I noticed Effr0, in an effort to be stupid, makes a lot more sense then when he’s trying to be smart.
[quote]doogie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Mismanaging the Iraq war = Cutting taxes in wartime.
Never happened before, becuase it’s irrational.
A massive endeavor, a huge military undertaking that’s costing billions…but let’s give the rich back some dough anyway..
Do you know what has happened to government revenue since the tax cuts?[/quote]
Oh God, not that trickle down crap again.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Oh God, not that trickle down crap again.[/quote]
You might try these…
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Mismanaging the Iraq war = Cutting taxes in wartime.
Never happened before, becuase it’s irrational.
A massive endeavor, a huge military undertaking that’s costing billions…but let’s give the rich back some dough anyway..
Do you know what has happened to government revenue since the tax cuts?
Oh God, not that trickle down crap again.[/quote]
Well Doogie probably knows, wreckless, that Bush’s OMB has stated repeatedly that 2005’s increase in revenue is temporary and in no way should imply that future revenues or current ones can pay for even a small percentage of what the tax cuts actually cost. But other than than that, Yea!
Funny that Doogie tried though…
With Hunter Thompson dead, it cuts the rational choices to very slim…
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Let me see. I can choose lower taxes and a foreign policy that has resulted in zero attacks on U.S. soil since 2002. OR! I can choose higher taxes and the policies of appeasement that do not work, have never worked, and will leave us more vulerable and open to attack. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. THAT’S a tough one.
Yeah, me too! I choose a looming fiscal catastrophe, a grossly mismanaged war in Iraq, and shaming our country by torturing our enemies!
That financial catastrophe has been looming since, what? 2002? 2003? Even though all economic indicators have been strong, especially in 2005-2006, we still trot out the old ‘economy’ issue. Even when it’s a non-issue, or actually a plus for the party in power. Even the Pelosi’s and H. Clinton’s of the world don’t have much to say about the economy these days. That’s saying SOMETHING in an election year.
[/quote]
I’m not talking about the economy, certainly not in the short-term way you’re referring to. Although, as others have noted on here, it seems that many economists are predicting a recession within the next year.
I’m talking about the massive deficit spending and our growing liabilities. Look at the prescription drug benefit, huge tax cuts that I doubt will pay for themselves, disgustingly pork-laden energy and highway bills, and massive defense spending (I actually think we should probably be spending a tad more, but look at where the money’s going sometime). With the looming demographic issues, we are headed for big tax hikes to pay for Bush’s “big government conservatism” (an oxymoron if ever there was one).
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Let me see. I can choose lower taxes and a foreign policy that has resulted in zero attacks on U.S. soil since 2002. OR! I can choose higher taxes and the policies of appeasement that do not work, have never worked, and will leave us more vulerable and open to attack. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. THAT’S a tough one.
Yeah, me too! I choose a looming fiscal catastrophe, a grossly mismanaged war in Iraq, and shaming our country by torturing our enemies!
That financial catastrophe has been looming since, what? 2002? 2003? Even though all economic indicators have been strong, especially in 2005-2006, we still trot out the old ‘economy’ issue. Even when it’s a non-issue, or actually a plus for the party in power. Even the Pelosi’s and H. Clinton’s of the world don’t have much to say about the economy these days. That’s saying SOMETHING in an election year.
I’m not talking about the economy, certainly not in the short-term way you’re referring to. Although, as others have noted on here, it seems that many economists are predicting a recession within the next year.
I’m talking about the massive deficit spending and our growing liabilities. Look at the prescription drug benefit, huge tax cuts that I doubt will pay for themselves, disgustingly pork-laden energy and highway bills, and massive defense spending (I actually think we should probably be spending a tad more, but look at where the money’s going sometime). With the looming demographic issues, we are headed for big tax hikes to pay for Bush’s “big government conservatism” (an oxymoron if ever there was one).[/quote]
It will all get taken care of by “supply side economics”…
In response to the original poster, “none of the above”.
[quote]eic wrote:
GDollars is from New Hampshire and you are from Massachusetts. Do they sprinkle liberal thinking into the water up there or what? You folks know that you can think for yourselves, right? I mean, surely it isn’t against the law in New England to say something that isn’t dogmatically liberal, right?
[/quote]
In response to eic, New Hampshire tends to be more Libertarian, than liberal. In fact, three parties will share the top spots on the ballots this fall. Therefore there is a bit better chance that a non-incumbent (non-dem/rep) candidate will win.
From the Manchester Union Leader:
Three parties to share ballot top
By GARRY RAYNO
Union Leader Staff
Saturday, Sep. 9, 2006
Concord ? Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians will all have the top spot on the general election ballots one-third of the time.
Party officials met yesterday in Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s office to determine who will be first in each of the state’s 24 Senate districts.
Gardner proposed the ballot arrangement for the general election ballot to address the state Supreme Court’s ruling that current law is unconstitutional.
Under Gardner’s proposal, Democrats and Republicans will be listed in the first column one-third of the time based on state Senate districts and Independent and Libertarian candidates will be listed first one-third of the time.
Drawing lots yesterday, Republicans will be first in Senate districts 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 23, Democrats will be first in districts 2, 4, 7, 10, 11 12, 18 and 21 and Libertarians and independents will be first in districts 1, 6, 9, 13, 16, 20, 22 and 24.
Democrats came out on top in many of the swing districts where there are likely to be tight races in November. Those districts include 2, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 18, while Republicans will lead in swing District 23.
Democrats will be listed second on the ballot in districts 1, 9, 20 and 24 while Republicans will be second in districts 6, 13, 16 and 22.
Also, the names of House candidates beginning with the letter “k” will be listed first unless no candidate’s name begins with that letter in which case it reverts to those beginning with “a.” Last month the state Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a state law giving Republicans the top spot on ballots. Candidates of the party that won the previous election are listed first for the next election under the law.
The court also struck down the practice of alphabetizing the names of candidates within a party who are running for the same office.
The ballot changes do not affect the ballot for Tuesday’s primary elections.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Well Doogie probably knows, wreckless, that Bush’s OMB has stated repeatedly that 2005’s increase in revenue is temporary and in no way should imply that future revenues or current ones can pay for even a small percentage of what the tax cuts actually cost. But other than than that, Yea!
[/quote]
Explain to Irish that revenue INCREASED after the tax cuts. If he had things his way, taxes would have remained high and we would have even less revenue during this time of war.
Of course the OMB says it is temporary. Temporary unless the tax cuts are made permanent.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
You caim to be tough but voting out of fear tells otherwise.[/quote]
FEAR FEAR FEAR!
[quote]eic wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Yeah, me too! I choose a looming fiscal catastrophe, a grossly mismanaged war in Iraq, and shaming our country by torturing our enemies!
GDollars37:
You claim that the war in Iraq was mismanaged. That implies that you have a standard in mind that the current war in Iraq fell below. Care to specify or explain what a well-managed war in Iraq would have looked like? Or, are you simply parroting the “mis-managed” bit? I suspect the latter, but I’m welcome to being corrected. [/quote]
Do you know anything about how the war in Iraq was and has been run? About what a disaster the CPA was, how unprepared and unwilling the military was to fight a counter-insurgency campaign, how hands-off Bush has been in the midst of a war that he describes as an existential challenge? Read the 2006 QDR sometime, the Quadrennial Defense Review the Pentagon does, and see how rarely the rhetoric (long war on terror) matches the budget reality (F-22, submarines, etc.). Do yourself a favor and read both The Assassins’ Gate and Fiasco, fair-minded critiques by guys who originally supported the war, and then tell me that the war in Iraq wasn’t mismanaged, and on an epic scale.
[quote]doogie wrote:
1Of course the OMB says it is temporary. Temporary unless the tax cuts are made permanent.[/quote]
So, in your opinion Ben Bernanke – who believes the tax cuts should not be made permanent, because they are counteracting the effect he is trying to achieve with the increase in interest rate, and, hence, should be reversed until we stabilize inflation AND the budget deficit – is a complete idiot too?
Interesting.
As someone once said, “everybody’s an economist”. We just get our PhDs so we have something to decorate the walls with.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Although, as others have noted on here, it seems that many economists are predicting a recession within the next year. [/quote]
Indeed. The more cynical ones like myself, however, point out that at this point there’s such a detachment from reality that we might simply continue to kid ourselves to think everything is AOK.
Let me offer the audience a layman’s summary of what is going on:
This all started with the proverbial “helicopter drop” of money that Bush provided in the form of a huge budget deficit and tax cuts for the rich. After this caused inflation (as expected by anyone with a brain), the Fed had to counteract that childish mistake with an increase in interest rates – effectively diverting the money to the banks, since it does NOT belong in the economy.
The problem is that not only Bush wants to have more helicopter drops, but the inflation and increase in interest rates forced managers to increase salaries to compensate – or workers would either be very distracted with their bankruptcy filing or looking for better paid jobs. So now the cost per unit produced increased even more (high energy prices were not helping to start with), which means… more inflation to come, and hence higher interest rates. Oh, and a higher trade deficit with China, since at this point it’s impossible for any US company to compete in price in just about anything.
But because Bush seems to think he has a no-limit credit card, odds are he’ll react to this by adding EVEN MORE helicopter drops, continuing the spiral. And because it’s in everybody’s best interest that the US economy doesn’t go down the drain, odds are other countries will continue to lend us money.
So, no one REALLY knows when this is going to end – what is scary is that when it does end – either because somebody figures out that the credit card DOES have a limit, or because nobody has any money left to lend us – the fall will make the Great Depression look like a vacation in Cabo. Especially because it will be a global event that no-one will be coming out from unscathed.
I read Mars is good this time of the year…
Our only hope is that somebody starts cooperating with Bernanke – instead of working against him – and provides a soft landing. Problem is, at this point a soft landing requires more taxes to remove that extra dough from the economy. And nobody wins elections promising more taxes.
Too bad I’m atheist, or I’d praying for God’s help right now.