Ah yes - investors didn't like the tax-cut idea so that's what caused the pull back and collapse.
Now I get it...
CkG
"Ah yes - investors didn't like the tax-cut idea so that's what caused the pull back and collapse.
Now I get it...
CkG "
Did you notice what happened in the economy between 1992-2000 ?
Tax cuts like Bush's are strictly for political gain, they accomplish nothing of a long term economic nature but transfer the responsibility for paying for present government expenditures to future years.
And as I said already, even if the possibility existed that the tax cuts provided some economic benefit, they without question represented a change. Change leads to uncertainty, which is a negative factor as far as investing is concerned.
You could believe that the stimulant effect outweighed the uncertainty effect. Personally I don't agree with that position, partly because Bush's original reason for his tax cut plan was not that a stimulus was needed, it was based on his perception of a better use for surpluses, that did not actually exist, the Clinton plan was use the surpluses to reduce the debt, Bush's plan was to use the money for tax cuts.
And as I said before, we now can examine what happened following the tax cuts, IMHO it was exactly what I expected, they did not stimulate the economy at all, they weakened it.
Now I get it...
CkG "
Did you notice what happened in the economy between 1992-2000 ?
Tax cuts like Bush's are strictly for political gain, they accomplish nothing of a long term economic nature but transfer the responsibility for paying for present government expenditures to future years.
And as I said already, even if the possibility existed that the tax cuts provided some economic benefit, they without question represented a change. Change leads to uncertainty, which is a negative factor as far as investing is concerned.
You could believe that the stimulant effect outweighed the uncertainty effect. Personally I don't agree with that position, partly because Bush's original reason for his tax cut plan was not that a stimulus was needed, it was based on his perception of a better use for surpluses, that did not actually exist, the Clinton plan was use the surpluses to reduce the debt, Bush's plan was to use the money for tax cuts.
And as I said before, we now can examine what happened following the tax cuts, IMHO it was exactly what I expected, they did not stimulate the economy at all, they weakened it.
Yes. Credit card debt nearly tripled in this country (from $776 Billion to $3 Trillion) during this time frame. Billions and billions of dollars were recklessly hurled at companies (read: dot bombs) with no prior track records, earnings histories or anything even remotely resembling a business plan.
And using the "surplus" for tax cuts instead of to reduce the debt improved either of those two factors in what way ?
The tax cuts are for the rich.
As any benefit for middle class is more than offset by local and state tax increases due in part to Bush's tax cut for the rich. Especially my damn propertie taxes.
More like Bush's tax HIKE.
As any benefit for middle class is more than offset by local and state tax increases due in part to Bush's tax cut for the rich. Especially my damn propertie taxes.
More like Bush's tax HIKE.
State tax increases are NOT caused by FED tax cuts. Correlation != causation. How many times does it need to be laid out for you before you understand? Property taxes are a local responsibility and are not controlled by the FEDS let alone caused by a Federal tax-cut.
My state taxes were flat and my Federal went down - see the Tax thread I started.
Now your little chant may work with the ~!s but it doesn't work with those who actually know how things work.
CkG
Now can we get back to the topic of the thread?
Lead, Don't Divide
Lead, Don't Divide
"I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."
BY JOHN F. KERRY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
(Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)
Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.
What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.
What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.
What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.
What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?
Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.
I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.
We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.
Mr. Kerry, who served as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, is a Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
********
CkG
Lead, Don't Divide
Lead, Don't Divide
"I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."
BY JOHN F. KERRY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
(Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)
Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.
What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.
What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.
What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.
What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?
Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.
I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.
We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.
Mr. Kerry, who served as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, is a Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
********
CkG
Sorry Cad, I don't see your point in the links you refer to.
Kerry did serve his country in Vietnam. He also came to the conclusion that he disagreed with our country's policy. There is nothing wrong with that.
I do see, somewhat the point of your topic; you seem to be trying to say that Kerry is a hypocrit by trying to reduce the importance of Clinton avoiding the draft, but increase the importance of Bush disappearing from service that he committed to.
Definitely a point worth discussion. I believe that I don't agree. Avoiding a commitment that you cannot morally agree with is a different thing than commiting to an easy way out and then not even following through on that.
Kerry did serve his country in Vietnam. He also came to the conclusion that he disagreed with our country's policy. There is nothing wrong with that.
I do see, somewhat the point of your topic; you seem to be trying to say that Kerry is a hypocrit by trying to reduce the importance of Clinton avoiding the draft, but increase the importance of Bush disappearing from service that he committed to.
Definitely a point worth discussion. I believe that I don't agree. Avoiding a commitment that you cannot morally agree with is a different thing than commiting to an easy way out and then not even following through on that.
Bunch 'o crap, but possibly irrellevant. If a state is maintaining a level of service by using federal funding and that federal funding is reduced, the state can choose to
1)reduce or drop the service
2)increase local taxes to pay for the service
Which they should do is another matter, but there is a causal relationship.
1)reduce or drop the service
2)increase local taxes to pay for the service
Which they should do is another matter, but there is a causal relationship.
CkG-
I don't know what your point is in quoting the entire article that you previously linked to, is doing it this way supposed to make your point more emphatically somehow ?
I don't know what your point is in quoting the entire article that you previously linked to, is doing it this way supposed to make your point more emphatically somehow ?
"There is a point here you are missing....keep looking and maybe someday you'll see.
CkG "
Why don't you state the point I am missing ?
CkG "
Why don't you state the point I am missing ?
Correlation != causation
Tax-cuts are NOT funding reductions. Funding reductions are budgetarty by dept.
Now if you'd care to get back on topic I'd appreciate it - we've been over this tax stuff in other threads but if you want - start a new one and we'll explain it to you again.
CkG
All your link is is a google search on the words "Kerry and Vietnam ". While I'm sure you think it's wonderfully clever and is intended to convey your opinion of me as a fool, if that is your "point", I got that a long time ago.
perhaps you could explain how this excercise adds anything to the topic that you are so newly concerned about keeping on track ?
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Correlation != causation
Tax-cuts are NOT funding reductions. Funding reductions are budgetarty by dept.
Now if you'd care to get back on topic I'd appreciate it - we've been over this tax stuff in other threads but if you want - start a new one and we'll explain it to you again.
CkG
I'm not starting a new topic for the benefit of your misunderstanding.
Reduction in Tax revinue means one or a combination of two things:
1)you need to start cutting funding (BTW holding it still is cutting funding ).
2)You need to start accumulating debt
Reducing tax revinue while making lots of new spending promises compounds this problem.
If you are trying to make a point about Bush and cocaine via obsure conspiracy anti-bush websites - sure. That isn't the case here. Are you really that obtuse to not see kerry is campaigning on Vietnam? How many articles(even on his site even) do I need to post for you to understand that?
If you refuse to see that kerry is campaigning as the Vietnam Hero - then I'm going to have to ignore you. You can't honestly say he isn't running on it - can you?
CkG
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Correlation != causation
Tax-cuts are NOT funding reductions. Funding reductions are budgetarty by dept.
Now if you'd care to get back on topic I'd appreciate it - we've been over this tax stuff in other threads but if you want - start a new one and we'll explain it to you again.
CkG
I'm not starting a new topic for the benefit of your misunderstanding.
Reduction in Tax revinue means one or a combination of two things:
1)you need to start cutting funding (BTW holding it still is cutting funding ).
2)You need to start accumulating debt
Reducing tax revinue while making lots of new spending promises compounds this problem.
No - it's YOUR misunderstanding that will take a new thread. Please start one if you feel you are right. You won't be happy though because Fed tax-cuts did not cause the increase in state taxes nor did it cause your increased property tax(if it was raised).
Now back to kerry thinking that Vietnam shouldn't be used as a campaign tool.
CkG
Stop Kerry bashing, Komrade Uber Troll! Bush-bashing only! None of this is fair game, as it happened long ago..people change [except Bush]
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter