Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 A vote sounds good, besides I might suprise you, while I am not all one sided and have a list of dems that I would throw in there with the Reps and Corporate jerks, starting with Kerrey. He qualifies for being stupid and probably from smoking too much mother nature. 600475[/snapback] "Kerry v. Bush". This election brought to you by Mike Judge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 "Kerry v. Bush". This election brought to you by Mike Judge... 600478[/snapback] Something we can agree on, bring on the lions. Heck we can't be any worse of in American politics and leadership than we currently are unless Hoover is resurrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 No one has ever presented evidence here to back the justification that tax cuts lead to greater tax revenues (and again, the true measure is real tax revenues which is measured in relation to GDP. 600433[/snapback] Plenty of data was presented, but since it didn't fit your definition of what tax cuts are supposed to do to stimulate the economy and generate capital formation (there's that term again), as opposed to feeding the government trough, you choose to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Plenty of data was presented, but since it didn't fit your definition of what tax cuts are supposed to do to stimulate the economy and generate capital formation (there's that term again), as opposed to feeding the government trough, you choose to ignore it. 600488[/snapback] You've stated things like "the stock market indicates the success" and brought up the term "capital formation" but you've never concretely provided data that tax cuts have lead to faster growth, higher tax revenues, and lower deficits--take your pick on any of those, and please provide some evidence--and please provide some measure of your favorite form of evidence--capital formation. Now that we're 4-5 years out from the initial tax cuts, surely you could provide something concrete? For example, what was the level of the DOW and NASDAQ when Bush started compared to now? Or, has the rate of growth since his first tax cut been higher than the historical average? I noticed no one was shouting about last quarter's estimate.... Can you at least please demonstrate concretely that there's been greater "capital formation" under Bush and Reagan than under Clinton? More than likely I'll have to respond to some other vague concepts without measure, or figure out that your definition of some traditional concept like "fiscal policy" doesn't conform to the rest of the world's.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....OCKS.xml&rpc=23 Hmm... "The U.S. budget registered a surprisingly big surplus of $20.99 billion in January as strong receipts outweighed spending, a Treasury Department report showed. " interesting.........now what were you saying about large buget deficits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....OCKS.xml&rpc=23 Hmm... "The U.S. budget registered a surprisingly big surplus of $20.99 billion in January as strong receipts outweighed spending, a Treasury Department report showed. " interesting.........now what were you saying about large buget deficits... 600660[/snapback] And it's probably the same BS accounting-trick type of surplus Clinton's later budgets showed. But even if it's actual money...only $7,979,010,000,000 to go before the national debt's paid off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 And it's probably the same BS accounting-trick type of surplus Clinton's later budgets showed. But even if it's actual money...only $7,979,010,000,000 to go before the national debt's paid off! dry.gif Assuming paying off the debt is actually a good thing..but I wont get into that philosophical debate right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....OCKS.xml&rpc=23 Hmm... "The U.S. budget registered a surprisingly big surplus of $20.99 billion in January as strong receipts outweighed spending, a Treasury Department report showed. " interesting.........now what were you saying about large buget deficits... 600660[/snapback] Thanks for posting the same sort of dribble on another line, for those who believe this misleading stat read the factual based responses to this post on his so labeled topic post. P.S. He took this info right off the lying headlines of the right wing Drudge Report. Darn it will be all over Rush Limbaugh tomorrow, spreading more Republican lies and then the RNC will follow up with talking points, more lies, and then the President if he can pronounce it will make a prime announcement, followed by the dweeb of a Press Secretary using it as an answer to an economic question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Assuming paying off the debt is actually a good thing..but I wont get into that philosophical debate right now. 600687[/snapback] No, let's keep it where it's at so we can keep servicing the !@#$er. Anyone with a car loan and a mortgage knows that leveraging income and cash flow with debt is good too a point. Most sane people would probably suggest that eight trillion dollars was just a touch beyond that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 No, let's keep it where it's at so we can keep servicing the !@#$er. Anyone with a car loan and a mortgage knows that leveraging income and cash flow with debt is good too a point. Most sane people would probably suggest that eight trillion dollars was just a touch beyond that point. 600702[/snapback] Yep the Clinton years were bad for my wallet, the economy sucked, and my House lost value. 5 years into Bush's administration housing prices are falling again, interest rates are going up, capital flight is increasing and energy prices are on the rise with a little plateau right now. Oh, the economy is good and I am proud of the job this President is doing. Like a House of cards, here it comes, invest in China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Yep the Clinton years were bad for my wallet, the economy sucked, and my House lost value. 5 years into Bush's administration housing prices are falling again, interest rates are going up, capital flight is increasing and energy prices are on the rise with a little plateau right now. Oh, the economy is good and I am proud of the job this President is doing. Like a House of cards, here it comes, invest in China. 600705[/snapback] Although energy prices were bound to rise eventually...and the low energy prices Clinton benefited from had the same root cause that the high energy prices hindering Bush stem from: China. The Pacific Rim depression in the mid-90s is the biggest reason we saw $15/bbl oil at the time, just as Chinese demand is the reason we're seeing $65/bbl oil now. It basically has sh---all to do with the president. Ditto the housing market ("ditto" applying to the president, not China)...and if interest rates weren't rising, you'd be bitching about inflation instead. And what part of the country are you living in where your house is losing value? Aside from Buffalo, which has been an economic cesspool for the past fifteen years - for reasons again having sh---all to do with the president - I know of no region that's sufferring real estate deflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 No, let's keep it where it's at so we can keep servicing the !@#$er. dry.gif Anyone with a car loan and a mortgage knows that leveraging income and cash flow with debt is good too a point. Most sane people would probably suggest that eight trillion dollars was just a touch beyond that point. Yep. Completely agree here. Although, Its hard to say where that point is for the government. People alot smarter than me need to make that call. If I make 50k a year, and have a 225k mortgage and a 25k car loan, im 250k in debt, 5 times my anual income. if the government brings in 2.5T, is it reasonable to assume they can also support 5 times their annual income, or 12.5T in debt? If so, is 8T really a problem? And how much of a benefit are we derriving by carrying this debt? I cant make that call, its an interesting debate though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Yep the Clinton years were bad for my wallet, the economy sucked, and my House lost value. 5 years into Bush's administration housing prices are falling again, interest rates are going up, capital flight is increasing and energy prices are on the rise with a little plateau right now. Oh, the economy is good and I am proud of the job this President is doing. Like a House of cards, here it comes, invest i Yeh, if your house has lost value over the last 5 years...wow... But like all things that go up, they must come down. Housing is no different. The stock market crash of 2000 was bound to happen. Market fundementals dictated it. People thought "its a new economy, cant happen here" and got burned. Housing is the same way. It went up too fast for too long. Now, there will be some resistance to lowering prices, unlike the stock market, due to people not wanting to sell their personal residence for a loss, but investors, and people who foolishly took out ARMs they cant afford...its going to get ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Yeh, if your house has lost value over the last 5 years...wow... But like all things that go up, they must come down. Housing is no different. The stock market crash of 2000 was bound to happen. Market fundementals dictated it. People thought "its a new economy, cant happen here" and got burned. Housing is the same way. It went up too fast for too long. Now, there will be some resistance to lowering prices, unlike the stock market, due to people not wanting to sell their personal residence for a loss, but investors, and people who foolishly took out ARMs they cant afford...its going to get ugly. 600716[/snapback] House didn't lose value in the last 5 years, sold one a year ago and did very well under a Clinton tax break, primary resident for 2 out of 5 years. However, the last 6 months it has gone down and while I don't expect to move soon, and I understand the cycle. But you are avoiding the question on the validity of your original topic, and while their are lies, da.. lies and statistics. You didn't even have the decency to give it any context from whence the lie came from, not that it was hard to figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Yep the Clinton years were bad for my wallet, the economy sucked, and my House lost value. 5 years into Bush's administration housing prices are falling again, interest rates are going up, capital flight is increasing and energy prices are on the rise with a little plateau right now. Oh, the economy is good and I am proud of the job this President is doing. Like a House of cards, here it comes, invest in China. 600705[/snapback] More simplistic and dishonest rhetoric. And we wonder why the two biggest parties are able to keep this path to ruin on course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 More simplistic and dishonest rhetoric. And we wonder why the two biggest parties are able to keep this path to ruin on course. 600965[/snapback] No just sarcasm, like Alaska needing to change its P.R., oops that was ironic. When the feds stop insuring wild Alaska salmon under USDA's crop insurance program as an example, and like Buffalo, NYs current economic situation...it will take more the P.R. but actual results, maybe less snow too. North Dakota has an incentive program to move there and are still losing people, who in their right mind wants to move to ND unless you go to college for hockey or farm wheat. But I digress, really it is part of the healthy debate of political ideas that makes this country great. As a consumer, it requires you to be informed to wade through the hyperbol, but the style of debating really has not changed much since the founding of this country. So get off your high horse and back down in the gutter with the rest of us where you belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 12, 2006 Author Share Posted February 12, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....OCKS.xml&rpc=23 Hmm... "The U.S. budget registered a surprisingly big surplus of $20.99 billion in January as strong receipts outweighed spending, a Treasury Department report showed. " interesting.........now what were you saying about large buget deficits... 600660[/snapback] I was going to ask if you were serious with this question, but then read through the other thread... Why do you focus on one month's data when the tax cuts were made starting in 2001? Did the administration predict that the most significant impact from its tax cuts would occur in January 2006? I could play the "Bush Bad" line with the kind of logic you're using. Fourth quarter GDP for 2005 was 1.1%. Does that mean the economy sucks? I wouldn't be stupid enough to say it does based upon one data point.... In fact, the CBO's prediction for this year's deficit is about $320 billion (although the White House predicts it to be $400 billion so at the end of the fiscal year they can claim it was much better than expected). So yes, spending increases and tax cuts lead to deficits....err...except in January 2006 (and a few other months that traditionally generate surpluses because of quarterly tax payments). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 House didn't lose value in the last 5 years, sold one a year ago and did very well under a Clinton tax break, primary resident for 2 out of 5 years. However, the last 6 months it has gone down and while I don't expect to move soon, and I understand the cycle. But you are avoiding the question on the validity of your original topic, and while their are lies, da.. lies and statistics. You didn't even have the decency to give it any context from whence the lie came from, not that it was hard to figure out. 600727[/snapback] Oh. My. God. Must. Restrain. Myself.... You DO understand that housing prices are cyclical, don't you? The DO go down from time to time even though their historical plot is upwards in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Oh. My. God. Must. Restrain. Myself.... You DO understand that housing prices are cyclical, don't you? The DO go down from time to time even though their historical plot is upwards in nature. 601650[/snapback] Do you bother reading what your responding too? Or is it reflex response on your part? "However, the last 6 months it has gone down and while I don't expect to move soon, and I understand the cycle." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Do you bother reading what your responding too? Or is it reflex response on your part? "However, the last 6 months it has gone down and while I don't expect to move soon, and I understand the cycle." 601744[/snapback] And yet, you still find a way to blame the President of the United States of FRICKING America for the fact that *your* house lost value. Am I the only one that sees absurdity in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts