Tax and spend liberals at it again. (gas price, wages, holidays)

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by pslOldTimer

The first quote above is the full text of my statement about the Federal reserve. Please explain where in that statement I said the Federal Reserve did Bush's bidding? I fully explained why they had their own reasons, and I stated it that way precisely because I did not want to give the impression that Bush had anything to do with it. I stand by my statement about your reading comprehension.

You, yourself, stated the economy began to "tank" in the 3rd quarter of 2000. Consider that the only way that Bush was going to win was if his own predictions about the economy came true. Consider that his solution to the poor economy (which hadn't happened, yet) was tax cuts. Consider that tax cuts, especially as proposed by Bush, benefit the rich more than all others. Consider that the rich tend to support the most conservative candidate. Consider that the rich conservatives are in position to most effect the economy.

WHat happens when you put all that together? The rich deliberately tank the economy, hurting themselves in the short run, in order to ensure the election of one of their own, who will put into effect tax cuts that will benefit them even more in the long run. If they don't tank the economy, their guy loses -- it was pretty darn close, as it was!

Now, Bush can step in and enact a "solution" to a problem that never existed in the first place, until it was artificially created. How convenient that the "solution" also provided tax cuts for the richest people...

Just more evidence that you don't understand the dynamics of a market economy, especially as it related to the "boom" of the 90's and it's bust in 2000.

[nhyrnut]

Originally Posted by GregW

NHRYNUT - Good to see your vilification of the Democrats on this forum as well as on the NH one. I find it refreshing to realize just how the politically impotent, for the last 8 years anyway, Democrats have destroyed the economy with their Tax and Spend policies instead of the Borrow and never payback policies of the Republicans and the vengeance war started by (would be king) George W Bush and his neo-con war profiteers.

When will people realize that America was most prosperous when we had a real progressive income tax that forced the really rich to pay their fair share? I think it was under that famous Democrat named Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Alas the rich do. It is called EMPLOYMENT. Tax the rich as you like, they will just make you work harder, and layoff to make sure they still get their money. I know, I would cut my workforce, if I had to pay more in taxes. They would work harder, or be layed off. Currently I pay 25% to Federal taxes over $74,000 you pay 28% over $154,000 you pay 33% as your pay scale goes up so do your taxes. So once again do your homework the wealthy do pay more in taxes. This info is direct from the IRS web site here is the link 2006 Federal Tax Rate Schedules (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html - broken link) the info don't get any better than this source. If you are upset about the tax cuts they get, you can get them too. No I don't own my own business or have employees, but if i did I would do as I said. The tax cuts the wealthy get are for employment etc. If they employ so many they get a tax break. They can write of insurance, But so can you. they get no tax breaks that we don't. Just because they worked harder to make it don't mean we should take it. For every 30,000 in taxes they pay that is 1 less person on the payroll. Contrary to your belief I do hold some liberal views. But unlike some I do do my homework before I speak. I just wish others would as well.

[AksarbeN]

Originally Posted by pslOldTimer

Oh, my, gosh. At least "tax and spend" is "pay as you go." "Borrow and spend", as the Republicans have been doing for nearly 20 years (under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.) costs us 3 times -- when the borrowing affects interest rates as it did under Reagan, when the interest has to be paid (for years and years) and when someone finally has to pay the debt. Interest is now one of the largest components of the Federal Budget, after defense and Iraq (I separated those two, because Iraq has nothing to do with defense).

Only under Clinton, one of those horrible liberals, did we see a reduction in the national debt and a reduction in the size of government.

Folks who live in their past fears often lose the ability to use reasoning and logic.

I have to agree with you. I wonder how bad things would have been over the past 6 years if the liberals actually had any control in the government as the conservatives have had? Wow,,,,,, things surely couldn’t have been any worse? I don’t think the country could take another term of having these conservatives in office again.

[GregW]

If Gore had been elected in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 the economy would have tanked because there would have been so much less borrowing and spending on the "War on Terror" and Bush’s vengeance war in Iraq. I believe the deficit spending is called financial stimulus and generally leads to runaway inflation followed by economic collapse and depression. We are going to have real fun in the next decade. Bring back Eisenhower.

NHYRNUT – The rich always invest their money in creating “JOBS”. Yeah, in Asia and anywhere else they can get non-union slave labor and the unlimited "right" to uncontrolled pollution.

[pslOldTimer]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Just more evidence that you don't understand the dynamics of a market economy, especially as it related to the "boom" of the 90's and it's bust in 2000.

You know, I provide discussion, reasoning and explanations for my statements. You just make a blanket declaration with no discussion, explanations, reasoning, logic or references. That makes your "opinion" worth exactly as much effort as you put into proving it.

[Miker2069]

Originally Posted by pslOldTimer

You know, I provide discussion, reasoning and explanations for my statements. You just make a blanket declaration with no discussion, explanations, reasoning, logic or references. That makes your "opinion" worth exactly as much effort as you put into proving it.

pslOldTimer, first good to see you posting around
Secondly I don't claim to be a econ expert. I generally agree with you that the Clinton years were 8 great years, we hadn't seen that in a long time. However I'm not sure I follow the logic on "the rick tanked economy" in 2000. From my vantage point (since I lived it), the tech bubble burst- no, it exploded. The stock market was driven largerly by the tech sector at the time and it just nose dived. Everyone tightened spending, particularly IT and capital asset spending. It wasn't pretty, businesses were going down into "weather the storm mode" it seemed. So we saw lots of white collar professional on the street, taking what they considered significant pay cuts at other jobs (i.e., UPS, the post office, retail, etc.). These consumers stopped buying, went into tightened budget mode, etc.

Incidentally we all saw the writing on the wall in 1999 or so- every decent analyst said this bubble isn't going to be indefinite but like human nature we all thought it would be (or hoped it would be). So I can't say this is a GOP well planned event.

[pslOldTimer]

Originally Posted by Miker2069

...From my vantage point (since I lived it), the tech bubble burst- no, it exploded. The stock market was driven largerly by the tech sector at the time and it just nose dived. Everyone tightened spending, particularly IT and capital asset spending. It wasn't pretty, businesses were going down into "weather the storm mode" it seemed. So we saw lots of white collar professional on the street, taking what they considered significant pay cuts at other jobs (i.e., UPS, the post office, retail, etc.). These consumers stopped buying, went into tightened budget mode, etc.

Well, that certainly happened. It's hard to say if it was cause or effect, however. The bursting of the tech bubble was pretty much limited to either those who owned significant quantities of tech stocks or those who worked inthe tech industry. Sure, there was a trickle-down effect. But, although we lost a substantial amount in tech stocks, it did not affect our budget or buying -- we never put anything into the stock market we cannot afford to lose.

It also certainly happened that Bush was predicting doom and gloom, and that analysts were warning that one should be careful about what one predicts -- it can often cause it to happen. It is also true that the only economic policy of the Bush administration is "tax cuts", and they needed a tanked economy to provide an excuse for their "cure".

I think a good case could be made that the tech collapse could be a result of that policy, rather than the cause -- certainly as good a case as the opposite, and my gut tells me I'm close.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by pslOldTimer

You know, I provide discussion, reasoning and explanations for my statements. You just make a blanket declaration with no discussion, explanations, reasoning, logic or references. That makes your "opinion" worth exactly as much effort as you put into proving it.

At some point one must simply accept the fact that another is so programmed to ignore REAL facts that one realizes that any discussion of such facts are futile. This is the case here, especially since you've made the outlandish claim that the Federal Reserve helped Bush get elected. You've provided no reasoning or explanations, only unsubstantiated allegations.

[pslOldTimer]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

...especially since you've made the outlandish claim that the Federal Reserve helped Bush get elected. You've provided no reasoning or explanations, only unsubstantiated allegations.

Here is the exact quote I used. I have put my reasoning and explantion in bold face, since you missed it the first time around: "The Federal Reserve helped. Mostly conservative, they wanted tax cuts, also, because they are rich and would benefit the most from tax cuts. So, they slid a few monkey wrenches into the economy, helping George's predictions to come true."

As far as substantiation, I never claimed it was fact, just presented reasoning and explanations that showed it was possible. All you stated was that I did not understand whatever, without knowing me or having any clue as to what I understand or do not understand, and without any reasoning or explanation of why it is you claim I don't understand. You might as well have said, "You have brown eyes"; it would be just as valid.


I stand by my original statement.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by pslOldTimer

Here is the exact quote I used. I have put my reasoning and explantion in bold face, since you missed it the first time around: "The Federal Reserve helped. Mostly conservative, they wanted tax cuts, also, because they are rich and would benefit the most from tax cuts. So, they slid a few monkey wrenches into the economy, helping George's predictions to come true."

As far as substantiation, I never claimed it was fact, just presented reasoning and explanations that showed it was possible. All you stated was that I did not understand whatever, without knowing me or having any clue as to what I understand or do not understand, and without any reasoning or explanation of why it is you claim I don't understand. You might as well have said, "You have brown eyes"; it would be just as valid.


I stand by my original statement.

You can stand by your statement from now until doomsday, but it won't make it true. You have no evidence that what the Feds did was intentional . As a matter of fact you've never even provided any specific "monkey wrenches" that they "slid in" that would cause the economy to decline. Miker2069's explanation of the rise and fall of the 90's economy was spot on. It had nothing to do with the Feds, Clinton's policies, or Bush's policies.