Lucky...

Wrong yet again, Bill - maybe you should QUIT trying to put words in my mouth. You do sort of make my point, though - Dems whining over the same attacks they did on the Republicans for eight years IS hypocritical. Not that anyone expected anything different from them. Ok, with that logic, you pissed away a trill on the pseudo war, watch us piss away a trill on HC.

You have to present some data, not what your ddiddy taught you, but real evidence that supports a logical argument. So recurring fiscal events for almost a century represents circumstantial? Instead of the ad hominem, show me where a major federal tax cut has improved anything. So there is no relationship between taxes and what? See if you can stay focused, I would like to hear your argument that a major federal tax cut has helped the economy. Or are you saying that taxes and the economy are simply strangers and that taxes don't affect the economy at all? 4 of the 5 wars started in the 20th century were under the Dems, yet your party is the party of tough? Brilliance. You have further illustrated that you have the inability to refute any arguments and that you work from the diddy rule, where whatever diddy taught you is all you know and education is futile. To think that tax receipts have nothing to do with the economy is exactly what got us to 12T debt, so no one is surprised when the staunch R's believe that. The other people call that ficsal irresponsibility and then when you hear the same R's saying, 'no big deal about taxes' then they spend to teh end of time, now they object to the HC issue, well, it'll pull more votes my way - so thank you for being you; don't change.

I didn't vote for him either time and I like his policies based upon their intent and then their result. All you can do is ad hominem, let's focus on the tax policies and their result, then contrast them with other polices and their results. Again, you admit that Clinton's tax and overall economic policies were pretty good, right? If not, why? What would have been better? Because you/they only post a passing opinion or a rigid norm (to them) of, TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS. Yet not one swinging dick ha been able to show me a major tax cut and then show me the great result. You claimed to be my teacher, yet you refuse to show me the way and support it with any kind of real, broad data. Here. I will, for the 50th time. - years before the GD, taxes were lowered to a top brkt of 25% - GD kicks off, Hoover lowers taxes a point - 12 million die - Hoover almost tripples taxes in one fell swoop - FDR throws them higher and recovery is realized for 5 years Now on to Reagan and teh early 80's. - Inherits 70% as a top brkt - Lowers them to 50% immediately - later lowers them to 38% - later lowers them to 28% - We enjoy the 1990 recession shortly thereafter - GHWB raises them in 1990 to 31% - Clinton raises them again to 40% top brkt - economy recovers and creates a surplus, debt virtually levels off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States Create me an argument, I can. Tax cuts, my friends, fucks everything up, tax increases fix things. There's more to the economy than taxes, but when you drop down under 40% you risk a lot. Let me hear your counter other than some rhetoric about me not wanting to hear yours.

how is a sales tax not diverse? It taxes everything!! It taxes income? It taxes vehicles? It taxes property? Get it?

OMG these insurers are just begging for reform.

I hear your position, you think because the S&P 500 had a bad 1994 that that means the Clinton tax increase was a bad idea. Of course, according to Yahoo finance, the S&P rose 12% during that year, as I cited, and the S&P more than doubled over Clinton's 8 years and the DJIA almost trippled during the same, so I argue that you little microcosm is not only incorrect but so limited that even if true it would be insugnificant. That's the only evidence you gavce other than saying the GDP only rose a little and never had a negative quarter in 94. The truth is that you don't want to admit Clinton's policies were hugely sucessful and the most expansive growth period in US history. It's prima facie, wanna keep arguing a falacious point, go ahead, we all see it. Wanna admit Clinton's fiscal policy was great, that's the first step or maybe actually formulate a real argument - I'm all ears. So you admit that the economic indicators were awesome during the Clinton era? Bout time. It's hard to refute even if ya hate the guy. "They" have little to do with each other. WHat's 'they?' Are you saying the GDP, unemp rate and stocak market have little to do with the fiscal health of the US? Clarify. Perhaps you're saying tax cuts/increases and the economy have little to do with each other. If so, that's ridiculous. Tax increases can be used to stimulate the economy, tax cuts tend to tighten them up and make the rich uber-rich as with the pre-GD years where the top 0.1% had as much wealth as all the lower 40% combined. That's a problem and a real killer to the economy esp if something goes wrong. OK, let's look at the NASDAQ net result. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EIXIC#chart1:symbol=^ixic;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined Jan 93 = 696 / Jan 01 = 2,772 / Lowest point in Sep 02 = 1,172. OK, so the net result is a gain of 476 or 68%. Ok, even if we do it yiour way, he still had a nice gain in that idex; what's your point? I wasn't being dishonets, we didn't talk NASDAQ; you are sooooo desperate. Hey, concede, Clintonenomics were great. I don't think either is correct. Make your point, sometimes it's domne in a sentence, others take a book. See, once again you show your concession and defeat. Just gracefully do so. I used to call Reagan, Bush, Bush the 3 stooges until I checked my own facts and everything GHWB did was positive for the economy. Eisenhower was even better, he kept taxes high and lowered the debt. You can still hate Clinton, but to say his economic policies were bad is just insane denial. It's a lot more fun to argue with people willing to admit obvious points so you can then move to more constructive sub-points perhaps. As in, you can argue the why, but to argue whether times were great then or not is just silly. Do this, find a major federal tax cut or major federal tax increase and make an argument as to the real outcome of that act upon the economy. Don't be vague, obscure, etc. Teach me how tax cuts help in a major way.

What a descent guy, understands what freedom means. "Different but equal."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091021/pl_nm/us_washington_summit_politics_enemies_3 Senator sees Obama making Nixon mistake Senator Lamar Alexander told Reuters he sees the Obama White House adopting an attitude similar to that of the Richard Nixon White House four decades ago, that "everybody is against us and we are going to get them." Uber conservative Alexander pushing thetypical Republican rhetoric about the evil Obama. Untiul these guys look inside and quit looking to blame everyone else they're toast.

Happens all the time, arrogant prosecutors can't admit they are wrong. http://www.justicedenied.org/volume2issue8.htm Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley defended his prosecution of Ray Krone by saying there was "strong circumstantial evidence" of his guilt. In response to the conclusive proof that an innocent Ray Krone spent 10-1/2 years in prison, four of which was spent on Arizona's death row, Prosecutor Romley said, "we will try to do better." He neglected to mention that the prosecution's concealment of the odontologist's report that cast doubt on Ray's guilt prior to his first trial indicates they may have knowingly prosecuted an innocent man. And this was after DNA evid exonerated him and another man who matched the DNA admitted to it and he acted alone. WHY DO YOU THINK I OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY? DIRTY JUDICIAL SYSTEM - DIRTY COUNTRY.

Uh, this is your fantasy. I've been trying to educate you - the economy does not track on tax hikes/cuts. It's far more complicated. The latter half of the 90s was fantastic. The internet, largely a US invention (but certainly not entirely), spawned large new industries in which our country had a strong advantage. I lived in the middle of the free money in Silicon Valley, where profits didn't matter. Of course, we eventually to pay for the party and it sucked for a few years. Profits really do matter, and no, things weren't different this time. Just another bubble. BTW, check out the assets for DIA versus SPY. Money talks. So this is the turd I get after that long reply? I got ya: game, set, match. Hey Kelp, I think in 1 week during the massive 90's boom that the DJIA actually dropped, must have been those tax increases....Bahahahahaha. When arguing in major generalizations, which we both are, me saying tax increases fix things and you saying the opposite, you take large blocks of time after major tax increases and cuts and watch the results. As for even dumbasses know you use the S&P vs the DJIA as you stated, I would say even dumbasses know you don't use small periods of time or anything that is being tested. A large sample size is always more reliable than a small one, esp if you're ignoring the DJIA and paying 100% attention to the S&P. Kelp: explain how your fantasy works when you say the S&P went to hell in 1994 after Clinton's tax increases, yet the market was record strong virtually all of Clinton's terms: the S&P more than doubled and the DJIA went from 3500 to 9800. Explain how the market took off after the deluded so-called 1994 recession, or as you once called it, the 2004 recesssion. W/o data and w/o a clue? You wrote 2004 at one point and you're the teacher? You're the student and not a good one. As for your other microcosm of the silicon valley, again, a microcosm of one geographical area.

I posted for the graph data and I think I wrote that when I posted it. I like to post my own args, I just use raw data. It's both. But most presidents seem to overspend and you can't plan for a 911 or a Katrina other than to have a large cash surplus, so tax levels s/b no less than 50% ever, esp with 12T debts out there. Right that's what GHWB and Clinton did. But waiting for the timing to come around leads to a mess. Let's fix this econ mess, raise taxes to 50%ish, cut military spending immediatley by 25%, get out of Iraq, etc.... We don't have to time anything, we need to just start fixing things.

Then these guys are dumbasses and you are an undiscovered genius: http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-indicators/12727507-1.html ...one of the world's best-known stock-market benchmarks. http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dow+Jones+Industrial+Average Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), sometimes referred to as the Dow, is the best-known and most widely followed market indicator in the world. It tracks the performance of 30 blue chip US stocks. http://www.dowjonesstockmarket.info/ However, it is so important and significant to analysts a stock index such as Dow Jones, because to some extent this index is feasible to do a lot of deductions and analysis, most analysts, the focus of the Dow Jones utility as follows: And you might have heard of the Wall Street Journal. They could use a brilliant guy like you to teach those dumbasses. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091002-708758.html The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which was off almost 80 points at its low shortly after the opening bell, was recently up four points, trading at 9513.44. The technology-focused Nasdaq Composite Index was up 0.1%. The small-stock Russell 2000 was flat. The S&P 500 was off 0.1%, led by a 2% decline in its recovery-sensitive industrial sector. But other categories were little changed, with financials and consumer staples managing to post slight gains http://www.nyse.tv/stocks/nyse.htm News and Notes about The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), The NASDAQ Composite Index, The S & P 500 Index, New York Spot Gold, NYMEX Crude Oil Future, the 10-Year Treasury Note Yield, the Federal Funds Target Rate and the New York Stock Markets in General. The DJIA went from 3635 in Jan 94, to 4157 in Jan 95, a 15% gain. So you cherry-picked a small period of time and used the indicator of your choice to make pseudo argument. Instead of just posting it honestly, you have to be theatric - ridiculous. And where is your citation for the GDP? From your source: The index does include a handful (5 as of September 15, 2009) of non-U.S. companies. This group includes both formerly U.S. companies that have reincorporated outside the United States, as well as firms that have never been incorporated in the United States. So now you read minds? I love contrary data. Hell, I had to pull teeth to get you to cite the S&P source and have yet to see the GDP data. What you mean is that you don't want to be embarrased with your, uh, op-ed Heritage site that refutes other arguments with strict opinion. Dude you are so desperate that you want to take a reference that obviously uses a different time schedule than typical and try to create an argument that a tax increase in 1993 caused it. Not only is it a microcosm of Clinton's presidency but it isn't the most major ref used, the DJIA is. And to play along with your fantasy, explain the longest growth period in US history after this so-called 1994 recession; how did the rest of the 90's end up so successful? There were no major tax cuts. Again, look at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC#symbol=%5EGSPC;range=my There just isn't anything horrible or great. So I don't know what timeframe they are using, but it's insignificant either way, the market was typical and flat until early 95 when the whole market took off. The S&P went from 451 in Jan 93 to 1160 in Jan 01, so you're trying to create an argument based upon a numerical chart-based microcosm of time that apparently doesn't coincide with the Yahoo Dow graph.

I know that Geraldo took a chair in the face, at a show about the KKK or white supremacy. Or maybe it was Jerry Springer. I get so confursed. No shit! I was wrong, even tho I posted a site that said it was Geraldo, it was Stossel. They're such a joke, it's hard to keep down with them. One of the sports stations used to call U of Arizona, University of Geraldo.

I agree and rich people spend all teh time, poor people only spend a lot when wages are up and social programs are up. I agree, which is my argument, you have to redistribute taxes in order to keep that 10B inteh reach of the 100m people - you made my argument. Thank you. Oh, ok, so you're saying that cutting taxes puts money in the hands of teh poor and MC. I'm the spider / you're the fly. So let's see, cut taxes 10% accross teh board and the poor / MC will be loaded, I see. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 So the bottom 50% who only pay

The recent mess was caused by Bush's tax cuts, caused Greenspan to lower int rates to spur the economy, didn't work - lower, didn't work - lower, didn't work - lower. WHen tehy stayed too low too long, the principle replaced the interest on home payments; buyers were qualifying for higher priced houses and that started the spiral. Your favorite guy, GWB even said that low int rates were part of teh cause; of course they were - follow your hero GWB. As for tax cuts being the only villian to recessions, of course not, but when they cut the top brkt below 40% we're in trouble. Look at the graph on the lower-left of the page. 2 times it was in the 20's, right before the GD and right before the 1990 recession. The 1980 recession was caused by OPEC and other energy issues in part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

I thought we were talking about 1994; are you taking the right meds? I posted 3 pieces of data: - GDP - Unemp Rate - DJIA All from the 1990's, so either explain how the data is sloppy or recant. Of course you won't, you juts don't admit error. Right, so because you were having a personal recession, the world was. Those were the best years of this country starting then. I love how you post the source. Why wouldn't you? True or not, they were all + and you could have a number of Q's at .5% and not be in a recession. Regardless, I want to see the numbers. We were recovering from the 1900 recession job waise still, but all was OK in 94. SHOW ME YOUR SOURCE. HUH? The S&P? It is never used to define an economy; DUDE, YOU'RE DESPERATE!!!! http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC#chart1:symbol=^gspc;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined But let's go with your S&P obscure vision. S&P Jan 93 - 451 S&P Jan 94 - 445 S&P Jan 95 - 500 S&P Jan 96 - 645 S&P Jan 97 - 757 So the gain in the 1993 year was basically 0 You say 10.08% So the gain in the 1994 year was 12% You say 1.32% So the gain in the 1995 year was 29% You say 37.58% So the gain in the 1996 year was 17% So again, where the fuck do you get your numbers? I cite mine, you don't cite yours. You want to make the 1993 tax increase a bad thing and you're willing to lie to do it. Dude, hook me up w/your dealer. So now we're going to be semantic and argue whethr to use January or December? Either way, your numbers are so far off it's a joke - show me your source. Again, the DJAI is teh best indictor, but either way you're wrong and YOU NEVER POST OBJECCTIVE RAW DATA, IT'S ALWAYS AN OP-ED FROM HERITAGE OR SOME BS LIKE THAT. Basically as opposed to complaining about the methodology, look at the graph: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC#chart1:symbol=^gspc;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined Actually 93 was the year that had a 0 gainer, 94 had 12%, a nice return from an index that is usually very docile and rick-free. Go back to Heritage for more lame arguments.

Yes, that explains what happened versus the Euro/Pound, 2 of the other strongest currencies out there. It doesn't explain at all why the Australian dollar swung more dramatically in both directions. I watch the USD vs the Aus D and the Canadian D for a ref and they are pretty close. I do think the AUS D climbed a hair, but we're swinging the most. I just checked, the AUS D is 1.08 and the CAD 1.04 for 1 USD, so that is as proportionate as it was in years past, I don;t see a major change in teh ratio between those 2, just us lagging.

Please, continue that line of thought, That's the stubborness that has propelled the R's to a puny minority in COngress and lost them the WH. When Hoover and FDR increased taxes in a massive sense, quadrupled them, how did the working class do? And what happend at the polls? Oh yea, FDR didn't give up even 100 EV's to any Republican in 4 straight elections. Yes, we've cut our throats for 2 consecutive elecctions so far. Explain how 2/3 of the national debt is immediatley attributable under Reagan, GHWB and GWB, much of the other 1/3 as well, yet it's the Dems? The debt was 900B as Reagan took office and it was slightly increasing as it has for most presidents. By the time GHWB and Clinton could curb it 12 years later with 2 major tax increases it was at 5.5T. Then GWB took a stable economy and hammered it huge to 11 T. Just skim right over that.

You were singing a different tune in February - I think Rhys even started a thread about it. When the dollar rose in late fall/winter, the AUS$ plunged dramatically, much more than the pound or Euro. And it seems now that the dollar is sinking, it rose much more than the other 2. Seems like its more an Aussie thing than an American one. The reason the dollar rose at the end of Bush's term was that the market crashed and people pulled out of the market and bought bonds, raising the US Dollar. Now that the market is flying, the dollar is falling due to investors pulling out of the bond market. Plus, interest is about to climb, so binds are not appealing. It's a US thing. Also, our dollar is almost even with Canda's, so the world currency is fairly stable except ours, which is why APEC is no longer going to use the US Dollar as a standard.

That's a big problem, but the Iraq War amounted to 16% of Bush's 5+T debt heisting. The rest went to tax cuts, my friends. He's referring to a lot more than just Iraq. And no, the rest did not go exclusively to cuts. There was other new spending in the Bush Administration. Sure, basic military operation is 8 times that of #2, China. No doubt we spend too much to make the world hate us; that has to stop. But even basic military ops and Iraq, that doesn't account for teh 5T debt increase. What other Bush spending? Not saying he didn't, just want to hear where you say the rest went. You'll never admit it was undercollection, altho it obviously was. The tax rate dropped to 35% under Bush, it was 25% in the years right before the Great Depression, 28% at the end of the Reagan years when the debt trippled and we were at the doorstep to the 1990 recession; what does it take for some people to see that when the top tax rate hits the 30's we're in trouble? Ever since the end of WWI when the top rate gets well into the 30's or teh 20's we're headed for a mess.

Do you have any more info on that recession? It isn't listed here. Right, all I see is: The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history.

And if they are such a minute sector of society then that will prevail and they will be meaningless. See Tom, many people like and others who are doing well will be helped with a public option and you will never even think of using that option. The competition will be so great that ins co's will have to compete and lower rates, incr coverage for fear of losing you as a customer. A statement like let the people Democratically decide what's best for them? And when it passes and the R's dig in deeper, they will bury themselves and perhaps go the way of the Whig. This really could be it and if a descent plan passes, you will see the R's figure this out and they will go along and act as tho they were all for it. By R's I don;t mean the electorate, I mean the GOP politicians. For now they want to poison it, but if it passes tehy will change their tune to deceive people into voting for them. If it passes it will be a huge consideration in the 2010 and 2012 elections; everyone will rally around as if they were all for it. The Desm will remind all voters that it was teh R's who opposed it and if elected, the R's will revoke it.

Here is the abstract: ---We do need medical liability reform, and it needs to be real reform. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care." ---Let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance." ---All individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions." ---Individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do." ---"We can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor." ---"[I]nsurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life." There is no instruction as to how, no method or mechanics. That's the point.

sorry, I am not very good with computers, but instead of helping,they kept critisizing, thanx for the explanation. Well, I posted help as you posted this, so here ya go.

Or the RW approach is to allow for cross stateline buying of ins plans, etc. Meaningless things. Or the trigger in 5 years, hoping the R's get the WH back by then and can wash it away. Repubs better figure it out, once HC is here, there will be a real fear that ANY R president would slash it, so there will be a reluctance to ever elect one again.