PDA

View Full Version : Leading Dems Say Social Security Is In Trouble and Promote Private Investments


RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 03:51 PM
"Everyone of you know that the social security system is not sound for the long-term." - <B>Bill Clinton</B>, <I>February 9, 1998</I>

"Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it the burden on society of having, of taking care of generation's social security obligations will lower your income." - <B>Bill Clinton</B>, <I>February 9, 1998</I>

"We must save social security for the twenty-first century." - <B>Bill Clinton</B>, <I>January 19, 1999</I>

"Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the social security proceeds, and putting it in the private sector." - <B>Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid</B>, <I>February 14, 1999</I>

"We have to move on now and start fixing social security." - <B>Sen. Charles Schumer</B>, <I>February 12, 1999</I>

"We need bold decisions to rescue social security." - <B>Sen. Hillary Clinton</B>, <I>February, 1999</I>

"Fixing social security is an urgent priority." - <B>Sen. Byron Dorgan</B>

SBK
02-16-2005, 03:57 PM
Those are all fake Im sure. jAZ told me.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:04 PM
Wow, nice misrepresentation.

Do you get paid by the Bush White House to post here?

To put those quotes in CONTEXT, something that you seem to be unfamiliar with, there was a SURPLUS at the time.

And the same person that told you we could have massive tax cuts for the wealthy, told you that it would NOT :
Send us into deficit spending
Force cuts in SS and Medicare
Destroy the surplus.

If was that wrong on the effect of his tax cuts, why the heck would you believe him on this issue?

Is there something he has done, EVER that would give him credibility on this subject?

Chief Henry
02-16-2005, 04:07 PM
Wow, nice misrepresentation.

Do you get paid by the Bush White House to post here?

To put those quotes in CONTEXT, something that you seem to be unfamiliar with, there was a SURPLUS at the time.

And the same person that told you we could have massive tax cuts for the wealthy, told you that it would NOT :
Send us into deficit spending
Force cuts in SS and Medicare
Destroy the surplus.

If was that wrong on the effect of his tax cuts, why the heck would you believe him on this issue?

Is there something he has done, EVER that would give him credibility on this subject?


I can't beleave how stale you've gotten in such a short time.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:13 PM
I can't believe that you can't answer basic questions, and choose to resort to tired insults.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:13 PM
Oh wait, yes I can.

Cochise
02-16-2005, 04:14 PM
I can't beleave how stale you've gotten in such a short time.

No kidding. I guess it's really not a flame out if you never offered anything to begin with though.

Radar Chief
02-16-2005, 04:17 PM
I can't believe that you can't answer basic questions, and choose to resort to tired insults.

:LOL: Throwing around insults only to cry about being insulted. Do you actually read what your posting? :spock:

Rausch
02-16-2005, 04:17 PM
Wow, nice misrepresentation.

Do you get paid by the Bush White House to post here?

To put those quotes in CONTEXT, something that you seem to be unfamiliar with, there was a SURPLUS at the time.


So what you're saying is that when the govt had MORE money than it needed, and these Dems were warning everyone about SS, that it's somehow LESS of a problem now that the budget is $#it and we're running out of money?

:spock:

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:23 PM
I'm saying that you would have to be an idiot to believe anything that Bush has to say on economics, given his track record.

Or do you think history started today?

Radar Chief
02-16-2005, 04:30 PM
I'm saying that you would have to be an idiot to believe anything that Bush has to say on economics, given his track record.

Or do you think history started today?

Ah great, now everyone that doesn’t believe exactly as you do is an “idiot”.
But at least you answered his question. :rolleyes:

Cochise
02-16-2005, 04:33 PM
Ah great, now everyone that doesn’t believe exactly as you do is an “idiot”.
But at least you answered his question. :rolleyes:

Wonder if this guy is burning4mansteak reincarnated :hmmm:

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:37 PM
Please provide ONE example of one of Bush's economic predictions coming true.

Please.

Donger
02-16-2005, 04:40 PM
Please provide ONE example of one of Bush's economic predictions coming true.

Please.

Easy. Tax cuts pulling us out of the 2001 recession.

Amnorix
02-16-2005, 04:42 PM
Easy. Tax cuts pulling us out of the 2001 recession.

So just for clarity's sake -- Clinton's economic initiatives early in his administration had nothing to do with the economic boom that followed, but Bush's tax cuts are solely responsible for pulling us out of the '01 recession. Is that right?

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:45 PM
Actually, he said it would create jobs.

We are still in a recession, no new net jobs have been created, and we are borowing a half a trillion dollars to make up for the shortfall in the budget.

NOT including Iraq, Afgahnastan, and his plan to privatize SS.

Did I mention the Medicare plan that has now doubled in cost?

Nice try.....
But you can't really be serious.

Cochise
02-16-2005, 04:47 PM
"create jobs".

no new NET jobs

I'd like to see your quote where he said he would create new NET jobs. Otherwise, I think you know good and well what you're saying here is deceptive at best.

Donger
02-16-2005, 04:47 PM
So just for clarity's sake -- Clinton's economic initiatives early in his administration had nothing to do with the economic boom that followed, but Bush's tax cuts are solely responsible for pulling us out of the '01 recession. Is that right?

Solely? No. I'm not of the opinion that government wields that much absolute power when it comes to the ecomony.

I think that the timing was absolutely perfect for the boom of the early 90s and that both Congress and Clinton rode it rather well.

But, I do think that there is a direct correlation between the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and the end of the recession.

Donger
02-16-2005, 04:49 PM
We are still in a recession.

According to whom?

As to the net creation of jobs, I believe that either has been accomplished or we're very close to it. Maybe I'm wrong, but sans contary evidence, I'll assume that you're FOS.

Cochise
02-16-2005, 04:50 PM
I think that the timing was absolutely perfect for the boom of the early 90s and that both Congress and Clinton rode it rather well.


I think that ".com" tells one a good deal of what they need to know about the gilded boom of the 90s.

Amnorix
02-16-2005, 04:50 PM
Solely? No. I'm not of the opinion that government wields that much absolute power when it comes to the ecomony.

I think that the timing was absolutely perfect for the boom of the early 90s and that both Congress and Clinton rode it rather well.

But, I do think that there is a direct correlation between the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and the end of the recession.

IMHO tax policy had less impact than what the Fed did, but I won't deny some correlation.

I'll repeat what I've said before many times -- I have no problem with tax cuts to boost the lagging economy, but those tax cuts were NOT, for the most part, tied to boosting the economy. Rather they were mainly tied to "fixing" (under Republican ideology) imperfections in the tax code.

Cochise
02-16-2005, 04:52 PM
According to whom?

As to the net creation of jobs, I believe that either has been accomplished or we're very close to it. Maybe I'm wrong, but sans contary evidence, I'll assume that you're FOS.

The definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of a decrease in Real GDP, such as the one that began in March 2001.

I'm sure that Lefty will be right along with those numbers to prove we are still in a recession.

Amnorix
02-16-2005, 04:53 PM
I'd like to see your quote where he said he would create new NET jobs. Otherwise, I think you know good and well what you're saying here is deceptive at best.

:spock: So you're saying when a President promises he'll create jobs, he DOESN'T mean on a net basis?

So if he creates 5 new jobs over here, and 500 are lost over there, for a total net loss of 495 jobs, that he has kept his promise.

You gotta be kidding me....

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:55 PM
Um, I beleive you are the one that is FOS.

After all, you didn't say I was wrong, you just said I was picking on your mommy and I must be evil.

He said it would stimulate the economy and create jobs.

We have a larger trade deficit now, we have a larger yearly deficit now, no new net jobs have been created.

In other words, we are WORSE off now than we were before his tacx cuts went into effect.

The same ones that he PROMISED would not send us into deficit spending.

He also promised that we would STILL have a surplus to deal with ANY emergency.

Was he lying, or is he just an idiot when it comes to economics?

Either way, why would anyone trust him now?

Donger
02-16-2005, 04:57 PM
Um, I beleive you are the one that is FOS.

After all, you didn't say I was wrong, you just said I was picking on your mommy and I must be evil.

He said it would stimulate the economy and create jobs.

We have a larger trade deficit now, we have a larger yearly deficit now, no new net jobs have been created.

In other words, we are WORSE off now than we were before his tacx cuts went into effect.

The same ones that he PROMISED would not send us into deficit spending.

He also promised that we would STILL have a surplus to deal with ANY emergency.

Was he lying, or is he just an idiot when it comes to economics?

Either way, why would anyone trust him now?

Whoa. WTF?

Are we still in a recession or not?

You claimed we are, so back it up or retract it.

Cochise
02-16-2005, 04:58 PM
:spock: So you're saying when a President promises he'll create jobs, he DOESN'T mean on a net basis?

So if he creates 5 new jobs over here, and 500 are lost over there, for a total net loss of 495 jobs, that he has kept his promise.

You gotta be kidding me....

It's a difference of improvement versus reversal. Or are you not used to politicians intentionally speaking in vagueries?

Create jobs means to create jobs. All I wanted was a quote from Lefty where the president says what he accuses him of saying.

Cochise
02-16-2005, 04:59 PM
Um, I beleive you are the one that is FOS.

After all, you didn't say I was wrong, you just said I was picking on your mommy and I must be evil.

He said it would stimulate the economy and create jobs.

We have a larger trade deficit now, we have a larger yearly deficit now, no new net jobs have been created.

In other words, we are WORSE off now than we were before his tacx cuts went into effect.

The same ones that he PROMISED would not send us into deficit spending.

He also promised that we would STILL have a surplus to deal with ANY emergency.

Was he lying, or is he just an idiot when it comes to economics?

Either way, why would anyone trust him now?

Are we in a recession, or are you (a) uninformed or (b) intentionally posting untruth?

Saggysack
02-16-2005, 05:00 PM
I bet PROPAGANDALEADER is real pleased with your responses guys...

Amnorix
02-16-2005, 05:03 PM
It's a difference of improvement versus reversal. Or are you not used to politicians intentionally speaking in vagueries?

Create jobs means to create jobs. All I wanted was a quote from Lefty where the president says what he accuses him of saying.

No President is going to say "net" jobs because half the electorate has no idea WTF "net" means.

IMHO it's absurd to think he doesn't mean net jobs if he speaks of job growth. Or would "growing the economy" mean a continued overall recession environment wherein some parts of the economy (say the IT sector) is booming but everything else is sucking???

It makes no sense.

Cochise
02-16-2005, 05:10 PM
No President is going to say "net" jobs because half the electorate has no idea WTF "net" means.

IMHO it's absurd to think he doesn't mean net jobs if he speaks of job growth. Or would "growing the economy" mean a continued overall recession environment wherein some parts of the economy (say the IT sector) is booming but everything else is sucking???

It makes no sense.

No, it is not a meaningful statement to say that I'm going to increase the revenues of my company by $500 this year but not saying what I will increase expenses by, I know this.

Come on, it's campaign talk. It goes on in every race anywhere. I know you've seen enough of this to know that no politicans set that kind of specifc goal/ That's why they give speeches about "I'll fight my heart out for working people" rather than saying "I'll decrease frictional unemployment by 3%". The guy on the other side of the ticket was doing the same thing and if he'd been elected, the same thing could be said of him.

I didn't say it was a meaningful statement. It's not. But it's hardly a bald-faced lie like Lefty is attempting to wield it as.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 05:23 PM
When he says that his tax cuts would be directly responsible for creating jobs, and there is no historical precedent for it, I call him a liar.

Especially when it DIDN'T happen.

If you think that America is in great shape that we are not in an unofficial recession, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Have wages increased in the last four years, stayed stagnant or dropped?

Have bankruptcies hit record highs in the last three years?

Are we still facing a massive deficit, both in spending and in trade?

How exactly do you claim that these are "positive" indicators?

How exactly do you claim that the tax cuts helped in any substansive way?

If I took 3 trillion dollars, and invested them in libraries, schools, roads and other infrastructure, inluding investment in renewable energies 5 years ago, how many jobs do you think would have been created?

More than by giving them to the wealthy with the "hope" that they will turn around and invest it in America?

Donger
02-16-2005, 05:30 PM
If you think that America is in great shape that we are not in an unofficial recession, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Well, there goes your credibility.

As has been pointed out, a "recession" is well defined, and we are presently not in one. By your apparent refusal to retract your assertion that we are presently in a recession, I can only assume that you're a dishonest hack.

FWIW, take a peek at Amnorix. He's a lefty, but a lefty with facts, honesty and integrity. I disagree with him about many things, but I respect him.

Sorry, but you just became moot.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 05:43 PM
So you are making the assertian that the economy and job market is just fine?

We do not have a trade deficit, or spending deficit?

Would you like to actually make your point using actual numbers, or an amorphous term such as "recession".

A recession is two quarters of negative growth, correct?

By that definition, how bad was the "Clinton" recession?

Donger
02-16-2005, 05:47 PM
So you are making the assertian that the economy and job market is just fine?

We do not have a trade deficit, or spending deficit?

Would you like to actually make your point using actual numbers, or an amorphous term such as "recession".

A recession is two quarters of negative growth, correct?

By that definition, how bad was the "Clinton" recession?

No. I'm not happy at all with Bush's "spendiness." I hate the fact that we have budget deficits and the inevitable increases to our debt.

But, that does not preclude the the fact that you are simply wrong about us still being in recession. It is not an "amorphous term" whatsoever; it is quantifiable.

And your repeated attempts to deflect and not retract your original assertion is borderline pathetic.

Again, provide proof that we are still in recession, or retract the assertion. Sans that, I'm as done with you as I would be any other yapping dog.

Bearcat2005
02-16-2005, 05:49 PM
I'm saying that you would have to be an idiot to believe anything that Bush has to say on economics, given his track record.

Or do you think history started today?
We had a recession assclown, what about the 2 million jobs created since the recession, you know that Clintons numbers and Bush's numbers are really close to the same if you compare the end of Clintons first term to Bush's first term. I suggest you pick up a book b/c I am starting to wonder if you are capable of a cognitive thought judging from you posts.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 05:56 PM
bearcat wrote: We had a recession assclown, what about the 2 million jobs created since the recession, you know that Clintons numbers and Bush's numbers are really close to the same if you compare the end of Clintons first term to Bush's first term.

I suggest you back that up before I even bother.
We are talking about NEW NET jobs.
Even dingle isn't trying to make the claim that he has created any NEW jobs.

And dingle, if we were to actually fund NCLB, refuse to borrow money to cover the deficit, and include the cost of the war in Iraq in the budget, and made the compaies pay the taxes that they are currently NOT paying (the ones that Bush told them that they didn't have to pay on foreign profits), would the economy look as good as it does now, or would we be in a recession?

Because I say that we are in a recession, but he is fudging the numbers to make it look like we aren't.

Donger
02-16-2005, 05:58 PM
Because I say that we are in a recession, but he is fudging the numbers to make it look like we aren't.

ROFL

And the inevitable conspiracy theory makes itself known.

Do you have any evidence that supports THIS assertion either?

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 06:01 PM
I asked you what the effect would be if those things were done.

What is your answer?
A. The economy would be just fine
B. It would take a big hit, but not go into recession
C. The recession would hit the fan.

You aren't saying that he is being honest with the American people about our financial situation, are you?

You don't really think that the deficits "don't matter" as Cheney has said, do you?

You don't really think that it is honest accounting to NOT include the costs of war, do you?

Donger
02-16-2005, 06:04 PM
I asked you what the effect would be if those things were done.

What is your answer?
A. The economy would be just fine
B. It would take a big hit, but not go into recession
C. The recession would hit the fan.

You aren't saying that he is being honest with the American people about our financial situation, are you?

You don't really think that the deficits "don't matter" as Cheney has said, do you?

You don't really think that it is honest accounting to NOT include the costs of war, do you?

Yeah. Sorry, but until you provide some proof that Bush is "fudging numbers" in order to hide the fact that we're still in a recession, you're talking to yourself.

You just put yourself into the fringe zone, and quite frankly, I don't waste my time with such people. I'd rather debate my dog.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 06:07 PM
How many examples do you require?

I'll start with the Medicare "reform" bill, and let you explain that one away.

It has now doubled, and the actuary told Congress that he was warned that he would lose his job if he told them what the real numbers were when they were discussing it.

Not including the costs of Iraq in the budget.

Those two should be a good start.
The Iraq war should be enough for anyone that isn't a Bush apologist, so we'll see where you stand, I guess.

Donger
02-16-2005, 06:11 PM
How many examples do you require?

I'll start with the Medicare "reform" bill, and let you explain that one away.

It has now doubled, and the actuary told Congress that he was warned that he would lose his job if he told them what the real numbers were when they were discussing it.

Not including the costs of Iraq in the budget.

Those two should be a good start.
The Iraq war should be enough for anyone that isn't a Bush apologist, so we'll see where you stand, I guess.

Do you even know what a recession is?

If so, please provide your definition.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 06:15 PM
I guess you missed it when I said it above.
Two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

That is why I have said that it is an amorphous term.

By the strict definitionm, no, we are not in a recession.

But if you think that we wouldn't be if Bush actually incuded the costs of the war alone into the budget, you are only kidding yourself.

You know what fiscal responsibility is, and by your own admission, you aren't happy with the current debt situation.

Why not take the next step and admit that he is fudging the numbners?

Donger
02-16-2005, 06:20 PM
By the strict definitionm, no, we are not in a recession.


Thank you. Jeezus, that was like pulling teeth.

Also, as you seem to have an affinity for history, I suggest you take a peek at fiscal history. The 2001 recession was over in late 2001.

Now, again, do I like Bush's spending and the present budget deficits? Absolutely not. In fact, it's my biggest gripe about him. I want fiscal discipline restored to the federal government, and I could care less which party does it. If a Democrat came around and put forth viable plans to get rid of our debt without bankrupting us, he/she's get my vote.

Donger
02-16-2005, 06:24 PM
I guess you missed it when I said it above.
Two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

That is why I have said that it is an amorphous term.

By the strict definitionm, no, we are not in a recession.

But if you think that we wouldn't be if Bush actually incuded the costs of the war alone into the budget, you are only kidding yourself.

You know what fiscal responsibility is, and by your own admission, you aren't happy with the current debt situation.

Why not take the next step and admit that he is fudging the numbners?

Sorry, but I didn't read the rest of your post.

I think that if you added up all the extraneous debts that you mention, they would still not have the requisite $$$ to put us into a recession. The economy, while not growing by leaps and bounds, is still relatively strong.

Prove me wrong.

SBK
02-16-2005, 10:30 PM
When he says that his tax cuts would be directly responsible for creating jobs, and there is no historical precedent for it, I call him a liar.

Especially when it DIDN'T happen.

If you think that America is in great shape that we are not in an unofficial recession, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Have wages increased in the last four years, stayed stagnant or dropped?

Have bankruptcies hit record highs in the last three years?

Are we still facing a massive deficit, both in spending and in trade?

How exactly do you claim that these are "positive" indicators?

How exactly do you claim that the tax cuts helped in any substansive way?

If I took 3 trillion dollars, and invested them in libraries, schools, roads and other infrastructure, inluding investment in renewable energies 5 years ago, how many jobs do you think would have been created?

More than by giving them to the wealthy with the "hope" that they will turn around and invest it in America?

Here's a good example of left thinking vs right thinking.

Lefty here would tell me that all of these bankruptcies, wage decreases and such are the governments fault.

I would tell you that if you budgeted right you wouldn't have to go BK. I would tell you if you aren't making enough money go get a better job. Or better yet, start your own company.

I think Bush could tell this guy that the sky is blue and he'd still call him a liar. :thumb:

KCWolfman
02-16-2005, 10:52 PM
I'm saying that you would have to be an idiot to believe anything that Bush has to say on economics, given his track record.

Or do you think history started today?
What about Alan Greenspan, do you have to be an idiot to believe anything he says about economics?


The post above is exactly why the liberals lost their hold - keep calling everyone who disagrees with you an "idiot" or a "moron", you just bring more people to the polls against your prejudiced hatred.

jAZ
02-16-2005, 10:57 PM
"Everyone of you know that the social security system is not sound for the long-term." - <B>Bill Clinton</B>, <I>February 9, 1998</I>

"Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it the burden on society of having, of taking care of generation's social security obligations will lower your income." - <B>Bill Clinton</B>, <I>February 9, 1998</I>

"We must save social security for the twenty-first century." - <B>Bill Clinton</B>, <I>January 19, 1999</I>

"Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the social security proceeds, and putting it in the private sector." - <B>Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid</B>, <I>February 14, 1999</I>

"We have to move on now and start fixing social security." - <B>Sen. Charles Schumer</B>, <I>February 12, 1999</I>

"We need bold decisions to rescue social security." - <B>Sen. Hillary Clinton</B>, <I>February, 1999</I>

"Fixing social security is an urgent priority." - <B>Sen. Byron Dorgan</B>
Thanks for making the case that SOLVENCY is the issue.

Now if you will kindly show me how Private Accounts fixes the issue of solvency, we can all go home.

Oh wait, you can't. Because the issue of solvency has nothing to do with private accounts. That's an ideological red herring that the Republicans are trying to hitch onto the front of the solvency train.

"The problem is that the tires on your POS car are all flat."

"Well, we must buy new Spinners!!! (Oh, and a patch kit too.)."

:banghead:

Michael Michigan
02-17-2005, 12:00 AM
Blah, blah, blah

What would Eason Jordan do?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 12:47 PM
What I said is that tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs, and it does not stimulate the economy.

The only reason someone would make more widgets is if there was a market for them.

Sure, SUV's and diamond bracelet sales are up.

But as far as the consumer market, we are paying twice what we were for gas (what ever happned to cheap gas under Bush, by the way, wasn't that one of the right's mantra's?) ans all consumables have gone up in price to match shipping costs.

People are NOT better off, and intead of investing in their infrastructure, the CEO's gave themselves HUGE raises, and laid off even more people.

That has everything to do with Bush's tax cuts, and nothing to do with my personal budget.

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 12:50 PM
What I said is that tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs, and it does not stimulate the economy.

The only reason someone would make more widgets is if there was a market for them.

Sure, SUV's and diamond bracelet sales are up.

But as far as the consumer market, we are paying twice what we were for gas (what ever happned to cheap gas under Bush, by the way, wasn't that one of the right's mantra's?) ans all consumables have gone up in price to match shipping costs.

People are NOT better off, and intead of investing in their infrastructure, the CEO's gave themselves HUGE raises, and laid off even more people.

That has everything to do with Bush's tax cuts, and nothing to do with my personal budget.Need I remind you that gas went over $2/gallon in 2000. Yes, Clinton was still in office.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 12:51 PM
I think you are wrong.

Can you provide a link?

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 12:56 PM
I think you are wrong.

Can you provide a link?Nope, and nope..

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:00 PM
Well, I looked it up, and you are right.

I guess I can be the adult today, but it is your turn tomorrow.

What did Clinton do about it?
Because I remember the price coming down for a while.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:00 PM
President warns of economic impact on nation
June 22, 2000
Web posted at: 12:54 p.m. EDT (1654 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Warning that the surge in gas prices could ripple through the U.S. economy, President Clinton said Thursday there's no "economic justification" for the $2 and up a gallon charged in parts of the Midwest. He expressed confidence that a Federal Trade Commission investigation would find an explanation.

"We need an aggressive inquiry by the FTC," Clinton told reporters outside the White House. "There is no economic explanation I can think of, particularly for the run-up in prices in the Midwest."

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 01:01 PM
I think you are wrong.

Can you provide a link?http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/06/22/gas.prices.01/


Clinton, like motorists, puzzled by U.S. gas price hikes



:D

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:01 PM
Kinda like the power "crisis" in California?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:02 PM
Even mainstream press reports prove that the Kuwaiti's were the driving force behind the gas price crisis. The Reuters news agency reported that Kuwaiti Oil Minister Sheik Saud Nasser al-Sabah was calling for oil production cuts as early as October 13, 1998. Six months later, OPEC held a one-day meeting and agreed to cut production by 4.3 million barrels. "I can describe the current situation as a step in the right direction," Saud said at the end of the March 10, 1999 meeting.

George W. Bush formed a Presidential exploratory committee and begun raising campaign money that same week.

The cuts caused oil prices to triple over the next year. American gasoline prices began skyrocketing in mid-January, increasing for 10 consecutive weeks before reaching a historic average high of $1.59 per gallon for unleaded regular by late March. That was an increase of nearly 60 cents since prices bottomed out at 99.8 cents per gallon in February 1999, according to a Lundberg Survey report. And, as spring turned to summer, industry analysts began warning of $2 a gallon prices and gas shortages during the summer holiday driving season.

The OPEC production cuts were only scheduled to last through March 2000. But before the year was out, the Kuwaiti's were already working behind the scenes to keep gas prices high. "The possibility of extending the cuts beyond their March 2000 term has now become a reality, and I emphasize ther word reality," the Hemscott Information Exchange quoted him as saying on December 2, 1999.

Sure enough, as March 2000 rolled around, Kuwait was already lobbying other OPEC members against restoring the full 4.3 million barrel a day cut enacted the previous year. Instead, Kuwait was pushing for a mere 1.7 million barrel a day increase. The International Energy Agency, a government-backed advisor to the world's largest consuming nations, said OPEC needed to boost production by at least 2.3 million barrels a day to meet rising demand and replenish reserved.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:03 PM
After the OPEC meeting, the White House began lobbying non-OPEC oil countries to increase production. The Administration thought it could bring gas prices down even more if countries such as Mexico and Norway began flooding the market with additional oil. But OPEC was one step ahead of them.

As it turned out, OPEC had approved an automatic triggering mechanism to keep gas prices high. According to Algeria's Mining and Energy Minister Chakib Khelil, OPEC nations will cut or raise production if crude oil prices stray from the $22 to $28 dollar a barrel range. "Prices will probably fall slightly within the next two months,'' Khelil said after returning from the Vienna meeting. "But we have set up a mechanism that will protect OPEC against substantial drops. If prices fall under $22 a barrel, we will automatically cut by 500,000 bpd. If prices go beyond $28 we will raise production by 500,000 barrels per day. These measures will be taken automatically without the need for an OPEC meeting."

This all but assures that gas prices will stay relatively high through the November Presidential election, hurting Al Gore and giving George W. Bush an ongoing campaign issue - just like his father planned.

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 04:44 PM
President warns of economic impact on nation
June 22, 2000
Web posted at: 12:54 p.m. EDT (1654 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Warning that the surge in gas prices could ripple through the U.S. economy, President Clinton said Thursday there's no "economic justification" for the $2 and up a gallon charged in parts of the Midwest. He expressed confidence that a Federal Trade Commission investigation would find an explanation.

"We need an aggressive inquiry by the FTC," Clinton told reporters outside the White House. "There is no economic explanation I can think of, particularly for the run-up in prices in the Midwest."
Looks like he did nothing but suggest an inquiry that never produced squat.

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 04:45 PM
Kinda like the power "crisis" in California?
Yeah, you would think a governor would have a grasp of the situation there. I guess that is why he was voted out before his term was even up.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 01:44 PM
KCWolfman
Originally Posted by Lefty_the_Right
Kinda like the power "crisis" in California?

Yeah, you would think a governor would have a grasp of the situation there. I guess that is why he was voted out before his term was even up.

Funny that you should mention that.
You do know that tapes have come out proving that Enron and other power companies were shutting down power plants to cause the "crisis".

Don't you?
Or are you ignorant of the facts?

Grey Davis was drummed out of office by the republican party, who said he was crazy, and talking about conspiricy theories.

Now that he has been vindicated, you would think that "law and order" conservatives would be all about righting a wrong.

But Bush republicans aren't conservatives.
Heck, they aren't even American's.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 02:19 PM
Wow, nice misrepresentation.

Do you get paid by the Bush White House to post here?

To put those quotes in CONTEXT, something that you seem to be unfamiliar with, there was a SURPLUS at the time.

And the same person that told you we could have massive tax cuts for the wealthy, told you that it would NOT :
Send us into deficit spending
Force cuts in SS and Medicare
Destroy the surplus.

If was that wrong on the effect of his tax cuts, why the heck would you believe him on this issue?

Is there something he has done, EVER that would give him credibility on this subject?

:doh!:

1. There was no surplus, unless you want to take a shot at explaining why the deficit went up EVERY YEAR under Clinton.

2. If there was a problem with a supposed "surplus" as you claim, doesn't it stand to reason that there would be more of a problem without one?

Liberal logic hard at work and on full display... :shake:

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 02:23 PM
So just for clarity's sake -- Clinton's economic initiatives early in his administration had nothing to do with the economic boom that followed, but Bush's tax cuts are solely responsible for pulling us out of the '01 recession. Is that right?


I've asked repeatedly (from you too Amnorix) to simply show how the tax increases of 93 led to the economic boom of the late 90s. Bush's tax cuts helped make the recession (that Clinton's supposedly "robust" economy delivered) more shallow, but so did tons of deficit spending and historically low interest rates.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 02:26 PM
I'm afraid you don't understand what a "deficit" is, if you think that anyone declared a surplus while we had one.

That is an amazing leap of logic.

Not to mention that you are making George W. Bush a complete liar.

After all, what were his tax cuts about, if not the surplus?

Was he lying, or are you?

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 02:30 PM
Actually, he said it would create jobs.

We are still in a recession, no new net jobs have been created, and we are borowing a half a trillion dollars to make up for the shortfall in the budget.

NOT including Iraq, Afgahnastan, and his plan to privatize SS.

Did I mention the Medicare plan that has now doubled in cost?

Nice try.....
But you can't really be serious.

Man, you're brainwashed. A recession is typically defined as two back-to-back quarters with negative growth...something that hasn't happened since Q2, 2001 (which you can hardly pin on Bush, considering his economic plan didn't pass until Q3, 2001). We have some of the best growth in the industrialized world despite 9/11 and the war on terror. The net job growth is also subjective...its unfortunate for Bush's overall figures that the market crashed at the end of 2000 and the economy slowed before he took office and we were attacked, but historically we're doing better than almost any time in the last 30 years. We also added more than 2 million jobs last year with something like 14 months of job increases in a row.

As far as the budget and prescription drug benefit are concerned, however, I'm with you on those although I think spending a trillion now on social security (putting aside any other benefit privitization may have) is better than spending five or six or ten times that amount later.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 02:32 PM
Ring, by sending more people to college, putting more cops on the street, and making investments in infrastructure and technology.

More college graduates means more advances in science and technology.

More cops means more secure streets, business can stay open later and have less shoplifting and robberies, meaning more profit to be reinvested.

The investments in infrastructure and technology led to jobs being created in the US because of the availability of highly educated people with new infrastructure and a high technology and research base.

It's all connected.

Cochise
02-18-2005, 02:32 PM
Man, you're brainwashed. A recession is typically defined as two back-to-back quarters with negative growth...something that hasn't happened since Q2, 2001 (which you can hardly pin on Bush, considering his economic plan didn't pass until Q3, 2001).

I tried to get him to produce those recession numbers earlier, but it became clear he was just throwing the word around in a meaningless context.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 02:36 PM
Ring, if you follow the whole conversation, I said that a recession is two consecutinve quarters of negative growth.

I also said that if all the money that is being spent was actually incuded in the budget, it would have a massive negative impact on the economy, and we would be in a recession.

After all, Bush's tax cuts STILL haven't created any new net jobs.

And wages have stagnated or dropped.
Am I wrong?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 02:37 PM
Have Bush's tax cuts created any NEW jobs?

You do know the difference between the 23 MILLION NEW jobs that were created under Clinton, and what we have today, don't you?

Cochise
02-18-2005, 02:41 PM
Ring, if you follow the whole conversation, I said that a recession is two consecutinve quarters of negative growth.

I also said that if all the money that is being spent was actually incuded in the budget, it would have a massive negative impact on the economy, and we would be in a recession.

After all, Bush's tax cuts STILL haven't created any new net jobs.

And wages have stagnated or dropped.
Am I wrong?

Ok, so if we calculate a recession by some other way than the way it's always been calculated, we'd have a recession. Got it.

And by calculating net worth by some other way than net worth is calculated, I'm a f***ing millionaire. That ain't going to buy me a Benz though.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 02:42 PM
No President is going to say "net" jobs because half the electorate has no idea WTF "net" means.

IMHO it's absurd to think he doesn't mean net jobs if he speaks of job growth. Or would "growing the economy" mean a continued overall recession environment wherein some parts of the economy (say the IT sector) is booming but everything else is sucking???

It makes no sense.


Depends how you want to look at it. If you want to take the first month Bush was in office and compare it to his four-year mark I think he lost something like 200K jobs (although there are still two months of corrections coming so that number could change) based on the business survey of non-farm payroll. If you peg it to the first day his economic policy was enacted the number doesn't change much. If you exclude the three months after 9/11 (which I know you'll agree had something to do with the jobs market Amnorix, even though a lot of libs will actually debate that) Bush actually gained about a million jobs during his first term. Most economists say it takes 18-24 months for new economic policy to become law and in that case Bush generated about 3.5 million jobs.

Then again, if you use the household survey numbers from the labor department and include the recession numbers that happened before Bush's economic policy was enacted and 9/11 and the war on terror Bush generated more than a million jobs.

I don't put these numbers out because they're all that great on their own (although we are close to the definition of full employment and close to the same point Clinton was at this point in his presidency - when everyone was remarking how great the economy was), nor do they show some impressive recovery...just to refute some of the claims that are erroneous or open to debate. A crappy economy would be one that isn't growing at all or one that has an unemployment rate greater than 6.0 or 6.5%. We're just not there.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 02:44 PM
I'm saying that Bush is keeping BILLIONS off budget.

That is dishonest, and how can anyone say we know were we are financially?

If it was on budget, and he had to raise taxes to pay for the war and other plans, what would that do to the economy?

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 02:48 PM
When he says that his tax cuts would be directly responsible for creating jobs, and there is no historical precedent for it, I call him a liar.

Both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts led to job growth, economic growth and higher revenues to the treasury. In fact, the Bush tax cuts have led to higher revenues to the treasury.

If you think that America is in great shape that we are not in an unofficial recession, then I have a bridge to sell you.

"Unofficial" recession? ROFL

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 02:49 PM
FWIW, take a peek at Amnorix. He's a lefty, but a lefty with facts, honesty and integrity. I disagree with him about many things, but I respect him.


Me too.

:thumb:

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 02:53 PM
And dingle, if we were to actually fund NCLB, refuse to borrow money to cover the deficit, and include the cost of the war in Iraq in the budget, and made the compaies pay the taxes that they are currently NOT paying (the ones that Bush told them that they didn't have to pay on foreign profits), would the economy look as good as it does now, or would we be in a recession?


Lefty buys into another myth...that NCLB isn't funded. It is funded EXACTLY as the bill specified. The Dems want to spend more and consequently say it isn't funded. The truth is that Bush has spent more dollars on education than any other president in history and has increased education spending on a percentage basis more than every other president except Lyndon Johnson.

Also, please elaborate on your claim that business doesn't pay the taxes that it is supposed to pay. I'd really like to hear this one.

Cochise
02-18-2005, 02:58 PM
Lefty buys into another myth...that NCLB isn't funded. It is funded EXACTLY as the bill specified. The Dems want to spend more and consequently say it isn't funded. The truth is that Bush has spent more dollars on education than any other president in history and has increased education spending on a percentage basis more than every other president except Lyndon Johnson.

I don't think he really believes or investigates any of this tripe. He's been busted on multiple things now in this very thread that he was just repeating without knowing if they were true or not (recession, NCLB).

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:02 PM
Thanks for making the case that SOLVENCY is the issue.

Now if you will kindly show me how Private Accounts fixes the issue of solvency, we can all go home.

Oh wait, you can't. Because the issue of solvency has nothing to do with private accounts. That's an ideological red herring that the Republicans are trying to hitch onto the front of the solvency train.

"The problem is that the tires on your POS car are all flat."

"Well, we must buy new Spinners!!! (Oh, and a patch kit too.)."

:banghead:


If you weren't so obtuse you'd have gotten it by now Jaz:

1. Borrow and/or raise the capped rates for taxable income to fund the transition to private accounts (a cost that is lower than the payout under the current system),

2. Augment what social security is capable of paying out (i.e. don't keep borrowing to keep the system afloat) with income generated from the private accounts that generate higher rates of return.

Or you can just keep believing that everything is OK, that borrowing a half-trillion a year just for social security after 2042 is a great plan and go whistling into the night. I've stated that I'm for means testing and for raising the taxable thresholds to reduce the amount that needs to be borrowed to fund the transition. Your idea is to let people keep funding a broken social security system and put even more money into private accounts (something you can already do and something that doesn't address the fundamental problem of how you pay out the projected benefit after 2042).

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:03 PM
What I said is that tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs, and it does not stimulate the economy.


Then why did revenues to the Treasury increase?

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:11 PM
Ring, if you follow the whole conversation, I said that a recession is two consecutinve quarters of negative growth.

Yeah, about 50 posts in and after trying to claim we're in some kind of "unofficial" recession, whatever the hell that means. ROFL

I also said that if all the money that is being spent was actually incuded in the budget, it would have a massive negative impact on the economy, and we would be in a recession.

You can't argue that there are huge expenditures that aren't in the budget, but you can't automatically deduce that if they were included in Bush's budget that we would have a recession. That's foolish.

After all, Bush's tax cuts STILL haven't created any new net jobs.

And wages have stagnated or dropped.
Am I wrong?

Net new jobs depends on how you look at it. I don't expect you to give Bush any benefit of the doubt so, like I posted earlier he has a net negative job number if you want to claim that the first day he took office he owned the economy. If you don't and if you concede that 9/11 had some impact on the jobs picture it looks better. Then again, if you want to use the Household Survey numbers from the Labor Department then Bush was president when the economy created more than a million new jobs despite the recession and 9/11.

Wages have grown, but they haven't kept pace with inflation and especially benefits costs which went up in a big way over the past 18 months (from 2003), although most of the "recovery" happened in 2004 so we won't really begin to know the impact to Bush's first-term for another half-year.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:19 PM
I'm saying that Bush is keeping BILLIONS off budget.

That is dishonest, and how can anyone say we know were we are financially?

If it was on budget, and he had to raise taxes to pay for the war and other plans, what would that do to the economy?


It's dishonest in the same way Johnson's budget was dishonest by including surpluses from social security and other trust funds in the first place to make his final budget appear balanced. ;)

But all partisanship aside, you're absolutely correct that the budget doesn't include the costs of the war, the costs of social security privatization and the costs of other things like revamping the AMT. But I think the fact that you know about these things and I know about these things probably means that most of the people in congress know about these things too. :thumb:

Lastly, if you look at the budget projections from Bush's first day in office to now the amount of spending is up a bit, but the real problem is that revenues aren't where they were projecting them almost entirely because they projected capital gains tax revenue to continue at the same unrealistic pace it had grown between 95 and 2000. The vast, vast, vast majority of the shortfall in the present budget is because of revenue decreases which tax cuts help.

You mentioned California earlier and they had the same problem. They got budget projections when the dot-com boom was in full swing and made the incorrect assumption that the unnaturally good times would last forever. When they corrected and companies that had absolutely no business ever existing in the first place faded away, the whole model went to sh!t and they were looking at exploding deficits.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:21 PM
Ring said: Also, please elaborate on your claim that business doesn't pay the taxes that it is supposed to pay. I'd really like to hear this one.
That isn't what I said.

What I said is that Bush gave corps a window to not pay taxes on foreign profits, under the guise that they would invest in America and create American jobs.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0206windfall06.html

It hasn't, because they aren't.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:22 PM
New York Times
Feb. 6, 2005 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - When Congress passed a one-time tax break on foreign profits last autumn, lawmakers said their main purpose was to encourage American companies to build new operations and hire more workers at home.

As corporations are gearing up to bring tens of billions of dollars back to the United States this year, adding jobs is far from their highest priority. Indeed, many companies say they may end up cutting workforce.

Hewlett-Packard, which has accumulated $14 billion in foreign profits and lobbied intensively for the tax break, announced Jan. 10 that it would continue to reduce its workforce this year

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:25 PM
Ring said: You mentioned California earlier and they had the same problem. They got budget projections when the dot-com boom was in full swing and made the incorrect assumption that the unnaturally good times would last forever. When they corrected and companies that had absolutely no business ever existing in the first place faded away, the whole model went to sh!t and they were looking at exploding deficits.

No,they got jacked by Enron and the rest of the power whores.

Are you denying that tapes have now come out proving it?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:27 PM
Ring said: The vast, vast, vast majority of the shortfall in the present budget is because of revenue decreases which tax cuts help.

Um, government revenue is based on tax reciepts, isn't it?

How can lowering what your intake is, increase the amount you take in?

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:30 PM
That isn't what I said.

What I said is that Bush gave corps a window to not pay taxes on foreign profits, under the guise that they would invest in America and create American jobs.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0206windfall06.html

It hasn't, because they aren't.



So let me ask you this...if you make those American companies that are operating in foreign countries pay the local taxes AND US taxes how do those companies compete with local competitors that do not have to pay 2x the tax? Also, why should subsidiaries in foreign countries that never repatriate that revenue be forced to pay tax on money that is never used in the US (beyond just punishing them for being successful enough to make money in another country).

There are plans to give incentives to business to make foreign funds subject to the IRS, but if you can't create an environment where American companies can grow competively in foreign markets then you're going to impact trade on any number of levels.

The stupidity of this was on full display in John Kerry's "bold" tax plan that would tax foreign incomes of US companies while simultaneoulsy lowering corporate tax rates. It was revenue-neutral jibber-jabber.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:33 PM
No,they got jacked by Enron and the rest of the power whores.

Are you denying that tapes have now come out proving it?


Yep, Enron jacked them. But the bigger problem was that Gray Davis didn't get into long-term deals when it would have benefited the state and then signed away the future at higher rates just before the power markets went much lower. Combined with his inability to move quickly when revenues fell cooked his goose.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:36 PM
Um, government revenue is based on tax reciepts, isn't it?

How can lowering what your intake is, increase the amount you take in?


You just exposed your lack of knowledge.

Kennedy lowered taxes...revenues went up.
Reagan lowered taxes...revenues went up.
Bush lowered taxes...revenues went up.

The revenues go up, Lefty, because the tax cuts stimulate the economy, more people have more money to spend, more people are hired to provide the goods and services that the people with more money are purchasing, which translates into more revenues across the board. You can pretend not to understand it, or you can really not understand it, but the fact is that revenues have increased after each of these tax cutting events was put in place.

Cochise
02-18-2005, 03:38 PM
How can lowering what your intake is, increase the amount you take in?

Wow, you're not exactly the editor in chief of Economist, are you? :spock:

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:42 PM
It only makes sense if that money is acually invested in America.

Otherwise it goes right out the window, doesn't it?

If it sits in the Bahama's, or builds a factory in China, how does that help the US economy?

And if Reagan's tax cuts were such a great idea, why did he them raise them every year after?

And even more illustrative that they were a complete failure, an obscure southern governor beat Bush Sr. with a very simple phrase.

"It's the Economy, stupid!"

If the economy was doing as well as republicans claim, they never could have used it in the first place, let alone make an impact.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:44 PM
According to the CBO the revenues into the Treasury are up 9.4% year-over-year...about $177 billion more this fiscal year than last. Revenues are also up from 2001, but expenditures have gone up almost $600 billion (which is why you won't get any argument from me about the deficit).

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:45 PM
ring wrote: Yep, Enron jacked them. But the bigger problem was that Gray Davis didn't get into long-term deals when it would have benefited the state and then signed away the future at higher rates just before the power markets went much lower. Combined with his inability to move quickly when revenues fell cooked his goose.

Never let it be said that conservatives can't feel compassion for the rapist.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 03:57 PM
It only makes sense if that money is acually invested in America.

Otherwise it goes right out the window, doesn't it?

If it sits in the Bahama's, or builds a factory in China, how does that help the US economy?

I don't know that it does...other than making the American HQ possibly need more people to supply materials/R&D for export to these subsidiaries.

And if Reagan's tax cuts were such a great idea, why did he them raise them every year after?

And even more illustrative that they were a complete failure, an obscure southern governor beat Bush Sr. with a very simple phrase.

"It's the Economy, stupid!"

Yep. Raising taxes didn't do much for the economy, did it?

If the economy was doing as well as republicans claim, they never could have used it in the first place, let alone make an impact.

Again, Bush Sr. raising taxes and the Dems not following through on the promises to cut spending definitely dragged the economy. And I continue to defy any liberal to show me exactly how Clinton's tax plan worked so well before the dot-com bubble started in 95 or worked so well after that bubble burst in 2000.

Also, just looked at the data and the unemployment rate now is 5.2% versus 5.3% at the same time during Clinton's presidency.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:03 PM
You know that the unemployment numbers do not represent people that aren't looking for work, don't you?

That percentage means nothing, you need to look at actual payroll, which is almost at where it was when Clinton left office.

Meaning that due to population growth, no NEW jobs have been created.

If what you say is true, raising taxes ever year since 1983 hurt the economy, shouldn't Clinton tax hike in 1993 have made the economy even worse?

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:06 PM
Never let it be said that conservatives can't feel compassion for the rapist.

I should have figured you'd eventually try to hide your stupidity by being a dick. I can only guess that no one in your family has ever been raped.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:08 PM
Why don't you explain to me why you are blaming Grey Davis for what happened?

Have you forgotten the crap he took from Druggie Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Liely, and the rest of the republican party?

You are blaming the victim, aren't you?

Radar Chief
02-18-2005, 04:10 PM
I should have figured you'd eventually try to hide your stupidity by being a dick. I can only guess that no one in your family has ever been raped.

It’s pretty much what I’d have expected, can’t refute the information your providing so LTR resorts to just throwing out more uninformed rhetoric.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:18 PM
Kinda like showing up and chiming in without reading the thread first?

Look out, that's irony, and it's gonna leave a mark.

Radar Chief
02-18-2005, 04:21 PM
Kinda like showing up and chiming in without reading the thread first?

Look out, that's irony, and it's gonna leave a mark.

Yea, in the shape of an L on your forehead. ROFL

Chief Henry
02-18-2005, 04:23 PM
You just exposed your lack of knowledge.

Kennedy lowered taxes...revenues went up.
Reagan lowered taxes...revenues went up.
Bush lowered taxes...revenues went up.

The revenues go up, Lefty, because the tax cuts stimulate the economy, more people have more money to spend, more people are hired to provide the goods and services that the people with more money are purchasing, which translates into more revenues across the board. You can pretend not to understand it, or you can really not understand it, but the fact is that revenues have increased after each of these tax cutting events was put in place.



This is always something the dems have had problems with :thumb:

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:27 PM
You know that the unemployment numbers do not represent people that aren't looking for work, don't you?

That percentage means nothing, you need to look at actual payroll, which is almost at where it was when Clinton left office.

Meaning that due to population growth, no NEW jobs have been created.

If what you say is true, raising taxes ever year since 1983 hurt the economy, shouldn't Clinton tax hike in 1993 have made the economy even worse?

Civilian Payroll in January, 2001: 137,771,000
Civilian Payroll in January, 2005: 140,241,000
Net Gain: 2,470,000

Annual averages in 2000: 136,891,000
Annual averages in 2004: 140,156,000
Net Change: 3,265,000

Both from the Household Survey (which has done much better over the past 8 months than I thought). Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics if you don't believe me.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:28 PM
Giving moeny to the consumers is FINE!

I totally and completely agree with you in principal.

But Bush didn't give the majority of the tax cuts to the people that would spend it.

He gave it to the wealthy, saying that they are the ones that create jobs.

Remember?
It was a "Job creation bill".

I'm not arguing the concept of capitalism and a middle class being the foundation.

I'm saying that "Supply side economics" is exactly what Poppy Bush called it in 1980.

VOODOO ECONOMICS.
Are had you all forgotten about that?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:29 PM
Hey ring, include population growth if you want to keep the factors that I mention involved.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:37 PM
Why don't you explain to me why you are blaming Grey Davis for what happened?

Have you forgotten the crap he took from Druggie Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Liely, and the rest of the republican party?

You are blaming the victim, aren't you?


ROFL

I'll wager I've spoken to Gray Davis more recently than you have, jackass.

Gray Davis screwed up by making deals that were stupid. He thought he could negotiate lower rates and when PG&E and Edison ran into trouble he paniced and ordered the legislature to follow his lead and start buying energy up out-of-state at inflated rates. He didn't lock in when he should have and then locked in when he shouldn't have. The fact that every response to deficits was to increase taxes and yield to the ultra-left also contributed to his downfall.

Making rapist comparisons after I agree with your words about Enron but then give you some additional info that you may not have been aware of is quite revealing IMO.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:38 PM
Why don't you explain to me why you are blaming Grey Davis for what happened?

Have you forgotten the crap he took from Druggie Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Liely, and the rest of the republican party?

You are blaming the victim, aren't you?


Holy crap, I totally missed the part where you were calling Gray Davis a victim...WOW...I mean, just...WOW.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:44 PM
Giving moeny to the consumers is FINE!

I totally and completely agree with you in principal.

But Bush didn't give the majority of the tax cuts to the people that would spend it.

He gave it to the wealthy, saying that they are the ones that create jobs.

Remember?
It was a "Job creation bill".

I'm not arguing the concept of capitalism and a middle class being the foundation.

I'm saying that "Supply side economics" is exactly what Poppy Bush called it in 1980.

VOODOO ECONOMICS.
Are had you all forgotten about that?


Rich pay a bigger percentage of the taxes collected now than they did before the Bush tax cuts. Again, it's a function of economic growth, a function of reducing the rates on the lower income Americans and it's a fact I'm sure, like the earlier point I made about revenues increasing after tax cuts, that you'd rather ignore than rebut.

The only reason the rich got more of a dollar return is because the rich pay more out of each dollar of taxes. The tax rate is progressive and, as I showed, the revenues aren't the problem...it's the spending that has ballooned out of control.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:45 PM
Hey ring, include population growth if you want to keep the factors that I mention involved.

The BLS figures are adjusted.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:46 PM
Saying that he was responsible for Enron screwing California is the same thing as blaiming the rape victim for dressing "slutty" to follow your anology of what he did or didn't do.

Seeing how it has been proved that power plants were shut down to cause the "crisis" I don't see how you can continue to downplay their role?

And when Cheney was out there saying that the US government woudln't enact price caps, and saying that California had brought it on themselves, all the while meeting with Lay and others in his "secret energy meetings", making excuses at this point is ridiculous.

Talk about an apologist!

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:48 PM
Civilian Payroll in January, 2001: 137,771,000
Civilian Payroll in January, 2005: 140,241,000
Net Gain: 2,470,000

Annual averages in 2000: 136,891,000
Annual averages in 2004: 140,156,000
Net Change: 3,265,000

These are numbers, not percentages.
How exactly are they "adjusted" for population growth?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:51 PM
According to the chart that you linked, unemployment as a percentage of the population has gone up every year under Bush, and it went down every year under Clinton.

It's your link, care to dispute it, now that it has made my point?

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:53 PM
Saying that he was responsible for Enron screwing California is the same thing as blaiming the rape victim for dressing "slutty" to follow your anology of what he did or didn't do.

Seeing how it has been proved that power plants were shut down to cause the "crisis" I don't see how you can continue to downplay their role?

And when Cheney was out there saying that the US government woudln't enact price caps, and saying that California had brought it on themselves, all the while meeting with Lay and others in his "secret energy meetings", making excuses at this point is ridiculous.

Talk about an apologist!


Well, if you want to point me to where I said he was reponsible for Enron inflating rates then I guess you could play your mental gymnastics and conclude that I was blaming Gray Davis (which quite a few Californians ultimately did) for what Enron did. Unfortunately, for your twisted logic I never did such a thing. I pointed out that Gray Davis could have avoided the whole issue but ultimately reacted to problems with PG&E and Edison by urging that the state buy more supplies from out of state.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:54 PM
The second to last column on the left lists unemployment by percentage of the population.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:58 PM
According to the chart that you linked, unemployment as a percentage of the population has gone up every year under Bush, and it went down every year under Clinton.

It's your link, care to dispute it, now that it has made my point?


You said there were no more people employed now than when Clinton left office. I showed you that the Household Survey shows otherwise. If you want to look at the non-farm payroll (which is what most people quote) then you have to take into account a whole different set of variables.

You also seemed to miss that the population figures were not seasonally adjusted.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 05:01 PM
I have to get back to writing...anyway to sum up the thread:

Lefty is Right believes:

Lowering taxes lowers revenues (wrong)
There is no historical evidence showing lower taxes helps the economy (wrong)
The NCLB bill is not fully funded as envisioned (wrong)
There are no more jobs now than when Clinton left (wrong)
The percentage of people working now is lower than at the same time under Clinton (wrong)
That we are in a recession (wrong)

and my favorite:

Gray Davis was a victim (WOW)

Thanks for the laughs Lefty...

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:01 PM
I said that no new jobs had been created, and that using the unemployment numbers doesn't take that into account.

Your chart proved my point.

When conservatives pull out the unemployment numbers as "proof" that it is the same as it was when Clinton left office, they are stating a falsehood.

Agreed?
Your own chart says so.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 05:02 PM
I said that no new jobs had been created, and that using the unemployment numbers doesn't take that into account.

Your chart proved my point.

When conservatives pull out the unemployment numbers as "proof" that it is the same as it was when Clinton left office, they are stating a falsehood.

Agreed?
Your own chart says so.

You also seemed to miss that the population figures were not seasonally adjusted.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:04 PM
You provided that chart.

Are you now saying that I shouldn't use it to make my point?

If Reagan/Bush, and now W Bush policies are so great, why is it that they also result in RECORD SETTING DEFICITS?

Are you saying that they don't matter?
And they have a long term effect on the economy?

Or is that you know the Dem's will pull us out of it again, as they have every time before?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:05 PM
Your own chart says that unemployment under Bush has gone up every year as a percentage of the population.

Are you saying that it is wrong?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:12 PM
Wow, I use your own chart and you go freakin' nuts on me.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 05:16 PM
Your own chart says that unemployment under Bush has gone up every year as a percentage of the population.

Are you saying that it is wrong?


:doh!:

I don't think you understand some basics of economics Lefty. I gave you that link based on your assertion that the number of jobs was the same. You're now trying to use it to make a completely different point, averaging it against the population, even after I've highlighted (twice) that the population figures have not been seasonally adjusted.

I don't need you to admit that you don't get it for that to be, at the end of the day, not only a fact - but a fact borne out of your various claims about what constitutes a recession, your inability to understand that revenues have always gone up with a tax cut, or any of your other claims. You just kind of bounce around making one uninformed conclusion after another, never bothering to look behind and address how truly uninformed you were to begin with.

I will give you points for at least conceding that we're not in a recession by the "technical" standards...but even then you couldn't squirm away without first claiming that we were in an "unofficial" recession.

ROFL

Now I REALLY have to get back to work...

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 05:18 PM
Wow, I use your own chart and you go freakin' nuts on me.


ROFL

I think if I inferred that you were a rapist-apologist because of your POV that might qualify as going "freakin' nuts" on you. I haven't done that to you. I'm just pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:24 PM
When I am comparing year to year, why would I care about "seasonal adjustments"?

I said that Bush's tax cuts have not created any new NET jobs, and I have been consistant on that point.

Other conservatives have butted in and tried to say that the tax cuts DID create jobs.

Your own chart shows that unemployment by percentage of the population under Clinton went down, and under Bush it has gone up.

When you subtract the number of jobs "created" in the last five years, they do NOT keep up with population growth.

Just as I point out the BILLIONS of dollars that are being kept "off budget", conservatives are actively "spinning" the facts to make them seem better than they are.

If Bush was running an honest budget, he would already have had to raise interest rates, and taxes.

And that would put us into a recession.

That is just my opinion, but it based on the real numbers that conservatives are loathe to discuss.

Well, not REAL conservatives.
Just Bush-republicans.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:27 PM
The other point is that when you tossed out the "unemployment" numbers, I was right when I said they were not reliable.

They are being spun, just like the budget.

How else can you explain the percentage being higher by population, but not according to the Bush administration?

Calcountry
02-18-2005, 05:33 PM
I'm saying that you would have to be an idiot to believe anything that Bush has to say on economics, given his track record.

Or do you think history started today?I think that Al Qaeda took several trillion out of ours and more out of the world economy.

I have a degree in economics. Not that that makes a big fuggin difference.

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 05:38 PM
When I am comparing year to year, why would I care about "seasonal adjustments"?

I don't know...ask Clinton and Kerry why they use the adjusted numbers to arrive at their 23 million new job number.

I said that Bush's tax cuts have not created any new NET jobs, and I have been consistant on that point.

And I already addressed this.

Other conservatives have butted in and tried to say that the tax cuts DID create jobs.

They didn't hurt job creation.

Your own chart shows that unemployment by percentage of the population under Clinton went down, and under Bush it has gone up.

And for a third time I have to point out that you're dividing an adjusted number against a non-adjusted number.

When you subtract the number of jobs "created" in the last five years, they do NOT keep up with population growth.

Depends on the time-frame you use and whether or not you want to consider the recession that Bush inherited and 9/11 had any impact on the economy. As I said before, if you're a partisan and you don't like Bush you'll claim that he needs to live with them just as I've tried to get someone from the left to explain how Clinton's economic policies would look without the dot-com boom.

Just as I point out the BILLIONS of dollars that are being kept "off budget", conservatives are actively "spinning" the facts to make them seem better than they are.

And I agreed with you that there are expenses that will happen that aren't in the budget...although your claim that he should be including social security costs when there's not even a plan is a bit weak (I think that was you who said that, but all you lefties are starting to run together).

If Bush was running an honest budget, he would already have had to raise interest rates, and taxes.

Oops...I have to add another to your list of greatest hits on this thread...I didn't know that Bush controlled interest rates. ROFL For that matter he doesn't unilaterally control tax rates either. ROFL

And that would put us into a recession.

You still haven't proven that one.

That is just my opinion, but it based on the real numbers that conservatives are loathe to discuss.

And you are apparently loathe to post...because so far I haven't seen you post anything to back up any of your conclusions. I'm particularly interested to see you post info that shows a recession isn't two quarters of negative growth, how a president can increase interest rates and how Bush is supposed to add the cost of projects that aren't even a reality yet.

Well, not REAL conservatives.
Just Bush-republicans.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 05:41 PM
The other point is that when you tossed out the "unemployment" numbers, I was right when I said they were not reliable.

They are being spun, just like the budget.

How else can you explain the percentage being higher by population, but not according to the Bush administration?


Unspin them then. Show me how the Bureau of Labor Statistics is wrong when they say that current unemployment is at 5.2% now and was at 5.3% at this point in Clinton's term. Don't just whine about them being wrong...go over there and find the table that uses the correct figures in both columns and post it over here and prove your point.

jAZ
02-18-2005, 06:25 PM
Can I play? I like tables too!

Check out mine!

Federal revenues from 1999 to 2004 (in billions):

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
$1,827.5 $2,025.2 $1,991.2 $1,853.2 $1,782.3 $1,880.1




Total Economy from 1999 to 2004 (in billions):

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
$9,268.4 $9,817.0 $10,128.0 $10,487.0 $11,004.0 $11,728.0

So much for the notion that cutting taxes increases Federal Revenues...

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 06:36 PM
ring wrote: Unspin them then. Show me how the Bureau of Labor Statistics is wrong when they say that current unemployment is at 5.2% now and was at 5.3% at this point in Clinton's term.

Look at your own chart!

It says that there are more unemployed people now than there were in 2000.

How can there be more unemployed people, but the rate stays the same?

jAZ
02-18-2005, 06:44 PM
Look at your own chart!

It says that there are more unemployed people now than there were in 2000.

How can there be more unemployed people, but the rate stays the same?
Fudging the numbers with by playing with the "entering the workforce" variable?

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 07:09 PM
Can I play? I like tables too!

Check out mine!

Federal revenues from 1999 to 2004 (in billions):

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
$1,827.5 $2,025.2 $1,991.2 $1,853.2 $1,782.3 $1,880.1




Total Economy from 1999 to 2004 (in billions):

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
$9,268.4 $9,817.0 $10,128.0 $10,487.0 $11,004.0 $11,728.0

So much for the notion that cutting taxes increases Federal Revenues...


And the CBO projections for fiscal 2005...which were already exceeded in the first reporting quarter with a year-over-year increase of more than 11%, have total revenues up nearly $200 billion over 2004.

BTW, thanks for posting the numbers that show how well the US economy has grown under Bush...not many countries can show average growth that good in the past four years. When you further consider the growth during the past two years when the full effect of the tax cuts has been felt it is even more impressive (more than 5% per year).

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 07:16 PM
Fudging the numbers with by playing with the "entering the workforce" variable?


OK, you give it a try Jaz. The Dept. of Labor show current employment at 5.2%...that is lower than what they showed for Clinton at this time. I'm not going to say that there aren't variables in the figures that can be monkey'd with, but Lefty just hasn't graced us with his explanation of how the DL is doing it to make things look so much rosier than he claims. He does claim we're in an "unofficial recession" because Bush didn't provide the figures for plans that haven't been created yet and that, if he did, Bush would have to raise interest rates (news to Greenspan, I'm sure) and taxes to increase revenues that he can't seem to understand are going up because of the tax cuts.

So please give it your best shot.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 07:20 PM
Um, ring, the numbers of your chart, and the assertian that you make using DOL's numbers don't jibe.

Plus, saying that Bush's and Bill numbers are similar is to play with the facts.

Bill inherited much WORSE numbers from Poppy Bush, right after those amazing Reagan/Bush years, and improved them each year.

This Bush on the other hand....

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 07:26 PM
Bill took the unemployment rate from 6.9 in 1993, down to 5.4 in 1996.

Bush on the other hand came in with a rate of 4.7 and brought it up to 5.5, after going as high as 6.0 last year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you really trying to equate the two?

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 07:33 PM
Why did you bring this idiot here jaz, WTF are you thinking? Tell me the truth jaz is this guy Thomas, he acts just like him.

jAZ
02-18-2005, 07:41 PM
And the CBO projections for fiscal 2005...which were already exceeded in the first reporting quarter with a year-over-year increase of more than 11%, have total revenues up nearly $200 billion over 2004.

BTW, thanks for posting the numbers that show how well the US economy has grown under Bush...not many countries can show average growth that good in the past four years. When you further consider the growth during the past two years when the full effect of the tax cuts has been felt it is even more impressive (more than 5% per year).
Are you still going to try and claim that lower taxes cause higher revenues? Or after seeing the numbers that show an increasing economic base each year with lower revenues... are you giving up on that bogus ideological BS?

jAZ
02-18-2005, 07:41 PM
Why did you bring this idiot here jaz, WTF are you thinking? Tell me the truth jaz is this guy Thomas, he acts just like him.
I'm thinking that if he's pissing you off, he's found a home.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 08:09 PM
I'm thinking that if he's pissing you off, he's found a home.

Nice spin, you still never answered my question is it Thomas?

jAZ
02-19-2005, 02:33 AM
Nice spin, you still never answered my question is it Thomas?
Yes I did... but you asked it in so many places that you seem to have lost track.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2285523&postcount=118

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 08:36 AM
Bill took the unemployment rate from 6.9 in 1993, down to 5.4 in 1996.

Bush on the other hand came in with a rate of 4.7 and brought it up to 5.5, after going as high as 6.0 last year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you really trying to equate the two?
Really, how did Clinton do this on his own? Or did Republican Controlled CONGRESS do the above?

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 08:37 AM
Nice spin, you still never answered my question is it Thomas?
BD - It is not Thomas, just another drone from D'ur America and Dundergound.

RINGLEADER
02-19-2005, 10:39 AM
Bill took the unemployment rate from 6.9 in 1993, down to 5.4 in 1996.

Bush on the other hand came in with a rate of 4.7 and brought it up to 5.5, after going as high as 6.0 last year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you really trying to equate the two?


I think I've said this a few times now: If you don't want to attribute any value to the fact that economic change requires 1.5-2.0 years to take effect, the dot-com boom and 9/11 then Clinton looks great compared to Bush in terms of job creation. I haven't argued that.

But if you apply the lag time then Clinton starts somewhere between 5.4% and 5.7% (which is 18-24 months from when his budget deal was signed in August, 1993) and ends between 5.8% and 6.2% (which is 18-24 months from when Bush's budget deal was signed).

I don't expect Lefty or Jaz to concede that 9/11 had an impact on the economy or that economists who feel that the day after a budget is passed the economy doesn't immediately feel the results (or acknowledge that tax cuts have been phased in). But there's no denying that the percentage of unemployed was falling when Clinton took office (from 7.3% when he took office to 6.8% when his budget deal passed and 5.8% a year later) and rising when Bush took office (from 4.2% when he took office to 4.6% when his budget deal passed and 5.8% a year later).

RINGLEADER
02-19-2005, 10:44 AM
Are you still going to try and claim that lower taxes cause higher revenues? Or after seeing the numbers that show an increasing economic base each year with lower revenues... are you giving up on that bogus ideological BS?

Few things Jaz:

1. The tax cuts are phased in. The tax cuts of 2003 are just now being felt.

2. When the bulk of the tax cuts have taken effect we've seen the greatest increase in revenues. In fact we've had year-over-year tax revenue increases for the past three quarters.

3. The tax cuts spurred the economy. Without them the recession would likely have been much longer (that's a common sense deduction, but I accept the fact that you might not agree).

4. Your 2000 figures still contain tax revenues that were a by-product of the dot-com boom. Pull out the capital gains revenues and make that line-item revenue neutral and you'll get a much different picture.

5. I believe 9/11 had an impact on the economy as a whole. It appears you don't.

6. There is a lag-time between the date that new budget policy is passed and it begins to actually impact the economy. I agree with economists that it is 18-24 months...what do you think it is?

patteeu
02-19-2005, 12:28 PM
I'm saying that you would have to be an idiot to believe anything that Bush has to say on economics, given his track record.

Or do you think history started today?

Maybe someone has pointed this out to you by now, but this thread is about what the Democrats had to say about SS. It had nothing to do with Bush. You are the only one bringing Bush into the conversation at this point.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:37 PM
Maybe someone has pointed this out to you by now, but this thread is about what the Democrats had to say about SS. It had nothing to do with Bush. You are the only one bringing Bush into the conversation at this point.
Hatred keeps some obsessive compulsives alive.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:51 AM
Yeah, you guys are right.

Bush isn't flying around the country right now trying to sell his plan, right?

Bush has nothing to do with this, so why should anyone being HIM up?

What a bunch of slack jawed yokels.

I used to say that you guys could come home and find Bush in bed with your wife, and all he'd have to say is: "See! I told you she was cheating on you!"
And all would be forgiven.

Now with the Jim Guckert "affair", I say that it could be your son, and he'd say: "See! I told you he was queer!"

And you would offer to help change the sheets.

BIG_DADDY
02-20-2005, 03:54 AM
Yeah, you guys are right.

Bush isn't flying around the country right now trying to sell his plan, right?

Bush has nothing to do with this, so why should anyone being HIM up?

What a bunch of slack jawed yokels.

I used to say that you guys could come home and find Bush in bed with your wife, and all he'd have to say is: "See! I told you she was cheating on you!"
And all would be forgiven.

Now with the Jim Guckert "affair", I say that it could be your son, and he'd say: "See! I told you he was queer!"

And you would offer to help change the sheets.

Quite possibly the worst post ever.

Taco John
02-20-2005, 04:16 AM
Quite possibly the worst post ever.



If it weren't so accurate... I just read a thread from Joe Seahawk, who I've got more respect for than just about anybody on this board, complain about Democrats shutting conservatives out of the Democratic process, without commenting once, even when challenged on the point, that the Bush Administration did exactly the same thing throughout the campaign.

Taco John
02-20-2005, 04:16 AM
Hatred keeps some obsessive compulsives alive.



You would know.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 09:19 AM
You would know.
Absolutely, in your case your obsession was so severe it was labeled the Lazarus system. You came back from the "delete my account, I am going home to momma" dead.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 09:25 AM
Bill took the unemployment rate from 6.9 in 1993, down to 5.4 in 1996.

Bush on the other hand came in with a rate of 4.7 and brought it up to 5.5, after going as high as 6.0 last year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you really trying to equate the two?
Again, how did Clinton do this? Please give specifics.

I had no idea the POTUS created jobs and corrected the economy. I was under the assumption that he passed bill created by Congress to create jobs and correct the economy - a Republican controlled Congress.

Take the Bill Clinton hard-on out of your mouth, it is very unattractive.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 11:51 AM
Try not changing the subject, KC, especially when you were NOT the person the comment was directed at.

I answered that question already in another post, by the way.

And you aren't someone that I am going to repeat it for.

It would obviously be a waste of time.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 11:58 AM
Try not changing the subject, KC, especially when you were the person the comment was directed at.

I answered that question already in another post, by the way.

And you aren't someone that I am going to repeat it for.

It would obviously be a waste of time.
translation - I know it was the Republican Congress that balanced the budget and kept unemployment low, but I don't want to admit it.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:05 PM
Not ONE republican voted for Clintons budget in 1993.

What is your next excuse?
After all, don't you guys like to say that any ecoomic plan doesn't have any effect for several years?

By that logic, the expansion was due to Clinton's budget, and the fall was due to the republicans.

And I know that Clinton warned Congress about making CEO stock options a huge part of their compensation.

It is almost like he predicted Ken Lay and Enron.
After all, it was the conservatives that changed the rules that allowed Enron to happen in the first place.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:14 PM
Not ONE republican voted for Clintons budget in 1993.

What is your next excuse?
After all, don't you guys like to say that any ecoomic plan doesn't have any effect for several years?

By that logic, the expansion was due to Clinton's budget, and the fall was due to the republicans.

And I know that Clinton warned Congress about making CEO stock options a huge part of their compensation.

It is almost like he predicted Ken Lay and Enron.
After all, it was the conservatives that changed the rules that allowed Enron to happen in the first place.
Clinton stopped be POTUS in 1993? Damn, that history class was a waste of time, wasn't it?

Or are you stating that economic decisions take 7 years to take effect?

Either way, you are going to have some of your previous quotes brought back to make you look even more foolish.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:08 PM
Where did I say that Clinton wasn't the POTUS after 1993?

Can't you even follow a simple conversation?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:40 PM
Where did I say that Clinton wasn't the POTUS after 1993?

Can't you even follow a simple conversation?
So you are saying that changes made in 1993 enabled a stronger country in 1998 due to the POTUS? But the current POTUS doesn't get that long of an evaluation period, even after the worst disaster on American soil in the history of the US?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:49 PM
I think you are trying to muddy the water, KC.

Where did I say that Clinton wasn't the POTUS after 1993?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:54 PM
I think you are trying to muddy the water, KC.

Where did I say that Clinton wasn't the POTUS after 1993?
Not at all, I made a singular point with two sentences and you parsed only what you wanted out of it because you know you are wrong.


You are a petty little angry man and honestly, I hope you continue to represent the body of your party to insure further elections that will favor me in taxation and SC decisions.

Good luck, LeftisttheBitter

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:57 PM
KC wrote: Clinton stopped be POTUS in 1993? Damn, that history class was a waste of time, wasn't it?

Where did I say that Clinton wasn't the POTUS after 1993?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:01 PM
Where did I say that Clinton wasn't the POTUS after 1993?
Where did I state YOU SAID Clinton wasn't POTUS?

Sarcasm lost once again on the mentally feeble.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:26 PM
What's the matter?

You don't like being taken out of context?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:16 PM
Few things Jaz:

1. The tax cuts are phased in. The tax cuts of 2003 are just now being felt.

2. When the bulk of the tax cuts have taken effect we've seen the greatest increase in revenues. In fact we've had year-over-year tax revenue increases for the past three quarters.

3. The tax cuts spurred the economy. Without them the recession would likely have been much longer (that's a common sense deduction, but I accept the fact that you might not agree).

4. Your 2000 figures still contain tax revenues that were a by-product of the dot-com boom. Pull out the capital gains revenues and make that line-item revenue neutral and you'll get a much different picture.

5. I believe 9/11 had an impact on the economy as a whole. It appears you don't.

6. There is a lag-time between the date that new budget policy is passed and it begins to actually impact the economy. I agree with economists that it is 18-24 months...what do you think it is?
In the end, 9/11 doesn't matter, phasing in tax cuts don't matter, none of this is relevant....

Because the numbers show that the economy grew (if slowly) each year (even during/after 9/11) and that each year it grew, the revenues went down. You can't talk your way past that.

It doesn't matter that 9/11 happened, because the economy didn't shrink... it grew. It doesn't matter that the tax cuts were phased in because revenues shrunk for 4 straight years.

RINGLEADER
03-05-2005, 01:57 PM
In the end, 9/11 doesn't matter, phasing in tax cuts don't matter, none of this is relevant....


ROFL

Just frickin' classic...

So tell me, how long from the point that Bush signed his tax policy into law was it felt by the economy?

RINGLEADER
03-05-2005, 01:59 PM
It doesn't matter that 9/11 happened, because the economy didn't shrink... it grew. It doesn't matter that the tax cuts were phased in because revenues shrunk for 4 straight years.


Actually, using your own chart, there was an increase in revenues year-over-year in the past fiscal year. And in the first two quarters of fiscal 2005 the revenues have increased (CBO projection for this current year, which have already been exceeded, shows growth in revenues of more than 10%).

Calcountry
03-05-2005, 07:02 PM
Are we in a recession, or are you (a) uninformed or (b) intentionally posting untruth?We are still in a Recession, because Bush is president.

Had Kerry won, the 250 K jobs that were just created would have been due to his "quick action", and rapid implementation of "his plan", which we are now never going to find out what it was anyways.

RINGLEADER
03-06-2005, 06:28 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111625

ROFL