 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999 time: 05:36
|
|
Contrary to your beliefs, again we are very familiar with our local, county and state taxes which are fine, and for your information, health costs have been going tremendously high no matter what creature is in the white house, and liberals have spent more on education than anybody and the reults have been less than satisfactory, throwing money at something doesn't automatically make the problem go away.
And with any luck Bush will pay off the debt with inflated dollars, and BTW who really gives a **** about the debt, the economy is really starting to run and if it keeps up then more tax money is generated, to pay off your precious debt.
The attacks on Bush to me sound awfully familiar to the attacks in Iraq, as the move towards their own June 30th turnover the attacks are going up. As the economy gets better, and the Iraq war fading to the back of the news now all leading up to the November election your liberals are working hard to find crap to bin on Bush. Your information ammunititon is becoming less and less. You are really worried about the debt, c'mon, is that all you got left?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:36
|
|
quote: the economy is really starting to run and if it keeps up then more tax money is generated, to pay off your precious debt. | that is the biggest fallacy... look at the reagan years (considering his death has brought his 'legacy' to the forefront)... tax receipts increased because of the 14 tax increases reagan was responsible for, his '81 tax cuts cut revenue. During the CLinton years (after the 1993 budget raised the top marginal tax rate) tax receipts grew due to economic growth despite the right's assertions that raising taxes would destroy the economy. I'm sure you probably believe in "voodoo economics" 
Go take an economics class, read some books (I have a decent reading list if you are interested), and learn about what is going on in the government.
The problem with the Democrats (and liberals) is that they rely too much on facts and the truth. They don't pander to the dumb. And in America, you can't win an election if you don't pander to the dumb.
quote: You are really worried about the debt, c'mon, is that all you got left?
| Yes... over $7,000,000,000,000 in debt is something to worry about.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 07 Jun 2004 at 08:08:44 PM GMT is: $7,218,481,554,772.13
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999 time: 05:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sava
that is the biggest fallacy... look at the reagan years (considering his death has brought his 'legacy' to the forefront)... tax receipts increased because of the 14 tax increases reagan was responsible for, his '81 tax cuts cut revenue. During the CLinton years (after the 1993 budget raised the top marginal tax rate) tax receipts grew due to economic growth despite the right's assertions that raising taxes would destroy the economy. I'm sure you probably believe in "voodoo economics" 
Go take an economics class, read some books (I have a decent reading list if you are interested), and learn about what is going on in the government.
The problem with the Democrats (and liberals) is that they rely too much on facts and the truth. They don't pander to the dumb. And in America, you can't win an election if you don't pander to the dumb.
Yes... over $7,000,000,000,000 in debt is something to worry about.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 07 Jun 2004 at 08:08:44 PM GMT is: $7,218,481,554,772.13 |
You know Sava, it is really easy saying how the economy is going to go bad, of coarse it will sometime in the future, but you guys have no idea, talk about taking a econ class, why don't you tell me what's wrong the the surge in the economy that a economists that I have read in the news both CNN and FOX said the outlook is positive. 1.3 million jobs created from 2.0 lost duing the .com in March'01 and tower falling in sep'01.
Again, Debt, big deal, this country on an asset to liability ratio is still to the positive, again big flipping deal. Tell me exactly how the debt will hurt me, I will tell you, somehow jerkoff liberal like Kerry getting into the White House and freak out and raise taxes like a jackass, that would do it. And getting transparent jobs in the 90's like Clinton got that finally busted in March 2001 is now proud moment for you slick williers.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999 time: 05:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Defiant: What did your tax rebate help you do? And more importantly, will that one-time gift help you at all in the long term? And, even more importantly, will it help you enough in the long term that you won't care about your children's education, your social security, your family's health, etc etc etc. |
FAB,
It not just a one time, my Fed taxes are lower the four hundred came as a catch up to the previous year, which the tax cuts were instituted. I spent it like a good American to get this country going, like it seems to be.
First of all a child's eduction, what are you referring to, there will always be education, I have one in college, freshman in HS and one in diaper school, I guess I don't get your point here. SS will always be an issue and the sooner we are able to privitize it the better, by law you still put money away, but it is like a 401K instead of letting the gov't handle it for you, not for them to mess with. Health care is the biggest promblem this country is facing, however neither side is coming up with a legit solution, really a moot point against tax cuts.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Emperor Fabulous
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Actor-in-Training
Aug 1999 time: 00:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Defiant
FAB,
It not just a one time, my Fed taxes are lower the four hundred came as a catch up to the previous year, which the tax cuts were instituted. I spent it like a good American to get this country going, like it seems to be.
First of all a child's eduction, what are you referring to, there will always be education, I have one in college, freshman in HS and one in diaper school, I guess I don't get your point here. SS will always be an issue and the sooner we are able to privitize it the better, by law you still put money away, but it is like a 401K instead of letting the gov't handle it for you, not for them to mess with. Health care is the biggest promblem this country is facing, however neither side is coming up with a legit solution, really a moot point against tax cuts. |
1.) You may have spent your 400 like a good American, but do you feel that those who got 40,000 back did the same? If you do, you're severly shoving your head in the sand. They get their money back and we suffer because less money is able to go around to all the important programs that taxes support.
2.) You completely misunderstand the education issues, maybe sand in your eyes. I know education will always be there. That's not the issue...the issue is the QUALITY of the education. Having been through the Wisconsin education system, where we went to school in a decrepit building whose classrooms were really one large room with deviders, unsafe playgrounds, teachers fired consistently for not being up to par, and had an art room in the basement bathroom, I know what lack of education funding can do. Having then moved to Massachusetts and gone through that system, I know the difference of the two.
A lack of education funding is horrible for your kids and my kids. Greed for a small tax break only leads to a poorer education, fewer opportunities, and a public that, wouldn't you know it, sticks its head in the sand.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999 time: 05:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
1.) You may have spent your 400 like a good American, but do you feel that those who got 40,000 back did the same? If you do, you're severly shoving your head in the sand. They get their money back and we suffer because less money is able to go around to all the important programs that taxes support.
2.) You completely misunderstand the education issues, maybe sand in your eyes. I know education will always be there. That's not the issue...the issue is the QUALITY of the education. Having been through the Wisconsin education system, where we went to school in a decrepit building whose classrooms were really one large room with deviders, unsafe playgrounds, teachers fired consistently for not being up to par, and had an art room in the basement bathroom, I know what lack of education funding can do. Having then moved to Massachusetts and gone through that system, I know the difference of the two.
A lack of education funding is horrible for your kids and my kids. Greed for a small tax break only leads to a poorer education, fewer opportunities, and a public that, wouldn't you know it, sticks its head in the sand. |
That is probably the most incorrect statement I have heard, I am from Wisconsin(central), attended the always 1, 2 or 3 highest populated school in the state and then on to a University here and the education is not lacking in way or form that I see. Besides, as well as you know HS and below is mostly funded by your property taxes with Fed grants.
YES, I believe most did spend their money and fueled with low interest rates, many refinanced their homes to a 15 year or lower so in the years to come a good portion will own their home and be able to spend more money to the economy instead of paying mortgages for the other would be 15 years on a 30 mortgage.
It looks like to me as soon as you got to MASS your head went into the sand, or are you natually a gloom and doomer.
What exactly are the important programs? I sure as hell see a lot of wasted money in our school system that could be diverted to more positive programs or lowering of the property taxes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:36
|
|
Defiant... I'm talking about Real GDP figures... not the Dow Jones or Nasdaq. 
from Economic History Services: http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/gdp_answer.php
quote:
(in billions)
1980 $5,161
1981 $5,291
1982 $5,189
1983 $5,423
1984 $5,813
1985 $6,053
1986 $6,263
1987 $6,475
1988 $6,742
1989 $6,981
1990 $7,112
1991 $7,100
1992 $7,336
1993 $7,532
1994 $7,835
1995 $8,031
1996 $8,328
1997 $8,703
1998 $9,066
1999 $9,470
2000 $9,817
2001 $9,866
2002 $10,080 | From 1993 to 2000 (the Clinton years) Real GDP grew from $7.532 trillion to $9.817 trillion. A growth of $2.285 trillion... the largest growth in an 8 year period of GDP in the history of mankind. The Reagan years, as you can see, saw about $1.5 trillion in Real GDP growth. Note that after 1981 (and the massive tax cuts) the GDP SHRUNK! Also note that GDP growth slowed after 2000. The first year of the Bush presidency (when the recession started in MARCH of 2001, so Bush didn't "inherit" a recession), saw slow, but not negative growth. So your "burst bubble" theory is more about the stock market. The GDP, not the stock market, is the number to look at when talking about the economy.
I'm available to educate you further if necessary. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Defiant
I believe it is a just war and will cost us less in the long run, not only in monies but lives. |
i see. so not fighting a war results in more dead people and money spent. i would have never thought that! please educate me more in right wing ignorance oh great one.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36. Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|