus is requisite, and any more than, perhaps, a few dozen people renders the consensus process chaotic, unwieldy and unworkable.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #65 of 215
6/7/04 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm not pawning off anything, I'm just saying Clinton wasn't necessarily responsible either.

Edit: I'd like to add that you dodged the question I asked you regarding tax increases.

Look you know as well as I do that the chance of Bush being reelected is in serious doubt now so you guys will try or say anything.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #66 of 215
6/7/04 at 8:47am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Look you know as well as I do that the chance of Bush being reelected is in serious doubt now so you guys will try or say anything.

I bet you are a great dodgeball player.

Weee.
post #67 of 215
6/7/04 at 10:09am
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I bet you are a great dodgeball player.

Weee.

No.

More of a straight shooter.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #68 of 215
6/9/04 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm honestly saying that, because the budget was essentially on auto-pilot for most of the 1990s after that.

BTW, Clinton's wasn't the biggest tax increase in history. According to Bush's Treasury Department (pdf file), Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the biggest in history.

Clinton's tax increase was $32 billion, Reagan's was $37 billion, in real dollars. Clinton's tax increase was 2.7% of GDP, Reagan's was 4.6% of GDP.

That's disingenous. A while ago, I believe it was you who was arguing that we couldn't say revenue was positively affected by cutting taxes. Now, you're turining around and saying that because more revenue was projected, Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in history. That's absurd.

From your own link:

Quote:
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

-repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
-tightened safe harbor leasing rules
-equired taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
-instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
-tightened completed contract accounting rules
-increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

In other words, you're full of shit.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #69 of 215
6/9/04 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
The incredible shrinking middle class:
http://www.inq7.net/nwsbrk/2004/apr/12/nbk_8-1.htm
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/20...406_a_main.asp



Free enterprise works, yes, and a free market economy is what, in theory, should work best. I have never denied that. BUT where is the free market? Anyone who believes we have a genuinely "free market" here in the USA is naive: privilege, preferred access, insider information, corruption and fraud, subsidies, massive-scale corporate welfare, closed shops etc. etc. renders the large scale market controlled and shackled. The most free "free markets" are small scale affairs, like bazaars, "farmers' markets etc.

An apt definition of the supposedly "free market", and the writer was by no means a socialist:
"[i]"A purely free market is like a free fox in a free henhouse." Louis Schweitzer (former Chairman of Renault, France's largest automobile manufacturer)





I already stated that communism does not work, (has never worked and will never work), in either large and/or compulsory systems. The only "communist" aspect about the USSR was the label....they were as steeped in just as much privilege, heirarchy, and inequality as any western democracy. Same with China. Cuba is probably about as "communist" as a state can get (thats why the US government hates them so much, far more than our largest trading partner, Red China perhaps). Even Cuba doesn't conform very well to Lenin's ideal.

The only working models of real communism are where a group of people decide to form an egalitarian community, on a small scale, voluntarily, that they want to live that particular lifestyle, and they are free to leave whenever they like if the lifestyle is not for them. There are many small voluntary (often spiritually-based groups with heterarchical structure all over the world that conform to the "communist" ideal far more than any large scale experiment in state-run communism. The kibbutz of Israel is an example, and they are of no threat to anyone. Do I want to live in a commune? No thanks, it's not for me. Do I want to live in a communist state? That's a meaningless question: it is not possible, since there is no such thing.

As for thinking that communism would work if implemented correctly, see above. Consensus is requisite, and any more than, perhaps, a few dozen people renders the consensus process chaotic, unwieldy and unworkable.


Your first link references the Phillipines! What the hell are you talking about?
As for the second link about CEO pay...again: What would you like to do about it? Should we limit their salaries by law? Their compensation is set by the company's board, which makes its own decisions. Corruption should be punished, and poorly performing companies will see their publicly owned stock fall. I don't see why you are up in arms over this. What is your solution to these vast inequities you see?
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #70 of 215
6/9/04 at 6:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Look you know as well as I do that the chance of Bush being reelected is in serious doubt now so you guys will try or say anything.

Wow, speaking of dodgeball! That's your response? You attempt to disqualify everything "we" say, simply because "we" support the president? That's insane. I'll repost what I asked you regarding your claim of Clinton helping the economy by raising taxes.

Quote:
Let us not forget jimmac, Bush 41 RAISED taxes. So, what did he do any differently than Clinton? According to your logic, tax increases worked for Clinton, but not for Bush?

I await your reply.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #71 of 215
6/9/04 at 7:45pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's disingenous. A while ago, I believe it was you who was arguing that we couldn't say revenue was positively affected by cutting taxes. Now, you're turining around and saying that because more revenue was projected, Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in history. That's absurd.

When that link talks about revenue, it's not talking about some kind of laffer curve/supply-side issue. It's talking about the revenue effect of the tax bill, i.e., how much tax would be lost or gained as a result. By saying that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's, it's not building in any projections about the effect of the tax increase on the economy. It's just using the standard method of evaluating tax bills, from what I can tell.

From pages 7-8:
Quote:
Third, government revenue estimates do not take into account the effect of the bills on GDP, even though some bills (e.g., Tax Reduction Act of 1975) were primarily designed to stimulate the economy. The effect of most tax bills on GDP is uncertain, but probably generally small.

In any case, I'm not saying it; take it up with the Bush Treasury department if you don't like their analysis.
Quote:
In other words, you're full of shit.

While that's probably true, I don't think you've shown it in your post. That Bush Treasury paper said that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's. That's why I linked it to dispute your post saying that Clinton's was the largest. How is that "full of shit." And what's the relevance of that little blurb you quoted? I honestly don't get how that shows I'm full of shit for saying Reagan's tax increase was bigger than Clinton's.
post #72 of 215
6/9/04 at 7:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
When that link talks about revenue, it's not talking about some kind of laffer curve/supply-side issue. It's talking about the revenue effect of the tax bill, i.e., how much tax would be lost or gained as a result. By saying that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's, it's not building in any projections about the effect of the tax increase on the economy. It's just using the standard method of evaluating tax bills, from what I can tell.

From pages 7-8: In any case, I'm not saying it; take it up with the Bush Treasury department if you don't like their analysis. While that's probably true, I don't think you've shown it in your post. That Bush Treasury paper said that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's. That's why I linked it to dispute your post saying that Clinton's was the largest. How is that "full of shit." And what's the relevance of that little blurb you quoted? I honestly don't get how that shows I'm full of shit for saying Reagan's tax increase was bigger than Clinton's.

Wasn't parts of his tax cut extremely severe/big percentage wise?

Overall what was the difference between the cut and the hike?

So lets say he cut taxes by 5 trillion and then raised them by say 2 trillion the overall would be a tax cut of 3 trillion. I am not sure of the numbers so I am asking.
post #73 of 215
6/9/04 at 8:06pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wasn't parts of his tax cut extremely severe/big percentage wise?

Overall what was the difference between the cut and the hike?

So lets say he cut taxes by 5 trillion and then raised them by say 2 trillion the overall would be a tax cut of 3 trillion. I am not sure of the numbers so I am asking.

I think that's right. If I'm looking at the numbers correctly, the 1982 tax increase only went about half way up from where the 1981 tax cut brought us down in revenues, maybe less depending on the measure. There are tables and figures in the back of that paper that compare all of them. Look at the figure on the last page and compare 1981 to 1982.

Something else I notice about that graph - Bush's tax cuts are about the same size as Reagan's (in inflation-adjusted dollars, not % GDP). But after that one big one by Reagan in 1981, the rest of the 1980s have tax increases, little ones, but increases nonetheless. Since the late 1990s, we've just been getting bigger and bigger tax cuts all the time, and Bush is still calling for more now. How long can that go on?
post #74 of 215
6/9/04 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Since the late 1990s, we've just been getting bigger and bigger tax cuts all the time, and Bush is still calling for more now. How long can that go on?

It won't go on much longer, 'cause The Rapture is coming Real Soon Now!

Until then, why worry about deficits, peak oil, or the poisoning of the environment? None of that will matter when the Last Days are upon us !!!!!!
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #75 of 215
6/10/04 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow, speaking of dodgeball! That's your response? You attempt to disqualify everything "we" say, simply because "we" support the president? That's insane. I'll repost what I asked you regarding your claim of Clinton helping the economy by raising taxes.



I await your reply.

If it was the republicans ( and not Clinton ) that made our economy great during the 90's and lowered the deficit how come ( since they control everything now ) they aren't doing it today? I mean we should be doing even better now shouldn't we?

What a bunch of bull!


Well that unemployment ghost just keeps coming back doesn't it?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/10/news...aims/index.htm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #76 of 215
6/10/04 at 9:23pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
First-time claims for unemployment benefits rose to 352,000 last week, despite market expectations for 335,000 and versus a revised 340,000 the week before.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=1&u=/nm/20040611/bs_nm/markets_forex_dc

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #77 of 215
6/11/04 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
When that link talks about revenue, it's not talking about some kind of laffer curve/supply-side issue. It's talking about the revenue effect of the tax bill, i.e., how much tax would be lost or gained as a result. By saying that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's, it's not building in any projections about the effect of the tax increase on the economy. It's just using the standard method of evaluating tax bills, from what I can tell.

From pages 7-8: In any case, I'm not saying it; take it up with the Bush Treasury department if you don't like their analysis. While that's probably true, I don't think you've shown it in your post. That Bush Treasury paper said that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's. That's why I linked it to dispute your post saying that Clinton's was the largest. How is that "full of shit." And what's the relevance of that little blurb you quoted? I honestly don't get how that shows I'm full of shit for saying Reagan's tax increase was bigger than Clinton's.

No, no, no. What the link shows is that revenue was predicted to rise. That doesn't mean that he "raised" taxes at all. I don't believe he ever raised the brackets....do you?
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #78 of 215
6/11/04 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
If it was the republicans ( and not Clinton ) that made our economy great during the 90's and lowered the deficit how come ( since they control everything now ) they aren't doing it today? I mean we should be doing even better now shouldn't we?

What a bunch of bull!


Well that unemployment ghost just keeps coming back doesn't it?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/10/news...aims/index.htm

You haven't answered my question. You've just asked me one. I'm still waiting. I will be happy to answer yours after you've answered mine:

"What policy did Clinton implement to help the economy?"

And really jimmac...your jobless claims number is absurd. Anyone who understand the absolute most basic things about our economy knows that jobless claims BELOW 400,000 are considered "good".

I'm still waiting.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #79 of 215
6/11/04 at 6:31pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
You know AO is getting bad when I think people are acting like dicks.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #80 of 215
6/11/04 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
No, no, no. What the link shows is that revenue was predicted to rise. That doesn't mean that he "raised" taxes at all. I don't believe he ever raised the brackets....do you?

That file's abstract says "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest tax increase of that period," referring to the post-WWII period. If you don't believe that, do some of your own research; all except the most spin-oriented sources will say the same thing. As far as raising marginal rates/brackets, I don't know. But I never argued that. There are lots of different types of taxes and different ways of raising them.

Here's another article, calling the 1982 tax increase "Dole's" rather than Reagan's because it was being discussed during the 1996 Dole v. Clinton campaign. It gets into some of the details of which tax increase was bigger by different measures.

And that was from a huge google list based on a ["biggest tax increase" clinton reagan] search.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This Economy sure sucks!