Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/katrina.clinton/index.html

Democrats should make tax cuts an issue in 2006, former president say

Monday, September 19, 2005; Posted: 10:46 a.m. EDT (14:46 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Clinton believes the Democrats should pounce on and exploit President Bush's refusal to hike taxes to finance Hurricane Katrina relief efforts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"They should continue to oppose it, and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election," said Clinton, interviewed on Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week."

"I think it's very important that Americans understand... tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts. They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't."

Clinton said America's deficit has forced the United States to borrow "money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts."

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

The former president, who is involved in a Katrina relief fund-raising effort with former President Bush, elaborated on the issue of tax cuts, saying leaders should hope "for the sake of our country that the cows don't come home before we have time to rectify" the problem.

"I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese -- we're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly as rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iran -- I mean Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina. And at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive."

He said the United States depends on Japan, China, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Korea "to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina."

"I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong."

Clinton's appearance on the show marks the first time he was interviewed by Stephanopoulos, who worked as a senior adviser for policy and strategy in the Clinton administration from 1991 to 1996.

As for his relief efforts with former President Bush, Clinton said $90 million to $100 million have been raised.

[SuzeQuze]

I'm glad he said something because I think most Americans are unaware that this borrowing is even happening. It makes absolutely no sense to be borrowing from these countries.

[gldstwmn]

I'm glad he said something because I think most Americans are unaware that this borrowing is even happening. It makes absolutely no sense to be borrowing from these countries.

If it keeps going like this we are going to be broke. It's ridiculous.

[irishgrl]

If it keeps going like this we are going to be broke. It's ridiculous.
can we impeach him yet?

[SuzeQuze]

can we impeach him yet?

I really wish. He's a slippery sucker.

I hope Clinton keeps harping on this because people have very short attention spans.

[markolas]

Has anyone on the Ledge gotten one of these alleged tax cuts? I damn sure didn't get one. I had to *pay* when I filed my tax return this past year, and I made less than $25,000.

[strandinthewind]

Has anyone on the Ledge gotten one of these alleged tax cuts? I damn sure didn't get one. I had to *pay* when I filed my tax return this past year, and I made less than $25,000.


Essentially, unless you made over, say $150,000 a year, you probably noticed no tax cut overall because though your Fed. income taxes may have been reduced, you state and local taxes likely increased to compensate for the Fed. Govt.'s lack of funding for many state programs, etc. There are a bunch of articles on it if you look around on the net.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Clinton wants everyone to be equally miserable. Raising taxes would lower revenue; Clinton knows this and doesn't care. For Clinton, this is just an excuse to limit freedom and increase government influence in our lives.

simply raise taxes -- it's the Democratic Party cure-all.

[SuzeQuze]

Clinton wants everyone to be equally miserable. Raising taxes would lower revenue; Clinton knows this and doesn't care. For Clinton, this is just an excuse to limit freedom and increase government influence in our lives.

simply raise taxes -- it's the Democratic Party cure-all.

Baloney. This is not "typical" raising taxes. This is "clean up your mess" raising taxes. He started an unjust war which is a black hole of a money sucker. Now we have Katrina, which isn't his fault, but we have all of that to pay for. The top 1%, the wealthiest of Americans, the ones who need the extra money the least can't give back their tax cut because we are in crisis? That seems selfish. If they let the economy go to sh*t by watching the dollar decrease in value they may wind up with nothing themselves. Then they may wish they never got a tax cut that choked the economy.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

And he is also setting up the sound bites for the 2008 election. "We're tired of paying for the War in Iraq!"

[dissention]

And he is also setting up the sound bites for the 2008 election. "We're tired of paying for the War in Iraq!"

Funny thing is that the majority of the country agrees with him.

[strandinthewind]

Funny thing is that the majority of the country agrees with him.

Actually, I think that majority is over 70% now :eek:

But, Coulter and her ilk will go down with the ship rather than attack their sacred cow.

[mylittledemon]

He started an unjust war which is a black hole of a money sucker.


It's not unjust. What do you think happened when two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings? War was declared on us. 3,000 people dead. Action had to be taken. I would not stand idly by and let the Middle Eastern countries involved get away with that.

I can hear the forthcoming argument now...well why not go after Bin Laden instead of Hussein, no WMDs, etc...blah blah blah...They are all in league, one with another. The Middle Eastern countries are like one body. Taking Hussein was like cutting off both arms and legs. I think there are things in this world we will never full understand, or get the truth on. Don't think for a minute that the puppet media out there hasn't fooled you into joining the masses on what you should think.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

It's not unjust. What do you think happened when two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings? War was declared on us. 3,000 people dead. Action had to be taken. I would not stand idly by and let the Middle Eastern countries involved get away with that.

I can hear the forthcoming argument now...well why not go after Bin Laden instead of Hussein, no WMDs, etc...blah blah blah...They are all in league, one with another. The Middle Eastern countries are like one body. Taking Hussein was like cutting off both arms and legs. I think there are things in this world we will never full understand, or get the truth on. Don't think for a minute that the puppet media out there hasn't fooled you into joining the masses on what you should think.

I agree with you, and have to say you are brave making that statement around here...because you know exactly where it is going to lead. Bush's intentions were rather clear from the get go. He said not only Osama and his cronies, but also the countries that even supported or harbored terrorists, and if Iraq is not such a country then I don't know what is.

[dissention]

It's not unjust. What do you think happened when two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings? War was declared on us. 3,000 people dead. Action had to be taken. I would not stand idly by and let the Middle Eastern countries involved get away with that.

I can hear the forthcoming argument now...well why not go after Bin Laden instead of Hussein, no WMDs, etc...blah blah blah...They are all in league, one with another. The Middle Eastern countries are like one body. Taking Hussein was like cutting off both arms and legs. I think there are things in this world we will never full understand, or get the truth on. Don't think for a minute that the puppet media out there hasn't fooled you into joining the masses on what you should think.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I would think by now that the talking points could be freshened up just a little bit.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I would think by now that the talking points could be freshened up just a little bit.

Funny, I was thinking just the same about the liberal talking point.

[dissention]

Funny, I was thinking just the same about the liberal talking point.

Oh, honey, I know how upset you are about our country waking up to the incompetence that is the Republican party, but you knew it would happen sooner or later. Keep fighting the good fight, even if the facts aren't there to support you.

[SuzeQuze]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I would think by now that the talking points could be freshened up just a little bit.

Since the FACTS are:

People who provided the intelligence about the WMDs knew that it wasn't credible but used it anyway. To fix the info around the policy to go to war with Iraq (ala Downing Street).

Saddam did not have a relationship with Al Quada.

Most of the terrorists from 9/11 were Saudis, none were Iraqis.

No other countries, aside from UK, supported this war because war is a LAST RESORT.

There are more terrorist cells in Iraq now than anywhere due to the lawlessness there.

I could go on but I'm probably wasting my energy.

[Sugar]

Do people really still think bin Laden and Hussein were working together?

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Do people really still think bin Laden and Hussein were working together?

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The fact of if they were or weren't working together is irrelevant. I mean what was the worst case scenario with the war? A corrupt leader who gases his own people gets either killed or taken from power? Ohhh...The heart-ache.

Although, I will be the first to admit that the republicans were slow to respond back before WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was hit and we waged war with Hitler, you didn't hear the republicans "hounding" FDR with...

"Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?"

I mean you can't imagine such a scenario because it would have been insane back then. But now we have just gotten so used to the liberal complaining about "unjust" wars, that we don't think any differently.

[Sugar]

The fact of if they were or weren't working together is irrelevant. I mean what was the worst case scenario with the war? A corrupt leader who gases his own people gets either killed or taken from power? Ohhh...The heart-ache.

Although, I will be the first to admit that the republicans were slow to respond back before WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was hit and we waged war with Hitler, you didn't hear the republicans "hounding" FDR with...

"Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?"

I mean you can't imagine such a scenario because it would have been insane back then. But now we have just gotten so used to the liberal complaining about "unjust" wars, that we don't think any differently.

So you agree that there is really no evidence they were working together.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

So you agree that there is really no evidence they were working together.

No, but what I am saying is that it is irrelevant, either way.

[Sugar]

No, but what I am saying is that it is irrelevant, either way.

No it's not. It was one of the reasons given as to why we invaded. There was none of this "getting rid of an evil leader" before the WMD thing and the link between Bin Laden and Hussein fell apart. It's not the reason we went to war. It became the justification after the reasons fell apart.

So you think they were working together?

[dissention]

The fact of if they were or weren't working together is irrelevant.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Although, I will be the first to admit that the republicans were slow to respond back before WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was hit and we waged war with Hitler, you didn't hear the republicans "hounding" FDR with...

Your point? :shrug: This is not the forties.

"Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?"

Surely you aren't comparing the collaboration between Hirohito and Hitler with the nonexistent one betwwen Hussein and Bin Laden.

I mean you can't imagine such a scenario because it would have been insane back then. But now we have just gotten so used to the liberal complaining about "unjust" wars, that we don't think any differently.

Oy, your panty lines are showing.

[SuzeQuze]

The fact of if they were or weren't working together is irrelevant. I mean what was the worst case scenario with the war? A corrupt leader who gases his own people gets either killed or taken from power? Ohhh...The heart-ache.

Although, I will be the first to admit that the republicans were slow to respond back before WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was hit and we waged war with Hitler, you didn't hear the republicans "hounding" FDR with...

"Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?"

I mean you can't imagine such a scenario because it would have been insane back then. But now we have just gotten so used to the liberal complaining about "unjust" wars, that we don't think any differently.

Honey, wake up! The worst case is 2,000 dead Americans and countless dead, innocent Iraqis. :distress: Saddam had no power due to sanctions. He was a monster to his people, yes but that isn't why we went in there. The talking point changed to that when there were no WMDs. I mean, how can you keep justifying this?

If you're trying to equate 9/11 with the war in Iraq, which is what Bush continually tries to do, then how can you say the non-relationship is irrelevant? That's like if I say I smacked around a woman because she told her friend to stab me. Instead of going after the person who stabbed me I go after someone else? What sense does that make? And then, when I find out that she never said it I say "well that's irrelevent because she was a bad person and deserved a beating".

The backpedaling is getting old and Americans are finally waking up to it. Thank God.

[strandinthewind]

. . . "Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?" . . . .

The US declared war only on Japan on December 8, 1941. Then, on December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA. Only after that did the US declare war on Germany and Italy. Thus, your analogy of "Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?" is unsupported by facts. They declared war on us first.

Here is the US' Declaration of War on Germany and Italy:

December 11, 1941

The President's Message
To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt


The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Honey, wake up! The worst case is 2,000 dead Americans and countless dead, innocent Iraqis. :distress: Saddam had no power due to sanctions. He was a monster to his people, yes but that isn't why we went in there. The talking point changed to that when there were no WMDs. I mean, how can you keep justifying this?

If you're trying to equate 9/11 with the war in Iraq, which is what Bush continually tries to do, then how can you say the non-relationship is irrelevant? That's like if I say I smacked around a woman because she told her friend to stab me. Instead of going after the person who stabbed me I go after someone else? What sense does that make? And then, when I find out that she never said it I say "well that's irrelevent because she was a bad person and deserved a beating".

The backpedaling is getting old and Americans are finally waking up to it. Thank God.

You know before 9/11 I would have not been for sending Americans into harms way just so we could create "Ohio" in different parts of the world. But after 9/11, I really think that this is an area that we need to clean out. There is going to have to be an exit strategy at some point in time, because eventually this will become the Iraqi's war, to maintain the peace in their own country. But there are good things that have happened since the liberation of Iraq...and yes there is blood shed almost every day...but war isn't pretty and the fact is people are going to die! But we have to keep in mind the good that has happened that we consistently DON'T see on the evening news. Most of the areas in Iraq are virtually stable and safe; it is only a few choice places that are being consistently attacked by terrorist, unfortunately one being the capitol. The point is, liberating and obtaining freedom for a country that virtually has no idea or concept of what those words mean isn't easy and it is a long journey, which now must be made regardless.

[strandinthewind]

Honey, wake up! The worst case is 2,000 dead Americans and countless dead, innocent Iraqis. :distress: Saddam had no power due to sanctions. He was a monster to his people, yes but that isn't why we went in there. The talking point changed to that when there were no WMDs. I mean, how can you keep justifying this?

If you're trying to equate 9/11 with the war in Iraq, which is what Bush continually tries to do, then how can you say the non-relationship is irrelevant? That's like if I say I smacked around a woman because she told her friend to stab me. Instead of going after the person who stabbed me I go after someone else? What sense does that make? And then, when I find out that she never said it I say "well that's irrelevent because she was a bad person and deserved a beating".

The backpedaling is getting old and Americans are finally waking up to it. Thank God.

The argument rests with the conclusion that all Middle Easterners should be killed because they are all the same as OBL because they look like him. It is the same as people saying all black people steal, all gay men have AIDS, all women are idiots, blah, blah, blah. I often hope to have more faith in mankind to think outside of these generalizations, but it is hard to do.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Thank God.

Hey, watch it..."dust particles".

Silly rabbit! :xoxo:

[Sugar]

You know before 9/11 I would have not been for sending Americans into harms way just so we could create "Ohio" in different parts of the world. But after 9/11, I really think that this is an area that we need to clean out.

Why? They had nothing to do with it. Or do you have more information available to you than the 911 Commission? Why not invade Saudi Arabia? There was a more direct link there.

There is going to have to be an exit strategy at some point in time, because eventually this will become the Iraqi's war, to maintain the peace in their own country. But there are good things that have happened since the liberation of Iraq...and yes there is blood shed almost every day...but war isn't pretty and the fact is people are going to die! But we have to keep in mind the good that has happened that we consistently DON'T see on the evening news. Most of the areas in Iraq are virtually stable and safe; it is only a few choice places that are being consistently attacked by terrorist, unfortunately one being the capitol. The point is, liberating and obtaining freedom for a country that virtually has no idea or concept of what those words mean isn't easy and it is a long journey, which now must be made regardless.

Most of this is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the reasons given for going in the first place have all but fallen apart. The war is unjust because it was started on false pretenses. The fact that we attacked someone evil doesn't change that.

[JazmenFlowers]

You know before 9/11 I would have not been for sending Americans into harms way just so we could create "Ohio" in different parts of the world. But after 9/11, I really think that this is an area that we need to clean out. There is going to have to be an exit strategy at some point in time, because eventually this will become the Iraqi's war, to maintain the peace in their own country. But there are good things that have happened since the liberation of Iraq...and yes there is blood shed almost every day...but war isn't pretty and the fact is people are going to die! But we have to keep in mind the good that has happened that we consistently DON'T see on the evening news. Most of the areas in Iraq are virtually stable and safe; it is only a few choice places that are being consistently attacked by terrorist, unfortunately one being the capitol. The point is, liberating and obtaining freedom for a country that virtually has no idea or concept of what those words mean isn't easy and it is a long journey, which now must be made regardless.


oh my god. your Ledgie name is dead on, cause you are full of S**T. are you kidding me? here's a shovel, you're gonna need it.

there isn't enough time to go through all the holes you've left, but one thing that stuck out to me is why you feel it is our responsibilty to set up democracy and freedom in another country and spend billions of dollars and have Americans die for it? this is ignoring the fact that this is what invading Iraq has become about when it initially was about 9/11...but that's another journey Conan

[Brwn_eyes0511]

oh my god. your Ledgie name is dead on, cause you are full of S**T. are you kidding me? here's a shovel, you're gonna need it.

there isn't enough time to go through all the holes you've left, but one thing that stuck out to me is why you feel it is our responsibilty to set up democracy and freedom in another country and spend billions of dollars and have Americans die for it? this is ignoring the fact that this is what invading Iraq has become about when it initially was about 9/11...but that's another journey Conan

Thanks for the name-calling-resorting-to.

BTW, my statements weren't meant to be an infaliable dogma, I was simply pointing out the obvious.

[JazmenFlowers]

Thanks for the name-calling-resorting-to.

BTW, my statements weren't meant to be an infaliable dogma, I was simply pointing out the obvious.

yeah, you know what, that was uncalled for...and I apologize (I'm big enough to admit when I am wrong)

I still don't agree with you and it really ticks me off to see the homeless people and hungry children in America and devasted people in NOLA and our Coast, some who STILL don't have food, while our government spends our money on a war no one is sure of the basis of...

and I have to say that the fact that you put Ann Coulter in your signature lines or reference her sometimes totally infuriates me...I often have to look pass your posts. That's just my opinion and you are MORE than welcome to continue to do so, but I would like to know from you what it is about her you appreciate...

[gldstwmn]

can we impeach him yet?

We should know in about a month. ;)

[SuzeQuze]

yeah, you know what, that was uncalled for...and I apologize (I'm big enough to admit when I am wrong)

I still don't agree with you and it really ticks me off to see the homeless people and hungry children in America and devasted people in NOLA and our Coast, some who STILL don't have food, while our government spends our money on a war no one is sure of the basis of...

and I have to say that the fact that you put Ann Coulter in your signature lines or reference her sometimes totally infuriates me...I often have to look pass your posts. That's just my opinion and you are MORE than welcome to continue to do so, but I would like to know from you what it is about her you appreciate...

I have to try not to look at them myself. She isn't even conservative. She's a radical something, I don't know, she's her own breed.

[gldstwmn]

Actually, I think that majority is over 70% now :eek:

But, Coulter and her ilk will go down with the ship rather than attack their sacred cow.

That should be fun to watch.

[SuzeQuze]

We should know in about a month. ;)

Okay, pardon my ignorance, what do you mean?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

and I have to say that the fact that you put Ann Coulter in your signature lines or reference her sometimes totally infuriates me...I often have to look pass your posts. That's just my opinion and you are MORE than welcome to continue to do so, but I would like to know from you what it is about her you appreciate...

The fact that she represents the right-wing with such zeal! Most liberals hate her, not because they have ever talked to her or know her as a person, but because she refuses to back down. She is considered "angry" because she is a conservative woman who refuses to back down. Why aren't liberals who refuse to back down considered "angry" or "troubled" individuals? She is speaks the truth, has a brilliance for the colloquial, she is hilariously funny, and does it all while looking great.

if you really want to talk about it, you can pm me or something, cause we can't really do it on this forum.

[gldstwmn]

It's not unjust. What do you think happened when two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings? War was declared on us. 3,000 people dead. Action had to be taken. I would not stand idly by and let the Middle Eastern countries involved get away with that.

I can hear the forthcoming argument now...well why not go after Bin Laden instead of Hussein, no WMDs, etc...blah blah blah...They are all in league, one with another. The Middle Eastern countries are like one body.

Palestine is like Israel? :shocked: The Middle East is far from being one body. Your statement is a broad brush generalization of all citizens of the Middle East. It smacks of a lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern cultures and a dependence on mainstream media as a source of fact.

[strandinthewind]

. . . and a dependence on mainstream media as a source of fact.

The mainstream media does not support this idea of the Middle East being one body :shrug:

I will always maintain that the information was put out there by the mainstream media and Americans could have cared a less because most Americans hate all Middle Easterners.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

a dependence on mainstream media as a source of fact.

BWAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This HAS to be the most ironic statement ever made on The Ledge.

[gldstwmn]

Do people really still think bin Laden and Hussein were working together?



Ask Judith Miller. :shrug: :laugh:

[dissention]

Most liberals hate her, not because they have ever talked to her or know her as a person, but because she refuses to back down.

My, how misguided you are.

[DavidMn]

The fact that she represents the right-wing with such zeal! Most liberals hate her, not because they have ever talked to her or know her as a person, but because she refuses to back down. She is considered "angry" because she is a conservative woman who refuses to back down. Why aren't liberals who refuse to back down considered "angry" or "troubled" individuals? She is speaks the truth, has a brilliance for the colloquial, she is hilariously funny, and does it all while looking great.

if you really want to talk about it, you can pm me or something, cause we can't really do it on this forum.
YEs, but she is VERY intolerant of views which she doesnt agree with, and that's where I have a problem with her. I

[estranged4life]

(Deb & myself) we are taxed enuff already, Having no children is brutal since we fall into the "Married Penalty" bracket.

But since the Biblical Burning God-Complex Shrub has been in office it is even worse than the days of Slick Willy Clinton and his Oral Office days (Infamous for his "On yer knees" tax).

At least the people of Oklahoma have spoken on the just failed law that would raised the gasoline tax another $.05 to the price of $.22 a gallon ($.25 a gallon for diesel) when 87% of the people voted "NO".

Brian "Read my taxes....No new lips" j.

[gldstwmn]

There is going to have to be an exit strategy at some point in time, because eventually this will become the Iraqi's war, to maintain the peace in their own country.

There should have been an exit strategy before we ever invaded their country.

[estranged4life]

There should have been an exit strategy before we ever invaded their country.

should have an "entry strategy" first :nod:

Brian "Death before dishonor-The Samurai creed" j.

[gldstwmn]

Okay, pardon my ignorance, what do you mean?

Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation is up in about a month.

[gldstwmn]

The mainstream media does not support this idea of the Middle East being one body :shrug:


We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. :shrug:

[JazmenFlowers]

should have an "entry strategy" first :nod:

Brian "Death before dishonor-The Samurai creed" j.

lol - you're cracking me up.

(and I agree with you)

[Moony]

...and once again, ignorance and stupidity rear their ugly heads in the form of a big Brown Eye...

[David]

He said not only Osama and his cronies, but also the countries that even supported or harbored terrorists, and if Iraq is not such a country then I don't know what is.Iraq seemed a rather strange choice at the outset. The U.S. State Department had a lot more info linking terrorist groups to state bodies like Somalia, Libya, Syria, the Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Pakistan & Lebanon. The terrorist activity planned & executed from these countries is greater in number & reach than it is from Iraq -- why invade Iraq first?

Afghanistan is certainly a hot bed of terrorist organizations, but our "war" there appears to have fixed absolutely nothing. An American -- indeed, any Westerner -- is no safer today flying to Afghanistan to vacation than five years ago.

[golddustwoman77]

simply raise taxes -- it's the Democratic Party cure-all.



Maybe this go along with the typical Republican cure-all, lower taxes but have out of control, through the roof spending, until we have a several trillion dollars deficit? :lol:

We could have asked Reagan, or maybe we should ask W.? They were/are definitely experts in this field.

[strandinthewind]

Iraq seemed a rather strange choice at the outset. The U.S. State Department had a lot more info linking terrorist groups to state bodies like Somalia, Libya, Syria, the Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Pakistan & Lebanon. The terrorist activity planned & executed from these countries is greater in number & reach than it is from Iraq -- why invade Iraq first?

Afghanistan is certainly a hot bed of terrorist organizations, but our "war" there appears to have fixed absolutely nothing. An American -- indeed, any Westerner -- is no safer today flying to Afghanistan to vacation than five years ago.

Proof of the truth of your statements :nod:

Al-Zawahiri downplays U.S. efforts in Afghanistan
U.N. report: No shortage of terrorism recruits worldwide

(CNN) -- In a videotape that aired Monday on the Arabic-language TV network Al-Jazeera, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, downplayed U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and again claimed responsibility for the July bombings in London.

Meanwhile, a United Nations panel of experts issued a report Monday saying there is no shortage of recruits for terrorism worldwide and that Iraq has provided new training ground for them, replacing al Qaeda bases lost in Afghanistan.

"Al Qaeda has managed to recover from the loss of Afghanistan as a training base for terrorism by exploiting the situation in Iraq," the report said.

The report was the third by an expert panel set up by the U.N. Security Council to monitor al Qaeda, the Taliban and their associates.

Recruits travel to Iraq from many parts of the world, "acquire skills in urban warfare, bomb-making, assassination and suicide attacks," and return to integrate with local fighters in their home countries, the report said.

Second al-Zawahiri tape
The authenticity of the tape that aired Monday on Al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, has yet to be verified.

It showed al-Zawahiri being interviewed by an unknown questioner. He wore a black turban and white shirt, without his typical black vest, seen in past videos.

He told the interviewer the Taliban moved from Kabul, the Afghan capital, only to the outskirts of the city and did not flee.

Voters went to the polls Sunday in Afghanistan amid heavy security to elect representatives to their national parliament and local legislators in 34 provinces.

"There is no reform except through jihad," al-Zawahiri said in the video, the second this month showing the 54-year-old Egyptian-born doctor.

In a tape released September 1, he said British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his policies were responsible for the London attacks. He also sharply criticized President Bush.

A July 7 attack on London's transit system killed 52 commuters and the four bombers. No one was killed in a second, similar attempted attack July 21, in which bombs failed to detonate.

"People of the crusader alliance behold the disasters that the policies of Bush and Blair will bring upon you and, God willing, on all of those who march behind them," al-Zawahiri said in the previous tape.

"As they have let rivers of blood run in our countries, we will, God willing, erupt volcanoes of anger in their countries."

An Al-Jazeera anchor said at the time al-Zawahiri's comments were part of a "much longer tape."

A CIA spokesman said the next day that the tape appeared to be genuine.

After the September 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, the U.S. State Department offered a $25 million award for information leading to al-Zawahiri's apprehension.

Al Qaeda threats
The U.N. report issued Monday said the "most notable success" of al Qaeda was an agreement struck by bin Laden with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.

The pact allowed bin Laden to claim world attention in "a key issue of the day" and helped al-Zarqawi to attract recruits "by adopting the al Qaeda mantle," the report said.

Al Qaeda also has benefited from another group: fighters who trained in Afghanistan and who are now "spread all over the world and actively providing expertise and leadership to local cells," the report said.

It said estimates of their numbers vary "but several thousand graduates of the Afghan camps survive."

The international community has now identified and is hunting many, and they have to use false identities and criminal means to survive, "which increases their risk of detection and arrest," the report said.

Nevertheless, the report said, this group provides "a significant backbone to the al Qaeda structure."

A third group is made up of new recruits radicalized by world events, by extremists in their communities or by terror Web sites and chat rooms on the Internet, the report said.

It said these cells are "emerging as the main threat posed by al Qaeda terrorism today" because they remain "independent, anonymous and largely invisible until they strike."

The report said the Taliban remain a localized but serious threat in Afghanistan.

The recent increase in violence and sophistication of weapons and communications systems "suggest an infusion of money [and] an ability to recruit younger and increasingly vicious supporters," the report said.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/19/zawahiri/index.html

[sparky]

Clinton wants everyone to be equally miserable. Raising taxes would lower revenue; Clinton knows this and doesn't care. For Clinton, this is just an excuse to limit freedom and increase government influence in our lives.

simply raise taxes -- it's the Democratic Party cure-all.

As opposed to continuing to go into debt for things we can't, as a country, afford ? Just keep digging the hole deeper, right ? That's smart. If I ran my finances the way this administration has run it's finances, I would have lost my house and everything I own many years ago. Borrow, borrow, borrow.

[markolas]

Essentially, unless you made over, say $150,000 a year, you probably noticed no tax cut overall because though your Fed. income taxes may have been reduced, you state and local taxes likely increased to compensate for the Fed. Govt.'s lack of funding for many state programs, etc. There are a bunch of articles on it if you look around on the net.

But we don't have a state income tax in Texas. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

But we don't have a state income tax in Texas. :shrug:

I do not know about Texas, but if the Feds stopped funding things, etc., then the state had to fill that monetary req. on its own. Many states had to do that by increasing rev. and the general way to do that is by raising taxes and/or borrowing money. But, maybe Texas sis not have to raise its tax rev. rates. If not, good for it :nod:

[markolas]

If not, good for it :nod:

Or not.

I remember hearing that they've had to shut down a lot of mental health programs, among other things, because there's no money.

At any rate, and at the risk of being called a "socialist"...why does someone who makes $150,000 get their taxes reduced, but someone who makes $22,000 have to pay?

Rhetorical question. :)

[gldstwmn]

At any rate, and at the risk of being called a "socialist"...why does someone who makes $150,000 get their taxes reduced, but someone who makes $22,000 have to pay?



Welcome to the dark side. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

. . . At any rate, and at the risk of being called a "socialist"...why does someone who makes $150,000 get their taxes reduced, but someone who makes $22,000 have to pay?

Rhetorical question. :)

You asking the wrong person :laugh:

I think income tax should start at $35,000 a year and then progress to 15% tops at say $50,000 a year with no, and I mean NO, deductions period. But, that will sadly never happen because the special interest groups will never allow it, the true liberals will want to punish the rich, and the really rich on the far far right will want to pay even less than that.

I also think the estate tax should be 10% and not a penny more. But, the true liberals would rather tax a dead person's estate at 70% after the first $600,000 or so and the really really rich on the far right want no tax on it whatsoever.

In the end, our tax system is utter crap and the extremes on both sides will never allow the other a moment of peace.

I mean some people want to tax people 50% or more. I think the revolution should occur that day.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Brown Eyes there are times when you cant give tax cuts, everyone with some amount of intelligence knows that. President Bush says that instead of raising taxes we should simply keep giving the cuts to the top 1% of Americans, and cut back on other programs (such as Medicare).

I also dont believe you are still so dumb to actually believe that the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It's well known that this war was planned by Bush right when he came into office, and even when running for President. Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator I would agree, had nothing to do with 9/11 and there was no proven connection with Al Qaeda (and just to remind you, since some conservatives seem to have forgotten---Al Qaeda was the coordinators of the 9/11 attacks).

Iraq was an easy revenge target for Bush. Instead of fully pursuing Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, he switched most of our resources to Iraq. And you may say that the WMD argument doesn't mean anything, but I think it does considering that was his whole basis for the war. If he was really worried about our immediate safety don't you think he would have gone after a country with KNOWN capabilities and desires to produce Nuclear weapons like North Korea? Nooo no...cant do that...Iraq we can just drop some bombs on, kill some innocent kids and others....not North Korea.

I never understood the logic "Hey Iraqis, your dictator has killed your people in the past, and is evil, so to help you we will now be killing you and your families...but don't worry it's for the safety of the USA..."

Chris

[strandinthewind]

Here is some unbiased poop on the tax cuts:

Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts
The President can't keep his figures straight. And most people are getting less than he implies.

February 20, 2004
Modified:February 20, 2004
Summary



President Bush stumbled Feb. 19, saying the average tax cut is $1,089. The White House corrected that figure to $1,586. But the fact is that most Americans won't see anywhere near either of those amounts.

As we've said before when disputing equally misleading lowball figures given by Howard Dean, half of all individuals and families will get less than $470, and half will get more. The “average” is misleading because it is inflated by very large cuts given to a relative few at the top.


Analysis



Now that the general election campaign is nearing, President Bush has resumed a sales pitch for the tax cuts he's signed. But he persists in making some misleading claims.

At a 24-minute appearance in the White House complex on Feb. 19, the President wrongly stated that "everybody who pays taxes" is getting a cut, which is not true:

Bush: We cut the taxes on everybody who pays taxes. I don't think it makes sense for tax-cutters to say, okay, you win, and you lose. My attitude was, if you pay taxes, you ought to get relief. And we cut all taxes,

In fact, all taxes were not cut and millions who pay only federal payroll taxes got no benefit from Bush's cuts.

It is true that everybody who paid federal income taxes is getting a cut. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center , 35.6 million individuals and families got zero benefit from the Bush cuts because their income was so low they were not paying federal income taxes before the cuts. This number includes 15.1 million workers who are paying federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That's 15 million "taxpayers" who were left out.

The President also bobbled the numbers when describing the average size of the cut. Here's the official White House transcript of what he said, which was wrong, along with the footnotes inserted later by the White House staff to correct the record:

Bush: The tax relief we passed, 11 million* taxpayers this year will save $1,086* off their taxes. . . .

(* 111 million taxpayers will save, on average, $1,586 off their taxes.)

The $1,586 figure is indeed an accurate statement of the average cut received by those who are getting a cut, according to the Treasury Department. However, it is far from typical.

For one thing, the figure does not take into account the 25% of all individuals and families who are receiving zero tax cut this year. It is an average only of those who are getting some cut. When those who get nothing are added in the average cut drops to $1,217, according to the Tax Policy Center.

But most importantly, the average is inflated by the fact that most of the money is going to a relatively few taxpayers at the top of the income scale, as seen from the following table distilled from a more extensive analysis by the Tax Policy Center:

Combined Effect of Bush Tax Cuts 2003

Income
(in thousands) Percent of Households Average Tax Change



Less than 10 23.7 -$8
10-20 16.6 -$307
20-30 13.3 -$638
30-40 9.7 -$825
40-50 7.6 -$1,012
50-75 13.0 -$1,403
75-100 6.8 -$2,543
100-200 6.6 -$3,710
200-500 1.6 -$7,173
500-1,000 0.3 -$22,485
More than 1,000 0.1 -$112,925
Source: Tax Policy Center table T03-0123
Taxpayers making more than $1 million a year get an average cut of nearly $113,000 this year. Such huge cuts at the top tend to pull up the numerical average that the President is fond of citing.

A more meaningful number is the median -- or mid-point. The Tax Policy Center calculates the median cut received for income earned in 2003 is $470.

That means half of all individuals and families get less than that, and half get more.

Even the median figure doesn't give a full picture of how the benefits are spread around, however. Taxpayers make out very differently depending on whether they are married or single, and how many children they have under age 17.

That's because much of the tax relief for 2003 comes in the form of a tax break for married couples -- reduction of the so-called "marriage penalty" -- and a doubling of the tax credit granted for each child under 17, to $1,000 per child. Those do nothing to benefit single taxpayers -- including unmarried workers and millions of elderly widows and widowers, for example. In fact, the Tax Policy Center calculates that nearly 13 million of those over age 65 will get no tax cut.

On the other hand, the Bush cuts do reduce income taxes for many middle-income families to zero this year -- taking them off the federal income tax rolls entirely.

The following table, also from the Tax Policy Center, shows how different types of families in various income ranges make out under the Bush cuts this year:

Combined Effect of Bush Cuts for 2003: Typical Families

(Amounts by which federal income taxes would rise if cuts are repealed)

Income
Single
Married Filing Joint

# of kids under 17–>
0
0
1
2
3

$10,000
$110
$76
$0
$0
$0

$15,000
350
142
610
661
661

$25,000
350
702
1,210
1,661
1,579

$35,000
350
932
1,433
1,897
2,245

$50,000
669
773
1,272
1,773
2,271

$75,000
1,318
1,714
1,817
1,938
2,437

$100,000
2,001
2,596
3,004
3,413
4,510

$125,000
2,695
3,277
3,435
4,094
4,571

$150,000
3,460
4,010
3,918
3,827
4,735

$200,000
5,218
5,623
5,531
4,918
4,364

$500,000
15,585
12,328
12,328
12,328
12,328

$1,000,000
37,713
38,426
38,426
38,426
38,426

Source: Tax Policy Center Table T03-0200




The President is not the only politician who distorts the figures regarding the tax cuts, of course. As we've pointed out before, Howard Dean persisted in a false claim that "sixty percent of us got only $304," when in fact most taxpayers got more.

And some of the points in the President's election-year sales pitch are perfectly valid. For example:

Bush: Nearly 5 million taxpayers will be off the rolls as a result of the tax relief this year.

That's true for federal income taxes -- close to 5 million who previously owed some federal income tax will owe none under the Bush cuts, including many middle-income families with children.

We'll no doubt be hearing more about the tax cuts in the months to come. Both Kerry and Edwards, currently slugging it out for the Democratic nomination, have called for repeal of portions of the Bush cuts that benefit upper-income taxpayers.

http://www.factcheck.org/article145.html#
____________________________________________________________

In the end the majority of economists and I agree the tax cuts provided a spark that helped the economy grow and the economy is still growing. However, all of the aforementioned agree that the out of control deficit spending has stymied the expected growth from the cuts and will severely hinder future growth.

[markolas]

You asking the wrong person :laugh:

I think income tax should start at $35,000 a year and then progress to 15% tops at say $50,000 a year with no, and I mean NO, deductions period. But, that will sadly never happen because the special interest groups will never allow it, the true liberals will want to punish the rich, and the really rich on the far far right will want to pay even less than that.

I also think the estate tax should be 10% and not a penny more. But, the true liberals would rather tax a dead person's estate at 70% after the first $600,000 or so and the really really rich on the far right want no tax on it whatsoever.

In the end, our tax system is utter crap and the extremes on both sides will never allow the other a moment of peace.

I mean some people want to tax people 50% or more. I think the revolution should occur that day.

I guess I'm what you're calling a "true liberal." :laugh:

You know, I always thought it was common sense that the more money you make, the more you should have to pay (in terms of the percentage of your salary)...it really baffled me when I realized that there are people in this world who believe that the fact that they make more money means that they're entitled to *keep* more. Because somehow financial success equals virtue?

It's not about wanting to "punish" the rich. It's about those with having more being obligated to help those who have less. The more I think about it, the more this Buddhism thing really seems to be in my blood, or something. :D

[David]

I support a flat sales tax: tax consumption & people are responsible for what they owe in taxes.

I don't support higher tax rates for higher incomes: that's tyrannical. Neither do I support breaks & loopholes that are given only to the higher-income Americans.

What I really support is far more responsible use of tax revenue by all levels of government. My income is my property, & for the governments to compel me to turn over a percentage & then to squander it & waste it on $300 hammers at the Department of Defense is absolutely nothing short of tyranny -- the kind of tyranny that the Founding Fathers abhorred.

If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing. You are a prole. The underlying philosophy of my political thinking is that the individual is the vessel of life's meaning & worth & dignity, not the state; & that the individual must be protected from the state in a number of significant ways. Remember, when a state butts heads with an individual, who wins & who loses?

[strandinthewind]

I guess I'm what you're calling a "true liberal." :laugh:

You know, I always thought it was common sense that the more money you make, the more you should have to pay (in terms of the percentage of your salary)...it really baffled me when I realized that there are people in this world who believe that the fact that they make more money means that they're entitled to *keep* more. Because somehow financial success equals virtue?

It's not about wanting to "punish" the rich. It's about those with having more being obligated to help those who have less. The more I think about it, the more this Buddhism thing really seems to be in my blood, or something. :D

Well, you do pay more money - just the same percent. A person making 100,000 would pay $15,000 and a person making $55,000 would pay $8,250. That makes sense to me :shrug: Again, I think it has to be this way because the sliding scale with deductions is just fraud laden and will continue to be that way.

[strandinthewind]

I support a flat sales tax: tax consumption & people are responsible for what they owe in taxes.

I don't support higher tax rates for higher incomes: that's tyrannical. Neither do I support breaks & loopholes that are given only to the higher-income Americans.

What I really support is far more responsible use of tax revenue by all levels of government. My income is my property, & for the governments to compel me to turn over a percentage & then to squander it & waste it on $300 hammers at the Department of Defense is absolutely nothing short of tyranny -- the kind of tyranny that the Founding Fathers abhorred.

If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing. You are a prole. The underlying philosophy of my political thinking is that the individual is the vessel of life's meaning & worth & dignity, not the state; & that the individual must be protected from the state in a number of significant ways. Remember, when a state butts heads with an individual, who wins & who loses?

Once again, I agree with you!

[markolas]

If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing.

Speak for yourself. I'm a whole lot more than the things I own.

[David]

Speak for yourself. I'm a whole lot more than the things I own.You misunderstand, markolas. Of course you are more than the things you own. We are all of us more than the things we own.

When I say, "If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing," what I mean is that it's the right itself -- not the actual property -- that allows you to live the kind of life you deem worthy.

Property rights are absolutely essential to any free society -- that is, a society in which individuals are free to pursue their happiness so long as they don't infringe on those very same rights belonging to their fellow citizens.

The principle of it is so important because it implies something essential: you have a right to property that cannot be abrogated by the state. It cannot be eliminated by a nasty president or a Congress of any political party. That right of yours -- like your rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness -- is YOURS; it does not & cannot belong, ever, to any government instituted on Earth. You, the individual, are the owner of your property; & you are therefore ipso facto not at the mercy of the whims of your fellow citizens to strip you of that property at their discretion or the discretion of your elected leaders.

If you have no right to property that supersedes the political body in which you live, then no power on Earth (or elsewhere) can assure you of your right to liberty or even life itself. If you are in every respect SECONDARY to the state, the state can annihilate you, can crush you under its massively impersonal boot. That is the importance of your right to property.

I hate to sound like a Libertarian -- I'm not one. But this principle of rights that you have -- rights that are not given to you by a government but rights that you are born possessing by virtue of the fact that you are a human being -- is essential to our constitutional republic, & was equally important to the Founding Fathers.

[markolas]

You misunderstand, markolas. Of course you are more than the things you own. We are all of us more than the things we own.

When I say, "If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing," what I mean is that it's the right itself -- not the actual property -- that allows you to live the kind of life you deem worthy.

Property rights are absolutely essential to any free society -- that is, a society in which individuals are free to pursue their happiness so long as they don't infringe on those very same rights belonging to their fellow citizens.

The principle of it is so important because it implies something essential: you have a right to property that cannot be abrogated by the state. It cannot be eliminated by a nasty president or a Congress of any political party. That right of yours -- like your rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness -- is YOURS; it does not & cannot belong, ever, to any government instituted on Earth. You, the individual, are the owner of your property; & you are therefore ipso facto not at the mercy of the whims of your fellow citizens to strip you of that property at their discretion or the discretion of your elected leaders.

If you have no right to property that supersedes the political body in which you live, then no power on Earth (or elsewhere) can assure you of your right to liberty or even life itself. If you are in every respect SECONDARY to the state, the state can annihilate you, can crush you under its massively impersonal boot. That is the importance of your right to property.

I hate to sound like a Libertarian -- I'm not one. But this principle of rights that you have -- rights that are not given to you by a government but rights that you are born possessing by virtue of the fact that you are a human being -- is essential to our constitutional republic, & was equally important to the Founding Fathers.

Well, I'm not really talking about the state. What I find objectionable is people who think they have no obligation to help or contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and possibly their immediate families, and who think that wealth is a sign of moral superiority. That's the problem that I have with libertarianism/economic conservatism.

On a certain level, I agree that we have a fundamental right to our property; but on another level...we can't really "own" anything.

[strandinthewind]

Well, I'm not really talking about the state. What I find objectionable is people who think they have no obligation to help or contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and possibly their immediate families, and who think that wealth is a sign of moral superiority. That's the problem that I have with libertarianism/economic conservatism.

On a certain level, I agree that we have a fundamental right to our property; but on another level...we can't really "own" anything.

Interestingly, the amount of private donations by the wealthy is staggering and this is on top of the huge amount of taxes paid by them. I mean Blook at Turner and Gates alone not to mention Oprah, who are amongst the weatlthiest of the wealthiest.

But others donate and often. So, I think the statement "people who think they have no obligation to help or contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and possibly their immediate families . . . . " is not very fair though a small minority of those people may exist.

Here are two sites on this:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=193

http://www.smallfoundations.org/about_asf/why_small_is_great/personal_generosity

[markolas]

Interestingly, the amount of private donations by the wealthy is staggering and this is on top of the huge amount of taxes paid by them. I mean Blook at Turner and Gates alone not to mention Oprah, who are amongst the weatlthiest of the wealthiest.

I'm not saying that wealthy people don't give to charity. But it's a drop in the bucket. Why should someone who makes $10 million a year piss and moan if they have to pay $4 million in taxes? So it means they can't have that 5th vacation house on the south of France...the farthest away from Texas I've ever traveled is Missouri. :wavey:

I guess I just find extravagance obscene.

Like my friend who lives alone and yet just bought a 5 bedroom house and complains about being shackled to a job he hates, but can't afford to quit because he has all this newfound "responsibility." Yet he looks down on me as a slacker...umm...he's the one who's up to his eyeballs in debt while I don't buy a damn thing I haven't worked to earn the money to buy. Exactly who is the responsible one in this scenario? I realize that has nothing to do with the rest of the post, it's just a little tangent. :D

But others donate and often. So, I think the statement "people who think they have no obligation to help or contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and possibly their immediate families . . . . " is not very fair though a small minority of those people may exist.

It's not unfair. I've met people who think this.

[strandinthewind]

I'm not saying that wealthy people don't give to charity. But it's a drop in the bucket. Why should someone who makes $10 million a year piss and moan if they have to pay $4 million in taxes? So it means they can't have that 5th vacation house on the south of France...the farthest away from Texas I've ever traveled is Missouri. :wavey:

I guess I just find extravagance obscene.

But that test is subjective. Some of the really poor may find 100,000 a year and two cars equally as obscene. So, should we listen to them and tax $100,000 at 50% :shrug: Moreover, should we ban anything but the cheapest of goods - ban all designer labels and the like - and all wear uniforms and who gets to make the decision as to what stays and what goes. Should we also never buy any relative luxury items for ourselves; never splurge one day of something completely frivilous for any reason even if it is a concert ticket :eek: Anyway, I think you get my drift.

It's not unfair. I've met people who think this.

I thought you were saying all rich people are like that and was noting that that gross generalization is unfair and unsupported by the data out there.

[markolas]

But that test is subjective. Some of the really poor may find 100,000 a year and two cars equally as obscene. So, should we listen to them and tax $100,000 at 50% :shrug:

You're mixing up two different parts of my post here. I never said we should tax rich people to make sure they're not extravagant. Personally, I wouldn't complain if I made $100,000 a year and paid half of it in income taxes. I could live quite easily on $700 a month if it wasn't for this damn car note.

Moreover, should we ban anything but the cheapest of goods - ban all designer labels and the like - and all wear uniforms and who gets to make the decision as to what stays and what goes. Should we also never buy any relative luxury items for ourselves; never splurge one day of something completely frivilous for any reason even if it is a concert ticket :eek: Anyway, I think you get my drift.

I never said anything about banning anything. Drama queen. ;) :D :xoxo:

I thought you were saying all rich people are like that and was noting that that gross generalization is unfair and unsupported by the data out there.

I never said all rich people are like that. The people I've heard say that aren't even rich.

[dissention]

Personally, I wouldn't complain if I made $100,000 a year and paid half of it in income taxes.

I would. Not because I wouldn't want to help people who need it, but because government spending is out of control. When they can eliminate their wasteful spending and use my tax money to help those who need it (i.e. when they can put much more funding into social programs), then they can tax me for half of my income. Heck knows I don't need all the money I make and I don't spend it all on myself, anyway. Until then, I'll donate my money instead of being robbed by the government to pay for trivial and insignificant **** when my money could be used to put food on a family's table or send a single mother to college.

[markolas]

I would. Not because I wouldn't want to help people who need it, but because government spending is out of control.

Well, I say that with the assumption that the money would be funding things that were actually beneficial to people instead of, you know...illegal wars and things like that. :D

[dissention]

Well, I say that with the assumption that the money would be funding things that were actually beneficial to people instead of, you know...illegal wars and things like that. :D

I think we need to embrace a good number of socialist tenets and have thought so for as long as I can remember, but since that's never going to happen... :laugh:

[sparky]

Why should someone who makes $10 million a year piss and moan if they have to pay $4 million in taxes?

No one deserves 40% of my income. If I work my ass off, have a great idea that makes it big, or just make smart financial decisions, why should I have 40% taken from me ? That's absurd. One of the most enormous problems that exists is the loss of the concept of personal responsibility. The majority of people that I know who have financial problems are either young and just starting out, or are suffering from making stupid decisions they regret. I am not saying this is the root cause of poverty, but I have seen a lot of people who struggle financially who have literally soiled their own beds. Me throwing money at them isn't going to teach them how to make smart decisions.

[David]

Personally, I wouldn't complain if I made $100,000 a year and paid half of it in income taxes.If you don't mind giving away literally one-half of your time & your labor, would you mind doing my job for me so that I could relax?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

YEs, but she is VERY intolerant of views which she doesnt agree with, and that's where I have a problem with her. I

Actually she herself has said she can stand people she doesn't agree with...but what she can't stand is a liar. This is why she actually has quite a few liberal friends, the ones who are able to actually ARGUE and DEBATE and not resort to name-calling.

[Moony]

Actually she herself has said she can stand people she doesn't agree with...but what she can't stand is a liar. This is why she actually has quite a few liberal friends, the ones who are able to actually ARGUE and DEBATE and not resort to name-calling.
Well, you probably wouldn't be one of her friends then.

Anyway, Ann is one of the biggest liars ever. And she also resorts to name-calling. So, in conclusion: what a hypocrite.

http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, you probably wouldn't be one of her friends then.

Anyway, Ann is one of the biggest liars ever. And she also resorts to name-calling. So, in conclusion: what a hypocrite.

http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/

OH great here we go with the crazy nutty sites.

I suggest this one...

http://www.anncoulterdoc.com/

I recommend that everyone actually watch this fair and honest look at a person.

[Moony]

OH great here we go with the crazy nutty sites.

I suggest this one...

http://www.anncoulterdoc.com/

I recommend that everyone actually watch this fair and honest look at a person.
Why do we have to pay to get a "fair and honest look" at Coulter??

[BombaySapphire3]

I think we need to embrace a good number of socialist tenets and have thought so for as long as I can remember, but since that's never going to happen... :laugh: There is one way I see some of that happening that may be one of the positive things to come out of the Katrina disaster .I'm hoping that when people saw the grinding poverty and desperation there in New Orleans that they may come to an understanding of the growing inequity between the haves and have nots in this country.The disparity between the rich and poor in this nation is becoming greater than it has been in decades and the middle class is shrinking .If people wake up to what the neo-cons and their ilk are doing to our country ,I desperately hope there will be a populist revolution of some kind.I understand that socialist tenets are a hard sell in a large heterogenous country.Perhaps I am dreaming expecting people to do the right thing here ,but I don't want to completely give in to cynicism .

[BombaySapphire3]

If you don't mind giving away literally one-half of your time & your labor, would you mind doing my job for me so that I could relax?
I thought you were already retired? :shrug:

[BombaySapphire3]

Why do we have to pay to get a "fair and honest look" at Coulter??
I might consider taking a look at her if someone paid me to do it.

[irishgrl]

You misunderstand, markolas. Of course you are more than the things you own. We are all of us more than the things we own.

When I say, "If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing," what I mean is that it's the right itself -- not the actual property -- that allows you to live the kind of life you deem worthy.

Property rights are absolutely essential to any free society -- that is, a society in which individuals are free to pursue their happiness so long as they don't infringe on those very same rights belonging to their fellow citizens.

The principle of it is so important because it implies something essential: you have a right to property that cannot be abrogated by the state. It cannot be eliminated by a nasty president or a Congress of any political party. That right of yours -- like your rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness -- is YOURS; it does not & cannot belong, ever, to any government instituted on Earth. You, the individual, are the owner of your property; & you are therefore ipso facto not at the mercy of the whims of your fellow citizens to strip you of that property at their discretion or the discretion of your elected leaders.

If you have no right to property that supersedes the political body in which you live, then no power on Earth (or elsewhere) can assure you of your right to liberty or even life itself. If you are in every respect SECONDARY to the state, the state can annihilate you, can crush you under its massively impersonal boot. That is the importance of your right to property.

I hate to sound like a Libertarian -- I'm not one. But this principle of rights that you have -- rights that are not given to you by a government but rights that you are born possessing by virtue of the fact that you are a human being -- is essential to our constitutional republic, & was equally important to the Founding Fathers.

Unfortunately with the recent Emminent Domain ruling by the Supremes, you DONT own your property if the State wants/needs it. Thus, as you feared, we ARE secondary to the State at this point.

[SuzeQuze]

OH great here we go with the crazy nutty sites.

I suggest this one...

http://www.anncoulterdoc.com/

I recommend that everyone actually watch this fair and honest look at a person.

I suspect you didn't even read that site. Its language is reasonable and intellectual. It cites non-partisan sources that have taken issue with Coulter's writings.

[SuzeQuze]

I think we need to embrace a good number of socialist tenets and have thought so for as long as I can remember, but since that's never going to happen... :laugh:

Yes, I do too. Everything needs to be balanced and rampant capitalism is really not a good thing for most people. It needs to have respect for the little guys. Do these folks not realize that whenever the "minions" become really opressed they revolt? I hope it doesn't come to that. It frightens me.

I think Clinton's recent comments are part of a bigger plan. I think maybe the Dems are finally getting their act together with a real plan to get senators in in 2006. Dean sent me a questionnaire regarding what my priorities were on the issues like healthcare, defense, tax cuts, etc. Hopefully it will help them actually speak to the party and serve its constituents.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Why do we have to pay to get a "fair and honest look" at Coulter??

You don't, I just recommend that doc. as a way to GET a fair and honest look at Ann. Hell, I would be glad to let you use my copy, but I'm sure you aren't my neighbor. haha. :D

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I suspect you didn't even read that site. Its language is reasonable and intellectual. It cites non-partisan sources that have taken issue with Coulter's writings.

Actually yes, I have that site bookmarked.

[gldstwmn]

If you have no right to property that supersedes the political body in which you live, then no power on Earth (or elsewhere) can assure you of your right to liberty or even life itself. If you are in every respect SECONDARY to the state, the state can annihilate you, can crush you under its massively impersonal boot. That is the importance of your right to property.


Doesn't the recent Supreme court ruling on eminent domain pretty much eradicate our property rights, though?

[dissention]

There is one way I see some of that happening that may be one of the positive things to come out of the Katrina disaster .I'm hoping that when people saw the grinding poverty and desperation there in New Orleans that they may come to an understanding of the growing inequity between the haves and have nots in this country.The disparity between the rich and poor in this nation is becoming greater than it has been in decades and the middle class is shrinking .If people wake up to what the neo-cons and their ilk are doing to our country ,I desperately hope there will be a populist revolution of some kind.I understand that socialist tenets are a hard sell in a large heterogenous country.Perhaps I am dreaming expecting people to do the right thing here ,but I don't want to completely give in to cynicism .

The only way change will happen in this country is if a proletarian revolution occurs. Until that time (and I doubt it will ever happen), the elite few will control all the resources and wealth, while everyone else gets the table scraps that they so generously throw. This country has always been about becoming rich and keeping everyone else down so that you can continue keeping your wealth. I don't see it changing any time without some drastic action taking place.

[strandinthewind]

I would. Not because I wouldn't want to help people who need it, but because government spending is out of control. When they can eliminate their wasteful spending and use my tax money to help those who need it (i.e. when they can put much more funding into social programs), then they can tax me for half of my income. Heck knows I don't need all the money I make and I don't spend it all on myself, anyway. Until then, I'll donate my money instead of being robbed by the government to pay for trivial and insignificant **** when my money could be used to put food on a family's table or send a single mother to college.

Are making the same argument I made several months ago and was laughed at by - uh hmmmmm - you :wavey: :wavey: Nice to know you have come around though :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

You're mixing up two different parts of my post here. I never said we should tax rich people to make sure they're not extravagant. Personally, I wouldn't complain if I made $100,000 a year and paid half of it in income taxes. I could live quite easily on $700 a month if it wasn't for this damn car note. [QUOTE=markolas]

You may be able to and good for you of you do not mind paying $50,000 on $100,000 to the Feds and then even more to the state and local govs.0 - but my point is who are you to make that decision for someone else :shrug:

[QUOTE=markolas] I never said anything about banning anything. Drama queen. ;) :D :xoxo:

So, you just wanna bitch about a fifth vacation house, but not ban it :laugh: :laugh: (levity here :wavey: )

I never said all rich people are like that. The people I've heard say that aren't even rich.

I was going by your comment that "rich" people did that :shrug:

___________________________________________________________

In the end, the gov. takes our money and squanders it and that is why many people scoff at paying more than 15% in taxes. I mean who wants to buy a $500 hammer or spend three times the amount it costs to build something just so a minority owned ompany can have a contract :eek:

[strandinthewind]

Unfortunately with the recent Emminent Domain ruling by the Supremes, you DONT own your property if the State wants/needs it. Thus, as you feared, we ARE secondary to the State at this point.

We always were under the theory of ED - the Sup. Ct. Ruling just sort of expanded it, but cases had already been occuring for awhile where the state took property and used it in a way that benefitted private companies. A good example of this is a highway, which serves the public, but is built by a private contractor. Many so called necessary highways or expansion of roads have been done to line pockets. So, while I abhor the recent USSC decision, it is nothing that new in the big scheme of things.

[strandinthewind]

Yes, I do too. Everything needs to be balanced and rampant capitalism is really not a good thing for most people. It needs to have respect for the little guys. Do these folks not realize that whenever the "minions" become really opressed they revolt? I hope it doesn't come to that. It frightens me.

I think Clinton's recent comments are part of a bigger plan. I think maybe the Dems are finally getting their act together with a real plan to get senators in in 2006. Dean sent me a questionnaire regarding what my priorities were on the issues like healthcare, defense, tax cuts, etc. Hopefully it will help them actually speak to the party and serve its constituents.

I agree with you to an extent. But, as Sparky alluded to earlier, throwing money at the poor generally solves nothing in the long run. Thus, the inherent problem of a welfare state. I suppose we could have things like socialized medicine, but everything the govt. touches it ruins a la TSA.

So, I think, like Communism, a welfare state is nice on paper, but as we see now, it is not really working as well as it should.

[strandinthewind]

The only way change will happen in this country is if a proletarian revolution occurs. Until that time (and I doubt it will ever happen), the elite few will control all the resources and wealth, while everyone else gets the table scraps that they so generously throw. This country has always been about becoming rich and keeping everyone else down so that you can continue keeping your wealth. I don't see it changing any time without some drastic action taking place.

But that is a generalization. I mean look at all the good the Vanderbilts did with their money. The Gates as well. Oprah certainly gives much of her's away. So, not all people are like that :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

I agree with you to an extent. But, as Sparky alluded to earlier, throwing money at the poor generally solves nothing in the long run. Thus, the inherent problem of a welfare state. I suppose we could have things like socialized medicine, but everything the govt. touches it ruins a la TSA.

So, I think, like Communism, a welfare state is nice on paper, but as we see now, it is not really working as well as it should.

Yes, healthcare would be a good start. I do not mean welfare, I mean fair wages and such. More programs to help them out of poverty, etc.

[strandinthewind]

Yes, healthcare would be a good start. I do not mean welfare, I mean fair wages and such. More programs to help them out of poverty, etc.


Oh - I totally agree. I think working class wages could double in this country and that would be a good start. Sadly, if they double, then so will rents, food, etc. as all of that is sory of symbiotic.

But, as for healthcare, do you really think the govt. should run it :eek: I mean look at hoy most VA's and Charities are run. No thank you :laugh:

[dissention]

But that is a generalization. I mean look at all the good the Vanderbilts did with their money. The Gates as well. Oprah certainly gives much of her's away. So, not all people are like that :shrug:

They are the few. I can't believe you would argue against the elite rich controlling almost everything and keeping the poor down to continue it.

[SuzeQuze]

Oh - I totally agree. I think working class wages could double in this country and that would be a good start. Sadly, if they double, then so will rents, food, etc. as all of that is sory of symbiotic.

But, as for healthcare, do you really think the govt. should run it :eek: I mean look at hoy most VA's and Charities are run. No thank you :laugh:

Outsource the project to Canada's gov? ;) I know what you mean, instead of the Midas touch they have the crap touch.

[David]

Yes, healthcare would be a good start. I do not mean welfare, I mean fair wages and such. More programs to help them out of poverty, etc.Tort reform is a good place to start for bringing down costs of healthcare, but it has to be really serious & really creative -- not just lip service from campaigning politicians.

Imagine if you were a physician in private practice & you had to pay today's malpractice insurance premiums. You'd get an ulcer! You'd also pass your costs on to your patients -- & to the group coverers.

It's questionable that higher regulation creates lower prices. Look at such industries as medicine, manufacturing, oil, etc. We live in a regulatory climate, regardless of who is in the White House. A completely free market is nowhere to be found on Earth, as far as I know, at least not on the large scale of countries & nations.

[David]

I can't believe you would argue against the elite rich controlling almost everything and keeping the poor down to continue it.But they do so because government regulation & law enable them. In that sense, the American system -- under both parties -- is a distortion of the market. The corporate form was originally just a method of contract between businesses, as in "This is how the deal will work. Only the assets of the firm will be available for debt, etc. Do you accept those terms?" But corporate law is instead extremely regulated by the federal government, which extends these entitities all sorts of protections. So the issue is quite complicated. Any solutions would require unbundling the issues, & I'd rather listen to a Wild Heart Tour soundboard!

[David]

We always were under the theory of ED - the Sup. Ct. Ruling just sort of expanded it, but cases had already been occuring for awhile where the state took property and used it in a way that benefitted private companies. A good example of this is a highway, which serves the public, but is built by a private contractor. Many so called necessary highways or expansion of roads have been done to line pockets. So, while I abhor the recent USSC decision, it is nothing that new in the big scheme of things.It certainly isn't new -- eminent domain was argued over during the early days of the Republic, even.

It's all about due process of law, & whether that due process is being distorted. Plus, the existence of eminent domain doesn't obviate the importance of property & civil rights. It just demonstrates -- to those few who still need it demonstrated to them -- that the propensity of government, any government, is to take more, not less, even though the purpose of government is to protect & ensure individual rights to life, liberty & property.

[strandinthewind]

They are the few. I can't believe you would argue against the elite rich controlling almost everything and keeping the poor down to continue it.

I am not arguing against that per se - though it is not all of the rich.

I am arguing that the rich in this country historically have been extremely generous by giving entire medical systems a la the Vanderbilts.

[David]

Doesn't the recent Supreme court ruling on eminent domain pretty much eradicate our property rights, though?That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.

I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.

[strandinthewind]

It certainly isn't new -- eminent domain was argued over during the early days of the Republic, even.

It's all about due process of law, & whether that due process is being distorted. Plus, the existence of eminent domain doesn't obviate the importance of property & civil rights. It just demonstrates -- to those few who still need it demonstrated to them -- that the propensity of government, any government, is to take more, not less, even though the purpose of government is to protect & ensure individual rights to life, liberty & property.

Exactly :nod:

Though, I can say from personal experience, the govt. has traditionally paid more than the FMV of the land it seizes. I know this has little meaning if you do not want to move though.

[strandinthewind]

That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.

I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.

Actually, the concept of ED was in the Const. when the country was founded. So, it is a legitimate govt. power. I just think it, like everything else the govt. touches, is misused.

For those interested, here is a cool site on ED:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

[reebokandlace]

Here is my thought on taxes. I think Americans should pay the same rate (%) on their income regardless of the amount.

It is sucks to have achieved a certain income level only to have to give almost half of it away. Someone made the comparison of making 10 million and having to give 4 million away to taxes. Put yourself in the shoes of the person paying high taxes. If you paid the same % of taxes what the higher incomes are paying you may look at it differently. Let's say you are earning 10,000 but only taking home 6,000. (As the taxes stand now, you are taking home 8,000.) That extra 2,000 comes in handy, doesn't it?

Everything is schema. Just like you, the person earning 10 mil could use that extra 2 mil for whatever. I know people have little sympathy for weathly people. "Ohh icky pooh princess you only get two vacation homes instead of three".

I never had ANY sympathy when I heard people crying about how much they pay in taxes until the first time I had to pay excessive capital gains and income taxes. Boy did I switch sides fast. My first reaction was "HEY WTF--THEY WANT ALMOST HALF MY MONEY?!" My accountant said to me, "would you prefer to not earn the money?"

The problem is, most people don't get the opportunity to be on both sides.

I think everyone should pay the same percentage.

[SuzeQuze]

Here is my thought on taxes. I think Americans should pay the same rate (%) on their income regardless of the amount.

It is sucks to have achieved a certain income level only to have to give almost half of it away. Someone made the comparison of making 10 million and having to give 4 million away to taxes. Put yourself in the shoes of the person paying high taxes. If you paid the same % of taxes what the higher incomes are paying you may look at it differently. Let's say you are earning 10,000 but only taking home 6,000. (As the taxes stand now, you are taking home 8,000.) That extra 2,000 comes in handy, doesn't it?

Everything is schema. Just like you, the person earning 10 mil could use that extra 2 mil for whatever. I know people have little sympathy for weathly people. "Ohh icky pooh princess you only get two vacation homes instead of three".

I never had ANY sympathy when I heard people crying about how much they pay in taxes until the first time I had to pay excessive capital gains and income taxes. Boy did I switch sides fast. My first reaction was "HEY WTF--THEY WANT ALMOST HALF MY MONEY?!" My accountant said to me, "would you prefer to not earn the money?"

The problem is, most people don't get the opportunity to be on both sides.

I think everyone should pay the same percentage.

I agree because that is a good balance. If everyone pays 25% then people with more money pay much more in taxes. The only problem with this is the wealthy have tax accountants and know about loopholes and deductions they can use. They can pay alot less than their fair share by being a little savvy.

I also like strand's idea re: no one making under $35,000 gets taxed on income. I doubt that will ever happen since the gov doesn't care about the lower income brackets.

I hear you on the capital gains too, 40% is a big freaking cut. Then again, you don't actually have to "work" for that money. Imagine how much freaking money the gov rakes in from the stock market? :eek:

[strandinthewind]

. . . I also like strand's idea re: no one making under $35,000 gets taxed on income. I doubt that will ever happen since the gov doesn't care about the lower income brackets . . . .

I disagree, it does care about the lower income brackets as they got a tax cut too - though I think up to $35,000 should be exempt.

Anyway and to change the topic a little, but still stay on point about the poor - let's open this up for discussion:

More Unbelievable Propaganda in Katrina's Wake

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly



More unbelievable propaganda in the wake of Katrina: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

You know, I'm in a rather uncomfortable position of having to defend President Bush, who's being battered by partisan propaganda over Katrina. As we've stated, the president was late reacting to the storm and his hand-picked leaders did not do the job in FEMA and Homeland Security.

But, I just can't sit here and let rank propaganda go unchallenged as most of the elite media does all day long. Now yesterday, President Bill Clinton appeared with George Stephanopoulos on ABC and said this about the poor and Katrina.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.: This is a matter of public policy. And whether it's race based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made.

That's what they did in the '80's. That's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy. We concentrated tax cuts on lower income working people, and benefits to low income people to help them move from welfare to work. And we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty. We know what works. And we had a program that was drastically reducing poverty. And they got rid of it. So -- and they don't believe in it...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Believe in what?! What is Mr. Clinton talking about? What program did Mr. Bush get rid of?

We called Mr. Clinton's office all day, looking for an answer to that very simple question. We didn't get one. Stephanopoulos sat there like a mummy, challenging nothing. The whole thing's absurd.

Again, here are the facts. Black homeownership is up 2 percent under President Bush. Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms.

This "tax cuts for the rich" business is also blatantly dishonest. It's a ruse for the secular left to institute their income redistribution scheme. Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II. President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration!

Why? Because business is booming. That's why. Capitalism is working. And the more money corporations and workers make, the more taxes roll in, even at the reduced rate.

So let's recap. Black homeownership up under Bush. Poverty entitlements up under Bush. Educational spending for the poor, up under Bush. Federal tax revenues, up under Bush. Are you taking this down, George Stephanopoulos?

As for President Bush, he owes me big. I want a pen.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169880,00.html

Any comments?

Mine are BO is correct in his analysis, but he neglects to metion two things, which sort of kill his argument:

1. historically low interest rates drove up all home ownership and mostly maintained the economy

2. out of sight Federal deficit spending will quell most economic growth in the long run.

[strandinthewind]

That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.

I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.

Along the same lines:

Senate Panel Debates Eminent Domain

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

By Greg Simmons



WASHINGTON — Sparked by a recent Supreme Court ruling, the debate over eminent domain (search) raged on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee as witnesses dueled over whether local power to take private property hurts homeowners or helps improve communities.

The hearing follows a heated national debate set off in June when the nation's highest court decided 5-4 in favor of town officials who sought the authority to seize private land and turn it into to a commercial office and hotel park. Kelo et. al. v. the City of New London is the first ruling in which eminent domain has been extended to allow governments to take private property for private development rather than for public use.

“This battle against eminent domain abuse may have started as a way for me to save my little pink cottage, but it has rightfully grown into something much larger — the fight to restore the American dream and the sacredness and security of each one of our homes,” Suzette Kelo (search) told committee members.

Kelo and others -- including the pastor of a church that was lost in the development battle, an NAACP official and a law professor -- criticized the ruling.

“The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically targeting minority neighborhoods,” said Hilary O. Shelton (search), director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau. “By allowing pure economic development motives to constitute public use for eminent domain purposes, state and local governments will now infringe on their property rights of those with less economic and political power with more regularity.”

Others, however, expressed support for the ruling.

“The Kelo decision affirmed that eminent domain, a power derived from state law, is one best governed by the states and their political subdivisions,” said Eddie Perez, the mayor of Hartford, Conn. He was speaking on behalf of the National League of Cities.

Perez said that without eminent domain powers, New Orleans and other areas affected by Hurricane Katrina would face a difficult time recovering.

Thomas Merrill (search), a Columbia Law School professor, told the committee members that the ruling appears to be helping the nation figure out how eminent domain should work. Merrill said the court's decision has pushed state legislatures to come up with clear rules on when government has the power to take private property.

“I think the political process is responding” to the ruling, Merrill said.

But Sen. Jon Kyl (search), R-Ariz., disagreed, citing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor's (search) argument in her dissent.

“What she’s saying is it’s the Supreme Court’s duty to enforce constitutional rights. We shouldn’t be passing off the buck to state legislatures to do whatever they think is right,” Kyl said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (search), R-Pa. and the committee's chairman, opened the hearing by saying he wasn’t necessarily for or against the ruling, but that it is one to be explored.

“This is a matter that requires congressional analysis,” Specter said, adding that the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether it was a "wise, appropriate taking of private property."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169926,00.html

[reebokandlace]

I hear you on the capital gains too, 40% is a big freaking cut. Then again, you don't actually have to "work" for that money.

Well, yes and no. I hear ya, but the difference is instead of working for the money, one's money is working for them.

And there is a flip side to it, one also loses money in the stock market, which yes, the capital loses offset the capital gains, but still....a loss is a loss of earned income. :eek:

Actually my line of thought was capital gains tax on real estate, you do get a one time $250,000 capital gains waiver, but most people can easily make that on their first time flipping. So one is forced to do a 1031 exchange to save themselves paying the taxes. The problem is the real estate rollover investment just keeps getting bigger and bigger and at some point you have to pay the taxes....and boy do you pay!!!

I like Canada's system. No capital gains on the sale of a personal residence!

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

I believe, but please check rather than rely on me :laugh: - the US has no personal gain on the appreciation gained from the sale of a personal residence for up to $250,000 per owner occupant and after two years as such and there is no requirement to reinvest this money and you can do it once every two years. This is one of the reasons the housing market is on fire.

[irishgrl]

We always were under the theory of ED - the Sup. Ct. Ruling just sort of expanded it, but cases had already been occuring for awhile where the state took property and used it in a way that benefitted private companies. A good example of this is a highway, which serves the public, but is built by a private contractor. Many so called necessary highways or expansion of roads have been done to line pockets. So, while I abhor the recent USSC decision, it is nothing that new in the big scheme of things.
I am aware of that. I was responding to Davids post. Apparently he thinks our private property rights are absolute. Boy is HE in for a surprise :eek:

[irishgrl]

That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.

I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.


WRONG! the right to property is NOT one of the inaelienable rights. Those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (as stated in the Declaration of Independence) In the early days of this Nation, only Wealthy WHITE MEN could own property. NO Women. NO minorities. Property Ownership was the sign of the ELITE, and Property has ALWAYS been a Government controlled commodity. And people are under the misconception that they have "private property rights" which is ALSO wrong, because the "rights of the community" trump individual rights.

A county/town has to have a General Plan which determines land use and the issues of development. You as a homeowner are MOST DEFINITELY bound by the terms of that Government Process. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. Think about it. how many people own the mineral rights to their land? or water rights? relatively few. especially in areas where precious minerals or oil might be present, you'd see just how fast the Government would take over.......

[strandinthewind]

. . . how many people own the mineral rights to their land? or water rights? relatively few. especially in areas where precious minerals or oil might be present, you'd see just how fast the Government would take over.......

Well, just about all of Southern Lousisna as I know many who have made fortunes off of the oil there just as I know more than one have refused to drill for various reasons and the govt. never compelled them to do so :shrug: So, while I agree with you that property has always been subject to just compensation for public use, I know of no incident where the govt. has taken away private mineral rights. Do you?

[strandinthewind]

I am aware of that. I was responding to Davids post. Apparently he thinks our private property rights are absolute. Boy is HE in for a surprise :eek:

Well, they are absolute in the sense that the just compensation equates FMV (usually higher than that) property for money, which is the universal medium of exchange. In other words, you have the Constitutional right (Fifth and 14th Amendments) to the value of your property but not the actual property itself.

[gldstwmn]

^^^^

I believe, but please check rather than rely on me :laugh: - the US has no personal gain on the appreciation gained from the sale of a personal residence for up to $250,000 per owner occupant and after two years as such and there is no requirement to reinvest this money and you can do it once every two years. This is one of the reasons the housing market is on fire.

Someone's been reading the tax code again. :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Well, they are absolute in the sense that the just compensation equates FMV (usually higher than that) property for money, which is the universal medium of exchange. In other words, you have the Constitutional right (Fifth and 14th Amendments) to the value of your property but not the actual property itself.



thus the reason the Government can "repossess" your property after "just" compensation. as long as there is a nexus of use (in CA)

[strandinthewind]

thus the reason the Government can "repossess" your property after "just" compensation. as long as there is a nexus of use (in CA)

I know that and did not argue otherwise :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

Bill is spinning this himself by leaving out the actual poverty stats so I take it all with a pile of salt.

I forgot to add the stats that on average Americans are saving zero money because they can't afford it. Also, the average household income has dropped while Bush has been in office.

...
More Unbelievable Propaganda [pot.kettle.black] in Katrina's Wake

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly

More unbelievable propaganda in the wake of Katrina: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

You know, I'm in a rather uncomfortable position of having to defend President Bush, who's being battered by partisan propaganda over Katrina. As we've stated, the president was late reacting to the storm and his hand-picked leaders did not do the job in FEMA and Homeland Security.

But, I just can't sit here and let rank propaganda go unchallenged as most of the elite media [I have no idea what that means and I think it's a bullsh*t term] does all day long. Now yesterday, President Bill Clinton appeared with George Stephanopoulos on ABC and said this about the poor and Katrina.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.: This is a matter of public policy. And whether it's race based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made.[The rich got the biggest benefit from the cuts.]

That's what they did in the '80's. That's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy. We concentrated tax cuts on lower income working people, and benefits to low income people to help them move from welfare to work. And we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty. We know what works. And we had a program that was drastically reducing poverty. And they got rid of it. So -- and they don't believe in it...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Believe in what?! What is Mr. Clinton talking about? What program did Mr. Bush get rid of? [I don't know what it is either but I bet when Bill has a moment he will let BO know.]

We called Mr. Clinton's office all day, looking for an answer to that very simple question. We didn't get one. Stephanopoulos sat there like a mummy, challenging nothing. The whole thing's absurd.

Again, here are the facts. Black homeownership is up 2 percent under President Bush. Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms.[For some reason he conveniently left out how many more people have sunk into poverty since Bush has been in office which is not directly related to home ownership.]

This "tax cuts for the rich" business is also blatantly dishonest. It's a ruse for the secular left [again, what is this? I hate this adjective because it isn't accurate nor does it even apply to this issue] to institute their income redistribution scheme [news to me, if only we had such a scheme]. Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II. President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration! [But the money will all be wasted as the deficit grows[

Why? Because business is booming. That's why. Capitalism is working. And the more money corporations and workers make, the more taxes roll in, even at the reduced rate.

So let's recap. Black homeownership up under Bush. Poverty entitlements up under Bush. Educational spending for the poor, up under Bush. Federal tax revenues, up under Bush. Are you taking this down, George Stephanopoulos?

...

[irishgrl]

I know that and did not argue otherwise :shrug:

I KNOW silly! I was responding to DAVID'S comment! you and I are on the same page (:woo hoo:) :eek:

[strandinthewind]

^^^^^

I agree with most of your comments Suze, but two:

1. You said "The rich got the biggest benefit from the cuts." - while true, they always paid more into the system. So, that statement is a little misleading in that it sounds like suddenly the rich were paying way less, which is not true statistically and the amount they still pay is huge - though and again, I am all for the flat tax I mentioned earlier.

2. Your statement "For some reason he conveniently left out how many more people have sunk into poverty since Bush has been in office which is not directly related to home ownership" - does not directly refute his that "Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms." I mean if poverty fell one percent, how can that not be a good thing?

[strandinthewind]

I KNOW silly! I was responding to DAVID'S comment! you and I are on the same page (:woo hoo:) :eek:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh :sorry: :wavey:

[SuzeQuze]

^^^^^

I agree with most of your comments, but two:

1. You said "The rich got the biggest benefit from the cuts." - while true, they always paid more into the system. So, that statement is a little misleading in that it sounds like suddenly the rich were paying way less, which is not true statistically and the amount they still pay is huge - though and again, I am all for the flat tax I mentioned earlier.

2. Your statement "For some reason he conveniently left out how many more people have sunk into poverty since Bush has been in office which is not directly related to home ownership" - does not directly refute his that "Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms." I mean if poverty fell one percent, how can that not be a good thing?

Honestly? I don't trust those statistics. I have a feeling they are out of context. What I have heard is an additional 1.5 million people sunk into poverty last year. Poverty has not gone down.

[strandinthewind]

Honestly? I don't trust those statistics. I have a feeling they are out of context. What I have heard is an additional 1.5 million people sunk into poverty last year. Poverty has not gone down.

BO is pretty good about stats :shrug: Where did you hear your's from?

Here is what I found, which supports his argument even though it is on the rise:

Poverty rate at 12.7 percent, 4th straight rise

Situation better than in the '80s and early '90s

The Associated Press
Updated: 10:45 a.m. ET Aug. 30, 2005

WASHINGTON - The nation’s poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year, the fourth consecutive annual increase, the Census Bureau said Tuesday.

The percentage of people without health insurance did not change.

Overall, there were 37 million people living in poverty, up 1.1 million people from 2003.

Asians were the only ethnic group to show a decline in poverty — from 11.8 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent last year. The poverty rate among the elderly declined as well, from 10.2 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent last year.

The last decline in overall poverty was in 2000, when 31.1 million people lived under the threshold — 11.3 percent of the population.

The number of people without health insurance grew from 45 million to 45.8 million. At the same time, the number of people with health insurance coverage grew by 2 million last year.

Household income unchanged

The median household income, meanwhile, stood at $44,389, unchanged from 2003. Among racial and ethnic groups blacks had the lowest median income and Asians the highest. Median income refers to the point at which half of households earn more and half earn less.

Regionally, income declined only in the Midwest, down 2.8 percent to $44,657. The South was the poorest region and the Northeast and the West had the highest median incomes.

The increase in poverty came despite strong economic growth, which helped create 2.2 million jobs last year.

Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said the poverty number is still much better than the 80s and early 90s.

“The good news is that poverty is a lot lower than it was in 1993, but we went through a hell of an economic boom,” Danziger said. “Nobody is predicting we’re going to go through another economic boom like that.”

The poverty threshold differs by the size and makeup of a household. For instance, a family of four with two children was considered living in poverty if income was $19,157 or less. For a family of two with no children, it was $12,649. For a person 65 and over living alone, it was 9,060.

The estimates on poverty, uninsured and income are based on supplements to the bureau’s Current Population Survey, and are conducted over three months, beginning in February, at about 100,000 households nationwide.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/

Here is some stuff on the Clinton years, which seemingly indicates Clinton had 12.7 as well apparently via the Welfare Reform Act, which was not a very good thing IMO.

http://www.mikehersh.com/President_Clinton_Eight_Great_Years.shtml

On edit and though I am not inclined to trust Media Matters - here is a coll article:

O'Reilly cherry-picked census numbers to falsely suggest Bush is better on poverty than Clinton


Fox News host Bill O'Reilly compared the poverty rate in 1996 with the poverty rate in 2004 to falsely suggest that President Bush has done more to reduce poverty in the United States than President Clinton. O'Reilly cited the statistics in response to claims, which he described as "complete nonsense," that the Bush administration has neglected impoverished Americans. While O'Reilly is correct that the poverty rate in 1996 was higher than in 2004, he took those numbers out of context to mask a far more significant fact: The poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency. Put another way, the poverty rate was higher now than it was when Clinton left office. During the Clinton presidency, the poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004.

From the September 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: The aftermath of [Hurricane] Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. There are about 37 million people living below the poverty line right now. The issue was described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas, a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, "Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate."

Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower. In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton was called the first black president by some. However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.

Did the elite media mention that? Jesse Jackson mention that? Of course they didn't, because it's much more convenient for Evan Thomas and others to imply America under President Bush has turned its back on the poor, but it's absolute nonsense.

O'Reilly's assertion echoed a similar claim by CNN contributor, talk radio host, and Bush-Cheney '04 campaign adviser Rev. Joe Watkins that the United States has experienced a "reduction" in poverty under President Bush.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509140004

In the end and though the rate has risen under W, we were in a recession the underpinning of which begun in the Clinton era (tech bubble, corp fraud devaluing a sig. % of the market and causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, etc. ) -- so, though W could have done more, I think it is wrong to say that W did nothing to help the poor at all or that his policies showed no care for their well being. I mean considering the state of the economy, those numbers are pretty low though they are rising.

Note - I am no fan of W. I am just commenting on the stats.

[SuzeQuze]

I got my numbers from Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller. Check this out

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130002

[David]

I am aware of that. I was responding to Davids post. Apparently he thinks our private property rights are absolute.No, I don't believe that. Please reread my post for an exact description of my thoughts.

[David]

WRONG! the right to property is NOT one of the inaelienable rights. Those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (as stated in the Declaration of Independence) In the early days of this Nation, only Wealthy WHITE MEN could own property. NO Women. NO minorities. Property Ownership was the sign of the ELITE, and Property has ALWAYS been a Government controlled commodity.In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke wrote: "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to but himself. The labor of his body, & the works of his hands, we may say, are properly his." Locke added that "men unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name property."

In The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote: "The first & chief design of every system of government is to maintain justice: to prevent the members of society from encroaching on one another's property, or seizing what is not their own. The design here is to give each one the secure & peaceable possession of his own property."

These ideas influenced the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton wrote: "One great objective of government is personal protection of the security of property." John Adams wrote: "Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."

The idea of compensation for the taking of private property was an established common law principle. The colonists linked property ownership with the enjoyment of political liberty. "Liberty & Property" was the motto of the revolutionary movement.

Jefferson borrowed heavily ideas from Locke. Locke used the expression "life, liberty & estates" to describe the inalienable (i.e., natural) rights that government was formed to secure. Jefferson substituted the phrase "pursuit of happiness" for "estates," but this was not a rejection of the emphasis on property rights. In the eighteenth century, happiness was generally equated with economic opportunity -- that is, freedom from arbitrary taxation or usurpation of property (in other words, seizing property without compensation).

Again, it isn't so much the property itself that is protected in absolute terms from government seizure; it's each person's inalienable right to his body & the works of his hands in order to secure happiness. This is the foundation of our republic.

See especially Madison's Federalist No. 10 & Hamilton's Federalist No. 12.

[dissention]

BO is pretty good about stats :shrug:

He is?! :lol:

Now I've heard it all.

[SuzeQuze]

He is?! :lol:

Now I've heard it all.

:shrug: Steph has her "Right Wing World" up on her site now which I did not realize. They were talking about these stats this morning. http://www.stephaniemiller.com/show/ Listen just for her voice guy's impression of O'Reilley, its hysterical. :laugh:

[dissention]

:shrug: Steph has her "Right Wing World" up on her site now which I did not realize. They were talking about these stats this morning. http://www.stephaniemiller.com/show/ Listen just for her voice guy's impression of O'Reilley, its hysterical. :laugh:

I totally will listen to it. :xoxo: Did you ever hear The Best of the Al Franken Show CD? Bebe Neuwirth is a riot as Ann Coulter on the "In the Green Room" tracks.

O'Reilly twists statistics and numbers to fit his argument, it's really pathetic. He does it without shame.

[reebokandlace]

^^^^

I believe, but please check rather than rely on me :laugh: - the US has no personal gain on the appreciation gained from the sale of a personal residence for up to $250,000 per owner occupant and after two years as such and there is no requirement to reinvest this money and you can do it once every two years. This is one of the reasons the housing market is on fire.


I believe you may be right. That may have been one of the changes that was made last year. Although, I am not sure about the every two years theory. I know you must reside in the residence for at least two years before selling to be eligible for the $250,000 single or $500,000 couple waiver. It used to be a once in a lifetime waiver, but you may be right and they are now allowing a waiver every two years.

I do know from personal recent experience that you must use a 1031 exchange if you plan to re-invest the gains in non personal residence.

[SuzeQuze]

I totally will listen to it. :xoxo: Did you ever hear The Best of the Al Franken Show CD? Bebe Neuwirth is a riot as Ann Coulter on the "In the Green Room" tracks.

O'Reilly twists statistics and numbers to fit his argument, it's really pathetic. He does it without shame.

I think I have heard some of that! Many media outlets do that with statistics. That's why its important that everyone understand stats. I didn't like that class but I learned a lot! Like if someone says, "poverty is down 3%". Well, three percent of what?

[markolas]

No one deserves 40% of my income. If I work my ass off, have a great idea that makes it big, or just make smart financial decisions, why should I have 40% taken from me ? That's absurd. One of the most enormous problems that exists is the loss of the concept of personal responsibility. The majority of people that I know who have financial problems are either young and just starting out, or are suffering from making stupid decisions they regret. I am not saying this is the root cause of poverty, but I have seen a lot of people who struggle financially who have literally soiled their own beds. Me throwing money at them isn't going to teach them how to make smart decisions.

I need to introduce you to my ex-boyfriend. :lol:

[markolas]

I'm not going to argue about the flat tax. This is one of those issues where I just kind of "shut down" on people. Like I said, I could live quite comfortably on about $700 a month. I have no use for half the things I have now, why the hell would I want more?

Internet message boards are interesting things. I get to safely interact with people that I probably wouldn't let in my house. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

He is?! :lol:

Now I've heard it all.

His stats are accurate there :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I believe you may be right. That may have been one of the changes that was made last year. Although, I am not sure about the every two years theory. I know you must reside in the residence for at least two years before selling to be eligible for the $250,000 single or $500,000 couple waiver. It used to be a once in a lifetime waiver, but you may be right and they are now allowing a waiver every two years.

I do know from personal recent experience that you must use a 1031 exchange if you plan to re-invest the gains in non personal residence.

It has been in effect since like 1996 - I know because I have taken advantage of it - at which time I went like this :blob2: :blob2:

Also, I am not talking about non personal residences, only personal residences :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I'm not going to argue about the flat tax. This is one of those issues where I just kind of "shut down" on people. Like I said, I could live quite comfortably on about $700 a month. I have no use for half the things I have now, why the hell would I want more?
. . . .

But, the question is many could not and even if they could, why should they be held to your standard. which is what you are asserting :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I think I have heard some of that! Many media outlets do that with statistics. That's why its important that everyone understand stats. I didn't like that class but I learned a lot! Like if someone says, "poverty is down 3%". Well, three percent of what?

His point was accurate that 12.7 is very good in the context of the last 15 or so years and the Bush Admin. has given more money than any other, which even media matters admitted when it said "the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements." I mean how is that incorrect or how does it not support BO's premise that the assertion that the Bush Admin. has massive neglect for the poor is wrong :shrug:

I do not like W, but facts are facts and the facts here demonstrate W has given a lot of money to the poor and his highest rate of 12.7 is comparatively very good, esp. in a recession :shrug:

[markolas]

But, the question is many could not and even if they could, why should they be held to your standard. which is what you are asserting :shrug:

I just have major problems with people who live and/or think like they're the only ones on the planet, or who will ever be on the planet. It's one of my little "pet issues," and I end up not having much to do with people who have that kind of worldview.

[gldstwmn]

Anyway and to change the topic a little, but still stay on point about the poor - let's open this up for discussion:

More Unbelievable Propaganda in Katrina's Wake

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly

I wonder if being a fact checker for O'Really includes having to carry a loofah? :eek:

[strandinthewind]

I just have major problems with people who live and/or think like they're the only ones on the planet, or who will ever be on the planet. It's one of my little "pet issues," and I end up not having much to do with people who have that kind of worldview.

On edit - I agree with you on this point.

But, you are ignoring my point that many of the people you sometimes are faulting and then sometimes are not are the very ones who give enormous amounts to charity.

Interestingly, your point that you could live on $700 a month implies everyone could or should which sort of makes you look as if you are acting like you are the only one on the planet in that everyone should adhere to your standards :shrug: I mean everyone is different in their needs and in America, unless you change the law, your tax dollars go to support the welfare state and what you give over that is kindness and the stats indicate many American's are very, very kind, which you seem like you are loathe to admit :shrug:

In the end, I say live your life the way you want to live and be as nice as you can to your fellow planet mate and things will hopefully be fine.

tone - friendly as always

[strandinthewind]

I wonder if being a fact checker for O'Really includes having to carry a loofah? :eek:

No, you just have to remove the hair from it :lol: :lol: :wavey:

[sparky]

I need to introduce you to my ex-boyfriend. :lol:

The one who yelled at you in the car ? Methinks not. :laugh:

I doubt he'd survive half my deal breaker list. :wavey:

[irishgrl]

Well, just about all of Southern Lousisna as I know many who have made fortunes off of the oil there just as I know more than one have refused to drill for various reasons and the govt. never compelled them to do so :shrug: So, while I agree with you that property has always been subject to just compensation for public use, I know of no incident where the govt. has taken away private mineral rights. Do you?

the fine print on your deed should guide you. generally, the fine pring says that the State reserves the right to mineral/water rights...at least in CA.

What is the situation in OK? I thot much of it was reservation? Maybe those people you are referring to are on rez land? Indian reservations are exempt from Federal laws. It might be interesting to find out.......

[markolas]

But, you are ignoring my point that many of the people you sometimes are faulting and then sometimes are not are the very ones who give enormous amounts to charity.

I'm not ignoring your point. It's nice to give enormous amounts to charity, but that doesn't, by itself, necessarily impress me.

Interestingly, your point that you could live on $700 a month implies everyone could or should which sort of makes you look as if you are acting like you are the only one on the planet in that everyone should adhere to your standards :shrug:

I think that's a stretch. :D I don't think everyone should live on $700 a month. I do think that most people have very bloated ideas of what "comfortable living" is.

I mean everyone is different in their needs and in America, unless you change the law, your tax dollars go to support the welfare state and what you give over that is kindness and the stats indicate many American's are very, very kind, which you seem like you are loathe to admit :shrug:

I'm not touching the welfare state comment. ;) Hmm...maybe you'd like my ex-boyfriend, too. :laugh: There's more to being kind than giving money to charities, and I'm not convinced that giving money to charities is necessarily always done out of kindness.

Many Americans are also not very kind. Like my psychotic ex-roommate (may he roast in hell for a thousand years) who once took some stuff to Goodwill thinking they were going to *pay* him for it. And he didn't think that because he was stupid. He thought that because he literally could not wrap his brain around the idea of giving something to somebody without expecting to get something back. It was beyond his ability to comprehend. Truly. I didn't think people like that existed, but they really do.

In the end, I say live your life the way you want to live and be as nice as you can to your fellow planet mate and things will hopefully be fine.

tone - friendly as always

Anybody can do whatever the hell they want. I'm not trying to make everybody bow down to me. :wavey: I just have a couple of "deal-breaker" issues when it comes to having anything more than a casual acquaintance-type relationship with people, and this is one of them. :D

[markolas]

The one who yelled at you in the car ? Methinks not. :laugh:

I doubt he'd survive half my deal breaker list. :wavey:

Well, he didn't yell. But he is a drama queen. :D

[strandinthewind]

. . . I just have a couple of "deal-breaker" issues when it comes to having anything more than a casual acquaintance-type relationship with people, and this is one of them. :D

Being rich (however defined) is a deal breaker or being selfish is the deal breaker. The two are mutually exclusive in their propensity to exist though they can coexist at all levels of society.

[markolas]

Being rich (however defined) is a deal breaker or being selfish is the deal breaker. The two are mutually exclusive in their propensity to exist though they can coexist at all levels of society.

Selfishness. Actually, what I'm describing is beyond selfishness, it's so repugnant to me.

Where do you keep getting that I hate rich people? I've never said that.

[sparky]

Being rich (however defined) is a deal breaker or being selfish is the deal breaker. The two are mutually exclusive in their propensity to exist though they can coexist at all levels of society.

How is "rich" even defined ? That is a compelling question. As is the question of what is "selfish".

[strandinthewind]

. . . Where do you keep getting that I hate rich people? I've never said that.

You were harping on them pretty badly earlier, but now that you are saying you do not hate them, so be it.

[strandinthewind]

How is "rich" even defined ? That is a compelling question. As is the question of what is "selfish".


I think we are all selfish in almost every action we do. Very few people do very few things with no expectation of some form of gratification. Even Mother Theresa experienced the Love of the Lord, albeit with humility, for the thousands she helped and that Love was the reason she did it. Is that selfishness - I submit it is a form of it.

As for what is rich, I'd like to set out to discover that :laugh:

[markolas]

You were harping on them pretty badly earlier, but now that you are saying you do not hate them, so be it.

Oh, hon, you haven't seen me harp pretty badly on *anything* on the Ledge. If you had, then I would probably be banned by now. :lol: :D

[sparky]

I'm not ignoring your point. It's nice to give enormous amounts to charity, but that doesn't, by itself, necessarily impress me.


What exactly does impress you ? Living in a hut ? Being Mother Theresa ? :wavey:


I do think that most people have very bloated ideas of what "comfortable living" is.

Further, I am curious to know what crosses the line with you. I am not being antagonistic, I am genuinely curious.



Many Americans are also not very kind. Like my psychotic ex-roommate (may he roast in hell for a thousand years) who once took some stuff to Goodwill thinking they were going to *pay* him for it. And he didn't think that because he was stupid. He thought that because he literally could not wrap his brain around the idea of giving something to somebody without expecting to get something back. It was beyond his ability to comprehend. Truly. I didn't think people like that existed, but they really do.

You have known some wretched people, dude.

[markolas]

What exactly does impress you ? Living in a hut ? Being Mother Theresa ? :wavey:

What impresses me is an understanding/acceptance of the fact that nobody exists in a vacuum, and that in a spiritual sense, we really are obligated to look out for our fellow beings.

Further, I am curious to know what crosses the line with you. I am not being antagonistic, I am genuinely curious.

I know people who are almost completely consumed with concern about their "stuff." They don't buy things because they'll actually get use out of them, but because of how it makes them look (or how they think it makes them look). Like my friend who recently had a house built with 5 bedrooms even though he lives by himself. This particular example doesn't annoy me so much as it makes me sad, though, because of his reasoning behind it.

What crosses the line is when people buy things, not because they really need it or get some enjoyment out of it, but because they want to show off.

You have known some wretched people, dude.

Yes, but the roommate was the worse one, I think. Or, he might be tied with the guy who sold me my car. I wouldn't piss on either one of them if they were on fire. :D

[reebokandlace]

Also, I am not talking about non personal residences, only personal residences :shrug:

I know you weren't but I was....lol...I am so lost and tired right now. I can't even think straight. I need to go to bed.


reebok ~~> :xoxo: <~~~strand

[strandinthewind]

I know you weren't but I was....lol...I am so lost and tired right now. I can't even think straight. I need to go to bed.


reebok ~~> :xoxo: <~~~strand

That's what the Tax Code will do to ya :laugh:

[sparky]

What impresses me is an understanding/acceptance of the fact that nobody exists in a vacuum, and that in a spiritual sense, we really are obligated to look out for our fellow beings.

Most people I know understand this, I think. Though how far any of take that "looking after" aspect is wildly different.

I know people who are almost completely consumed with concern about their "stuff." They don't buy things because they'll actually get use out of them, but because of how it makes them look (or how they think it makes them look).

This is mostly the attitude of the young, immature, and insecure. That doesn't make it right, but it is usually a phase.

Like my friend who recently had a house built with 5 bedrooms even though he lives by himself. This particular example doesn't annoy me so much as it makes me sad, though, because of his reasoning behind it.

I could see doing this as an investment, but it seems silly to actually live in such a place alone. He is totally going to need a maid. :eek: :lol:

What crosses the line is when people buy things, not because they really need it or get some enjoyment out of it, but because they want to show off.

Again...immaturity, insecurity, youth.

Yes, but the roommate was the worse one, I think. Or, he might be tied with the guy who sold me my car. I wouldn't piss on either one of them if they were on fire. :D

I don't know how Buddhist that statement was. :xoxo: :wavey:

[markolas]

Most people I know understand this, I think. Though how far any of take that "looking after" aspect is wildly different.

Most of the people I know have little to no interest in spirituality. I need to make some different friends, I think.

This is mostly the attitude of the young, immature, and insecure. That doesn't make it right, but it is usually a phase.

I know people pushing 40 who are like that. How long does this phase last? :laugh:

I could see doing this as an investment, but it seems silly to actually live in such a place alone. He is totally going to need a maid. :eek: :lol:

He's gotten himself into a pickle, I'm afraid. He hates his job, and if he hadn't bought this house, he could probably afford to quit. :distress:

I don't know how Buddhist that statement was. :xoxo: :wavey:

Probably not very, but I'm a work in progress. :)

[sparky]

Most of the people I know have little to no interest in spirituality. I need to make some different friends, I think.

Clearly. I don't know many with an interest in spirituality beyond the superficial. But, it hasn't stopped them from being kind decent people. I find it tedious, myself. If I get into any spiritual space at all it comes from contact with nature, my pets, or sex. All of which can be spiritual in one way or another.

I know people pushing 40 who are like that. How long does this phase last? :laugh:

Gay men sometimes never get through it. Many people don't.

He's gotten himself into a pickle, I'm afraid. He hates his job, and if he hadn't bought this house, he could probably afford to quit. :distress:

Ahhh, see my earlier quote about people who make stupid decisions.

Probably not very, but I'm a work in progress. :)

As are all of us. :woohoo:

[irishgrl]

^^^^^

I agree with most of your comments Suze, but two:

1. You said "The rich got the biggest benefit from the cuts." - while true, they always paid more into the system. So, that statement is a little misleading in that it sounds like suddenly the rich were paying way less, which is not true statistically and the amount they still pay is huge - though and again, I am all for the flat tax I mentioned earlier.

2. Your statement "For some reason he conveniently left out how many more people have sunk into poverty since Bush has been in office which is not directly related to home ownership" - does not directly refute his that "Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms." I mean if poverty fell one percent, how can that not be a good thing?

hold the phone, the thread I posted re: poverty INCREASING under Bush every year since 2000 most definitely contradicts your last statements.
As for educational spending, Bush has consistently UNDERFUNDED his educational programs! So, I am unsure where you get your facts...I suggest you go back to my other thread and look at the numbers again.

[SuzeQuze]

His point was accurate that 12.7 is very good in the context of the last 15 or so years and the Bush Admin. has given more money than any other, which even media matters admitted when it said "the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements." I mean how is that incorrect or how does it not support BO's premise that the assertion that the Bush Admin. has massive neglect for the poor is wrong :shrug:

I do not like W, but facts are facts and the facts here demonstrate W has given a lot of money to the poor and his highest rate of 12.7 is comparatively very good, esp. in a recession :shrug:

Did you look at this page? http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130002

[irishgrl]

In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke wrote: "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to but himself. The labor of his body, & the works of his hands, we may say, are properly his." Locke added that "men unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name property."

In The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote: "The first & chief design of every system of government is to maintain justice: to prevent the members of society from encroaching on one another's property, or seizing what is not their own. The design here is to give each one the secure & peaceable possession of his own property."

These ideas influenced the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton wrote: "One great objective of government is personal protection of the security of property." John Adams wrote: "Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."

The idea of compensation for the taking of private property was an established common law principle. The colonists linked property ownership with the enjoyment of political liberty. "Liberty & Property" was the motto of the revolutionary movement.

Jefferson borrowed heavily ideas from Locke. Locke used the expression "life, liberty & estates" to describe the inalienable (i.e., natural) rights that government was formed to secure. Jefferson substituted the phrase "pursuit of happiness" for "estates," but this was not a rejection of the emphasis on property rights. In the eighteenth century, happiness was generally equated with economic opportunity -- that is, freedom from arbitrary taxation or usurpation of property (in other words, seizing property without compensation).

Again, it isn't so much the property itself that is protected in absolute terms from government seizure; it's each person's inalienable right to his body & the works of his hands in order to secure happiness. This is the foundation of our republic.

See especially Madison's Federalist No. 10 & Hamilton's Federalist No. 12.


OK: Locke (et al) is talking about a person's autonomy over self and the fruits of his own labors. not the same thing as a person's "right" to own property. Your original post (which I DID read very carefully before I responded thank you) talked about private property as an inalienable right which is completely FALSE.

That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun.

Nobody is disputing (at least Im not) the idea of personal autonomy. But you are switching the argument now from what you originally had.

Again, some of what you posted supports the ideological framework of the elites, the white male property owners being in control...Smith sounds downright paranoid!...Why else talk about Government "securing" property? I would bet money that the meaning of the term "estates" was different in Jefferson's day, and I think Jefferson wisely took it out.

[strandinthewind]

hold the phone, the thread I posted re: poverty INCREASING under Bush every year since 2000 most definitely contradicts your last statements . . . .

No it does not. Again and though I cannot stand W, a 12.7 poverty rate is historically good when compared to the last 15 years despite its rising every year, which everyone admits is a bad thing: shrug:

Also, that W gave over like 14% of the budget and an historical amount does not in any way support any statement that W is ignoring the poor. That is a staggering amount and way more than every before.

So, though I despise W and his most of his policies and I am alarmed that the rate has risen and readily concede that that is a bad thing, the facts clearly indicate W is working toward correcting that and 12.7 is a comparatively good number.

[strandinthewind]

Did you look at this page? http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130002

Yes, and it indicates that though the poverty rate has risen a little under W, it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton and I still submit that W's historic amount of money given has the potential to stay or even reduce the slow rise W has seen. Interestingly, Clinton's lowest numbers were in the boom times and W managed to maintain close to those in the recession.

Again, I think W is a bad President, but these facts are not that bad against him and I cannot see how Bush 2006 budget's allotment a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, which was an historic 14.6 percent of the entire budget, is not a good attempt at staying or even reducing this 12.7% number.

Maybe the make up of the 14.6 % is bogus, but no one I could find is reporting that :shrug:

[irishgrl]

Yes, and it indicates that though the poverty rate has risen a little under W, it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton and I still submit that W's historic amount of money given has the potential to stay or even reduce the slow rise W has seen. Interestingly, Clinton's lowest numbers were in the boom times and W managed to maintain close to those in the recession.

Again, I think W is a bad President, but these facts are not that bad against him and I cannot see how Bush 2006 budget's allotment a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, which was an historic 14.6 percent of the entire budget, is not a good attempt at staying or even reducing this 12.7% number.

Maybe the make up of the 14.6 % is bogus, but no one I could find is reporting that :shrug:

ok lets take a look at my thread again (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22116&highlight=census+data)

here's another article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829707) with graphs and stuff..

now: kindly show me where Clinton's numbers were worse than Bushwads.

[SuzeQuze]

Yes, and it indicates that though the poverty rate has risen a little under W, it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton and I still submit that W's historic amount of money given has the potential to stay or even reduce the slow rise W has seen. Interestingly, Clinton's lowest numbers were in the boom times and W managed to maintain close to those in the recession.

Again, I think W is a bad President, but these facts are not that bad against him and I cannot see how Bush 2006 budget's allotment a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, which was an historic 14.6 percent of the entire budget, is not a good attempt at staying or even reducing this 12.7% number.

Maybe the make up of the 14.6 % is bogus, but no one I could find is reporting that :shrug:

I did a search on that number, 368 billion, and got very few hits. I don't know where O'Reilley got that number.

The poverty rate steadily declined every year during Clinton's presidency, it has steadily increased during Dubya's. Over fourteen million people have sunk into poverty since Dubya's reign. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html He's doing a sh*t job.

Here is another way of looking at that "368 billion" figure which may come straight from O'Reilley's butt. http://www.crankyliberal.com/?p=449

I know, because of the URL the site probably isn't "credible". When are people going to start listening to the geeks and tune out these "manly men".

[strandinthewind]

I did a search on that number, 368 billion, and got very few hits. I don't know where O'Reilley got that number.

The poverty rate steadily declined every year during Clinton's presidency, it has steadily increased during Dubya's. Over fourteen million people have sunk into poverty since Dubya's reign. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html He's doing a sh*t job.

Here is another way of looking at that "368 billion" figure which may come straight from O'Reilley's butt. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Media Matters reported that number in the post I put up earlier - surely that biased source would not report anything favorable to W if it did not have to :shrug:

Also, I get that the number has risen under W, but W inherited a failing economy, which was sure to make that number rise and after four or five years, it is still historically low :shrug: How is what I am saying false?

P.S. If anyone is going to argue the economy failed the very day W took office and that it was all peaches and cream until the last day of Clinton's Presidency, that is utter crap because:

1. the tech bubble burst in Clinton's terms and

2. something like 1/4 of the nation's wealth was lost in that burst and in the phantom profits created by fraudulent companies like Enron, MCI, and others in largest companies in the US.

All of that happened under Clinton and to assign its devastating effects solely to W because he, not Clinton, was in office is incorrect :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

Media Matters reported that number :shrug:

No, if you look again they are quoting O'Reilley.

[strandinthewind]

No, if you look again they are quoting O'Reilley.

I'll take your word for it, but it still is a huge amount of money - 14 percent of the budget. So, to my point, W is working to stay that rise and 12.7 is still historically low, esp. at what appears to be the end of the recession - how is that a bad thing and how does that show W is neglecting the poor :shrug:

[irishgrl]

W inherited a failing economy
you are a LAFF RIOT! Clinton balanced the budget under his watch. and the tech bubble didnt burst and the Stock markets didnt decline until Dingleberry took office. FACT. You dont like it but Too Freakin bad.

Personally I think the fact that W was PLACED into the White House undermined the confidence people had in the stability of our economy and various other aspects. Things were sort of in limbo until the Supreme Court GAVE Bushwad the job...then they fell apart in a big way.

Dont give me that tired old refrain "the seeds were sown in Clintons term" because Clinton took the heat for stuff that HE inherited. Bush is a bumbler, his economic policies favor the rich and I wish he were GONE.

[macfanken]

I'll take your word for it, but it still is a huge amount of money - 14 percent of the budget. So, to my point, W is working to stay that rise and 12.7 is still historically low, esp. at what appears to be the end of the recession - how is that a bad thing and how does that show W is neglecting the poor :shrug:


I'm jumping into the middle of this but I noticed that the graph seems to show poverty decreasing every single year under Clinton and increasing every single year under Bush. Not sure what my point is.

[irishgrl]

I'm jumping into the middle of this but I noticed that the graph seems to show poverty decreasing every single year under Clinton and increasing every single year under Bush. Not sure what my point is.

then let me help you:
Bush's numbers are WORSE than Clinton's. Sometimes I think Jason gets his news from an alternate Universe.

[strandinthewind]

you are a LAFF RIOT! Clinton balanced the budget under his watch. and the tech bubble didnt burst and the Stock markets didnt decline until Dingleberry took office. FACT. You dont like it but Too Freakin bad.

Personally I think the fact that W was PLACED into the White House undermined the confidence people had in the stability of our economy and various other aspects. Things were sort of in limbo until the Supreme Court GAVE Bushwad the job...then they fell apart in a big way.

Dont give me that tired old refrain "the seeds were sown in Clintons term" because Clinton took the heat for stuff that HE inherited. Bush is a bumbler, his economic policies favor the rich and I wish he were GONE.

Well, then I guess you really think that the very minute W took office, America lost like 1/4 of its wealth and several million jobs and that nothing prior to then caused that :rolleyes:

What utter cra*p espoused by predictably by you.

Again, anyone with a brain can see that the tech bubble began to burst way before Clinton left office and all that phantom wealth created by those atronomical IPO's was lost, which meant a huge loss in jobs.

Then, just the loss of Enron and MCI caused the effective loss of trillions. All of that fraud helped build the Clinton economy and it burst druing W's.

But, you never face facts, so why start now.

[SuzeQuze]

I'll take your word for it, but it still is a huge amount of money - 14 percent of the budget. So, to my point, W is working to stay that rise and 12.7 is still historically low, esp. at what appears to be the end of the recession - how is that a bad thing and how does that show W is neglecting the poor :shrug:

I also don't trust that 14% figure. Remember, Bush tends to leave out things when he does his "budget", like the cost of the Iraq war, for instance. I have not seen the budget though so I don't know for sure.

What I'm saying is more people are sinking into poverty under Bush. 14+ million more to be more precise. Doesn't that seem like a lot to you? The 12.7 figure may be "historically" low but that percentage doesn't wipe out the fact that 14 million more people are poor today than were in 1999.

[macfanken]

then let me help you:
Bush's numbers are WORSE than Clinton's. Sometimes I think Jason gets his news from an alternate Universe.


I'm really tired... I was hoping someone would make my point for me! :lol:

[strandinthewind]

I'm jumping into the middle of this but I noticed that the graph seems to show poverty decreasing every single year under Clinton and increasing every single year under Bush. Not sure what my point is.

Contrary to Mary's inane point, I agree that it decreased every year under Clinton and that was a great thing (though much of it was built on phantomn IPO's and corp. fraud) - but my point was though it has sadly risen under W, W is throwing money at it to stop that rise and 12.7 is historically very low. That is all I am saying.

[strandinthewind]

then let me help you:
Bush's numbers are WORSE than Clinton's. Sometimes I think Jason gets his news from an alternate Universe.

No, Mary, I get them from facts, which you avoid so you can make idiotic points like your avoiding answering the question of how those numbers in any way support that W cares so little for the poor.

But, then again, you think the minute W was sworm in the economy caved - whatever :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

Contrary to Mary's inane point, I agree that it decreased every year under Clinton and that was a great thing (though much of it was built on phantomn IPO's and corp. fraud) - but my point was though it has sadly risen under W, W is throwing money at it to stop that rise and 12.7 is historically very low. That is all I am saying.

I just want to point out that the IPOs and fraud only lined the pockets of the rich and wouldn't effect the poor. Except for a few mailroom jobs that they might offer.

[strandinthewind]

then let me help you:
Bush's numbers are WORSE than Clinton's. Sometimes I think Jason gets his news from an alternate Universe.


Also, on close inspection, W's rate of growth is much slower than Clinton's rate of decline. So, once again, you are wrong.

[strandinthewind]

I just want to point out that the IPOs and fraud only lined the pockets of the rich and wouldn't effect the poor. Except for a few mailroom jobs that they might offer.

Well, that is not accurate. Many, many pension plans for laborers were invested in those. Also, many many other industries hired labor to increase their products to supply those industries :shrug: So, your point is inaccurate though certainly rich people lost wealth as well.

[irishgrl]

Well, then I guess you really think that the very minute W took office, America lost like 1/4 of its wealth and several million jobs and that nothing prior to then caused that :rolleyes:

What utter cra*p espoused by predictably by you.

Again, anyone with a brain can see that the tech bubble began to burst way before Clinton left office and all that phantom wealth created by those atronomical IPO's was lost, which meant a huge loss in jobs.

Then, just the loss of Enron and MCI caused the effective loss of trillions. All of that fraud helped build the Clinton economy and it burst druing W's.

But, you never face facts, so why start now.
Not YOUR "facts" my friend! you spin more than a merry go round :LOL:
Who knows if/when the tech bubble would have kept going or not?
as for the "loss" of Enron/MCI et al, those jerks have been doing that sort of thing for far longer than Clinton's terms...thats Big Business As Usual! if you dont know THAT then you really ARE at the Newspaper Stand at the End of the Universe.

The real boon during the Clinton ecomomy was not just the wealth of the Corporatocracy, it was the ability of Joe Schmoe on the street to finally buy a home, or car or what have you. THAT, my friend is the REAL legacy of the Clinton Presidency, the improvement of the quality of life for the "everyman" not the phantom wealth event, because that only benefitted the wealthy few who slyly secreted their assets overseas. So, in the end, you are wrong. Again.

[strandinthewind]

Not YOUR "facts" my friend! you spin more than a merry go round :LOL:
Who knows if/when the tech bubble would have kept going or not?
as for the "loss" of Enron/MCI et al, those jerks have been doing that sort of thing for far longer than Clinton's terms...thats Big Business As Usual! if you dont know THAT then you really ARE at the Newspaper Stand at the End of the Universe.

The real boon during the Clinton ecomomy was not just the wealth of the Corporatocracy, it was the ability of Joe Schmoe on the street to finally buy a home, or car or what have you. THAT, my friend is the REAL legacy of the Clinton Presidency, the improvement of the quality of life for the "everyman" not the phantom wealth event, because that only benefitted the wealthy few who slyly secreted their assets overseas. So, in the end, you are wrong. Again.

Deluded as usual.

Where did Joe Schmoe get said job Mary? If it was with two of the largest companies in the world (Enron and MCI) or any compnay that hired additional workers to supply these companies, that job was built on fraud and was lost to the fraud. Do you not see that :eek:

[SuzeQuze]

Well, that is not accurate. Many, many pension plans for laborers were invested in those. Also, many many other industries hired labor to increase their products to supply those industries :shrug: So, your point is inaccurate though certainly rich people lost wealth as well.

People with pensions are not "poor".

[macfanken]

Contrary to Mary's inane point, I agree that it decreased every year under Clinton and that was a great thing (though much of it was built on phantomn IPO's and corp. fraud) - but my point was though it has sadly risen under W, W is throwing money at it to stop that rise and 12.7 is historically very low. That is all I am saying.


I'd like to know where all of this money he's thowing around is going... because I don't think it's working. :shrug:

[irishgrl]

No, Mary, I get them from facts, which you avoid so you can make idiotic points like your avoiding answering the question of how those numbers in any way support that W cares so little for the poor.

But, then again, you think the minute W was sworm in the economy caved - whatever :laugh:
Au Contraire: I posted CENSUS data, which is ALL factual.

Your original Comment was that Bush was doing better than Clinton, which is FALSE. If anyone is inane around here, it is YOU. You have this knee jerk reaction to Clinton that you just cant give the man any credit. (same way I do with Bush actually!) but look again at your original statement. you are now hedging.
and, btw: the minute W was sworn in the economy caved. :nod: you finally got it right.

[strandinthewind]

People with pensions are not "poor".

Well, you asserted "I just want to point out that the IPOs and fraud only lined the pockets of the rich and wouldn't effect the poor. Except for a few mailroom jobs that they might offer."

But, surely you can see that the loss of all that business productivity had a detrimental effect on the economy and jobs and that did not start the day W took office.

[Moony]

this thread is going to make my head explode.

[SuzeQuze]

Well, you asserted "I just want to point out that the IPOs and fraud only lined the pockets of the rich and wouldn't effect the poor. Except for a few mailroom jobs that they might offer."

But, surely you can see that the loss of all that business productivity had a detrimental effect on the economy and jobs and that did not start the day W took office.

I'm not arguing that point with you. I agree that Bush inherited a depressed economy. However, his policies haven't helped it either. I was just talking about poor people. Why is the argument changing whenever I have a valid point?

[SuzeQuze]

this thread is going to make my head explode.

Me too. Too bad I don't smoke or I'd spark one up. :lol:

[irishgrl]

Deluded as usual.

Where did Joe Schmoe get said job Mary? If it was with two of the largest companies in the world (Enron and MCI) or any compnay that hired additional workers to supply these companies, that job was built on fraud and was lost to the fraud. Do you not see that :eek:

What is wrong with you? can you not fathom that there are more than 2 freakin companies in the USA? Enron and MCI are not single handedly responsible for the economic boom. In fact, Enron was instrumental in the collapse of California's Energy system by overcharging for energy we sold TO them! Give me a break! What about housing starts? retail starts? There was more to that economic rebound than just Enron or MCI hiring people! and most of their workers pensions VANISHED! All to pay for the CEO's planes, yachts, homes in Europe etc!

Sometimes you really outdo yourself with your myopic view of the economy.
Possibly YOU are an elite and cannot relate to what it is like to get an hourly paycheck.......too bad........

[strandinthewind]

Au Contraire: I posted CENSUS data, which is ALL factual.

Your original Comment was that Bush was doing better than Clinton, which is FALSE. If anyone is inane around here, it is YOU. You have this knee jerk reaction to Clinton that you just cant give the man any credit. (same way I do with Bush actually!) but look again at your original statement. you are now hedging.

No, I never said Bush was doing better than Clinton. I said that 12.7 is a relatively good number despite the increase and that Bush is throwing 14% of the 2006 budget at poverty which is a historical high over the last 15 or so years and in the context of the assertion that W cares little for the poor. But, nice try though - actually it was not even nice, it was pathetically predicable :rolleyes:

and, btw: the minute W was sworn in the economy caved. :nod: you finally got it right.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: and you expect any credibility when you make ridiculous statements like that :laugh:

[Moony]

Me too. Too bad I don't smoke or I'd spark one up. :lol:
:laugh: And for me, it's too bad my next door neighbors moved, the guy was a dealer...

And on a totally unrelated note, we are having some amazing Thunderstorms today! I love it.

[macfanken]

Uh oh... I think this is about to get ugly. :eek: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

What is wrong with you? can you not fathom that there are more than 2 freakin companies in the USA? Enron and MCI are not single handedly responsible for the economic boom. In fact, Enron was instrumental in the collapse of California's Energy system by overcharging for energy we sold TO them! Give me a break! What about housing starts? retail starts? There was more to that economic rebound than just Enron or MCI hiring people! and most of their workers pensions VANISHED! All to pay for the CEO's planes, yachts, homes in Europe etc!

Sometimes you really outdo yourself with your myopic view of the economy.
Possibly YOU are an elite and cannot relate to what it is like to get an hourly paycheck.......too bad........

Oh the personal attacks again. Well, when you cannot argue the facts :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

:laugh: And for me, it's too bad my next door neighbors moved, the guy was a dealer...

And on a totally unrelated note, we are having some amazing Thunderstorms today! I love it.

Nice. Since we're talking about the upside of things, I only have a puny chapter due, and it isn't due until Thurs. So I can breathe for a bit. :thumbsup: Life is good. :lol: It's the little things really.

If you like martinis, now that I do.

[macfanken]

If you like martinis, now that I do.


THAT'S what I need tonight... a drink! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Uh oh... I think this is about to get ugly. :eek: :lol:

That is because Mary cannot control her temper and cannot take being shown she is wrong, which she was here. So, she attacks me personally and makes stuff up that I said. She has been doing it for a long time - so I tend to overlook her faults as somewhere beneath all that fantasy, she is a nice lady with some crazy ideas.

[strandinthewind]

I'm not arguing that point with you. I agree that Bush inherited a depressed economy. However, his policies haven't helped it either. I was just talking about poor people. Why is the argument changing whenever I have a valid point?

I agree his policies on the whole have not helped the economy because although the tax cuts initially helped, W's deficit spending quelled any significant long term growth that may have been realized by those. I am unsure I ever said anything different than that :shrug: Thus, we agree on this point.

[irishgrl]

No, I never said Bush was doing better than Clinton. I said that 12.7 is a relatively good number despite the increase and that Bush is throwing 14% of the 2006 budget at poverty which is a historical high over the last 15 or so years and in the context of the assertion that W cares little for the poor. But, nice try though - actually it was not even nice, it was pathetically predicable :rolleyes:

and here's what you said:

"Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms." I mean if poverty fell one percent, how can that not be a good thing?
Where you got those numbers I dont know, because you didnt link.

Yes, and it indicates that though the poverty rate has risen a little under W, it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton and I still submit that W's historic amount of money given has the potential to stay or even reduce the slow rise W has seen. Interestingly, Clinton's lowest numbers were in the boom times and W managed to maintain close to those in the recession.

Again, I think W is a bad President, but these facts are not that bad against him and I cannot see how Bush 2006 budget's allotment a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, which was an historic 14.6 percent of the entire budget, is not a good attempt at staying or even reducing this 12.7% number.


So, to sum: you indicate that Clintons numbers were worse than Bush's and yet graphs posted here prove you wrong. You then try to bring in extraneous non events such as Enron and MCI collapsing. The only REAL losers in that were the employees because I dont think the nation as a whole suffered from that, certainly I didnt and Im sure YOU didnt either.

[Moony]

Nice. Since we're talking about the upside of things, I only have a puny chapter due, and it isn't due until Thurs. So I can breathe for a bit. :thumbsup: Life is good. :lol: It's the little things really.

If you like martinis, now that I do.
I have so much reading due on Thursday I am going to die. But if we're having Martinis, I'll take a Gimlet, please ;)

[strandinthewind]

I'd like to know where all of this money he's thowing around is going... because I don't think it's working. :shrug:

Well, it is in a way as the 12.7 number is historically very low :shrug: I mean he has to do something to stop the steady rise in that number. I, for one, hope it works, but fear it may not as W's administration has failed at so many other things.

[irishgrl]

That is because Mary cannot control her temper and cannot take being shown she is wrong, which she was here. So, she attacks me personally and makes stuff up that I said. She has been doing it for a long time - so I tend to overlook her faults as somewhere beneath all that fantasy, she is a nice lady with some crazy ideas.

Jason, dont condescend, I posted Census data, and I posted your own words.
I dont make up anything, and I never have. You havent proven me wrong, tho you fondly imagine you do....Ive often asked YOU for proof but you dodge and weave and spin......

unfortunately for you, the data supports MY position and refutes yours:
But the poverty rate declined every year Clinton was in office, from 15.1 percent when he took office in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004.
that is from Suze's link.

[SuzeQuze]

I have so much reading due on Thursday I am going to die. But if we're having Martinis, I'll take a Gimlet, please ;)

Ooh, nice choice. Its alright with Tequila too. :shocked: Or, if you're tired, espresso martinis rock.

[strandinthewind]

Actually Bill O'reilly said:

"Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms." I mean if poverty fell one percent, how can that not be a good thing?

Conversley, I said that though the numbers have risen under W, which is a bad thing, 12.7 is still historically low and W is attempting to stop that rise by throwing 14% of the 2006 budget at the cause of that rise.

Where you got those numbers I dont know, because you didnt link.

Of course I linked to them as did Suze. Go back and look and you will see them. I think Media Matters has a graph Suze linked to.

[SuzeQuze]

THAT'S what I need tonight... a drink! :laugh:

I just had a cookie - that helped! My brain needed sugar!

[macfanken]

Well, it is in a way as the 12.7 number is historically very low :shrug: I mean he has to do something to stop the steady rise in that number. I, for one, hope it works, but fear it may not as W's administration has failed at so many other things.


The poverty level hasn't stopped rising though... it's grown every year for the last four years, whatever he's doing isn't working... at least not yet.

[macfanken]

I just had a cookie - that helped! My brain needed sugar!


Hehe! My brain needs more than sugar! :shocked:

[strandinthewind]

Jason, dont condescend, I posted Census data, and I posted your own words.
I dont make up anything, and I never have. You havent proven me wrong, tho you fondly imagine you do....Ive often asked YOU for proof but you dodge and weave and spin......

Again, you actually think the second W took office the fomerly peachy keen economy just failed and all the historic data of corp. fraud and the tech bubble burst was and is meaningless as W's oath is what caused America to lose so many jobs and wealth. All I can do is show you the facts, which you refuse to believe because it would mean foresaking Clinton. Whatever.

Here an idea - please prove how the corp. fraud did not occur in Clinton's term and ther tech bubble did not burst then as well.

[irishgrl]

Actually Bill O'reilly said:

"Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms." I mean if poverty fell one percent, how can that not be a good thing?

Conversley, I said that though the numbers have risen under W, which is a bad thing, 12.7 is still historically low and W is attempting to stop that rise by throwing 14% of the 2006 budget at the cause of that rise.



Of course I linked to them as did Suze. Go back and look and you will see them. I think Media Matters has a graph Suze linked to.

I just posted a quote from that link, as for the comment being from Bill O'Reilly, that wasnt apparent from your post. (it wasnt in a separate block)
therefore I thought it was YOUR words. If not, then I stand corrected.

Personally I dont think Bushwad can throw enough money at the problem, he's already given 50times that amount to his corporate buddies.

[strandinthewind]

The poverty level hasn't stopped rising though... it's grown every year for the last four years, whatever he's doing isn't working... at least not yet.

True, but he walked into a recession and has kept the numbers at 12.7 so far and 12.7 is pretty good over the last 15 years.

Do I know if the current 2006 14% amount will work. No, I do not. But, I hope it does and that during a recession, W and his cronies kept that number at 12.7 speaks well of their ability to stop or at least slow that rise. At least that is what the facts say to me.

[SuzeQuze]

...

unfortunately for you, the data supports MY position and refutes yours:

But the poverty rate declined every year Clinton was in office, from 15.1 percent when he took office in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004.
that is from Suze's link.

Right, so it has gone from a low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 which is a difference of 1.4% which equals 14+ million people. I agree with you in that I think this means he's doing a bad job with the poor. But I can't argue this anymore because I don't think we will ALL see eye to eye on this. I agree to disagree. Even if the other side is wrong. :lol: Oh I am silly!

[irishgrl]

Again, you actually think the second W took office the fomerly peachy keen economy just failed and all the historic data of corp. fraud and the tech bubble burst was and is meaningless as W's oath is what caused America to lose so many jobs and wealth. All I can do is show you the facts, which you refuse to believe because it would mean foresaking Clinton. Whatever.

Here an idea - please prove how the corp. fraud did not occur in Clinton's term and ther tech bubble did not burst then as well.

The fraud occurred way before Clinton as I said. it just came to a head during Bush's term. Clinton was no more responsible for the tech bubble bursting or the corporate fraud occuring than you or I. Clinton haters like to say that it was his fault and it was brewing before Bush took office, but that is unfair because Clinton had to take the heat for stuff that was brewing long before HE took office. So, if Clinton had to suck it up and fix the previous administration's problems and take responsibility (which he DID) then the same should hold true for Bush.

But, you cant deny that all of this came to a head when Bush took office. His tenure has been plagued by one bad headline after another. The man then compounds the problem by plunging this country into war and cutting funding for social programs and benefits for the elderly, young, students, veterans...

theres no real way of knowing how far back the seeds were sown. but you cant deny that the budget was balanced. Joe Schmoe could afford to buy a house. people had jobs. things WERE rosier under Clinton whether you can admit it or not.

[strandinthewind]

Right, so it has gone from a low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 which is a difference of 1.4% which equals 14+ million people. I agree with you in that I think this means he's doing a bad job with the poor. But I can't argue this anymore because I don't think we will ALL see eye to eye on this. I agree to disagree. Even if the other side is wrong. :lol: Oh I am silly!

Well, I think we all agree the consistent rise is a bad thing and needs to be stopped.

But you all seem not to want to go past that and look at what they are doing to solve the problem, which is raising to an historical level the amount of money given to the poor via programs, etc.

My only point there is that though the 1.4% rise was awful and I wish it had not happened, it happened during a bad recession and it was relatively small from an historical perspective. Moreover, 12.7 is still a really good number from an historical perspective though people fell back into poverty.

That is all I am saying.

[irishgrl]

Right, so it has gone from a low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 which is a difference of 1.4% which equals 14+ million people. I agree with you in that I think this means he's doing a bad job with the poor. But I can't argue this anymore because I don't think we will ALL see eye to eye on this. I agree to disagree. Even if the other side is wrong. :lol: Oh I am silly!
Thus, I AM supported by facts, to the chagrin of Jason who unfortunately lost his quarter at the Diner at the end of the Galaxy and couldnt afford to buy a paper. (I am teasing you btw)

[irishgrl]

Well, I think we all agree the consistent rise is a bad thing and needs to be stopped.

But you all seem not to want to go past that and look at what they are doing to solve the problem, which is raising to an historical level the amount of money given to the poor via programs, etc.

My only point there is that though the 1.4% rise was awful and I wish it had not happened, it happened during a bad recession and it was relatively small from an historical perspective. Moreover, 12.7 is still a really good number from an historical perspective though people fell back into poverty.

That is all I am saying.

But Jason, how can you even say this? You are completely ignoring all the monies that have been CUT from social programs to help the poor etc...

as far as it being "relatively small from a historical perspective" try telling that to a single mom on welfare whose grants are being cut because of budget constraints, whose childcare funds have been eliminated, whose financial aid awards have been cut, and on and on......dont you see? the money you say he is now giving should have been given RIGHT ALONG! instead it went to the wealthy few which is WRONG :shrug:

[Moony]

I am silly!
Silly billy.

[gldstwmn]

this thread is going to make my head explode.

Me too. I'd bet dollars to donuts that O'Reilly's facts are wrong. And yet, I have no interest in researching them at this time. :shrug: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

The fraud occurred way before Clinton as I said. it just came to a head during Bush's term. Clinton was no more responsible for the tech bubble bursting or the corporate fraud occuring than you or I. Clinton haters like to say that it was his fault and it was brewing before Bush took office, but that is unfair because Clinton had to take the heat for stuff that was brewing long before HE took office. So, if Clinton had to suck it up and fix the previous administration's problems and take responsibility (which he DID) then the same should hold true for Bush.

But, you cant deny that all of this came to a head when Bush took office. His tenure has been plagued by one bad headline after another. The man then compounds the problem by plunging this country into war and cutting funding for social programs and benefits for the elderly, young, students, veterans...

theres no real way of knowing how far back the seeds were sown. but you cant deny that the budget was balanced. Joe Schmoe could afford to buy a house. people had jobs. things WERE rosier under Clinton whether you can admit it or not.

Actually, the actual fraud that occured in MCI and ENRON started, I believe, in the late 90's

I agree things appeared much rosier when Clinton was President and have never said anything different than that.

My only point is that much of that picture was created by the economic stimulus that happened when trillions in wealth were created though IPO's that had no chance of staying that high. For example, stock prices are guaged on future revenue expectations and none of these companies had ever made a dime. So, they go public and under a true model should have a price per share of like $10.00 at the most, and they are suddenly trading at $180 per share on pure speculation. That means these companies suddenly had billions to hire people, buy industrial goods, rent office space, build buildings, build warehouses, etc. Then, when they continue to make no money, they went belly up and all that commerce no longer existed, which results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Similarly, the corp. fraud caused a false rise in stock price which allowed those companies to buy buildings, hire people, raise their consumption of consumer goods - which resulted on the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, which were lost when those companies failed.

Finally, the millions of average investors who suddenly lost a ton of money also stopped buying things, which, along with the above to things, caused factories and other comnpanies to lay off people'

All of that facilitated the crash in the economy - how could it not when all that tax rev. was gone :shrug:

So, that rosy picture was somewhat built on stilts and it crashed.

[gldstwmn]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: and you expect any credibility when you make ridiculous statements like that :laugh:

Well the stock market certainly went to **** real quick. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

But Jason, how can you even say this? You are completely ignoring all the monies that have been CUT from social programs to help the poor etc...

as far as it being "relatively small from a historical perspective" try telling that to a single mom on welfare whose grants are being cut because of budget constraints, whose childcare funds have been eliminated, whose financial aid awards have been cut, and on and on......dont you see? the money you say he is now giving should have been given RIGHT ALONG! instead it went to the wealthy few which is WRONG :shrug:

Well, he has been giving all along.

As for "try telling that to a single mom on welfare whose grants are being cut because of budget constraints, whose childcare funds have been eliminated, whose financial aid awards have been cut, and on and on" - I agree, but my point is what if that number were 15%. Again, 12.7% is very low when considered from an historical perspective and it is the highest in W's regime.

[sparky]

The only REAL losers in that were the employees because I dont think the nation as a whole suffered from that, certainly I didnt and Im sure YOU didnt either.

Strand may not have lost anything. I had stock in MCI, and overnight got nailed with a 3500 dollar loss.

[strandinthewind]

Well the stock market certainly went to **** real quick. :shrug:

Here is a cool article on it

http://www.stock-market-crash.net/nasdaq.htm

Again, to say that it happened all of a sudden once W took the oath ignores that the late 90's boom was built on false speculation and fraud.

I readily admit that W's deficit spending will kill whatever chance his economic policies had of a complete recovery, but to imply the market suddenly crashed because W took office is just unsupported by the facts.

[strandinthewind]

Me too. I'd bet dollars to donuts that O'Reilly's facts are wrong. And yet, I have no interest in researching them at this time. :shrug: :laugh:

Well, he is not the only one saying it. But, yes, I would like to see the make up of that 14%. Again, I hope it works, but W has a pretty bad overall track record.

[strandinthewind]

Strand may not have lost anything. I had stock in MCI, and overnight got nailed with a 3500 dollar loss.


Many people lost a ton of money in all those companies that went bust either via fraud or false speculation.

[strandinthewind]

Thus, I AM supported by facts, to the chagrin of Jason who unfortunately lost his quarter at the Diner at the end of the Galaxy and couldnt afford to buy a paper. (I am teasing you btw)

No facts have supported you here when you were responding to me.

[irishgrl]

Actually, the actual fraud that occured in MCI and ENRON started, I believe, in the late 90's

I agree things appeared much rosier when Clinton was President and have never said anything different than that.

My only point is that much of that picture was created by the economic stimulus that happened when trillions in wealth were created though IPO's that had no chance of staying that high. For example, stock prices are guaged on future revenue expectations and none of these companies had ever made a dime. So, they go public and under a true model should have a price per share of like $10.00 at the most, and they are suddenly trading at $180 per share on pure speculation. That means these companies suddenly had billions to hire people, buy industrial goods, rent office space, build buildings, build warehouses, etc. Then, when they continue to make no money, they went belly up and all that commerce no longer existed, which results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Similarly, the corp. fraud caused a false rise in stock price which allowed those companies to buy buildings, hire people, raise their consumption of consumer goods - which resulted on the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, which were lost when those companies failed.

Finally, the millions of average investors who suddenly lost a ton of money also stopped buying things, which, along with the above to things, caused factories and other comnpanies to lay off people'

All of that facilitated the crash in the economy - how could it not when all that tax rev. was gone :shrug:

So, that rosy picture was somewhat built on stilts and it crashed.

Ok, I just want to go over some of your statemtents:
You say the "fraud occurred in the late 90's with Enron and MCI" I'd be willing to bet that the actual fraud (in the form of creative financing) has been going on since the 80's. It was exposed as Bush took office or shortly thereafter, but there were indications of it happening by the way Enron gouged California in selling us back our own energy. that should have set off a red flag. The inflated stock prices for these companies was a monster of their OWN making.

as for the tech bubble...Im beginning to think that in the end, it really didnt affect me at the lower end of the economic ladder because I never did any wheeling/dealing. That sort of collapse really hit the speculators the hardest.
I dont play the stock market. I consider it a form of gambling and my money is too important to risk losing it on risky (to me anyway) ventures.

As for actual jobs lost, Im not sure exactly WHAT effect the corporate fraud had...obviously, the employees of those particular companies are S.O.L....
but as I said, those are relatively few companies...I dont know if they were absorbed by other employers or not...Im thinking if they were skilled, they were able to find other jobs.

you state the factories laid off people due to a decrease in buying. I disagree. I think factories laid off people because they began to outsource their business. Americans lost a lot of work due to companies going overseas. I cant think of a single company that made the news for laying off people due to a decrease in buying....if you can, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[strandinthewind]

Actually, here is that article:

The Nasdaq Bubble

After the 1987 stock market crash, the global markets resumed their previous bull market trend. This powerful trend was driven by computer technology. Many of the technology stocks were listed on the Nasdaq exchange, which is an electronic marketplace.

In the early 1990’s, the personal computer was rapidly gaining acceptance for business and personal use. The computer was at last becoming more reasonably priced and more user-friendly. Computers were no longer the fodder of geeky hobbyists. They were veritable business tools, which were vital in gaining a competitive edge. Business applications were invented to aid the user in accounting, calculating taxes and word processing. Computers also began to compete with televisions as a form of entertainment, as PC video games flooded the marketplace. Corporations such as Microsoft prospered enormously as almost every computer system contained their operating system software.

During this time, the US computer industry focused more upon computer software versus hardware. This is because software was an extremely high margin product, due to it not being a physical product, like chips. Software companies produced a markup from selling licensed information, which costs very little to reproduce. Computer hardware became a commodity product, i.e. virtually indistinguishable from the product of any other competitor. Commodity products produce very little profits as each competitor constantly undercuts each other’s prices. Asian companies, with small manufacturing costs, produced virtually all of the hardware components at this point. Software, however, was protected as intellectual property with patents. Therefore, a product such as Microsoft Windows is a one of a kind product. This creates a strong barrier to entry, a benefit which is highly sought after in business.

The stock prices of software companies were marching ahead rapidly. Many small software companies were started by college students in garages, paying their employees with as much pizza and soda they desired. Every startup wanted to become “the Next Microsoft”.

Eventually, several of these start-up companies took the notice of serious venture capitalists, who were looking to finance these operations, take them public and reap massive profits. Soon the fledgling startups began to pay their hopeful employees with company shares. The premise was that when the company went public, the early shareholders would become instantly wealthy. The majority of the software companies were started in Silicon Valley, near San Francisco, which was a technology Mecca. The Nasdaq index of technology stocks was rising extremely fast, creating many millionaires.

Computers became further popularized in the mid 1990’s, as blockbuster PC games were created, such as Sim City and Duke Nukem. This fueled an increase in tech savvy youth, as computers went from “geek to chic”.

The Internet Age

Around 1994, a new frontier called the internet, was first being made available to the general public. In actuality, a primitive form of the internet had been around since 1969. This early internet was called DARPANet and was created by government agencies as an efficient way to exchange scientific and military information to computers in different locations. By the 1990’s the internet had evolved as a way to communicate using email, use chat rooms and view informational websites.

Almost immediately, businesses saw the internet as a profit opportunity. America Online made the internet available for the masses. The Yahoo search engine was started in 1994 as a directory for the universe of websites. Amazon became the first online bookstore in 1994. EBay was started in 1995 as an online auction site. As the internet moved from the hobbyist domain to a commercialized marketplace, online business owners became fantastically wealthy. Many technology companies were now selling stock in IPO’s. Most initial shareholders, including employees, became millionaires overnight. Companies continued to pay their employees in stock options, which profited greatly if the stock went up even slightly. By the late 1990’s, even secretaries had option portfolios valued in the millions! Many companies had BMW sign on bonuses! This is surely an example of irrational exuberance.

Tech Stock Mania

Several economists even postulated that we were in a “New Economy”, where inflation was nonexistent and the stock market crashes were obsolete! Even worse, it was said that earnings were not relevant in picking stocks either! The “Old Economy” referred to industrial stocks, such as those in the Dow Jones Average. Another buzzword was “Paradigm Shift”, which is a synonym of “New Economy”. Investors were enamored by these buzzwords, as they deceptively described something that was sleek, sexy, and exciting.

From 1996 to 2000, the Nasdaq went from 600 to 5,000! Dot-com companies run by people who were barely in their 30's, were going public and raising hundreds of millions of dollars of capital. These companies didn’t even have much of a business plan, and certainly didn’t have any earnings, either! For example, Pets.com had no earnings yet came public and raised billions of dollars. Dot-coms wasted millions of dollars per night on frivolous parties. Hard work was never part of the picture for dot-commers. There are many stories of dot-com employees walking around barefoot in the office and playing foosball all day. At one point, a new millionaire was created every 60 seconds! Many of these instant millionaires thought that they were so brilliant, that all they had to do was play to make money. Never mistake a bull market for brains.

The Bubble Pops

By early 2000, reality started to sink in. Investors soon realized that the dot-com dream was really a bubble. Within months, the Nasdaq crashed from 5,000 to 2,000. Hundreds of stocks such as Pet.com, which were each worth billions, were off the map as quickly as they appeared. Panic selling ensued as investors lost trillions of dollars. The stock market kept crashing down to 800 in 2002. One high flier, Microstrategy, slid from $3500 per share to $4! Numerous accounting scandals came to light, showing how many companies artificially inflated earnings. Shareholders were crippled. In 2001, the economy entered a recession as the Fed repeatedly cut rates, trying to stop the bleeding. Millions of workers were now jobless and had lost their life savings.

Needless to say, the New Economy was a farce, and traditional economic principles still hold. What is sadly interesting is how bubbles will continue to occur in the future. When they do occur, foolish investors will say, “This time is different!”

[irishgrl]

No facts have supported you here when you were responding to me.

oh yes they did:
you said Bush did better than Clinton (and I quoted your own words) and I said you were wrong, I directed you to look at my thread again with Census data,
and Suze's graph proved me right as well.

Give it up Jason. :shrug:

[sparky]

Many people lost a ton of money in all those companies that went bust either via fraud or false speculation.

Thank God I didn't have much left in the market to lose. The only things left, Home Base and MCI, totally **** the bed. I lost about 7 grand. I pulled most of my money out in 98 when it was all cresting. Timing is everything.

[irishgrl]

Actually, here is that article:

The Nasdaq Bubble

After the 1987 stock market crash, the global markets resumed their previous bull market trend. This powerful trend was driven by computer technology. Many of the technology stocks were listed on the Nasdaq exchange, which is an electronic marketplace.

In the early 1990’s, the personal computer was rapidly gaining acceptance for business and personal use. The computer was at last becoming more reasonably priced and more user-friendly. Computers were no longer the fodder of geeky hobbyists. They were veritable business tools, which were vital in gaining a competitive edge. Business applications were invented to aid the user in accounting, calculating taxes and word processing. Computers also began to compete with televisions as a form of entertainment, as PC video games flooded the marketplace. Corporations such as Microsoft prospered enormously as almost every computer system contained their operating system software.

During this time, the US computer industry focused more upon computer software versus hardware. This is because software was an extremely high margin product, due to it not being a physical product, like chips. Software companies produced a markup from selling licensed information, which costs very little to reproduce. Computer hardware became a commodity product, i.e. virtually indistinguishable from the product of any other competitor. Commodity products produce very little profits as each competitor constantly undercuts each other’s prices. Asian companies, with small manufacturing costs, produced virtually all of the hardware components at this point. Software, however, was protected as intellectual property with patents. Therefore, a product such as Microsoft Windows is a one of a kind product. This creates a strong barrier to entry, a benefit which is highly sought after in business.

The stock prices of software companies were marching ahead rapidly. Many small software companies were started by college students in garages, paying their employees with as much pizza and soda they desired. Every startup wanted to become “the Next Microsoft”.

Eventually, several of these start-up companies took the notice of serious venture capitalists, who were looking to finance these operations, take them public and reap massive profits. Soon the fledgling startups began to pay their hopeful employees with company shares. The premise was that when the company went public, the early shareholders would become instantly wealthy. The majority of the software companies were started in Silicon Valley, near San Francisco, which was a technology Mecca. The Nasdaq index of technology stocks was rising extremely fast, creating many millionaires.

Computers became further popularized in the mid 1990’s, as blockbuster PC games were created, such as Sim City and Duke Nukem. This fueled an increase in tech savvy youth, as computers went from “geek to chic”.

The Internet Age

Around 1994, a new frontier called the internet, was first being made available to the general public. In actuality, a primitive form of the internet had been around since 1969. This early internet was called DARPANet and was created by government agencies as an efficient way to exchange scientific and military information to computers in different locations. By the 1990’s the internet had evolved as a way to communicate using email, use chat rooms and view informational websites.

Almost immediately, businesses saw the internet as a profit opportunity. America Online made the internet available for the masses. The Yahoo search engine was started in 1994 as a directory for the universe of websites. Amazon became the first online bookstore in 1994. EBay was started in 1995 as an online auction site. As the internet moved from the hobbyist domain to a commercialized marketplace, online business owners became fantastically wealthy. Many technology companies were now selling stock in IPO’s. Most initial shareholders, including employees, became millionaires overnight. Companies continued to pay their employees in stock options, which profited greatly if the stock went up even slightly. By the late 1990’s, even secretaries had option portfolios valued in the millions! Many companies had BMW sign on bonuses! This is surely an example of irrational exuberance.

Tech Stock Mania

Several economists even postulated that we were in a “New Economy”, where inflation was nonexistent and the stock market crashes were obsolete! Even worse, it was said that earnings were not relevant in picking stocks either! The “Old Economy” referred to industrial stocks, such as those in the Dow Jones Average. Another buzzword was “Paradigm Shift”, which is a synonym of “New Economy”. Investors were enamored by these buzzwords, as they deceptively described something that was sleek, sexy, and exciting.

From 1996 to 2000, the Nasdaq went from 600 to 5,000! Dot-com companies run by people who were barely in their 30's, were going public and raising hundreds of millions of dollars of capital. These companies didn’t even have much of a business plan, and certainly didn’t have any earnings, either! For example, Pets.com had no earnings yet came public and raised billions of dollars. Dot-coms wasted millions of dollars per night on frivolous parties. Hard work was never part of the picture for dot-commers. There are many stories of dot-com employees walking around barefoot in the office and playing foosball all day. At one point, a new millionaire was created every 60 seconds! Many of these instant millionaires thought that they were so brilliant, that all they had to do was play to make money. Never mistake a bull market for brains.

The Bubble Pops

By early 2000, reality started to sink in. Investors soon realized that the dot-com dream was really a bubble. Within months, the Nasdaq crashed from 5,000 to 2,000. Hundreds of stocks such as Pet.com, which were each worth billions, were off the map as quickly as they appeared. Panic selling ensued as investors lost trillions of dollars. The stock market kept crashing down to 800 in 2002. One high flier, Microstrategy, slid from $3500 per share to $4! Numerous accounting scandals came to light, showing how many companies artificially inflated earnings. Shareholders were crippled. In 2001, the economy entered a recession as the Fed repeatedly cut rates, trying to stop the bleeding. Millions of workers were now jobless and had lost their life savings.

Needless to say, the New Economy was a farce, and traditional economic principles still hold. What is sadly interesting is how bubbles will continue to occur in the future. When they do occur, foolish investors will say, “This time is different!”

Nobody ever said the tech bubble bursting wasnt significant...

But, its not the only thing that the economy was built on otherwise, we would have gone under completely. I'd remind you too that people have been predicting doom and gloom about the inflated housing prices too. everyone is expecting the housing bubble to burst but it hasnt yet...people tend to be optimistic when they are making money ya know......

[gldstwmn]

Thank God I didn't have much left in the market to lose. The only things left, Home Base and MCI, totally **** the bed. I lost about 7 grand. I pulled most of my money out in 98 when it was all cresting. Timing is everything.

I got out in 2000. It's a damn good thing because I'd have nothing left today.

[strandinthewind]

Ok, I just want to go over some of your statemtents:
You say the "fraud occurred in the late 90's with Enron and MCI" I'd be willing to bet that the actual fraud (in the form of creative financing) has been going on since the 80's. It was exposed as Bush took office or shortly thereafter, but there were indications of it happening by the way Enron gouged California in selling us back our own energy. that should have set off a red flag. The inflated stock prices for these companies was a monster of their OWN making.

The records indicate the fraud was conceived and begun during Clinton's regime and continued into W's. So, you have to fault both of them.

cas for the tech bubble...Im beginning to think that in the end, it really didnt affect me at the lower end of the economic ladder because I never did any wheeling/dealing. That sort of collapse really hit the speculators the hardest.
I dont play the stock market. I consider it a form of gambling and my money is too important to risk losing it on risky (to me anyway) ventures.

As for actual jobs lost, Im not sure exactly WHAT effect the corporate fraud had...obviously, the employees of those particular companies are S.O.L....
but as I said, those are relatively few companies...I dont know if they were absorbed by other employers or not...Im thinking if they were skilled, they were able to find other jobs.

Well, when people make money they spend it and when they have no money they cannot spend it. Again, there are many articles out there that demonstrate the loss of jobs due to these events was astounding and had it not been for lower interest rates and housing appreciation, the economy would have failed even more.

you state the factories laid off people due to a decrease in buying. I disagree. I think factories laid off people because they began to outsource their business. Americans lost a lot of work due to companies going overseas. I cant think of a single company that made the news for laying off people due to a decrease in buying....if you can, I'd be interested in hearing it.

How could the loss of a significant amount of demand not have a detrminental effect on the jobs hired to meet that demand :shrug: Of course it did.

[gldstwmn]

The records indicate the fraud was conceived and begun during Clinton's regime and continued into W's. So, you have to fault both of them.

Well, it may have been conceived under Clinton but it was found out during W's regime. Ken Lay is an old friend of his. Where is he now? The Caymans?

[strandinthewind]

Nobody ever said the tech bubble bursting wasnt significant...

But, its not the only thing that the economy was built on otherwise, we would have gone under completely. I'd remind you too that people have been predicting doom and gloom about the inflated housing prices too. everyone is expecting the housing bubble to burst but it hasnt yet...people tend to be optimistic when they are making money ya know......

the housing market is the most significant thing that kept the economy afloat. Many people sold their houses and realized hundreds of thousands in gain and I am not talking about millionaires here. Suddenly the house they paid $40,000 for ten or fifteen years before was worth $200,000. When you have no job, that is a cash cow waiting to be milked. Also, some people who took lesser paying jobs and refinanced at the historically low interest rates, which gave them cash to spend if they took cash out.

[strandinthewind]

Well, it may have been conceived under Clinton but it was found out during W's regime. Ken Lay is an old friend of his. Where is he now? The Caymans?

But, doesn't that somewhat beg the question of why W caught Enron. I mean the fraud went on in Texas while W was the gov. -- so he certainly gets no free pass.

[irishgrl]

The records indicate the fraud was conceived and begun during Clinton's regime and continued into W's. So, you have to fault both of them.
***************
Well, when people make money they spend it and when they have no money they cannot spend it. Again, there are many articles out there that demonstrate the loss of jobs due to these events was astounding and had it not been for lower interest rates and housing appreciation, the economy would have failed even more.
***************
How could the loss of a significant amount of demand not have a detrminental effect on the jobs hired to meet that demand :shrug: Of course it did.

I dont see how you can fault Clinton if he didnt know about it--the whistle blowers only acted during Bush's term :shrug:
************
again, I believe the people that lost jobs from those two companies were absorbed back into the work force.
************
I am saying that its far more likely that companies laid off people due to offshoring rather than a drop in demand. Depending upon the company, I think demand was the same (unless you're talking luxury goods)
people still need food/clothes/housing/etc.....

[strandinthewind]

oh yes they did:
you said Bush did better than Clinton (and I quoted your own words) and I said you were wrong, I directed you to look at my thread again with Census data,
and Suze's graph proved me right as well.

Give it up Jason. :shrug:

I never said Bush did better - please quote me saying that.

Again, I said 12.7% is an historically good number and though 12.7 is higher than any other number in W's tenure, W is throwing an historically large number at it to try and stop it. Where does Clinton figure in that. Again, Bill O'Reilly mentioned Clinton and this conversation started from that perspective, which is why I quoted him and you are attributing his words to me.

[irishgrl]

But, doesn't that somewhat beg the question of why W caught Enron. I mean the fraud went on in Texas while W was the gov. -- so he certainly gets no free pass.
AHA! The REAL culprit! I knew it!

[strandinthewind]

I dont see how you can fault Clinton if he didnt know about it--the whistle blowers only acted during Bush's term :shrug:

Oh I don't know - its his job

again, I believe the people that lost jobs from those two companies were absorbed back into the work force.

According to you, there were no new jobs the second W took office :laugh:

Seriously, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in a failing economy. Who was going to absord them?

[strandinthewind]

AHA! The REAL culprit! I knew it!

Enron did it across state lines, which makes it a Federal Crime, which Clinton was supposed to catch.

Personally, I think Clinton was caught off guard and was not about to examine what he knew would be his "rosy picture" economic legacy too much, though he did talk about the speculation and how it was not a good thing. But, if you take the credit, you can take the blame as far as I am concerned.

[irishgrl]

I never said Bush did better - please quote me saying that.

here ya go:
it indicates that though the poverty rate has risen a little under W, it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton
thus, you are saying Bush did better than Clinton.

Geez, ya think ya'd double check your own words before you make such statements!

[strandinthewind]

here ya go:

thus, you are saying Bush did better than Clinton.

Geez, ya think ya'd double check your own words before you make such statements!

No, you took me out of context and did not display my entire words. Clinton inhereited a crappy poverty rate and did wonders with it. I mean I have said several times that poverty numbers declined every year under Clinton and rose every year under W. Thus, it would be impossible for W to beat Clinton in that context.

My point was and is W is doing a pretty good job of slowing that rise, which has been there but slow and in a recesssion, and I hope his current and future plans work. I am not comparing him to Clinton, though that is where this started, with BO responding to Clinton's comments comparing himself to W.

[irishgrl]

Oh I don't know - its his job



According to you, there were no new jobs the second W took office :laugh:

Seriously, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in a failing economy. Who was going to absord them?
According the Bush and Co.........Mc Donalds.
yessiree Bob! you can just go out and get hired at Mickey Dee's.
woo hoo.

to answer your question, I dont know. but I would bet you those people are not sitting on their butts doing nothing if they have house payments or car payments......unless of course they are now getting welfare and have already lost their homes/cars..............which means they can experience first hand the LACK of caring by this administration for the poorest of the poor.
which is back to the original tone of this thread.

[strandinthewind]

According the Bush and Co.........Mc Donalds.
yessiree Bob! you can just go out and get hired at Mickey Dee's.
woo hoo.

to answer your question, I dont know. but I would bet you those people are not sitting on their butts doing nothing if they have house payments or car payments......unless of course they are now getting welfare and have already lost their homes/cars..............which means they can experience first hand the LACK of caring by this administration for the poorest of the poor.
which is back to the original tone of this thread.

Well, then 12.7 is a relatively very good number and they are throwing an unprecedented amount of money at solving that problem, which indicates they are concerned about it.

As for the out of work, of course not. Many people tried to find jobs and many found them, though lots of them were forced to take lesser paying jobs.

[irishgrl]

No, you took me out of context and did not display my entire words. I have said several times that poverty numbers declined every year under Clinton and rose every year under W. Thus, it would be impossible for W to beat Clinton in that context.

My point was and is W is doing a pretty good job of slowing that rise, which has been there but slow and in a recesssion, and I hope his current and future plans work. I am not comparing him to Clinton, though that is where this started, with BO responding to Clinton's comments comparing himself to W.

JASON! you said the exact opposite! you said right along that Bush did better than Clinton until Suze posted that link which proved you wrong! Good Grief!
Truly the King of Spin you are!

I did display your entire words the first time I posted them. If you had read that post, we probably could have saved 5 pages of arguing :shrug:

and if you think W is doing a good job, all I can say is you have absolutely NO concept of what it is like to be poor. I can tell you right now, in my county we've applied for special status (exempt from foodstamp workability requirements) due to the high unemployment rate. We've also had to scale back our General Assistance benefits to the 2002 level. I cant tell you how many years welfare recipients didnt get a cost of living adjustment (COLA Increase)

[dissention]

If you two are as good in the sack as you are at arguing, you could make a lot of people very happy.

[irishgrl]

Well, then 12.7 is a relatively very good number and they are throwing an unprecedented amount of money at solving that problem, which indicates they are concerned about it.

As for the out of work, of course not. Many people tried to find jobs and many found them, though lots of them were forced to take lesser paying jobs.

again, it you would have read my posts, we wouldnt be rehashing this:
You say W is throwing unprecedented amounts of money at the poor now, but I maintain that this is only the money he CUT from them in the first place that shouldnt have been cut! This is money that could have prevented what we've seen with Katrina. And dont kid yourself, its happening all over in cities all across the country and rural areas too! Bush is a day late and a dollar short as usual. Im not going to give the man credit for allocating the same amounts of money he originally cut to these people.
He deserves to be buried neck deep in a dung heap. Plain and Simple.