STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 3, 12:04*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:05*pm, Scott wrote:





On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote:

On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote:

*When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this
without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages,
"trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you
folks.

Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+
members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would
happen in the meantime?
-Paul

How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages?
Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's
entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against).

Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost
another 15% in the market. *Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but
doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. *Sometimes nothing is
better.

How many times did you vote for Bush?
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your point?

You're reciting the Republican party line. *All I need to know about
your judgment is how many times you voted for Bush. *It's like knowing
how many Nigerian emails you've eagerly responded to.
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not a Republican, dumbass, and I don't have a clue as to what the
"party line" is. Try this: refute the specifics of my comments and
try to refrain from resorting to insults.

On Mar 3, 5:18*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 06:10:45 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
Here's something serious for you to consider. *

Here's something for you to consider. *What did you say about
Clinton's high spending? *And were your right?

I don't think you have any credibility on politics or macroeconomics.
You and people who believe what you do should just shut up. *I'm not
saying that as censorship. *I'm speaking as I'd speak to an ignorant
child who thinks pulling out a tooth will bring the tooth fairy over
to help. *

I'm not so sure I've ever said anything about Clinton's spending. As
for you deciding what are legitimate opinions and what are not, you
can kiss my big fat ass. I'm not interested in you telling me what I
should believe or how or when I should be allowed to express my
views. Time will tell who's got the ignorant view on what's happening
in politics currently. In the mean time, we'll just have to agree to
disagree.

On Mar 3, 5:20*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ma-stimulus-ha...
over-long-haul/

The Washington Times has been so wrong for so long -- point me to
something direct from the CBO and I'll look at it.

[and, in different order he wrote]

*Here is one of many articles addressing the subject.

Point to some non-ditto article or the CBO. That should be easy since
there are so many articles.

You can look them up yourselves. There are oodles of them.

On Mar 3, 5:36*pm, Scott wrote:
On Mar 3, 12:04*pm, "Paul G." wrote:



On Mar 2, 9:05*pm, Scott wrote:

On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote:

On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote:

*When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this
without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages,
"trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you
folks.

Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+
members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would
happen in the meantime?
-Paul

How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages?
Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's
entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against).

Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost
another 15% in the market. *Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but
doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. *Sometimes nothing is
better.

How many times did you vote for Bush?
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your point?

You're reciting the Republican party line. *All I need to know about
your judgment is how many times you voted for Bush. *It's like knowing
how many Nigerian emails you've eagerly responded to.
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not a Republican, dumbass, and I don't have a clue as to what the
"party line" is. *Try this: *refute the specifics of my comments and
try to refrain from resorting to insults.

I didn't ask if you were a Republican. I asked how many times you
voted for Bush. So how many times DID you vote for Bush?
-Paul

On Mar 3, 5:43*pm, Scott wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:18*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 06:10:45 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
Here's something serious for you to consider. *

Here's something for you to consider. *What did you say about
Clinton's high spending? *And were your right?

I don't think you have any credibility on politics or macroeconomics.
You and people who believe what you do should just shut up. *I'm not
saying that as censorship. *I'm speaking as I'd speak to an ignorant
child who thinks pulling out a tooth will bring the tooth fairy over
to help. *

I'm not so sure I've ever said anything about Clinton's spending. *As
for you deciding what are legitimate opinions and what are not, you
can kiss my big fat ass. *I'm not interested in you telling me what I
should believe or how or when I should be allowed to express my
views. *Time will tell who's got the ignorant view on what's happening
in politics currently. *In the mean time, we'll just have to agree to
disagree.

Time has already told who had the ignorant view of the Bush admin.
-Paul

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:43:08 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote:

As
for you deciding what are legitimate opinions and what are not, you
can kiss my big fat ass

Your opinions are wrong. That's all.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:45:13 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote:

On Mar 3, 5:20*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ma-stimulus-ha...
over-long-haul/

The Washington Times has been so wrong for so long -- point me to
something direct from the CBO and I'll look at it.

[and, in different order he wrote]

*Here is one of many articles addressing the subject.

Point to some non-ditto article or the CBO. That should be easy since
there are so many articles.

You can look them up yourselves. There are oodles of them.

You're lying and/or reading lies.The fact that the first thing you
pulled up is from that right-wing moonie rag shows that.

I'm not going on a wild goosechase.

On Mar 3, 7:08*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:45:13 -0800 (PST), Scott





wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:20*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ma-stimulus-ha....
over-long-haul/

The Washington Times has been so wrong for so long -- point me to
something direct from the CBO and I'll look at it.

[and, in different order he wrote]

*Here is one of many articles addressing the subject.

Point to some non-ditto article or the CBO. That should be easy since
there are so many articles.

You can look them up yourselves. *There are oodles of them.

You're lying and/or reading lies.The fact that the first thing you
pulled up is from that right-wing moonie rag shows that.

*I'm not going on a wild goosechase.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I merely posted the link to the first of many articles that came up on
a simple google search, and it was not in any way intended to endorse
the particular article or the author. The point is there are plenty
of articles regarding the CBO's views on the quality of the spending
bill as a stimulus for the economic woes we're suffering.

For the better part of eight years liberals have slammed President
Bush, and now that the shoe's on the other foot President Obama's
supporters seem to have a bit of a problem accepting the fact that
criticism is part of the deal. No need for the name calling or
insults (are you getting this, Paul?).

As for my views on the direction that the administration is taking, I
just happen to believe (and lot's of economists agree) that you can
not tax/spend our way out of a recession and tax/spend doesn't
actually create lasting jobs. There are ways to generate true
economic growth that deal with encouraging commerce, not govt
spending. President Kennedy (who I believe would be a Republican if
he were alive today, given that his views at the time were more in
line with current Republican views than the current Democrat views)
was one of the strongest proponents of lower taxes which resulted in
increased economic activities which led to greater tax revenues (which
should be the goal, right??). To follow a static model that assumes
that investment behaviours won't change as tax rates change, thus
thinking that higher rates = higher revenues is just stupid. As long
as the tax rules allow for loopholes to protect certain gains, higher
rates will primarily lead to higher levels of hiding income, not
higher tax revenues. People with money will move their wealth to
minimize the impact of higher rates. It is silly to assume they'll
just glibly go along and pay more taxes.

S.

In article ,
Scott wrote:

As for my views on the direction that the administration is taking, I
just happen to believe (and lot's of economists agree) that you can
not tax/spend our way out of a recession and tax/spend doesn't
actually create lasting jobs.

There are some people who sort of fall into the category of "economist" who've
said that. But the majority of economists (Krugman, Roubini, Baker, etc) believe the
opposite is true. That's why they've been supportive of the stimulous package.

President Kennedy (who I believe would be a Republican if
he were alive today, given that his views at the time were more in
line with current Republican views than the current Democrat views)

I think it's a mistake to assume that his views would remain consistent with his
time frame - the late '50s and early '60s. I'd say he would have been at the
forefront of what you are criticizing.

was one of the strongest proponents of lower taxes which resulted in
increased economic activities which led to greater tax revenues (which
should be the goal, right??). To follow a static model that assumes
that investment behaviours won't change as tax rates change, thus
thinking that higher rates = higher revenues is just stupid. As long
as the tax rules allow for loopholes to protect certain gains, higher
rates will primarily lead to higher levels of hiding income, not
higher tax revenues. People with money will move their wealth to
minimize the impact of higher rates. It is silly to assume they'll
just glibly go along and pay more taxes.

It's a given that people are going to what they can to minimze their tax burden.
The mistake is assuming that if you give rich people big tax cuts (a la Bush) they'll
help create more jobs. I think the last two decades (at least) have been pretty ample
proof that that is not true.

And one other thing that is really messed up: that so few people talking about
"tax hikes" actually understand marginal taxes (that wasn't directed at you, Scott -
it's just a general comment on what I've been seeing in the media lately).

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Mar 3, 7:50*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,

*Scott wrote:
As for my views on the direction that the administration is taking, I
just happen to believe (and lot's of economists agree) that you can
not tax/spend our way out of a recession and tax/spend doesn't
actually create lasting jobs.

* *There are some people who sort of fall into the category of "economist" who've
said that. But the majority of economists (Krugman, Roubini, Baker, etc) believe the
opposite is true. That's why they've been supportive of the stimulous package.

*President Kennedy (who I believe would be a Republican if
he were alive today, given that his views at the time were more in
line with current Republican views than the current Democrat views)

* *I think it's a mistake to assume that his views would remain consistent with his
time frame - the late '50s and early '60s. I'd say he would have been at the
forefront of what you are criticizing.

was one of the strongest proponents of lower taxes which resulted in
increased economic activities which led to greater tax revenues (which
should be the goal, right??). *To follow a static model that assumes
that investment behaviours won't change as tax rates change, thus
thinking that higher rates = higher revenues is just stupid. *As long
as the tax rules allow for loopholes to protect certain gains, higher
rates will primarily lead to higher levels of hiding income, not
higher tax revenues. *People with money will move their wealth to
minimize the impact of higher rates. *It is silly to assume they'll
just glibly go along and pay more taxes.

* *It's a given that people are going to what they can to minimze their tax burden.
The mistake is assuming that if you give rich people big tax cuts (a la Bush) they'll
help create more jobs. I think the last two decades (at least) have been pretty ample
proof that that is not true.

* *And one other thing that is really messed up: that so few people talking about
"tax hikes" actually understand marginal taxes (that wasn't directed at you, Scott -
it's just a general comment on what I've been seeing in the media lately)..

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard,

What happened when Reagan instituted across the board tax rate
reductions?