| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"over 300,000 new jobs a month" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2004 06:42:37 AM |
| Object: |
tax cuts have been proven to work |
Ever since President Reagan cut the tax burden on the American Worker, the
Democrats have moaned and groaned how awful the idea is of reducing the tax
burden on the average working man or woman. The Democrats predicted nothing
but doom and gloom if taxes were to be cut again, conveniently ignoring the
fact that the economy did very well indeed, thank you, after President
Reagan cut them.
So when President Bush took office and fulfilled his campaign pledge to cut
taxes on the average working man and woman, the Democrats trotted out their
same, tired, worn-out socialist rhetoric once again - "tax cuts will hurt
the economy!" and "the sky will fall!". Taxes are the lifeblood of the
Democrat Politician, apparently.
But instead of the doom and gloom prophesied by the Democrats, the same
phenomenon occurred when President Bush cut taxes as when President Reagan
cut taxes - "Trickle Down" economics was proven to work and the economy took
off like a rocket. President Bush has now been creating new jobs to the
tune of over 300,000 new jobs every month for several months now. Given
that under Clinton new job creation averaged LESS than that, and Clinton
didn't have the negative impact of 9/11 to contend with, tax cuts have now
been proven, once again, to work.
Trickle-down economics are real, and they work. For all their bluster about
"tax cuts for the rich", the Democrats now see that tax cuts are "for the
worker", NOT for "the rich". In fact, the joke's even MORE on the
Democrats, because (according to them) it's The Little Guy who is getting
most of The New Jobs, since the Demmies tell us the jobs are all "low-paying
jobs". Which of course is ANOTHER Democrat lie, but the Demmies tell so
MANY lies these days that we have to focus our attention on their BIGGER
lies, which in this case is their claim that Reagan's "trickle down
economics" somehow "doesn't work" and that tax cuts somehow "hurt the
economy", BOTH of which Democrat claims turn out to be Total *****.
.
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 10:38:19 AM |
|
|
"over 300,000 new jobs a month" <BadNews4Kerry@dmc.org> wrote in message
news:NwYwc.16246$Yd3.9414@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
The lies and deception of the radical right-wing continue.
Starving for attention and the need to thwart twit filters, this wack-job
has to date created 11 ID's - all the same person, all posting within the
same day, some within minutes of each other, some responding to the others.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"over 300,000 new jobs a month"
John 'Lurch' Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
John 'Middle Finger' Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
John "Arrogant" Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
KerryDependsOnGoreRants
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
GoreRants4Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Kerry the Boob"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Ihatekerie Sosume"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"UnfitKerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Jeanne Frawd Kerree"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"John Fraude Kerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
Right-wingers are cowards, charlatans, have no morals, and are a plague on
this great nation.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge,
judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been
necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the
deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 08:22:48 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:42:37 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dmc.org> wrote:
Ever since President Reagan cut the tax burden on the American Worker,
False premise. The initial tax cuts were immediately followed by the
biggest tax hike in the history of the US - ERTA..
The subsequent 1986 tax bill was revenue neutraly
Post proof Reagan cut the tax burden on workers at all.
Given the huge tax hike - ERTA
the
Democrats have moaned and groaned how awful the idea is of reducing the tax
burden on the average working man or woman. The Democrats predicted nothing
but doom and gloom if taxes were to be cut again, conveniently ignoring the
fact that the economy did very well indeed, thank you, after President
Reagan cut them.
So when President Bush took office and fulfilled his campaign pledge to cut
taxes on the average working man and woman, the Democrats trotted out their
same, tired, worn-out socialist rhetoric once again - "tax cuts will hurt
the economy!" and "the sky will fall!". Taxes are the lifeblood of the
Democrat Politician, apparently.
But instead of the doom and gloom prophesied by the Democrats, the same
phenomenon occurred when President Bush cut taxes as when President Reagan
cut taxes - "Trickle Down" economics was proven to work and the economy took
off like a rocket. President Bush has now been creating new jobs to the
tune of over 300,000 new jobs every month for several months now. Given
that under Clinton new job creation averaged LESS than that, and Clinton
didn't have the negative impact of 9/11 to contend with, tax cuts have now
been proven, once again, to work.
Trickle-down economics are real, and they work. For all their bluster about
"tax cuts for the rich", the Democrats now see that tax cuts are "for the
worker", NOT for "the rich". In fact, the joke's even MORE on the
Democrats, because (according to them) it's The Little Guy who is getting
most of The New Jobs, since the Demmies tell us the jobs are all "low-paying
jobs". Which of course is ANOTHER Democrat lie, but the Demmies tell so
MANY lies these days that we have to focus our attention on their BIGGER
lies, which in this case is their claim that Reagan's "trickle down
economics" somehow "doesn't work" and that tax cuts somehow "hurt the
economy", BOTH of which Democrat claims turn out to be Total *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ihatekerie Sosumie" |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 09:08:40 AM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:gtq8c0l5ga0bjfskpfehtfvsl4bnnj92oo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:42:37 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dmc.org> wrote:
Ever since President Reagan cut the tax burden on the American Worker,
False premise.
What's the "false premise"? That Ronald Reagan was President, or that he
cut the tax burden on the American Worker?
The initial tax cuts were immediately followed by the
biggest tax hike in the history of the US - ERTA..
OK, so you acknowledge that the income tax rate was cut.
Now if we can just get you to acknowledge that it was President Reagan who
cut them, your comment above about "false premise" will have turned to
powder, like most of your other silly comments have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 10:38:27 AM |
|
|
"Ihatekerie Sosumie" <DemScum@DMC.com> wrote in message
news:IF_wc.24820$Tn6.546@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The lies and deception of the radical right-wing continue.
Starving for attention and the need to thwart twit filters, this wack-job
has to date created 11 ID's - all the same person, all posting within the
same day, some within minutes of each other, some responding to the others.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"over 300,000 new jobs a month"
John 'Lurch' Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
John 'Middle Finger' Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
John "Arrogant" Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
KerryDependsOnGoreRants
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
GoreRants4Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Kerry the Boob"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Ihatekerie Sosume"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"UnfitKerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Jeanne Frawd Kerree"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"John Fraude Kerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
Right-wingers are cowards, charlatans, have no morals, and are a plague on
this great nation.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge,
judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been
necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the
deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 10:48:23 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:08:40 GMT, "Ihatekerie Sosumie"
<DemScum@DMC.com> wrote:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:gtq8c0l5ga0bjfskpfehtfvsl4bnnj92oo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:42:37 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dmc.org> wrote:
Ever since President Reagan cut the tax burden on the American Worker,
False premise.
What's the "false premise"? That Ronald Reagan was President, or that he
cut the tax burden on the American Worker?
The initial tax cuts were immediately followed by the
biggest tax hike in the history of the US - ERTA..
OK, so you acknowledge that the income tax rate was cut.
No. I think the income tax rate was raised, in fact.
Reagan soon passed a big tax hike on the tax on our income called the
FICA and MEDICARE tax.
You can say that the top marginal tax rates were cut. That's clearly
true.
But the argument that the tax burden on the American Worker was
lowered is not something I have seen proven.
Nor have I seen evidence that he lowered the tax imposed on income.
Now if we can just get you to acknowledge that it was President Reagan who
cut them, your comment above about "false premise" will have turned to
powder, like most of your other silly comments have.
So just show that the tax burden on the American worker was cut, which
is your claim, and I will agree. IT may be true. I just don't know.
I can't just agree to something which I do not know to be true, and
still be honest with you.
So, do you have any evidence to support your claim, or don't you?
Or are you going to rephrase your claim to say something else, such as
a comment ot top marginal income tax rates?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 09:35:50 AM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:gtq8c0l5ga0bjfskpfehtfvsl4bnnj92oo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:42:37 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dmc.org> wrote:
Ever since President Reagan cut the tax burden on the American Worker,
False premise. The initial tax cuts were immediately followed by the
biggest tax hike in the history of the US - ERTA..
Tax hike?
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
- phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
- accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
- indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
- created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
- phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
- reduced Windfall Profit taxes
- allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
- expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
- replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap)
(begin in 1985)
Results - By every measure, ERTA was by far the biggest tax change (and the
biggest tax cut) over the past 30 years. (See Table 2 and Figures 3 and 4.) The
revenue
effect of ERTA was more than twice as large (in constant dollars) as any other
post-1967 tax bill.
Similarly, the revenue effect of ERTA, measured as a percentage of GDP and as a
percentage of
total federal revenue, was more than twice as large as any post-1967 tax bill,
except RECA,
which contained a temporary 10-percent income tax surcharge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 10:51:45 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:35:50 -0500, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:gtq8c0l5ga0bjfskpfehtfvsl4bnnj92oo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:42:37 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dmc.org> wrote:
Ever since President Reagan cut the tax burden on the American Worker,
False premise. The initial tax cuts were immediately followed by the
biggest tax hike in the history of the US - ERTA..
Tax hike?
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
Gosh. My memory has failed me. Thanks.
TEFRA I guess was the second Reagan tax bill, not ERTA
Replace ERTA with the correct name of the bill TEFRA
- phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
- accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
- indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
- created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
- phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
- reduced Windfall Profit taxes
- allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
- expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
- replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap)
(begin in 1985)
Results - By every measure, ERTA was by far the biggest tax change (and the
biggest tax cut) over the past 30 years. (See Table 2 and Figures 3 and 4.) The
revenue
effect of ERTA was more than twice as large (in constant dollars) as any other
post-1967 tax bill.
Similarly, the revenue effect of ERTA, measured as a percentage of GDP and as a
percentage of
total federal revenue, was more than twice as large as any post-1967 tax bill,
except RECA,
which contained a temporary 10-percent income tax surcharge.
Yes. And the next year a really big tax hike was passed. I think it
was called, now that you have refreshed my memory, TEFRA.
and then more taxes were hiked after that
The issue - did Reagan lower the tax burden on American Workers as
claimed, or hike thim?
Since he passed both tax cuts and tax hikes, I don't know how it
worked out overall.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 01:12:44 PM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:0j39c0tlp2bd807dv8kvmeljsne34gj4hr@4ax.com...
The issue - did Reagan lower the tax burden on American Workers as
claimed, or hike thim?
Since he passed both tax cuts and tax hikes, I don't know how it
worked out overall.
I don't know either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "p_j" |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 06:49:12 PM |
|
|
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
The issue - did Reagan lower the tax burden on American Workers as
claimed, or hike thim?
Since he passed both tax cuts and tax hikes, I don't know how it
worked out overall.
I don't know either.
A couple years ago, David Stockman had an op-ed in the WSJ or the NYT
where he talked about how they raised taxes several times because they
needed the revenue. Reagan was right about having an insanely high upper
brackets though.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "over 300,000 new jobs a month" |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 09:52:45 AM |
|
|
Once again, George has been shown by one of the posters here to be a total
idiot, lacking ANY command of the facts whatsoever.
Nicely done, Bob.
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:vY_wc.15805$Iu6.5541@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
message
news:gtq8c0l5ga0bjfskpfehtfvsl4bnnj92oo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:42:37 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dmc.org> wrote:
Ever since President Reagan cut the tax burden on the American Worker,
False premise. The initial tax cuts were immediately followed by the
biggest tax hike in the history of the US - ERTA..
Tax hike?
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
- phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to
50%
- accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with
ACRS
- indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
- created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000
cap)
- phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in
1987
- reduced Windfall Profit taxes
- allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
- expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
- replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900
cap)
(begin in 1985)
Results - By every measure, ERTA was by far the biggest tax change (and
the
biggest tax cut) over the past 30 years. (See Table 2 and Figures 3 and
4.) The
revenue
effect of ERTA was more than twice as large (in constant dollars) as any
other
post-1967 tax bill.
Similarly, the revenue effect of ERTA, measured as a percentage of GDP and
as a
percentage of
total federal revenue, was more than twice as large as any post-1967 tax
bill,
except RECA,
which contained a temporary 10-percent income tax surcharge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: tax cuts have been proven to work |
07 Jun 2004 10:38:36 AM |
|
|
"over 300,000 new jobs a month" <BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote in message
news:1j%wc.1727$Y3.514@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
The lies and deception of the radical right-wing continue.
Starving for attention and the need to thwart twit filters, this wack-job
has to date created 11 ID's - all the same person, all posting within the
same day, some within minutes of each other, some responding to the others.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"over 300,000 new jobs a month"
John 'Lurch' Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
John 'Middle Finger' Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
John "Arrogant" Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
KerryDependsOnGoreRants
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
GoreRants4Kerry
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Kerry the Boob"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Ihatekerie Sosume"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"UnfitKerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Jeanne Frawd Kerree"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"John Fraude Kerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
Right-wingers are cowards, charlatans, have no morals, and are a plague on
this great nation.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge,
judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been
necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the
deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mm" |
|
| Title: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 03:41:44 AM |
|
|
deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long?
.
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 11:11:17 AM |
|
|
deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long?
It works like cocaine.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 06:32:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:41:44 GMT, "mm" <mick.maus@drizzlyland.con>
wrote:
deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long?
"Works" means getting idle factories back to work cost-effectively.
The reason deficits work to stimulate a sluggish economy is that it's
cheap to start up a factory already sitting there, empty. All you have
to do is turn on the lights and make some calls to the workers, laid
off, to come back to work.
So a bit of deficit speding, to goose up the market, can generate a
lot of extra production, at low cost.
When factories get closer to full use, then starting up the next one
costs more money. Fewer workers are waiting around so you have to hire
and train new ones. Training costs money. And then you may have to
build a whole new factory.
So the answer is it works until factory utilization rises to the point
where the cost to produce more production is as high as the value of
the extra stuff produced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "p_j" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 11:22:20 AM |
|
|
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:
So a bit of deficit speding, to goose up the market, can generate a
lot of extra production, at low cost.
So the answer is it works until factory utilization rises to the point
where the cost to produce more production is as high as the value of
the extra stuff produced.
After massive deficit spending, including the seemingly never ending
free cash to homeowners, are we there yet? Is it a "bit" too little
still?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 05:56:56 AM |
|
|
mm wrote:
deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long?
Most of us learned the basics of this when we were five years old, and had
to manage our own allowances. When you run out, you can't buy anything
else. Rich kids, BTW, did not always have to learn this, or anything like
it.
As adults, and as a nation, we can spend ourselves into a hole until the
money runs out and we have beggars in the streets (one of the more instant
results of a Reagan governorship, here in California), the dollar is so weak
we can't import anything, and a substantial amount of our taxes go only to
paying the interest on the debt.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "over 300,000 new jobs a month" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 07:07:58 AM |
|
|
"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:YXgxc.68352$iX.54147@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
mm wrote:
deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long?
Most of us learned the basics of this when we were five years old, and had
to manage our own allowances. When you run out, you can't buy anything
else. Rich kids, BTW, did not always have to learn this, or anything
like
it.
As adults, and as a nation, we can spend ourselves into a hole until the
money runs out and we have beggars in the streets (one of the more instant
results of a Reagan governorship, here in California), the dollar is so
weak
we can't import anything, and a substantial amount of our taxes go only to
paying the interest on the debt.
Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50 years
now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only viewed
as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the outside,
looking in.
BTW, can you name for us ANY federal spending cuts that either John Kerry OR
Ted Kennedy (the two Democrats from ultra-liberal, ultra-Democrat
Massachusetts) have EVER proposed over the past 20 years?
No? Not even ONE spending cut proposal out of the mouth of Johnny Kerry??
Not even ONE???????
Hmmmm, guess that's why they're called the "Tax N' Spend Democrats, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "mm" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 08:32:56 AM |
|
|
"over 300,000 new jobs a month" <BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote in message
news:y_hxc.2695$Y3.1447@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:YXgxc.68352$iX.54147@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
mm wrote:
deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long?
Most of us learned the basics of this when we were five years old, and
had
to manage our own allowances. When you run out, you can't buy anything
else. Rich kids, BTW, did not always have to learn this, or anything
like
it.
As adults, and as a nation, we can spend ourselves into a hole until the
money runs out and we have beggars in the streets (one of the more
instant
results of a Reagan governorship, here in California), the dollar is so
weak
we can't import anything, and a substantial amount of our taxes go only
to
paying the interest on the debt.
Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50 years
now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only
viewed
as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the
outside,
looking in.
BTW, can you name for us ANY federal spending cuts that either John Kerry
OR
Ted Kennedy (the two Democrats from ultra-liberal, ultra-Democrat
Massachusetts) have EVER proposed over the past 20 years?
No? Not even ONE spending cut proposal out of the mouth of Johnny
Kerry??
Not even ONE???????
Hmmmm, guess that's why they're called the "Tax N' Spend Democrats, eh?
Considering that Bush has spent more than any other president, ever, "tax
and spend" is not much of an insult when you look at the Republican record
of "borrow and spend."
Borrow and spend is basically a lie to the public, who believe the
conservatives are taxing conservatively, all the while they are spending
liberally.
Where's the Neandercon outrage?
.
|
|
|
| User: "300,000+ new jobs a month!" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 08:40:26 AM |
|
|
"mm" <mick.maus@drizzlyland.con> wrote in message
news:cejxc.18362$QT3.9417@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
"over 300,000 new jobs a month" <BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote in message
news:y_hxc.2695$Y3.1447@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:YXgxc.68352$iX.54147@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
mm wrote:
deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long?
Most of us learned the basics of this when we were five years old, and
had
to manage our own allowances. When you run out, you can't buy
anything
else. Rich kids, BTW, did not always have to learn this, or anything
like
it.
As adults, and as a nation, we can spend ourselves into a hole until
the
money runs out and we have beggars in the streets (one of the more
instant
results of a Reagan governorship, here in California), the dollar is
so
weak
we can't import anything, and a substantial amount of our taxes go
only
to
paying the interest on the debt.
Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50
years
now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only
viewed
as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the
outside,
looking in.
BTW, can you name for us ANY federal spending cuts that either John
Kerry
OR
Ted Kennedy (the two Democrats from ultra-liberal, ultra-Democrat
Massachusetts) have EVER proposed over the past 20 years?
No? Not even ONE spending cut proposal out of the mouth of Johnny
Kerry??
Not even ONE???????
Hmmmm, guess that's why they're called the "Tax N' Spend Democrats, eh?
Considering that Bush has spent more than any other president, ever, "tax
and spend" is not much of an insult when you look at the Republican record
of "borrow and spend."
The same was true of Clinton, of course - he spent more than any other
president, ever.
Yet somehow you, a liberal Democrat, survived that horrific spending spree
of Your Billy, didn't you!
You must feel mighty, mighty good about that!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Garry Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 04:59:22 PM |
|
|
In alt.politics over 300,000 new jobs a month <BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote:
: "Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
: news:YXgxc.68352$iX.54147@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
:> mm wrote:
:> > deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long?
:>
:> Most of us learned the basics of this when we were five years old, and had
:> to manage our own allowances. When you run out, you can't buy anything
:> else. Rich kids, BTW, did not always have to learn this, or anything
: like
:> it.
:>
:> As adults, and as a nation, we can spend ourselves into a hole until the
:> money runs out and we have beggars in the streets (one of the more instant
:> results of a Reagan governorship, here in California), the dollar is so
: weak
:> we can't import anything, and a substantial amount of our taxes go only to
:> paying the interest on the debt.
: Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50 years
: now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only viewed
: as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the outside,
: looking in.
: BTW, can you name for us ANY federal spending cuts that either John Kerry OR
: Ted Kennedy (the two Democrats from ultra-liberal, ultra-Democrat
: Massachusetts) have EVER proposed over the past 20 years?
: No? Not even ONE spending cut proposal out of the mouth of Johnny Kerry??
: Not even ONE???????
: Hmmmm, guess that's why they're called the "Tax N' Spend Democrats, eh?
At least they are paying their way and not leaving the debt hanging around for
someone down the road to pay. . .HTH. . .
Garry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 11:21:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:07:58 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote:
Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50 years
now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only viewed
as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the outside,
looking in.
Since 1962 under Dem presidents deficits have averaged 36 billion
dollars per year
Under Repub presidents the average has been 190 billion dollars per
year
some folks care about it more than others
Now with President Bush we have the leader of the country saying
"Deficits don't matter."
.
|
|
|
| User: "300,000+ new jobs a month!" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 12:01:57 PM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:kopbc0di9ui1cctog9og8kfo9bsg6o75af@4ax.com...
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:07:58 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote:
Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50
years
now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only
viewed
as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the
outside,
looking in.
Since 1962 under Dem presidents deficits have averaged 36 billion
dollars per year
1962, you say? Gee, that's over 42 years ago! You mean to tell us we
have been doing deficit spending for all that time and we're still in
business?
How much of a "problem" did the Democrats regard that deficit spending by
those Dem presidents?
Also, can you list some of the reductions in federal spending that John
Kerry and Ted Kennedy have called for over the past 20 years?
.
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has ben proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 12:29:16 PM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:kopbc0di9ui1cctog9og8kfo9bsg6o75af@4ax.com...
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:07:58 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote:
Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50
years
now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only
viewed
as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the
outside,
looking in.
Since 1962 under Dem presidents deficits have averaged 36 billion
dollars per year
1962, you say? Gee, that's over 42 years ago! You mean to tell us we
have been doing deficit spending for all that time and we're still in
business?
How much of a "problem" did the Democrats regard that deficit spending by
those Dem presidents?
Also, can you list some of the reductions in federal spending that John
Kerry and Ted Kennedy have called for over the past 20 years?
Deficits increase under Republicans and LBJ, war mob Dixiecrat and JFK
assassination conspirator, and decrease under Democrats. i.e., Democrats
clean up the mess parasitic Republican rich kids leave. Unfortunately,
Democrats don't have the backbone to simply destroy the parasite party. I
do.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
.
|
|
|
| User: "300,000+ new jobs a month!" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has been proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 12:33:32 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10cbtrcga3hoh09@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
message
news:kopbc0di9ui1cctog9og8kfo9bsg6o75af@4ax.com...
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:07:58 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote:
Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50
years
now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only
viewed
as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the
outside,
looking in.
Since 1962 under Dem presidents deficits have averaged 36 billion
dollars per year
1962, you say? Gee, that's over 42 years ago! You mean to tell us we
have been doing deficit spending for all that time and we're still in
business?
How much of a "problem" did the Democrats regard that deficit spending by
those Dem presidents?
Also, can you list some of the reductions in federal spending that John
Kerry and Ted Kennedy have called for over the past 20 years?
Deficits increase under Republicans and LBJ, war mob Dixiecrat and JFK
assassination conspirator, and decrease under Democrats. i.e., Democrats
clean up the mess parasitic Republican rich kids leave.
Interesting assertion. Too bad the facts doesn't agree with that assertion
of yours, huh?
Federal debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, for
example....
.
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has been proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 12:43:35 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10cbtrcga3hoh09@corp.supernews.com...
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
message
news:kopbc0di9ui1cctog9og8kfo9bsg6o75af@4ax.com...
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:07:58 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
<BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote:
Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50
years
now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only
viewed
as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the
outside,
looking in.
Since 1962 under Dem presidents deficits have averaged 36 billion
dollars per year
1962, you say? Gee, that's over 42 years ago! You mean to tell us we
have been doing deficit spending for all that time and we're still in
business?
How much of a "problem" did the Democrats regard that deficit spending by
those Dem presidents?
Also, can you list some of the reductions in federal spending that John
Kerry and Ted Kennedy have called for over the past 20 years?
Deficits increase under Republicans and LBJ, war mob Dixiecrat and JFK
assassination conspirator, and decrease under Democrats. i.e., Democrats
clean up the mess parasitic Republican rich kids leave.
Interesting assertion. Too bad the facts doesn't agree with that assertion
of yours, huh?
Federal debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, for
example....
You are dishonest. The Republican Party has two components, the liars like
you, and the suckers.
Clinton left office with a budget surplus. The Reagan/Bush debt won't be
paid off in a few years, and you know that.
The national debt is the work of Republicans and LBJ. The US went from
being the greatest lender in history to the greatest borrower in history
under Reagan.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has been proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 12:59:40 PM |
|
|
r@cLIeNUX. (cLIeNUX user) wrote:
The national debt is the work of Republicans and LBJ. The US went
from being the greatest lender in history to the greatest borrower in
history under Reagan.
Amazing you've never heard of bonds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Garry Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has been proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 05:01:40 PM |
|
|
In alt.politics 300,000+ new jobs a month! <BadNewsForeKerry@dnc.net> wrote:
: "cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
: news:10cbtrcga3hoh09@corp.supernews.com...
:>
:> >
:> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
: message
:> >news:kopbc0di9ui1cctog9og8kfo9bsg6o75af@4ax.com...
:> >> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:07:58 GMT, "over 300,000 new jobs a month"
:> >> <BadNews4Kerry@dnc.org> wrote:
:> >>
:> >> >Well, since we have been doing deficit spending for approximately 50
:> >years
:> >> >now, and we're still in business, apparently deficit spending is only
:> >viewed
:> >> >as "a problem" by the Democrats when they are OUT OF POWER, on the
:> >outside,
:> >> >looking in.
:> >>
:> >>
:> >> Since 1962 under Dem presidents deficits have averaged 36 billion
:> >> dollars per year
:> >
:> >
:> >1962, you say? Gee, that's over 42 years ago! You mean to tell us we
:> >have been doing deficit spending for all that time and we're still in
:> >business?
:> >
:> >How much of a "problem" did the Democrats regard that deficit spending by
:> >those Dem presidents?
:> >
:> >Also, can you list some of the reductions in federal spending that John
:> >Kerry and Ted Kennedy have called for over the past 20 years?
:> >
:> >
:>
:> Deficits increase under Republicans and LBJ, war mob Dixiecrat and JFK
:> assassination conspirator, and decrease under Democrats. i.e., Democrats
:> clean up the mess parasitic Republican rich kids leave.
: Interesting assertion. Too bad the facts doesn't agree with that assertion
: of yours, huh?
: Federal debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, for
: example....
*****! http://bullandbearwise.com/GovDefChart.asp
Garry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has been proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 05:53:44 PM |
|
|
"Garry Bryan" <garry@soco.agilent.com> wrote in message
news:1086732100.772644@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
In alt.politics 300,000+ new jobs a month! <BadNewsForeKerry@dnc.net> wrote:
: Federal debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, for
: example....
*****! http://bullandbearwise.com/GovDefChart.asp
Actually, he is correct concerning national debt:
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
Do you see a decreast anywhere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has been proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 05:56:46 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"Garry Bryan" <garry@soco.agilent.com> wrote in message
news:1086732100.772644@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
In alt.politics 300,000+ new jobs a month!
<BadNewsForeKerry@dnc.net> wrote:
: Federal debt increased every single year Clinton was in office,
: for example....
*****! http://bullandbearwise.com/GovDefChart.asp
Actually, he is correct concerning national debt:
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
Do you see a decreast anywhere?
Clinton didn't see any decrease either, so he applied social security
surpluses towards general revenue to make it look like he was reducing
debt. He applied similar magic to jobs creation as well. Only the most
brain damaged liberals still buy such hocus-pocus BS today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: deficit spending has been proven to work - but for how long? |
08 Jun 2004 06:19:57 PM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@pissoff.com> wrote in message
news:aa2bb77da2186c6cbbe1daf07bf13f5d@news.teranews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"Garry Bryan" <garry@soco.agilent.com> wrote in message
news:1086732100.772644@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
In alt.politics 300,000+ new jobs a month!
<BadNewsForeKerry@dnc.net> wrote:
: Federal debt increased every single year Clinton was in office,
: for example....
*****! http://bullandbearwise.com/GovDefChart.asp
Actually, he is correct concerning national debt:
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
Do you see a decreast anywhere?
Clinton didn't see any decrease either, so he applied social security
surpluses towards general revenue to make it look like he was reducing
debt. He applied similar magic to jobs creation as well. Only the most
brain damaged liberals still buy such hocus-pocus BS today.
The republicans do the same thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
