[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Yup, 2001-2003 saw a decline in tax revenues. That’s factored into your chart. Of course, we saw a recession in that period excacerbated by the impact 9/11 had on our economy. Make no mistake, 9/11 had a temporary, but large impact. And no, it wasn’t a “Bush recession.” GDP had already shrank in 3 consectutive quarters.
I’d also point out that your graph is comparing hard historical data to projeccted estimates. Well, as I’ve pointed out, for two years running tax revenues and debt shrinkage have exceeded the projections by a hefty margin. I’d say your graph is rather flawed for anything remotely like as side by side comparison.
Revenues are doing just fine. Cut the size of government and return individual fiscal freedom and responsibility back to the people.
I did notice, however, that your graph shows a higher economic growth rate under Bush.
Another good post Sloth, but your facts and figures will be lost on 100m I’m afraid.
Oh well. You can’t help everyone :-]
[/quote]
Except he hasn’t disproved anything…again at the cost of a trillion dollars(plus interest), revenues are currently at the same level per capita as they were 5 years ago (BAD).
One method is clearly better than the other(the one that raises revenue with out raising debt.)
That revenue is up from bush’s benchmark of 2004 is almost meaningless…2004 was a horrible,horrible,horrible year…
since I own a business that employees unskilled workers I think I have more reasons than most to not want an increase in min. wage.
I don’t pay my employees min. wage. Because if I did they would work somewhere else, and I only hire the best that I can find. Market place is what drives their pay. Min. wage is just the base marker for me.
If min. wage goes up then my leverage on employment goes away unless I pay them more.
the problem with paying them more is my prices go up. When prices go up customers complain, and are stuck paying the bill for my employees.
The real problem with minimum wage employees wanting more outside of the fiscal problems it can create is this.
Why would I want to continue to throw money away on an employee that I don’t think is good enough to get a raise, or be promoted?
Personally I am not looking for someone who is average (min. wage) to work for me. I am looking for someone that will force me to promote them, or give them a raise because I don’t want to lose them.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
That more prominent GOP leaders aren’t shocked by this is discouraging to say the least.
What bothers me is that that most of those that signed on for the Contract With America back in 1994 are still in office. And they are now the fat cats that light their cigars with my $100 bills.
They seem to have forgotten what they were sen to Washington to do.
This is precisely why I think we need a democrat president - to keep the right in check. It has been demonstrated that the republicans are incapable of running the country while holding 2 of the three branches of gov’t.
No, I’m not agreeing. And, I’m not sure how you got that idea. The 2005 and 2006 tax revenues are awesome. One more time…Awesome!
As I stated, this country had a recession compounded with the effects of 9/11. Of course revenues declined. And, it takes time to recover, get the economy steaming along, and generate the revenues again. Nothing can be done about it except for staying out of the way of the american public.
However, we’ve grown out of it! And now, for two years running, the budget deficit is shrinking and tax revenues have absolutely surged! Let the damn politicians learn how to save money to balance a budget, instead of taxing their way out of it. Cut spending. Balance the budget. Cut spending a helluva lot more. Complete tax system over-haul!
[quote]Skystud wrote:
rainjack wrote:
…
This is precisely why I think we need a democrat president - to keep the right in check. It has been demonstrated that the republicans are incapable of running the country while holding 2 of the three branches of gov’t.
Amen.[/quote]
I have said many times that I don’t want one party controlling the WH and both branches of Congress.
If only the Dems would pull their heads out of their asses I would love to be able to vote for one.
What happened to the old fashioned Democrats like JFK, FDR, Truman etc? They were not perfect but they had many strong points.
its actually kind of sad when you think about it. The issues that bind a candidate to their party are really the most insignificant issues we face as a nation.
They are significant on an individual level though, and that is what they run on.
You are all these rights groups on both sides that are identifying candidates with their cause, and while these causes have their place. They have become so main stream that instead of voting for the person who can do the best job, they trick us into voting for the person who won’t violate what we want for ourselves.
Then we wonder why our political officials are so corrupt. They are in my opinion a product of these self serving rights activists. Self serving people produce self serving officials.
(before anyone flames me let me state I think rights groups have their place, but it isn’t as main stream as it once was, and should take a back seat to what is really killing our country.)
Vast majority of americans support “first 100 hours”
Oh my!
“Most worrisome for the president, should the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress, the American public supports their proposed ?First 100 Hours? agenda. An overwhelming majority says allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies should be a top priority for a Democratic Congress (74 percent, including 70 percent of Republicans); 68 percent want increasing the minimum wage to be a top priority, including 53 percent of Republicans; 62 percent want investigating impropriety by members of Congress to be a top priority; and 58 percent want investigating government contracts in Iraq to be a top priority. Fifty-two percent say investigating why we went to war in Iraq should be a top priority (25 percent say it should a lower priority and 19 percent say it shouldn?t be done.)”
Odd that the “far-left” is so squarely the center.
If we’re the mainstream, what is the GOP,Headhunter, etc.?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, Pelosi’s vineyards and hotels don’t use union labor. How about that? Unions for thee, but not for me!
Real working class hero, that Pelosi.[/quote]
DUH??? What a dumb thing to say.
Owners shouldn’t decide whether a shop is union or not… that’s for the workforce to decide, dumbass. Ideally, a workplace shouldn’t be forced to join a union (which happens sometimes, and I don’t condone it) it should be entirely the decision of the employees. Pelosi should not force OR prevent her employees from joining a union.
A good example of how things should work… my Dad worked at a shop where some of the guys were union, and some were not. It was up to the individual. Because of the union, management was forced to treat even the non-union members well. The point is this: When employees feel like they are getting a fair shake, there’s no motivation to bring a union in. Maybe Pelosi treats her employees well?
As to the anti-union comments…
As someone who has been a union member and benefitted from union protection from owners who were complete assholes, you anti-union guys have a lot to learn about the need for unions.
Will Nancy appoint more impeached judges to positions of power over all of us? Will she cut another similar deal to maybe get a few felons in charge of Ways and Means? How about some rapists to be on the Judicial Review?
Well, those flowery statements all sound well and good…BUT, I hope the more moderate democrats are able to reign her in and prevent too liberal of an agenda. She could do almost as much harm as Bush and his cronies if left unchecked.
Odd that the “far-left” is so squarely the center.
If we’re the mainstream, what is the GOP,Headhunter, etc.?
(answer: way out of the mainstream)[/quote]
This is very true. This election was a referendum and a clear cry by the country that Bush and his cronies are reactionary and extremist and had bad policies that were poorly executed. But Pelosi is NOT what most of the country wants either. She is too liberal. But the party is not just Pelosi. My hope is that the more moderate Democrats will do a much better job of keeping her on track and in touch than the moderate Republicans did with Bush and his buddies
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, Pelosi’s vineyards and hotels don’t use union labor. How about that? Unions for thee, but not for me!
Real working class hero, that Pelosi.
DUH??? What a dumb thing to say.
Owners shouldn’t decide whether a shop is union or not… that’s for the workforce to decide, dumbass. Ideally, a workplace shouldn’t be forced to join a union (which happens sometimes, and I don’t condone it) it should be entirely the decision of the employees. Pelosi should not force OR prevent her employees from joining a union.
A good example of how things should work… my Dad worked at a shop where some of the guys were union, and some were not. It was up to the individual. Because of the union, management was forced to treat even the non-union members well. The point is this: When employees feel like they are getting a fair shake, there’s no motivation to bring a union in. Maybe Pelosi treats her employees well?
As to the anti-union comments…
As someone who has been a union member and benefitted from union protection from owners who were complete assholes, you anti-union guys have a lot to learn about the need for unions.
[/quote]
True, but the point was that libs often go wild for some ‘cause’ until it comes to THEIR business. They then sound like some monopoly capitalist in 1885.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
True, but the point was that libs often go wild for some ‘cause’ until it comes to THEIR business. They then sound like some monopoly capitalist in 1885.[/quote]
Oh okay, I thought you were just overgeneralizing and taking vague swipes at people like “libs”. Thanks for clearing that up.
