kallend 2,131 #76 July 28, 2004 QuoteDo some of you honestly believe that the economy magically dropped because of Bush taking office? That is ridiculous. The economy is kinda like steering a boat on a much larger scale. It takes time for the thing to work. I guess if you believe that you would certainly believe that if by chance Kerry wins office and 2 months later the economy is booming it is Kerry's work. Horseshit. Bush has been having to clean up Clinton's mistakes with the economy. It is a never ending cycle. When Bush wins in November and the economy is booming what are you going to say then? "What about the record deficit?"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #77 July 28, 2004 Quote1. Got us out of the Clinton-Gore recession? Recession??? As I recall, the economy was booming, jobs everywhere, until Bush came in office, and down everything went, thousands of jobs lost. Ah yes, one of the least credible lies of the whole lying, BS Democratic line of crap. Fact: The economy was clearly heading downhill well before Bush was even elected. This fact is a matter of historical record, and disputing it is nothing but silly. Have at it! . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #78 July 28, 2004 QuoteFact: The economy was clearly heading downhill well before Bush was even elected. Very true. But Bush made it a lot worse by knee jerk tax rebates his first year (here's a clue, they weren't refunds, you had to pay it back when you filed your return). I don't give Clinton much credit for the boom in the 90's, but I definitely give Bush credit for making the decline worse, and longer lasting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #79 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteFact: The economy was clearly heading downhill well before Bush was even elected. Very true. But Bush made it a lot worse by knee jerk tax rebates his first year (here's a clue, they weren't refunds, you had to pay it back when you filed your return). I don't give Clinton much credit for the boom in the 90's, but I definitely give Bush credit for making the decline worse, and longer lasting. Got any data to back that up? My thoughts were that the tax cuts eased what otherwise would've been a more severe recession. After all, it wasn't as bad a recession as say . . . the Carter recession. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #80 July 28, 2004 I find it amusing that it cost the government more to mail my grandma's refund than the actual amount of the check. it was something like $.12 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #81 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteFact: The economy was clearly heading downhill well before Bush was even elected. Very true. But Bush made it a lot worse by knee jerk tax rebates his first year (here's a clue, they weren't refunds, you had to pay it back when you filed your return). I don't give Clinton much credit for the boom in the 90's, but I definitely give Bush credit for making the decline worse, and longer lasting. Got any data to back that up? My thoughts were that the tax cuts eased what otherwise would've been a more severe recession. After all, it wasn't as bad a recession as say . . . the Carter recession. "our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term", GWB, Address to Congress, January 2002 Tell us again how small it is, and how long it will last.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #82 July 28, 2004 Quote"our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term", GWB, Address to Congress, January 2002 Tell us again how small it is, and how long it will last. Once again, as with Bush's other "lies", he is simply guilty of bad prognostication. I'm not fond of the current deficit, but the question remains -- would the deficits (and economy at large) have been better, worse, or unaffected without the tax cuts? Do you understand how lower tax rates can raise tax revenues? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #83 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuote"our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term", GWB, Address to Congress, January 2002 Tell us again how small it is, and how long it will last. Once again, as with Bush's other "lies", he is simply guilty of bad prognostication. I'm not fond of the current deficit, but the question remains -- would the deficits (and economy at large) have been better, worse, or unaffected without the tax cuts? Do you understand how lower tax rates can raise tax revenues? Are you saying he's not a liar, but just incompetent? This will help you understand the loss in Federal revenues. www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/cbo_percentages.pdf... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #84 July 28, 2004 QuoteAre you saying he's not a liar, but just incompetent? I think he's neither. Next, you'll ask me if I've stopped beating my wife. QuoteThis will help you understand the loss in Federal revenues. www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/cbo_percentages.pdf Interesting compilation of data, and I'm not smart enough to confirm or deny it's validity, but then I went on to discover that author John Irons is a flagrant liberal with a biased point of view. Warning . . . Warning!! . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #85 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteAre you saying he's not a liar, but just incompetent? I think he's neither. Next, you'll ask me if I've stopped beating my wife. QuoteThis will help you understand the loss in Federal revenues. www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/cbo_percentages.pdf Interesting compilation of data, and I'm not smart enough to confirm or deny it's validity, but then I went on to discover that author John Irons is a flagrant liberal with a biased point of view. Warning . . . Warning!! Warning, data from the CBO follows, showing net LOSS of Federal tax revenues for years following Bush's tax cuts. Table 3-2. Estimated Effects on Revenues of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, 2001-2011 (In billions of dollars) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tax Receipts 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Individual Income -38 -62 -75 -86 -96 -116 -127 -134 -140 -149 -57 -1,079 Estate and Gift 0 * -4 -4 -7 -4 -10 -12 -13 -24 -29 -108 Corporate Incomea -23 23 0 -7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 * -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 * -10 Total -61 -40 -79 -97 -98 -122 -138 -147 -155 -175 -86 -1,197 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #86 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteAre you saying he's not a liar, but just incompetent? I think he's neither. Next, you'll ask me if I've stopped beating my wife. QuoteThis will help you understand the loss in Federal revenues. www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/cbo_percentages.pdf Interesting compilation of data, and I'm not smart enough to confirm or deny it's validity, but then I went on to discover that author John Irons is a flagrant liberal with a biased point of view. Warning . . . Warning!! Warning - more CBO data follow, not White House projections through rose colored glasses. All data in $Billions. You possibly might observe that since BUSH took office and enacted his tax cuts, revenues have actually declined and government expenditures have actually increased. Year Revenues Expenditures On-budget surplus 2000 2,025.2 1,788.8 86.6 2001 1,991.2 1,863.8 -33.3 2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 2003 1,782.3 2,157.6 -536.1 ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 July 28, 2004 Quote Got any data to back that up? My thoughts were that the tax cuts eased what otherwise would've been a more severe recession. After all, it wasn't as bad a recession as say . . . the Carter recession. I was too young to make much sense of the Carter Administration other than from an historical view. Were you around? The oil shock that came from OPEC was a bad hand to be dealt. Very inflationary. It's somewhat telling that when Reagan came in, the economy continued to slide and by the 1984 election was only back up to where it was when Reagan assumed office. Carter ran a very small deficit - 50-70B/year I believe. Outside of the late 90s, this was the lowest in decades. Was this a mistake? Should Carter had increased government spending at the cost of future debt, as has been the norm since the 80s? I don't think I'm a competent enough economist to answer that. Moving to the current - Bush's tax cuts are not so much a problem as the dramatic spending increases. It's no surprise that the deficits are increasing and are not short term. The CBO, though historically more 'conservative' in its projects, is not a liberal think tank. It's a bit disappointing. I felt safer with Bush coming in over Gore because you can always undo tax cuts, but new government spending is very difficult to remove. Every president promising to reduce the size of government has failed. So I believed in the long run debt/deficit picture, Bush would be a safer pick. That didn't pan out at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #88 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you saying he's not a liar, but just incompetent? I think he's neither. Next, you'll ask me if I've stopped beating my wife. QuoteThis will help you understand the loss in Federal revenues. www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/cbo_percentages.pdf Interesting compilation of data, and I'm not smart enough to confirm or deny it's validity, but then I went on to discover that author John Irons is a flagrant liberal with a biased point of view. Warning . . . Warning!! Warning - more CBO data follow, not White House projections through rose colored glasses. All data in $Billions. You possibly might observe that since BUSH took office and enacted his tax cuts, revenues have actually declined and government expenditures have actually increased. Year Revenues Expenditures On-budget surplus 2000 2,025.2 1,788.8 86.6 2001 1,991.2 1,863.8 -33.3 2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 2003 1,782.3 2,157.6 -536.1 Bump - no comments from the Conservatives?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #89 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteWarning - more CBO data follow, not White House projections through rose colored glasses. All data in $Billions. You possibly might observe that since BUSH took office and enacted his tax cuts, revenues have actually declined and government expenditures have actually increased. Year Revenues Expenditures On-budget surplus 2000 2,025.2 1,788.8 86.6 2001 1,991.2 1,863.8 -33.3 2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 2003 1,782.3 2,157.6 -536.1 Bump - no comments from the Conservatives? This data does not show any causal relationship between tax cuts and reduced revenues. We were in a natural recession cycle which began before Bush was elected. So again I ask: How do you know the recession wouldn't have been much worse without the cuts? Even John Irons has stated the portion of cuts going to middle America were a good thing. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #90 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteWarning - more CBO data follow, not White House projections through rose colored glasses. All data in $Billions. You possibly might observe that since BUSH took office and enacted his tax cuts, revenues have actually declined and government expenditures have actually increased. Year Revenues Expenditures On-budget surplus 2000 2,025.2 1,788.8 86.6 2001 1,991.2 1,863.8 -33.3 2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 2003 1,782.3 2,157.6 -536.1 Bump - no comments from the Conservatives? This data does not show any causal relationship between tax cuts and reduced revenues. We were in a natural recession cycle which began before Bush was elected. So again I ask: How do you know the recession wouldn't have been much worse without the cuts? Even John Irons has stated the portion of cuts going to middle America were a good thing. The CBO's estimates of the tax cut impact were in line with what subsequently happened, which is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship. Now tell us about how good Bush's increased government expenditures are.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #91 July 29, 2004 QuoteNow tell us about how good Bush's increased government expenditures are. Nope, not even gonna try. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivexxl 0 #92 July 29, 2004 QuoteHere's a few things: Abortion & Traditional Values 1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. 2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. 3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. 4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. 5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. 6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. 7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman. Gee... time and limited brain-power well spent.... Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #93 July 29, 2004 QuoteGee... time and limited brain-power well spent.... And all you did was sit here and complain about it. THAT is brain time well spent. It's like this - if you can't control yourself - and you know you can't get sterilized. Don't kill a human.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivexxl 0 #94 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteGee... time and limited brain-power well spent.... And all you did was sit here and complain about it. THAT is brain time well spent. It's like this - if you can't control yourself - and you know you can't get sterilized. Don't kill a human. That advice is working GREAT for Iraqi citizens! Me complaining, and Bush pushing HIS personal values on women are two very different things... Also, a little face doesn't always hide a lame attempt at a personal insult... Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
