Wow, Gilsch I see you take everything that someone says about the democratic party personally
Reeeeaallly? After reading your little tirade I would say it is you who is taking this personally. LOL 'Visceral"? "venomous"? "twisted mentality"? "revenge for Gore's loss"?
Yeah, you're really not taking any of this personally.
Quote:
I disagree with the overall tone that the democratic party is emanating, I disagree with their visceral and venomous hatred for this president. The more you guys speak the more it is apperant. I disagree with the twisted mentality that they promote, namely, revenge for Gore's loss.
You sound like you're on the verge of tears there. You ok?
Quote:
I disagree with how every argument with a liberal democrat ends with "Well there are no WMD's so therefore GWB is evil, he needs to go".
So you go around looking for arguments with those "hateful" "liberals"? Isn't there a far right Christian website you could go hang out at instead? Would be much healthier than just arguing with people the whole day. I like your over simplification of arguments. "Liberals" here, "liberals" there. You sound like Rush Limbaugh. And that's no compliment.
Quote:
I disagree with the fact that GWB is evil but people like SH and UBL are just bad guys and most liberals will not identify them as evil. That fact actually is a little scary.
Here we go again. You see those evil "liberals" everywhere don't you? And ALL "liberals" think alike eh? Are you trying to sound like Rush Limbaugh on purpose or is it just a subconscious thing?? Great job.[QUOTE]I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.[.QUOTE]You're making sense on here finally. However, from your consistent, borderline obsessive, use of the "liberal" tag, I'm forced to think your "checks" and "balances" apply to others and not you.
Quote:
So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it
Interesting. One minute you're saying you doubt I'm actually a Republican, the next you're saying we actually don't disagree as much as I think.That would make you, according to you...a LIBERAL!! Listen dude. From your posts I can say that I am -VERY- happy to not share most of your positions. You will "rail" against what you think is wrong? Scary. It's the "you're either with us or against BS line of thinking again". Hook, line and sinker. Karen Hughes LOVES you.
Reeeeaallly? After reading your little tirade I would say it is you who is taking this personally. LOL 'Visceral"? "venomous"? "twisted mentality"? "revenge for Gore's loss"?
Yeah, you're really not taking any of this personally. You sound like you're on the verge of tears there. You ok? So you go around looking for arguments with those "hateful" "liberals"? Isn't there a far right Christian website you could go hang out at instead? Would be much healthier than just arguing with people the whole day. I like your over simplification of arguments. "Liberals" here, "liberals" there. You sound like Rush Limbaugh. And that's no compliment.Here we go again. You see those evil "liberals" everywhere don't you? And ALL "liberals" think alike eh? Are you trying to sound like Rush Limbaugh on purpose or is it just a subconscious thing?? Great job.Interesting. One minute you're saying you doubt I'm actually a Republican, the next you're saying we actually don't disagree as much as I think.That would make you, according to you...a LIBERAL!! Listen dude. From your posts I can say that I am -VERY- happy to not share most of your positions. You will "rail" against what you think is wrong? Scary. It's the "you're either with us or against BS line of thinking again". Hook, line and sinker. Karen Hughes LOVES you.
Well I am sorry to poke holes in your theory, but I am not a republican or democrat, and I rarely listen to Rush Limbaough. You did not read me saying liberals were evil.
Ok Mr. Smart Pants, Because you are too smart for my backwards way of thinking, I will clarify. The liberal wing of the democratic party has gained control, therefore most democrats reflect their party's agenda. I think that I did use the term "Democratic Party" to identify who I was talking about. Am I right? Anyone? Anyone? That's right class. Yes I did.
Your post and lack of english comprehension or more likely overabundance of spin, proves my point quite nicely about how you and many others argue. You see you totally skipped over this part of my last post:
"I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.
So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it."
The WRONG that I am talking about railing against is your hateful, disrespectful, self assuming, character attacking, divisive and intellectually dishonest tactics. I hope I cleared that up for you.
The liberal wing of the democratic party has gained control, therefore most democrats reflect their party's agenda.
When did Kucinich take over the Democratic party? I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are really pretty centrist--especially since Clinton took office. It's the right that's moving farther and farther to the extremes. Maybe it's a matter of perspective? Because the right has moved so far from the center they think the left is getting more liberal while they stay the same? Einstein, where art thou!?!
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
Anyhow. I think both parties moved off centrists, but the Republicans were certainly the less willing to be center party of the '90s and most likely made the moves away from detente when Bush took his "mandate". Look at the way they treat the "maverick" McCain who is about as centrist as they come...
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
The source can be found by clicking on the image... but ah well.. its from a nytimes opinion. The "upturn" is not significant.
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
Paul Krugman, Princeton economist, frequently rumored member of the Nobel short-list, and contributor to the NY Times. This graph was kind of a big deal yesterday.
Anyhow. I think both parties moved off centrists, but the Republicans were certainly the less willing to be center party of the '90s and most likely made the moves away from detente when Bush took his "mandate". Look at the way they treat the "maverick" McCain who is about as centrist as they come...
I'd argue that Clinton and the New Democrats *forced* them to the far right, since he essentially owned the center.
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
Oh yeah, most economists agree that employment is a lagging indicator of economic health. If that is true what does that say. Think about it geniuses.
Maybe someone that knows about this can comment on what the lag time is historically.
So there is a lag, lets say it is about a year which would place the peak number of jobs (where job growth began to go south) exactly one year after the recession began. Tax cuts occured in mid-2001 and mid-2002... So one year after mid-2001, and we see the job growth has flatlined which of course is better than going south. One year later it still is flatlined... Tax cuts aren't bringing about job creation.
Buisness cycle would actually do better than what this country is doing now.
Edit: Even with a 2 year lag, we should have been seeing real job growth since the middle of last year (like back to the normal slope before the slowdown)...
Edit2: In any event, the Bush administration's Economist should know this... why do they keep over predicting the job growth???
So there is a lag, lets say it is about a year which would place the peak number of jobs (where job growth began to go south) exactly one year after the recession began. Tax cuts occured in mid-2001 and mid-2002... So one year after mid-2001, and we see the job growth has flatlined which of course is better than going south. One year later it still is flatlined... Tax cuts aren't bringing about job creation.
Buisness cycle would actually do better than what this country is doing now.
Edit: Even with a 2 year lag, we should have been seeing real job growth since the middle of last year (like back to the normal slope before the slowdown)...
keep tat in mind for future arguments. Most economists that I hear or read say growth is happening. What has it been six months (or was it quarters?) of consecutive job growth...
As an aside, I see help wanted signs here everywhere now, which is strange at this point in the season. So it appears that here any way hiring is picking up dramatically.
keep tat in mind for future arguments. Most economists that I hear or read say growth is happening. What has it been six months (or was it quarters?) of consecutive job growth...
As an aside, I see help wanted signs here everywhere now, which is strange at this point in the season. So it appears that here any way hiring is picking up dramatically.
Or there is a particularly nasty winter/early spring in the North East?
Jobless recovery is the term. It is like ridding a rail though, a tumble to the wrong side could send our economy reeling back to recession...
One other thing, the economy normally grows at about 150000 jobs per month. A flatline isn't a healthy economy a slow growth say 20000 jobs/month isnt a healthy economy....
Bush's tax cuts should have been helping for a while now, and nothing he did helped us out of the recession if the two year lag is true (since it ended in 2001, which would mean Clinton policies made this recession particularly shallow). What the graphs seem to be indicating by the two year "rule" is that everything Bush has done in office has had absolutely no positive effect and only deliterious if comparing to normal economic growth times.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wow, Gilsch I see you take everything that someone says about the democratic party personally
Reeeeaallly? After reading your little tirade I would say it is you who is taking this personally. LOL 'Visceral"? "venomous"? "twisted mentality"? "revenge for Gore's loss"?
Yeah, you're really not taking any of this personally.
I disagree with the overall tone that the democratic party is emanating, I disagree with their visceral and venomous hatred for this president. The more you guys speak the more it is apperant. I disagree with the twisted mentality that they promote, namely, revenge for Gore's loss.
You sound like you're on the verge of tears there. You ok?
I disagree with how every argument with a liberal democrat ends with "Well there are no WMD's so therefore GWB is evil, he needs to go".
So you go around looking for arguments with those "hateful" "liberals"? Isn't there a far right Christian website you could go hang out at instead? Would be much healthier than just arguing with people the whole day. I like your over simplification of arguments. "Liberals" here, "liberals" there. You sound like Rush Limbaugh. And that's no compliment.
I disagree with the fact that GWB is evil but people like SH and UBL are just bad guys and most liberals will not identify them as evil. That fact actually is a little scary.
Here we go again. You see those evil "liberals" everywhere don't you? And ALL "liberals" think alike eh? Are you trying to sound like Rush Limbaugh on purpose or is it just a subconscious thing?? Great job.[QUOTE]I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.[.QUOTE]You're making sense on here finally. However, from your consistent, borderline obsessive, use of the "liberal" tag, I'm forced to think your "checks" and "balances" apply to others and not you.
So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it
Interesting. One minute you're saying you doubt I'm actually a Republican, the next you're saying we actually don't disagree as much as I think.That would make you, according to you...a LIBERAL!!
Originally posted by Gilsch
Reeeeaallly? After reading your little tirade I would say it is you who is taking this personally. LOL 'Visceral"? "venomous"? "twisted mentality"? "revenge for Gore's loss"?
Yeah, you're really not taking any of this personally.
Well I am sorry to poke holes in your theory, but I am not a republican or democrat, and I rarely listen to Rush Limbaough. You did not read me saying liberals were evil.
Ok Mr. Smart Pants, Because you are too smart for my backwards way of thinking, I will clarify. The liberal wing of the democratic party has gained control, therefore most democrats reflect their party's agenda. I think that I did use the term "Democratic Party" to identify who I was talking about. Am I right? Anyone? Anyone? That's right class. Yes I did.
Your post and lack of english comprehension or more likely overabundance of spin, proves my point quite nicely about how you and many others argue. You see you totally skipped over this part of my last post:
"I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.
So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it."
The WRONG that I am talking about railing against is your hateful, disrespectful, self assuming, character attacking, divisive and intellectually dishonest tactics. I hope I cleared that up for you.
Something isn't right here...
Originally posted by NaplesX
The liberal wing of the democratic party has gained control, therefore most democrats reflect their party's agenda.
When did Kucinich take over the Democratic party? I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are really pretty centrist--especially since Clinton took office. It's the right that's moving farther and farther to the extremes. Maybe it's a matter of perspective? Because the right has moved so far from the center they think the left is getting more liberal while they stay the same? Einstein, where art thou!?!
Originally posted by billybobsky
Something isn't right here...
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
Anyhow. I think both parties moved off centrists, but the Republicans were certainly the less willing to be center party of the '90s and most likely made the moves away from detente when Bush took his "mandate". Look at the way they treat the "maverick" McCain who is about as centrist as they come...
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
The source can be found by clicking on the image... but ah well.. its from a nytimes opinion. The "upturn" is not significant.
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
Paul Krugman, Princeton economist, frequently rumored member of the Nobel short-list, and contributor to the NY Times. This graph was kind of a big deal yesterday.
Originally posted by billybobsky
you called?
Anyhow. I think both parties moved off centrists, but the Republicans were certainly the less willing to be center party of the '90s and most likely made the moves away from detente when Bush took his "mandate". Look at the way they treat the "maverick" McCain who is about as centrist as they come...
I'd argue that Clinton and the New Democrats *forced* them to the far right, since he essentially owned the center.
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
Oh yeah, most economists agree that employment is a lagging indicator of economic health. If that is true what does that say. Think about it geniuses.
Maybe someone that knows about this can comment on what the lag time is historically.
Buisness cycle would actually do better than what this country is doing now.
Edit: Even with a 2 year lag, we should have been seeing real job growth since the middle of last year (like back to the normal slope before the slowdown)...
Edit2: In any event, the Bush administration's Economist should know this... why do they keep over predicting the job growth???
Originally posted by billybobsky
So there is a lag, lets say it is about a year which would place the peak number of jobs (where job growth began to go south) exactly one year after the recession began. Tax cuts occured in mid-2001 and mid-2002... So one year after mid-2001, and we see the job growth has flatlined which of course is better than going south. One year later it still is flatlined... Tax cuts aren't bringing about job creation.
Buisness cycle would actually do better than what this country is doing now.
Edit: Even with a 2 year lag, we should have been seeing real job growth since the middle of last year (like back to the normal slope before the slowdown)...
keep tat in mind for future arguments. Most economists that I hear or read say growth is happening. What has it been six months (or was it quarters?) of consecutive job growth...
As an aside, I see help wanted signs here everywhere now, which is strange at this point in the season. So it appears that here any way hiring is picking up dramatically.
Originally posted by NaplesX
most economists agree
Is that like "4 out of 5 doctors use Trident?"
How does the saying go? Don't take financial advice from a poor person?
Think about it geniuses.
Originally posted by giant
Is that like "4 out of 5 doctors use Trident?"
How does the saying go? Don't take financial advice from a poor person?
You are so boringly predictable.
Originally posted by NaplesX
keep tat in mind for future arguments. Most economists that I hear or read say growth is happening. What has it been six months (or was it quarters?) of consecutive job growth...
As an aside, I see help wanted signs here everywhere now, which is strange at this point in the season. So it appears that here any way hiring is picking up dramatically.
Or there is a particularly nasty winter/early spring in the North East?
Jobless recovery is the term. It is like ridding a rail though, a tumble to the wrong side could send our economy reeling back to recession...
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are so boringly predictable.
And you are so terribly amusing.
Hey, I have a question: have you ever been right about anything? Seriously. Have you?
Bush's tax cuts should have been helping for a while now, and nothing he did helped us out of the recession if the two year lag is true (since it ended in 2001, which would mean Clinton policies made this recession particularly shallow). What the graphs seem to be indicating by the two year "rule" is that everything Bush has done in office has had absolutely no positive effect and only deliterious if comparing to normal economic growth times.
Originally posted by giant
And you are so terribly amusing.
Hey, I have a question: have you ever been right about anything? Seriously. Have you?
yeah, my first impression of you was right, If you forget search my posts for what it was. So far most I have talked with agree.