STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 4, 7:52*am, Scott wrote:


The deficits didn't stimulate the economy.

Thanks, Scott! I said you were an idiot, and you just proved it
beyond any doubt. Reagan increased the national debt by $1.7 Trillion.
Anyone who's taken Econ 1A. knows that is highly stimulative.
-Paul

On Mar 4, 9:51*am, " wrote:

Little Osama's objectives included getting the US/Western military
bases out of Saudi Arabia and ruining the economy of the US. Oops.
Looks like it worked.

Very perceptive. The Bush propaganda machine was very good at hushing
up the fact that Bush gave Osama a major victory by pulling our troops
out of Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. Talk about "cut and
run"! One of Osama's major goals was getting the American infidels
out of the Islamic holy land.

US pulls out of Saudi Arabia 29 April, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm

You are quite right that bin Laden also stated that another goal was
to wreck the US economy:
Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.
Al-Jazeera releases full transcript of al Qaeda leader's tape

Monday, November 1, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

Osama is a much smarter and better leader than Bush. He played Bush
(and the stupid suckers who supported Bush) like a violin.
-Paul

On Mar 4, 1:52*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

Osama is a much smarter and better leader than Bush. *He played Bush
(and the stupid suckers who supported Bush) *like a violin.
-Paul

That'd be hard to argue against sticking strictly to intelligence,
competency, and leadership. I think you're giving Osama too much
credit though, he just provided the opportunity for Crusader Bush to
trash our own Country and it's interests all for our own good, of
course. Bush had to embrace it and run with it all beyond Osama's
wildest dreams.
Gotta say that while I still have fundamental disagreements with
Obama on policy and people he's actually trying to move a lot of
things in the right direction, such as the contracting crap, and has
forced some moderation onto Congress that I didn't expect. Seems like
he's picking his fights carefully and concentrating on the economy,
which you can't fault, while limiting some of the wingnut **** from
congress. No politician is going to be perfect to everyone, but at
least there're things to reasonably disagree about that are debateable
but reasonable, some good, and nothing I have seen so far that's one
of the complete disasters we've had on an almost daily basis for the
last 8 years.
The choice of ****ing away billions and trillions is a whole lot
easier to swallow, even when they are complete pork, when they happen
here instead of somewhere else where we get zero benefit from it. The
reality is that money was, and is going to continue to be ****ed away,
bread and circuses, so it should at least be done here, and
preferrably for long term infrastructure stuff.
The Republican "Party" if you can even call that completely
disfunctional, out of touch, totally lost disaster a "party" in any
cohesive way is a complete non-factor and looks like it's going to
make Bush's leadership look fantastic in comparison. Snafued would be
a very kind way to put it when looking at them these days.
TK did have a point in that the Republican Party was gutted from the
inside out, but it wasn't moderate Republicans, and crossover Dem's it
started with Bush Sr. and his mutant "Neo-Con" buddies who took over
under Bush the lesser. It's nice to see someone, or group actually
receive the return on the investment they made, and bear the
consequences for their actions, it's just too bad they broke half the
laws in the US and took us all with them.
Bill C

On Mar 4, 6:05*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

You could write software that does this, and get the
same result.

Dumbass,

All these retard bots are hardwired. They don't need no steenking
software. You're fired.

SLAVE

On Mar 4, 7:42*am, Scott wrote:
On Mar 3, 11:48*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:



On Mar 3, 8:11*pm, Scott wrote:

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?

Dumbass -

You're seriously overestimating the power of the government's role in
how an economy performs.

Generally there was prosperity under Reagan. Clinton also.

Neither one of those guys really deserves that much credit.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's say for the sake of the discussion that you're right in your
opening sentence. *Why, then, would you (and others) blame Bush for
the ills of today (which had their seed planted over 25 years ago) but
then assume that even though we've seen an additional 20% loss in the
value of the Dow since the inauguration of Obama, that Obama is not to
blame for some of that? *

Clinton inherited a record budget deficit and 8 years later left a
record surplus.
Bush inherited a record budget surplus and 8 years later left a record
deficit.
Obama inherited a a record deficit and a wrecked economy, and he's
only been on the job for a few weeks. Any reasonable person can see
that the latest downturn in the market is just a continuation of what
was happening after 8 years of irresponsible policies under Bush.

You yourself say that only 20% of the downturn in the Dow occurred
since Obama took office. I just checked your math. The Dow peaked at
14164 and at the moment is at 6900, a loss of 7264. When Obama took
office it was 7949, so it's lost about 1049. 1049 / 7264 works out to
14.4%. So you exaggerated when you claimed it was 20%, it is in fact
less than 15%.

When Clinton took office in January of 1993 the Dow Jones Industrial
Average was 3,253. When he left office in January of 2001 it was at
10,587.
When Bush took office, it was 10,587 and when he left office it was
7,949. Check my statistics. There is no special imaginary Kuntitch
Dow, it's all historical data. Do the math, moron.

People like you deserved Bush. The rest of us are sick and tired of
being dragged down by you morons.
-Paul

On Mar 4, 11:50*am, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:05*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

You could write software that does this, and get the
same result.

Dumbass,

All these retard bots are hardwired. *They don't need no steenking
software. *You're fired.

SLAVE

.... said the hardwired retard bot. Heh heh!
-Paul

In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:

dave a wrote:
Hold on, I'm losing the play by play here. You are saying that Bush was
a Liberal? And the problem with the Republican Party is caused by
Democrats that joined and pushed out the "real Conservatives"?

You never fail to amaze...

Fred Fredburger wrote:
This is the stuff I tune in to the Kunich channel for. It's really
creative, in a disturbed sort of way.

What's the frequency ?

666 smegma hurts.

--
Michael Press

On Mar 4, 9:59*am, "K. Gringioni" wrote:

Giving credit to whomever's in charge of the Executive branch of the
Federal Government would make sense if this society had a socialist
economy.

The President has limited power to affect the economy on the upside,
but can sure screw things up. Take the analogy of building a house.
Takes money up front, planning, hard work and a lot of time to build a
house. But an idiot with a match can burn it down in an hour.

Bush was like that idiot.
-Paul

On Mar 4, 12:18*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:42*am, Scott wrote:





On Mar 3, 11:48*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:11*pm, Scott wrote:

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?

Dumbass -

You're seriously overestimating the power of the government's role in
how an economy performs.

Generally there was prosperity under Reagan. Clinton also.

Neither one of those guys really deserves that much credit.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's say for the sake of the discussion that you're right in your
opening sentence. *Why, then, would you (and others) blame Bush for
the ills of today (which had their seed planted over 25 years ago) but
then assume that even though we've seen an additional 20% loss in the
value of the Dow since the inauguration of Obama, that Obama is not to
blame for some of that? *

Clinton inherited a record budget deficit and 8 years later left a
record surplus.
Bush inherited a record budget surplus and 8 years later left a record
deficit.
Obama inherited a a record deficit and a wrecked economy, and he's
only been on the job for a few weeks. Any reasonable person can see
that the latest downturn in the market is just a continuation of what
was happening after 8 years of irresponsible policies under Bush.

You yourself say that only 20% of the downturn in the Dow occurred
since Obama took office. I just checked your math. The Dow peaked at
14164 and at the moment is at 6900, a loss of 7264. When Obama took
office it was 7949, so it's lost about 1049. *1049 / 7264 works out to
14.4%. *So you exaggerated when you claimed it was 20%, it is in fact
less than 15%.

When Clinton took office in January of 1993 the Dow Jones Industrial
Average was 3,253. When he left office in January of 2001 it was at
10,587.
When Bush took office, it was 10,587 and when he left office it was
7,949. *Check my statistics. There is no special imaginary Kuntitch
Dow, it's all historical data. Do the math, moron.




Dumbass -


You're making the same mistake that Kunich and Scott are.

The markets don't give a **** about what the government is doing. The
stock of Apple or General Motors reacts to how those companies
themselves are performing. Not Congress, the Supreme Court or the
President.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:55:40 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote:

Not about admitting anything. Paul's question is ridiculous on it's
face, in that he believes he can judge any/everything about me based
on my voting record.

Some answers to the question "who'd you vote for" don't give really
clear answers. If someone voted for Reagan it could mean a lot of
things. Ditto Clinton. Even voting for GWBush *once.*

But if someone voted for GWB twice it's clear they're an idiot on
politics (unless they are one of the few mega-rich who benefitted from
that guy). It's a simple test. That's why it's interesting. That's
why you avoid it.