Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Nimh, where do you think this is going? An admission that she is wrong?

Yap yap yap yap!

Yappity yap!

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't check out all the quotes as attributed to people. But I do wonder if Alan Viard actually did say what is attributed to him by the LA Times and on the blogs

LA Times and blogs? What are you talking about?

The first article is from the Washington Post, the second is from an article in The New Republic. I included the links.

Foxfyre wrote:

especially if we could see the quote in context.

This is the quote in context in the WaPo's article:

Quote:

Bush hailed the dwindling deficit as a direct result of "pro-growth economic policies," particularly huge tax cuts enacted during his first term. "Tax relief fuels economic growth. And growth -- when the economy grows, more tax revenues come to Washington. And that's what's happened," Bush said.

Economists said Bush was claiming credit where little is due. The economy has grown and tax receipts have risen at historic rates over the past two years, but the Bush tax cuts played a small role in that process, they said, and cost the Treasury more in lost taxes than it gained from the resulting economic stimulus.

"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."

After that the article moves on to the findings of the Congressional Research Service.

In fact, that's the take I'd pay greater attention to than to Viard's in the first place - we're talking about economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department doing an analysis of Treasury data here. And finding that "economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts".

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nimh, where do you think this is going? An admission that she is wrong?

Yap yap yap yap!

Yappity yap!

Cycloptichorn

Good boy. Yep, bravely piling on again when you have the pack to protect you. Oh well, you'll grow up eventually. But, wrong about what? Give me the statement I said that is being disputed here. If I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nimh, where do you think this is going? An admission that she is wrong?

Yap yap yap yap!

Yappity yap!

Cycloptichorn

Good boy. Yep, bravely piling on again when you have the pack to protect you. Oh well, you'll grow up eventually. But, wrong about what? Give me the statement I said that is being disputed here. If I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong.

I need noone to protect me from the likes of you, Foxfyre. You are an entertaining diversion to my day and I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate it!

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nimh, where do you think this is going? An admission that she is wrong?

Yap yap yap yap!

Yappity yap!

Cycloptichorn

Good boy. Yep, bravely piling on again when you have the pack to protect you. Oh well, you'll grow up eventually. But, wrong about what? Give me the statement I said that is being disputed here. If I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong.

I need noone to protect me from the likes of you, Foxfyre. You are an entertaining diversion to my day and I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate it!

Cycloptichorn

I would simply hate to have so little going for me and have so little to say that I had to try to ridicule or put people down just to get noticed. Doesn't that embarrass you at all?

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nimh, where do you think this is going? An admission that she is wrong?

Yap yap yap yap!

Yappity yap!

Cycloptichorn

Good boy. Yep, bravely piling on again when you have the pack to protect you. Oh well, you'll grow up eventually. But, wrong about what? Give me the statement I said that is being disputed here. If I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong.

I need noone to protect me from the likes of you, Foxfyre. You are an entertaining diversion to my day and I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate it!

Cycloptichorn

I would simply hate to have so little going for me and have so little to say that I had to try to ridicule or put people down just to get noticed. Doesn't that embarrass you at all?

Well, you have it backwards; I don't really care about getting noticed by anyone. Productive conversation, for me, has never been a challenge or difficult task on A2K. So your attempt to paint me as someone who is looking to 'get noticed' falls a little flat.

I think your mistake is that you can't see the intrinsic value of my challenging your foolishness through ridicule, once you've retreated from any semblance of logic. You refuse to have conversations in which opinions and facts other than the ones you hold are valid; therefore, there is zero reason to treat you as if you were a serious, productive member of A2K. You don't add value.

Instead, you act like a petulant child; therefore, I treat you as one. You are of course free to respond or not as you see fit. But I've noticed that you really do have a tendency to respond to posts which you claim you are above responding to; I think this is mostly because the criticisms really do get to you.

Perhaps you should consider modifying your posting style and behavior; at some point it must occur to you that years of criticisms probably do hold some truth in them. Though I must admit that it would make my day a little bit darker, not being able to point out your logical flaws and then make fun of you for retreating and circling the wagons constantly.

I'm not embarrassed at all. I'd be more embarrassed if I didn't have the guts to treat you as your actions merit.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nimh, where do you think this is going? An admission that she is wrong?

Yap yap yap yap!

Yappity yap!

Cycloptichorn

Good boy. Yep, bravely piling on again when you have the pack to protect you. Oh well, you'll grow up eventually. But, wrong about what? Give me the statement I said that is being disputed here. If I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong.

I need noone to protect me from the likes of you, Foxfyre. You are an entertaining diversion to my day and I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate it!

Cycloptichorn

I would simply hate to have so little going for me and have so little to say that I had to try to ridicule or put people down just to get noticed. Doesn't that embarrass you at all?

Well, you have it backwards; I don't really care about getting noticed by anyone. Productive conversation, for me, has never been a challenge or difficult task on A2K. So your attempt to paint me as someone who is looking to 'get noticed' falls a little flat.

I think your mistake is that you can't see the intrinsic value of my challenging your foolishness through ridicule, once you've retreated from any semblance of logic. You refuse to have conversations in which opinions and facts other than the ones you hold are valid; therefore, there is zero reason to treat you as if you were a serious, productive member of A2K. You don't add value.

Instead, you act like a petulant child; therefore, I treat you as one. You are of course free to respond or not as you see fit. But I've noticed that you really do have a tendency to respond to posts which you claim you are above responding to; I think this is mostly because the criticisms really do get to you.

Perhaps you should consider modifying your posting style and behavior; at some point it must occur to you that years of criticisms probably do hold some truth in them. Though I must admit that it would make my day a little bit darker, not being able to point out your logical flaws and then make fun of you for retreating and circling the wagons constantly.

I'm not embarrassed at all. I'd be more embarrassed if I didn't have the guts to treat you as your actions merit.

Cycloptichorn

And I think you are incapable of seeing how utterly ridiculous statements like this make you look. But it's okay. You'll grow out of it. Just hang in there. Meanwhile, if you insist on dong ad hominem posts rather than participating in discussions, I'll just put you back on my trolls, idiots, and exercises in futility list. I had hoped you had learned a degree of maturity. Apparently not.

The economy is great and there is no indication that it will not continue to be great. No amount of unlinked, unspported, unsubstantiated, distorted, cherry picked, and/or manufactured or made up spam from years ago can change that. Such only makes the spammer look more and more foolish as well as rude and inconsiderate and clueless and probably in violation of TOS.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks slumped Tuesday, with the Dow losing over 240 points, as worries about subprime lending, the economy and the weak dollar sparked the second-worst selloff of the year.

Well said, c.i. .......... Hearts and minds seem to be lagging a bit.

I bet you didn't have any problem with Clinton firing ALL but one of the U.S. attorneys when he came into office, including the one investigating his and Hillary's Whitewater scandal. That attorney was replaced by one of Hillary's law students and a devout Democrat as I recall.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the calls for impeachment or for Janet Reno to be fired?

George Bush retained most of Clinton appointees. And you can be sure that if he had not fired a few incompetents among the large US attorney system, he would be criticized and condemned for that as well. And as far as we know, none of those were investigating anybody in the administration or presenting a political problem to the administration.

But Clinton good. Bush bad. Yeah, that's the way it is.