Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 01:16 pm
@Thomas,
Too narrow a tme frame since we all should remember that much of the "growth" under Clinton was fueled by the false "tech boom". Remember all that was lost in the early 90's?

Poor comparison.
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 01:25 pm
@Woiyo9,
wrong again, the 90's industrial boom was caused by the increased efficiencies of production and labor that resulted from widespread computerization in the economy.

even poorer excuse.
Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 01:27 pm
@kuvasz,
If you say so! Drunk Drunk Drunk
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 01:33 pm
@Woiyo9,


VIDEO with commentary.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 01:40 pm
@Woiyo9,
I assume you mean "early 00s", not "early 90s". Clinton wasn't president in the early 90s, having taken office in 1993.

As to "all that was lost" in terms of job growth, here is the development of payroll employment since 1992. Notice that what was lost from 2001 to 2003 is a fraction of what was gained from 1993 to 2000. So when you say, that "much of the 'growth' under Clinton was fueled by the false 'tech boom'", it's simply incorrect. Certainly in terms of job growth, which your original claim was about, and which I was rebutting.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8237/payrollemployment199220fi8.gif
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/payrollemployment199220fi8.gif/1/w600.png


Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 01:41 pm
@Woiyo9,
You're just adorable! I just want to take you home and get you a nice helmet to protect that soft spot at the top of your skull and watch as you grin and drool your Republican apologia all over your shirtfront. Don't ever change! (Also, don't vote or reproduce).
Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 01:50 pm
@kuvasz,
You must be homosexual or have a death wish.

You both have very short, partisan memories.

Clinton Recession: 'Bill' Comes Due for 8 Years of Corruption

Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, March 21, 2001

Despite the media effort to pin the 2001 recession on President Bush, the fact remains that he had little to do with the last eight years of economic policy from the White House. The infamous miracle bubble of Bill Clinton's economy burst last summer when OPEC oil price increases rocked the world economy.

In February 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson visited Saudi Arabia when prices were at their lowest. Richardson reportedly pressed Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi on the "oversupplied market" and expressed concern about "extreme price volatility."

Former Saudi minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani told a Houston oil conference that Richardson had "saved the oil industry" during that visit because his "intervention" had "persuaded" the Saudis to change policy by raising prices.

After Richardson's visit, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, an industry newsletter, quoted Saudi officials as wanting "a price of $18 to $20 as soon as possible."

In 1999, then-President Clinton pressed OPEC to raise prices in order to finance the brutal Russian war in Chechnya. Clinton needed Russia's help settling that pesky little war in Kosovo. However, Bill was unable to aid Boris Yeltsin directly because of the rampant corruption inside Moscow.

Clinton quietly used OPEC oil diplomacy to supply Russia increased energy profits. The influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company.

However, there were also unexpected results. The oil sales helped Saddam Hussein re-arm his military with a brand new Chinese-built air defense system. The move is also now seen as a major blunder that triggered the 2001 recession.

Anti-Energy Movement

In the 1990s, OPEC wanted to re-establish monopoly control by flooding the market with cheap oil. In 1973 OPEC cut off all oil to the West during the October war. The result was a sudden influx of investment in domestic and alternative production that peaked just before Clinton took office in 1992.

Clinton cooperated with OPEC by destroying domestic production. Clinton's main weapon was a war of propaganda waged by Al Gore. Gore led the attack on the U.S. energy industry using "green" policies of radical environmentalism. Despite the many variables in domestic energy, there is a basic flaw in the anti-energy argument. It is far more "environmentally friendly" to pump oil from static fields here in the U.S. than it is to import foreign oil in fragile ocean-going tankers.

OPEC in 2001 just squeezes harder, having learned never to let the U.S. go cold turkey again. The Clinton economy was built on artificially low cost foreign energy that has suddenly become very expensive. The United States is now more dependent on foreign energy than ever before.

Blackouts on the West Coast, skyrocketing gas and oil prices and an unstable stock market all add up to a recession in progress. There are no fast answers for eight years of declining domestic oil production and climbing oil consumption.

Chinese Army Inc. . Just as there is no quick fix for the energy crunch there is also no easy solution to the trade crash. During the 1990s, Clinton also sponsored a so-called trade boom with China that actually busted America. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed out of America in the largest single trade deficit in history.

Today, firms backed by the People's Liberation Army dominate consumer markets in America. American workers, unable to compete against the slave labor amassed by the PLA, are losing manufacturing jobs to China at a rate never before seen. Chinese army firms compete unfairly against U.S. companies inside America for financing on the stock market, and even for U.S. government-backed loans.

For example, documents from the files of Chinagate figure John Huang show that $200 million in World Bank loans for a Chinese "Technology Development Project" actually went to weapons research labs and businesses wholly owned by the Chinese army. Huang later cited his Fifth Amendment rights more than two thousand times when asked under oath if he had ties to Chinese intelligence.

The funded projects included:

# $5 million to Northwest Institute for Nonferrous Metal Research for "rare earth materials" used in "chemical, aviation," and "nuclear power stations." Northwest Institute for Nonferrous Metal Research is part of China National Nuclear Corp., maker of nuclear weapons for the Chinese army.

# More than $5 million to Harbin Research Institute for "welded steel products" used in "aviation" and "ship building." Harbin was identified by the Department of Defense as a Chinese army front used to buy JET engines for the PLA in 1996.

# More than $4 million to the Marine Design & Research Institute of China for "ship design software and services." The Marine Design & Research Institute is part of the China National Ship Building Corp. and the primary design facility for Chinese warships, including nuclear-powered submarines.

# More than $4 million to Nanjing Radio Factory for "audio/visual" products used in "T.V.s, satellite equip., radios, CD players, etc." Nanjing Radio Factory produces electronics for the PLA, including satellite equipment, and secure military radios.

# $3 million to Xi'an Jiatong University for "fluid machinery" research used in "turbo-compressors". Xi'an Jiatong University was identified by the Dept. of Defense as a major research center for Chinese Army chemical and biological weapons.

# More than $5 million to "China Textile Academy" for "productivity enhancement." China Textile Academy produces camouflage uniforms for the Chinese army and for export to other armed forces.

Legacy of the Black Beret

Chinese army companies can now bid on U.S. government contracts. U.S. firms could not match a Chinese low bid for a U.S. Army contract to manufacture black berets. The black beret, made famous in World War II by the U.S. Army Rangers, was a symbol of pride for an elite force. The new fashion statement by the U.S. Army is intended to improve morale in the ranks.

According to published press accounts, a Chinese firm won part of the U.S. government contract, and many of the new Army hats are made outside the United States.

The new headgear is an embarrassing reminder of the stained Clinton legacy. The Pentagon is determined to distribute what has become known as the "Monica" to every single soldier.

The recent parade of liberal media pundits that now call the 2001 recession the "Bush" economy are missing the mark by a few trillion dollars. The left is attacking President Bush for the legacy of Bill Clinton. The eight-year ride of "corruption, collusion, and nepotism" is over, and the "Bill" is now due.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/20/190717.shtml

When you have something constructive to say, get back to me.
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 01:55 pm
@Brandon9000,
brandon wrote :

Quote:
I'm all for closing most loopholes


you don't mean that some TAX LOOPHOLES should be left , do you ?

speaking from canada , i'm very familiar with the bleating coming from all kinds of sources (agri business , mining industry , car manufacturers ... ...) that ask for lower general taxes and elimination of subsidies , grants etc. but always make a point that they represent a special case .
these "special cases" always come forward and paint the most dire consequences if THEIR special status should be discontinued .
since in almost all cases employment would be lost if a special tax status would be eliminated , these corporations have an easy time getting their workforce on side "to fight the evil government" that wants to stop a subsidy or refuses to grant a special "loophole" .
these (so called) capitalists have little or no problem getting their workers to do the dirty work for them .
it's like a drunk using his hungry children to beg for money and thereafter takes the money from them for his own pleasure .

if corporations want to be true capitalists , they wouldn't ask for government tax loopholes and subsidies , would they ?

the problem is that they have their workers over a barrel imo .

if a large corporation goes belly up , the big shots have usually been able to skim the cream off the top early on and are ready to hand out the pink slips , perhaps adding : "i'm so sorry ! " .

if any of us are looking for a "fair" society and "fair" taxation , i'm afraid there is going to be a long wait .

i'm sure that what's fair to me , is sounding mighty unfair to someone else - and so it will continue .
hbg
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 02:37 pm
@Woiyo9,
woiyo said
Quote:
You must be homosexual or have a death wish.


Sorry son, you appear to be the only ********** around here, but what does your hobby have do to with rebutting the fact that the US economy grew because of its increased efficiency due to the computerization of the workplace.

And if you want to try to kill me come on big boy. I would enjoy tangling with a guy like you, but lets do it before election day so mccain gets one less vote.

BTW
Quote:
The increase in productivity growth rates beginning in the mid-1990s helped boost economic growth and speed the rate at which living standards rise in the United States. Between 1995 and 2000, productivity growth averaged 2.8%"almost double the rate during the preceding 22 years. This increase in productivity growth is thought by most observers to be associated with the increased importance of information technology (IT).

Oliner and Sichel ("The Resurgence of Growth in the Late 1990s: Is Information Technology the Story?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(4), pp. 3-22.)

find that labor productivity growth was 1.04 percentage points faster in the late 1990s than in the early 1990s. They decompose the increase into four parts (Sources of Increased Labor Productivity Growth, 1996"1999 versus 1991"1995

Rise in labor productivity growth 1.04%
Contributions from

Increased IT capital use 0.45
Increased efficiency of IT production 0.37
Increased efficiency of non-IT production 0.30
Other "0.10

First, the increased use of IT capital throughout the economy"computer hardware, software, and communications equipment"raised labor productivity growth by just under half a percentage point. Second, the rate of improvement in the efficiency with which the economy produces IT capital increased substantially during the late 1990s. The rise in this growth rate, sometimes called multifactor productivity growth, contributed 0.37 percentage points to the increase in labor productivity growth. The remaining two components"increased efficiency outside the IT-producing sector and "Other""together account for the remaining 0.2 percentage points.

The remarkable conclusion from this analysis is that the widespread adoption of IT in the United States, together with the increased efficiency in its production, accounts for about three-quarters of the rise in labor productivity growth, a quantity of about 0.8.


http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2001/el2001-14.html

Now please woiyo, please stop interrupting the adults and return to your room so you can continue masturbating to gay porn. You must surely do that better than engaging in discussions where even moderate intelligence is a prerequisite for anteing up to the dealer.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 02:52 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

The point is that "the american dream" has no objective reality. Nor does such a concept as "fairness". Like any such concepts, they are evolving and variable notions. Feel free to forward your own personal feelings about these things but preface them with, "to my mind" or some such.

Everyone knows that's what it means, and I certainly won't be held to a standard that no one else follows.

Now, do you have anything at all to say about the actual topic I raised? Are you saying that you believe that taking even a much higher percentage from the rich in taxes is fair? Where exactly do you disagree with me?
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 02:57 pm
@hamburger,
hamburger wrote:

brandon wrote :

Quote:
I'm all for closing most loopholes


you don't mean that some TAX LOOPHOLES should be left , do you ?

speaking from canada , i'm very familiar with the bleating coming from all kinds of sources (agri business , mining industry , car manufacturers ... ...) that ask for lower general taxes and elimination of subsidies , grants etc. but always make a point that they represent a special case .
these "special cases" always come forward and paint the most dire consequences if THEIR special status should be discontinued .
since in almost all cases employment would be lost if a special tax status would be eliminated , these corporations have an easy time getting their workforce on side "to fight the evil government" that wants to stop a subsidy or refuses to grant a special "loophole" .
these (so called) capitalists have little or no problem getting their workers to do the dirty work for them .
it's like a drunk using his hungry children to beg for money and thereafter takes the money from them for his own pleasure .

if corporations want to be true capitalists , they wouldn't ask for government tax loopholes and subsidies , would they ?

the problem is that they have their workers over a barrel imo .

if a large corporation goes belly up , the big shots have usually been able to skim the cream off the top early on and are ready to hand out the pink slips , perhaps adding : "i'm so sorry ! " .

if any of us are looking for a "fair" society and "fair" taxation , i'm afraid there is going to be a long wait .

i'm sure that what's fair to me , is sounding mighty unfair to someone else - and so it will continue .
hbg

I'm not sure how any of this applies to my assertion about fairness, except for the question regarding loopholes, which I will answer. The answer is that most tax loopholes, i.e. deductions, should be closed, but that some tiny fraction of the deductions may be fair and useful, e.g. rewarding good behavior. Once, most loopholes are removed, the rich should not be asked to shoulder a much higher fraction of the burden than everyone else in terms of tax bracket.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 03:27 pm
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b344/jediryan22/Obama-Communism.jpg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 05:02 pm
@Brandon9000,
The 'american dream' and 'fairness' are/were conceived of identically by Frederick Hayek, FDR, the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, Martin Luther King, Ted Turner, Bruce Springsteen, yourself and bipolar bear?

Ya sure?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 05:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Agreed again, but the person we elect should want to fix what's wrong, e.g. the loopholes, rather than having a basic philosophy of making the successful pay for everything society needs. He shouldn't advocate putting the wealthy in a much higher bracket. He should advocate making them pay taxes according to the bracket that they are in. Advocating dragging the wealthy down to the level of the rest of us is very disturbing because it suggests a very unfair attitude.

I agree again, but there is a subtlety to this which is not apparent just from Obama saying "share the wealth". We would need to know the details of how Obama really thinks at a philosophical level, and I haven't heard those details yet, so I'm inclined to think he's just being pragmatic rather than socialist.

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 05:16 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
When you talk about loopholes, are these really unfair if everybody has the right to qualify for them? Is it unfair to give a tax deduction for home mortgage insurance and not to renters who can't afford to buy a house yet? Or is it a good thing to encourage home ownership that, when responsibly done, also helps people become more prosperous and also supports the schools and other things that property owners support?

Perhaps this post from Kuvatz will help explain...
Quote:
Re: cjhsa (Post 3452343) chjsa said "As opposed to you, who should be cut off the gubmint teet instead of me paying for you to **** around on the computer all day instead of looking for a job?"

no son, i am a dyed in wool capitalist and i own my own consulting company, and a second one as well. that pays me monthy an exceptional amount of money from patent licensing fees and royalties on technologies i invented, while half-wits like you have to pay higher taxes on your waged salary income while i get stock options and dividends that get taxed at one half of the rate you pay. my company pays for my car, its insurance, my computer, my tv, my clothes, and dinners out with wife, and my vacation.

sucker!

you know i would actually feel sorry for you if you weren't such an asshole to those who have less than you do. so it thrills me to no ends that i am able to sit at my desk watching cable movies or looking out over my pond while you have to work.

but you are still stealing from your company whenever you post at work while not on lunchbreak.

lets face it buddy the economic system you defend, and which i criticize makes you MY bitch.

And those aren't even the really sweet loopholes. If you want to see a loophole just talk to some of the CFO's for multi-billion dollar firms who sometimes pay no taxes at all.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 06:41 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

The 'american dream' and 'fairness' are/were conceived of identically by Frederick Hayek, FDR, the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, Martin Luther King, Ted Turner, Bruce Springsteen, yourself and bipolar bear?

Ya sure?

I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you please explain directly what aspect of my stated opinion you disagree with?
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 06:44 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
Agreed again, but the person we elect should want to fix what's wrong, e.g. the loopholes, rather than having a basic philosophy of making the successful pay for everything society needs. He shouldn't advocate putting the wealthy in a much higher bracket. He should advocate making them pay taxes according to the bracket that they are in. Advocating dragging the wealthy down to the level of the rest of us is very disturbing because it suggests a very unfair attitude.

I agree again, but there is a subtlety to this which is not apparent just from Obama saying "share the wealth". We would need to know the details of how Obama really thinks at a philosophical level, and I haven't heard those details yet, so I'm inclined to think he's just being pragmatic rather than socialist.


When I hear Obama talk about lowering the taxes on the middle and raising them on the rich, I assume that he's advocating the same "soak the rich" platform that most of his Democratic predecessors have advocated and that many of the liberal members of the board clearly advocate. What he's saying is both disturbing, and consistent with his party in general, and I'd be surprised if it doesn't mean what it seems to mean.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 07:54 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Brandon9000
Re: blatham (Post 3452554)
blatham wrote:

The 'american dream' and 'fairness' are/were conceived of identically by Frederick Hayek, FDR, the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, Martin Luther King, Ted Turner, Bruce Springsteen, yourself and bipolar bear?

Ya sure?


Quote:
I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you please explain directly what aspect of my stated opinion you disagree with?


You asserted
Quote:
Everyone knows that's what it and 'the american dream' means
That 'it' in your assertion refers to either 'fairness' or 'the american dream' or both. Let's take it to be the more likely referent, 'the american dream'.

But there is no fixed 'meaning' available because the concept is variable to different people, as in the examples above.

Take, as another example, the term "anti-american". Would you wish to assert that this term is one which 'everyone knows what it means'? You could say that everyone has a definition for it but you certainly could not claim that it means the same thing to everyone because that's so clearly false.

Ya got it now?
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 08:31 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Brandon9000
Re: blatham (Post 3452554)
blatham wrote:

The 'american dream' and 'fairness' are/were conceived of identically by Frederick Hayek, FDR, the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, Martin Luther King, Ted Turner, Bruce Springsteen, yourself and bipolar bear?

Ya sure?


Quote:
I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you please explain directly what aspect of my stated opinion you disagree with?


You asserted
Quote:
Everyone knows that's what it and 'the american dream' means
That 'it' in your assertion refers to either 'fairness' or 'the american dream' or both. Let's take it to be the more likely referent, 'the american dream'.

But there is no fixed 'meaning' available because the concept is variable to different people, as in the examples above.

Take, as another example, the term "anti-american". Would you wish to assert that this term is one which 'everyone knows what it means'? You could say that everyone has a definition for it but you certainly could not claim that it means the same thing to everyone because that's so clearly false.

Ya got it now?

The American Dream has a pretty standard meaning. It means that a person who works hard and makes good decisions can become rich. Sorry if you didn't know that, but that is what it means, with very little variation possible. Now, would you at any point care to address my actual assertion about taxation, or are you only good for technical objections?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 09:16 am
@Brandon9000,
"become rich" is your conception and it is not universal, nor historically accurate.
Quote:
Historian and writer James Truslow Adams coined the phrase "American Dream" in his 1931 book Epic of America:

"The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."[2]

Quote:
The American Dream is belief in the freedom that allows all citizens and residents[1] of the United States to pursue their goals in life through hard work. Today, it often refers to one's material prosperity, which is dependent upon one's abilities and work ethic, and not on a rigid class structure.

Although the phrase's meaning has evolved over the course of American history, for some people, it is the opportunity to achieve greater material prosperity than was possible in their countries of origin. For others it is the opportunity for their children to grow up and receive an education and its consequent career opportunities. It is the opportunity to make individual choices without the restrictions of class, caste, religion, race, or ethnic group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_american_dream
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.34 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:51:55