posted
Returning to the topic- I believe there are varying factions within the three main 'parties'-Republican, Democrat, and independent. I happen to be a Democrat who likes to be a centrist. Eventually, I will be a centrist Democrat with a poli-science major.
I believe very fervently that the media is, in response to both the financial and social conditions that they find themselves in-shall we say corporate mergers? shall we say accusations of 'liberal bias'?, are becoming the voice of the conservative elements of our society. I fear in time that our media will not be so free, and that we will have not a government controlled media, but a corporate owned media. This media will support the conservative caucus and oppose the liberal and independent caucus in this country. Why? The conservative caucus supports 'Big Business', which finances and operates the 'Media'. If I play nice with you, will you play nice with me?
As for the surplus, I am reading both the Economist of UK and Business Week. The Economist has stated that our surplus is kaput. For instance, to pay the rebates, the government has to borrow money. As for the 'Son of Star Wars' program, there is no money for this program.
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
posted
Yeah, my bribe (er, I mean, "tax-cut") arrives in September.
Because trickle-down economics had nothing to do with the recession we were in. No, not at all. Oh, did you forget about the recession? We had one until Clinton/Gore, as I remember.
Let's see. Reagan gets into office, his economic package goes through Congress in '81 with about as much trouble as a hot knife through butter (thanks in great deal to the boll-weevil Dems), and shortly thereafter, unemployment is high, inflation is rampant, and people are losing their homes at record numbers, and VOILA! We're in the midst of a full recession.
Trickle-down economics did nothing. Any idiot with a degree in economics could tell you that. It only works when the rich spend money, and if the rich ain't spending, the less fortunate aren't reaping the rewards.
posted
Well there Reactionary Boy, excellecnt defense. Or should I rather say diversion.
To quote Robert De Niro in The Untouchables You got nothing. You have said nothing at all in defense of your point. Which is nothing new for you at all.
So again, I say congratulations on the 'look over there' style of argumentation you have made into an art form.
As for Fo2, well, what is there to say other than that post was next to meaningless. Trees need dirt too. And air. And all sort of other things.
But when pouring water (money) on a tree (the economy) to make it grow, watering (puting money into the system) the leaves (hands of the wealthy) does nothing. For water (money) to help trees (the economy) to grow, water the roots (the people).
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Well, in that case, you'd water ALL the roots, yes? Because watering only the small roots isn't going to do the tree a darned bit of good.
Class warfare again. You draw a distinction between the people and the "wealthy". That raises the question of what the leaves and sunlight would REALLY represent in your analogy.
*grumblegrumbleUPDATEgrumble*
I had a post earlier, and it got fried when I submitted it. Charles was updating.
Reagan gets into office, his economic package goes through Congress in '81 with about as much trouble as a hot knife through butter (thanks in great deal to the boll-weevil Dems), and shortly thereafter, unemployment is high, inflation is rampant, and people are losing their homes at record numbers, and VOILA! We're in the midst of a full recession.
Jeff, you're an idiot. Inflation, unemployment, and home loss were high during Carter, too. Higher, in fact. That's why Reagan passed the tax cut. Notice that around '83, around a year after the tax cut, we started having an incredible economy? Coincidence?
Oh, did you forget about the recession? We had one until Clinton/Gore, as I remember.
No, we had a recession until about a year BEFORE C/G. And what does that have to do with supply-side? It was caused by a tax INCREASE.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Gee. How nice. The boy-wonder who bitches and screams about ad-hominems calls people "idiots" to get his point across. Gee, Ommie, I didn't know that was a valid debating tactic.
I shouldn't really be surprised, though. Omega's long had a double standard in debates. He gets to call people idiots, declare himself "winner" of threads, demand lengthy treatises about political issues, and avoid answering questions he doesn't like (or can't answer). More over (and just as amusing), he calls himself an independent non-partisan, then sides with the Republican Party ("we got rid of him" when discussing Nixon's impeachment)
Oh, I can even predict his response to this. "I already answered that!" Or something along those lines, and he'll use some more ad-hominems, turn red in the face, and want to smash a hammer into my face, but settle for kicking his cat or something.
quote:It was caused by a tax INCREASE.
Oh, right, the one Bush Sr. signed into law? "Read my lips: no new taxes." Oh, I know, don't tell me: "It's all the Democrat's fault!" The same tired arguement you make without fault, without reason, indeed, without one truly non-Conservative partisan thought.
We had a recession for a long time before George sr. was in office, so obviously the trickle-down plan didn't quite work.
*In fact, Carter proposed tax cuts, smaller government, and tight credit to control the economy
Or: I could just repeat the tired line offered by you Conservatives during our debates on Gore v. Bush. Whenever the Clinton/Gore economy was brought up, you screamed and yelled and went blue in the face, and said, "the President has nothing to do with the economy! It's the Federal Reserve Board!"
Look how fast you change your tunes. You want to give Reagan credit for the 80's recession? Be my guest, but that means you give Clinton/Gore credit for the economy in the late 90's.
quote:Well, in that case, you'd water ALL the roots, yes? Because watering only the small roots isn't going to do the tree a darned bit of good.
The small roots? No, the poor roots. You know, the ones fucked over by inadequate minimum wage, the ones who can't afford health care without assistance and wouldn't even recieve health care if you had your way ... the ones for whose schools you'd like to take away money from. You know, the same people the Republican party has a long history of trampling over.
quote:Inflation, unemployment, and home loss were high during Carter, too. Higher, in fact. That's why Reagan passed the tax cut. Notice that around '83, around a year after the tax cut, we started having an incredible economy? Coincidence?
I never said the economy was that good under Carter, but it got worse under Reagan before it got better. You mind posting some sources or references or something to make people think you're not a complete and utter ... oh, wait, I'm trying to get you to stick to you "ad-hominem" beliefs, so I guess it wouldn't get me anywhere to sink to your ("you're an idiot!") level.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
You know, the same people the Republican party has a long history of trampling over.
A word to the wise, Jeff. Try not to use the word "Republican" in there.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
posted
We had a recession for a long time before George sr. was in office, so obviously the trickle-down plan didn't quite work.
No, we didn't. We had a recession in the seventies and early eighties. Then it was ended by the Reagan tax cuts. We had the best economy in history, until taxes were increased again, and we had a brief recession. Then things shaped up again, and we had the fast growth back. But after a decade of neglect, things are slowing down again.
I could just repeat the tired line offered by you Conservatives during our debates on Gore v. Bush. Whenever the Clinton/Gore economy was brought up, you screamed and yelled and went blue in the face, and said, "the President has nothing to do with the economy! It's the Federal Reserve Board!"
Ah, but we had reason to say that. See, Clinton didn't DO anything to stimulate the economy. He didn't do anything, PERIOD. Reagan, OTOH, DID help stimulate the economy, with massive tax cuts. You honestly think that interest rates are going to change a massive recession into a massive growth? Then you need to study the economy.
You want to give Reagan credit for the 80's recession? Be my guest, but that means you give Clinton/Gore credit for the economy in the late 90's.
Non sequitor. Why? One is responsible or not responsible for something because of what they DID, not because of where they happened to be when it happened.
The small roots? No, the poor roots. You know, the ones fucked over by inadequate minimum wage, the ones who can't afford health care without assistance and wouldn't even recieve health care if you had your way ... the ones for whose schools you'd like to take away money from. You know, the same people the Republican party has a long history of trampling over.
Well, if that wasn't irrational, not to mention irrelevant...
I never said the economy was that good under Carter, but it got worse under Reagan before it got better.
Yes, because A) it took time for him to do something, and B) it takes time for something done to take effect. You seem to like pinning EVERYTHING on the President, whether he was responsible or not. You judge responsibility by what someone DID. Or rather, we rational people do. You, OTOH, probably blame Bush for the slow economy that we have now, even though it started eighteen months back, and what Bush has done hasn't had time to take effect. Bush is the President, after all.
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We're verging into "Tom must come down from on high and warn people to grow up" territory, folks.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Some dates that I gathered from the Economist:
1974 to 1976 Recession. Caused by OPEC embargo. 1975 Pres. Ford orders a $800 billion rebate for the tax payers. 1981 to 1983 Recession. Latin America suffers catastrophic economic losses. Losses impact America. Worst recession. 1991 to 1993 Recession. 2001 Slowing economy. Developing countries, such as Argentina and Turkey, are experiencing economic crisises. Pres. Bush orders a $1.6 trillion rebate.
Folks, we may pull out of this mess. However, we will have a very large consequence to face. Tax cuts are great, when they are balanced against the needs of the nation and the world. If they are designed simply to get votes, then this is not so great. The Republicans, on top of the historical rebates of the President, are attempting to have other tax cuts in the hundreds of billions passed in the environmental bill (to energy producing and distributing companies) and the health care reform bill (to HMOs).
Do you know what will be impacted? Let's give an example for our beloved firebrand, Omega. The Missile Defense Plan
Adding insult to injury, Omega, we are borrowing money to pay the rebates.
[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
posted
Tax cuts are great, when they are balanced against the needs of the nation and the world.
You do mean the government and the world, right?
The single question when passing any bill is, "What's best for the people of this country?" This tax cut is good. There is absolutely no reason why it could cause defecit problems, so long as spending is controlled.
Adding insult to injury, Omega, we are borrowing money to pay the rebates.
Yes, we're giving out more in this one year than the surplus. It'll be paid for next year, when THAT surplus comes in. There's nothing wrong with defecit spending, so long as you know exactly what you're doing, and are extremely careful.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
