[ironknee]

ahhhh listen to the minorites spin spin spin

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and all that other stuff I posted above.

The economy is in pretty good condition right now. Not as good as the height of the Internet boom that Clinton got the benefit of, but not the lows it was at the end of Clinton's adminstration when Bush inherited a slight recession.

Have you looked at the strength of our dollar now? Have you considered why this is? Credit card debt, banks having to borrow money from abroad, outsourcing, bankruptcies from rising health care costs, etc.

There are many problems with our economy, despite the attempts to mask these problems with trickle down bullshit (which doesn't work, BTW), and numbers being skewed by the wealthy 1% of the population. We are now pretty much a royalist economy much like we were in the 1900s pre WW II. The middle class is dying.

I'm sure everything is actually great though.

[ironknee]

oy and the national debt!

spend and bomb spend and bomb

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

the Dem's approval rating is even lower

What is this, football? Stop being so partisan! Unless you are on their payroll, it makes no logical sense.

Democrats and Republicans both suck, because they are politicians! All I care about is what I think is best for this country, and I don't care which party is representing my interests - whichever will get the job done. If you were to take this attitude, perhaps you wouldn't feel so compelled to get in these sorts of pointless defensive jabs?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you looked at the strength of our dollar now
....

You can cherry-pick statistics during any time in history in order to make things look bad. The fact of the matter is though that overall, we are in an economic expansion, not a recession like we were at the end of Clinton's reign. Most of the other numbers are good as well. Spin all you like....it will only make your point look more pathetic when the facts are taken as a whole.

There are many problems with our economy, despite the attempts to mask these problems with trickle down bullshit (which doesn't work, BTW)....

History would seem to prove you wrong.

[besson3c]

I would like for you to back up both of your arguments, stupendousman...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would like for you to back up both of your arguments, stupendousman...

What arguments are you refuting?

- That you are cherry-picking numbers?
- That we are in an economic expansion (a growing economy)?
- That when we have lowered taxes that we have not also increased tax revenue?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is this, football? Stop being so partisan! Unless you are on their payroll, it makes no logical sense.

Democrats and Republicans both suck, because they are politicians! All I care about is what I think is best for this country, and I don't care which party is representing my interests - whichever will get the job done. If you were to take this attitude, perhaps you wouldn't feel so compelled to get in these sorts of pointless defensive jabs?

sorry, meant congress as a whole has lowest rating in decades

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not that the recession with Clinton's fault either. It wasn't.

it started in 2000
washingtonpost.com: Economists Say Recession Started in 2000

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

it started in 2000
washingtonpost.com: Economists Say Recession Started in 2000

That's an old article. It's pretty much conceded by everyone now that the recession started during the Clinton administration. Not that it "may have" but it did.

But as Kevin pointed out, it's often times hard to pin economic performance on any President. Between natural economic cycles and other events that the President does not control, blaming him for "the rooster crowing" or not crowing isn't always wise. It's the easy route when you are looking to score political points against a political opponent who happens to have been on the job when a bad thing happens, but it's not always the most intelletually honest point in which to start an argument.

Clinton's economy both benefited (during the middle third of his 8 years) from the "Internet Boom" and was hurt near the end when the "boom" came crashing down. I'm not sure you can blame either the extreme good or bad on him. One thing I will always give him credit for is that his economic policies did nothing to stand in the way of the growth that was occuring on its own. He pretty much kept hands off and let the industry grow as fast as it could, and that was a good thing. He could have listened to economic lefties and tried to tax it all to afford a socialist health care system or something, but didn't!

[besson3c]

You're right that economic performance cannot be squarely placed as a presidential responsibility, but certainly presidential economic strategies and philosophies contribute...

We can now see that trickle down does not work. It didn't work during Reagan, it doesn't work now. All it does is redistribute wealth and make us a royalist society. This would be ideal if our strategy was to disregard the middle class.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're right that economic performance cannot be squarely placed as a presidential responsibility, but certainly presidential economic strategies and philosophies contribute...

We can now see that trickle down does not work. It didn't work during Reagan, it doesn't work now. All it does is redistribute wealth and make us a royalist society. This would be ideal if our strategy was to disregard the middle class.

Who are "we"? You and the mouse in your pocket?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

He pretty much kept hands off and let the industry grow as fast as it could, and that was a good thing. He could have listened to economic lefties and tried to tax it all to afford a socialist health care system or something, but didn't!

I realize that that is a throwaway troll, but I will bite. You know perfectly well that a 'socialist health care system' would produce economic growth by being cheaper than the current one, and so less of a drain on people's pay-checks.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I realize that that is a throwaway troll, but I will bite. You know perfectly well that a 'socialist health care system' would produce economic growth by being cheaper than the current one, and so less of a drain on people's pay-checks.

All of this just seems like an extension of red scare to me...

Somebody should tell these conservatives that this is the year 2007.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All of this just seems like an extension of red scare to me...

Somebody should tell these conservatives that this is the year 2007.

and the left it's not 1917, or 1789

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

and the left it's not 1917, or 1789

Please elaborate (and instead of painting all of the left with a wide brush like you are trying to do, how about just addressing the ones here, as I did in addressing "these" conservatives?)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ahhhh listen to the minorites spin spin spin

Ah listen to the moonbats not have anything viable to say in response.
I'm a Mac user, and also a minority here. But I wouldn't say there was anything wrong with my choice just because it doesn't fit the status quo.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is this, football? Stop being so partisan!

besson I've seen you be pretty partisan yourself. So come on.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

it started in 2000
washingtonpost.com: Economists Say Recession Started in 2000

That doesn't mean it was his fault. The tech stocks busted around that time. The same things that was BOOSTING the economy and making Clinton look good. You can thank the Bill Gates and Steve Job's of the world for that. Not Clinton. For either of it. Just like you can't blame an economy on Bush, that was tanking well before he got into the presidency. Or the gas prices, when the Clinton had been saying near the ending of the 90s that gas prices would soon DOUBLE and maybe TRIPLE in the next decade. OR maybe they had a crystal ball and knew Bush would be president.. yeah that's the ticket..

All of these accusations or shilly partisan ones. "Blood for Oil!!!" that nonsense. It really needs to stop.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We can now see that trickle down does not work. It didn't work during Reagan, it doesn't work now. All it does is redistribute wealth and make us a royalist society. This would be ideal if our strategy was to disregard the middle class.

Good, maybe that will stop them ****ing up our schools.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Who are "we"? You and the mouse in your pocket?

people often state opinion as fact, and then ad more people to their agreement as to look in the right.

The classic "We all can see" "everyone knows"

Theses are all fallacies.

[Chuckit]

Everyone knows that appeal to popularity is fallacious to begin with.

[Kevin]

constantly.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I realize that that is a throwaway troll, but I will bite. You know perfectly well that a 'socialist health care system' would produce economic growth by being cheaper than the current one, and so less of a drain on people's pay-checks.

So in using that logic, if the government subsidized a Mercedes for everyone, that would cause "economic growth by being cheaper than a current one" and would be an overall good thing. The government should just subsidize everything then and all our economic problems would be solved!!!



Go back and take a few economics courses.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So in using that logic, if the government subsidized a Mercedes for everyone, that would cause "economic growth by being cheaper than a current one" and would be an overall good thing. The government should just subsidize everything then and all our economic problems would be solved!!!



Go back and take a few economics courses.

Peeb is right, it is easier to offer public health, unless you care to dispute the numbers provided by the Wikipedia that have been posted here several times?

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Clinton's economy both benefited (during the middle third of his 8 years) from the "Internet Boom" and was hurt near the end when the "boom" came crashing down. I'm not sure you can blame either the extreme good or bad on him. One thing I will always give him credit for is that his economic policies did nothing to stand in the way of the growth that was occuring on its own. He pretty much kept hands off and let the industry grow as fast as it could, and that was a good thing. He could have listened to economic lefties and tried to tax it all to afford a socialist health care system or something, but didn't!

He did listen to the economic lefties, and did exactly what they all said.

Don't minimize his contributions. Compared to any other recent presidents (especially Bush, of course), his economic policies were spectacular. He resisted both the extreme left (socialize everything, redistribute wealth with taxes) and the extreme right (put all your friends on the government payroll, start some wars to redistribute wealth to your contributors, and lower taxes so your children have to pay for it all in the end). Clinton actually listened to the economists, for once, and the country benefited from his common sense.

Paying attention to basic economics is really important stuff. I guess it is too boring for most voters, and so people like you like to minimize its importance, but it makes such a big difference.

[Kevin]

Clinton rode the fence. Didn't want to make too many wavs either way. This wasn't some great mast plan he had to make everything right. It was just to please as many people as he could. He didn't have a stance. He made the polls have a stance.

Just like the "Don't ask don't tell" Hogwash. He didn't change a THING. Just said not to tell anyone you were gay.

That is what they were doing before. Yeah Revolutionary.

Kerry was trying to do the EXACTE same thing when he ran.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Ah listen to the moonbats not have anything viable to say in response.
I'm a Mac user, and also a minority here. But I wouldn't say there was anything wrong with my choice just because it doesn't fit the status quo.

isn't it awsome that gore is on the apple board?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

All of these accusations or shilly partisan ones. "Blood for Oil!!!" that nonsense. It really needs to stop.

it seems the world thinks this is true...except for a small minority in the us

[Monique]

Wow, I would have thought 4 to 6% approval rate.

2 funny things, have ever noticed that he never answered the questions and that he seems to live in lala land?

Also, Limbaugh said of Clinton during his first term since he was elected with 39% he should be in the 50% approval rating.

Since little Bush was elected with over 60% shouldn't he be around the 80% rate. But, you cannot fooled the Americans forever at last they see him as a very lousy president and a lousy human being.

[Chongo]

He did have six years of a opposition lead Congress that pretty much forced Clinton's hand on a lot of things, like welfare reform.

lower taxes=higher revenue. President Kennedy knew this when he made his speech in 1962
Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut - New York Times

Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut
Published: September 18, 1984
Tax-cutting policies with a supply-side flavor were put forward two decades ago by the Democratic Administration of John F. Kennedy.

In a speech before the Economic Club of New York on Dec. 14, 1962, President Kennedy gave what could stand today as an eloquent statement of the supply- side case, particularly as it relates to budget deficits and tax rates.

He said:

''Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.

''In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.''

also from the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/wa...econ.html?_r=1

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL THIS
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SAVE

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

And who is paying those taxes?
The Tax Foundation - Who Really Pays Income Taxes?

APRIL 14, 2005

Who Really Pays Income Taxes?

by Andrew Chamberlain

Do wealthy taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes? Polls consistently show Americans believe they don't. But are they right?

The U.S. Treasury Department recently released a memo (PDF) that sheds some light on the issue:

...[A] small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. In 2002, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

From the memo, here's the projected breakdown of income tax payments by income group for 2005:

Projected Share of Individual Income Taxes and Income in 2005 (U.S. Treasury Estimate)
(see web page for chart)
With the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers paying roughly 33.7 percent of income taxes and earn just 16.5 percent of income, it's hard to argue they're not paying a fair share by any reasonable definition of "fair."

[besson3c]

Chongo: I see very little evidence to support the idea that Republicans have been better with handling money. In fact, you could make a good argument to the contrary.

Republicans say they are about lower taxes, but they are also about strangling social programs so that they can no longer function adequately, which in turn puts strain on the system and results in higher costs to compensate. The classic case is public education... No Child Left Behind sounds all warm and toasty on paper, but since it hasn't been funded adequately you get what we have now, a failing system where the vast majority of teachers do not think that the program as it has been implemented now is helping, and where test scores do nothing to dissuade us of this notion.

The other case is homeland security where we have this bipartisan 9/11 commission come up with these recommendations that aren't followed, failing grades, and of course FEMA failing in New Orleans.

These failings may not actually be due to funding, but simple resource allocation (as in, attention and study) and focus. The reason why you guys are so against government run health is because you haven't seen a good social program lately, because this government absolutely sucks at running them. What always seems to happen is that when this government is caught with their pants down, they just throw a bunch of money at the problem (like Guiliani's health care proposal and like the 9/11 commission noted in our approach to homeland security - we got an A in the funding category, an F in most others). Then, inevitably, since you have seen such failures of many of the social programs we have in place, you just assume that social programs in general are the devil, and that we must not being communist or socialist by improving these programs!

America needs to wake up to the fact that a country is only as good as its social programs. Red scare is over. We need these programs to WORK, and making them work will likely not involve any more financial expenses, in many cases. In the case of education, an exception that ought to be made, we need to realize the power of investment, and the sociological and economic return and upside to having a stronger education system. America needs to wake up to the fact that we are being manipulated by all of this bluster about raising taxes and communism, as many of us here clearly have fallen victim to.

We can do so much more without raising taxes a cent.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So in using that logic, if the government subsidized a Mercedes for everyone, that would cause "economic growth by being cheaper than a current one" and would be an overall good thing. The government should just subsidize everything then and all our economic problems would be solved!!!



Go back and take a few economics courses.

Not at all. I'm surprised even you think that automobiles and healthcare have very much in common in terms of economics. I suggest an intro to economics course for you before you wade into this one.

[Chongo]

That's why they lost control of congress. Most of the programs are overlapping and redundant versions of state programs. If you want a better education system make school choice available. Let parents choose what school to send the kids to, and have the money follow.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That's why they lost control of congress. Most of the programs are overlapping and redundant versions of state programs. If you want a better education system make school choice available. Let parents choose what school to send the kids to, and have the money follow.

All white, rich schools where children chant the name of God and let`s kill the women that have abortions; make a trip to our friendly KKK members, etc.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Monique 

All white, rich schools where children chant the name of God and let`s kill the women that have abortions; make a trip to our friendly KKK members, etc.

Yeah, and they literally defecate all over the elderly, steal their pills, all while high on drugs and beating up some defenseless animal...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That's why they lost control of congress. Most of the programs are overlapping and redundant versions of state programs. If you want a better education system make school choice available. Let parents choose what school to send the kids to, and have the money follow.

No, that's exactly the approach we should *not* be taking, since that's basically what we have now. As it stands now, underperforming schools have funding yanked away from them and are left to rot.

What seems hard for many conservatives to wrap their heads around is the idea of investment (you'd think that since they are supposed to be whizzes with money that this wouldn't be the case). Education is an investment. By investing in education, you get lower crime rates, less poverty, less strain on various systems (health care, law enforcement, etc.), less unplanned births, etc. This doesn't work when there are schools left to rot as as long as families live where they do, they simply cannot choose to go to another school (in many districts, there is only a finite number of schools a student can choose to go to, and often times that finite number is one). In order to have a better educated populace, *every* person needs a good education. "No child" left behind ring a bell?

Many conservatives, including several here evidently, have been completely misled and manipulated into skirting the less fortunate under the rug, and thinking that it is in our best interests to do so. This is *exactly* what I was referring to earlier when I referred to our society as a royalist society. The idea that we can impose solutions across the board with no regard to social class is a tragic myth.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Then, inevitably, since you have seen such failures of many of the social programs we have in place, you just assume that social programs in general are the devil, and that we must not being communist or socialist by improving these programs!

America needs to wake up to the fact that a country is only as good as its social programs.

You provide a rationale for why your audience thinks the way they do, and follow it up with a statement most of the people you are trying to convince would consider batshit insane.

Are you sure you understand their rationale as well as you think you do? I mean, if you did, I assume you wouldn't have shot yourself in the foot.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

You provide a rationale for why your audience thinks the way they do, and follow it up with a statement most of the people you are trying to convince would consider batshit insane.

Are you sure you understand their rationale as well as you think you do? I mean, if you did, I assume you wouldn't have shot yourself in the foot.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was exaggerating to make a point?

I honestly don't know why so many conservatives are so vehemently against the development of just about any social program.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was exaggerating to make a point?

I honestly don't know why so many conservatives are so vehemently against the development of just about any social program.

Because they are designed to "keep 'em down on the farm" The more a society is self sufficient, the less it needs the government, and those who run it.

As I have pointed out in other threads, conservatives/libertarians are not opposed to charity, we believe the private sector is much better at serving those needs, and have proven so with our wallets. Statists/liberals consider the forced redistribution of wealth as "charity"

Who Really Cares; Arthur C. Brooks

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

isn't it awsome that gore is on the apple board?

Isn't it cool that cheese is made of milk? Cause that response has about as much to do with your response, as your response had to do with my post.

it seems the world thinks this is true...except for a small minority in the us

The whole world at one time thought Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with too (Don't make me flood this thread full of quotes proving you wrong) That means diddly.

I was pointing out that more does not = better.

More people use Windows than Macs too.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I have pointed out in other threads, conservatives/libertarians are not opposed to charity, we believe the private sector is much better at serving those needs, and have proven so with our wallets. Statists/liberals consider the forced redistribution of wealth as "charity"

For the Good of mankind! Steal from the rich and give to the poor! This really really promotes success I tell ya.

Not.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

For the Good of mankind! Steal from the rich and give to the poor! This really really promotes success I tell ya.

Not.

Let's go with the Republican idea of 'steal from the poor, and give to the rich!'.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Because they are designed to "keep 'em down on the farm" The more a society is self sufficient, the less it needs the government, and those who run it.

As I have pointed out in other threads, conservatives/libertarians are not opposed to charity, we believe the private sector is much better at serving those needs, and have proven so with our wallets. Statists/liberals consider the forced redistribution of wealth as "charity"

Who Really Cares; Arthur C. Brooks

When are people going to realize that this is such a crock of shit? All societies that are not anarchies rely on their governments, and by deluding ourselves into thinking that we can ever obtain the impossible, we take our eye off the ball as to what ths government we do have is actually doing.

America has a huge population of apolitical non-voters - the majority of this population, in fact. All of the wishful thinking in the world about not wanting or needing a government will not make government disappear. The best way to keep government from interfering in our lives is to become interested and involved with what they do - no free passes. By becoming involved with what they do, we should not accept dysfunctional social programs that aren't working. Not only does this illuminate on the failings of our government we are supporting, but it is costly. Letting programs rot until they implode can be very expensive.

Secondly, your characterization of "charity" is also a crock of ****. What some wealth redistribution does is *invests* in parts of our society that need to be brought up. By pulling up from the bottom, we are keeping our costs down (these people utilize resources, they will not just disappear), we are growing our middle class and putting money in their pockets so that they can in turn put money back into the economy. We are trying to provide a level playing field in terms of education and opportunities for everybody so that we aren't a royalist society.

I'm not saying that our Democrats are doing this or not doing this, but it is unfair to characterize these ideas as "charity" - this is just another one of your hot button words meant to do little more than blow up smokescreens.

If we were to support a poor school in a poor neighborhood or something, do you think these schools will put all of this "charity" money into a foreign bank or something, never to be seen again? Study economics, and you'll learn that additional spending money stimulates the economy - it has to go somewhere, right? The difference in philosophy is simply whether the economy is stimulated more when the 1% wealthy elite spend, or whether we can get the middle class spending. I hope that someday we figure out that trickle-down economics do not work, plain and simple. All they do is transform our society to be focused around this wealth elite population at the peril of the middle class.

There is no charity, the characterization is unfair and the literal interpretation of this idea a myth - get over it.

[Chongo]

Who Really Cares; Arthur C. Brooks

The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. (On the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those who don’t share my beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence that I am the uncharitable one.)

Charity (practice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Who Really Cares; Arthur C. Brooks

So we actually agree? Why did you toss out the "government charity" political slogan than anyway?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

He did have six years of a opposition lead Congress that pretty much forced Clinton's hand on a lot of things, like welfare reform.

Well, sure, that was great. But he also stood up for some things on his own. He could have started a War On Random Middle Eastern Countries, but he didn't. He pushed NAFTA through Congress. The current president's advisors are trying to argue that budget deficits don't matter. They are obviously wrong and have no credibility. And neither does Bush on the economy. Again, it is simple things that make a huge difference.

lower taxes=higher revenue.

And the sky is green! This is ridiculous. I guess it is people like you to whom Bush is listening instead of economists. See, Clinton didn't listen to supply-side fools. Here's an analysis from the Treasury Department that contradicts your statement: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...july252006.pdf

Check out this New Yorker article, Tax Evasion: Online Only: The New Yorker . It has links to five other studies that come to the same conclusion as the one from the Treasury Department. "Every major Republican Presidential candidate—including John McCain, who actually voted against Bush’s 2001 tax bill—is on the record as saying that tax cuts pay for themselves." These guys are not qualified to run a country.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I honestly don't know why so many conservatives are so vehemently against the development of just about any social program.

Well, I'd be tickled to run you through it if you're interested.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Isn't it cool that cheese is made of milk? Cause that response has about as much to do with your response, as your response had to do with my post.


The whole world at one time thought Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with too (Don't make me flood this thread full of quotes proving you wrong) That means diddly.

I was pointing out that more does not = better.

More people use Windows than Macs too.

the tide is turning! our national nightmare is almost over!

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The whole world at one time thought Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with too (Don't make me flood this thread full of quotes proving you wrong) That means diddly.
...
I was pointing out that more does not = better.

Well it means something, in general. Your specific example is completely false, though. The whole world might have said they believed it, but in fact only the US and Britain really did. (And in the US, we only believed it because we were fed lies.) Quotes don't really matter, actions and policies do. Feel free to flood the forum with news stories about the military and financial commitments other countries have made because they felt Saddam was a thread who needed to be dealt with. (Good luck!) Don't waste your time typing out unsupported sound bites, though.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by tie 

And the sky is green! This is ridiculous. I guess it is people like you to whom Bush is listening instead of economists. See, Clinton didn't listen to supply-side fools.

So, JFK was a fool also?
YouTube - Income Tax Cut. JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/08/13 (1962)
American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York

In this speech he was said things are good, but they could be even better if taxes are cut.

[peeb]

You're talking about the Laffer Curve. It is by no means simple or uncontroversial. Anyone saying that you can have simple, predictable effects on revenue by making tax changes is lying to you.

[Chongo]

JFK was wrong?