Lucky...

I wouldn't say it was downturing as much as it was slightly off. A downturn illustrates a radical turn down, your assertion, you provide data to support it. Yep, but to then hand back all the reserve money with huge administrative costs exacerbates that. But yes, that gives him an excuse for a little of the negative economy, not all 3.2 trillion though. That I disagree with. Provide numbers of how much. That's your theory, not fact. Now we're back to the old Rush we know. As for facts, when talking numbers, they come in degrees, so you need to research the impact on the economy and argue it against the 3.2 trillion and soaring nightmare we're in. You're the soft, flowery type, I'm sure..... but then write, "but you can keep licking Clinton butt "

Yep, at least the other guys ask for citations, Rush just says he wants no data, facts or anything. Why do I waste my time?

That's your skewed interpretation for your convenience. Same as above. Why be ridiculous? If you have an issue to make, show some logical deduction. How is it that I have stated the above 2? We've had our fill of secretive BS elections, so we want things to be above board. I'm thinking a man is willing stand for what he believes, a coward runs from teh truth, so if it makes elections more honest, why would a man fear that? Also, what if the atmosphere at that shop was anti-union, you would be in the majority. Did you just skip right over that passage I posted about all 22 RTW states having lower wages than the national averge? Tisk, tisk..... selective reading? How do you think workers get benefits? They get them thru unionization. All 22 RTW states having lower wages than the median income, so doesn't taht speak volumes about worker's rights/benefits? Great, then allow an honest vote to register that and they can go away of the people choose that. Bahahahahahahaha, and the righties love you for that. They also would rather pay you 12 bucks and hve you happier for it, hiding behind some antiquated, poor-n-proud philosphy. It was actually the whining Repubs who had a lot to do with your Nazi's wiretaps too, so it wasn't a left/right issue. To ensure an honest vote accounting, the foregoing of privacy in that realm is worthwhile. Furthermore, I don;t recall them saying the vote wouldbe public, just that the submission of cards would suffice as a vote, so nothing says they have to be broadcast. But if you think there is any privacy with unionization and the feelings who has of it, you're dreaming. People generally make it very aware as of how they feel. Keeping votes secret and dragging out the process only impedes unionization, doesn't benefit privacy, but taht is the rationale of the union-haters.

Do you consider yourself to be the underclass, or just the champion of the underclass? Post the previous statement sto the progressive and I will respond. Your posting style is hard to follow.

This is how it works with me since I am debt free and self employed. Once Uncle Sam decides that he wants a bigger part of my money, I simply shut down. In other words, when the govt decides that I've made enough money at $30 per hour, and now I should only bring home $20 per hour, I tell them to go screw themselves. How much more money would they get from me troughout the year if they didn't get greedy? I feel LUCKY just to be able to get space to post in this thread! If you're just going to post fragments, I can't do anything with it. Post what I was calling progressive, don't throw up a quick passage for your convenience. As for the tired argument of raisng taxes and shutting down the economy, show how your textbook version is apllicable in real life.

You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data. In actuality, that trend shows the trailing nature certain indicators have in the wake of the recession. Though, I will say that my previous post was incorrect. Tax receipts are not setting records, but they are meeting or exceeding forecasts. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/06/D8KJ8R2G1.html Edit to add: Tax receipts are exceeding the total amounts accounted for during 7 of the 8 years President Clinton was in office. However, that could also account size of the economy as well, trailing indicators of the last 18 months or so from President G.H.W. Bush's term through President Clinton. Perhaps there is so much pork spending that of course there is going to be a lot more in the way of receipts. The trick is to pull receipts while stemming the debt, not overspending and saying, gee, look how fast the economy is going, I'm slamming the credit cards, everything is great. There are no bragging points until teh debt is managed and the deficit at least a flatline.

Clinton's recession - WTF are you talking about? Post what indicators, etc. Just citing he had a recesion doesn;t make it fact, explain it. 911 - that explains some of the dip in jobs, but the war has cost at least 1/2 trillion and we all know things are worse over there. Bush's reaction was pathetic. Katrina - uh, what did he do there, send in the gaurd after 1000's died and then bought them trailers that were never used? Katrina didn't cos that much and he barely acknowledged it. No, the economy is starting to grow. Don't act as if it ws growing at some great rate all along. Inflation is low? Hmmmm, houses cost twice what they did 6 years ago and gas is double what it was, actually spiked at triple for a bit. Sorry, just can't see your argument. BK's were at an all timehigh until Congress/Bush passed the new law making it harder. Yes, it's everyone else's fault that Bush hammered the economy with his policies and tax breaks, requiring the fed reserve to lower rates to 45-year lows, resulting in housing principals doubling as people could quaify for it. Now they are foreclosing and BKing and it isn't Bush's doing? RIGHT!!!! This is how we got there: http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm Not enough tax income and huge spending by the 3 stooges. This is the big picture: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm WHat am I taking out of context? Come on, man-up and agree what the data shows, the Repubs are tax-cutters-n-spenders. Raw numbers, no, this graph shows the result: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Raw numbers are what you're arguing, you claim there is so much growth, well growth is one aspect of the overall picture, just as spending is and tax receipt, etc. I have delivered the overall picture, you are giving me one dimension and not even spelling it out with data.

So then this happened by accident? http://zfacts.com/p/318.html http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm I still would ike to see your evidence that Clinton didn't fix the economy from a wreck and then GW Bush didn't fuck it up. Please back your arg with data, not rhetoric. What facts? He inherited 7%+ unemployment and a debt at 250B per year, some say he left a surplus, but I don't want to argue that, he balanced the budget over a long-term, not for 2 months. Therefore it must not have been them with Clinton. Granted a few faces have changed, but it was largely the same group of Repubs under Clinton as with Bush, they just knew that Bush had no idea what a veto pen was, so they ra amuck. Clinton vetoed their budgets until they got it right as I recall. Spell it out, cite your data. When was the other long growth spurts? How is this one better? What is the end result? If it is going to be that great and sustained, is it going to fix the 3.2 trillion is debt increase that is still zooming at what, the rate of 200B per year I would guess? He's mre of a chronic overspender than a credit card happy young chick. Can you understand the concept of the bottom line? If the gov is taking in more money than ever, not saying they are, but if they are and we are spending twice what we take in, that is not progress; can you understand that simple concept? WILL YOO FUCKING CITE SOMETHING THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT? After that, explain how the debt is still hammering us hard if we are taking in so much money. Isn't the net result the most important thing? I'm sure you enjoy yourself several times a day. But I don't wanna talk about that. I have researched teh big picture and we are slamming into debt at large rates, how is it that we are doing so well?

Now, that's what I call progressive. It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well. Here, I'll finish it for you: It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well...... on the backs of the underclass.

You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data. Whee's your history?

You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data. I like his history argument. History, Reagan tripling the debt in 8 years, GHW Bush adding a mere 1T in 4 years and now GHW Bush will virtually double it in 8 years. Where's this history? Are we going back to teh civil fucking wartime?

Agreed, but you also have to look at the major reasons too What ae they?

Since the tax cut here in the US, tax receipts are setting records here too. Makes as much sense as me saying: Since I got a 250k/yr job I've been doing well, but that $1,000/day cocaine habit is busting my balls. Don't brag anything until it amounts to anything. Losing 200B per year instead of 400B is still a 200B loss, not a 200B victory.

And there are many other big minds (as you put it) that argue the way. I do know this for sure. Everytime taxes have been cut significantly the economy has grown and tax revenues have grown (percentage wise) History is hard to argue with too. FUCKING WHERE? WHEN? REAGAN - Cut taxes, unemployment slammed to over 9%, debt went from 1T to 3T when he left office. Sure there was a little spurt from all that spending, but GWH Bush paid for that and was finally required to raie taxes.... read my lips...remember? I would assess some of Clinton's success on GWH Bush's tax increases and huge military cuts, but these were toolate as opposed to early in his term. GHW BUSH - Carried on Reagan's idiotic economy, late in the game cut the military and raised taxes. Little to little too late. GW BUSH - Tax cuts for the rich, taxpayer giveaway that cost billions, ecessive spending like Reagan. Where's your fucking historical so-called proof? Shall we talk Clinton? 1993 Omnibus spending Bill raised taxes on the rich and he cut the military, essentially what GHW Bush had started late in his term, this figured success in connection with the stock market, NASDAQ, tech boom. Illustrate you historical proof by example.

So, all of this means the gov is not recieving record receipts??? Are you reading the posts?? The FLAW in your reasoning is that you ass-ume the revenues we are seeing are due to Bush's tax cuts. They are not. According to the CBO, AT MOST 32% of the revenue loss due to tax rate cuts is recovered in the resulting economic stimulation. In 2005 the CBO estimated that the net revenue loss due to 10% across the board tax cuts would amount to over $1.5Trillion over a 10 year period. And the reason the rising deficit is relevant is that adding to the debt by reducing tax rates causes extra debt service costs which have be accounted for in an accurate analysis. And thd FLAW in your reasoning is you ASS-ume tax cuts do not stimulate economic growth Our book version vs yours, now look at the application and argue it.

No. It means they would be receiving MORE without the tax cuts for the rich. It's undeniably true. Don't worry, this will be corrected with the new Dem president, when we roll back those tax cuts. At which point revenues will start to decline Historically you ae wrong. Can you take the last 4 presidents and make that argument valid in an application sense?

The US is doing it now. Record reciepts for how many months? Funny how we're geting ever deeper in debt, isn't it? Again, way off point I think not. ....I am not surprised... Washington Post, October 17, 2006 "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that." Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001. Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said. The revenue "surge" over the last 2 years still hasn't paid for the shortfall in 2001-2004. The growth rate in tax revenues during the 1990s was considerably higher than the growth rate in revenues since Bush took office. So, all of this means the gov is not recieving record receipts??? Are you reading the posts?? No, this means you are looking at the US economy as a microcosm. You efuse to look at the wholepicture, just the bits that make your argument look ok. No one is denying Bush's economy has been doing better, but he is in teh hole, so don't brag too much, see if it sustains and he leaves a surplus like Clinton did, although unless it's a 4T yearly surplus it won't much matter.

Funny how we're geting ever deeper in debt, isn't it? Again, way off point I think not. So, tell us Kallend, how the deficit is relevant to the fact that government revenues are at record levels. Are you saying that revenues would not be at record levels if the deficit was significantly smaller? Please enlighten us. Spending as compared to revenues is teh key, it's a relationship between GNP/GDP an whatever tax revenues are taken in versus spending. The red has done poorly here, either cutting taxes too much or spending too much or both, which has led to massive debt increses. Here is the net result, yes, Bush is turning upward, but still in the cellar: http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm The debt vs the GDP is what I was talking about, tax rev vs spending: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

OMG the world must be coming to and end today! I found Narci has just said something I agree with completely. Well your 3 stooges aven't figured it out and when a 4th runs, you will fall in behind him and if he wins, still sing the same song as the debt goes vertical.

The US is doing it now. Record reciepts for how many months? Funny how we're geting ever deeper in debt, isn't it? Again, way off point How so? The debt is the grand tally of performance. Are you that guy who wins one corner or one lap, loses by gobs and brags that one lap? Meaningless, it's about long-term, sustained performance.

The US is doing it now. Record reciepts for how many months? And the federal deficit is in GREAT shape, as is the trade deficit. Oh, wait. So, that changes the fact the gov is recieving record reciepts?? You're a Republican, so you must watch NASCAR! I like it too. Anywa, if a guy came from 20 down and led a lap, that might be worth a mention, but if he fell to 30 back any success would be considered luck or circumstance, perhaps cars pitted, etc. Wait until and if Bush can actually break even for a year, he still will have doubled the exhausting rate of increase of Regan/Bush when all is said and done and teh net value will be inheriting a 5.5T debt and slamming it to over 10T, so this shortlived current success is really nothing in teh grand scheme. And Bush's horrible economy that required the fed reserve to lower rates to 45-year lows resulted in banks qualifying people higher, sellers adapting and driving house costs to double, now we have that housing fiasco to deal with. Set a medium term bragging point, not a short lived damage control before you brag too much.

The US is doing it now. Record reciepts for how many months? And the federal deficit is in GREAT shape, as is the trade deficit. Oh, wait. What does the deficit have to do with the fact that tax revenues have been increasing? The deficit is an annual accounting of the overall economy. The debt is a grand total of the economy and complete spending scheme. Wait until you actually have a year where the bragging point is that the annual deficit is neutral b4 you even start to consider anything valuable has transpired. Going from 400B in the hole to 200B in the hole is no bragging point unless you're Bush.

The US is doing it now. Record reciepts for how many months? Funny how we're geting ever deeper in debt, isn't it? Repubs look at a microcosm and call it representational

To a degree, but it forces them to come off money they would otherwise stock away, stagnating the economy. Furthermore, if a business can't stay competitive, they have to either go out of business or operate at a loss. Funny how you guys refuse to look at recent history and use them as shining examples of success. Perhaps it's due to their being no recent success, going back 26 years. Middle class. Which is less than most other countries, so what's your point? Most other countries spend virtually all of their tax revenue on social services rather than match th rest of the world dollar for dollar on military spending. Funny, they think it's all about the people, what a bunch of fools.

The last time a Repub has done anything ok with the debt is Eisenhower, most of us weren't even alive then. Wind your clock.