billvon 3,116 #101 October 31, 2006 >Wars stimulate the economy. It's the recession after the war we have to worry about. Fortunately, we won't have to worry about that for decades. How many bucks you figure we're making per dead soldier? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #102 October 31, 2006 Quote>Wars stimulate the economy. It's the recession after the war we have to worry about. Fortunately, we won't have to worry about that for decades. How many bucks you figure we're making per dead soldier? Sorry, I mistakenly thought you wanted to talk about ways to cut govt. spending. Obviously we had deficit and debt going back decades. Of course I forgot how it's impossible to discuss anything here anymore without bringing the war into it. Never mind. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #103 October 31, 2006 >Of course I forgot how it's impossible to discuss anything >here anymore without bringing the war into it. OK, so we'll strike your comment about wars stimulating the economy. To get back to the original topic: Avoiding optional wars will save us about $120 billion a year. Our current deficit is $445 billion a year - so that will get us about 1/4 of the way there. Other things to cut: Cut NASA funding, and go with incentive prizes to encourage exploration. Savings: $17 billion. Cut military expenditures by 50%. Switch from an offensive force to a defensive one. Savings: $220 billion. Require users of federal lands (primarily loggers) to pay for the costs incurred by the Department of the Interior for maintaining their access. Savings: $10 billion. Cut subsidies to large companies (including in the oil, retail and manufacturing industries.) Savings: ~$10 billion. All that gets the deficit down to $68 billion. Next, pass a balanced budget amendment with reporting requirements. Everyone's tax rate is set not by a law, but by how much congress spends. Watch how fast taxes drop as people realize that every program that gets added raises their taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #104 October 31, 2006 QuoteTo get back to the original topic: Avoiding optional wars . . . Title of thread: CNN Poll, Bush and Civil Rights I shouldn't laugh, as I've hijacked my share of threads, but you have to see the humor here. QuoteAll that gets the deficit down to $68 billion. Next, pass a balanced budget amendment with reporting requirements. Everyone's tax rate is set not by a law, but by how much congress spends. Watch how fast taxes drop as people realize that every program that gets added raises their taxes. This sounds very interesting. Can you expound? Your other ideas were good, also, IMO.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #105 October 31, 2006 >Title of thread: CNN Poll, Bush and Civil Rights Sorry, should have said "going back to a recent topic in the thread . . ." >Can you expound? Currently the budget is decided independently of taxation. There's no requirement to make them even close to being balanced. So amend the constitution to require that the US balance its budget, and have a reporting requirement so that the people know how much they will be paying. Come up with a tax curve that shows what percentage of the deficit you will have to pay. The curve can be a straight line (flat tax) or linear (progressive) or exponential (more progressive) - that's a detail. At the end of the year, divide the deficit by number of payers, apply that curve - and that's your total tax. Require that Congress issues monthly reports (say, via a website) that shows how much they are spending and who voted for the spending. That way people can plan for what they will have to pay April 15th. If they don't like their tax burden - elections are in November. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #106 November 1, 2006 QuoteCurrently the budget is decided independently of taxation. There's no requirement to make them even close to being balanced. So amend the constitution to require that the US balance its budget, and have a reporting requirement so that the people know how much they will be paying. Come up with a tax curve that shows what percentage of the deficit you will have to pay. The curve can be a straight line (flat tax) or linear (progressive) or exponential (more progressive) - that's a detail. At the end of the year, divide the deficit by number of payers, apply that curve - and that's your total tax. Require that Congress issues monthly reports (say, via a website) that shows how much they are spending and who voted for the spending. That way people can plan for what they will have to pay April 15th. If they don't like their tax burden - elections are in November. You have my vote. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #107 November 1, 2006 Quote>Of course I forgot how it's impossible to discuss anything >here anymore without bringing the war into it. QuoteOK, so we'll strike your comment about wars stimulating the economy. To get back to the original topic: Sorry, didn't realize my realistic comment about wars being good for the economy would be something shiney. I'll try and keep that in mind. QuoteAvoiding optional wars will save us about $120 billion a year. Our current deficit is $445 billion a year - so that will get us about 1/4 of the way there. Good plan. All we have to agree on is "optional", but I digress. QuoteOther things to cut: Cut NASA funding, and go with incentive prizes to encourage exploration. Savings: $17 billion. You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) QuoteCut military expenditures by 50%. Switch from an offensive force to a defensive one. Savings: $220 billion. I don't think Koffi Annan or the boys at the U.N. are going to be too happy with your plan. QuoteRequire users of federal lands (primarily loggers) to pay for the costs incurred by the Department of the Interior for maintaining their access. Savings: $10 billion. Higher housing prices for the poor, unless you want to offer a govt. subsidy to them. QuoteCut subsidies to large companies (including in the oil, retail and manufacturing industries.) Savings: ~$10 billion. Higher costs for those who can least afford it. Unless we offer sunsidies to the poor. QuoteAll that gets the deficit down to $68 billion. Got to add in all those subsidies, though. QuoteNext, pass a balanced budget amendment with reporting requirements. Everyone's tax rate is set not by a law, but by how much congress spends. Watch how fast taxes drop as people realize that every program that gets added raises their taxes. Republicans tried to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment in the 90's. Clinton opposed it because it didn't allow for deficit spending in times of war, national emergencies, or to stimulate the economy in hard economic times. I do like the idea of including reporting with it. I would add going to a type of flat tax that could be adjusted yearly depending on how much the budget will be. I noticed you didn't include anything regarding S.S. Don't you think that's an important part of achieving a balanced budget? How much longer can we continue to pay people's retirement? I'd like to see some kind of means tests applied and some kind of incentive to opt out. All in all, some good ideas until some politician gets ahold of them and castigates you for trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #108 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteOther things to cut: Cut NASA funding, and go with incentive prizes to encourage exploration. Savings: $17 billion. You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) I interpreted incentives as offering prizes for being the first to accomplish something, like whoever can land the first person on Mars and bring them back safely wins X amount of dollars.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #109 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOther things to cut: Cut NASA funding, and go with incentive prizes to encourage exploration. Savings: $17 billion. You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) I interpreted incentives as offering prizes for being the first to accomplish something, like whoever can land the first person on Mars and bring them back safely wins X amount of dollars. What about small companies who don't have the capital to compete with the larger corps.? Do we just throw them to the curb by leaving them no alternative but to sell the technologies they develop to big companies? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #110 November 1, 2006 QuoteGood plan. All we have to agree on is "optional", but I digress. How about any war that the rich will not send theri children off to war.. to protect our freedom... that would be a good start. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #111 November 1, 2006 >You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) Nope! Pure payment for services rendered. Fly a spaceship to Mars and put a US flag on a hill. You get a $5 billion check. Do some science while you're there; give us the rocks when you get back. We'll give you $3 billion for the lot of them. Take a US scientist with you and let him do his thing. We'll pay $2 billion for his fare. (And if that still bothers you, consider this - Halliburton might get the money!) >Higher housing prices for the poor, unless you want to offer a govt. subsidy to them. Nope, that's HUD you're thinking of. No cuts there (at least that I discussed.) >Higher costs for those who can least afford it. Unless we offer sunsidies to the poor. Increase CAFE standards as well. That (effectively) makes more efficient cars cheaper, allowing the poor to pay less for gas _and_ cars. That covers the oil industry subsidies. People leaving Wal-Mart for local stores doesn't cost them more - studies have shown that the Wal-Mart phenomenon is primarily convenience. Plus which, Wal-Mart puts fewer people on welfare. So we save money there as well. >I noticed you didn't include anything regarding S.S. Don't you >think that's an important part of achieving a balanced budget? Yep. But it's a commitement we made, and we should not back out of such commitements. Fixes to SS can involve _future_ payers/payees, though, and we should re-vamp the program to reduce early-retirement payments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #112 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOther things to cut: Cut NASA funding, and go with incentive prizes to encourage exploration. Savings: $17 billion. You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) I interpreted incentives as offering prizes for being the first to accomplish something, like whoever can land the first person on Mars and bring them back safely wins X amount of dollars. What about small companies who don't have the capital to compete with the larger corps.? Do we just throw them to the curb by leaving them no alternative but to sell the technologies they develop to big companies? - Perhaps I used a misleading example. Projects smaller than a human to Mars mission could qualify for incentives. Or perhaps I am misinterpreting Billvon's post.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #113 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhich group (I'm asking for generalizations) has done more to erode those traditional American values? Neo Cons and those same patrician class like the Bushes who expect to get rich without doing the work of building a country for all the american people. Sending off american jobs so they can reap huge rewards in salaries in bonuses.. that has taken the american dream away from a large number of americans.... It stems from the self serving.. rather than serving America. Let's see... the Dems raise taxes on businesses... businessess, being driven by the bottom line, outsource jobs overseas... and this is somehow Bush's fault?. So why is outsourcing going on 6 years into a GOPfest? Try being logical. I suppose the 43% increase in the number of mortgage foreclosures last quarter is also Clinton's fault. Maybe I should start a thread on what people consider traditional American values... to me they are things like hard work, self-sufficiency, patriotism, property rights, respect for the laws and the process, live and let live. Most of these concepts have been eroding for 40 or 50 years. What has happened in the last six years is really no different than any previous decade. IMO it's the growth of the "it's not my fault, the government owns me, I'm entitled to healthcare & housing, it's my right, and any aspect where I may be lacking is the fault of society and the government" mindset. But, hey, lets get bent about Bush wanting to mistreat terrorists. They have rights, too. And third quarter foreclosures were lower than first quarter foreclosures. Hmmm QuoteMaybe I should start a thread on what people consider traditional American values.......live and let live. Come again, huh, what???? We have our noses in eberyone's business, that is the reciprocal of live-n-let live. QuoteMost of these concepts have been eroding for 40 or 50 years. What has happened in the last six years is really no different than any previous decade. - Miranda then (1966), entrapment now. - Katz v US then (1960's), People have privacy, not places, secretive wiretaps now. - 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act then, Overtime Law now I could go on, but I think I have embarrased you enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #114 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote The point you Busholytes are missing is that six years into a Bush presidency with GOP control of Congress, blaming the Dems for economic conditions, whether job outsourcing, the debt, the deficit, government spending spiraling out of control, Social Security and Medicare funding, mortgage foreclosures, or the Dow, just makes you look stupid. I can't speak for the "Busholytes" here, but as I see it, Bush and the Republicans in Congress have a lot to answer for. Going to Iraq was a seriously flawed decision. More than that, they had the opportunity to enact legislation favorable to mainstream conservatives. They pissed that one away. The assertion that the Democrats are somehow exempt from any blame regarding our governments problems is complete BULLSHIT. Own it. And the GOP has controlled Congrees for less than four years, NOT THE LAST SIX! Uh, the Repubs have controlled all of Congress, the White House and the US Sup Ct, so what could be the fault of Dems? Hell, they threatened a filibuster and the party of the babies threatened to change the rules that have been in effect since the foundation of the country, yet they want to rezone to fit their needs. You can scream all you want, the country has awoken to your parties criminality. Deal with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #115 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote The point you Busholytes are missing is that six years into a Bush presidency with GOP control of Congress, blaming the Dems for economic conditions, whether job outsourcing, the debt, the deficit, government spending spiraling out of control, Social Security and Medicare funding, mortgage foreclosures, or the Dow, just makes you look stupid. Seeing as how there are studies showing job losses to outsourcing over the last decade, coupled with documentarie bemoaning outsourcing in 1996/1997, makes you Clintolytes trying to blame everything from the K-T extinction to crop circles on Bush and the Republicans look even more stupid. So again, I will restate : A Democratic administration raises taxes. Businesses, looking for the preservation of profits, respond by moving operations overseas. Seeing as how this problem was already rearing it's head in the mid-90's, how is this Bush's fault???? You seem to be hung on the textbook end of things, try to look at application and reality an dthen argue it. - Debt 1 trillion when Reagan took office, now 8.5T 26 years later. - for the 8 years of the 26 there was a Dem, the debt went from 45 degrees incline to horizontal, then turned > 45 degrees when a Repub came back in. ARGUE APPLICATION. Show me where your great Republican measures and mentality played out for the country. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insane. QuoteA Democratic administration raises taxes. Businesses, looking for the preservation of profits, respond by moving operations overseas. Raising taxes on the rich, what CLinton did, has proven to help everyone, especially the rich. Job outsourcing isn;t the only problem, but lowering taxes for the rich is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #116 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSome, around here, seem inclined to ignore primary points... instead trying to make issue with minor clarifications. Nice. Like those who think we should be impressed that after only six years the Dow is finally slightly higher than it was in 2000? The Dow is, but the Nasdaq and teh S&P isn't, so it's not as if the stock market is higher. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #117 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSome, around here, seem inclined to ignore primary points... instead trying to make issue with minor clarifications. Nice. Like those who think we should be impressed that after only six years the Dow is finally slightly higher than it was in 2000? Coming into the job at the start of the Clinton recession, with the added cost and turmoil of 9/11 and the Iraq war? And the fact that despite all that, the Dow is at record levels? Damn skippy. The stock market isn't at record levels. The cost of teh Iraq War? The war accounts for only 10% of the total increase in debt, not to mention Bush brought that on himself, so what's the point here? The debt has increased in 6 years under GW Bush the same amount as Reagan/GHW Bush in 12 years, so what's so great? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #118 November 1, 2006 Quote>A Democratic administration raises taxes. And a republican administration raises spending. It's got to get paid back at some point. Think of the republicans as the 16-year-old with the credit card. At some point the adults have to step in, take away the credit card, and pay the bank back. You really want to reduce taxes? Reduce spending. Anything else is just giving that 16 year old another credit card. Driving to the polls: $6 in gas Taking the afternoon off: $50 Spanking the criminals out of office: Priceless I thought it would fit in with the credit card metaphor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #119 November 1, 2006 QuoteWhen was the last time overall annual spending was reduced? Mid 90's, at least in relation to the GNP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #120 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote>Unless the 16 y.o is investing the money he's paying 9% on and >getting 20% back. Right. But he's not. He's ratcheting up his debt to the tune of trillions a year. Trillions a year? No kidding. OK, only 1/2 trillion per year, it's no big deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #121 November 1, 2006 When it comes to Manic Depressive types, those manic swings are a hoot. Who the hell cares about factual accuracy? Just enjoy the show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #122 November 1, 2006 >When it comes to Manic Depressive types . . . Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 5 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jcd11235 0 #108 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteOther things to cut: Cut NASA funding, and go with incentive prizes to encourage exploration. Savings: $17 billion. You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) I interpreted incentives as offering prizes for being the first to accomplish something, like whoever can land the first person on Mars and bring them back safely wins X amount of dollars.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #109 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOther things to cut: Cut NASA funding, and go with incentive prizes to encourage exploration. Savings: $17 billion. You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) I interpreted incentives as offering prizes for being the first to accomplish something, like whoever can land the first person on Mars and bring them back safely wins X amount of dollars. What about small companies who don't have the capital to compete with the larger corps.? Do we just throw them to the curb by leaving them no alternative but to sell the technologies they develop to big companies? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #110 November 1, 2006 QuoteGood plan. All we have to agree on is "optional", but I digress. How about any war that the rich will not send theri children off to war.. to protect our freedom... that would be a good start. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #111 November 1, 2006 >You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) Nope! Pure payment for services rendered. Fly a spaceship to Mars and put a US flag on a hill. You get a $5 billion check. Do some science while you're there; give us the rocks when you get back. We'll give you $3 billion for the lot of them. Take a US scientist with you and let him do his thing. We'll pay $2 billion for his fare. (And if that still bothers you, consider this - Halliburton might get the money!) >Higher housing prices for the poor, unless you want to offer a govt. subsidy to them. Nope, that's HUD you're thinking of. No cuts there (at least that I discussed.) >Higher costs for those who can least afford it. Unless we offer sunsidies to the poor. Increase CAFE standards as well. That (effectively) makes more efficient cars cheaper, allowing the poor to pay less for gas _and_ cars. That covers the oil industry subsidies. People leaving Wal-Mart for local stores doesn't cost them more - studies have shown that the Wal-Mart phenomenon is primarily convenience. Plus which, Wal-Mart puts fewer people on welfare. So we save money there as well. >I noticed you didn't include anything regarding S.S. Don't you >think that's an important part of achieving a balanced budget? Yep. But it's a commitement we made, and we should not back out of such commitements. Fixes to SS can involve _future_ payers/payees, though, and we should re-vamp the program to reduce early-retirement payments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #112 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOther things to cut: Cut NASA funding, and go with incentive prizes to encourage exploration. Savings: $17 billion. You mean tax incentives (cuts)for businesses? That's corporate welfare. (Heresy) I interpreted incentives as offering prizes for being the first to accomplish something, like whoever can land the first person on Mars and bring them back safely wins X amount of dollars. What about small companies who don't have the capital to compete with the larger corps.? Do we just throw them to the curb by leaving them no alternative but to sell the technologies they develop to big companies? - Perhaps I used a misleading example. Projects smaller than a human to Mars mission could qualify for incentives. Or perhaps I am misinterpreting Billvon's post.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #113 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhich group (I'm asking for generalizations) has done more to erode those traditional American values? Neo Cons and those same patrician class like the Bushes who expect to get rich without doing the work of building a country for all the american people. Sending off american jobs so they can reap huge rewards in salaries in bonuses.. that has taken the american dream away from a large number of americans.... It stems from the self serving.. rather than serving America. Let's see... the Dems raise taxes on businesses... businessess, being driven by the bottom line, outsource jobs overseas... and this is somehow Bush's fault?. So why is outsourcing going on 6 years into a GOPfest? Try being logical. I suppose the 43% increase in the number of mortgage foreclosures last quarter is also Clinton's fault. Maybe I should start a thread on what people consider traditional American values... to me they are things like hard work, self-sufficiency, patriotism, property rights, respect for the laws and the process, live and let live. Most of these concepts have been eroding for 40 or 50 years. What has happened in the last six years is really no different than any previous decade. IMO it's the growth of the "it's not my fault, the government owns me, I'm entitled to healthcare & housing, it's my right, and any aspect where I may be lacking is the fault of society and the government" mindset. But, hey, lets get bent about Bush wanting to mistreat terrorists. They have rights, too. And third quarter foreclosures were lower than first quarter foreclosures. Hmmm QuoteMaybe I should start a thread on what people consider traditional American values.......live and let live. Come again, huh, what???? We have our noses in eberyone's business, that is the reciprocal of live-n-let live. QuoteMost of these concepts have been eroding for 40 or 50 years. What has happened in the last six years is really no different than any previous decade. - Miranda then (1966), entrapment now. - Katz v US then (1960's), People have privacy, not places, secretive wiretaps now. - 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act then, Overtime Law now I could go on, but I think I have embarrased you enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #114 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote The point you Busholytes are missing is that six years into a Bush presidency with GOP control of Congress, blaming the Dems for economic conditions, whether job outsourcing, the debt, the deficit, government spending spiraling out of control, Social Security and Medicare funding, mortgage foreclosures, or the Dow, just makes you look stupid. I can't speak for the "Busholytes" here, but as I see it, Bush and the Republicans in Congress have a lot to answer for. Going to Iraq was a seriously flawed decision. More than that, they had the opportunity to enact legislation favorable to mainstream conservatives. They pissed that one away. The assertion that the Democrats are somehow exempt from any blame regarding our governments problems is complete BULLSHIT. Own it. And the GOP has controlled Congrees for less than four years, NOT THE LAST SIX! Uh, the Repubs have controlled all of Congress, the White House and the US Sup Ct, so what could be the fault of Dems? Hell, they threatened a filibuster and the party of the babies threatened to change the rules that have been in effect since the foundation of the country, yet they want to rezone to fit their needs. You can scream all you want, the country has awoken to your parties criminality. Deal with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #115 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote The point you Busholytes are missing is that six years into a Bush presidency with GOP control of Congress, blaming the Dems for economic conditions, whether job outsourcing, the debt, the deficit, government spending spiraling out of control, Social Security and Medicare funding, mortgage foreclosures, or the Dow, just makes you look stupid. Seeing as how there are studies showing job losses to outsourcing over the last decade, coupled with documentarie bemoaning outsourcing in 1996/1997, makes you Clintolytes trying to blame everything from the K-T extinction to crop circles on Bush and the Republicans look even more stupid. So again, I will restate : A Democratic administration raises taxes. Businesses, looking for the preservation of profits, respond by moving operations overseas. Seeing as how this problem was already rearing it's head in the mid-90's, how is this Bush's fault???? You seem to be hung on the textbook end of things, try to look at application and reality an dthen argue it. - Debt 1 trillion when Reagan took office, now 8.5T 26 years later. - for the 8 years of the 26 there was a Dem, the debt went from 45 degrees incline to horizontal, then turned > 45 degrees when a Repub came back in. ARGUE APPLICATION. Show me where your great Republican measures and mentality played out for the country. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insane. QuoteA Democratic administration raises taxes. Businesses, looking for the preservation of profits, respond by moving operations overseas. Raising taxes on the rich, what CLinton did, has proven to help everyone, especially the rich. Job outsourcing isn;t the only problem, but lowering taxes for the rich is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #116 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSome, around here, seem inclined to ignore primary points... instead trying to make issue with minor clarifications. Nice. Like those who think we should be impressed that after only six years the Dow is finally slightly higher than it was in 2000? The Dow is, but the Nasdaq and teh S&P isn't, so it's not as if the stock market is higher. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #117 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSome, around here, seem inclined to ignore primary points... instead trying to make issue with minor clarifications. Nice. Like those who think we should be impressed that after only six years the Dow is finally slightly higher than it was in 2000? Coming into the job at the start of the Clinton recession, with the added cost and turmoil of 9/11 and the Iraq war? And the fact that despite all that, the Dow is at record levels? Damn skippy. The stock market isn't at record levels. The cost of teh Iraq War? The war accounts for only 10% of the total increase in debt, not to mention Bush brought that on himself, so what's the point here? The debt has increased in 6 years under GW Bush the same amount as Reagan/GHW Bush in 12 years, so what's so great? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #118 November 1, 2006 Quote>A Democratic administration raises taxes. And a republican administration raises spending. It's got to get paid back at some point. Think of the republicans as the 16-year-old with the credit card. At some point the adults have to step in, take away the credit card, and pay the bank back. You really want to reduce taxes? Reduce spending. Anything else is just giving that 16 year old another credit card. Driving to the polls: $6 in gas Taking the afternoon off: $50 Spanking the criminals out of office: Priceless I thought it would fit in with the credit card metaphor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #119 November 1, 2006 QuoteWhen was the last time overall annual spending was reduced? Mid 90's, at least in relation to the GNP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #120 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote>Unless the 16 y.o is investing the money he's paying 9% on and >getting 20% back. Right. But he's not. He's ratcheting up his debt to the tune of trillions a year. Trillions a year? No kidding. OK, only 1/2 trillion per year, it's no big deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #121 November 1, 2006 When it comes to Manic Depressive types, those manic swings are a hoot. Who the hell cares about factual accuracy? Just enjoy the show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #122 November 1, 2006 >When it comes to Manic Depressive types . . . Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
