 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Genie Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:31 PM I'm confused. Is someone claiming that Bill Clinton was/is a "liberal?" roflmao (plus eyeroll) G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:35 PM Whew! We sure are glad Wal-Mart isn't here! This is just classic. Going green has turned into going mean? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bill D Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:59 AM Hubby has been 'away' looking for that rare scientist who still has his head buried deep enough in the sand to doubt the mounting evidence. Yeah....the 90%+ 'could' be wrong, as that's how science works....but if 90+% of experts tell us that we have a serious problem, and if attacking that problem would bring other benefits, I'd say that's the way to bet! What I don't understand is what, exactly, those who doubt that global warming exists, and that WE are contributing to it, think we should be doing....and what they think the problem would be with erring on the side of caution? My guess is that some feel it would interfere with cherished economic and/or religious 'rights'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Amos Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:33 AM Your minority opinon is interesting, Hub, but I don't see any numbers describing actuall rates of change in the sun, compared to actual rates of change on planet Earth. I have seen numbers correlating rates of temperature growth on Earth and rates of increase on carbon emissions on planet Earth. Do you "sun-fault" theorists have such numbers showing comparable orders of magnitude in the two sets of data? As to whether warming is occurring or not, I think you are beating a dead horse. Not for the first time. Fixed ideas are a loverly comfort, but they don't serve in explaining things. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:18 AM We had a wonderful Christmas with the family and friends. Thanks Peace. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:44 PM "Please say it ain't so.....90% sure sounds like a strong number to me." If I recall correctly, you're the turkey who said 50.1% sounded like a strong number when Bush was elected for the first time in 2004. Welcome back, BTW. Trust you and your missus had a great Christmas and that you have a good New Year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST, it ain't so Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:20 PM What the heck are you doing back. OH NO..say it ain't so! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Feb 07 - 09:54 PM Please say it ain't so.....90% sure sounds like a strong number to me. Don't mean to sound alarmist here but sounds as if someone didn't check their math a second time around. I'd hate to see those "warming scientists" having to eat crow. Wouldn't do much for their complexion. Let's take a look at real science and stop all the political nonsense. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: pdq Date: 13 Jul 06 - 01:45 PM In 2000, the US federal government spent 22 billion more than it took in. Even worse, that figure is based on the spending of all excess revenue taken in under the Social Security program in the year it is received, not the year it is needed. What is actually put back into the Social Security fund is an "IOU". The bustin' open of the "lockbox" was done under the direction of Lyndon Johnson in the1950's. He was Senate leader when Democrats had a majority is both House and Senate. Again, if the US National Debt goes up in a given year, you have 'deficit spending" by definition. What Clinton and his supporters call "clever use of words" is usually called lying in Middle America. Clintonian "budget surplus" is not the same as "revenue surplus" even though some try very hard to fool people into believing that it is. A 'budget surplus' is a 'paper surplus'. The amount of money actually spent causes deficits. This is because the Feds spend what they want and don't feel constrained by the actual budget. One more point. The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan group of government researchers and printers. When asked by a member of Congress to generate a specific document (such as a graph) they do so. Said document will reflect exactly what that Congressman or Senator wants put forth. If the document is false or misleading, the CBO is not responsible. Their job is "do what you are told" not "find the truth". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 13 Jul 06 - 01:07 PM "Only problem is, that's not how deficits work." I don't really know about deficits and big money like that. But I'd bet one thing: I'd bet deficits don't work at minimum wage! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:59 PM A sort of a pattern emerges. Democrats turn it from shrinking to growing and Republicans turn it around from growing to shrinking. By this logic, we can also say that George the first "inherited" a shrinking deficit from Reagan, which he then turned around, creating the largest deficit (by an order of hundreds of billions dollars) in the history of the United States. Only problem is, that's not how deficits work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:49 PM More interesting factoids from the charts... The lowest quintile (in terms of income) is also the largest group with 23 million households. The lowest quintile (23 million households) receives 4.3% share of all income received. The highest 1% has 1.1 million households. The 1.1 million households in the highest 1% receive 14.3% share of income. Looks like the bottom quintile are subsidizing the top quintile with inadequately compensated labor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 02:40 AM I think I made a mistake. What I initially thought meant "share of income paid in taxes" looks more like share of total income recieved by everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 13 Jul 06 - 02:21 AM GUEST'S link. http://www.iatse728.org/home/BudgetDeficitChart.gif |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 13 Jul 06 - 01:57 AM Has anybody noticed in the chart presented by Peace and this chart http://www.iatse728.org/home/deficitgraph.htm that the budget deficit was on the increase just before Reagan took office and that it was decreasing when Bush 1 left? This is not true with the Nixon/Ford terms but it is true with the Ford term. Carter inherited a shrinking budget deficit and left a growing one to Reagan In other words Reagan inherited a growing budget deficit and Clinton inherited a shrinking deficit. Likewise GWB inherited a growing budget deficit and now it is shrinking. A sort of a pattern emerges. Democrats turn it from shrinking to growing and Republicans turn it around from growing to shrinking. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:28 AM From the charts... Average income, pre-tax: Lowest Quintile________________________14,800 Second Quintile________________________34,100 Middle Quintile________________________51,900 Average income, after-tax: Lowest Quintile________________________14,100 Second Quintile________________________30,800 Middle Quintile________________________44,800 Share of Income Paid in Taxes (percentage): Lowest Quintile________________________4.2 Second Quintile________________________9.1 Middle Quintile________________________14.4 Top 1%______________________________14.4 The middle quintile paid the same exact percentage of their income in 2003 as the top 1%. The fourth quintile paid 20.9 percent of their income in taxes in 2003. As a percentage of income, that's four more than the top 1%. The average pre-tax income of the fourth quintile was 77,300. The average pre-tax income of the top 1% was 1,022,400. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:00 AM It might be easier to take you at least a little bit seriously, Hubster, if you didn't wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. Have you ever considered doing some fact checking before posting your pronouncements? Some of the artifacts were found to have been safely hidden, but a huge number were, in fact, stolen, and many will probably never be recovered. It is a huge loss, not only for Iraq, but for history as well. http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/040408.looting.shtml "A year after the looting of the Iraqi National Museum, archaeologists at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute continue to track missing artifacts. Their work has played a pivotal role in helping recover items stolen from the museum in Baghdad between April 9 and 11, 2003. 'This event provoked great outrage around the world and attracted new attention by both media and the public on the Mesopotamian civilization, Iraq's cultural heritage,' said Oriental Institute Research Associate Clemens Reichel. Reichel initiated a Web-accessible database to document the destruction and theft of artifacts last April, following the museum's looting... ...Press reports following the museum looting last April initially had suggested a total loss of the museum's collection - about 170,000 registered objects. 'Such reports fortunately turned out to be exaggerations; thanks to the foresight of the museum staff, a lot of objects had been stored away in safe locations before the outbreak of hostilities,' Reichel explained... ...As the year developed after the looting, reports both highlighted the damage and confused the issue. Some news outlets began to speak of 'only 40' objects being taken from the museum. Those reports, said Reichel, 'only referred to objects on display in the gallery but omitted any reference to objects stolen from the storerooms and magazines of the museum. The losses encountered there were sizeable, though even now it remains difficult to put an exact figure on it.' The destruction of the archives that recorded information about the museum holdings complicated the job of totaling the loss. 'By fall 2003, the figures quoted by Donny George, director of the Iraq Museum, and Col. Matthew Bogdanos, (U.S. Marine Corps) who led a U.S. team investigating the museum looting last year, put the number of objects stolen at over 10,000. This figure, however, has recently been revised by George to about 15,000 pieces, indicating this tally is far from final at this point,' Reichel said." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:36 PM "According to a 10-page federal affidavit, Green and three other soldiers from the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division had talked about raping the young woman, whom they first saw while working at the checkpoint. On the day of the attack, the document said, Green and other soldiers drank alcohol and changed out of their uniforms to avoid detection before going to the woman's house. Green covered his face with a brown T-shirt. Once there, the affidavit said, Green took three members of the family — an adult male and female, and a girl estimated to be 5 years old — into a bedroom, after which shots were heard from inside. "Green came to the bedroom door and told everyone, 'I just killed them. All are dead,'" the affidavit said. The affidavit is based on interviews conducted by the FBI and military investigators with three unidentified soldiers assigned to Green's platoon. One of the soldiers said he witnessed another soldier and Green rape the woman. "After the rape, (the soldier) witnessed Green shoot the woman in the head two to three times," the affidavit said. Investigators also interviewed a fifth soldier, who was left behind to mind the radio at the traffic checkpoint. That soldier said Green and three others returned from the woman's house "with blood on their clothes, which they burned. Immediately after this, they each told (the soldier) that this is never to be discussed again."" from here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:31 PM One of those innocent troops admitted to killing the family to his fellow soldiers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:29 PM Oops! You done went and got caught. (small part of article below.) The same newspapers and television news programs that are constantly reminding us that some people under indictment "are innocent until proven guilty" are nevertheless hyping the story of American troops accused of rape in Iraq, day in and day out, even though these troops have yet to be proven guilty of anything. What about all the civilian rapes that are charged -- and even proven -- in the United States? None of them gets this 24/7 coverage in the mainstream media. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example of media hype of unproven charges against American troops. While military action was still raging in the early days of the Iraq war, there was media condemnation of our troops for not adequately protecting an Iraqi museum from which various items were missing. When the smoke of battle cleared, it turned out that members of the museum staff had hidden these items for safekeeping during the fighting. Conservative media? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:08 PM Click on all the little tabs down at the bottom of the chart, CarolC. Each page will point out exactly what you need to know. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 12 Jul 06 - 08:44 PM Well, well, well... This "recovery" is not a "recover" at all since it is based soley on borrowing from the Chinese and others... A real recovery involves increasing the wealth of a nation... That isn't occuring now... The US ie becoming less wealthy as it borrows its way to economic ruin... That is reality!!! As fir folks doing better or worst there was an article in the Washington Post this week about how the folks who have done well over the past 6 years are doing even better... Think white guys here... But others are not doing well and, in fact, are doing much worse... That accounts for the average working shmo... Yeah, the middle class is takin' a nose dive while the rich are getting fatter and happier... This ain't no recovery.. This is a domesday recovery... M Yeah, fir all of you who think that the economy is in recovery, great... We know which side of the tracks you live on... Come on down to my kitchen.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:20 PM Show your math, Hubster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:19 PM All's well. Nothing to see here. Move along . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:08 PM You're right Hubby.....taxes are extremely unfair. Here's basically what it means for those of you who aren't good at math or readin' charts. The wealthiest 1%, in 2003, earned 14% of the income and paid 35% of all individual income taxes. By comparison, the bottom 60% of all taxpayers earn 28% of all income and pay just 1% of all individual income taxes. This is directly from the cbo. No news slant here. Just plain hard facts. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST,Ben Stein Date: 12 Jul 06 - 04:26 PM Your Golden Years Don't Have to Be Tarnished by Ben Stein Monday, July 10, 2006 I have a lot to say, and it's all important (but not all-important), so pay attention. This country is in terrible trouble. First of all, we are major debtors to the rest of the world. We borrow a billion dollars a day just to buy oil. We have a net debt to the rest of the world of about $3 trillion dollars, which is very roughly the value of all the assets in a large, powerful state like Ohio. We'd have real trouble financing our lavish standard of living if we didn't have the rest of the world to lend us money. Inevitably, barring some strange turn of events, this means that foreigners will want to hold less of our currency and bonds. This will lower the value of the dollar and raise the value of the currencies of other nations that export more then we do. This, in turn, will mean that oil and gasoline and other commodities will be more expensive in dollars. This immense debt to the rest of the world might also mean that we have to pay more interest on our bonds to attract foreign lenders. This will raise interest rates and further increase the cost of living. Scared? It Gets Worse Now consider that we're literally bankrupt because of our future Medicare obligations. The total cost of Medicare through the balance of the century, discounted to present value, is a number so large that it exceeds the total wealth of the nation. That is, if you liquidated every farm, factory, home, office building, oil well, port, warehouse, apartment building, and every other darned thing in this country and put the value into one huge bond, it would not be enough to pay off our future Medicare liabilities. And that's not factoring in the drug benefit. And then there's Social Security, defense, and interest on the national debt. Not to mention the cost of living for 300 million of us. Let's face it, this is a terrifying scenario. But it gets even worse. The Securities Industry Association (which, of course, wants us to buy securities) says that retirement saving is so inadequate that about half of us will have to substantially lower our standard of living in our golden years. About 20 percent of us will face genuine poverty in retirement. The Silver Lining But this is a column about living in the solution, not living in the problem. So here are a few suggestions to get us through the crisis. First, we can't assume that the federal government will act sensibly. They haven't done so for a long time, and that's a clue to how they'll behave in the future. This bounces the issue back squarely to us. We have to take up the slack by saving more and more. Economists call this the theory of rational expectations. Whatever we thought the government would do for us probably will not happen. We're on our own. So go to your financial advisor and make a serious plan to save until it hurts. If it doesn't hurt, you're not saving enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 03:26 PM Fact is that stocks cannot continue to grow. Do the math. Once the gold standard was done away with, it became impossible to keep tabs on large amounts of money. It still is today. Fact is, the USA has NO idea how much debt it carries because no one can figure it all out. Individuals likely understand their personal debt, but countries? No way. China has been buying lots of American debt lately. America has been spending lots on war. The profits from war do not work their way back to the average guy on the street. The profits go to big companies who share those monies with their share holders. It means that few profit, but the few who do profit big time. People who think that the 'stock market' will last are living in a fool's paradise, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 02:28 PM The stock market has done nothing but GROW from the day is started. Did the stock market GROW during the Great Depression? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Jul 06 - 02:24 PM "... lower tax rates for capital gains and dividend income through 2010... Well golly gee gosh. Jed Clampett will be thrilled. Along with all the land and stock holders." yeah....along with all the middle class and poor that have growing 401(k)'s, 403(b)'s and any other type of retirement plan or those that hold just plain individual stocks. It probably works just as well for all those people that receive stock from uncles, aunts, grandparents that buy those same types of securities for their nieces, nephews, and grandchildren. There are thousands of security companies that do business with common people just like you and me. Either individually or through their places of business. For those that don't have any plan, it's certainly not due to there not being any availability to do so. Price shouldn't be an issue either with there being millions of stocks under $5 per share to choose from. The stock market has done nothing but GROW from the day is started. It will do nothing but grow until the day the world ends. If it were to end before then, we'll all be in the soup lines whether we have a retirement plan or have at least "prepared" or not. You see, it doesn't just work for the rich. A fact that you guys just seem to disregard. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 12 Jul 06 - 02:09 PM So if the CEO's of Exxon, Mobil and Halliburton pay less taxes this year it's supposed to mean that MY life is better ? Get a grip. I'm happy for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet - but the average American is still suffering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: gnu Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:39 PM "... lower tax rates for capital gains and dividend income through 2010..." Well golly gee gosh. Jed Clampett will be thrilled. Along with all the land and stock holders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:31 PM We are being presented with two separate (unrelated) factoids, and we are being told that the two correlate. Anyone can play that game... Fact: more people under the age of 30 listen to music on iPods than in 1990. Fact: more people under the age of 30 wear hip hugger jeans than in 1990. Conclusion: listening to iPods causes people under 30 to wear hip hugger jeans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:30 PM I was not speaking about my taxes. Taxes overall have been cut. Are you saying taxes were not cut? Bill Clinton said he got 4 tax cuts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:23 PM Blather and spin all you want to. The facts are very simple to understand: Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. All the ifs ands and buts in the world can't change those facts. These "facts" mean absolutely nothing out of context, Guest. The Bush spin machine (and you and the Hubster) are trying to convince people that the increase in tax revenues are a direct result of Bush's tax cuts. I have produced someone who has been a member of the Bush administration who says they are not. I can understand how you might find this inconvenient, and even frustrating, but you can't spin your way out of it... "Douglas Holtz-Eakin...was the chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in 2001 and 2002, then the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office until late last year. Holtz-Eakin said other factors were behind the surge in tax revenues. Revenues rise as the population grows. Revenues would have risen in the post-2001 economic recovery with or without tax reductions, as they did in the '90s." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:22 PM Guest - when you say that "taxes have been cut" - do you mean that YOU are paying less taxes than last year ? By how much ? What taxes ? Income ? Property taxes ? Details please on what you have saved personally. That's what I need help with. It's easy to spout a party line but I'd like some of your facts to back it up. Exactly who is it that's supposed to have more money in their pocket this year ? You, me or the CEO of Exxon ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:50 PM Never the less, Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. What part of this do you need help with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Arne Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:10 PM Guest: Blather and spin all you want to. The facts are very simple to understand: Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. Here ya go: In remarks on July 11 touting revised deficit projections in the Mid-Session Review of the Budget, President Bush once again claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:22 AM "Bobert admits to being a Socialist" Rev Sun Moon for Surgeon General in '08 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 12 Jul 06 - 09:11 AM Good one, Brucie and, oh, BTW "Clinton Found to Cause Cancer" Rev Sun Moon for Surgeon General in '08 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 12 Jul 06 - 09:03 AM Blather and spin all you want to. The facts are very simple to understand: Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. All the ifs ands and buts in the world can't change those facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 03:04 AM http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14608866.htm WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed legislation Wednesday to extend lower tax rates for capital gains and dividend income through 2010, he suggested that his tax cuts are behind a surge of new revenue into the Treasury, and he implied that it's enough to offset the revenue lost by these reductions. At a ceremony on the White House lawn, Bush said his tax cuts had helped the economy grow, "which means more tax revenue for the federal Treasury." That's just not true. A host of studies, some written by economists who served in the Bush administration, concluded that tax cuts mean less money for the Treasury. The cuts Bush extended Wednesday will cost the Treasury $70 billion over five years. They may help spur economic growth, but they still lose more revenue than they generate. And unless they're matched by lower federal spending, they worsen federal budget deficits. Tax revenues grew by $274 billion in 2005, a 15 percent increase over the previous year; and receipts are growing this year too. But does that mean the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated enough additional revenue to pay for themselves? "No," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He was the chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in 2001 and 2002, then the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office until late last year. Holtz-Eakin said other factors were behind the surge in tax revenues. Revenues rise as the population grows. Revenues would have risen in the post-2001 economic recovery with or without tax reductions, as they did in the '90s. Asked by Knight Ridder whether the tax reductions paid for themselves, Treasury Secretary John Snow acknowledged that they don't. He also acknowledged that economic growth and stock market gains were strong in the late 1990s, when the capital-gains tax stood at 20 percent and dividend income was taxed at rates as high as 38.6 percent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 03:01 AM http://www.cbpp.org/2-12-03bud.pdf Over the last two years, the federal budget has gone from surplus to deficit. At the same time, Congress enacted major tax cuts. What role did those tax cuts play? Mitchell Daniels, the Director of the President's Office of Management and Budget, has characterized the role of the tax cuts as "minor" and said that the budget would be in deficit even without them. The three short analyses that constitute this paper examine this question, based on the extensive data that the Congressional Budget Office issued in late January. The analyses find the following: The CBO data show that one-third of the deterioration in the budget since 2000 has been caused by the tax cuts enacted in the last two years. This makes the tax cuts one of the principal factors in the deterioration, rathern than a minor element. Moreover, the share of the budget deterioration that is attributable to the tax cuts grows larger each year over the course of the decade. According to the CBO data, the recession, along with defense, homeland security, and other spending increases, would have driven the budget into deficit in 2002 and 2003 even without the tax cuts. But the budget would be back in surplus in 2004 and every succeeding year for the rest of the decade were it not for the tax cuts. (This CBO projection excludes the cost of policies not yet enacted, such as further defense increases, a war, or further tax cuts.) The CBO estimates do not reflect any impacts that tax cuts and spending measures enacted in 2001 and 2002 may have had on the economy. The President's Council of Economic Advisers argues that the tax cuts have stimulated economic growth and that the recession would have vbeen worse without them. The CEA has issued specific estimates of how much worse it would have been. Yet if one uses the CEA estimates on this matter - which are favorable to the Administration and portray the tax cuts as having had larger economic effects than some studies indicate - the tax cuts still would have been responsible for almost 30 percent of the budget deterioration since 2000. There is no escaping the fact that the tax cuts are one of the primary factors behind the deterioration. One also can examine the extent to which various types of federal legislation have contributed to the budget deterioration. The CBO data show that over the last two years, Congress enacted legislation that cost an average of $260 billion a year in 2003 and 2004. The CBO data also show that $150 billion - or 58 percent - of this $260 cost resulted from the tax cuts. These data demonstrate that the cost of the tax cuts substantially exceeded the combined costs of in creases for the military, homeland security, foreign aid, the farm bill, and all other legislation. (Even if one uses the CEA assumptions regarding the effect of the tax cuts on economic growth, the tax cuts still account for 54 percent of the cost of the legislation enaced over the past two years.) Finally, under the Administration's new budget - which would make the 2001 tax cut permanent, add further tax cuts on top, and institute some program expansions such as a prescriptions drug benefit - the federal budget would remain in deficit forever. The projections of permanent deficits come from the Administration itself. They are shown in a 75-year table in the OMB budget volume entitled Analytical Perspectives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:49 AM Will you folks please stop faciltiating this poor man's mental illness. He is apparenty on some sort of personal mission to rot the minds of folkies with nonsensical drivel from such dubious sources as the Washington Times. If you want to read that moronic, childish, propaganda, go read it for yourself. Don't give him the pleasure of spoonfeeding it to you. It only encourages his obnoxious delusions of intellectual and moral superiority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:18 AM Hell is the impossibility of reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: 282RA Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:14 AM >>Keynes's ideas influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt's view that insufficient buying-power caused the Depression. During his presidency, he adopted some aspects of Keynesian economics, especially after 1937, when, in the depths of the Depression, the United States suffered from recession yet again.<< The depths of the Depression was supposed to be 1932, I believe. This administration is all about shell games. Not enough good recruits? Lower the standards. Problem solved. Still not filling recruit quotas? Lower the quotas. Problem not solved? Lower them more. Ah, you see! Problem solved! Spending over the limit? Raise the limit. Problem solved. Major combat not over more than 3 years after declaring it--not even started yet? Call it "the long war." No WMDs? Tell them we did it for democracy. Tell them we don't engage in torture while demanding the right to torture. Deficit huge? Tell them Clinton did it. Response to Katrina virtually non-existent for several days? Tell em, "You're doin a heckuva job, Brownie!" I mean, this isn't even a good shell game. This is a badly-botched, amateurish, badly rehearsed shell game. Yet,the public seems to still be somehow impressed with it. God, it's scary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:53 PM I found it on the www, Ron. (That's why I put it in quotation marks.) It's preety good. Too true by half, however. Keep well, buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:43 PM I mean the light bulb list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:43 PM Peace--that's just classic. Best I've seen in a long time. Is it yours? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:42 PM "Today President Bush asked if his visit to the hurricane zone would count toward the service time he still owes the National Guard." Jay Leno |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:31 PM "How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb? 1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed; 2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed; 3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb; 4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs; 5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb; 6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished; 7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark; 8. One to viciously smear #7; 9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along; 10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country." |
