Andy9o8 2 #26 March 12, 2010 Quote Quote Thanks to Carter's boycott, I couldn't compete in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. What event? Oh, I wasn't on a team. But I couldn't compete. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 March 12, 2010 QuoteQuote Thanks to Carter's boycott, I couldn't compete in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. That sucks. Not as bad as post #26 does. Sorry, guys, I spent too much time in Bonfire today. It rubs off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 March 12, 2010 QuoteClinton's deficits, however, were way way lower than the predictions made at the beginning of his term. And Bush's deficits were way way higher than the predictions made at the beginning of his term. So we can only conclude that deficit predictions are, for the most part, complete bunk. Some places with strict gun control have low crime rates. Other places with strict gun control have high crime rates. So we can only conclude that gun control is complete bunk. Yet you are in favor of strict gun control... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #29 March 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteClinton's deficits, however, were way way lower than the predictions made at the beginning of his term. And Bush's deficits were way way higher than the predictions made at the beginning of his term. So we can only conclude that deficit predictions are, for the most part, complete bunk. Some places with strict gun control have low crime rates. Other places with strict gun control have high crime rates. So we can only conclude that gun control is complete bunk. You would be right IF there were no confounding variables and IF enforcement were uniform. Neither of those are true, of course.... 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
Andy9o8 2 #30 March 12, 2010 John, it's your choice to answer or not of course; but for the third time now: You've started this thread indicating Obama is wrong-minded in his approach to the national economy. But surely you're trying to say something other than just "Obama bad." So forget the hypothetical McCain example - WHAT SPECIFIC THINGS DO YOU PROPOSE that would be better for the economy than what Obama is doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #31 March 12, 2010 Quote .... WHAT SPECIFIC THINGS DO YOU PROPOSE that would be better for the economy than what Obama is doing? "BAN GUN BANS - WORLDWIDE !" Am I right, JR?? And as a nice side effect, the members of NRA would be the happiest persons on our planet ..... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 March 12, 2010 Why was that necessary? What did that contribute? The two of you don't like each other; we get it. Take it outside, please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #33 March 12, 2010 Quote Why was that necessary? What did that contribute? The two of you don't like each other; we get it. Take it outside, please. Why? It just was. Contribute to what? That's SC, or not? I'd be prepared to take it outside (unarmed) ..... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #34 March 12, 2010 QuoteJohn, it's your choice to answer or not of course; but for the third time now: You've started this thread indicating Obama is wrong-minded in his approach to the national economy. But surely you're trying to say something other than just "Obama bad." So forget the hypothetical McCain example - WHAT SPECIFIC THINGS DO YOU PROPOSE that would be better for the economy than what Obama is doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #35 March 12, 2010 Quote John, it's your choice to answer or not of course; but for the third time now: You've started this thread indicating Obama is wrong-minded in his approach to the national economy. But surely you're trying to say something other than just "Obama bad." So forget the hypothetical McCain example - WHAT SPECIFIC THINGS DO YOU PROPOSE that would be better for the economy than what Obama is doing? lets start with his tax plan. this is from the Washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901860.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #36 March 13, 2010 Quote Quote John, it's your choice to answer or not of course; but for the third time now: You've started this thread indicating Obama is wrong-minded in his approach to the national economy. But surely you're trying to say something other than just "Obama bad." So forget the hypothetical McCain example - WHAT SPECIFIC THINGS DO YOU PROPOSE that would be better for the economy than what Obama is doing? lets start with his tax plan. this is from the Washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901860.html JohnRich's tax plan was published in the Washington Post. Wow, I'm impressed.... 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
Lucky... 0 #37 March 13, 2010 QuoteWhat do you think a President McCain would likely have done/would do differently... Tax cuts, my friends..... worked well for Hoover, why not repeat history. Hell, McSame was probably a teenager (jk) during the GD, he should have known tax cuts in times of fiscal emergency are for boobs and idiots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 March 13, 2010 QuoteNo need to wait for the end of the term in this case. The fact is the political will is not there in the population to cut the deficit. Obama is not going to be able to do it and it is not certain his successor will have the ability. History has shown, raise taxes on the rich and the money is there. Look at the Eisenhower years, he left taxes up at 91% top brkt and the debt fell during a couple years of his terms. Look at fascist pig Ronnie, he cut taxs from 70% to 28% over 6 years and the whole mess went vertical. It's not rocket science, kids. Clinton raised taxes from 31% top brkt to 40%, enjoyed the computer age and together teh fed had more tax revs than they knew what to do with. Obama will hopefully raise the top brkt to 50% or so and he can then have surplusses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 March 13, 2010 Quote Why do people still say Clinton left with a surplus? Because he did, it isn't real fucking difficult to research. Jebus, kids: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html Look at: 2. National Budget: 2nd graph down: See the little bubble on teh red line where it jumps above the 0 line? Next graph down, even as a % of teh GDP, still jumps up. Guess what? Cut soending and raise taxes and teh whole thing heals, you know, the opposite of the turd party; cut taxes (my friends) and increase spending as all goes to fuck. Quote Yes, Clinton dropped spending on military budgets, and one could argue for the good or bad, but his "surplus" was flawed. As did GHWB, he cut military troops as many as Clinton did, he s/b given credit too. As for good or bad, show me how cutting the military that spends 8 times that of #2, matches the rest of the world dollar for dollar to be a bad thing. Quote The national debt continued to grow with a deficit under Clinton, ... Yes, it grew for the first 6 or so years until it became a surplus. See, when you inherit a 290B defict, which GHWB's last year was, 12 straight years of ~250B/yr debt growth, it's idiotic for anyone to think the next year can be automatically positive, the debt subsiding, etc. The debt never fell under Clinton, but it's astronomical that he took 12 years of massive debt incr to the tune of 250B/yr and under Clinton, > 3B increase from just 900B as Fascist pig Ronnie inherited, it fell to just a 33B increase his last year. If you took the surplus and paid down the debt, it would have EASILY been a debt reduction his last year, but Clinton wasnted to do teh silly thing, as Repiblicans see it, and be responsible to leave a surplus so the gov could operate with that and not borrow more. The debt growth under Clinton grew less every year until it was almost extinguished his last year, that's reform. Quote ...and never had a tru surplus. Ahh, those pesly pseudo surplusses . Gov data shows differently. Quote He borrowed between years, and by law, any surplus social security had had to be bought back into intra-governmental bonds. Support your assertion. Also, show the value of such borrowed funds and teh impact of the federal deficit/debt numbers. Quote In Clinton's case, they just immediately turned around, spent the money, Clinton got applauded, ... Spent on what? This makes no sense and has no supporting data. Quote ...maybe brought down the public debt a small amount, but the intra-governmental went much higher, exponentially, which added to the national debt. So now you're semantically slicing great fiscal performance? I haven't seen this sliced this way, but w/o the numbers in front of me, is it relevant to worry whether the debt is public or gov debt as long as it falls or at least the massive, 12-year slaughter is greatly slowed? Is your side relegated to demeaning an 8-year performance where the debt was almost leveled and the deficit turned to a surplus, into that of a semantic game of abstraction? Quote There never really was any surplus with Clinton! I see and the debt increase didn't go from 12 years of 250B increase, shaved every year of Clinton's 8, fell to a 33B increase his last year? I see, works wonders when you ignore gov data. Quote "Projected this, projected that..." Doesn't matter. The money he used to bring down the debt to make him look good has to be spent out by ~2017. Nothing projected, we know the fiscal numbers under Clinton. Quote He didn't prove anyone wrong who actually looks at more than the "Bush Adm. messed everything up" rhetoric. The cycles have repeated: - Fascist Pig Ronnie: took a stable deficit/debt picture at 900B and turned it on it's ass with tax cuts and irresponsible spending. - GHWB tried to fix it and was "unelected" by his own party for it as he raisd taxes a small amount. - Clinton inherited a mess, raised taxes a modest amount and cut spending as GHWB did, receipts soared and the debt/deficit numbers revealed this. Hard to argue with people who just dislike gov data and therefore revise. - GWB inherited a gem, cut taxes, gave away the surplus and grossly overspent ala Reagan, blew the debt up 5T and left a total failed mess - biuggest since teh GD. Your arguments are just between hillarious and boringly innacurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 March 13, 2010 Quotewhen you contrast Clinton's second term with the reigns or either Bush or Obama's first two years, quibbling over how much of a surplus it really was seems silly. I agree with the essence of this, however how Obama entered the argument is uncertain, esp since he hasn't served anywhere near 2 years and the numbers can't be tallied. Also, which Bush; GWB? Alos, comparing Obama's inheritance to that of GWB's is also silly. QuoteBush's tax cuts right after entering office might have been fine if he didn't couple it with large spending increases. Disagree. Since WWI, the top brkt has only been in teh 20's twice; leading to the GD and as that fascist pig cut them to 28%. The 30's are also a danger zone too, cutting taxes from Clinton's 40% brkt was stupid, hell, even Eisenhower left them at 91%. Maybe high, but the top brkt should stay around the 50% area. As for the spending assertion, of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 March 13, 2010 Quote Quote We know the final result for 2009 - it was 1.42T. Not 1.75 or 1.85 as projected, for a variety of reasons (returned TARP money being one of them, I think) For the record, in January 2009: CBO projects that the deficit this year will total$1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. Sounds like they nailed it. I know, the economy would have fixed itself if Obama would have left it alone, or perhaps tax cuts, my friends. Yea, always worked in teh past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #42 March 13, 2010 Quote you mean the rep congress showed a surplus at the end of Clintons term .. The same one Clinton had to shit down the giv under to get them to act right? Yea, we see who was running the show. Also, the economy was well fixed with the tax increase in 93, under a Dem congress, the latter Repiblican congressional years were mostly gridlock. Quote ...and the dem congress left a huge deficit at the end of Bush's term. Another guy not good at math. For the 1,000,000th time, the Dems had a slight lead in the House and a tie in the Senate: 49-49-2 with the vice pres breaking ties. I hoe this makes it easy for you. Oh, BTW, newsflash: LIEBERMAN IS NO WHERE NEAR A DEM, UNLESS YOU CONSIDER CAMPAIGNING FOR MCSAME TO BE A DEM THING. Quote It is congress that writes and passes the budget isn't it? And that little process at the end where the president signs it or vetoes it, as Clinton did. fun to be a revisionist, huh? Oh, btw, it's teh pres who initiates the process by submitting a budget proposal to the House. Fun to be vague too, huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 March 13, 2010 Quote Quote Map this to a graphic of the debt and you'll want to scream. Attached. Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/28/obama%E2%80%99s-tripling-of-the-national-debt-in-pictures/ Hope and Change! Well at least you're not submitting some Heritage Foundation partisan rhetoric; thank god. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 March 13, 2010 QuoteQuote I seem to recall predictions by conservatives of a huge Clinton deficit by the end of his term . He proved them wrong. Amazing what happens when a Republican Congress forces a balanced budget and cuts capital gains tax. The capital gains cut of 8% was minimal in contrast to the 9% increase in income tax that Clintion and the Dem congress passed in 93. Also, note how receipts fell off right after that capital gains cut? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 March 13, 2010 QuoteHistory has shown, raise taxes on the rich and the money is there. Until they shelter it out of country. QuoteLook at the Eisenhower years, he left taxes up at 91% top brkt and the debt fell during a couple years of his terms. Only a couple? Why not every year, since raising taxes is evidently the cure to all ills? But yes, let's look at those early years, shall we? Link from that rightwing fascist rag, the US Treasury. QuoteIn October of 1929 the stock market crash marked the beginning of the Great Depression. As the economy shrank, government receipts also fell. In 1932, the Federal government collected only $1.9 billion, compared to $6.6 billion in 1920. In the face of rising budget deficits which reached $2.7 billion in 1931, Congress followed the prevailing economic wisdom at the time and passed the Tax Act of 1932 which dramatically increased tax rates once again. This was followed by another tax increase in 1936 that further improved the government's finances while further weakening the economy. By 1936 the lowest tax rate had reached 4 percent and the top rate was up to 79 percent. In 1939, Congress systematically codified the tax laws so that all subsequent tax legislation until 1954 amended this basic code. The combination of a shrunken economy and the repeated tax increases raised the Federal government's tax burden to 6.8 percent of GDP by 1940. QuoteLook at fascist pig Ronnie, he cut taxs from 70% to 28% over 6 years and the whole mess went vertical. Funny how you never mention Kennedy's tax cuts, or Clinton's - why is that, Lucky? More on that from the fascist Treasury: QuoteAs inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. Though the painful medicine of disinflation slowed and initially hid the process, the beneficial effects of marginal rate cuts and reductions in the disincentives to invest took hold as promised. QuoteIt's not rocket science, kids. Clinton raised taxes from 31% top brkt to 40%, enjoyed the computer age and together teh fed had more tax revs than they knew what to do with. After he cut the capital gains tax, yes. QuoteObama will hopefully raise the top brkt to 50% or so and he can then have surplusses. Until they again shelter it out of country.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 March 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Amazing what happens when a Republican Congress forces a balanced budget.... That made coffee come out of my nose. Wow - I never realized that you were so young that you don't recall the government shutdowns in '95. Do your parents know you're on here? link QuoteWASHINGTON -- With the government partially shut down for a fourth day, President Clinton and Republican congressional leaders agreed last night to reopen talks aimed at reaching a deal on a balanced budget, possibly by the end of the year. . . . It brought together Mr. Gingrich, the leader of the conservative GOP House troops that have been the most determined force behind the balanced budget movement, with President Clinton, who has scored in the polls by portraying himself as a defender of programs for the old, the sick, the poor and children. You must have been too young to notice the 93 tax increae and subsequent cuts in spending under Clinton. The entire economy was well under way before Jan 95, of course you don't want to see the thruth. Also, the Repugs could never force Clinton off his income tax increase, so that stayed at 40% his entire terms which massively trumped the 8% capital gains tax cut, which hindered receipts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 March 13, 2010 QuoteI guess six years of complete control of both houses and the Presidency isn't long enough to pass a balanced budget amendment Brilliant!!! Yea, they claim victories when they are the minority, yet when they have control, they fuck it up - this is constantly repeated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #48 March 13, 2010 QuoteUnfortunately, BOTH sides of the aisle have been spending like drunken sailors in a whorehouse (as I believe I've said many times before). I love these arguments, the side that backs losing policies tries to pull eveyone in. We don't have enough time/data to evaluate Obama yet, but we can evaluate all previous presidents. Reagan and GWB spenst 16 of of massive spending; any argument? GHWB and Clinton cut soending; any argument? Good, now run along..... I think your mommy is calling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #49 March 13, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Thanks to Carter's boycott, I couldn't compete in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. What event? Oh, I wasn't on a team. But I couldn't compete. The bullshitathalon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 March 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteClinton's deficits, however, were way way lower than the predictions made at the beginning of his term. And Bush's deficits were way way higher than the predictions made at the beginning of his term. So we can only conclude that deficit predictions are, for the most part, complete bunk. Some places with strict gun control have low crime rates. Other places with strict gun control have high crime rates. So we can only conclude that gun control is complete bunk. You would be right IF there were no confounding variables and IF enforcement were uniform. Neither of those are true, of course. He dislikes the scientific principle of isolating the independent variable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
