• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"The Spend and Elect GOP"

SKiller

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
660
0
0
What else did you expect from everyone's favorite Texas governor? This is the guy who, after being asked about the budget shortfall created during his administration, answered: "Well, hopefully I won't have to worry about that." Responsible ain't he?
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
That article is so simplistic. The reason we have Clinton now is that supposed 'cuts' were so unpopular. If GW gets elected you will see huge cuts in spending.
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Bwuahahahahaha!!!!!! Slate Magazine? Bwuahahahahaha!!!! Do have any idea who runs that rag? Bwuahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Russ, NCNE
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Tominator
It needs to be more complicated for you to understand the same facts? Do you build everything backwards? Do you start projects without reading the instructions until you realize you need instructions to make the project work?

I don't understand how in hell you can ignore what your republicans have been doing. Without any questioning of the statement,you discount it on its simplicity and continue to support the GW platform.
What does it take for you people? You go against your own values for the sake of electing someone who is going to fvck you and not even kiss you first.
I wonder if Cheney will bring the KY jelly for ya.;)


J/K
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
It's run by that pointy-headed ultra-left pinko Walt Crowley for chissakes! What the hell do you expect? I wouldn't believe a thing published by that waste of bandwidth.

Russ, NCNE
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Tripleshot Just the Dems trying in vain to rewrite history. The Democrats have been fvsking me since I knew what it was and I'll be damed if I let them kiss me first....take that back...they can kiss my azz!

Regan gave back Taxpayers some of their money and GW will do the same.

Highest employment in History. There are 125 Government funded programs supposedly involved in getting people a job. I know where I'd cut first!

The budgets of EVERY Government program or service increases at about 6% a year. No action is needed!

It appears that once again the Republicans have tried to appease the Democrats by coming half way....They wanted to defund the Education Department, which is self serving, but it was unpopular. Teachers wanted higher saleries and better working conditions. The money was spent. Why no result? Big Government! GW proposes to give the money to the states where it can be used as the taxpayers see fit. Democrats? More Big Government control!

Farm subsidies? The 'Loans' were a bipartisan agreement.

Energy Conservation? A Democrat complaining about Energy Conservation? Somebody pinch me!

The Republicans have done nothing but play the game. But once again as they do what is popular or work with Democrats by bi-partisan agreements it does them no good.

I'm sick and tired of my own tax money spent on campaign contributions trying to get my taxes raised so they can get more! The Republicans are far from perfect, but I'll not vote for a Socialists Democrat. That is exactly what Gore is!




 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Tominator

When you envoke reagonomics as a good deal for the country and link GW as to doing the same for the country,you lost all credibility.And you show you know nothing of econmic principles.
Reagonomics is a failed economic policy that BTW may be partly the reason "read my lips-no new taxes" Bush raised the taxes under his watch and drove small business's into bankruptcy--Hence savings and loans bailout.

Go for it Tominator ,tell us all the good and glory of those days when republicans ruled the roost.Go ahead . Can't wait to hear your defense.

Or are you old enough to have been around in those days?
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
1
71
The article is from the Chicago Tribune and written by Stephen Chapman. A moderate/conservative writer who has had articles published in many conservative publications (like the American Spectator) where he's blasted Clinton on several themes.

 

searcher

Senior member
Oct 14, 1999
290
0
0


<< republicans just like to whine and cry about the supposed &quot;liberal media&quot; >>



Russ likes to laugh about it, but then again he's not republican, just ask him.

Bwuahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Michael
 

SkyDiver

Senior member
Aug 3, 2000
386
5
81
We are so far down the road to serfdom, it isn't funny. The candidate closest to the constitution is probably Harry Browne, the Libertarian.

The people of this country are so woefully ignorant of individual freedom and responsibility that they would elect Bubba Clinton TWICE. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

ALgore seems to be incapable of telling the truth! That's what happens when you learn at the foot of the best political liar in history!

Has anyone here read Ayn Rand's &quot;Atlas Shrugged?&quot; It could have been written today.
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< Reagonomics is a failed economic policy >>



Tripleshot,

It is? Why? Specifically why? I don't want to hear some nebulous BS about the &quot;rich&quot; getting a tax break on the backs of the &quot;poor&quot;. That's a crock, always has been a crock, always will be a crock. It is nothing but class warfare and the politics of envy.

Economics is NOT a zero sum game. The fact that one does better than another does not mean the other is hurt. Money is NOT static. It is dynamic and changes every year. Money ebbs and flows and ALWAYS provides more leverage when left in private hands. ALWAYS.

You seem to think that the fat, bloated, incompetent DC bureaucracy is better at managing your money than you are. I'm surprised that you could believe something so obviously ludicrous. You are much smarter than that.

Don't give me some drivel about the deficit, either. It was created by a spendthrift Congress controlled by your democrat buddies who decided that it was just fine to flush $1.40 for every dollar they extorted from the taxpayer. The only thing that Reagan did wrong was to sign the ridiculous budgets that these thieves drafted.

Some facts about the Reagan years:

The USSR was crushed and the Cold War ended.

TAX revenues nearly DOUBLED as a result of the rate cuts. There were no TAX cuts, RATES were cut.. It is an economic FACT that when you lower rates, revenues go UP because money stays in the far more efficient private sector. This was proven as early as 1961, when Kennedy lowered rates.

The 1980?s saw the highest level of charitable giving in history. Why? Because when Federal Piggy is stealing less of our money, we have more to give. BTW, your buddy Gore contributes practically nothing to charity. He?s very generous and compassionate, but only with other peoples money.

You accuse Tom of ?And you show you know nothing of economic principles.? Now, let?s see you prove how much you know: Again, tell me specifically why Reagan?s policies were an economic failure.

Russ, NCNE
 

DonaldDuck82

Banned
Sep 14, 2000
436
0
0
Reagonomics is a failed economic policy?

Only now is our economy starting to fail, reganomics was so good it took clinton 8 years to screw up. we are paying a higher tax rate now than in the history of the country, how is it that allowing people to keep more of the money THEY earn is wrong?
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
DonaldDuck82,

You bring up a valid point that most are either ignoring, or haven't realized. The economy is NOT in the wonderful shape the ivory tower economists would have us believe. We actually began a recession last quarter, and nobody is even talking about it.

The problem with the forecasts and statistics done by these people is that the model is based on large corporations whose reporting always lags by about six months. The latest retail figures for the big outfits are just now showing a decline, yet it's been occuring for months at the small business level.

Combine Greenspan's ridiculous &quot;Oh my God, we have 4% growth&quot; tightening policies with gas prices skyrocketing, and you can bet that, barring a miracle, the econony is on the way to the dumper.

Russ, NCNE
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Russ,

Here ya go bucko!
Supply-side economics captured the imagination of Ronald Reagan in 1979 and 1980. Cut taxes for the well off and their increased spending will fuel the economy, increase tax revenues, and the benefits will trickle down to the average family. Everybody benefits and the budget gets balanced in the process.
Reagan's presidential primary opponent, George Bush, called this voodoo economics.
Ronald Reagan, relied on supply-side theories in demanding a $400 billion dollar tax cut, in 1981. The tax cut was sold to the Congress by David Stockman, Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget. His supply-side team put together an alluring package of statistics and a &quot;rosy scenario&quot;, which they said would unleash capitalist energies to pay for the needed tax break, a massive military buildup, boost the economy, and also balance the budget.
The Reagan tax cuts and military build up were approved by a Republican- controlled Senate and Democratically-controlled House. They did not deliver the promised utopia. Instead, President Reagan's river boat gamble clobbered the federal revenue base, and set off a chain of annual budget deficits unprecedented in American history. The supply side gambit is responsible in significant part -- say most honest analysts -- for an increase in the public debt since 1980, of some $3 trillion dollars
Supply-siders like to blame the debt on a Democratic Congress, but that is a lie. First of all, the Republican's controlled the Senate until 1986. Second, every budget Reagan proposed included MORE spending than Congress approved. If Reagan had passed his budgets -- unaltered by Congress -- the deficits and the resulting debt would have been even larger

Even David Stockman, Reagan's budget architect, admitted the whole rosy scenario was a fraud (Triumph of Politics, 1987) -- an intentional fraud.

Senator Dole, then Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has long been contemptuous of supply-side pipe-dreams. This he underscored in a speech at the Chamber of Commerce, reported in The Washington Post, March 5, 1982. In that speech he told businessmen the following good news/bad news joke.
&quot;The good news,&quot; Dole said, &quot;is that a bus loaded with supply-siders went over the cliff. The bad news is that there were three empty seats.&quot; Dole professed not to know who the three who escaped tragedy were, but &quot;the bad news is they are huddling with the president,&quot; he said.
Can our country afford Supply-Side 2 -- VooDoo Revisited?
During the Reagan-Bush years, the rich got richer while workers' wages stayed stagnant. Main Street took it on the chin while Wall Street raked in billions with junk bonds and leveraged buyouts. Both the Federal Budget and American business was saddled with more debt than we ever imagined possible. This creates a situation where the Republicans can argue for more of the same. We can't afford to fully fund Head Start, childhood immunization programs, or college loans, but we have to give Wall Street a capital gains tax cut so they can get those junk bonds moving again.

This is short-sighted at best, self-serving hubris at worst. The bottom line is it is bad for average Americans. We have learned that nothing worth having, ever trickles down.
Job Growth Rates for Recent Presidents President Job Growth
President Job Growth
Johnson 3.8%
Carter 3.1%
Clinton 2.4%
Kennedy 2.3%
Nixon 2.3%
Reagan 2.1%
Bush 0.6%
(Bureau of Labor Statistics)

In fact, if it would not have been for the 1.4 million government employees added during the Reagan years -- 183,000 of them federal employees -- his job creating performance would appear even more pathetic.

If the GOP really wants more stable, two-parent families, then let's protect the programs that help -- education, health care, child care, the earned income tax credit for families working their way out of poverty.

We cannot afford to continue to split our nation along the lines of the haves verses have-nots -- the well-trained verses the vulnerable. We cannot afford another round of VooDoo hooey
All that said, tax cuts have an insatiable appeal to the American voter. To Gore's credit, his tax cuts are modest and affordable. But best of all, they are targeted to produce stronger, more secure families

Let's help Main Street for a change. Wall Street can fend for itself.


Potent enough for you short memory republicans?;)
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Bravo Rush...ah..I mean Russ!;)

I was in a management position in a small business during the eighties. It didn't do well because of the shortsidedness of the owners. I lost that job, fired, for telling them the truth. I'll take the blame myself and not blame it on Reagan.

Short lesson on the Savings and Loan Scandal. Reagan demanded a lower tax rate. At the time ALL real estate investment interest was tax deductible. Billions were invested because of the deduction. Deregulation of Savings and Loans was meant to allow them to invest where only banks could before. Competition served to keep interest rates lower. This led to the Real Estate boom of the eighties. Many homeowners found the value of their property doubling because of the demand.The Democrats made a deal with Reagan. If you reduce the Capitol Gains, we want to eliminate the real estate deduction. No one could forsee what happened next. The deduction, except for a Primary Residence, was eliminated. This effectively killed the boom! Not only did it die, investors took billions out of the Real Estate Market seeking to invest elsewhere.

So here are thousands of building projects with money borrowed against what it would be worth after completion, except now the project will be worth less than it cost to build! So the projects came to a screeching halt because the money had dried up. If the project were never completed, all money spent to that point was a total loss.

Now some of the more unscrupules Savings and Loans had claimed that the project would be worth much more than it would. If the boom had continued and property continued to climb in value they may never have been caught. Over Speculation is illegal.

All these doings were with 'FDIC insured ' money, so the TaxPayer footed the bill. The Crooks were all prosecuted as well. Of course, the story is much deeper than I address here, but 'in a nutshell' that is how we got the 'Saving and Loan Crisis.'

Just another instance where increasing taxes cause less economic activity.

Unless the Oil situation is resolved quickly, and I'm sure it won't be, we are headed into a drastic slow down in the economy. Whoever is President will get the blame as Americans are very ignorant of the causes and effects of our system...just like many members here.:) How he handles it will define our future.

Old enough to remember the facts!

 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Tripleshot,

This opening statement in that jumble of political rhetoric quickly revealed how biased that garbled crap is:



<< Cut taxes for the well off >>



A: TAXES were not cut, rates were.

B: RATES were cut for all income brackets, not just the &quot;well off&quot;.

Most of the numbers in that mess are, at best, skewed and, at worst, fabricated. For example:



<< demanding a $400 billion dollar tax cut, in 1981 >>



No specific dollar amount was used. Again, RATES were cut, revenues went UP. It's not possible to specify a dollar amount based on RATE cuts. And to even make the claim of &quot;400 billion in tax cuts&quot; when Federal revenue went from $550 billion in 1981 to $950 billion in 1988 is beyond contempt. Where is the &quot;cut&quot;?

Here is another stupid statement based on class warfare and static thinking:



<< During the Reagan-Bush years, the rich got richer while workers' wages stayed stagnant. >>



What &quot;worker&quot;, what &quot;rich&quot;. EVERY single long-term socioeconomic study ever done on the issue of income mobility PROVES that 90% plus of those who are classified as poor DO NOT REMAIN SO over the long haul. Income, and income growth are dynamic, not static. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Nice cut and paste job. Next time perhaps you might consider original thought as a concept. I promise it will cause no harm to your brain.

Russ, NCNE
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Russ,
Cut and paste is your mantra, I just make it more obvious. And btw,if I am smart enough to use this internet to find support for my reasoning,what friggin problem is that with your &quot;holy-than-thou&quot; ars?

Now is the time for you too back up your claims with fact,not your simpleminded opinion. You may sway some 14 year old here,but you don't impress me one friggin bit with your switching &quot;rates&quot; with &quot;tax&quot; cut scenerio.

Show us your degree in econmics.

Your quick to jump in and take your digs and then lay back and claim your no right wing republican. I think your full of sh!t now.


Everything in that post is based on fact, Now you try and dispute it with fact!!
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< Cut and paste is your mantra >>



Wrong. I write out every thought I post. As I said, try it sometime. Exercise is not just good for the body, but also for the mind.



<< Everything in that post is based on fact >>



Wrong again. Beyond the fact, as I already pointed out, it is based on a liberal mantra that you leeched somewhere and pasted in, I already disputed the &quot;facts&quot; in that pile.

Instead of running out and grabbing some more rhetoric that someone else authored why not respond to my points with something other than the desperation displayed by your name-calling.

Russ, NCNE
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
&quot;If reducing the size of government is no longer a concern of Republicans, Americans may start to ask what the party has to offer that Democrats don't.&quot;Is that not significant to you? There is also the matter of cutting your taxes by a good chunk. You can argue that may not be a good idea, but it sure as hell is a difference from the Dems!

I was going to mention that &quot;Reaganomics&quot; economic policy worked to a tee. Bush coined the phrase &quot;voodoo economics&quot; to describe his take on that plan. Trouble is, IT WORKED! Despite lower taxes (tax rate as Russ said), Federal revenue increased. How the hell did that happen if it was a &quot;failed policy&quot;? The only thing that failed was too damn much spending. Bottom line is that lowering taxes wasn't the problem, it was the spending! No voodoo there! The GD GOP better start persuing that goal too :|

In the mean time, I'll take the tax cut, and SS privatization by which ever party is likely to do that.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Russ

Prove it wrong Russ! you called me out on this. Put up or shut up!

You could have left it alone, so reap what you sow.

Because it isn't authored by your &quot;Russ&quot; approved censorship,it's wrong? whats up with that?

I say you can't back up your claims. I don't think you have any facts to back you up. If you did,what I posted must be a lie. And if you are calling me a liar,we got a problem! And before I let impressionable minds be swayed by your self serving diatribe, I figure to at least give them a choice.

You posted alot of things in this thread saying I think this way or that way. What are you now,a mind reader,a pschologist and an economist? You do not speak for me,Not Now,Not Ever.

You challenged me and I responed.
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Tripleshot,

You responded by posting someone else's words. I could just as easily go out on the web and take the words of another and paste them in answer to your paste. I prefer to debate with my own thoughts. Apparently, you don't have any.

Russ, NCNE
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY