Discussion:
Thank You, President Bush, For the Huge Deficit
(too old to reply)
BrianEWilliams
2003-08-27 20:08:25 UTC
Permalink
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.

The main problem is that most posters on this group, most of the
press, and most people in the country couldn't tell a Keynesian
counter-cyclical fiscal policy from a hole in the ground.

I would ask all responders to this post to list their qualifications
to analyze economic policy. I have four college level econ classes,
an MBA in finance from a top business school, and I traded
fixed-income derivatives for 5 years on Wall Street. Not trying to
brag, but I made a living on correctly analyzing economic policy, and
Bush's is a lot better than it seems, and this is why:

News flash to liberals, the economy was going into the toilet while
Clinton was still president. What do you expect after the biggest
investment bubble EVER? Do you think we could just wake up from that
party with no hangover? Considering the unemployment rate seems to
have peaked at 6.4%, even with the attacks from September 11 which
were a wild card no one could have expected, that is pretty amazing.

Sure it was better economically under Clinton, but please tell me
which of his fantastic economic policies gave us that prosperity? The
reason you are gasping for straws now is that is wasn't Clinton, it
was Internet fever that drove the country. Don't even try to say that
the high taxes Clinton put in place gave us the prosperity because I
will bust a gut laughing over your economic ignorance. Remember
prosperity gives us surpluses, not the other way around.

Let's not even get into all the corporate wrongdoing that took place
under Clinton, something I would argue was partly his fault for
setting such a bad moral example (it wasn't just lying about sex, it
was lying to protect one's powerful position).

The Bush-haters love to use the deficit to attack Bush. But what
would they suggest? Should we raise taxes and cut spending just as
the economy is recovering? That would be pretty fucking brilliant.
Let's just raise taxes on the "rich" then. They don't deserve the
money they earn anyway, right?

Unfortunately, the "rich" generally aren't lazy sycophants doing
nothing (that would be the "poor"), but they are productive members of
society that actually do useful things with their after-tax earnings.
Taxing them more discourages investment and even more productive
behavior, and it is no free lunch.

Look forward to the brilliant liberal responses to this post. I am
sure you are going to have some well-reasoned arguments.
Stanley F. Nelson
2003-08-27 20:36:04 UTC
Permalink
There is a currency printing plant in Fort Worth, Texas, where I lived for a
long time and still live nearby. The printing presses there are being run
full speed all the time to keep up with the deteriorating value of our
dollar. Federal budget deficits do have meaning -- they mean our money is
worth less and less. George Bush is not a patriotic American. He is a
spoiled rich kid being used by people who would wreck our country to their
own benefit.

Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
steve
2003-08-28 02:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
There is a currency printing plant in Fort Worth, Texas, where I lived for a
long time and still live nearby. The printing presses there are being run
full speed all the time to keep up with the deteriorating value of our
dollar. Federal budget deficits do have meaning -- they mean our money is
worth less and less. George Bush is not a patriotic American. He is a
spoiled rich kid being used by people who would wreck our country to their
own benefit.
Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
Agreed.

The answer is to restore democracy to America.....and give the power
back to the poeple and take it away from the corproates and their
sponsored, bought-and-paid-for, politicians: G W Bush, for exmaple.

www.fairvote.org/pr/index.html
Cisco Kid
2003-08-27 23:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
The main problem is that most posters on this group, most of the
press, and most people in the country couldn't tell a Keynesian
counter-cyclical fiscal policy from a hole in the ground.
I would ask all responders to this post to list their qualifications
to analyze economic policy. I have four college level econ classes,
an MBA in finance from a top business school, and I traded
fixed-income derivatives for 5 years on Wall Street. Not trying to
brag, but I made a living on correctly analyzing economic policy, and
And what is your definition of a "top" business school? Mr. Bush
supposedly has an MBA from Harvard yet he managed to run two private
companies into the ground and is on track to do the same to the entire
country.

Any guesses why Havard hasn't been overly anxious to have Bush
represent the school in any fashion? Even Gore got to speak at
Harvard's commencement (Gore was an honors graduate).

True, borrowing money does leverage one's ability to conduct business
but only up to a point. After that break even point is passed, debt
becomes a fixed burden.

The cost of our debt today represents nearly 30% of our fiscal
expenditures. All I can do is smile when I look at my stack of EE
bonds earning a tax free fixed rate of 6% (assuming I can still afford
to send my kids to college).

As for my qualifications? I have BBA and MBA degrees.

Bush's economic policies and foreign policies suck.
JAC
2003-09-01 13:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cisco Kid
And what is your definition of a "top" business school? Mr. Bush
supposedly has an MBA from Harvard yet he managed to run two private
companies into the ground and is on track to do the same to the entire
country.
Do you even come close to understanding the statistics of business
failures in this country. It is enormous. Two failures by a lifelong
business main is hardly anything to sweat over.
Post by Cisco Kid
Any guesses why Havard hasn't been overly anxious to have Bush
represent the school in any fashion? Even Gore got to speak at
Harvard's commencement (Gore was an honors graduate).
Um, maybe because most ivy league schools are liberal?
Post by Cisco Kid
True, borrowing money does leverage one's ability to conduct business
but only up to a point. After that break even point is passed, debt
becomes a fixed burden.
A "fixed burden." What kind of nonsense is that. Can you so me one
economy textbook, or economist that recognizes that term?
Post by Cisco Kid
The cost of our debt today represents nearly 30% of our fiscal
expenditures.
And do you understand where that interest is going? Over 60% of it
goes to US INVESTORS. The government is paying that interest right
back to its citizens in the form of interest. That interest is then
used in our economy.
Post by Cisco Kid
All I can do is smile when I look at my stack of EE
bonds earning a tax free fixed rate of 6% (assuming I can still afford
to send my kids to college).
As for my qualifications? I have BBA and MBA degrees.
Bush's economic policies and foreign policies suck.
Spoken eloquently for such a "scholar."

Randy Cox
2003-08-28 01:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
Wrong! In a slugglish economy due to bad tax and investment write off
policy, a deficit might help if there was encouragment for investment to
produce more things demanded by the market in more efficient
ways........BUT...currently that is not the problem. Existing capital
investment in factory capacity is at less than 35%. You will ignore this
fact as do all the other Neo-Cons quoting Keynes. Conservatives don't quote
Keynes! They should be quoting Ludwig Von Mises. We have unused capital.
Why would a producer invest in new equipment while 65% of his current
equipment is setting idle? Keynes graphs and charts could never understand
three lathes but only one machinest with a job. Would be STUPID to give
that machine shop owner a tax break expecting him to invest in another
lathe. He wouldn't hire more help either.....labor is always available in
recessions.
Post by BrianEWilliams
The main problem is that most posters on this group, most of the
press, and most people in the country couldn't tell a Keynesian
counter-cyclical fiscal policy from a hole in the ground.
I hated Keynes theories, so even if I did understand them, I wouldn't brag
about it. I understand generational cycles of first generation capitalist
investing wisely along Darwin survivial lines while their grandchildren with
inherited wealth tend to chase the higher returns from riskier
investments.....TULIPS!!!!! TULIPS=Internet bubble!

I had many courses in economics including one on Ludwig Von Mises and other
Austrian School economists. Having studied Adam Smith, John Kenneth
Galbrith, Ravi Batra, Marx and Ingles and others, John Maynard Keynes was
the biggest "Liberal" snake oil salesmen of the bunch.
Post by BrianEWilliams
I would ask all responders to this post to list their qualifications
to analyze economic policy. I have four college level econ classes,
an MBA in finance from a top business school, and I traded
fixed-income derivatives for 5 years on Wall Street. Not trying to
brag, but I made a living on correctly analyzing economic policy, and
Did you trade your own account at a profit...or did you churn others? If
you traded your own money and made enough to live on, I'd be impressed. If
you sold snake oil by talking Keynesian crap over the phone, you would be no
different than other broker types and CEO's who "churn" corporate holdings
and generate large gains to themselves by hyping stock values and grabbing
the quick dollar at the expense of the long term vision. If you hadn't
noticed America has a problem with that right now. If you are one of those
types....you are nothing buy a greedy acquistor with bad economic policy and
a knack for absorbing investment money for your own pocket.
Post by BrianEWilliams
News flash to liberals, the economy was going into the toilet while
Clinton was still president. What do you expect after the biggest
investment bubble EVER? Do you think we could just wake up from that
party with no hangover? Considering the unemployment rate seems to
have peaked at 6.4%, even with the attacks from September 11 which
were a wild card no one could have expected, that is pretty amazing.
Wasn't just internet bubble! It was a TULIP CYCLE. Each time one of these
cycles happen the details are different because laws are passed to avoid
them in the future. This time, the accountants sold out their high
professional standards and the investors didn't care to stop them as long as
the "Tulips" could be bought and sold at a profit. Bush and family is head
over heals involved in this kind of corporate puffery. Clinton
wasn't....but all his buddies and supporters were...so he was equally
involved in the generational cycle.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Sure it was better economically under Clinton, but please tell me
which of his fantastic economic policies gave us that prosperity? The
reason you are gasping for straws now is that is wasn't Clinton, it
was Internet fever that drove the country. Don't even try to say that
the high taxes Clinton put in place gave us the prosperity because I
will bust a gut laughing over your economic ignorance. Remember
prosperity gives us surpluses, not the other way around.
He did not start out with surpluses or prosperity. He did invest in country
infrastructure...new highways and bridges all over America. These are paid
for from funds derived from gasoline taxes that Bush I had borrowed to
offset his own deficit figures. He did not repair the roads...but he did
accrue interest in the accounts for which the road taxes were paid into.
Clinton also was labor friendly giving a little more in the pockets of the
bluecollar than the republicans before him. Wasn't enough...but it did spur
spending. Also, there was the Military downsizing. Started under Bush I,
continued under Clinton, reversed under the war mongering Bush II. Clinton
also shut down the government in a showdown with republican congress.....but
when the sensible budget was finally passed real conservative republicans
and moderate democrats worked to defeat the old "Liberal.....Keynes quoting
democrats." Now here you go, quoting Keynes.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Let's not even get into all the corporate wrongdoing that took place
under Clinton, something I would argue was partly his fault for
setting such a bad moral example (it wasn't just lying about sex, it
was lying to protect one's powerful position).
You are no longer arguing seriously! This wrongdoing did happen under
Clinton, but it had nothing to do with Monica! Both parties have been
involved in this crap for many years. It started long before Clinton. It
was so pervasive that it would have been impossible for any candidate to
collect enough support without being financed by these same dollars. If
you sold derivitives...you were part of the problem...not part of the
solution.
Post by BrianEWilliams
The Bush-haters love to use the deficit to attack Bush. But what
would they suggest? Should we raise taxes and cut spending just as
the economy is recovering? That would be pretty fucking brilliant.
Let's just raise taxes on the "rich" then. They don't deserve the
money they earn anyway, right?
You have slammed the china to the floor, and now announce that it is too
late to put in a rubber mat. Of course, we can't do that now. The fist tax
cut was unwise! The second tax cut was a disaster! Baby Boomers are about
to retire! We have a huge mess! Bush didn't do it all, but he did steer
the ship of state right off the bumpy road into the mud! We already had a
huge "debt" which we were paying down......very slowly but we were paying it
down...instead of raising it by a trillion dollars. In three years, he has
steered us deep enough into the mud that we will have to start all over
again. We are facing stagflation! A two trillion dollar debt has to be
serviced. You talk about a stimulus to the economy, but what kind of
stimulus is a huge debt load to a generation of young people who will be
burdened by the debt of entitlements designed for a totally different
proportion of young working to old retired. Not much left but
RECAPITULATION.

How much will your portfolio be worth when the money is worthless and the
young chunk the whole system and start over? Did they teach you about
"repatitulation" when you were studying Keynes and calling yourself a
conservative? Do you understand that if one man will not continue to
service a totally impossible debt...then neither will a whole generation.
Bush isn't responsible for the whole debt. He is only responsible for the
policies that reversed the black ink to red. I predict he will double the
existing debt if he gets another four years. It will probably happen anyway
now. Maybe we could have dealt with the old debt, but I suspect the only
way to deal with this doubled debt is to paper it over with easy money!
I've been in inflationary times where contracts were based on todays price
or sometimes 30 day prices only. It is very destablizing to the economy.
Markups go from percentages to keystones and better. Do the math on a
product that goes through 6 to 10 different hands from raw material to
consumer!
Post by BrianEWilliams
Unfortunately, the "rich" generally aren't lazy sycophants doing
nothing (that would be the "poor"), but they are productive members of
society that actually do useful things with their after-tax earnings.
Taxing them more discourages investment and even more productive
behavior, and it is no free lunch.
The lazy poor are not part of an economy. The underpaid laborer is a part
of the economy. If you know half as much as you claim, you'll know the
production numbers per capita worker. American workers are more efficient
now than ever before. If you call the current worker lazy.....you are
disgusting! Efficient workers should bargain hard collectively and/or
independently to get higher wages. They should fight for what they are
worth...starting their own businesses if necessary to get the pay they
deserve. The unefficient middle, upper, and even controlling managment
should be kicked off their high chairs by the efficient and replaced. These
baffoons should be sent to the refuse pile without their golden parachutes.
Let them be paid what they are worth. If their companies lose money....let
them be paid no more than ten percent higher than the highes paid worker in
the outfit.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Look forward to the brilliant liberal responses to this post. I am
sure you are going to have some well-reasoned arguments.
I am not a liberal! I never quote Keynes! I may paraphrase Mises,
Batra.....occasionally even Marx....but never Keynes!

What I would do is work toward stable money supply as soon as possible. As
a moderate, I believe we should keep a slightly progressive tax structure
with no rate being higher than 35% while debt is high, reduced to maybe 20%
or 15% as the laws are simplified. Even the lowest earners should pay a
nominal tax.....that is the price of citizenship....maybe 5%. Bush's (and
Clinton's) removing the lowest earners from the tax roles leaves them
feeling not a part of our country....not a good idea. Let every worker pay
something while he works. A long term plan should be devised to lower the
rates as we simplified the tax laws. Flat tax theory with progressive
element. High income earners....especially investment earners utilize the
existing common infrastructure more than just a laborer. The higher
percentage should not be burdensome...but high enough to service the whole
debt and retire a portion of it!

We need to STOP playing with taxes to guide investments from one part of the
market to the other. That is contrary to market principle and results in
dishonesty and inefficiency. Maybe some tax incentive for pollution
controls, but I favor other means. Tax incentive law breeds quid pro quo
relationships between political parties and their financial supporters. Not
a good thing!

Another policy should be a National Reindustrialization Act. Protective
tariffs are bad economic policy and leads to poor market efficiency....but
national defense would require a nominal production capacity in EVERY single
potential war supply component. So we should maintain a small...tiny
even....industry in every capacity so that in the event that we went to war
with one of our suppliers...such as China...we would have a working industry
from which to model a new capacity in every conceivable good and service.

Last policy would be to build a public transportation grid of trains,
subways, and high occupant buses so that America could ride to and from work
without losing so much of their time in traffic jams. All that traffic time
is unproductive when they sit behind the wheel of an SUV. Let them do that
if they want, but better if there were cheaper forms available to reduce the
pressure on our road systems.

For the part of me that is Liberal.......let there be a bare bones health
care system to operate parallel with the private one. Our current system of
insurance actuarial collective pools based on group cost....plus is a
National Socialist model where the collective is owned by private enterprise
but run by committee! It is failing all over the place! American spends
three times as much on healthcare as Canada....and many many people go
without decent healthcare. It is broken! Don't give me the socialist crap!
We are already socialist! Insurance companies pay the bill....and they are
collective pools of risk distributed from those who contribute to those who
need! What I just wrote is the truth whether anyone wants to admit it or
not.

Current system is an illusion that drops people out of the system that
demonstrate need, but allow those with low risk to stay in the system
believing it will work for them when they do need it. There is also the
aspect of the last months of an old persons life consuming 1/2 to a million
dollars in medical bills keeping them alive longer than they can live with
dignity. Some of these people consume more in medical expense in the last
two months of their lives than they have earned in a lifetime. Meanwhile
young people can not afford the care they really need. Long term and very
costly problems develop that could be solved very inexpensively with regular
medical visits.

Base medical care should be conceived as part of the national defense. We
defend our citizens against foreign human invaders....we should defend them
against microscopic invaders as well as any physical damage to our human
capital investment. We all have a stake in getting broken people back to a
productive state. Wouldn't it be nice to remove the lawyer from
doctor/worker/company relationship. If we shared the cost of a doctor like
we share the cost of an army or policeman.....then our companies would not
have to add the cost of worker's compensation into their cost as they
compete with the other major economic powers (that already have national
health care). This puts us at a distinct disadvantage in world competition.
Notice that we keep losing market share. I'm not kidding about this stuff!
It is real!

Randy R. Cox
JoettaB
2003-08-28 02:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Cox
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
Wrong! In a slugglish economy due to bad tax and investment write off
policy, a deficit might help if there was encouragment for investment to
produce more things demanded by the market in more efficient
ways........BUT...currently that is not the problem. Existing capital
investment in factory capacity is at less than 35%. You will ignore this
fact as do all the other Neo-Cons quoting Keynes. Conservatives don't quote
Keynes! They should be quoting Ludwig Von Mises. We have unused capital.
Why would a producer invest in new equipment while 65% of his current
equipment is setting idle? Keynes graphs and charts could never understand
three lathes but only one machinest with a job. Would be STUPID to give
that machine shop owner a tax break expecting him to invest in another
lathe. He wouldn't hire more help either.....labor is always available in
recessions.
Post by BrianEWilliams
The main problem is that most posters on this group, most of the
press, and most people in the country couldn't tell a Keynesian
counter-cyclical fiscal policy from a hole in the ground.
I hated Keynes theories, so even if I did understand them, I wouldn't brag
about it. I understand generational cycles of first generation capitalist
investing wisely along Darwin survivial lines while their grandchildren with
inherited wealth tend to chase the higher returns from riskier
investments.....TULIPS!!!!! TULIPS=Internet bubble!
I had many courses in economics including one on Ludwig Von Mises and other
Austrian School economists. Having studied Adam Smith, John Kenneth
Galbrith, Ravi Batra, Marx and Ingles and others, John Maynard Keynes was
the biggest "Liberal" snake oil salesmen of the bunch.
Post by BrianEWilliams
I would ask all responders to this post to list their qualifications
to analyze economic policy. I have four college level econ classes,
an MBA in finance from a top business school, and I traded
fixed-income derivatives for 5 years on Wall Street. Not trying to
brag, but I made a living on correctly analyzing economic policy, and
Did you trade your own account at a profit...or did you churn others? If
you traded your own money and made enough to live on, I'd be impressed.
If
Post by Randy Cox
you sold snake oil by talking Keynesian crap over the phone, you would be no
different than other broker types and CEO's who "churn" corporate holdings
and generate large gains to themselves by hyping stock values and grabbing
the quick dollar at the expense of the long term vision. If you hadn't
noticed America has a problem with that right now. If you are one of those
types....you are nothing buy a greedy acquistor with bad economic policy and
a knack for absorbing investment money for your own pocket.
Post by BrianEWilliams
News flash to liberals, the economy was going into the toilet while
Clinton was still president. What do you expect after the biggest
investment bubble EVER? Do you think we could just wake up from that
party with no hangover? Considering the unemployment rate seems to
have peaked at 6.4%, even with the attacks from September 11 which
were a wild card no one could have expected, that is pretty amazing.
Wasn't just internet bubble! It was a TULIP CYCLE. Each time one of these
cycles happen the details are different because laws are passed to avoid
them in the future. This time, the accountants sold out their high
professional standards and the investors didn't care to stop them as long as
the "Tulips" could be bought and sold at a profit. Bush and family is head
over heals involved in this kind of corporate puffery. Clinton
wasn't....but all his buddies and supporters were...so he was equally
involved in the generational cycle.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Sure it was better economically under Clinton, but please tell me
which of his fantastic economic policies gave us that prosperity? The
reason you are gasping for straws now is that is wasn't Clinton, it
was Internet fever that drove the country. Don't even try to say that
the high taxes Clinton put in place gave us the prosperity because I
will bust a gut laughing over your economic ignorance. Remember
prosperity gives us surpluses, not the other way around.
He did not start out with surpluses or prosperity. He did invest in country
infrastructure...new highways and bridges all over America. These are paid
for from funds derived from gasoline taxes that Bush I had borrowed to
offset his own deficit figures. He did not repair the roads...but he did
accrue interest in the accounts for which the road taxes were paid into.
Clinton also was labor friendly giving a little more in the pockets of the
bluecollar than the republicans before him. Wasn't enough...but it did spur
spending. Also, there was the Military downsizing. Started under Bush I,
continued under Clinton, reversed under the war mongering Bush II.
Clinton
Post by Randy Cox
also shut down the government in a showdown with republican
congress.....but
Post by Randy Cox
when the sensible budget was finally passed real conservative republicans
and moderate democrats worked to defeat the old "Liberal.....Keynes quoting
democrats." Now here you go, quoting Keynes.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Let's not even get into all the corporate wrongdoing that took place
under Clinton, something I would argue was partly his fault for
setting such a bad moral example (it wasn't just lying about sex, it
was lying to protect one's powerful position).
You are no longer arguing seriously! This wrongdoing did happen under
Clinton, but it had nothing to do with Monica! Both parties have been
involved in this crap for many years. It started long before Clinton. It
was so pervasive that it would have been impossible for any candidate to
collect enough support without being financed by these same dollars. If
you sold derivitives...you were part of the problem...not part of the
solution.
Post by BrianEWilliams
The Bush-haters love to use the deficit to attack Bush. But what
would they suggest? Should we raise taxes and cut spending just as
the economy is recovering? That would be pretty fucking brilliant.
Let's just raise taxes on the "rich" then. They don't deserve the
money they earn anyway, right?
You have slammed the china to the floor, and now announce that it is too
late to put in a rubber mat. Of course, we can't do that now. The fist tax
cut was unwise! The second tax cut was a disaster! Baby Boomers are about
to retire! We have a huge mess! Bush didn't do it all, but he did steer
the ship of state right off the bumpy road into the mud! We already had a
huge "debt" which we were paying down......very slowly but we were paying it
down...instead of raising it by a trillion dollars. In three years, he has
steered us deep enough into the mud that we will have to start all over
again. We are facing stagflation! A two trillion dollar debt has to be
serviced. You talk about a stimulus to the economy, but what kind of
stimulus is a huge debt load to a generation of young people who will be
burdened by the debt of entitlements designed for a totally different
proportion of young working to old retired. Not much left but
RECAPITULATION.
How much will your portfolio be worth when the money is worthless and the
young chunk the whole system and start over? Did they teach you about
"repatitulation" when you were studying Keynes and calling yourself a
conservative? Do you understand that if one man will not continue to
service a totally impossible debt...then neither will a whole generation.
Bush isn't responsible for the whole debt. He is only responsible for the
policies that reversed the black ink to red. I predict he will double the
existing debt if he gets another four years. It will probably happen anyway
now. Maybe we could have dealt with the old debt, but I suspect the only
way to deal with this doubled debt is to paper it over with easy money!
I've been in inflationary times where contracts were based on todays price
or sometimes 30 day prices only. It is very destablizing to the economy.
Markups go from percentages to keystones and better. Do the math on a
product that goes through 6 to 10 different hands from raw material to
consumer!
Post by BrianEWilliams
Unfortunately, the "rich" generally aren't lazy sycophants doing
nothing (that would be the "poor"), but they are productive members of
society that actually do useful things with their after-tax earnings.
Taxing them more discourages investment and even more productive
behavior, and it is no free lunch.
The lazy poor are not part of an economy. The underpaid laborer is a part
of the economy. If you know half as much as you claim, you'll know the
production numbers per capita worker. American workers are more efficient
now than ever before. If you call the current worker lazy.....you are
disgusting! Efficient workers should bargain hard collectively and/or
independently to get higher wages. They should fight for what they are
worth...starting their own businesses if necessary to get the pay they
deserve. The unefficient middle, upper, and even controlling managment
should be kicked off their high chairs by the efficient and replaced.
These
Post by Randy Cox
baffoons should be sent to the refuse pile without their golden parachutes.
Let them be paid what they are worth. If their companies lose
money....let
Post by Randy Cox
them be paid no more than ten percent higher than the highes paid worker in
the outfit.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Look forward to the brilliant liberal responses to this post. I am
sure you are going to have some well-reasoned arguments.
I am not a liberal! I never quote Keynes! I may paraphrase Mises,
Batra.....occasionally even Marx....but never Keynes!
What I would do is work toward stable money supply as soon as possible.
As
Post by Randy Cox
a moderate, I believe we should keep a slightly progressive tax structure
with no rate being higher than 35% while debt is high, reduced to maybe 20%
or 15% as the laws are simplified. Even the lowest earners should pay a
nominal tax.....that is the price of citizenship....maybe 5%. Bush's (and
Clinton's) removing the lowest earners from the tax roles leaves them
feeling not a part of our country....not a good idea. Let every worker pay
something while he works. A long term plan should be devised to lower the
rates as we simplified the tax laws. Flat tax theory with progressive
element. High income earners....especially investment earners utilize the
existing common infrastructure more than just a laborer. The higher
percentage should not be burdensome...but high enough to service the whole
debt and retire a portion of it!
We need to STOP playing with taxes to guide investments from one part of the
market to the other. That is contrary to market principle and results in
dishonesty and inefficiency. Maybe some tax incentive for pollution
controls, but I favor other means. Tax incentive law breeds quid pro quo
relationships between political parties and their financial supporters.
Not
Post by Randy Cox
a good thing!
Another policy should be a National Reindustrialization Act. Protective
tariffs are bad economic policy and leads to poor market efficiency....but
national defense would require a nominal production capacity in EVERY single
potential war supply component. So we should maintain a small...tiny
even....industry in every capacity so that in the event that we went to war
with one of our suppliers...such as China...we would have a working industry
from which to model a new capacity in every conceivable good and service.
Last policy would be to build a public transportation grid of trains,
subways, and high occupant buses so that America could ride to and from work
without losing so much of their time in traffic jams. All that traffic time
is unproductive when they sit behind the wheel of an SUV. Let them do that
if they want, but better if there were cheaper forms available to reduce the
pressure on our road systems.
For the part of me that is Liberal.......let there be a bare bones health
care system to operate parallel with the private one. Our current system of
insurance actuarial collective pools based on group cost....plus is a
National Socialist model where the collective is owned by private enterprise
but run by committee! It is failing all over the place! American spends
three times as much on healthcare as Canada....and many many people go
without decent healthcare. It is broken! Don't give me the socialist crap!
We are already socialist! Insurance companies pay the bill....and they are
collective pools of risk distributed from those who contribute to those who
need! What I just wrote is the truth whether anyone wants to admit it or
not.
Current system is an illusion that drops people out of the system that
demonstrate need, but allow those with low risk to stay in the system
believing it will work for them when they do need it. There is also the
aspect of the last months of an old persons life consuming 1/2 to a million
dollars in medical bills keeping them alive longer than they can live with
dignity. Some of these people consume more in medical expense in the last
two months of their lives than they have earned in a lifetime. Meanwhile
young people can not afford the care they really need. Long term and very
costly problems develop that could be solved very inexpensively with regular
medical visits.
Base medical care should be conceived as part of the national defense. We
defend our citizens against foreign human invaders....we should defend them
against microscopic invaders as well as any physical damage to our human
capital investment. We all have a stake in getting broken people back to a
productive state. Wouldn't it be nice to remove the lawyer from
doctor/worker/company relationship. If we shared the cost of a doctor like
we share the cost of an army or policeman.....then our companies would not
have to add the cost of worker's compensation into their cost as they
compete with the other major economic powers (that already have national
health care). This puts us at a distinct disadvantage in world competition.
Notice that we keep losing market share. I'm not kidding about this stuff!
It is real!
Randy R. Cox
Thank you for giving a balanced viewpoint. I may not agree with everything
you said by 100%, but when will something like that ever happen.

JoettaB
Andy
2003-08-28 02:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrianEWilliams
This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
First of all, I would like to thank Randy Cox for a beautiful response. I
personally don't have such level of expertise, but even myself (with just
one course in economics) would have a problem with this counter-intuitive
argument.

The Bush supporters are panicking, they are spinning arguments to the max.
First, it is a GOOD thing that terrorists are flooding into Iraq. "That's
where we want them".

Now, the deficit is a GOOD thing. "Didn't you know? It was part of the plan
all along!" Give me a break. How far will you go to portray Bush as some
genius the world has never seen before. "That's ok, folks, we know it looks
bad, but that's what we really want."

Americans are not stupid. The Bush administration spin and fear-mongering
techniques are becoming less effective and counter-productive.
--
Andy

"Every nation has the government it deserves."
steve
2003-08-28 02:44:43 UTC
Permalink
BrianEWilliams wrote:

......
Post by BrianEWilliams
I would ask all responders to this post to list their qualifications
to analyze economic policy. I have four college level econ classes,
an MBA in finance from a top business school, and I traded
fixed-income derivatives for 5 years on Wall Street. Not trying to
brag, but I made a living on correctly analyzing economic policy, and
An armload of degress is often a sure sign that common sense has been
banished or overlayed by theories that are only tenuously connected to
reality.
Post by BrianEWilliams
News flash to liberals, the economy was going into the toilet while
Clinton was still president. What do you expect after the biggest
investment bubble EVER? Do you think we could just wake up from that
party with no hangover? Considering the unemployment rate seems to
have peaked at 6.4%, even with the attacks from September 11 which
were a wild card no one could have expected, that is pretty amazing.
It will get worse as jobs, in their millions, continue to move to China,
Vietnam and Mexico.

Wal-Mart just announced they are doubling imports from China in the
coming year. They are just one of a hundred big-box chain stores in the
US and globally who are doing or have already done exactly the same
thing.....in just a very few years. The rapidity of this change is going
to take everyone by surprise when the tipping point is reached.

We're almost there.

Large American and European countries that had one factory in China last
year will have several or even dozens in the coming 2 years.

I work for a large networking company....and the ramping up of exported
production and jobs into China is only just NOW really getting underway.

More American jobs will be lost in the next 18 months than in the
previous 3 years.

Millions of them.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Sure it was better economically under Clinton, but please tell me
which of his fantastic economic policies gave us that prosperity? The
reason you are gasping for straws now is that is wasn't Clinton, it
was Internet fever that drove the country. Don't even try to say that
the high taxes Clinton put in place gave us the prosperity because I
will bust a gut laughing over your economic ignorance. Remember
prosperity gives us surpluses, not the other way around.
Laugh all you want...at least the funds were retained in the US for
expenditure and investment - even if it was through the government.

If you lower taxes and export production capacity (and related
jobs)....then 'prosperity' certainly WILL come - to China and India.

If only THEY could vote for Bush he might be all right.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Let's not even get into all the corporate wrongdoing that took place
under Clinton, something I would argue was partly his fault for
setting such a bad moral example (it wasn't just lying about sex, it
was lying to protect one's powerful position).
These people were crooks long before Clinton came to the White House.
They cut their teeth in the Reagan years......
Post by BrianEWilliams
The Bush-haters love to use the deficit to attack Bush. But what
would they suggest? Should we raise taxes and cut spending just as
the economy is recovering? That would be pretty fucking brilliant.
It isn't recovering. Not in a sustainable way. It is being undercut
every day by job losses as more and more production moves out of the US
to Mexico, the Far East and India.

Raising taxes and investing the money in health care and education
instead of useless weaponry and military bureaucracy would be a solid
step in the right direction.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Let's just raise taxes on the "rich" then. They don't deserve the
money they earn anyway, right?
No....but nor do they deserve the rorts and pork barrelling they get
from their partners and former employees sponsored into electoral office.

You're assuming they come by their wealth honestly. Many do not. This
has nothiong to do with taxes - but it is a background to the 'tax the
rich' sentiment. If too many of the rich are seen as thieves and robber
barons, then they will definitely run into the political fall-out from
that.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Unfortunately, the "rich" generally aren't lazy sycophants doing
nothing (that would be the "poor"), but they are productive members of
society that actually do useful things with their after-tax earnings.
This is a statement of faith on your part. G W Bush is one of 'the
rich". Tell me which day he was ever "productive" on? He is more typical
of the cronyism and corruption that infests the crosso-over between
business aims and policy - practiced by both the Democrats and
republicans...so don't think I'm being partisan here.

They are both corrupt ....and it is wrong either way.

This corruption is a feature and a product of the weak democracy
practiced in America. many other countries -with more robust democracies
- are nowhere even close to being as corrupt as the US.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Taxing them more discourages investment and even more productive
behavior, and it is no free lunch.
Are they Americans? Or are they just rich?

You seem to imply their first allegiance is to their money.

Tell that to the poor kids being shot and blown up in the US forces in
Iraq.

How many of the sons of the rich do you think are over there?
Post by BrianEWilliams
Look forward to the brilliant liberal responses to this post. I am
sure you are going to have some well-reasoned arguments.
The arguments aren't grounded in theory to the extent you will aprove of.

They are grounded in the reality of the destruction the theories you
probably subscribe to have caused around the world...and are finally
starting to cause in the US itself.

I'm prepared to wait and see. I think that deregulation of core
infrastructure (power and water) has been proven a failure globally. The
evidence is clear that greed prevents the promised benefits from ever
being delivered. Prices increase, maintenance is cut - profits are
large.....then whenthe lights go out or the water stop running or is
full of filth, they claim they need MORE price increases to "invest" to
fix what wasn't broken until they stopped looking after it.

As the folks in the Dominican Republic what they think of
"de-regulation". Call during the day when it won't matter that the
lights aren't on.

"Globalization", which seems to amount to exporting American jobs to
cheap-labour countries as fast as possible, is under cutting the wealth
of the West - and the US in particular.

The problem,as usual, isn't economic at all. It's political. When you
neuter democracy to advance purely business goals, you get corruption
and waste.

Bush is taking America down this path despite all the evidence from
countries the US has forced these policies on that they don't actually
work in the real world.

Argentina, anyone? Poor as church mice.....yet countries that told the
IMF to piss off seem to be doing much better than any monetarist
econommist ever expected.
abracadabra
2003-08-28 12:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
Why is that?
Fiscal stimulus is one of the few "dials" the politicians can turn
to influemce the economy
So Bush brought us the massive deficits on purpose?
I guess when Reagan ran against deficits he was full of shit?
WHich is it? Are deficits good (Bush right, REagan wrong) or are deficits
bad (Reagan right, Bush wrong), or do you guys jjust make it up as you go
along (like on Iraq?)?
I suspect you all just make it up.
Where is the deficit spending going?
Post 9/11 terrorism efforts (incl military)
Pork (ie farm bill)
social spending
How politic of you to leave out the tax-cut-for-the-perfectly-nice-rich
I mean, Dubya claimed that he'd not go into deficit spending, and his tax
cuts and increases in spending would'nt increase the deficit. Was he lying?
Are you lying? It's kind of hard to keep up with allthe lies on the right
(although I think Franken, Conasan and COrn for writing books of the lies of
the right)
How is it "ending the recession"?
By stimulating demand.
Is it? "Demand" doesn't seem to have dropped when President Clinton got rid
of the Reagan Deficits, yet now we need it to stimulate demand?
We
are still 2 million jobs short of where we were when the creep from
crawford
took office.
And we have 7 consecutitive quarters of economic growth from the
slowdown inherited from your hero
How pathetic. You still have to fall back "Blame Clinton"
C'mon, you can do better. Maybe you ought to drink real coffee again.
I mean, if the deficit spending was actually going into the pockets of
real
people, it might amount to something.
Real people that pay income taxes..you know the evilllll upper 50%
that pay 96% of the income taxes
Why do you always call rich people evil? Did a rich person step on your toe?
BTW, talking about income taxes and leaving out all the other taxes on the
rest of us is deceptive.
But a lot of it is because of Dubyas tax-cut-for-the-rich, and rich
folks
don't plow their extra money directly back into the economy like the
rest of
us do.
Credible cite please. the evillll "rich" buy SUV's, toys, invest in
businesses, etc...
LOL
Poor people (and most of us middle class types) put ALL our money into the
economy. Rich people don't. THey don't eat more food, wear more clothes.
They''ll put their money where it'll be safe until after the recession is
over.
T.Carr
2003-08-28 17:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by abracadabra
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
Why is that?
Fiscal stimulus is one of the few "dials" the politicians can turn
to influemce the economy
So Bush brought us the massive deficits on purpose?
Nope.
Post by abracadabra
I guess when Reagan ran against deficits he was full of shit?
He didnt count on the rabid 'dem opposition to reduced spending in
their pet programs
Post by abracadabra
WHich is it? Are deficits good (Bush right, REagan wrong) or are deficits
bad (Reagan right, Bush wrong), or do you guys jjust make it up as you go
along (like on Iraq?)?
I suspect you all just make it up.
You never took a decent econ course did you?

Deficit spending is one a few thing government can do to stimulate
the economy. Short term deficits are acceptable to even most
conservatives.

Long term deficits are not positive as debt increases and the cost
to service that debt competes with other expenditures.

The Fed has done its part to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts /
spending increases have been enacted by the Congress / President.
Post by abracadabra
Where is the deficit spending going?
Post 9/11 terrorism efforts (incl military)
Pork (ie farm bill)
social spending
How politic of you to leave out the tax-cut-for-the-perfectly-nice-rich
Tax cuts for the "perfectly nice rich that actually PAY INCOME TAXES
played a factor as well
Post by abracadabra
I mean, Dubya claimed that he'd not go into deficit spending, and his tax
cuts and increases in spending would'nt increase the deficit. Was he lying?
Nope. The projections at the time the tax cuts were proposed from
the CBO and OMB still showed surpluses.
Post by abracadabra
Are you lying?
Nope

It's kind of hard to keep up with allthe lies on the right

Try reading something than the DNC talking points
Post by abracadabra
(although I think Franken, Conasan and COrn for writing books of the lies of
the right)
You base your politics on Al Franken?

LMAO
Post by abracadabra
How is it "ending the recession"?
By stimulating demand.
Is it? "Demand" doesn't seem to have dropped when President Clinton got rid
of the Reagan Deficits, yet now we need it to stimulate demand?
Do I need to get the data to educate you again?

What did Clinton do again abra?

Other than the tax increase on 1993, you havent been able to
identify any significant contribution

Surely you are not silly enough to claim that a single budget was
responsible for 8 years of growth

If tax increases are the answer, feel free to explain the recession
of Bush '41 when he did exactly the same thing during his term
Post by abracadabra
We
are still 2 million jobs short of where we were when the creep from
crawford
took office.
And we have 7 consecutitive quarters of economic growth from the
slowdown inherited from your hero
How pathetic. You still have to fall back "Blame Clinton"
C'mon, you can do better. Maybe you ought to drink real coffee again.
I have already posted the GDP data to prove the point. (www.bea.gov)
You and your ilk have no problem blaming the recession on Bush. I have
no problem proving the slowdown began under Clinton
Post by abracadabra
I mean, if the deficit spending was actually going into the pockets of
real
people, it might amount to something.
Real people that pay income taxes..you know the evilllll upper 50%
that pay 96% of the income taxes
Why do you always call rich people evil? Did a rich person step on your toe?
Its a sarcastic reply to the lefts demonizing of those that actually
pay taxes
Post by abracadabra
BTW, talking about income taxes and leaving out all the other taxes on the
rest of us is deceptive.
The other federal payroll taxes are dedicated to specific programs,
with their own set of "progressive" benefits. I have not even factored
on the EIC into the calculations.

State / local taxes are your problem and not part of the Federal
budget
Post by abracadabra
But a lot of it is because of Dubyas tax-cut-for-the-rich, and rich
folks
don't plow their extra money directly back into the economy like the
rest of
us do.
Credible cite please. the evillll "rich" buy SUV's, toys, invest in
businesses, etc...
LOL
Poor people (and most of us middle class types) put ALL our money into the
economy. Rich people don't.
Wrong

"rich" people put money in the economy via different routes. They
dont bury in their backyard

THey don't eat more food, wear more clothes.
Post by abracadabra
They''ll put their money where it'll be safe until after the recession is
over.
Like investing in businesses, realestate, building new homes, etc...


T.carr
T.Carr
2003-08-28 23:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what
our
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
Post by BrianEWilliams
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
Why is that?
Fiscal stimulus is one of the few "dials" the politicians can turn
to influemce the economy
So Bush brought us the massive deficits on purpose?
Nope.
abracadabra opined
Cutting taxes and increasing spending = deficits.
It was done on purpose.
Wrong. According to the OMB and CBO the initial Bush tax cuts
reduced the SURPLUS by about 25%

Less of a surplus is still a surplus..look it up
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
I guess when Reagan ran against deficits he was full of shit?
He didnt count on the rabid 'dem opposition to reduced spending in
their pet programs
LOL
Reagan signed every one of those budgets. If he wanted to cut spending, he
could have vetoed the spending bills, like President Clinton did, and force
the cuts.
Reagan, unlike your hero, was not willing to shut down government to
get his way.
The truth is Reagan didn't know shit, and his tax cuts gave America massive
deficits, which President Clinton fixed.
the above indicates that you "dont know shit"

Other than 1 budget what did your hero actually do?
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
WHich is it? Are deficits good (Bush right, REagan wrong) or are
deficits
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
bad (Reagan right, Bush wrong), or do you guys jjust make it up as you
go
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
along (like on Iraq?)?
I suspect you all just make it up.
You never took a decent econ course did you?
WHich has what to do with what?
It has "everything to do" with your ability to understand the
topic..assuming you want to know more than the DNC talking points


Dubya got his MBA and failed in every
business he was given.
Not every one. Now since you dont thing too much of basic econ, why
not list the options available to the government to increase economic
activity?
Post by T.Carr
Deficit spending is one a few thing government can do to stimulate
the economy. Short term deficits are acceptable to even most
conservatives.
So you embrace the current $480billion deficit?
LOL
This from the people who were against health care for all because of the
cost.
Projecting again "abra"?

I have no problem with short term deficits to stimulate the economy.
I suspect most sane people with a iota of knowledge would agree

As far as "clinton care"..name on service where the feds lead in
quality, service, and cost

Go ahead..take your time
Post by T.Carr
Long term deficits are not positive as debt increases and the cost
to service that debt competes with other expenditures.
The Fed has done its part to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts /
spending increases have been enacted by the Congress / President.
Post by abracadabra
Where is the deficit spending going?
Post 9/11 terrorism efforts (incl military)
Pork (ie farm bill)
social spending
How politic of you to leave out the tax-cut-for-the-perfectly-nice-rich
Tax cuts for the "perfectly nice rich that actually PAY INCOME TAXES
played a factor as well
We all pay taxes, silly.
Nice try to spin abra..the federal government and its taxes are all
that matters to this discussion. And contrary to your claim "everyne"
does not pay federal taxes
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
I mean, Dubya claimed that he'd not go into deficit spending, and his
tax
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
cuts and increases in spending would'nt increase the deficit. Was he
lying?
Post by T.Carr
Nope. The projections at the time the tax cuts were proposed from
the CBO and OMB still showed surpluses.
So is Dubya going to rescind the tax cuts to pay for his "dozens of billions
of $" war in Iraq?
NOPE
No increases until the economy improves. Personally I support
spending cuts
So stop pretending that Dubya gives a crap about the fiscal future of this
country.
Stop pretending like yo understand basic econ

He's only concerned with getting re-elected, so he can continue to
do nothing useful.
Its dangerous when you start believing your own propoganda
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
Are you lying?
Nope
It's kind of hard to keep up with allthe lies on the right
Try reading something than the DNC talking points
Cheapshot. If I did read DNC talking points I'd be doing better. I could
just copy and paste the things.
You rattle them off like "harry hope"
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
(although I think Franken, Conasan and COrn for writing books of the
lies of
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
the right)
You base your politics on Al Franken?
I think it's nioce that some out there are starting the massive lists needed
to point out all the lies on the right. It's too manyh to keep track of.
LIke Dubya's scandels.
Franken cant handle a decent debate..he explodes and blusters
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
How is it "ending the recession"?
By stimulating demand.
Is it? "Demand" doesn't seem to have dropped when President Clinton got
rid
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
of the Reagan Deficits, yet now we need it to stimulate demand?
Do I need to get the data to educate you again?
What did Clinton do again abra?
Other than the tax increase on 1993, you havent been able to
identify any significant contribution
Good job avoiding the question. I'll take it as a consession.
You brought up your hero ..again..and dodged about his so called
acomplishments..again.

"Demand" was already increasing before your hero was elected, and
before his retroactive tax cuts were enacted
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
We
are still 2 million jobs short of where we were when the creep from
crawford
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
took office.
And we have 7 consecutitive quarters of economic growth from the
slowdown inherited from your hero
How pathetic. You still have to fall back "Blame Clinton"
C'mon, you can do better. Maybe you ought to drink real coffee again.
I have already posted the GDP data to prove the point
Who said there hasn't been some meager growth?
We're still a lot worse off then we were under President Clinton.
Really?..Unemployment was 5.7% at this time in your hero's
term..compared to 6.2% now.(www.bls.gov) Inflation under Clinton was
5.47%, Bush 4.47% (through the first 2 CY)

Doesnt seem to be "a lot worse" to me. Or are you making your claims
up as you go along..again
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
I mean, if the deficit spending was actually going into the pockets
of
real
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
people, it might amount to something.
Real people that pay income taxes..you know the evilllll upper 50%
that pay 96% of the income taxes
Why do you always call rich people evil? Did a rich person step on your
toe?
Post by T.Carr
Its a sarcastic reply to the lefts demonizing of those that actually
pay taxes
We all pay taxes.
State/local taxes are you problem..not the feds

Its your side that only cares about well off people having
to pay taxes. You're fine with the rest of us paying taxes.
The evilll rich you so demonize alreay pay the lions share of the
taxes. Any tax cut ought to be based on he amount pain if you want to
be "fair"

Now if you want to play the left's game of income redistribution,
have the honesty to say so
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
BTW, talking about income taxes and leaving out all the other taxes on
the
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
rest of us is deceptive.
The other federal payroll taxes are dedicated to specific programs,
with their own set of "progressive" benefits. I have not even factored
on the EIC into the calculations.
State / local taxes are your problem and not part of the Federal
budget
With all of the Republican unfunded mandates from DC, they are a state
problem coming from the RNC>
What new unfunded mandates are you referring to that did not exist
from 1993-2000?
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
But a lot of it is because of Dubyas tax-cut-for-the-rich, and rich
folks
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
don't plow their extra money directly back into the economy like the
rest of
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
us do.
Credible cite please. the evillll "rich" buy SUV's, toys, invest in
businesses, etc...
LOL
Poor people (and most of us middle class types) put ALL our money into
the
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
economy. Rich people don't.
Wrong
NOPE. Rich people aren't going to plow 100% of their income straight into
the economy. Poor people are. So will a lot of the middle class.
Nope..the money is not buried in a matress
Post by T.Carr
"rich" people put money in the economy via different routes. They
dont bury in their backyard
Yeah, they send their kids and dogs to day spas. Glad they got the tax cut.
Yeah..they send their kids to college without government aid/loans
Post by T.Carr
THey don't eat more food, wear more clothes.
Post by abracadabra
They''ll put their money where it'll be safe until after the recession
is
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
over.
Like investing in businesses, realestate, building new homes, etc...
Sending their dogs to day spas, or paying the money to the Republicans as a
bribe for more tax cuts and less regulation.
So its the old class envy game with you?

How much of your neighbors sweat so you feel entitled to tax just
because you dont think he/she "needs" it?

50%, 70%?..yo do remember the "good ol Carter economy dont you
abra..upper marginal income tax rates in excess of 70%, and the
economy sucked

But the evillllll "rich" paid their so called "fair share"


T.Carr
abracadabra
2003-08-29 16:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what
our
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
Post by BrianEWilliams
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
Why is that?
Fiscal stimulus is one of the few "dials" the politicians can turn
to influemce the economy
So Bush brought us the massive deficits on purpose?
Nope.
abracadabra opined
Cutting taxes and increasing spending = deficits.
It was done on purpose.
Wrong. According to the OMB and CBO the initial Bush tax cuts
reduced the SURPLUS by about 25%
Less of a surplus is still a surplus..look it up
NOPE
We're in massive deficit spending, and the tax cuts are part of it. To
seperate it out when it's all part of the same budget process just to
bolster your weak argument is lame.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
I guess when Reagan ran against deficits he was full of shit?
He didnt count on the rabid 'dem opposition to reduced spending in
their pet programs
LOL
Reagan signed every one of those budgets. If he wanted to cut spending, he
could have vetoed the spending bills, like President Clinton did, and force
the cuts.
Reagan, unlike your hero, was not willing to shut down government to
get his way.
LOL
Shut down the government? Were you in prison or something? "Shutting down
the government" was only shutting down some memorials and tourists traps.
WHen Newt forced a government shut down, nothing of substance was prevented.
The army, borderpatrols, etc. all kept working.
Face it - Reagan was never serious - he was a weak, ignorant man. And it was
REAGAN that drove us to the last massive deficits, and President Clinton
(and a Republican congress, and luck at a good economy) that cleaned up
Reagan's mess.
Post by T.Carr
The truth is Reagan didn't know shit, and his tax cuts gave America massive
deficits, which President Clinton fixed.
the above indicates that you "dont know shit"
Getting a litte personal?
Maybe you need a beer. I'm not used to you swearing like a 14 year old
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
WHich is it? Are deficits good (Bush right, REagan wrong) or are
deficits
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
bad (Reagan right, Bush wrong), or do you guys jjust make it up as you
go
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
along (like on Iraq?)?
I suspect you all just make it up.
You never took a decent econ course did you?
WHich has what to do with what?
It has "everything to do" with your ability to understand the
topic..assuming you want to know more than the DNC talking points
That line about "Democratic talking points" is getting old. It beats the
typical conservative "flame" - usually something to do with "go suck" or "go
drink piss", but it's about as meaningful.
All Americans can discuss the failures and lies of Reagan without having an
economics course. How elitist of you!
Post by T.Carr
Dubya got his MBA and failed in every
business he was given.
Not every one.
Well, he was given a baseball team which he sold at a profit, but that's
hardly "building a business". In reality Dubya has failed his whole life.
He's even a bad father and a failure as a man!
Of course you admire him, because their's a "R" after his name. It doesn't
take much to please some folks.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Deficit spending is one a few thing government can do to stimulate
the economy. Short term deficits are acceptable to even most
conservatives.
So you embrace the current $480billion deficit?
LOL
This from the people who were against health care for all because of the
cost.
Projecting again "abra"?
So you embrace a 480 billion $ deficit?
And, BTW, the pub's (your heros) were against health care for Americans
because it's add to the deficit. But of course, when it comes to paying off
wealthy cronies, that's different.
No projection needed.
Post by T.Carr
I have no problem with short term deficits to stimulate the economy.
I suspect most sane people with a iota of knowledge would agree
Well, I expect people with an IOTA of knowledge to agree with you.
But educated, thinking people will disagree with you.
Deficit spending can be good to stimulate an economy. But Dubya's deficit
spending is hardlyh in areas that will do the economy any good.
Farm pork, tax-cuts-for-the richest 1%, military pork, and mostly other
bullshit.
Post by T.Carr
As far as "clinton care"..name on service where the feds lead in
quality, service, and cost
Actually I understand that federal health coverage is much more cost
efficient then private health care.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Long term deficits are not positive as debt increases and the cost
to service that debt competes with other expenditures.
The Fed has done its part to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts /
spending increases have been enacted by the Congress / President.
Post by abracadabra
Where is the deficit spending going?
Post 9/11 terrorism efforts (incl military)
Pork (ie farm bill)
social spending
How politic of you to leave out the
tax-cut-for-the-perfectly-nice-rich
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Tax cuts for the "perfectly nice rich that actually PAY INCOME TAXES
played a factor as well
We all pay taxes, silly.
Nice try to spin abra..the federal government and its taxes are all
that matters to this discussion. And contrary to your claim "everyne"
does not pay federal taxes
Everyone that earns a paycheck pays out federal taxes. Go get a job, earn a
paycheck, and look at your stub.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
I mean, Dubya claimed that he'd not go into deficit spending, and his
tax
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
cuts and increases in spending would'nt increase the deficit. Was he
lying?
Post by T.Carr
Nope. The projections at the time the tax cuts were proposed from
the CBO and OMB still showed surpluses.
So is Dubya going to rescind the tax cuts to pay for his "dozens of billions
of $" war in Iraq?
NOPE
No increases until the economy improves. Personally I support
spending cuts
We're seeing increases in spending on a weekly basis. What's Dubya's
adventure in Iraq going to cost us?
Post by T.Carr
So stop pretending that Dubya gives a crap about the fiscal future of this
country.
Stop pretending like yo understand basic econ
Again with the personal flames.
I can understand - if I had to defend a party that stood for nothing, that
was based on lies, and had a leader who's a drunk, I'd be frustrated too :-)
I only have to defend a party without a backbone that is trying to go in
three directions at once.
Post by T.Carr
He's only concerned with getting re-elected, so he can continue to
do nothing useful.
Its dangerous when you start believing your own propoganda
Dubya has always been interested in his poll numbers over everything else.
That's the truth.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
Are you lying?
Nope
It's kind of hard to keep up with allthe lies on the right
Try reading something than the DNC talking points
Cheapshot. If I did read DNC talking points I'd be doing better. I could
just copy and paste the things.
You rattle them off like "harry hope"
Yeeeesh, people can come to the same conclusion when they are right. Dubya's
an idiot and he's leading American down the wrong path. Everyone knows that.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
(although I think Franken, Conasan and COrn for writing books of the
lies of
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
the right)
You base your politics on Al Franken?
I think it's nioce that some out there are starting the massive lists needed
to point out all the lies on the right. It's too manyh to keep track of.
LIke Dubya's scandels.
Franken cant handle a decent debate..he explodes and blusters
LOL
Nice REPUBLICAN talking point. He can sure take on the likes of O'Reilly.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
How is it "ending the recession"?
By stimulating demand.
Is it? "Demand" doesn't seem to have dropped when President Clinton got
rid
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
of the Reagan Deficits, yet now we need it to stimulate demand?
Do I need to get the data to educate you again?
What did Clinton do again abra?
Other than the tax increase on 1993, you havent been able to
identify any significant contribution
Good job avoiding the question. I'll take it as a consession.
You brought up your hero ..again..and dodged about his so called
acomplishments..again.
I only said that President Clinton got us out of the messes Reagan and Bush
left us.
That doesn't make him my hero, although he's a better person then REagan
ever would be.
(Dubya's daddy did serve his country, which I can admire him for)
Post by T.Carr
"Demand" was already increasing before your hero was elected, and
before his retroactive tax cuts were enacted
Yep.
I'd rather have a lucky President.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
We
are still 2 million jobs short of where we were when the creep from
crawford
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
took office.
And we have 7 consecutitive quarters of economic growth from the
slowdown inherited from your hero
How pathetic. You still have to fall back "Blame Clinton"
C'mon, you can do better. Maybe you ought to drink real coffee again.
I have already posted the GDP data to prove the point
Who said there hasn't been some meager growth?
We're still a lot worse off then we were under President Clinton.
Really?..Unemployment was 5.7% at this time in your hero's
term..compared to 6.2% now.(www.bls.gov) Inflation under Clinton was
5.47%, Bush 4.47% (through the first 2 CY)
So? I'm talking about over 8 years. We were better off under President
Clinton.
Post by T.Carr
Doesnt seem to be "a lot worse" to me. Or are you making your claims
up as you go along..again
I only know what I read in the news. Here in the Carolinas things are
getting worse. Plus we have soldiers coming home dead and maimed. That'll be
Dubya's legacy I fear.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
I mean, if the deficit spending was actually going into the pockets
of
real
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
people, it might amount to something.
Real people that pay income taxes..you know the evilllll upper 50%
that pay 96% of the income taxes
Why do you always call rich people evil? Did a rich person step on your
toe?
Post by T.Carr
Its a sarcastic reply to the lefts demonizing of those that actually
pay taxes
We all pay taxes.
State/local taxes are you problem..not the feds
Its your side that only cares about well off people having
to pay taxes. You're fine with the rest of us paying taxes.
The evilll rich you so demonize
I haven't demonized the yet. You're putting words in m mouth!
Post by T.Carr
alreay pay the lions share of the
taxes. Any tax cut ought to be based on he amount pain if you want to
be "fair"
If they are already paying most of the taxes, and they seem to be doing just
fine, why not have them pay the rest?
Because you know the budget is balenced on all those other taxes, the
payroll taxes.
Post by T.Carr
Now if you want to play the left's game of income redistribution,
have the honesty to say so
I have always favored "Progressive taxation"
It works best for the country. And we seem to have no shortage of wealthy
folks.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
BTW, talking about income taxes and leaving out all the other taxes on
the
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
rest of us is deceptive.
The other federal payroll taxes are dedicated to specific programs,
with their own set of "progressive" benefits. I have not even factored
on the EIC into the calculations.
State / local taxes are your problem and not part of the Federal
budget
With all of the Republican unfunded mandates from DC, they are a state
problem coming from the RNC>
What new unfunded mandates are you referring to that did not exist
from 1993-2000?
That's funny, because I do recall Gingrich andhis Republican Reich running
AGAINST unfunded mandates.
How times have changed!
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
But a lot of it is because of Dubyas tax-cut-for-the-rich, and rich
folks
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
don't plow their extra money directly back into the economy like the
rest of
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
us do.
Credible cite please. the evillll "rich" buy SUV's, toys, invest in
businesses, etc...
LOL
Poor people (and most of us middle class types) put ALL our money into
the
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
economy. Rich people don't.
Wrong
NOPE. Rich people aren't going to plow 100% of their income straight into
the economy. Poor people are. So will a lot of the middle class.
Nope..the money is not buried in a matress
Personally I use a bank
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
"rich" people put money in the economy via different routes. They
dont bury in their backyard
Yeah, they send their kids and dogs to day spas. Glad they got the tax cut.
Yeah..they send their kids to college without government aid/loans
In North Carolina, the tuition of every kid, rich or poor, is subsidized. I
dunno how much of it is federal, but the state amount comes to something
like $5K/student/year.
Post by T.Carr
Post by T.Carr
THey don't eat more food, wear more clothes.
Post by abracadabra
They''ll put their money where it'll be safe until after the recession
is
Post by T.Carr
Post by abracadabra
over.
Like investing in businesses, realestate, building new homes, etc...
Sending their dogs to day spas, or paying the money to the Republicans as a
bribe for more tax cuts and less regulation.
So its the old class envy game with you?
"Class Warfare" is played whether or not I bring it up. The only way there's
no "class warfare" is when the rest of us surrender to the rich.
Post by T.Carr
How much of your neighbors sweat so you feel entitled to tax just
because you dont think he/she "needs" it?
Huh? I don't want to tax my neighbors. But I don't mind taxing Madonna to
help poor kids.
JAC
2003-09-01 13:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by abracadabra
Post by T.Carr
Less of a surplus is still a surplus..look it up
NOPE
We're in massive deficit spending, and the tax cuts are part of it. To
seperate it out when it's all part of the same budget process just to
bolster your weak argument is lame.
Do you understand the difference between a projection and today? We
aren't "in" deficit spending right now. We are projected to be in
deficit spending.

The tax cuts are a very low percentage of our projected deficit
spending. That is a simple fact.
Post by abracadabra
So you embrace a 480 billion $ deficit?
And, BTW, the pub's (your heros) were against health care for Americans
because it's add to the deficit. But of course, when it comes to paying off
wealthy cronies, that's different.
No projection needed.
Do you not understand the differ between government spending and the
reduction of taxes?
Post by abracadabra
Post by T.Carr
I have no problem with short term deficits to stimulate the economy.
I suspect most sane people with a iota of knowledge would agree
Well, I expect people with an IOTA of knowledge to agree with you.
But educated, thinking people will disagree with you.
Deficit spending can be good to stimulate an economy. But Dubya's deficit
spending is hardlyh in areas that will do the economy any good.
Farm pork, tax-cuts-for-the richest 1%, military pork, and mostly other
bullshit.
Then why has the economy grown (slowly) for nearly two years now?
Post by abracadabra
Post by T.Carr
As far as "clinton care"..name on service where the feds lead in
quality, service, and cost
Actually I understand that federal health coverage is much more cost
efficient then private health care.
And your expertise is?
Post by abracadabra
Dubya has always been interested in his poll numbers over everything else.
That's the truth.
It is important for you to learn the difference between fact an
opinion.
Post by abracadabra
So? I'm talking about over 8 years. We were better off under President
Clinton.
How so?
Post by abracadabra
I have always favored "Progressive taxation"
It works best for the country. And we seem to have no shortage of wealthy
folks.
I'd favor something too if I was the beneficiary.
Post by abracadabra
Huh? I don't want to tax my neighbors. But I don't mind taxing Madonna to
help poor kids.
How about letting Madonna help them on her own? What is your
fascination with having the government control it?
tasadar24
2003-08-29 02:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrianEWilliams
Unfortunately, the "rich" generally aren't lazy sycophants doing
nothing (that would be the "poor"), but they are productive members of
society that actually do useful things with their after-tax earnings.
Taxing them more discourages investment and even more productive
behavior, and it is no free lunch.
What about little Timmy that has to work at McDonalds? is he lazy?
JAC
2003-09-01 12:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
Why is that?
Where is the deficit spending going? How is it "ending the recession"?
There isn't a recession to end. The recession officially ended in
late 2001. Since then, the economy has been somewhere between flat
and +3% growth.
We
are still 2 million jobs short of where we were when the creep from crawford
took office.
I mean, if the deficit spending was actually going into the pockets of real
people, it might amount to something.
Please help us understand your logic by defining "real people" for us.
But a lot of it is because of Dubyas tax-cut-for-the-rich, and rich folks
don't plow their extra money directly back into the economy like the rest of
us do.
Did you not get a tax cut that was proportionate to what you paid?
Somehow I think you slept through your econ classes.
I don't remember studying "how to redistribute wealth" in college?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...