- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Ultimate Kerry Campaign Ad.
The Ultimate Kerry Campaign Ad.Follow
Yea I'm not scared. If you ever saw me in a beheading video(a majority of this stupid lefty forum would) you wouldnt see me crying for my life. Id spit on them and kick around blindly in hopes to atleast hurt those sand n!ggers. I wouldnt be a ***** about it like all the previous headless horsemen have been.
I regrettfully agree with elsahn on that one. I would go down fighting. I'd also be that guy on your airplane saying "lets roll" America is only as strong as you believe it is in your heart. There have and always will be the naysayers. Our history is written in the blood of those who have continued to defy the naysayers however. This is why we enjoy the freedoms that we do.
I'll take the slack for this one being abit long.
Funny how you mention one quarter in the year 2000. Just one, like we are only supposed to look at the tiny fraction of the whole puzzle to solve it.
To better ease the strain of your eyes, I have only posted a small but meaningful section of my paper. If you want to cry for reference and sources, I will provide them.
Did I miss anything?
Funny how you mention one quarter in the year 2000. Just one, like we are only supposed to look at the tiny fraction of the whole puzzle to solve it.
To better ease the strain of your eyes, I have only posted a small but meaningful section of my paper. If you want to cry for reference and sources, I will provide them.
Quote:
We also can just look at the national budget in its entirety. During the 80’s and 90’s presidents Regan and Bush claimed that supply-side economics would lead to a boost in the economy in two to three years. Yet, by the time the “Reagan Revolution” was over, Bush Sr. was running an annual deficit $290 billion a year.
However, when Clinton took office he reversed these policies. Of course, many republicans predicted the apocalypse. Where did we stand at the end of Clinton’s presidency? We ended with the longest sustained economic expansion in US history. At the end of his presidency, we had a $236 billion surplus!
Question is where did the money go? In just one term, Bush Jr. managed to turn a $236 billion surplus into a $500 billion deficit; the largest in the history of the US! To go into why would lead to this being a 300 page paper. Needless to say it was largely due to the tax breaks given to the rich in the same style as the “Reagan Revolution” policies of Reagan and Bush Sr.
President Bush promised in his campaign speech in Chicago that he would not touch the $2.5 trillion that Clinton had set aside to fix the looming social security problems. Yet, after mearly a year in the White House, he had broken that promise.
However, when Clinton took office he reversed these policies. Of course, many republicans predicted the apocalypse. Where did we stand at the end of Clinton’s presidency? We ended with the longest sustained economic expansion in US history. At the end of his presidency, we had a $236 billion surplus!
Question is where did the money go? In just one term, Bush Jr. managed to turn a $236 billion surplus into a $500 billion deficit; the largest in the history of the US! To go into why would lead to this being a 300 page paper. Needless to say it was largely due to the tax breaks given to the rich in the same style as the “Reagan Revolution” policies of Reagan and Bush Sr.
President Bush promised in his campaign speech in Chicago that he would not touch the $2.5 trillion that Clinton had set aside to fix the looming social security problems. Yet, after mearly a year in the White House, he had broken that promise.
Did I miss anything?
I regrettfully agree with elsahn on that one. I would go down fighting. I'd also be that guy on your airplane saying "lets roll" America is only as strong as you believe it is in your heart.
You'd be pissing yourself and begging not to get shot.
Untill you've had a gun pointed in your face and actually KNOW how you'd respond, you're full of ****.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Im sorry molish, I answered your question.. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand if that makes you comfortable. That blurb from your paper is boring and merely rehashes the tired old "trickle down didnt really trickle" crap. There are simply too many factors in the US economy to put all the weight on one mans shoulders. Ask the best educated economists of our time and they will tell you that our market has showed amazing resiliency despite much adversity the past four years including amajor terrorist attack and rising oil prices. Even Trump admits Bush's tax cuts worked.
I've had a gun pointed to my head before. I could care less. And you don't know me. So who are you to say what I will and won't do. Like I said in past posts. Read your own sig. "It's not the truth..."
He was talking to me... And I've had a gun pointed at me. The ****** didnt have enough balls to fire though and didnt count on me putting up a fight. Thats all I'll say about that
I'm sorry; I didn't know one quarter from the year 2000 was the complete answer to my question for the presidency from the 80's till now.
You right, the market didn't crash when the terrorists hit the WTC. Yet again, I'm not looking at one section in the market. I'm looking at certain presidents. I am putting the responsibility on one mans' shoulders (be it Alan Greenspan or Bush). I'm looking at it from a top down view (the whole damn thing), not slicing it up into each quarter from one to the next to fit my needs.
Do you deny that we had a $236 billion surplus till bush hit office? And before Clinton it was -$290? Sure, let all cry about terrorists, that the cleanup effort and the attack it's self and the war on terror were the cause. Yet in his first days as President Bush skimmed 1.3 trillion to give back to the American people (we see how well that worked, for the wealthy at least). Just like before, this did little to boost then economy then.
Hell, the cost of GWB's tax cuts was nearly 3x as great as the amount of the war (including increased spending for homeland security and rebuilding after September 11th)! [Figures released by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office]
You right, the market didn't crash when the terrorists hit the WTC. Yet again, I'm not looking at one section in the market. I'm looking at certain presidents. I am putting the responsibility on one mans' shoulders (be it Alan Greenspan or Bush). I'm looking at it from a top down view (the whole damn thing), not slicing it up into each quarter from one to the next to fit my needs.
Do you deny that we had a $236 billion surplus till bush hit office? And before Clinton it was -$290? Sure, let all cry about terrorists, that the cleanup effort and the attack it's self and the war on terror were the cause. Yet in his first days as President Bush skimmed 1.3 trillion to give back to the American people (we see how well that worked, for the wealthy at least). Just like before, this did little to boost then economy then.
Hell, the cost of GWB's tax cuts was nearly 3x as great as the amount of the war (including increased spending for homeland security and rebuilding after September 11th)! [Figures released by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office]
236billion dollar surplus... Okay cool you did leave your ******** open.. Im sorry I dont swing that way though but here ya go.
236billion dollars that could have remained fluid within the private sector and grew or developed stagnated in the US treasure- yes.
Taxation during the "Tech Boom" did not decrease fast enough to accomidate the "Tech Bust" - yes
Was it an honest mistake in which even the most careful of people could have got caught up in? - yes, of course
See, the problem with your trying to macroize the US economy in the manner you did is that the market fluctuates (duh) and follows trends (duh)
Look, Im not going to call you dumb but I think you are stretching your perception to accomodate your ideology. The idea that you look at a 200billion+ surplus in the treasury during an economic downtrend tells me you need to go back to the drawing board with your perceptions of economics in a free enterprise society.
236billion dollars that could have remained fluid within the private sector and grew or developed stagnated in the US treasure- yes.
Taxation during the "Tech Boom" did not decrease fast enough to accomidate the "Tech Bust" - yes
Was it an honest mistake in which even the most careful of people could have got caught up in? - yes, of course
See, the problem with your trying to macroize the US economy in the manner you did is that the market fluctuates (duh) and follows trends (duh)
Look, Im not going to call you dumb but I think you are stretching your perception to accomodate your ideology. The idea that you look at a 200billion+ surplus in the treasury during an economic downtrend tells me you need to go back to the drawing board with your perceptions of economics in a free enterprise society.
Look, Im not going to call you dumb but I think you are stretching your perception to accomodate your ideology. The idea that you look at a 200billion+ surplus in the treasury during an economic downtrend tells me you need to go back to the drawing board with your perceptions of economics in a free enterprise society.
It wasn't kept in the treasury, it was given back to the wealthy in favor of generating debt and intrest which we will have to pay back and failed to help the economy.
Whoops.
I am going to call you dumb, by the way. Only an idiot would attempt the argument you're making. Particularly only one with zero grasp of macroeconimics.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Look, Im not going to call you dumb but I think you are stretching your perception to accomodate your ideology. The idea that you look at a 200billion+ surplus in the treasury during an economic downtrend tells me you need to go back to the drawing board with your perceptions of economics in a free enterprise society.
It wasn't kept in the treasury, it was given back to the wealthy in favor of generating debt and intrest which we will have to pay back and failed to help the economy.
Whoops.
I am going to call you dumb, by the way. Only an idiot would attempt the argument you're making. Particularly only one with zero grasp of macroeconimics.
Oh yeah I forgot only the poor and middle class stimulate the economy...
and hire people for their businesses
and donate to charities with large sums of money
shall I continue?
Edited, Mon Oct 4 22:28:38 2004 by Lefein
You not gonna call me stupid, but you are calling me gay? Interesting concept, sound like on of pickle's arguments. :)
Anyway, you’re right. I don't understand economics enough to be able to levy such a broad dissertation upon it. I'm not writing and economics thesis. I'm reporting what I read. So to help me straighten some of my facts out.
The technology boom only happened during Presidents Clinton's term? Or that they simply didn't properly keep up with the taxation of it? How do we sit at the largest deficit in the history of the US of 500 billion?
Who was given a $236 billion dollars surplus and why was it allowed to go stagnant? Was it completely attributed to the economic downturn or bad investment of said surplus in different budget plans? If so, who is responsible for those budget plans?
Burning question need answers if I am to report the facts man. Believe me, I want to.
Anyway, you’re right. I don't understand economics enough to be able to levy such a broad dissertation upon it. I'm not writing and economics thesis. I'm reporting what I read. So to help me straighten some of my facts out.
The technology boom only happened during Presidents Clinton's term? Or that they simply didn't properly keep up with the taxation of it? How do we sit at the largest deficit in the history of the US of 500 billion?
Who was given a $236 billion dollars surplus and why was it allowed to go stagnant? Was it completely attributed to the economic downturn or bad investment of said surplus in different budget plans? If so, who is responsible for those budget plans?
Burning question need answers if I am to report the facts man. Believe me, I want to.
Oh yeah I forgot only the poor and middle class stimulate the economy...
and hire people for their businesses
and donate to charities with large sums of money
shall I continue?
Yes, please continue. Please demonstrate how returning the surplus to wealthy while spending more than ever and running up a debt which will have to be paid eventually helped the economy.
Please demonstrate how cutting taxes for the rich has EVER in the HISTORY OF THE US spurred the economy.
Please continue to demonstrate your utter ignorance of ecnomics.
Continue, by all means.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Ok, we all know democrats have a good track record on economic times and such but you're pouring far too much validity on Clinton as some sort of economic guru or something. Let's all face it, the econmy was bolstered by overevaluation of an emerging sector "techs" which the actual numbersi n the economy simply could not keep up. The bubble had to burst and I don't think that having a quarter of a trillion dollars stagnating is any kind of merit badge from the whole thing.
Ok, we all know democrats have a good track record on economic times and such but you're pouring far too much validity on Clinton as some sort of economic guru or something. Let's all face it, the econmy was bolstered by overevaluation of an emerging sector "techs" which the actual numbersi n the economy simply could not keep up. The bubble had to burst and I don't think that having a quarter of a trillion dollars stagnating is any kind of merit badge from the whole thing.
No merit to having a surplus that could have been used to pay down the debt? Apparently there's merit in creating a massive national debt which requires a huge percentage of taxes just to service it's intrest and which is a massive draw on the money taken out of the economy through taxation.
Good logic.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
Oh yeah I forgot only the poor and middle class stimulate the economy
Funny you should say that. Lets look at my original paper quote that you seems to refer to as "boring and merely rehashes the tired old 'trickle down didnt really trickle' crap"
Quote:
During the 80’s and 90’s presidents Regan and Bush claimed that supply-side economics would lead to a boost in the economy in two to three years. Yet, by the time the “Reagan Revolution” was over, Bush Sr. was running an annual deficit $290 billion a year.
However, when Clinton took office he reversed these policies. Of course, many republicans predicted the apocalypse. Where did we stand at the end of Clinton’s presidency? We ended with the longest sustained economic expansion in US history. At the end of his presidency, we had a $236 billion surplus!
However, when Clinton took office he reversed these policies. Of course, many republicans predicted the apocalypse. Where did we stand at the end of Clinton’s presidency? We ended with the longest sustained economic expansion in US history. At the end of his presidency, we had a $236 billion surplus!
For those of you who don't know, "Regan Revolution" was basically tax breaks for the rich to help stimulate a continually negative deficate (or economy, whatever). It was supposed to solve our deficit problems in two to three years (when regan took office). But this is just me being stupid and only looking at the big picture.
EDIT: figured I'd bold it incase you missed it.
Edited, Mon Oct 4 22:42:12 2004 by Molish
Smasharoo wrote:
Ok, we all know democrats have a good track record on economic times and such but you're pouring far too much validity on Clinton as some sort of economic guru or something. Let's all face it, the econmy was bolstered by overevaluation of an emerging sector "techs" which the actual numbersi n the economy simply could not keep up. The bubble had to burst and I don't think that having a quarter of a trillion dollars stagnating is any kind of merit badge from the whole thing.
No merit to having a surplus that could have been used to pay down the debt? Apparently there's merit in creating a massive national debt which requires a huge percentage of taxes just to service it's intrest and which is a massive draw on the money taken out of the economy through taxation.
Good logic.
That's one viable economic view but another would be ot extend the economic base itself to derive taxes from. As you well know and i have said many many times I am a proponent of a flat tax. I didnt post to defend Bush. I just think there's a little too much fluff being blown around and i wanted to set a few economic realities straight. I'll start digging up unemployment figures. I'm sure they'll make Bush look bad... Then again, when the planes hit the World Trade Center I was expecting a second tech boom, werent you?
That's one viable economic view but another would be ot extend the economic base itself to derive taxes from
That's not a viable view because it's been PROVEN wrong OVER AND OVER AND OVER. It sells though because people like tax cuts. It's about marketing, not about economics. Economists laugh about how it was created on a napkin by GOP opratives in the 70s.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Year: 2000
If you believe the official unemployment figures they are incredibly constant. Total unemployment has been a constant 6.10 cent for the last four years, and so is the urban unemployment of 7.10 per cent and rural unemployment of 5.70 for the last four years from 1996-97.
from: http://www.dawn.com/2000/08/14/ebr2.htm
Year: 2004
Both the number of unemployed persons, 8.0 million, and the unemployment
rate, 5.4 percent, were little changed from July to August. The jobless rate
is down from its recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003; most of this decline
occurred in the second half of last year.
from: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Looks like to me things havent changed much. As a matter of fact unemployment is in a downward trend now...
If you believe the official unemployment figures they are incredibly constant. Total unemployment has been a constant 6.10 cent for the last four years, and so is the urban unemployment of 7.10 per cent and rural unemployment of 5.70 for the last four years from 1996-97.
from: http://www.dawn.com/2000/08/14/ebr2.htm
Year: 2004
Both the number of unemployed persons, 8.0 million, and the unemployment
rate, 5.4 percent, were little changed from July to August. The jobless rate
is down from its recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003; most of this decline
occurred in the second half of last year.
from: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Looks like to me things havent changed much. As a matter of fact unemployment is in a downward trend now...
A circus monkey could get the economy right in the upcoming years. Here are a few things to consider:
1. the emergence of nanotechnology and new industries
2. biotechs will start coming to fruition in the upcoming decade as well
3. If we can move towards energy independence we will not feel the "falling empire" effect of rising fuel costs
4. Privatization of space travel and developed countries dominance over corporate affairs with access to fast travel.
1. the emergence of nanotechnology and new industries
2. biotechs will start coming to fruition in the upcoming decade as well
3. If we can move towards energy independence we will not feel the "falling empire" effect of rising fuel costs
4. Privatization of space travel and developed countries dominance over corporate affairs with access to fast travel.
1. the emergence of nanotechnology and new industries
Happeneing largely in Asia.
2. biotechs will start coming to fruition in the upcoming decade as well
Been said for about 20 years now.
3. If we can move towards energy independence we will not feel the "falling empire" effect of rising fuel costs
Pipe dream.
4. Privatization of space travel and developed countries dominance over corporate affairs with access to fast travel.
Much BIGGER pipe dream!
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
For a man who idolizes Kennedy you sure are quick to point at things and label them pipe dreams... I love ya Smash!
Recent Visitors: 285
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (285)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Ultimate Kerry Campaign Ad.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC