More Bad News For Libs

[LuvRPgrl]

Both parties do. The republicans control the House, Senate, and Presidency...and during their tenure, the Department of Education has seen big increases in it's budget. Which is sad, because Republicans used to be in favor of abolishing it (when they were out of power, conveniently enough). In many ways, Bush is really just LBJ 2.0.

nope, Real repubs want to abolish it, but since the elections have been so close in many areas, to appease the middle ground voters, they increase the funding so they dont look like "meanies". Vote to abolish it, and the "he hates kid", (ask Howard Dean) start coming out. Even reagan didnt abolish it like he promised.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's one of the stupidest posts I've read on this board..

well, thank YOU!

The GOP doesn't cut spending because they barely have a majority? That shouldn't mean SHIT. Stand by your principles or leave Washington. Oh wait, thats the whole point. None of the bastards in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, stick to honest principles..

Oh yea, you dont understand politics too well , do you? Thats nice in theory, but when a conservative congressman comes back to his district and has no federal funds coming to them for any projects, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PAYING INTO THE TAX POOL, he doesnt stand a chance at re election. Kinda hard to stand your ground if you aint even there.

Secondly, Bush's social security program WAS in theory a very expensive plan for the Federal government because they would of had to fill the empty Social Security trust fund..

Oh, so you are saying we will never have to eventually fill the empty trust fund?? Talk about stupid. In the long run, it would cut spending, because privatizing the SS funds would eventually mean that congress could no longer raid the fund.

Thirdly, you state "Guess who wants to expand the education beaurocracy at the federal level" GEORGE W. BUSH DOES. All this "No Child Left Behind" law states is a ton of mandates from the FEDERAL LEVEL. Teddy Kennedy helped on the bill, BUT IT WAS THE EDUCATION POLICY THAT BUSH RAN ON IN 2000..

DUH! He did it for political expediency. If he hadnt run on that, he wouldnt have gotten elected. They knew it would be tight, and he had to draw some swing voters in. Otherwise he wouldnt be able to do ANYTHING, imagine that, GORE as president right now, THANKS FOR STANDING YOUR GROUND DUDE!

The Republicans now a days bear almost no resemblence to Goldwater. My guess is that he would be ashamed of what the GOP has become.

I like the way you broadbrushed all the congress people. You know, some of them are very good people. But hell, read the stories about a few corrupt ones, and suddenly they are all corrupt. That kind of thinking ever get you anywhere?

You should understand that it took us half a century to get where we are today as for liberal spending. To the point that what is middle ground today, would have been considered ultra liberal high spending back in the 60's. It will take a long time to get it back to the middle or right. Those things dont happen overnight. The immediate bills wont reflect what President Bush has done, but his appointees to judicial posts, primarily the SCOTUS, will have very strong effects, but it wont start really taking hold on the economic level for many years yet.

 

[red states rule]

I am discussing the standard definition of a recession. I believe there was two consecutive quarters of negative growth in 2002. However, we are in agreement, there was never a serious recession, so the Democrats are wrong to nitpick on that, but it's also wrong for Republicans to nitpick on the fact that the tax cuts are bringing us out of a significant recession

How anyone can disput the results of the tax cuts?

The US economy has grown 20% over the last four years.

$2 Trillion dollars in economic growth

So much for the Dems and their jobless recovery rants

A record amount of tax revenue collected by the US Treasury last month

Total revenue flowing into DC is up nearly 16$ over last year

The budget deficit is going down

The libs will never understand basic economics.

 

[Hamiltonian]

How anyone can disput the results of the tax cuts?

The US economy has grown 20% over the last four years.

$2 Trillion dollars in economic growth

So much for the Dems and their jobless recovery rants

A record amount of tax revenue collected by the US Treasury last month

Total revenue flowing into DC is up nearly 16$ over last year

The budget deficit is going down

The libs will never understand basic economics.

So many of these statistics are misleading or irrelevant. On average, over 6 years the economy grows 21%, while in actuality it has grown by around 17%. We are experiencing below average growth.

Tax revenue as a function of time is an upward sloping curve. Every year we should be earning more tax revenue than the previous. The fact that just now, six years after the tax cuts, we are again reaching the same revenue levels as before the tax cuts does not indicate a large amount of success. Government revenue should have been increasing every year.

Our national debt has been going up, and going up ever since Bush took office. I'm no fan of Clinton, but at least he balanced the budget and had much less spending than Bush does. Some will say it was Congress, but how much has our Congress changed since 1998? Also, Bush has had the chance to veto bills in order to cut spending, yet he's almost never vetoed anything.

 

[JeffWartman]

well, thank YOU!

You're welcome

O

h yea, you dont understand politics too well , do you? Thats nice in theory, but when a conservative congressman comes back to his district and has no federal funds coming to them for any projects, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PAYING INTO THE TAX POOL, he doesnt stand a chance at re election. Kinda hard to stand your ground if you aint even there.

So in other words you're saying Republicans don't really believe in big government, they are just doing whatever it takes to get re-elected. That's dangerous. I thought Bush and the other Republicans "stuck to their guns"? Guess not.

Oh, so you are saying we will never have to eventually fill the empty trust fund?? Talk about stupid. In the long run, it would cut spending, because privatizing the SS funds would eventually mean that congress could no longer raid the fund.

How about you phase it out like a good Conservative? Oh, yea...you're a Republican, NOT a Conservative

DUH! He did it for political expediency. If he hadnt run on that, he wouldnt have gotten elected. They knew it would be tight, and he had to draw some swing voters in. Otherwise he wouldnt be able to do ANYTHING, imagine that, GORE as president right now, THANKS FOR STANDING YOUR GROUND DUDE!

Like I said above, I guess you Republicans don't believe anything, and will say anything to get elected. True Conservatives should be ashamed of what the GOP has become.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You're welcome

O

So in other words you're saying Republicans don't really believe in big government, they are just doing whatever it takes to get re-elected..

I never said that.

That's dangerous. I thought Bush and the other Republicans "stuck to their guns"? Guess not..

So, you always "stick to your guns" at all times on all issues? NOT very diplomatic of you.

How about you phase it out like a good Conservative? Oh, yea...you're a Republican, NOT a Conservative.

You have no idea what I am. But I am more consistent than most conservatives, especially the Buchanan conservatives. Nice of you to be quick to judgement however. I see where your many misconceptions come from.

Like I said above, I guess you Republicans don't believe anything, and will say anything to get elected. True Conservatives should be ashamed of what the GOP has become.

You may have said it, but that doesnt make it true. But I guess your words and your opinion are the begining and ending of all thats true.

 

[red states rule]

I damn near pity the Bush haters these days. Going through life, and day after day, be subjected to good economic news.

Nothing depresses these people more, then watching their talking points go up in flames

You want to piss off a liberal? Go to work, earn money, and be happy.

 

[T-Bor]

Your right. Working and earning money pisses liberals off. In fact I think all democrats live in poverty just to prove a point that working is bad. Jesus H Christ where did you get this guy ? What a freaking degenerate.

 

[nt250]

Yes, the name is from the mathematical tool. I've only used hamiltonians in physics. Some of my friends were majors in Econ, and they said that it never took very much math though.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say, but I left out a "not." The sentence should read:

"Here's an example: a reason to be surprised by low unemployment is because people are out of work, but have stopped looking for jobs, and therefore are not counted towards unemployment."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who does that. My most common typos are left out worlds or endings of words. I leave out a "not", or I'll write "should" instead of "shouldn't" or "could" instead of "couldn't". It's very embarrassing because it changes the whole meaning of what I meant to say. I once sent an email to a whole bunch of people, cc'd my boss on it, about a very contentious issue and I left out the word "not" in the most important sentence. I proof read the thing three times and I still didn't see it because everytime I read it, I knew what I meant to say, so I saw the not when it wasn't there.

Very embarrassing. Typos and spelling errors are bad enough, but at least using spell check can catch most of those.

 

[red states rule]

Your right. Working and earning money pisses liberals off. In fact I think all democrats live in poverty just to prove a point that working is bad. Jesus H Christ where did you get this guy ? What a freaking degenerate.

Dems want people in poverty

Dems want people dependent on a government program

The last thing Dems want is for people to live their lives without a government program taking care of them

 

[Huckleburry]

Red states,


Where on earth did you get those statistics? On average real economic growth (as measured by GDP) is between 1.5 to 2.5 percent a year. Conservatives are usually surprised by growth of around 3 - 4 percent. The New Economy V. Old Economy debate was fiercely argued over a single percentage point.

I think you may have miscalculated the growth rate. Or used the wrong formula to calculate it.

Also, tax receipts are likely linked to a few rather large industries which are experiencing abnormal returns. For example, ExxonMobil has recorded record profits as has, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Leehmen. The defense industry has also experienced strong returns which are paid for by US tax payers.

Before blasting libs for boorish interpretations of the economy it may be wise to examine your own statistics because the numbers you have thrown about here are highly suspect.

Lastly, the tax receipt numbers touted by Bush were later revised by the OMB and the Treasury. The WSJ journal ran a piece on it quite some time ago so some of your facts are popular dogma not facts.

As for your blanket statement about what Dems want it is a terrible argument. How do you know what all Dems want? Especially considering you are not a Dem.

Using your logic in reverse I could say the following.

Republicans want you to be afraid. They want you to be afraid because they are afraid. They are afraid of loosing power. Because they are afraid of loosing power they do inappropriate things. They can do inappropriate things because they have no morals. Because they have no morals they lie. Because they can lie they can have sex with young male pages. Because they can have sex with young male pages they can commit treason. Because they can commit treason they can take bribes. Because they can take bribes they are corrupt.

Therefore Republicans want you to be a morally bankrupt treasonous pedophile who takes bribes at the expense of his fellow citizens.


Pretty lousy argument. But it works with the O'Reilly crowd.

if you want to debate the economy great, but lets argue about where to go and how, rather than bickering over trumped up statistics and partisan talking points.

 

[red states rule]

Red states,


Where on earth did you get those statistics? On average real economic growth (as measured by GDP) is between 1.5 to 2.5 percent a year. Conservatives are usually surprised by growth of around 3 - 4 percent. The New Economy V. Old Economy debate was fiercely argued over a single percentage point.

I think you may have miscalculated the growth rate. Or used the wrong formula to calculate it.

Also, tax receipts are likely linked to a few rather large industries which are experiencing abnormal returns. For example, ExxonMobil has recorded record profits as has, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Leehmen. The defense industry has also experienced strong returns which are paid for by US tax payers.

Before blasting libs for boorish interpretations of the economy it may be wise to examine your own statistics because the numbers you have thrown about here are highly suspect.

Lastly, the tax receipt numbers touted by Bush were later revised by the OMB and the Treasury. The WSJ journal ran a piece on it quite some time ago so some of your facts are popular dogma not facts.

As for your blanket statement about what Dems want it is a terrible argument. How do you know what all Dems want? Especially considering you are not a Dem.

Using your logic in reverse I could say the following.

Republicans want you to be afraid. They want you to be afraid because they are afraid. They are afraid of loosing power. Because they are afraid of loosing power they do inappropriate things. They can do inappropriate things because they have no morals. Because they have no morals they lie. Because they can lie they can have sex with young male pages. Because they can have sex with young male pages they can commit treason. Because they can commit treason they can take bribes. Because they can take bribes they are corrupt.

Therefore Republicans want you to be a morally bankrupt treasonous pedophile who takes bribes at the expense of his fellow citizens.


Pretty lousy argument. But it works with the O'Reilly crowd.

if you want to debate the economy great, but lets argue about where to go and how, rather than bickering over trumped up statistics and partisan talking points.

The Dow hits another record, the US economy continues to grow, and most of the economic indicators continue to track in the right direction.

Meanwhile libs continue to bellow their doom and gloom message

How does the liberal media "report" good economic news?


Sound of Silence: Pro-Tax Media Caught Flat-footed by Shrinking Deficit
Posted by Rich Noyes on October 12, 2006 - 14:38.
Oops. Back in 2004, then-ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran argued President Bush’s tax cuts were building debt, not prosperity: “Most experts say that making those tax cuts permanent would cause gigantic deficits virtually as far as the eye can see.” Early last year, CBS’s Bob Schieffer suggested it would be impossible for the federal budget deficit to be cut in half before 2009 without raising taxes: “The government has just got to find some money to finance these programs.”

Well, the tax cuts haven’t been repealed, and there have been no big new tax increases. But yesterday the White House announced that final tallies for the federal government’s fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, the budget deficit had shrunk from $413 billion two years ago to $248 billion. The federal government collected $2.407 trillion in taxes in FY2006, $122 billion more than originally forecast back in February.

Memo to the media: Tax revenues increased because of strong economic activity, not an increase in tax rates (as liberal pundits claimed was necessary).

Last night, ABC and CBS skipped this good economic and budget news. NBC’s Brian Williams held himself to a 30-second story that aired 22 minutes into Wednesday’s Nightly News: “The federal government today released its official budget figures for the fiscal year just ended, and the good news is the deficit fell to its lowest point in four years. It's also the bad news, $248 billion higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals helped the bottom line this year. The problem is next year the deficit is expected to rise again, and long term, the budget will be strained by the retirement of those 78 million American Baby Boomers.”

What Williams did not say is that the Boomers’ retirement will “strain” the budget because of the array of liberally-inspired social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that tax American workers to pay ever-increasing benefits to (mostly) non-workers. And, as the MRC's Ken Shepherd caught, Williams did not repeat his allegation from July that the deficit success was obtained by cooking the budgetary books.

The good budget news flies in the face of what liberal journalists have been telling viewers for the last couple of years. Last month, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos got in the face of conservative Stephen Laffey, who was challenging liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee in the Republican primary. Stephanopoulos told Laffey that his “No taxes” pledge was irresponsible: “I mean, if the deficit continued to grow, it’s not responsible to say you’re never going to raise taxes....Ronald Reagan also increased taxes....So it’s, ‘Read my lips,’ you’re never going to vote to raise taxes?”

Back in May on Face the Nation, CBS’s Bob Schieffer fretted that “the ballooning deficit” was being obscured because of “silly issues” like making English the official language of the United States. At the time, the deficit was tens of billions of dollars lower than it was in 2005.

Last October, NPR’s Nina Totenberg ridiculed the idea of tax cuts given the government’s fiscal “mess.” She told the other journalists gathered for the Inside Washington roundtable that Democrats could easily use the issue of tax cuts to defeat Republicans: “One of the other things is you say, ‘Look, we’re in this mess fiscally and they want to increase the tax cuts for the most wealthy people in the United States, the top one half of one percent would get a hundred thousand dollars, people who make over a million dollars,’ or something like that.”

The most glaringly wrong prediction came from CBS’s Bob Schieffer on the February 8, 2005 Early Show. Co-host Hannah Storm asked Schieffer whether he thought President Bush could keep his 2004 campaign promise to halve the deficit from its predicted $520 billion within the next four years: “I want to ask you about the deficit because the President has pledged to cut the deficit in half by the time he leaves office in 2009. Is he going to be able to realistically achieve that goal without raising taxes?”

Schieffer said no. “I frankly don’t think so. I think in the end this President will raise taxes before his term is out, just like Ronald Reagan raised taxes after he enacted those enormous tax cuts at the beginning of his program. The government has just got to find some money to finance these programs.”

Today’s Early Show was silent on the new and improved budget numbers.

Schieffer made that prediction six months before Hurricane Katrina unexpectedly added to the federal government’s expenses, yet the Bush administration was able to beat the target by two years, without a major tax increase. Once again, journalists have failed to appreciate the power of lower tax rates to stimulate economic growth, which not only adds to the wealth of the private sector, but ends up returning more revenue to liberals’ cherished government.

http://newsbusters.org/