How can he use words, immoral and unethical and keep a straight face??

[Stephanie]

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Monday, Nov. 7, 2005 2:02 p.m. EST
Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts 'Immoral', 'Unethical'


Ex-president Bill Clinton is blasting President Bush's economic policies as "immoral" and "unethical," saying he blames administration tax cuts for increasing hostility towards the U.S. around the world.

"I hear all this talk about family values and all this stuff," Clinton told an audience at the University of Minnesota on Saturday, before explaining how an old friend had been hurt by cuts in subsidies for Americans in need while the wealthy got tax cuts.

"I resent it," Clinton said, his voice rising in anger. "I think it's immoral, I think it's unethical."

"Nobody ever explains what the meaning of those tax cuts are," he told the crowd. "So we're going to give them their tax cuts first and then go ask the Chinese to loan us money to help save the lives of the young men and women we send into combat."

The Minnesota crowd applauded as the ex-president continued to paint the White House as fiscally irresponsible in a way that shortchanges other countries.

"We think it's important to help poor people in the world but we're going to suck up 80 percent of the savings in the world, which could be going to invest somewhere else because we think tax cuts for people who make a million dollars a year are more important," he railed.
"I don't think it's ethical. And I know it's terrible economics," Clinton declared, before tying the Bush tax cuts to increasing U.S. unpopularity around the world.

"Until this country walks away from it, we are going to pay the price. They know we do this. Don't you think people around the world know we do this? And don't you think this has something to do with the way they look at us?"

Clinton touted his own economic record, saying it compared favorably with the supply side policies implemented under President Reagan and Bush 41.

"When I was president we moved 100 times more people out of poverty than in the previous twelve years and 50,000 more jobs and had middle class incomes rising and more millionaires and billionaires than ever before," he claimed.

Yea he resents it alright. Between him and Hills two books they just pocketed 20 million dollars... WHEN I WAS PRESIDENT all I'll be remembered for is using a 21yr old intern to get my rocks off in the oval office...yuk,yuk,yuk..STFU and go away already.. :moon4:

 

[Bonnie]

Ex-president Bill Clinton is blasting President Bush's economic policies as "immoral" and "unethical," saying he blames administration tax cuts for increasing hostility towards the U.S. around the world.

LOL so now it's tax cuts that are making other countries hate us<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSXXXXXX42US' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_20.gif' alt='Laughing 2' border=0></a>

Another socialist rallying cry on his part.........These people know no shame at all!!

 

[GotZoom]

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Monday, Nov. 7, 2005 2:02 p.m. EST
Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts 'Immoral', 'Unethical'



"I hear all this talk about family values and all this stuff," Clinton told an audience at the University of Minnesota on Saturday......
"I think it's immoral, I think it's unethical."

I'm surprised he wasn't hit by lightning.

 

[Mr. P]

I think he's a slim ball, but this story is hard to believe. Gotta link?

 

[Stephanie]

I think he's a slim ball, but this story is hard to believe. Gotta link?

I put it was at newsmax.com, I don't know how to make the link light up like some on the board... Duh me. Any hint's will be appreciated...

 

[Annie]

I put it was at newsmax.com, I don't know how to make the link light up like some on the board... Duh me. Any hint's will be appreciated...

Like this?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/7/140306.shtml

pm me!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Monday, Nov. 7, 2005 2:02 p.m. EST
Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts 'Immoral', 'Unethical'


Ex-president Bill Clinton is blasting President Bush's economic policies as "immoral" and "unethical," saying he blames administration tax cuts for increasing hostility towards the U.S. around the world.

"I hear all this talk about family values and all this stuff," Clinton told an audience at the University of Minnesota on Saturday, before explaining how an old friend had been hurt by cuts in subsidies for Americans in need while the wealthy got tax cuts.

"I resent it," Clinton said, his voice rising in anger. "I think it's immoral, I think it's unethical."

"Nobody ever explains what the meaning of those tax cuts are," he told the crowd. "So we're going to give them their tax cuts first and then go ask the Chinese to loan us money to help save the lives of the young men and women we send into combat."

The Minnesota crowd applauded as the ex-president continued to paint the White House as fiscally irresponsible in a way that shortchanges other countries.

"We think it's important to help poor people in the world but we're going to suck up 80 percent of the savings in the world, which could be going to invest somewhere else because we think tax cuts for people who make a million dollars a year are more important," he railed.
"I don't think it's ethical. And I know it's terrible economics," Clinton declared, before tying the Bush tax cuts to increasing U.S. unpopularity around the world.

"Until this country walks away from it, we are going to pay the price. They know we do this. Don't you think people around the world know we do this? And don't you think this has something to do with the way they look at us?"

Clinton touted his own economic record, saying it compared favorably with the supply side policies implemented under President Reagan and Bush 41.

"When I was president we moved 100 times more people out of poverty than in the previous twelve years and 50,000 more jobs and had middle class incomes rising and more millionaires and billionaires than ever before," he claimed.

Yea he resents it alright. Between him and Hills two books they just pocketed 20 million dollars... WHEN I WAS PRESIDENT all I'll be remembered for is using a 21yr old intern to get my rocks off in the oval office...yuk,yuk,yuk..STFU and go away already.. :moon4:

The irony of it all.

Michael moore, biggest profiteer on the Iraqi war

Al Franken who supports racial hiring quotos imposed on small business, has hired only one black of the 114 people he has employed

The clintons are on the top of the list when it comes to finding every little tax break they can. They, Kennedy, Kerry, his running mate John, all REFUSED to check the box giving back their tax cuts.....freaking hypocritical lying pieces of shit.

 

[Huckleburry]

So what is your point here? Everyone knows that Clinton was a sexual deviant and most of us know that W sees nothing wrong with blatant cronyism and incompetience. Why don't we debate the substance here. Are these tax cuts a good thing? Does Clinton have a point, is America's demand for capital (and yes our spending spree is financed by foreigners) hurting the rest of the world? Is there anyone on this board that has an oppinon that deviates from the party line? Let's start a debate of substance here and see if rational debate is still possble in this country.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So what is your point here? Everyone knows that Clinton was a sexual deviant and most of us know that W sees nothing wrong with blatant cronyism and incompetience. Why don't we debate the substance here. Are these tax cuts a good thing? Does Clinton have a point, is America's demand for capital (and yes our spending spree is financed by foreigners) hurting the rest of the world? Is there anyone on this board that has an oppinon that deviates from the party line? Let's start a debate of substance here and see if rational debate is still possble in this country.

How is american tax policy hurting the world? Please explain.

 

[Bonnie]

So what is your point here? Everyone knows that Clinton was a sexual deviant and most of us know that W sees nothing wrong with blatant cronyism and incompetience. Why don't we debate the substance here. Are these tax cuts a good thing? Does Clinton have a point, is America's demand for capital (and yes our spending spree is financed by foreigners) hurting the rest of the world? Is there anyone on this board that has an oppinon that deviates from the party line? Let's start a debate of substance here and see if rational debate is still possble in this country.

Well to do that first you need to start with a subject that warrants rational debate......The notion that our tax cuts in our country are immoral is laughable. And yes they have been a postitive thing here. Clinton balanced the budget by gutting our military and raising huge taxes, who couldn't reduce a deficit doing that???????

 

[Huckleburry]

Money does not fall like mana from heaven. It is supplied by the treasury only after issuing debt in the form of treasury bonds. Both public and private America are spending like crazy but no one is saving. To fund this spending spree the treasurey has to issue debt which is bought by foreigners. This depleates the overall supply of caplital availible for investment. While simoultainously increasing pressure on a somewhat fragile American economy. Clinton's argument is complicated but accurate. America's relentless demand for currency has depleated the total amount of investment capital, worse we refuse to finance our escapades our selves (tax cuts). Clinton's argues correctly that the largest economy in the world should not suck up valuble development capital because her leaders refuse to tax her citizens.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Money does not fall like mana from heaven. It is supplied by the treasury only after issuing debt in the form of treasury bonds. Both public and private America are spending like crazy but no one is saving. To fund this spending spree the treasurey has to issue debt which is bought by foreigners. This depleates the overall supply of caplital availible for investment. While simoultainously increasing pressure on a somewhat fragile American economy. Clinton's argument is complicated but accurate. America's relentless demand for currency has depleated the total amount of investment capital, worse we refuse to finance our escapades our selves (tax cuts). Clinton's argues correctly that the largest economy in the world should not suck up valuble development capital because her leaders refuse to tax her citizens.

People want to invest in america. They know we're good for it. No one is forced to buy our debt. There is still money to do other things. Though theoretically this COULD happen, it's just NOT HAPPENING.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Money does not fall like mana from heaven. It is supplied by the treasury only after issuing debt in the form of treasury bonds. Both public and private America are spending like crazy but no one is saving. To fund this spending spree the treasurey has to issue debt which is bought by foreigners. This depleates the overall supply of caplital availible for investment. While simoultainously increasing pressure on a somewhat fragile American economy. Clinton's argument is complicated but accurate. America's relentless demand for currency has depleated the total amount of investment capital, worse we refuse to finance our escapades our selves (tax cuts). Clinton's argues correctly that the largest economy in the world should not suck up valuble development capital because her leaders refuse to tax her citizens.

Actually, foreigners buying debt issued by the treasury increases the overall supply of capital available for investment. This is because the incoming capital filters down to our banks which are then able to issue more loans. That in turn means people are able to spend more.

Cutting taxes means that more money is available for investment and thus more profits and thus more spending on stuff made in other countries who then turn around and buy up more debt securities from our treasury thus providing more capital available.

Raising taxes means investment money would dry up, less business would be done, less money made, less spending by the public, less capital investment from foreigners, less capital available...what is the advantage of that?

Oh wait a minute. Raising taxes means the government would get more money from us and have more control over us....the socialist's dream....taxing has nothing to do with making money.

 

[Huckleburry]

People want to invest in america. They know we're good for it. No one is forced to buy our debt. There is still money to do other things. Though theoretically this COULD happen, it's just NOT HAPPENING.

Actually a strong case can be made that China must buy american debt to keep herself solvent (A fact which I think benefits us greatly) but that is a disscussion for another day.

Eagle,
You sound like McCarthy; accusing me of being an agent of some socialist conspiracy.
Now for your argument...
There are a few problems. First, the great majority of public money is spent on the military. Unfortunately, military spending has the lowest multiplier effect. Thus, from an economic standpoint the Feds are spending money on the least effective things (with growth being the goal).
Second, basic supply and demand analysis concludes that an increase in the supply of American debt will cause the interest rates to rise, as people demand a lower price (higher interest rate) to consume more debt. The increase in interest rates will cause inflation as the global economy adjusts to the increase in the supply of American debt. While the nominal supply of dollars may increase it is increasingly unlikely that the real value of those dollars is increasing as well. Your argument that American spending increases global investment capital only holds water if nominal values are considered, real value will paint a rather different story. Additionally, the increased supply of American debt exposes the US along with the rest of the world to financial crisis caused by fluctuations in the reserve currency (See debt 1980's debt crisis in Argentina or Brazil for the full implications...Or the the Savings and Loans Crisis the latter being a bit more subtle).
Your argument is nifty in that it applies a macro model to the global economy unfortunately it fails to address inflation, currency fluctuations or risk preference.
Finally your assumption of market perfection has a real cost here. When one considers barriers to trade and other transaction costs distributing funds via the American consumer is horrendously inefficient. Better to allow capital markets to allocate those same funds.
Cheers Huck

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Actually a strong case can be made that China must buy american debt to keep herself solvent (A fact which I think benefits us greatly) but that is a disscussion for another day.

This is the key right here. I'm only interested in our position IN the world.

Eagle,
You sound like McCarthy; accusing me of being an agent of some socialist conspiracy.

Aren't you an econ major?

Now for your argument...
There are a few problems. First, the great majority of public money is spent on the military. Unfortunately, military spending has the lowest multiplier effect.

Military spending is like air. Even if something else like argon is cheaper, you still need air.

Thus, from an economic standpoint the Feds are spending money on the least effective things (with growth being the goal).
Second, basic supply and demand analysis concludes that an increase in the supply of American debt will cause the interest rates to rise, as people demand a lower price (higher interest rate) to consume more debt. The increase in interest rates will cause inflation as the global economy adjusts to the increase in the supply of American debt. While the nominal supply of dollars may increase it is increasingly unlikely that the real value of those dollars is increasing as well. Your argument that American spending increases global investment capital only holds water if nominal values are considered, real value will paint a rather different story. Additionally, the increased supply of American debt exposes the US along with the rest of the world to financial crisis caused by fluctuations in the reserve currency (See debt 1980's debt crisis in Argentina or Brazil for the full implications...Or the the Savings and Loans Crisis the latter being a bit more subtle).
Your argument is nifty in that it applies a macro model to the global economy unfortunately it fails to address inflation, currency fluctuations or risk preference.
Finally your assumption of market perfection has a real cost here. When one considers barriers to trade and other transaction costs distributing funds via the American consumer is horrendously inefficient. Better to allow capital markets to allocate those same funds.
Cheers Huck

This is all beyond economics. We're america. We have bigger guns.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually a strong case can be made that China must buy american debt to keep herself solvent (A fact which I think benefits us greatly) but that is a disscussion for another day.

Eagle,
You sound like McCarthy; accusing me of being an agent of some socialist conspiracy.
Now for your argument...
There are a few problems. First, the great majority of public money is spent on the military. Unfortunately, military spending has the lowest multiplier effect. Thus, from an economic standpoint the Feds are spending money on the least effective things (with growth being the goal).
Second, basic supply and demand analysis concludes that an increase in the supply of American debt will cause the interest rates to rise, as people demand a lower price (higher interest rate) to consume more debt. The increase in interest rates will cause inflation as the global economy adjusts to the increase in the supply of American debt. While the nominal supply of dollars may increase it is increasingly unlikely that the real value of those dollars is increasing as well. Your argument that American spending increases global investment capital only holds water if nominal values are considered, real value will paint a rather different story. Additionally, the increased supply of American debt exposes the US along with the rest of the world to financial crisis caused by fluctuations in the reserve currency (See debt 1980's debt crisis in Argentina or Brazil for the full implications...Or the the Savings and Loans Crisis the latter being a bit more subtle).
Your argument is nifty in that it applies a macro model to the global economy unfortunately it fails to address inflation, currency fluctuations or risk preference.
Finally your assumption of market perfection has a real cost here. When one considers barriers to trade and other transaction costs distributing funds via the American consumer is horrendously inefficient. Better to allow capital markets to allocate those same funds.
Cheers Huck

When someone promotes higher taxes as though the government (haha) is going to solve (haha) our economic problems, I have to consider them as someone with socialist-oriented values. btw I consider McCarthy to be an American hero....despite how vigorously the left tries to smear him in the movies.

First, the military and the protection of our country is the first and foremost responsibility of our Federal government - not fiddling with economics (like socialist countries).

Second, thank you for agreeing somewhat with my "model". I am not assuming a perfect market at all. In fact I believe we are in a lopsided credit bubble that will have great inflationary/deflationary impact. The devaluaton of the dollar is expected to occur. However, I cannot say how the issues of inflation, currency fluctuations, etc. will play out exactly - who knows for sure?

 

[Huckleburry]

I am an econ major and a pretty liberal (in the free market sense of the term) one at that. I think that our position vis a vis China is to our benefit (though not ideal).

I also understand that military spending is essentiall. However, both the military and the intelligence communtiy could do alot more with alot less.

My argument is that it is unwise to spend tons of money that we don't have inefficiently. It is a bad idea to expose ourselves to a huge amount of credit risk while also fighting a war, and it is unwise to hinder the emergence of new markets because we were unable/unwilling to curtail discretionary spending. Consider the following numbers published in this week's Economist. Since 2001 discretionary spending has increased in real terms by 35% and the number of pork projects in appropriations bills has ballooned from 2,100 to 12,999. These kinds of numbers mimic the old democratic majority and are supposed to be the antithisis of what this new bunch stands for.

Lastly, the world order is no longer limited to who has the biggest guns. Economic power is certainly relevant, protecting ours, as well as encouraging the economies of our allies increases our national security.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I am an econ major and a pretty liberal (in the free market sense of the term) one at that. I think that our position vis a vis China is to our benefit (though not ideal).

I also understand that military spending is essentiall. However, both the military and the intelligence communtiy could do alot more with alot less.

My argument is that it is unwise to spend tons of money that we don't have inefficiently. It is a bad idea to expose ourselves to a huge amount of credit risk while also fighting a war, and it is unwise to hinder the emergence of new markets because we were unable/unwilling to curtail discretionary spending. Consider the following numbers published in this week's Economist. Since 2001 discretionary spending has increased in real terms by 35% and the number of pork projects in appropriations bills has ballooned from 2,100 to 12,999. These kinds of numbers mimic the old democratic majority and are supposed to be the antithisis of what this new bunch stands for.

Lastly, the world order is no longer limited to who has the biggest guns. Economic power is certainly relevant, protecting ours, as well as encouraging the economies of our allies increases our national security.

Can't argue with you at all about the excessive spending. Conservatives are totally disgusted with the LIBERAL spending spree by both liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans. Bush isn't helping any either.

What is school teaching you about the future "world order" of economics?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am an econ major and a pretty liberal (in the free market sense of the term) one at that. I think that our position vis a vis China is to our benefit (though not ideal).

I also understand that military spending is essentiall. However, both the military and the intelligence communtiy could do alot more with alot less.

My argument is that it is unwise to spend tons of money that we don't have inefficiently. It is a bad idea to expose ourselves to a huge amount of credit risk while also fighting a war, and it is unwise to hinder the emergence of new markets because we were unable/unwilling to curtail discretionary spending. Consider the following numbers published in this week's Economist. Since 2001 discretionary spending has increased in real terms by 35% and the number of pork projects in appropriations bills has ballooned from 2,100 to 12,999. These kinds of numbers mimic the old democratic majority and are supposed to be the antithisis of what this new bunch stands for.

Lastly, the world order is no longer limited to who has the biggest guns. Economic power is certainly relevant, protecting ours, as well as encouraging the economies of our allies increases our national security.

My argument is that YOUR method of fixing the deficit, most likely raising taxes, will kill the economy and cause job losses.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

My argument is that YOUR method of fixing the deficit, most likely raising taxes, will kill the economy and cause job losses.

Is there ever any hope of "fixing" the deficit, or will it always lead to economic stagnation?