The downfall of Bush

[ajwps]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

how many times during the 'recession' did we hear that presidents have little to do with the economy?

Not often enough but when they do it is because of their budget cutting, tax reductions or American tax dollars spent wisely to put our own citizens back to work.

so the military industrial complex also rules over the US economy, eh?

Eh? When America is attacked and forced into war, we can hardly turn to the Daughters of the American Revolution or the White Aryan People to rule over the US economy. Congress authorises, the President signs onto and the Pentagon gives contracts to the Miltary Industrial Complex who puts Americans to work and money into the pockets of those who paid those taxes.

you did notice that a republican majority house ALSO voted in a pay raise in 2003, right?

RIGHT.... Nobody said that power does not corrupt absolutely nor are they saints in the Republican or the Democratic party.

did you see the amount of pork in this last budget that the house and senate passed? it exceeds even the clinton era.

As if Clinton had anything to do with pork-barrel spending. He tried to get a line-item veto to eliminate these worthless spending projects to get the vote back home. Take a look at who in the Congress was responsible for the greatest majority by far for this pork-barrel spending.

The spending of individual legislator bills are very clear. It was the Democrats in Congress.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

Federal deficits are not always bad. If there were a balanced budget it would mean that the people who actually make this country work are being overtaxed.

Deficits also at times force the Congress to cut spending or raise taxes on those whom they want to vote for them.

In most cases, big deficits indicate a health economy as the large size of the current deficiit is actually a much smaller portion of the United States GNP than when the deficit was less.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

What policies do you think effect the economy in a positive way?

As in every major war time, military spending has resulted in American jobs, personal income increases, home construction increases and many more benefits.

Yes it also involves the loss of American young men and women in a war but that is a natural law of Malthus theory for specie population control. It is sad, but that is the way nature works.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Holy mackerel, this thread has deteriorated.

All you really smart people used to give me an inferiority complex. Then I discovered I could just smack you in the mouth and win any damn argument I wanted!

I may not be the brightest bulb in the fixture, but I'm obnoxious enough to compensate.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps

Not often enough but when they do it is because of their budget cutting, tax reductions or American tax dollars spent wisely to put our own citizens back to work.

Tax reductions help. Bush has given us a VERY small one spread out over 10 years. Tax dollars spent in ANY fashion is not helping the economy.

Eh? When America is attacked and forced into war, we can hardly turn to the Daughters of the American Revolution or the White Aryan People to rule over the US economy. Congress authorises, the President signs onto and the Pentagon gives contracts to the Miltary Industrial Complex who puts Americans to work and money into the pockets of those who paid those taxes.

No one is talking about turning over our economy to daughters of the revolution or white aryan nation. As for the procedures to go to war. Congress did not follow them. Read this article by rep Ron Paul (R) regarding it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

As if Clinton had anything to do with pork-barrel spending.

He, like Bush SIGNED into law the budgets. He could have vetoed them if he disapproved.

He tried to get a line-item veto to eliminate these worthless spending projects to get the vote back home. Take a look at who in the Congress was responsible for the greatest majority by far for this pork-barrel spending.

Republicans AND Democrats are responsible for 100% of these pork barrel projects. Perhaps we should vote for a party that is opposed to pork barrel spending. Like the Libertarian Party and Michael Badnarik. www.badnarik.org

Travis Pahl

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
Federal deficits are not always bad. If there were a balanced budget it would mean that the people who actually make this country work are being overtaxed.

There are two ways to balance a budget. Decrease expenses or increase income. I am not sure why you think we would increase income (taxes). Wouldnt you rather decrease expenses (government spending?)

Deficits also at times force the Congress to cut spending or raise taxes on those whom they want to vote for them.

Cutting spending is a good thing. I am not sure why you seem opposed to the idea.

In most cases, big deficits indicate a health economy as the large size of the current deficiit is actually a much smaller portion of the United States GNP than when the deficit was less.

So you are essentially saying that you want the government to spend more. Do I understand you correctly?

Travis

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

Tax reductions help. Bush has given us a VERY small one spread out over 10 years. Tax dollars spent in ANY fashion is not helping the economy.

GW Bush got through tax deductions through the Congress which is considered a radical change since the days of Reagan. Even though small in size, they are a start and have demonstrated that even though you disagree, money in the pockets of Americans is spent or used to pay bills. The alternative are just more taxes to be squandered by those brilliant elected representatives. Remember that there is a Republican majority but not enough to get through the kind of tax reductions most of the American people want and need. Thank you lucky stars that Bush was able to do what he has done with this small beginning.

No one is talking about turning over our economy to daughters of the revolution or white aryan nation. As for the procedures to go to war. Congress did not follow them. Read this article by rep Ron Paul (R) regarding it.

The statement that the economy was being turned over to the industrial military complex is so stupid that it deserves the satire of the daughters of the American revolution or white Naze party.

The guy who wrote this statement is ancephalic.

He, like Bush SIGNED into law the budgets. He could have vetoed them if he disapproved.

Clinton like GW Bush cannot veto or eliminate any pork-barrel spending without refusing to sign the entire national budget. Neither could veto these budgets without closing down the government which is not a bad idea. But it would be disastrous in the liberal left media blaming the president (except for the dem Clinton) for causing government services to stop. No mail..... etc.

Republicans AND Democrats are responsible for 100% of these pork barrel projects. Perhaps we should vote for a party that is opposed to pork barrel spending. Like the Libertarian Party and Michael Badnarik.

the Liberterian party has good ideas but this party is run by racists and are totally in disarray.

Yes Republicans and Democrats are responsible for 100% of pork spending but the Democrats outnunber the Republicans by more than 10 to 1.

All Congressmen do not all vote for pork barrel spending.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

There are two ways to balance a budget. Decrease expenses or increase income. I am not sure why you think we would increase income (taxes). Wouldnt you rather decrease expenses (government spending?)

Yes I would reduce government spending and waste but that would not pass with the second branch of government who control the purse strings. They each depend on this government largess to get themselves elected next cycle. Actually there are natural laws of economics that have been proven to work in the past. Cutting taxes and cutting spending is the fastest way for the government income to increase exponentially.

More people going to work and more jobs means more people payiing more taxes because people return to real non-government jobs and earn real money with which to pay some taxes. These concepts have long been known by the government but these concept if enacted would reduce the goverment's power over the American citizen. This would be a disaster for the lowlife representatives who supposedly represent American's interests.

Cutting spending is a good thing. I am not sure why you seem opposed to the idea.

I am not apposed to cutting spending but I am also apposed to having the govenrment keep those funds they collect from Americans every April 15th. The more the government spends, the more money that returns to circulation and into your pockets.

The less tax burden on that money allows you to buy goods and employers to hire workers to make and sell those goods now sought by the now more flush Americans. Can you see that you are defeating your purpose by not spending hoarded government funds back to the people from whom it was stolen.

So you are essentially saying that you want the government to spend more. Do I understand you correctly?

YES.. For the reasons mentioned in the above paragraphs.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
Tax reductions help. Bush has given us a VERY small one spread out over 10 years. Tax dollars spent in ANY fashion is not helping the economy.GW Bush got through tax deductions through the Congress which is considered a radical change since the days of Reagan.

Considered radical? It was I repeat... A minor tax cut spread out over 10 years i am willing to bet that by the time the ten years is up the taxes will have been raised or the cuts repealed. A radical change would be a major tax cut, or a repeal of the income tax.

Even though small in size, they are a start and have demonstrated that even though you disagree, money in the pockets of Americans is spent or used to pay bills.

It is a start that was never finished. instead it was reversed by some of the LARGEST increases in spending in American history.

The alternative are just more taxes to be squandered by those brilliant elected representatives.

That is not an alternative. That is basically the same thing we have now. The tax rate we had four years ago and the tax rate we have now is for all practicle purposes THE SAME. Badnarik is offering a REAL alternative. He is proposing we elliminate the IRS.

Remember that there is a Republican majority but not enough to get through the kind of tax reductions most of the American people want and need. Thank you lucky stars that Bush was able to do what he has done with this small beginning.

In order to get a tax reduction through congress you need a majority in congress and a presidential signature. Republicans have that, yet you say they can not do it. So what you are saying is that Republicans are not for the tax reductions that we really want. Which means we need to elect someone different. The Libertarian party would do a great job reducing and elliminating taxes. Also remember the president has the power to pardon people that commit crimes such as not paying income tax.

Clinton like GW Bush cannot veto or eliminate any pork-barrel spending without refusing to sign the entire national budget.

yep. So it would probably be best when vetoing the bill to also hold a press conference explaining that you are going to continue to veto each and every budget bill that comes across your desk until it is free of Pork and is only spending money on constitutionally mandated items. See how long it takes congress to come up with a decent budget after the entire nation gets behind the president for demanding a pork free budget.

Neither could veto these budgets without closing down the government which is not a bad idea.

When government is wasting money like our federal government is, it is a good thing. Most people that beleive in small government realize this.

But it would be disastrous in the liberal left media blaming the president (except for the dem Clinton) for causing government services to stop. No mail..... etc.

Well if Republicans are scared to do what is right, then why are you voting for them? Vote for someone who not only speaks out for smaller government but will actually have the balls to give it to us when we ask for it.

the Liberterian party has good ideas but this party is run by racists and are totally in disarray.

So you say. I have seen no such evidence that it is run by racists(and certainly no such evidence from you who is accusing the Libertarian Party.

As for it being in disarray, it somehow has managed to get on the ballot in more states than any other third party for the last 8-12 years. It will do so again this year. Not sure how that is 'disarray'. Perhaps you are just trying to use fear to keep people from voting for them. I think people are finding that fear has been used long enough by the Republicans and Democrats. At least I hope they are realizing that.

Yes Republicans and Democrats are responsible for 100% of pork spending but the Democrats outnunber the Republicans by more than 10 to 1.

Actually last I checked the republicans had a slight majority in congress and should be able to vote down ANY pork that democrats put into the budget. Unless they do not have the balls to stand up and demand smaller government (from themselves!)

I really do not understand people like you that say they want smaller government, and then make apologies for your party when the CONTROL CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE. What more do you need to give to the republicans for them to actually be able to reduce government? 2/3rd of congress and the presidency for 20 years? 7/8ths congress and presidency for 30 years? If they are not able to give you smaller government when they have what they have had these last few years, perhaps you should consider that even if they want to give it to you, they require much more than they will every obtain to give you what you desire. try something new. Stop making excuses.

travis

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
It depends. The economy during the early part of Bush's term could not be blamed on Bush. His policies had not even taken affect. Now that his policies have taken affect, he should get credit for it. There is always a lag between the policies of one term and the realities that occur once those policies take affect.

Yet when the 90's upswing started in clintons first term, what was the cry of the republicans? it was the result of reagans policies. so we went through a period of having to hear that it takes YEARS for a presidents policies to have an effect on the economy. so which is it?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

Considered radical? It was I repeat... A minor tax cut spread out over 10 years i am willing to bet that by the time the ten years is up the taxes will have been raised or the cuts repealed. A radical change would be a major tax cut, or a repeal of the income tax.

Consider that Bush proposes and Congress passes laws. Do you think that a small tax reduction is worse than another giant tax increase by Al Gore? The US elected representatives use taxes as a tool agaisnt ordinary Americans. You have no idea of what will happen in ten years as the effect of this small yet increasing tax cut could very well demonstrate that increasing taxes also increases the national debt. Not vice versa. You want a giant step instead of being satisfied with baby steps on this tax issue.

It is a start that was never finished. instead it was reversed by some of the LARGEST increases in spending in American history.

Wrong. Those large spending programs are now being used to create non-government jobs and more money in the pockets of families to spend for themselves instead of government projects. You may want to take a beginners course on Cansian economics.

That is not an alternative. That is basically the same thing we have now. The tax rate we had four years ago and the tax rate we have now is for all practicle purposes THE SAME. Badnarik is offering a REAL alternative. He is proposing we elliminate the IRS.

Wrong. For every US citizen the tax savings although small is noticeably different than it was with the largest tax increase president in the history of the USA. Badnarik has as much chance of getting on the ballot as you have of jumping over the moon.

In order to get a tax reduction through congress you need a majority in congress and a presidential signature. Republicans have that, yet you say they can not do it. So what you are saying is that Republicans are not for the tax reductions that we really want. Which means we need to elect someone different. The Libertarian party would do a great job reducing and elliminating taxes. Also remember the president has the power to pardon people that commit crimes such as not paying income tax.

You also need an overwhelming majority of Congress to vote any significant tax decrease. To many of the Republicans understand that their personal power using the IRS is in danger if they pass to large a bill. Your own Libertarian would have no one in Congress to pass anything.

yep. So it would probably be best when vetoing the bill to also hold a press conference explaining that you are going to continue to veto each and every budget bill that comes across your desk until it is free of Pork and is only spending money on constitutionally mandated items. See how long it takes congress to come up with a decent budget after the entire nation gets behind the president for demanding a pork free budget.

You seem to have forgotten the lesson we learned from Bill Clinton. He did just that to get his nefarious way and then blamed the government shutdown on those evil Republicans. You forget the policy of deceit and intrigue used by these elected officials who use the mainstream liberal media to confuse and contort the truth. Same with your Libertarian guy who would be totally impotent if he got anywhere near the Whitehouse.

When government is wasting money like our federal government is, it is a good thing. Most people that beleive in small government realize this.

Your meaning not understood?

Well if Republicans are scared to do what is right, then why are you voting for them? Vote for someone who not only speaks out for smaller government but will actually have the balls to give it to us when we ask for it.

Who said the Republicans were scared? These men are in a unique form of power and they also know that taxation means control and unlimited power to pervert the will of those who elected them as a representative of those who sent them to office. This would be the same for your Libertarian candidate.

So you say. I have seen no such evidence that it is run by racists(and certainly no such evidence from you who is accusing the Libertarian Party.

Well open your eyes and get your head out of the sand. Your reality is very different than the evidence available for all to see.

As for it being in disarray, it somehow has managed to get on the ballot in more states than any other third party for the last 8-12 years. It will do so again this year. Not sure how that is 'disarray'. Perhaps you are just trying to use fear to keep people from voting for them. I think people are finding that fear has been used long enough by the Republicans and Democrats. At least I hope they are realizing that.

Did you forget the Green Party or the Ross Perot Party who actually got enough signatures to get on the ballot? No one fears those who would use their concealed or hidden power to subvert the constitution to put a sign on our shores. Whites Only....

Actually last I checked the republicans had a slight majority in congress and should be able to vote down ANY pork that democrats put into the budget. Unless they do not have the balls to stand up and demand smaller government (from themselves!)

Check again... For if you were right, there would be a very different reality today. A "slight majority" cannot pass anything without the support of a significant number of Dems. Fat chance....

I really do not understand people like you that say they want smaller government, and then make apologies for your party when the CONTROL CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE. What more do you need to give to the republicans for them to actually be able to reduce government? 2/3rd of congress and the presidency for 20 years? 7/8ths congress and presidency for 30 years? If they are not able to give you smaller government when they have what they have had these last few years, perhaps you should consider that even if they want to give it to you, they require much more than they will every obtain to give you what you desire. try something new. Stop making excuses.

It appears that the upcoming November election and state elections will significantly change the power balance in Congress and your stated goals will come to be without an unknown Libertarian. Who knows, you may be surprised in the coming year. Stop voting for a lost cause and try to make a real difference.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

Yet when the 90's upswing started in clintons first term, what was the cry of the republicans? it was the result of reagans policies. so we went through a period of having to hear that it takes YEARS for a presidents policies to have an effect on the economy. so which is it?

Answer: It was both of your points.

Keynesians believe that prices and, especially, wages respond slowly to changes in supply and demand, resulting in shortages and surpluses, especially of labor. Even though monetarists are more confident than Keynesians in the ability of markets to adjust to changes in supply and demand, many monetarists accept the Keynesian position on this matter. Milton Friedman, for example, the most prominent monetarist, has written: "Under any conceivable institutional arrangements, and certainly under those that now prevail in the United States, there is only a limited amount of flexibility in prices and wages." In current parlance, that would certainly be called a Keynesian position.

The answer is that economies evolve like waves on the sea. Reagan started at a low wave crest from the Jimmy Carter economic policy and by lower taxes and increasing spending began the concurrent wave which Clinton enjoyed.

Clinton on the other hand went back to the old mantra of high taxation and high spending which dampened the wave over a period of 8 years created by Reagan. At the end of the Clinton era, the economy was already begining to come down to another loss of jobs and the economy into the dumps.

Now comes GW Bush whose small tax cuts and increased spending has sparked the economy to begin the upward swing as you can see in the market place and industrial output today. This is also seen in Wallstreet rising back up from Clinton's castasrophic policies.

But you see rigid laws that occur instantaneously with Presidential policy.

And someone said you had intellect?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by ajwps
Yet when the 90's upswing started in clintons first term, what was the cry of the republicans? it was the result of reagans policies. so we went through a period of having to hear that it takes YEARS for a presidents policies to have an effect on the economy. so which is it?

Answer: It was both of your points.

Keynesians believe that prices and, especially, wages respond slowly to changes in supply and demand, resulting in shortages and surpluses, especially of labor. Even though monetarists are more confident than Keynesians in the ability of markets to adjust to changes in supply and demand, many monetarists accept the Keynesian position on this matter. Milton Friedman, for example, the most prominent monetarist, has written: "Under any conceivable institutional arrangements, and certainly under those that now prevail in the United States, there is only a limited amount of flexibility in prices and wages." In current parlance, that would certainly be called a Keynesian position.

The answer is that economies evolve like waves on the sea. Reagan started at a low wave crest from the Jimmy Carter economic policy and by lower taxes and increasing spending began the concurrent wave which Clinton enjoyed.

Clinton on the other hand went back to the old mantra of high taxation and high spending which dampened the wave over a period of 8 years created by Reagan. At the end of the Clinton era, the economy was already begining to come down to another loss of jobs and the economy into the dumps.

Now comes GW Bush whose small tax cuts and increased spending has sparked the economy to begin the upward swing as you can see in the market place and industrial output today. This is also seen in Wallstreet rising back up from Clinton's castasrophic policies.

But you see rigid laws that occur instantaneously with Presidential policy.

And someone said you had intellect?

YOU are the dumbass trying to explain how two seperate incidents with different time frames are experiencing the same results with the same policies. You're also trying to support your argument with two seperate and opposing views. what are you, a chaos theorist? Are you like Jeff Goldblums character in Jurassic Park?

stop pretending like you have intellect and just accept the fact that you're not as smart as you'd like to think you are.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Yet when the 90's upswing started in clintons first term, what was the cry of the republicans? it was the result of reagans policies. so we went through a period of having to hear that it takes YEARS for a presidents policies to have an effect on the economy. so which is it?

It takes a year or two. And clinton was also LUCKY enough to be in during the tech boom. Plus, Reagan made the eightied boom as well.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
YOU are the dumbass trying to explain how two seperate incidents with different time frames are experiencing the same results with the same policies. You're also trying to support your argument with two seperate and opposing views. what are you, a chaos theorist? Are you like Jeff Goldblums character in Jurassic Park?

stop pretending like you have intellect and just accept the fact that you're not as smart as you'd like to think you are.

So you readily admit that you don't even understand economics 101 by your non-response.

Do you really 'trickle up?'

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by ajwps
So you readily admit that you don't even understand economics 101 by your non-response.

Do you really 'trickle up?'

how long have you had your head up your ass? I think you need some air.

 

[KLSuddeth]

That is so not even worthy of DK's responses.

Think of something better and try again, Doc.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

how long have you had your head up your ass? I think you need some air.

Getting frustrated are we?

DK ignorance is the first requisite of the historian—ignorance, which simplifies and clarifies, which selects and omits, with a placid perfection unattainable by the highest art.

 

[KLSuddeth]

blah blah blah - * yawn *

Oh look honey - he's reading the dictionary.
isnt that CUTE????

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by ajwps
Getting frustrated are we?

DK ignorance is the first requisite of the historian—ignorance, which simplifies and clarifies, which selects and omits, with a placid perfection unattainable by the highest art.

frustrated? hardly.

well, I'm tired of seeing your inane attempts at trying to distort some sort of insanity into your version of logic and intelligence, so I think I'll just watch you make an even bigger fool of yourself.