0
tbrown

I Suppose We Should Thank Joe Wilson

Recommended Posts

>So because he didn't outright reject a bill because someone else put
>their pet pork in it, he's an adulterer?

?? No. Senators who preach family values and have sex with two other women are adulterers. Senators who rail against spending for illegal immigrant health care, but vote for it anyway, are merely hypocrites.

>Liberals and conservatives have been dancing this dance for years.
>Conservatives want lower taxes and less gov't, liberals just want more
>gov't. No one want to raise taxes as it's political suicide. Combine the two
>and you get a hybrid that can't be sustained.

Agreed. Neither side is willing to cut spending to get to a smaller government - which is how we got into this mess to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have....

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


I'm very confused.

I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process?

Thanks!
_________________________________________

Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time.



Kid? Why thank you.

You've failed to address objecctive data relating to the debt and spending habits of certain presidents, a very non-partisan approach, as I praise GHWB.

I one thread you stormed off when the data got to evidentiary, said you were done in that thread and then came back. Quit the posturing and just address the data, I'd be glad to repost it.

And for Tom, I would enjoy demonstrating my data for you, basic data that not obscure or old/irrelevant.

Quote

Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world.



Since you cannot successfully defend your point against my data you just get mad and run away, I ask that you address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see.




If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now?



Did I say it isn't?



Did you sy it is?


I've not sy'd anything, ever.

I have said that debt is not a firm foundation on which to build an economy many times on this forum, most recently on Aug 3, 2009, at 6:02 PM

So :P:P:P:P:P:P



That's a dirty trick. How am I suppose to argue with you when you are making me laugh? :D
www.FourWheelerHB.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now.



Surely you can't blame the expenditures Obama is making, not the proposals, but the current expenditures for recession recovery, you can't blame those on Obama.

Quote

I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences.



I do.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/.../fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf

Look at page 26.

From 1981 to 1988 Regan's spending was from 678,000,000 to 1,064,000,000 Difference of 386,000,000 or a 57% increase.

Under 4 years of GHWB spending was 1,143,000,000 to 1,381,000,000 Difference of 238,000,000 or a 21% increase (adjusted for 8 years it would be 42% increase).

Under 8 years of Clinton spending went from 1,409,000,000 to 1,789,000,000 Difference of 380,000,000 or a 27% increase.

Under 8 years of GWB spending went from 1,863,000,000 to 2,902,000,000 Difference of 1,039,000,000 or 56% increase.


So spending increases were twice that with Reagan and GWB than with Clinton and GHWB was in the middle. Actually that was for the annual budget, if you add Iraq spending 800B that would throw GWB over Reagan.

And taxation was higher with Dems, so that's why the debt picture looked so much better un der Dem leadership than with most Republican leadership, at least for last century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm more looking at the plans the current administration is putting forward, tempered a bit by the fact that they've got to deal with Congress.


You're looking at historical data to draw conclusions about the present folks in charge?

That might make sense if Hilary Clinton was president--you might be able to assume she'd act somewhat like Bill, who was, without a doubt, the deficit reduction champion of the modern era. But Hilary lost the primary, if I recall correctly.
-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That might make sense if Hilary Clinton was president--you might be able to assume she'd act somewhat like Bill . . .



Bullshit.

No second President related to a first one has ever acted and performed the same. I do not say this in support or non-support of any, just pointing out an historical fact.

That said, the parties and their overall actions do remain pretty damn consistent over the last 100 years or so.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

That might make sense if Hilary Clinton was president--you might be able to assume she'd act somewhat like Bill . . .



Bullshit.

No second President related to a first one has ever acted and performed the same.

I do not say this in support or non-support of any, just pointing out an historical fact.



Sure. But no second president has ever been married to the first, either. And given Hilary's "adviser-in-chief" role in the first Clinton administration, I'd expect Bill to have a similar role in a second one.
-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm more looking at the plans the current administration is putting forward, tempered a bit by the fact that they've got to deal with Congress.


You're looking at historical data to draw conclusions about the present folks in charge?



There's a saying about remembering the past or being doomed to repeat it. I'm sure you ARE familiar with it.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Reply To
---------------------------------------------------------


I'm more looking at the plans the current administration is putting forward, tempered a bit by the fact that they've got to deal with Congress.


You're looking at historical data to draw conclusions about the present folks in charge?

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


There's a saying about remembering the past or being doomed to repeat it. I'm sure you ARE familiar with it.
______________________________________________

Luckyboy's analysis is simplistic and meaningless...it is not history. It would be the same as if I said that when I fill my car with fuel, the price of oil goes down. Although the two events may happen at the same time, one does not cause the other.

He completely ignores monetary policy, macroeconomic factors at the time, the lag time between a change in policy and when it manifests itself, and many other events/factors (e.g. the end of the cold war and associated peace dividend, trade policy, who had control of Congress at various points, etc.). No matter how many times he repeats it in any number of forums…its meaningless drivel. No different than my example of my car and the price of oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions.



You should read this.

www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives

It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away.



It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess.

Quote

Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him.



No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess.

Nah, you have to look at the "projedted" deficit. Sure, Bush had a mini-auto bailout, and he spent some money after 9-11, but look at his replacement a little closer, and pay attention to the use of "trillions" and the term, "our grandchildren will pay for this". One more thing, your guy has not been in office a year.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


In Reply To
---------------------------------------------------------


I'm more looking at the plans the current administration is putting forward, tempered a bit by the fact that they've got to deal with Congress.


You're looking at historical data to draw conclusions about the present folks in charge?

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


There's a saying about remembering the past or being doomed to repeat it. I'm sure you ARE familiar with it.
______________________________________________

Luckyboy's analysis is simplistic and meaningless...it is not history. It would be the same as if I said that when I fill my car with fuel, the price of oil goes down. Although the two events may happen at the same time, one does not cause the other.

He completely ignores monetary policy, macroeconomic factors at the time, the lag time between a change in policy and when it manifests itself, and many other events/factors (e.g. the end of the cold war and associated peace dividend, trade policy, who had control of Congress at various points, etc.). No matter how many times he repeats it in any number of forums…its meaningless drivel. No different than my example of my car and the price of oil.



Kind of funny how you relegate yourself to 3rd person conversation with me. Did my facts and data make you that mad?

Quote

He completely ignores monetary policy, macroeconomic factors at the time, the lag time between a change in policy and when it manifests itself, and many other events/factors (e.g. the end of the cold war and associated peace dividend, trade policy, who had control of Congress at various points, etc.). No matter how many times he repeats it in any number of forums…its meaningless drivel. No different than my example of my car and the price of oil.



Then this is your big time to jump out with your supported opinions, bring your own objective data and put mine to shame, or just continue to fall in my shadow, refusing to address me or my data.

The data I provided was simplistic, when you draw generalizations you start with that, then you refine it to allow for exceptions. My data was and is basic:

- Spending patterns and their outcomes

- Taxing patterns and their outcomes

Isn't that a good place to start? Let's address these and then become more finite. As I asked, show me a major federal tax cut and its positive outcome. Not a microcosm, but a long sustained betterment. Or show me a tax increase and its subsequent destruction of the system. A simple request, I've laid my cards, let's see yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nah, you have to look at the "projedted" deficit.



I'm willing to look forward, but you're unwilling to look back. Care to discuss how we got here? Have a problem cutting the military, probably in half for starters? That is where the origin lies.

Quote

Sure, Bush had a mini-auto bailout, and he spent some money after 9-11, ..



Spent money on what? Let's not dissect Bush's work, let's get a better understanding of his term by looking at the totality of it since it's finished.

- Received a very good economy

- Cut taxes sharply right off the bat

- Became engage in a war that has cost 1T to date and was entered on cherry-picked intelligence

- Experienced some of the worst inflation in history

- Ended up leaving a borderline depression

- And finally, the debt grew 5 trillion, almost doubling the 5.5T he inherited

Is that a fair assessment? If we pick and prod we can find microcosms with which we can excuse him, I choose to look atthe whole picture and I think I have detailed it.

Quote

...but look at his replacement a little closer, and pay attention to the use of "trillions" and the term, "our grandchildren will pay for this".



Yea, he inherited an 11.5T debt, we're done with billions. We were talking billions with Reagan, he fixed that. As for grandchildren, we've been on that system since the country was founded, how is that new? The use of that term is become cliche and patently false since the debt will never be paid back.

Quote

One more thing, your guy has not been in office a year.



Yep, so give him a chance. So what do you think, shall we cut the military in half so we can relieve the debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>So because he didn't outright reject a bill because someone else put
>their pet pork in it, he's an adulterer?

?? No. Senators who preach family values and have sex with two other women are adulterers. Senators who rail against spending for illegal immigrant health care, but vote for it anyway, are merely hypocrites.



Apologies, I meant to say as bad as an adulterer... :$

Quote

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants.



If this is what I think it was, the bill that made prescription drugs covered more by Medicare, he would have been a fool to not vote for it based on that that small piece as his elderly constituents were practically screaming for it.

Were the entire bill "Free care for illegals" and he voted for it, I'd agree that was hypocritical.

This is a common tactic in political attack ads: A politician doesn't vote for something because of the additions that have been made to the bill or votes for something that has additions they don't support in it.

(Picture of puppies and kittens)
"Bill Jones voted against extra money for animal shelters. Bill is bad for animals.
(Puppies and kittens and children)
"I wonder how he feels about people?"
(Low bell sound and picture of Bill in black and white)
"Bill Jones, bad for animals, worse for people."
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



Conversely, you can raise taxes and have the rich shelter their money even more and have corporations downsize or move overseas where they can afford to do business - you know, like what happened a whole lot during the 90's.

.



More appeal to emotion. Show me the tax revenues, not the expenditures.



Of course, tax revenues increased during the '90s leading to steadily declining deficits. Revenues decreased during Bush's administration after correcting for inflation and population growth. In real terms, revenues were down about $50Billion in 2008 compared with 2000.

In 2000 federal revenue was $2.03T
In 2008 federal revenue was $2.52T
An increase of 24.1%

The CPI went from 515.8 (2000) to 644.4 (2008), a 24.8% increase

The population went from 281.4M (2000) to 303.5M (2008), a 7.8% increase.

In order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion.

Thanks be to the GOP.



Cite, please - and YOU can leave the spending off, as well - we are discussing tax revenues.



What I wrote was VERY clear. In REAL terms, revenues declined. You can choose 2000 or 2008 as your baseline for the $US, but either way, revenues declined in terms of the REAL value of the revenues.

All the data are easy to verify.



Cite.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Try very very hard to understand that statement, since it is clear that right now you do not.



Strawman much?

Try very hard to understand THIS statement: Link to the post where I have said that Obama's plan would cover illegal immigrants.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you want to debate with grownups, your intellect and reading skills should be up to the task.

If they aren't, perhaps you could find another way to spend your time...



By making posts like yours?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



Conversely, you can raise taxes and have the rich shelter their money even more and have corporations downsize or move overseas where they can afford to do business - you know, like what happened a whole lot during the 90's.

.



More appeal to emotion. Show me the tax revenues, not the expenditures.



Of course, tax revenues increased during the '90s leading to steadily declining deficits. Revenues decreased during Bush's administration after correcting for inflation and population growth. In real terms, revenues were down about $50Billion in 2008 compared with 2000.

In 2000 federal revenue was $2.03T
In 2008 federal revenue was $2.52T
An increase of 24.1%

The CPI went from 515.8 (2000) to 644.4 (2008), a 24.8% increase

The population went from 281.4M (2000) to 303.5M (2008), a 7.8% increase.

In order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion.

Thanks be to the GOP.



Cite, please - and YOU can leave the spending off, as well - we are discussing tax revenues.



What I wrote was VERY clear. In REAL terms, revenues declined. You can choose 2000 or 2008 as your baseline for the $US, but either way, revenues declined in terms of the REAL value of the revenues.

All the data are easy to verify.



Cite.



Revenues - US Dept. of the Treasury
Population - US Census Bureau
CPI - US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Percentages - Ask a friend if you can't handle them yourself.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Revenues - US Dept. of the Treasury
Population - US Census Bureau
CPI - US Bureau of Labor Statistics



Thank you.

Quote

Percentages - Ask a friend if you can't handle them yourself.



I'm pretty sure I can - can YOU manage a post without trying to belittle someone who disagrees with you?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Nah, you have to look at the "projedted" deficit.



I'm willing to look forward, but you're unwilling to look back. Care to discuss how we got here? Have a problem cutting the military, probably in half for starters? That is where the origin lies.

Quote

Sure, Bush had a mini-auto bailout, and he spent some money after 9-11, ..



Spent money on what? Let's not dissect Bush's work, let's get a better understanding of his term by looking at the totality of it since it's finished.

- Received a very good economy

- Cut taxes sharply right off the bat

- Became engage in a war that has cost 1T to date and was entered on cherry-picked intelligence

- Experienced some of the worst inflation in history

- Ended up leaving a borderline depression

- And finally, the debt grew 5 trillion, almost doubling the 5.5T he inherited

Is that a fair assessment? If we pick and prod we can find microcosms with which we can excuse him, I choose to look atthe whole picture and I think I have detailed it.

Quote

...but look at his replacement a little closer, and pay attention to the use of "trillions" and the term, "our grandchildren will pay for this".



Yea, he inherited an 11.5T debt, we're done with billions. We were talking billions with Reagan, he fixed that. As for grandchildren, we've been on that system since the country was founded, how is that new? The use of that term is become cliche and patently false since the debt will never be paid back.

Quote

One more thing, your guy has not been in office a year.



Yep, so give him a chance. So what do you think, shall we cut the military in half so we can relieve the debt?

People seem to ignore that it was Clinton that passed on the failure of Freedie Mac and Fannie Mae to the Bush administration. It was the Bush administration that warned of their coming failure. Barney Frank is again pressuring the administration to start again giving loans to people who cannot pay them back so his friends will double their executive bailout. In your wildest dreams, do you really think BHO has a handle on the deficit and government entitlement programs? Do you think he will ever bring home the troops? No chance. I believe he is afraid of them. Bush was a terrible president who would have sold our national parks to balance the budget, but your guy is worse, and people with no political allegiance are speaking out.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Try very very hard to understand that statement, since it is clear that right now you do not.



Strawman much?

Try very hard to understand THIS statement: Link to the post where I have said that Obama's plan would cover illegal immigrants.

Incredible that people would swallow another lie. A couple of months ago the emperor was holding secret meetings on immigration "reform" which no doubt included heathcare for illegals. Bush himself, left the White House sad that he could not grant amnesty. The President of the United States, whether a democrat or republician, can be a lying sack of shit if it benefits his agenda.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Revenues - US Dept. of the Treasury
Population - US Census Bureau
CPI - US Bureau of Labor Statistics



Thank you.

Quote

Percentages - Ask a friend if you can't handle them yourself.



I'm pretty sure I can - can YOU manage a post without trying to belittle someone who disagrees with you?


You asked. I answered.
:P
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Revenues - US Dept. of the Treasury
Population - US Census Bureau
CPI - US Bureau of Labor Statistics



Thank you.

Quote

Percentages - Ask a friend if you can't handle them yourself.



I'm pretty sure I can - can YOU manage a post without trying to belittle someone who disagrees with you?


You asked. I answered.
:P


So in other words, no, you can't.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Incredible that people would swallow another lie.



It is, and it seems that you swallowed Wilson's too,

Quote



A couple of months ago the emperor was holding secret meetings on immigration "reform" which no doubt included heathcare for illegals. .



If it was secret, then your "no doubt" is just another bunch of BS.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People seem to ignore that it was Clinton that passed on the failure of Freedie Mac and Fannie Mae to the Bush administration.



Suggest you look up:

Gramm(R), Leach(R), and Bliley(R).

Quote



It was the Bush administration that warned of their coming failure..



But did NOTHING about it despite having (R) control of the House and Senate.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0