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.
Yeah, you really poked holes in my "theories" there. So what are you then if you're not a Rep? I mean, you could have fooled me the way you jumped into the discussion to defend SDW and to attack "liberals". In fact you kept mentioning "liberals" time and time again like it's an obsession.
Quote:
Ok Mr. Smart Pants, Because you are too smart for my backwards way of thinking
I'm tempted not to disagree with you on that one.
Quote:
I will clarify. The liberal wing of the democratic party has gained control, therefore most democrats reflect their party's agenda.
Funny. What I hear and read is more along the lines of the Democratic party moving to the right if anything.In fact I've heard and read the "Bush lite" adjective thrown around quite a bit.Haven't you?
Quote:
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.
In your usual oversimplification of arguments everyone who disagrees with you is branded a 'liberal" which you seem to equate to being a Dem.So you're saying all Dems are "liberals"? The way you have used the word "liberal" in a demeaning way in past posts, a-la Limbaugh kinda hurts your credibility. Which class are you referring to by the way? Your Pat Robertson class?
Quote:
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 skipped over it? That's funny considering I actually QUOTED it ANDcommented on it. Hint hint...check the last quote of the original post. Maybe you should work on those reading skills? Too funny.
Quote:
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.
lol Good one. Been taking drama lessons or something? Come on, don't be so sensitive Naples, you're breaking my heart there. Not that I care one bit, but maybe you should read your own posts again. Seems that what you're accusing me and others of, is something you do quite well. Spin at will!
It's funny how Naples can criticize the chart... without what it is addressing. (Krugman did not create the data it is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Economic Reports of the President, 2002, 2003 and 2004.)
Bush says "my tax cuts will create X many jobs" he gets the tax cut and.... tadaaa... nothin'.
"we need more tax cuts! and we'll really stimulate the economy and create more jobs!" he gets it and... wahoooo! Nothin'. No Bounce... not big jobs spurt... naaadaaaa.
So guess what Bush is saying now... "Make my tax cuts permanent and..." Except those permanent cuts won't even kick in for about what? I think its 5 or 10 years... so how is that going to create more jobs THIS YEAR?
It won't, that's why he's already ran away from his 2.6 million jobs prediction.
It won't, that's why he's already ran away from his 2.6 million jobs prediction.
Oh, come on chu_bakka. We had a very healthy 21,000 new jobs last month. Two point six million is just around the corner. At that rate we'll be there by 2014, so take that!
1. What did Clinton do to run with the ball as you put it? Raise taxes?
2. What did Bush to cause a recession? (BTW, it doesn;t matter how times I post this, you don't listen: UNEMPLOYMENT WAS NEVER "THE HIGHEST" SINCE WWII....NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. It didn't even reach 1991 recession levels. Your statement is patently false.
3. Please show me how balancing the budget (accomplished by the Republican Congress in part) helped the economy and unemployment. It didn't. It's nearly a separate issue.
Geez! Will you as teacher learn to READ!
Show me where I said Bush caused the recession!
Also I explained how Clinton turned the economic upswing of the cycle into a really stellar bull market.
If you're going to complain about what I've said take your Bush blinders off and learn to read!
Fact: There are more people employed in the US today than in January 2001. We have NOT lost 2,000,000 jobs. Go look up the number at the BLS. 2,000,000 jobs? Well yes....it's about 2,000,000 GAINED.
And really...as far as economic policies go: There is no disputing that the recession at least got its start BEFORE Clinton left office. There is no possible way, billybobsky, that you can say "Clinton's policies made the recession less severe". That's utterly nuts.
We started coming out of recession at the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003. By then, Bush's policies had time to take effect along with the natural business cycle. Cutting taxes works. It always has. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan, It worked for Bush.
And giant, I'll thank you in advance for not including the content of private messages in public postings. That's really inappropriate. As for the issue at hand, I'll give you the one regarding about Representative who made the comment you mentioned. He was obviously very wrong to say that. However, I don't see Republicans in general making those kinds of references. A lot of the things you posted in your private message (which I won't quote, because it was....wait for it...PRIVATE) are terms used in jest and you know that very well.
Fact: There are more people employed in the US today than in January 2001. We have NOT lost 2,000,000 jobs. Go look up the number at the BLS. 2,000,000 jobs? Well yes....it's about 2,000,000 GAINED.
That's something you should cite so others could confirm.
Yeah, you really poked holes in my "theories" there. So what are you then if you're not a Rep? I mean, you could have fooled me the way you jumped into the discussion to defend SDW and to attack "liberals". In fact you kept mentioning "liberals" time and time again like it's an obsession.I'm tempted not to disagree with you on that one.Funny. What I hear and read is more along the lines of the Democratic party moving to the right if anything.In fact I've heard and read the "Bush lite" adjective thrown around quite a bit.Haven't you? In your usual oversimplification of arguments everyone who disagrees with you is branded a 'liberal" which you seem to equate to being a Dem.So you're saying all Dems are "liberals"? The way you have used the word "liberal" in a demeaning way in past posts, a-la Limbaugh kinda hurts your credibility. Which class are you referring to by the way? Your Pat Robertson class?
I skipped over it? That's funny considering I actually QUOTED it ANDcommented on it. Hint hint...check the last quote of the original post. Maybe you should work on those reading skills? Too funny.
lol Good one. Been taking drama lessons or something? Come on, don't be so sensitive Naples, you're breaking my heart there. Not that I care one bit, but maybe you should read your own posts again. Seems that what you're accusing me and others of, is something you do quite well. Spin at will!
Look, I think you are wasting both of our time here, trying to label me as a liberal hater, I am not. I am simply pointing out how divisive the "Democrat" talking points are. That is the way I see it. Apparently you see it different. That is OK though, because we are all allowed our opinions.
When I said you skipped I meant contextually, You broke my whole comment into small pieces and then used my words against me, when in context of the whole comment the entire argument is clear.
I did not contradict myself. I corrected your misrepresentation of my original post and intent. If you read the post contextually, you would understand that and discontinue your attempts at labeling me. That is, if you were actually interested in civil discourse.
I worded my post fairly carefully and indicated that I was talking about the "Democratic Party" in general, not just you. I was hoping, maybe I was misguided in that, that you would have figured that I was implying that you are falling in, lock step with them. Did I overestimate you? Or are you here to argue, just for the sake of arguing, or are you trying to impress someone by your superior analytical prowess or is it for another reason?
I am not sure, but I know this, you are not seeking any kind of compromise or any common basis for discussion. If you were, you would turn down the angry tone and rhetoric and stop marginalizing everyone that says something that is different from your view. How do you learn anything with that approach? This is a discussion forum, not an "Argument Forum".
Both sides seem to do it when arguments get heated, but I see the left, at least here seems to start off hateful. The title of this thread shows that clearly.
I don't understand the mentality of people that seem to need groups of like minded people that also need confirmation. I personally try to steer clear of those kinds of things. That's me. Maybe I'm unique.
Wether you like it or not, without SDW or myself interjecting, this would have been a democratic "I hate Bush" -fest. Now I want you all to know that if I happened across a group of people relentlessly attacking you, I would jump in and help you fend them off. I saw that going on here, so I felt compelled to comment.
I don't think Bush is perfect, however I also don't think he is as bad as the extremists that frequent these forums do either. As a matter of fact, SDW seems to feel the same way, so I don't think we are the neo-cons that you try to label us. So why don't we all relax and try to make some sense out this crazy world together, what do ya say?
N. Gregory Mankiw is an/the economic advisor to the president.
He held the same "post" in the Clinton administration.
I would advise all here to rewatch the Simpsons episode when aliens take over Bob Dole and Bill Clinton's bodies during the '96 elections.
Do any of you REALLY think that you can shift the course of a gargantuan buracracy with the window dressing of one Chief Executive?
That's actually a very good point. Two things:
1) The Bush admin has a habit of NOT LISTENING to their advisors. See the Esquire profile of DeIulio (who was later forced to recant his LONG comments about the inner workings of this admin's "policymaking"--which he says doesn't exist.
2) Before Bush, before 9/11, before this particularly combative generation of conservatives took control of the government, I'd have agreed that the president is window dressing. But this admin seems to have done what few before them have been able to do.
Do any of you REALLY think that you can shift the course of a gargantuan buracracy with the window dressing of one Chief Executive?
I really do. You have to remember that Bush is one person, but his administration is a lot larger. And yeah, administrations generally "shift the course" of things. That's what they do.
Look, I think you are wasting both of our time here, trying to label me as a liberal hater, I am not. I am simply pointing out how divisive the "Democrat" talking points are. That is the way I see it. Apparently you see it different. That is OK though, because we are all allowed our opinions.
You do realize that saying the opposition is being divisive is a way of being divisive without seeming to be so, right? Riiiight?
but you fail to recognize the number of NEW people entering the job market. So what every measly gains over the last 3+ years have been... it's not nearly the rate it should be. So with layoffs and high school and college grads entering the workforce... it's easy to see where the 3 million in job losses comes from.
Do you think everyone is making the JOBLESS RECOVERY up?
The outsourcing of jobs to india and asia is massive...
Fact: There are more people employed in the US today than in January 2001. We have NOT lost 2,000,000 jobs. Go look up the number at the BLS. 2,000,000 jobs? Well yes....it's about 2,000,000 GAINED.
Not sure that is true but we should be gaining roughly 1.8 M PER YEAR given prior trends...
Quote:
And really...as far as economic policies go: There is no disputing that the recession at least got its start BEFORE Clinton left office. There is no possible way, billybobsky, that you can say "Clinton's policies made the recession less severe". That's utterly nuts.
We started coming out of recession at the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003. By then, Bush's policies had time to take effect along with the natural business cycle. Cutting taxes works. It always has. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan, It worked for Bush.
Certainly I can claim that since it is well accepted (evidently) even by you who have claimed that it takes three years for the economy to respond to changes at the top. That means since Bush only came into office in early 2001 there is no way in hell his tax cuts in mid-2001 were working one year later ending the recession. It is simple logic that the system had to have been in place from the Clinton administration to make this recession shallow. Or it could be completely unrelated, but you can't legitimately claim that Bush was successful at stopping the recession early because we should have seen normal job growth by this point... Recessions are a part of the normal business cycle, so blaming them on a president actually makes no sense, the rapidity of a recovery is dependent on the president and we are not recovering at even a decent clip some 2.7 years after these supposedly wonderful tax cuts.
N. Gregory Mankiw is an/the economic advisor to the president.
He held the same "post" in the Clinton administration.
I would advise all here to rewatch the Simpsons episode when aliens take over Bob Dole and Bill Clinton's bodies during the '96 elections.
Do any of you REALLY think that you can shift the course of a gargantuan buracracy with the window dressing of one Chief Executive?
DMZ you are a wize man IMO.
You bring up an excellent point. I have tried to go down this road several times before with no luck. Let me expand:
Let me preface this with the fact that I think there should be term limits for congress. I mean Sen. Kennedy, need I say more?
A president has a lot to battle with to make any kind of progress at all. He/she has to win support of a whole range of people from all parties. Being too rigid will get him/her nothing. The president needs to provide leadership so that everyone will follow his lead or at least consider going along. Compromises are made on all sides, including the president. (This is precisely why the whole "Bush lied" theory does not fly. IMO) This is how washington works. I think we all know that. That bureaucracy will be there long after bush and/or kerry are gone.
I think Massachusetts is quite happy with the service of Kennedy and Kerry...
That's why they keep getting re-elected.
How long were Helms and Thurmond in office? I would have loved for them to have gotten tossed out DECADES ago... but those states saw fit to keep them around.
Comments
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?
he is right wing...that's something
Originally posted by NaplesX
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.
Yeah, you really poked holes in my "theories" there. So what are you then if you're not a Rep? I mean, you could have fooled me the way you jumped into the discussion to defend SDW and to attack "liberals". In fact you kept mentioning "liberals" time and time again like it's an obsession.
Ok Mr. Smart Pants, Because you are too smart for my backwards way of thinking
I'm tempted not to disagree with you on that one.
I will clarify. The liberal wing of the democratic party has gained control, therefore most democrats reflect their party's agenda.
Funny. What I hear and read is more along the lines of the Democratic party moving to the right if anything.In fact I've heard and read the "Bush lite" adjective thrown around quite a bit.Haven't you?
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.
In your usual oversimplification of arguments everyone who disagrees with you is branded a 'liberal" which you seem to equate to being a Dem.So you're saying all Dems are "liberals"? The way you have used the word "liberal" in a demeaning way in past posts, a-la Limbaugh kinda hurts your credibility. Which class are you referring to by the way? Your Pat Robertson class?
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 skipped over it? That's funny considering I actually QUOTED it ANDcommented on it. Hint hint...check the last quote of the original post.
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.
lol Good one. Been taking drama lessons or something? Come on, don't be so sensitive Naples, you're breaking my heart there. Not that I care one bit, but maybe you should read your own posts again. Seems that what you're accusing me and others of, is something you do quite well. Spin at will!
Check out the Gallup!
Giddy-up.
It's funny how Naples can criticize the chart... without what it is addressing. (Krugman did not create the data it is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Economic Reports of the President, 2002, 2003 and 2004.)
Bush says "my tax cuts will create X many jobs" he gets the tax cut and.... tadaaa... nothin'.
"we need more tax cuts! and we'll really stimulate the economy and create more jobs!" he gets it and... wahoooo! Nothin'. No Bounce... not big jobs spurt... naaadaaaa.
So guess what Bush is saying now... "Make my tax cuts permanent and..." Except those permanent cuts won't even kick in for about what? I think its 5 or 10 years... so how is that going to create more jobs THIS YEAR?
It won't, that's why he's already ran away from his 2.6 million jobs prediction.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It won't, that's why he's already ran away from his 2.6 million jobs prediction.
Oh, come on chu_bakka. We had a very healthy 21,000 new jobs last month. Two point six million is just around the corner. At that rate we'll be there by 2014, so take that!
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. What did Clinton do to run with the ball as you put it? Raise taxes?
2. What did Bush to cause a recession? (BTW, it doesn;t matter how times I post this, you don't listen: UNEMPLOYMENT WAS NEVER "THE HIGHEST" SINCE WWII....NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. It didn't even reach 1991 recession levels. Your statement is patently false.
3. Please show me how balancing the budget (accomplished by the Republican Congress in part) helped the economy and unemployment. It didn't. It's nearly a separate issue.
Geez! Will you as teacher learn to READ!
Show me where I said Bush caused the recession!
Also I explained how Clinton turned the economic upswing of the cycle into a really stellar bull market.
If you're going to complain about what I've said take your Bush blinders off and learn to read!
And really...as far as economic policies go: There is no disputing that the recession at least got its start BEFORE Clinton left office. There is no possible way, billybobsky, that you can say "Clinton's policies made the recession less severe". That's utterly nuts.
We started coming out of recession at the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003. By then, Bush's policies had time to take effect along with the natural business cycle. Cutting taxes works. It always has. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan, It worked for Bush.
And giant, I'll thank you in advance for not including the content of private messages in public postings. That's really inappropriate. As for the issue at hand, I'll give you the one regarding about Representative who made the comment you mentioned. He was obviously very wrong to say that. However, I don't see Republicans in general making those kinds of references. A lot of the things you posted in your private message (which I won't quote, because it was....wait for it...PRIVATE) are terms used in jest and you know that very well.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Fact: There are more people employed in the US today than in January 2001. We have NOT lost 2,000,000 jobs. Go look up the number at the BLS. 2,000,000 jobs? Well yes....it's about 2,000,000 GAINED.
That's something you should cite so others could confirm.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
That's something you should cite so others could confirm.
Any of those added jobs part of Bush's new "hey! Let's give illegal immigrants legal work status!" program?
He held the same "post" in the Clinton administration.
I would advise all here to rewatch the Simpsons episode when aliens take over Bob Dole and Bill Clinton's bodies during the '96 elections.
Do any of you REALLY think that you can shift the course of a gargantuan buracracy with the window dressing of one Chief Executive?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, you really poked holes in my "theories" there. So what are you then if you're not a Rep? I mean, you could have fooled me the way you jumped into the discussion to defend SDW and to attack "liberals". In fact you kept mentioning "liberals" time and time again like it's an obsession.I'm tempted not to disagree with you on that one.
I skipped over it? That's funny considering I actually QUOTED it ANDcommented on it. Hint hint...check the last quote of the original post.
lol Good one. Been taking drama lessons or something? Come on, don't be so sensitive Naples, you're breaking my heart there. Not that I care one bit, but maybe you should read your own posts again. Seems that what you're accusing me and others of, is something you do quite well. Spin at will!
Look, I think you are wasting both of our time here, trying to label me as a liberal hater, I am not. I am simply pointing out how divisive the "Democrat" talking points are. That is the way I see it. Apparently you see it different. That is OK though, because we are all allowed our opinions.
When I said you skipped I meant contextually, You broke my whole comment into small pieces and then used my words against me, when in context of the whole comment the entire argument is clear.
I did not contradict myself. I corrected your misrepresentation of my original post and intent. If you read the post contextually, you would understand that and discontinue your attempts at labeling me. That is, if you were actually interested in civil discourse.
I worded my post fairly carefully and indicated that I was talking about the "Democratic Party" in general, not just you. I was hoping, maybe I was misguided in that, that you would have figured that I was implying that you are falling in, lock step with them. Did I overestimate you? Or are you here to argue, just for the sake of arguing, or are you trying to impress someone by your superior analytical prowess or is it for another reason?
I am not sure, but I know this, you are not seeking any kind of compromise or any common basis for discussion. If you were, you would turn down the angry tone and rhetoric and stop marginalizing everyone that says something that is different from your view. How do you learn anything with that approach? This is a discussion forum, not an "Argument Forum".
Both sides seem to do it when arguments get heated, but I see the left, at least here seems to start off hateful. The title of this thread shows that clearly.
I don't understand the mentality of people that seem to need groups of like minded people that also need confirmation. I personally try to steer clear of those kinds of things. That's me. Maybe I'm unique.
Wether you like it or not, without SDW or myself interjecting, this would have been a democratic "I hate Bush" -fest. Now I want you all to know that if I happened across a group of people relentlessly attacking you, I would jump in and help you fend them off. I saw that going on here, so I felt compelled to comment.
I don't think Bush is perfect, however I also don't think he is as bad as the extremists that frequent these forums do either. As a matter of fact, SDW seems to feel the same way, so I don't think we are the neo-cons that you try to label us. So why don't we all relax and try to make some sense out this crazy world together, what do ya say?
Originally posted by dmz
N. Gregory Mankiw is an/the economic advisor to the president.
He held the same "post" in the Clinton administration.
I would advise all here to rewatch the Simpsons episode when aliens take over Bob Dole and Bill Clinton's bodies during the '96 elections.
Do any of you REALLY think that you can shift the course of a gargantuan buracracy with the window dressing of one Chief Executive?
That's actually a very good point. Two things:
1) The Bush admin has a habit of NOT LISTENING to their advisors. See the Esquire profile of DeIulio (who was later forced to recant his LONG comments about the inner workings of this admin's "policymaking"--which he says doesn't exist.
2) Before Bush, before 9/11, before this particularly combative generation of conservatives took control of the government, I'd have agreed that the president is window dressing. But this admin seems to have done what few before them have been able to do.
Originally posted by dmz
Do any of you REALLY think that you can shift the course of a gargantuan buracracy with the window dressing of one Chief Executive?
I really do. You have to remember that Bush is one person, but his administration is a lot larger. And yeah, administrations generally "shift the course" of things. That's what they do.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Look, I think you are wasting both of our time here, trying to label me as a liberal hater, I am not. I am simply pointing out how divisive the "Democrat" talking points are. That is the way I see it. Apparently you see it different. That is OK though, because we are all allowed our opinions.
You do realize that saying the opposition is being divisive is a way of being divisive without seeming to be so, right? Riiiight?
but you fail to recognize the number of NEW people entering the job market. So what every measly gains over the last 3+ years have been... it's not nearly the rate it should be. So with layoffs and high school and college grads entering the workforce... it's easy to see where the 3 million in job losses comes from.
Do you think everyone is making the JOBLESS RECOVERY up?
The outsourcing of jobs to india and asia is massive...
Originally posted by midwinter
Any of those added jobs part of Bush's new "hey! Let's give illegal immigrants legal work status!" program?
Or are any of the jobs hamburger " manufacturing "?
Originally posted by jimmac
Or are any of the jobs hamburger " manufacturing ".
I forgot about that!!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Fact: There are more people employed in the US today than in January 2001. We have NOT lost 2,000,000 jobs. Go look up the number at the BLS. 2,000,000 jobs? Well yes....it's about 2,000,000 GAINED.
Not sure that is true but we should be gaining roughly 1.8 M PER YEAR given prior trends...
And really...as far as economic policies go: There is no disputing that the recession at least got its start BEFORE Clinton left office. There is no possible way, billybobsky, that you can say "Clinton's policies made the recession less severe". That's utterly nuts.
We started coming out of recession at the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003. By then, Bush's policies had time to take effect along with the natural business cycle. Cutting taxes works. It always has. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan, It worked for Bush.
Certainly I can claim that since it is well accepted (evidently) even by you who have claimed that it takes three years for the economy to respond to changes at the top. That means since Bush only came into office in early 2001 there is no way in hell his tax cuts in mid-2001 were working one year later ending the recession. It is simple logic that the system had to have been in place from the Clinton administration to make this recession shallow. Or it could be completely unrelated, but you can't legitimately claim that Bush was successful at stopping the recession early because we should have seen normal job growth by this point... Recessions are a part of the normal business cycle, so blaming them on a president actually makes no sense, the rapidity of a recovery is dependent on the president and we are not recovering at even a decent clip some 2.7 years after these supposedly wonderful tax cuts.
Originally posted by dmz
N. Gregory Mankiw is an/the economic advisor to the president.
He held the same "post" in the Clinton administration.
I would advise all here to rewatch the Simpsons episode when aliens take over Bob Dole and Bill Clinton's bodies during the '96 elections.
Do any of you REALLY think that you can shift the course of a gargantuan buracracy with the window dressing of one Chief Executive?
DMZ you are a wize man IMO.
You bring up an excellent point. I have tried to go down this road several times before with no luck. Let me expand:
Let me preface this with the fact that I think there should be term limits for congress. I mean Sen. Kennedy, need I say more?
A president has a lot to battle with to make any kind of progress at all. He/she has to win support of a whole range of people from all parties. Being too rigid will get him/her nothing. The president needs to provide leadership so that everyone will follow his lead or at least consider going along. Compromises are made on all sides, including the president. (This is precisely why the whole "Bush lied" theory does not fly. IMO) This is how washington works. I think we all know that. That bureaucracy will be there long after bush and/or kerry are gone.
That's why they keep getting re-elected.
How long were Helms and Thurmond in office? I would have loved for them to have gotten tossed out DECADES ago... but those states saw fit to keep them around.
I'd take Kennedy over Helms anyday,