Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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 So, your point is inaccurate though certainly rich people lost wealth as well.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 So, your point is inaccurate though certainly rich people lost wealth as well.

People with pensions are not "poor".

[macfanken]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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. you finally got it right.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by Moony

this thread is going to make my head explode.

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

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

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

[Moony]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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

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.