posted 09-06- 05:48 AM               

From your article.
Mir

posted 09-06- 06:39 PM               

And during Reagan's terms we had the longest stretch of continuous GNP growth in US history until Clinton's presidency beat it.

And the current slow down started in March 2000, 10 month's before Bush took office.

posted 09-06- 08:19 PM               

I did pretty good in the Carter
years. Had high inflation but I had a good
cola package negotiated by my union so I didn't
give a shit. All I got from Regan was layoff,
company caused strikes and anti-labor
legislation passed.

That scumbag was one of the biggest union
busters ever. The GNP doesn't do you much
good when your out of a job.

posted 09-07- 06:31 AM            

Thanks for taking the bait...have a nice day

posted 09-07- 10:28 AM               

This is why I make a policy, which I'm breaking here, of not discussing politics with a Democrat (I don't mean you...). Be advised I only vote Republican by virtue of the fact that they come the closest to being a party of Constituional Strict Constructionists, which is what I really am. Closest, but no banana...

At any rate, the reason why I don't tend to discuss politics with such folk is that pretty soon they leave the pretense of discussing facts, and degenerate to namecalling. This is why you shouldn't. You know, I know, Jerry knows what the raw facts are here, don't enable the libs to say "well, he did it too! He was first!"

What are the facts? The economy is like the Aircraft Carrier I was just on, you can throw the helm right over, but it takes a while for that big thing to begin to turn. It was taking a clear turn down years before Clinton left office, it simply became undeniable his last summer. The most obvious evidence to me was the sudden upturn in gas prices. Oh, but them mean ol' oil magnates artificially raised prices... Yeah. Had there been any evidence of that, you can't hide something that big, the media would have been all over that. And, above all, this was on Clinton's watch, with his willing and able Janet Reno willing to prosecute or not prosecute at will.

So, now we're supposed to believe that W, mere months after he took office, suddenly broke what Clinton fixed in 8 years. Odd, he hasn't passed a budget yet, all he's done was ram through a tax cut. Did the tax cut do all this? Fine, tell Daschle and Kennedy and Gephardt to push hard for a tax increase! PLEASE convice them to do that!

Clinton was in office for 8 years. What do we have to show for it? I admit, I do miss the scandals, they were entertaining, they kept me glued to the news. But, I remember Clinton taking credit for the sudden upturn in the economy THE DAY HE WAS SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT! Even the media, no friend of Republicans, had to ask "how can that be?" "Oh, well, it's all the enthusiasm for the fact I got elected..."

8 years, guys, 8 years, what is there to show? What is Bill's legacy? And if W really could undo that in the few months he's been in, I'd be feeling better about voting Republican.

I don't, though, because I'm frustrated that Republicans seem so impotent vs. the Democrats. I want more tax cuts. I want more liberty. I want ineffective social programs cut and the imasculated military built back up... and I want the most foolish of our foreign commitments ended (Clinton said we'd be out of Bosnia in a year at one point...). Social programs cut? In the years we've had Lyndon's Great Society, the percentage of folks on the dole have increased, not decreased. The programs are not working. Remember all the howls over Clinton signing welfare reform, signing a bill Republicans had put in front of him twice before already? Armageddon was going to happen! Well, it didn't, more people are back to work. Thank the Republicans that forced Bill to sign the bill after vetoing it twice (he of course then took credit for it's success...)

But, why am I saying this? Not for the Smokeys and the DanWs out there, they won't listen. It's for you, buddy, don't descend to their level. Spin 'em up, fine. Just don't descend to their level.

Would that the Republicans were half as effective as the Democrats say they are, I'd feel better about voting Republican!

Chaps out

posted 09-07- 01:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanW:
"And the current slow down started in March 2000, 10 month's before Bush took office."

ROFL! You need to get out more Mr. Cleaver.

---

According to DOL the GDP tanked in the 3rd Q of 2000, so call it June rather than March. I was going by a chart I saw on ABC news a few nights ago. That's still seven month's before Bush was sworn in. Even today we're still operating under Clinton's last budget. Bush's first budget doesn't go into effect until Oct. If you don't believe me then get your head out of your ass and look it up! If your limited intellect can't find it then ask. If you say "please" I'll give you the link.

Still laughing Comrade Danny Boy?

posted 09-07- 01:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:

I did pretty good in the Carter
years. Had high inflation but I had a good
cola package negotiated by my union so I didn't
give a shit. All I got from Regan was layoff,
company caused strikes and anti-labor
legislation passed.

The GNP doesn't do you much
good when your out of a job.

---

So now we see Smokey's true colors. He didn't "give a shit" that the rest of the country was suffering through the highest inflation and highest interest rates in US history during the Carter years. As long as his union took care of him then that's all that matters. Screw your neighbor, right Smokey. And who cares if America enjoyed six years of uninterrupted growth under Reagan. Smokey was laid off for a while and that's the only thing that really counts.

Smokey's measure of the American economy is his own personal well being. Talk about greedy and selfish! He's no different than those greedy fat cat Republican's he's always complaining about...except they are more successful in accumulating wealth than he ever was. That's his real complaint. His selfishnish didn't work out as well.... and he needed a union to get what he did. Some people turn to the government to take care of them and others turn to a union. Same lazy mentality.

Tell me Smokey, now that you are retired, what is your gauge of the American economy, since your having a job is no longer relevent?

posted 09-07- 02:44 PM               

You guys kill me. You were real constitutionalists
when the supreme court was appointing your guy
president. Yeah right. The only republican
around here willing to admit the supreme court
was overstepping it's authority was SV and he
was glad they were doing it. Don't tell me
about your love for the constitution. The only
time you guys love the constitution is when
it's working in your favor. When enforcing
the constitution is going against you then
it can be thrown out the window.

Just for your information the union can't get
anybody shit without the backing of the people
in the union. Something you suckasses wouldn't
understand. Any union that doesn't work don't
work because they have a bunch of people in
it like Mirth.

Mirth, I retired at 49. When do you think your
non-union ass will be able to retire? Oh yeah,
factor in your boy Bush crashing the stock
market (and your 401k). Also factor in Bush
taking your social security and investing it
in the stock market before he crashes it.

posted 09-07- 05:10 PM            

How long did you serve in the military again Jerry?

Tell us about losing the life savings again..please?

posted 09-07- 05:23 PM            

Oh give me a break. Guess we have a new player in flamewars.

1. I posted this because it' flamewars..good troll bait.

2. This is flame wars, you are supposed to call each other names and act stupid.

Don't descend to our level? LOL...this is flamewars...an amusement park for people to talk trash without having to deal with the consequences. Don't get high and mighty on me. The Limbaugh kids, Jerry Cleaver and Mirthy Pooh talk just as much shit and trash as Smokey and I do. I think its funny anyway. All these flames do is show you just how fucked up each one of is in our beliefs. Some people believe that RAT non-union construction workers are better off than their union counter-parts that make almost twice as much money and have a pension plan, insurance and dental/medical. Others have worked union their whole lives. Who is better? Neither one...we are just a bunch of stupid assholes with nothing better to do than insult each other on the fucking internet.

So in closing, take your holier than thou attitude and shut the fuck up. If you want to play, then play dirty like the rest of us. Cause if you don't I'll fuck with you until you fight back or leave like a little bitch (read ->Sv).

So choose your side....People with a brain, Democrat or Limbaugh. I personally like to think for myself and not along party lines, but you sound like a sheep in the herd. Jerry and Mirth need the help anyway. Welcome to the fray.

Here's a *bitch slap* to welcome you.

posted 09-07- 05:56 PM               

About unions, I think they can be good or bad, I think employers want to keep as much money to themselves as possible, and I think some will be unfair to their employees.

IF the people who work for a company feel they are being overworked, or underpaid, or work in unsafe conditions and managment doesn't want to listen to them, then I ask you guys what choice do the workers have?

And if you think that stuff doesn't happen nowadays your messed the head. The last job I worked at I was underpaid and knew it, my boss was contracting work for redoing a hotel, he was getting I think $14 and hour for labour, and he was paying us $7, now I know that there is alot of hidden costs in running a business, I have studied opening my own and know you can't pay everyone that $14, but all we wanted was 8-12 depending on who were were. He started EVERYONE at 7 bucks, after 3 or 4 months I had to bug him for a raise, after bugging him and getting the run around he finally offered 7.50, I had asked for 9 and I knew I deserved it. It was the same for everyone. None of us could get a fair shake, maybe we could have if we all stood together. And no I couldn't just quit because I was the sole supporter of my family and didn't have any money to use while looking for somthing else.

Shit happens, SOME employers mistreat employees.

Now it seems (specially in tech jobs) that employers are learning that they have to share the wealth to get and keep good employees. To me that is a better way then a union but it doesn't seem to happen everywhere.

When your one guy out of hundreds working in a factory asking for a raise you know you deserve, and the boss won't give it to ya, there is nothing you can do except quit, and thats not as easy as some of you would like to think.

The other side is unions that go to far and push for so much that the company can't afford to run anymore, as Mirth has pointed out if a company isn't profitable its not running and then no one is happy.

Really actual union thing is wacked I mean someone should represent the workers to the management and carry their message, but I don't think they should be paid, they should be a volunteer so they are still working with the average joe, instead of being turned into one of the managment guys, plus this whole union dues thing is messed, I guess maybe save some money to go back to the workers if there is a strike but thats it.

Now about socialism. I know you guys are all commie haters, but some of us belive in compassion, some of us belive in sharing just a little bit of the wealth, I do think you could lower taxes AND keep the social programs in place, by improving efficiancy (surely you won't try to say that the goverment [be it Canada or the US] is already efficiant) and cracking down on fraud and such.

I personally have been on welfare, and at least here in this town (every place is different even down to the town in ontario) all you had to do was write down all the places you tried to get a job, you had to go to at least 3 places a day.

THATS IT.

Some people on welfare need a little more of a kick on the ass then that, me included my wake up call was my son, theres no way I'm raising any kids on welfare.

Now welfare here does drug testing and you have to pass a literacy test or take upgrading if you fail, or you don't get the money. I feel they should do more, not quite sure what. But I know when I lived with my dad I had to leave when he went to work and couldn't come home until he did, strangly enough I got a job LOL.

I personally have no problems with my taxes going to help someone out who has lost their job. But I wish the system did a better job getting them back to work and was more efficiant (as in cost less money to run the overhead system).

Oh yeah you now have to do some sort of community volunteer work to keep getting your check.

I'm pretty sure that welfare use has dropped in Ontario.

posted 09-07- 06:03 PM               

Now I admit I want to get my family set up so I don't HAVE to work everyday 8 hours day.

But I want to do stuff till I die, I don't want to get setup and then just sit and watch TV till I die.

You guys might remember that I want to build my own home from logs on my land and such.

I was talking to the author of the 2 log building books I own.

He is 75 years old and still working, I asked when he would be running another course in ontario, he said he probly won't, he figures after 75 he is done with teaching. He loves showing people and all but its getting harder.

Not to mention he is building ANOTHER log home right now 3 miles away from the closest powerlines in the northern Ontario forests.

Thats what I want to do, work my whole life at stuff I enjoy.

How many of you guys will be felling trees and building homes at 75?

I personally just want to be set up so I can work only when I want, and have lots of different stuff to do. Like build log homes, make cabinets and do electrical work.

posted 09-07- 07:00 PM               

Dannyboy, you got the acting stupid part down cold. Of course, you have us at a disadvantage. You really are stupid.

posted 09-07- 08:09 PM               

No, I'm not going to just go away, and

NO, I'm not going to throw profanities,

And if you really like to think for yourself, when are you going to start? You accuse conservatives of lining up behind Rush Limbaugh, you obviously don't know what you're talking about!

Take the last presidential conventions prior to the election. The Republicans had speakers pro and against abortion, for instance, among other issues. The Liberals, I mean the Democrats, wouldn't allow any speakers who deviated from the party line.

When Newt Gingrich tripped on himself, most Republicans looked the other way and let him get run out of town. When Billy Boy Clinton gets caught with everything he got caught in, including dropping bombs where there were no targets to get Monica off the front pages, the Dem/Libs formed again singing "Stand By Your Man".

Liberal talk show hosts, such as there are, tend not to field dissenting opinions, where conservatives like Limbaugh and Michael Savage give liberals head of the line privileges on their shows. Speaking of which, Limbaugh and Savage are taking pot shots at each other, and Savage has been savaging W, a level of individual thinking you won't find among... like, Dan Rather, how long did it take him to report that Chandra Levy was missing?

I love it when you Liberals say you like to think for yourselves. When are you going to start?

posted 09-07- 11:30 PM               

I am, however, wondering about how GW is going to get the money he will need to build a missile shield, fund faith-based programs, strengthen and modernize the military, retool social security, and improve education... all initiatives he has put on the table.

posted 09-08- 01:14 AM               

You guys say that you need less goverment spending in a resession and tax cuts to get money in the hands of the people.

Wouldn't goverment spending essentialy do the same thing? and possibly at the same time get even more people working and off welfare or unemployment?

I know in the end they do the same thing, you put the money back in the hands of the people and they spend more, creating more demand and creating more jobs.

But wouldn't a goverment program possibly help the economy quicker?

Course if the goverment is too broke to do any of the stuff Dan outlined how can it afford another tax cut?

Really I feel its better for the goverment to have left the money in the peoples hands in the first place, but since it is too late, whats the most effective way to stimulate the economy?

As much as I hate make work programs, it almost seems like an ok idea in a situation like this.

Just a thought anyways.

No economics degree or data to back any of it up.

posted 09-08- 07:05 AM               

Tax cuts under republican administrations
benifit the wealthy. That's why they keep
hollering for it. You are right about govt.
spending putting people to work and thus
putting money into the hands of the people.
Their problem with govt. spending is it puts
money into the hands of working people instead
of people who all ready have money.

Bush's answer to the failing economy is now
the old republican standby of a capital gains
tax cut. LOL. The average guy might benefit
from a tax cut like this a few times in his
life. A businessman or a wealthy investor
would benifit every day.

posted 09-08- 10:34 AM               

Really though, the best thing would be to have left the money in the hands of the people in the first place.

posted 09-08- 11:58 AM               

I do agree that for a quick economic jump start you need to let the consumer keep more of his money by reducing taxes for everyone. Reducing the higher tax rates, like reducing the Federal Reserve Rate, takes longer to have any impact but will help the economy in the long run by creating capital for investment and growth.

posted 09-08- 12:45 PM               

"When an economy depends on government spending it always fails"

I REALIZE THAT, I'm not trying to say thats how you should BASE a goverment.

What I AM saying is that if you have a slump in the economy and the goverment wants to give it a boost, and if its choices were make a tax break or a make work project.

I feel that the make work project will effect the economy FASTER.

Think about it, you make a tax break and its almost always on the NEXT budget, not right away, so that money isn't going into the economy right away, but if you get people working it puts it in to the economy right away, think about it, the first paycheck gets spent and put into the loop.

Not to mention that if your putting people to work that are on welfare or unemployment it gets them working RIGHT AWAY, where if it was a tax break they would still be unemployed until the increased spending made a differnce in the market and demand increased.

Now a tax REBATE, is a totally differnt thing from a tax cut. A rebate that was given out quickly and efficiantly would be the quickest solution of getting more money out there, if it had to wait for the next budget it might not work as quicky as a work project.

Think about it this way, your dad is your goverment and your a young boy with an allowance.

You want some money(I guess you spent your last weeks allowance too quickly) and your dad says he can do one of three things for you.

Give you money now (rebate)
Give you an extra chore to do and you get paid after its done (make work project)
OR
Increase your allowance but not until the end of the week (tax cut)

The order I listed them is the best order for getting your money the quickest.

If you were smart you would pick the increase in allowance because its a continuing thing, but if you wanted to see that movie REALLY BAD you might take it now.

So if decisions are made quickly and everything moves quickly (impossible in the goverment I know) a make work project should get the money out there quicker then a tax cut, and a tax rebate would work even quicker.

And in the end a tax cut would be the best thing for the people. And never having taken the taxes from the people would have been an ever better solution.

posted 09-08- 12:50 PM               

Also during Reagan's terms, we had the longest stretch of record busting deficits.

>Clinton was in office for 8 years. What do we have to show for it?

A vast reduction in the enormous debt racked up by the Reagan Administration.

posted 09-08- 12:54 PM               

I too had a decent income when I was BORROWING money to go to collage.

posted 09-08- 09:47 PM               

"Also during Reagan's terms, we had the longest stretch of record busting deficits."

And who held the purse strings then? For years after years after years? Were the Democrats such rocket scientists, honorable responsible citizens that they are, that they didn't see the tax cuts and so continued to buy votes (er, to you socialists that would be to continue to fund social programs) at an INCREASING rate? I suppose they were just powerless, or did they overestimate the stimulating effect tax cuts have on the economy?

"Clinton was in office for 8 years. What do we have to show for it? A vast reduction in the enormous debt racked up by the Reagan Administration." Oh, a vast reduction, it was? Again, now think back to those government classes you slept through, who holds the purse strings in government? The President? Clinton wanted you to think that... but no, it's the Congress. You don't remember the wailing that greeted the ending of the welfare entitlement? How the Republicans put this in front of Clinton twice, he vetoed it twice, then they got him to sign it on the third time. Oh the crying, the predictions of homelessness unleashed... didn't happen, Clinton took credit for more folks at work (less reason to stay home), and the budget was eased because we weren't paying so much!

And tax cuts benefit the rich? The rebate benefitted me, and I won't become the rich in the forseable future. The tax cut was scheduled to faze in over YEARS, it's rear-loaded (meaning we won't see most of it until years have passed), I'll see if it helps me by the time my son's in High School. Maybe. In the meantime, tell me how to write a tax cut that benefits the poor, when the poor don't pay taxes! While you're at it, tell me how many people get their pay from companies owned by the poor.

Yes, let's fund programs that actually help the poor get back to work, unless they are physically incapable of it. Then, we'll just take care of them. Fine. But, you keep trying to redistribute wealth out of the hands of those that produce it and you'll kill the goose that layed the golden egg. You'll feel real good about it, probably... that's the problem. Misery loves company.

Try Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged sometime. The book asks what happens when the producers of society (Atlas) are so burdened carrying the country that they quit, Atlas shruggs, and there is no one to re-distribute wealth FROM.

There's probably a comic book version you Democrats can handle...

Chaps out

posted 09-09- 12:33 AM               

Even before it was reformed, welfare accounted for only 1% of federal spending and about 3% of state spending. Of course Republicans will always state that welfare accounts for much more, but that's only because they consider things like school lunches, food stamps for the elderly and disabled, medicade, and job training to all be elements of the welfare program.

posted 09-09- 11:53 AM               

If you look at the unemployment figures it was the military build-up for WWII that got us out of the depression, not FDR....unless he caused WWII you can't claim he ended the depression. It happened on his watch, so if you give him credit for ending the depression then you have to blame him for WWII...neither one makes sense.

posted 09-09- 12:19 PM               

Actually, Republicans held the Senate from 1981 to 1987. So, it's safe to say that both Republicans and Democrats had an equal hand in the budgets during those years. On top of that, Reagan could have vetoed any of the budgets he didn't like.

>Were the Democrats such rocket scientists, honorable responsible citizens that they are, that they didn't see the tax cuts and so continued to buy votes (er, to you socialists that would be to continue to fund social programs) at an INCREASING rate? I suppose they were just powerless, or did they overestimate the stimulating effect tax cuts have on the economy?

Reagan's budget proposals were based on rosy economic forecasts (sound familiar?). The reason that Reagan's budget proposals were never passed is because they would have increased the national debt far greater than any budgets that the House Democrats proposed.

posted 09-09- 05:18 PM               

Actually, as I remember it, the TAX CUT part of the Reagan Plan was passed, and the military buildup. The goverment spending cuts part (exempting the military buildup) was not.

And, yes, the Republican Senate was a part of that, and I've felt for a long time they've been a singularly gutless bunch. I haven't really ever respected them. I was motivated by the Contract With America, but that was a house thing.

Then and now, some aspects of governance don't meet in the middle well. I think that if you want to attack the deficit, cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is a valid thing. I've seen numbers saying that tax revenue actually increased under Reagan. But you really need to cut spending as well, and you certainly shouldn't increase spending. Which is what happened.

So now we have a similar bunch of Republican senators that many of us out in Republicanland consider... gutless. Now even Democrat leaders say the military needs to be built back up. I'm in the military, and I'm looking at the political landscape, and remembering Bush's campaign promisses, and I'm uneasy.

Yeah, I'll throw bricks at Democrats... But that doesn't mean I'm a knee-jerk Republican. Ask me sometime what I think of Rumsfeld's Review...

posted 09-09- 05:28 PM               

The economy picked up when FDR got in office,
just as it will when (hopefully) Bush is
thrown out of office in 2004.

posted 09-09- 06:16 PM               

The fact relevent to our discussion is that the unemployment rate in the US in 1939 was 17%.....seven years after FDR was elected. Does this sound like he ended the depression? What ended the depression was WWII. If you are claiming that he started WWII then you're right, he ended the depression. But the reality is that Japan and Germany are responsible for the abrupt end of the depression in the US.

Yes, FDR did create some government jobs. Yes, FDR established soup kitchens to feed people. Yes, he was an inspirational leader who gave people hope. But the depression did not end until the war started, and that's a fact. The depression was world wide and that's a fact. The war time economy which brought Germany out of their depression in the mid 30's had the same impact in the US 5 years late when we went on a war footing.

Smokey, you're a pretty bright guy. It's a shame you are so undeducated and so brainwashed by liberal lies. Study some history. You may develope a more reasonable and less emotional outlook on life.