Obama's Going to Do What?

100meters · February 24, 2009, 12:47am

[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.

Do you understad the difference between causation and correlation? Was there nothing else happening in the late 90s early 2000s that could have possible contributed to economic consequence?

Back to the question at hand. How much more money to do think raising tax rates will raise? And at what cost? You seem perfectly happy to mortgage our entire economic future to solve immediate issues. What you will soon find out is that we won’t even receive short term benefit from any of this.

You seem incapable of looking past immediate assumed results, so I guess you will just have to hang out and wait to see what’s going to happen.[/quote]

Using your own logic, given taxes will increase, might there be any other occurrences that may contribute to further economic growth? Or at this single point in history just this one thing will have a single impact?

ProwlCat · February 24, 2009, 12:47am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
if CD taxes are so terrible

why weren’t they removed completely during Reagan or any of the Bush years?

or completely gutted to insignificant levels?

if having lower CD tax = more Fed revenue, wouldn’t having NO CD tax = much more Fed revenue?

[/quote]

Uh. No. No tax means no revenue. Revenue is increased because MORE people invest (incentivized by the fact that they get to keep more of the money they make from the investment) AND the fact that more money invested generally means a healthier market…which means investors make more money…wich means that even though the tax rate is lower MORE money is brought into the fed due to the higher volume of (profitable) trade.

100meters · February 24, 2009, 12:51am

[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.

how many times does it have be explained to you that raising taxes is not a zero sum game. For every dollar you raise, you do some multiple of harm. It’s quite probabe that raising tax rates on those who already pay most of the income tax willl result in less revenue. Do you plan on closing the deficite with % points or dollars? Why can’t you grasp this? Every single thing they do and you defend is undermining the economy in very real terms. [/quote]

Actually that’s my argument, tax policy does not exist in a bubble. This thread postulates tax increase = end of days. I’m saying that this isn’t true. Taxes have gone up and been much, much, much, much, much higher with stronger related economies. Taxes are low now and well, the country is on the verge of collapse. Still you people insist on being so simple minded about it.

ProwlCat · February 24, 2009, 12:53am

[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.

Do you understad the difference between causation and correlation? Was there nothing else happening in the late 90s early 2000s that could have possible contributed to economic consequence?

Back to the question at hand. How much more money to do think raising tax rates will raise? And at what cost? You seem perfectly happy to mortgage our entire economic future to solve immediate issues. What you will soon find out is that we won’t even receive short term benefit from any of this.

You seem incapable of looking past immediate assumed results, so I guess you will just have to hang out and wait to see what’s going to happen.

Using your own logic, given taxes will increase, might there be any other occurrences that may contribute to further economic growth? Or at this single point in history just this one thing will have a single impact?

[/quote]

I’ll ask again! Since it’s simple fucking economics and you are MR. Economics, explain to ALL OF US how raising the CG tax from 15 to 20 percent is going to HELP?

And most people old enough to understand - at least those old enough to know AND have made more than 50K in a year at some point in their lives - know that democrats are historically dead wrong on the economy (Obama’s first month should start going into textbooks now). From your posts I’ll assume your income is approx. 20K and your on food stamps. Maybe you should move back home?

100meters · February 24, 2009, 12:53am

[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
100meters wrote:
We either massively spend right now or go through a long, long, pronounced depression with devastating consequences. Longer-term and assuming we get through this, we have to pay down this inherited deficit. This is basic economics.

I suggest changing your screen name to “KoolAidDrinker”

So you live at home too? I’m noticing there’s a lot of wingnuts in here posing as adults. Most of us old enough to know understand we have a major recession going on.

Of course if you get to old like McCain, then you think the fundamentals of the economy are strong. So you’re either 15 or 75 years old. Given this is T-Nation, I’ll assume 15.

You are an economic moron. most here understand this. I think you are starting to understand this yourself.
[/quote]

Uh, the guy doesn’t get we’re in recession, nor understood the impact of the tax increase on small businesses. These are simple facts.

dhickey · February 24, 2009, 12:53am

[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.

Do you understad the difference between causation and correlation? Was there nothing else happening in the late 90s early 2000s that could have possible contributed to economic consequence?

Back to the question at hand. How much more money to do think raising tax rates will raise? And at what cost? You seem perfectly happy to mortgage our entire economic future to solve immediate issues. What you will soon find out is that we won’t even receive short term benefit from any of this.

You seem incapable of looking past immediate assumed results, so I guess you will just have to hang out and wait to see what’s going to happen.

Using your own logic, given taxes will increase, might there be any other occurrences that may contribute to further economic growth? Or at this single point in history just this one thing will have a single impact?

[/quote]

There will be economic growth no matter what our wonderful gov’t does. We will just be starting much much lower. I prefer to grow from here, not some fraction of where we are at today. You need to quit thinking in absolutes. Everything is relative. Everything has consequenses.

You are incapable of looking past the short term. Maybe we should tax 100% of all profit and income above a livable wage for a year. By your logic, would this allow us to pay off our debt with no ill consequences?

Sloth · February 24, 2009, 1:04am

[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.

how many times does it have be explained to you that raising taxes is not a zero sum game. For every dollar you raise, you do some multiple of harm. It’s quite probabe that raising tax rates on those who already pay most of the income tax willl result in less revenue. Do you plan on closing the deficite with % points or dollars? Why can’t you grasp this? Every single thing they do and you defend is undermining the economy in very real terms.

Actually that’s my argument, tax policy does not exist in a bubble. This thread postulates tax increase = end of days. I’m saying that this isn’t true. Taxes have gone up and been much, much, much, much, much higher with stronger related economies. Taxes are low now and well, the country is on the verge of collapse. Still you people insist on being so simple minded about it.[/quote]

And the measure of success will be what? How will we know if things were better or worse, than what could’ve been, minus Obama’s big government bonanza? When will be we able to point out that Obama has failed? And, will you question the government as economic engineer?

100meters · February 24, 2009, 5:58am

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.

Do you understad the difference between causation and correlation? Was there nothing else happening in the late 90s early 2000s that could have possible contributed to economic consequence?

Back to the question at hand. How much more money to do think raising tax rates will raise? And at what cost? You seem perfectly happy to mortgage our entire economic future to solve immediate issues. What you will soon find out is that we won’t even receive short term benefit from any of this.

You seem incapable of looking past immediate assumed results, so I guess you will just have to hang out and wait to see what’s going to happen.

Using your own logic, given taxes will increase, might there be any other occurrences that may contribute to further economic growth? Or at this single point in history just this one thing will have a single impact?

I’ll ask again! Since it’s simple fucking economics and you are MR. Economics, explain to ALL OF US how raising the CG tax from 15 to 20 percent is going to HELP?

And most people old enough to understand - at least those old enough to know AND have made more than 50K in a year at some point in their lives - know that democrats are historically dead wrong on the economy (Obama’s first month should start going into textbooks now). From your posts I’ll assume your income is approx. 20K and your on food stamps. Maybe you should move back home?[/quote]

Raising taxes increases revenue! How hard is that to understand? And on your second point you’re historically wrong. Laugh out wrong. Like, how could you be that wrong. No one votes for republicans because they’re good at running the economy (who’s you’re example?) MY GOD! just look avg. median incomes, real gdp. stock market returns, unemployment all correlate with democratic presidents you idiot.

Your issues are abortion and gays and guns or something, not economy. Damn dude.

dhickey · February 24, 2009, 12:59am

[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.

how many times does it have be explained to you that raising taxes is not a zero sum game. For every dollar you raise, you do some multiple of harm. It’s quite probabe that raising tax rates on those who already pay most of the income tax willl result in less revenue. Do you plan on closing the deficite with % points or dollars? Why can’t you grasp this? Every single thing they do and you defend is undermining the economy in very real terms.

Actually that’s my argument, tax policy does not exist in a bubble. This thread postulates tax increase = end of days. I’m saying that this isn’t true. Taxes have gone up and been much, much, much, much, much higher with stronger related economies. Taxes are low now and well, the country is on the verge of collapse. Still you people insist on being so simple minded about it.[/quote]

you’re just plain wrong. the increases in taxe rates being discussed will not take down an otherwise healthy economy by itself. That’s not what anyone is argueing and that does not mean that we should do it. You do understand addition and multiplication? How about synergistic results? You are the one that simple minded.

Your posts contain no actual logic or reason. Your arguements are as economically shallow as they could possibly be. I don’t know what else to tell you. I don’t think you have the capacity to understand the concepts being discussed on this board. I feel bad for you.

100meters · February 24, 2009, 1:02am

[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.

Do you understad the difference between causation and correlation? Was there nothing else happening in the late 90s early 2000s that could have possible contributed to economic consequence?

Back to the question at hand. How much more money to do think raising tax rates will raise? And at what cost? You seem perfectly happy to mortgage our entire economic future to solve immediate issues. What you will soon find out is that we won’t even receive short term benefit from any of this.

You seem incapable of looking past immediate assumed results, so I guess you will just have to hang out and wait to see what’s going to happen.

Using your own logic, given taxes will increase, might there be any other occurrences that may contribute to further economic growth? Or at this single point in history just this one thing will have a single impact?

There will be economic growth no matter what our wonderful gov’t does. We will just be starting much much lower. I prefer to grow from here, not some fraction of where we are at today. You need to quit thinking in absolutes. Everything is relative. Everything has consequenses.

You are incapable of looking past the short term. Maybe we should tax 100% of all profit and income above a livable wage for a year. By your logic, would this allow us to pay off our debt with no ill consequences?[/quote]

I’m thinking of relatives. Relatively the 2000 rate isn’t that high and allows for growth. 100% doesn’t. C’mon let’s be serious here. The optimal rate is the rate that allows for the right amount of growth. This rate will go up and down over time, the whole thing is relative to what in the hell is going on.

Headhunter · February 24, 2009, 1:04am

?Ultimately, what you get out of investing in stocks is the cash flow from dividends,? said Laurence Booth, finance professor at University of Toronto?s Rotman School of Management and a colleague of Myron J. Gordon, who developed the constant growth version of the so-called dividend discount model in 1959.

The measure, which values a stock as the sum of all its future dividends, shows equities are still overpriced. With S&P 500 companies projected to pay a combined $25.27 in dividends this year, the index would need to fall to 526.46 before investors are compensated for owning shares."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=a0lVup_0DDwI&refer=home

The S&P 500 is currently at about 743. It must therefore drop at least 220 pts (about 30%) just to make buying those stocks worthwhile, compared to US Long Bonds. Increasing tax rates probably means the index needs to go to at least 450.

The depression has just begun.

ProwlCat · February 24, 2009, 1:07am

[quote]100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.

Do you understad the difference between causation and correlation? Was there nothing else happening in the late 90s early 2000s that could have possible contributed to economic consequence?

Back to the question at hand. How much more money to do think raising tax rates will raise? And at what cost? You seem perfectly happy to mortgage our entire economic future to solve immediate issues. What you will soon find out is that we won’t even receive short term benefit from any of this.

You seem incapable of looking past immediate assumed results, so I guess you will just have to hang out and wait to see what’s going to happen.

Using your own logic, given taxes will increase, might there be any other occurrences that may contribute to further economic growth? Or at this single point in history just this one thing will have a single impact?

I’ll ask again! Since it’s simple fucking economics and you are MR. Economics, explain to ALL OF US how raising the CG tax from 15 to 20 percent is going to HELP?

And most people old enough to understand - at least those old enough to know AND have made more than 50K in a year at some point in their lives - know that democrats are historically dead wrong on the economy (Obama’s first month should start going into textbooks now). From your posts I’ll assume your income is approx. 20K and your on food stamps. Maybe you should move back home?

Raising taxes increases revenue! How hard is that to understand? And on your second point you’re historically wrong. Laugh out wrong. Like, how could you be that wrong. No one votes for republicans because they’re good at running the economy (who’s you’re example?) MY GOD! just look avg. median incomes, real gdp. stock market returns, unemployment all correlate with democratic presidents you idiot.

Your issues are abortion and gays and guns or something, not economy. Damn dude.[/quote]

Seriously? Are you paying attention? In this case raising taxes actually REDUCES revenue. This by Obama’s own admission. It’s not in dispute here! Raising the CG tax in good economies and bad results in LESS revenue for the fed. Period. Now, try again.

Ah! You ARE poor! That’s why you think liberal democrats and big government give-aways are good and free-market capitalism is bad! It’s clear now! Pssst! See. I actually OWN my home. Not the bank. So, I rather like lower taxes and more money to invest. So tell us, is it true that you can’t buy Honey Nut Cheerios on foodstamps but can buy regular Cheerios? That’s wild, huh?

You’re pathetic.

PB_Crawl · February 24, 2009, 1:12am

[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.

Do you understad the difference between causation and correlation? Was there nothing else happening in the late 90s early 2000s that could have possible contributed to economic consequence?

Back to the question at hand. How much more money to do think raising tax rates will raise? And at what cost? You seem perfectly happy to mortgage our entire economic future to solve immediate issues. What you will soon find out is that we won’t even receive short term benefit from any of this.

You seem incapable of looking past immediate assumed results, so I guess you will just have to hang out and wait to see what’s going to happen.

Using your own logic, given taxes will increase, might there be any other occurrences that may contribute to further economic growth? Or at this single point in history just this one thing will have a single impact?

There will be economic growth no matter what our wonderful gov’t does. We will just be starting much much lower. I prefer to grow from here, not some fraction of where we are at today. You need to quit thinking in absolutes. Everything is relative. Everything has consequenses.

You are incapable of looking past the short term. Maybe we should tax 100% of all profit and income above a livable wage for a year. By your logic, would this allow us to pay off our debt with no ill consequences?

I’m thinking of relatives. Relatively the 2000 rate isn’t that high and allows for growth. 100% doesn’t. C’mon let’s be serious here. The optimal rate is the rate that allows for the right amount of growth. This rate will go up and down over time, the whole thing is relative to what in the hell is going on.
[/quote]

i think what they’re getting at is that extrapolating the 2000 rates into our current time a poor choice becuase the economic picture is completely different today, and those rates are not optimal.

PB_Crawl · February 24, 2009, 6:16am

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

Ah! You ARE poor! That’s why you think liberal democrats and big government give-aways are good and free-market capitalism is bad! It’s clear now! Pssst! See. I actually OWN my home. Not the bank. So, I rather like lower taxes and more money to invest. So tell us, is it true that you can’t buy Honey Nut Cheerios on foodstamps but can buy regular Cheerios? That’s wild, huh?

You’re pathetic.
[/quote]

really dude?

ProwlCat · February 24, 2009, 1:29am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Ah! You ARE poor! That’s why you think liberal democrats and big government give-aways are good and free-market capitalism is bad! It’s clear now! Pssst! See. I actually OWN my home. Not the bank. So, I rather like lower taxes and more money to invest. So tell us, is it true that you can’t buy Honey Nut Cheerios on foodstamps but can buy regular Cheerios? That’s wild, huh?

You’re pathetic.

really dude?[/quote]

Yeah. I’m being a dick. It’s…It’s too much. Sorry to have subjected you to it. But I’m sick of the God, Guns, Gays thing. I think that liberals comfort themselves with this fallacy. It’s facile and incorrect.

I am not religous, although I’ve no problem with those who are. I’m a Republican.

I don’t own a gun, but I’ve no problem with those who do. I’m a Republican.

I have no issues with gays. Whatever floats your boat. Everyone deserves to be happy. I’m a Republican and most that I know feel exactly the same way.

I believe in pro-business, pro-growth economic policies. I believe in lower taxes and less government (and don’t throw Bush at me…he did not represent true conservatives any more than he represented liberals). I believe in strong defense and I belive in the power of the American people. I believe in that America is a force for good, although it’s not perfect. All this makes me a Republican and I vote as such. I don’t support abortion but I don’t vote it as an issue.

You are a whining have-not and you want a hand-out. That makes you a democrat. Fair enough. As Ron Burgandy said, “Agree to disagree.”

dhickey · February 24, 2009, 1:31am

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
?Ultimately, what you get out of investing in stocks is the cash flow from dividends,? said Laurence Booth, finance professor at University of Toronto?s Rotman School of Management and a colleague of Myron J. Gordon, who developed the constant growth version of the so-called dividend discount model in 1959.

The measure, which values a stock as the sum of all its future dividends, shows equities are still overpriced. With S&P 500 companies projected to pay a combined $25.27 in dividends this year, the index would need to fall to 526.46 before investors are compensated for owning shares."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=a0lVup_0DDwI&refer=home

The S&P 500 is currently at about 743. It must therefore drop at least 220 pts (about 30%) just to make buying those stocks worthwhile, compared to US Long Bonds. Increasing tax rates probably means the index needs to go to at least 450.

The depression has just begun.

[/quote]
Link doesn’t work for me. can’t see the article detail, but I think I understand the premis.

I guess I don’t get why stocks are a poor investment compared to long bonds. Are we assuming a pure ROI model? I don’t think that is the only value stocks have. Like any other hard asset, they should provide some protection against inflation. How would long bonds look with double digit inflation? 30 years is a lot of time for stocks to provide value. Especially in a few months when stocks are REALLY cheap.

Finance is not my expertise, so maybe someone can dumb this down for me.

PB_Crawl · February 24, 2009, 2:09am

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Ah! You ARE poor! That’s why you think liberal democrats and big government give-aways are good and free-market capitalism is bad! It’s clear now! Pssst! See. I actually OWN my home. Not the bank. So, I rather like lower taxes and more money to invest. So tell us, is it true that you can’t buy Honey Nut Cheerios on foodstamps but can buy regular Cheerios? That’s wild, huh?

You’re pathetic.

really dude?

Yeah. I’m being a dick. It’s…It’s too much. Sorry to have subjected you to it. But I’m sick of the God, Guns, Gays thing. I think that liberals comfort themselves with this fallacy. It’s facile and incorrect.

I am not religous, although I’ve no problem with those who are. I’m a Republican.

I don’t own a gun, but I’ve no problem with those who do. I’m a Republican.

I have no issues with gays. Whatever floats your boat. Everyone deserves to be happy. I’m a Republican and most that I know feel exactly the same way.

I believe in pro-business, pro-growth economic policies. I believe in lower taxes and less government (and don’t throw Bush at me…he did not represent true conservatives any more than he represented liberals). I believe in strong defense and I belive in the power of the American people. I believe in that America is a force for good, although it’s not perfect. All this makes me a Republican and I vote as such. I don’t support abortion but I don’t vote it as an issue.

You are a whining have-not and you want a hand-out. That makes you a democrat. Fair enough. As Ron Burgandy said, “Agree to disagree.”[/quote]

i agree with your post on a lot of points, however i really dont care. Put your pants back on before you post things, its ridiculous. And your constant asinine generalizations are equally ridiculous.

Have you not noticed theres a huge gang of rich democrats (and republicans) and their wealthy supporters about to get a lot richer with this giant chode of a bill?

and all you can do is complain about poor people and throw food stamp insults?

after all is said and done even the most vocally outspoken and conservative republicans and their conservative supporters will be quietly eating the pork from this bill.

ProwlCat · February 24, 2009, 2:17am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
ProwlCat wrote: