1
   

The Democrats Just Took Over

 
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:09 pm
boomerang wrote:
Yes indeed I do support our soldiers. In fact, my brother is a General in the US Army.

I like almost everything my tax dollars buy and I don't complain about paying them.

Where is your brother? Our grandson is in the US Army stationed in Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:10 pm
My third cousin is stationed in Chad.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:14 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
New prosperity. this was a question asked of Clinton when he raised taxes, "Has any country ever taxed it's way into prosperity?"
After the questionthe guy was unceremoniously kicked out of the session.


I have no idea if the guy was kicked out or not-no link or anything-but one thing we can be sure of-the country was more prosperous after Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy to make up for Bush I's massive deficits.

Also under Clinton, real wages, (wages adjusted for inflation) rose. Under Bush II, they have fallen.

Under Clinton, the GDP went up 4.0% a year. Under Bush, it went up only 2.7% a year.

So I really don't know what happened to that reporter, but one thing is for sure-Bill Clinton gave him and everyone else a lesson in how to run the economy.

Bush II is giving us a lesson in how to ruin it.

Since you didn't provide a link to your claim of a "massive
deficit".... Rolling Eyes The economy was on the rebound in 1992, & that's easy to find on google. Clinton lied about the economy, just like all the lies about the balanced budget during those years. It was balanced on paper only.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:14 pm
Take a pill, LSM, and go to bed. You have a lot of nonsense to spread around tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:15 pm
DrewDad wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
boomerang wrote:
When I hear anyone piss and moan about taxes while supporting the war I just want to slap them silly.

Wantwantwantwantwantwant. But pay for anything? No, thank you.

Now wait a minute, are you saying that you don't support our military? If you're not, that's certainly your right, however, if you do support our military, then how can that be done without $$$?
Slap them silly? Some more of your pacifist nature showing?

Disingenuity is not your bag. You come off seeming foolish, not clever.

& since you didn't answer the question, you come off as ignorant or quarrelsome or both.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:21 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Take a pill, LSM, and go to bed. You have a lot of nonsense to spread around tomorrow.

My nonsense smells better than your bullsh!t.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:27 pm
If I said where he is you could probably find out who he is and his privacy is his own to keep or give away.

When he was at the Pentagon he was very closely involved with the war in Afghanistan.

Your grandson has my thanks and I will keep his safety in my thoughts.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:31 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Take a pill, LSM, and go to bed. You have a lot of nonsense to spread around tomorrow.
Laughing
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Bush's tax cuts have reinvigorated an economy that was heading for recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency.

Rriiight...

It was so much "heading for recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency", that in its last year, the GDP grew by 'only' 3,8%.

It was so much "heading for recession" that economic growth in 2000 was higher than either the 1985-1994 average (2,9%) or the 1995-2004 average (3,2%).

It was so much "heading for recession" that economic growth in 2000 was better in the US than either the Euro area, Japan or the UK were doing in that year.

It was so much "heading for recession" that for the fourth year in a row, economic growth in 2000 was higher than it had been in seven out of the eight years that had gone before.

It was so much "heading for recession" that economic growth was higher in 2000 than it had been in all but three of the twelve years of Reagan and Bush I rule.

Note - in the graph below, any level above the 0% line equates with a degree of economic growth. (Note also that the 03 and 04 figures were still based on projections.)

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/image001.gif
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 09:52 pm
Mind you, all of this "Clinton did it" and "Bush is responsible for it" talk is, as far as general economic growth is concerned, just talk, anyway. Whistling in the wind.

Presidents can exert a great deal of influence on how extra revenue is spent and who benefits most from growth - but the economy, it generally keeps on truckin' anyway, almost wholly independent from who's in the WH.

Take a step back and consider these graphs..

This one is not about economic growth, but about US GDP per se - constant prices, in billions of US $, 1980 -2004:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/image003.gif

And this one is of Real GDP from 1929 to 2002:

http://home.earthlink.net/~leokim/images/Real%20GDP.jpg
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 11:46 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:

Since you didn't provide a link to your claim of a "massive
deficit".... Rolling Eyes

I did not provide a link because the story was all over the newspapers and television for several months, if not years. I think a link to prove a story that is not well known is necessary if you expect the reader to believe you, large news stories that were covered for months on end really don't require them. So I did not include a link referring to the fact that in Bush's last year the deficit was the highest in history because everyone was talking about it back then. Similarly, I don't expect to be required to post a link when I say the the Declaration Of Independence was signed in 1776, the John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, or that Harry Truman was the American President at the end of WWII. Some things the poster has the right to expect the reader to know.

However, just to show how easy I am to get along with, I will post the deficit numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. Take a look at the first chart, Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public,
1962 to 2005
(Billions of dollars)




LoneStarMadam wrote:
The economy was on the rebound in 1992, & that's easy to find on google.
Maybe if you Google Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage's blog, as I am sure you do. If you check the figures from the Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, with a GDP increase of barely over 2% and rampant unemployment, the economy was in no way rebounding at all.


LoneStarMadam wrote:
Clinton lied about the economy,
No, the facts prove he was telling the truth.


LoneStarMadam wrote:
just like all the lies about the balanced budget during those years. It was balanced on paper only.
Whoa! For a person who pretends to be unaware of the fact that in his last year of office Bush Sr ran up the largest deficit in history, (to that time-his son topped him), we suddenly have some pretty fancy theories about deficits and things which supposedly only exist "on paper". Tell me, how did you go from professing lack of knowledge early in your post to knowing "the real story" by the end?

For what it is worth, Clinton did run surplus both in on-budget and total budget methods of accounting. Actually, the on-budget numbers are really more accurate, but unfortunately the number that gets quoted is the total budget number. But Clinton ran a surplus either way you look at it.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 12:36 am
Maybe if you google rush or savage.... Rolling Eyes
Are you afraid to google US Economic Recovery 1992? Are you afraid of finding the truth?
Another thing, presidents have very little to do with the economy, it's the companies & the employees that make or break an economy. There's something called economic cycles, you might want to check that out.
"A gov't that's big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take everything you have"
You should think about that.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 01:18 am
McGentrix wrote:
Over the last three years, tax receipts have increased nearly 35 percent and the stimulus is continuing.


No, it did NOT.

The last figures the Congressional Budget Office has is for 2005.

From 2002 to 2005, individual and corporate income taxes went up 19.8%

However, also from 2002 to 2005, budget outlays rose 22.9%

Don't look now, McGentrix, but the idea is to bring in an equal or greater amount of money than you spend. Bringing in 19.8 percent more and spending 22.9 percent more is not the direction you want to go in.

Is this the "stimulus" for the economy you Bush people are bragging about? It seems more like hemlock.

By contrast, in the eight years of Bill Clinton's Administration, tax receipts more than doubled-they increased 110%.

However, in those same eight years, budget expenditures increased only 29.5%. That's right, tax receipts went up more than three times as quickly as budget expenditures. That's how Clinton could get rid of the deficit, create a surplus, and reduce the national debt.

And please notice that these Clinton figures are for his whole eight years, while you are cherry picking Bush's best 3 years trying to make him look good. And Bush still looks pathetic next to Clinton





McGentrix wrote:
Over 5 million jobs have been created since August 2003.....
5 million jobs in three and a half years? That's nice-1.5 million jobs a year. Clinton created over 18 million jobs in eight years-that's 2.3 million jobs a year. And again, that's for Clinton's whole term-not his best cherry picked years, like you are doing for Bush.

Say McGentrix, when do you get to the part where Bush looks good next to Clinton? So far you've done a great job showing how bad he is.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:00 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Maybe if you google rush or savage.... Rolling Eyes
Are you afraid to google US Economic Recovery 1992? Are you afraid of finding the truth?

I did and all I found was that was relevant was a collection of books meant for libraries-no actual reports accessible. And an editorial from the National Review at the end of 1993-Clinton's first year-saying that things are looking up.

I have made an honest effort to give you some specific facts and figures from official sources. If you can come up with some official figures that supports your case, by all means post them and we can discuss, time permitting.

Here are some more about Bush Sr's term. For the four years, the rise in Gross Domestic Product averaged 2.1 percent a year. Since 1950, it has averaged 3.3%. In Bush Sr's last year, he did get it up to the average, but that's hardly anything to write home about-one mediocre year out of four.


For the entire four years, Bush Sr. created 2.3 million jobs. Total. So four years of Bush Sr. job creation equals one year of Clinton job creation. And when Bush Sr. left office, he left behind the biggest deficit to that time.

I'm very sorry, but I don't see how this adds up to any big momentum for Clinton to inherit. In fact, it looks like a big fat mess for Bill to clean up.



LoneStarMadam wrote:
Another thing, presidents have very little to do with the economy, it's the companies & the employees that make or break an economy. There's something called economic cycles, you might want to check that out.

And how many of you conservatives were singing that tune when Ronald Reagan was president? You were falling all over yourselves giving Ron credit for the economy when he was in. But let things be good when Clinton is in office, and suddenly the theme becomes, "Well, rahlly, dahling, surely you don't think those good things were due to anything that silly Bill Clinton did? I mean, please....."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:38 pm
nimh wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Bush's tax cuts have reinvigorated an economy that was heading for recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency.

Rriiight...

It was so much "heading for recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency", that in its last year, the GDP grew by 'only' 3,8%.

It was so much "heading for recession" that economic growth in 2000 was higher than either the 1985-1994 average (2,9%) or the 1995-2004 average (3,2%).

It was so much "heading for recession" that economic growth in 2000 was better in the US than either the Euro area, Japan or the UK were doing in that year.

It was so much "heading for recession" that for the fourth year in a row, economic growth in 2000 was higher than it had been in seven out of the eight years that had gone before.

It was so much "heading for recession" that economic growth was higher in 2000 than it had been in all but three of the twelve years of Reagan and Bush I rule.

Note - in the graph below, any level above the 0% line equates with a degree of economic growth. (Note also that the 03 and 04 figures were still based on projections.)

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/image001.gif


Yes, right.

GDP Revisions Ominous
More ominous for the economy and the financial markets is today's government revisions of the economic numbers for the years 1999-2001. The major revisions show an economy that was much weaker than originally reported. GDP growth for the first quarter was revised down from the original 6.1% growth rate to 5%. What is more telling is the revisions of 2001 GDP, which show only a rise of 0.3%. Instead of one quarter of negative economic growth, we actually had three consecutive quarters of economic decline. Economic growth actually peaked in the fourth quarter of 1999 and slowed substantially during all of 2000. During 2000, the economy was already heading toward recession with the first quarter of recession beginning in the first quarter of last year. Previous reports had shown the economy had been strong throughout 2000, when in fact it had been weakening all along. A summary of other revisions are listed below:

* The annual GDP growth rate from 1998-2001 revised down to 2.7 % vs 3.1%
* 2001 overall growth revised down to 0.3 % vs 1.2 %
* Revised estimates show a longer downturn than previously reported
* Personal income was revised down to 0.4%; wages and salaries were revised down 2.9%
* Economic growth for 4th quarter of 1999 was revised lower
* The largest downward revision in real GDP for quarters 1999-2001 was 1.9%
* Corporate before tax was revised down from all three years: $19.4 billion for 1999, $88.3 billion for 2000, and $35.5 billion for 2001
* Personal outlays were revised down for all three years

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (US Commerce Department) issued their GDP report today. A link to the report is listed here for those who want to delve into the statistical data and form your own conclusions. Suffice to say this report is one more nail in the coffin of the new paradigm economy of the 1990's. Like so many of the corporate revisions we have witnessed -- with more to come in the future -- the 1990's "New Era Economy" has turned out to be more fiction than reality. As corporations come clean with their books, the government is coming clean with its own revisions as well.

You can find more here Nimh.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:43 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Over the last three years, tax receipts have increased nearly 35 percent and the stimulus is continuing.


No, it did NOT.

The last figures the Congressional Budget Office has is for 2005.

From 2002 to 2005, individual and corporate income taxes went up 19.8%

However, also from 2002 to 2005, budget outlays rose 22.9%

Don't look now, McGentrix, but the idea is to bring in an equal or greater amount of money than you spend. Bringing in 19.8 percent more and spending 22.9 percent more is not the direction you want to go in.

Is this the "stimulus" for the economy you Bush people are bragging about? It seems more like hemlock.

By contrast, in the eight years of Bill Clinton's Administration, tax receipts more than doubled-they increased 110%.

However, in those same eight years, budget expenditures increased only 29.5%. That's right, tax receipts went up more than three times as quickly as budget expenditures. That's how Clinton could get rid of the deficit, create a surplus, and reduce the national debt.

And please notice that these Clinton figures are for his whole eight years, while you are cherry picking Bush's best 3 years trying to make him look good. And Bush still looks pathetic next to Clinton





McGentrix wrote:
Over 5 million jobs have been created since August 2003.....
5 million jobs in three and a half years? That's nice-1.5 million jobs a year. Clinton created over 18 million jobs in eight years-that's 2.3 million jobs a year. And again, that's for Clinton's whole term-not his best cherry picked years, like you are doing for Bush.

Say McGentrix, when do you get to the part where Bush looks good next to Clinton? So far you've done a great job showing how bad he is.


and the moon is made of cheese and swans live in you pool right?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 06:17 pm

The numbers in the graph I posted were updated later than those in the article you bring, McGentrix, and despite the article's claim that the economy was "already heading toward recession in 2000", the actual numbers do not bear this out at all: the economy actually grew by almost 4% in 2000. That's the kind of growth rate that the US economy had only achieved four times in the entire 12 Reagan/Bush Sr years. If thats "heading for a recession" I'd like my country's economy to head for recession any time.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 06:21 pm
McGentrix wrote:
and the moon is made of cheese and swans live in you pool right?

Ah yes, what better retort to someone actually bringing the latest official numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.

Classic Bush-conservative reaction when their claims are fact-checked against the actual official numbers: put your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la, I cant hear you!!"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 06:25 pm
nimh wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
and the moon is made of cheese and swans live in you pool right?

Ah yes, what better retort to someone actually bringing the latest official numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.

Classic Bush-conservative reaction when their claims are fact-checked against the actual official numbers: put your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la, I cant hear you!!"


No, the retort of someone who notices someone posting numbers with no source.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 06:41 pm
http://butrfly.net/Albums/MiscellaneousGoodies/images/simoncan'thearyou.jpg_tn.jpg
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 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 08:23:50