STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

Paul G. wrote:
So how many times did you vote for that piece of
**** George Bush?

He's a Republican that voted for Bush twice. And now
he doesn't want to admit to either.

Can we move on? Political discussions are pointless.
You could write software that does this, and get the
same result.

Bob Schwartz

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 ?


Pretty high, Kenneth.

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? Or, why should we assume that the New Deal
had anything to do with ending the depression?

The market is all about forecasting where you think the economy is
going, and based on the current administration's policies the
investors don't think it's going to get better any time soon. Short
of being a sycophant for the current president, there's really no
other way to explain it.

On Mar 4, 12:21*am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:48*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.

I don't agree with that. *Reagan ran huge deficits which stimulated
the economy but resulted in high interest rates and left gigantic
debts. Bush the first inherited that mess, which made him a one-term
president.

Clinton raised taxes which gradually got the deficit under control,
which lessened the threat of inflation which resulted in lower
interest rates. Lower interest rates stimulated the economy and
produced an era of unprecedented prosperity. *Bush the second's
irresponsible policies quickly destroyed all traces of that.
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The deficits didn't stimulate the economy. The economy blossomed
because the tax code encouraged investment and risk. When the tax
rates were reduced, tax revenues increased significantly because in no
small measure it was more cost effective for the wealthy to stop
chasing after tax shelters and rather invest in profitable, albeit
taxable, ventures and because there was a simultaneous significant
reduction in unemployment (aka: jobs were created) as well as a
creation of an investor mindset in the middle class. Everybody and
their damn dog increased their investments in the market. Then, as
now, practically everyone owns stocks, either directly or through
mutual funds.

If you have any question as to how we could have record revenues and
still run a deficit, look to the congress (they control the spending,
as we all know) and their out of control spending spree. The deficits
were a result of massive govt spending far exceeding the record
revenues of the time.

On Mar 4, 7:05*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Paul G. wrote:
So how many times did you vote for that piece of
**** George Bush?

He's a Republican that voted for Bush twice. And now
he doesn't want to admit to either.

Can we move on? Political discussions are pointless.
You could write software that does this, and get the
same result.

Bob Schwartz

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. The fact of the matter is that I didn't vote for
W.

"K. Gringioni" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 8:11 pm, Scott wrote:

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

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

I love it when you demostrate and almost total lack of the ability to look
around yourself.

Generally there was prosperity under Reagan. Clinton also.

Neither one of those guys really deserves that much credit.

Obviously you were too young or too stupid to see what happened under both
those Presidents.

On Mar 3, 9:08*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 -

JT's vision of democracy and free debate:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504466,00.html

Ya know if Stevie, TK, or anyone from center to right said the kind of
**** about silencing debate and the other stuff that comes out of JT
they'd be getting killed here as fascist totalitarian hate filled
scumbags. They've all been trashed for positions much less offensive
and bigotted than JT takes regularly.
Just sayin'
Bill C

Bill C

On Mar 2, 1:00*pm, Bill C wrote:
On Mar 2, 1:03*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

The Dow opened at under 7000 today. The high was over 14,000.

Nothing the matter with the economy. Nothing at all.

STOP THE FEAR MONGERING!

Yep, guess if the government doesn't hand over trillions in pork
tomorrow to all the folks who got us into this, with little to no
oversight then we'll instantly, overnight become Etheopia which is
pretty much the line coming out of the WH on all this.
*Sorry, don't buy it. My guess is more measured, controlled,
thoughtful, action doesn't mean that the lucky ones will at least have
dog carts to drive next week if we go that route.
*This is the same as the AlQaeda and the Islamic Fundamentalists are
going to wipe out America as we know it and take over here if we don't
just sign a blank check for the Patriot Act and all the rest of the
**** that got passed in that panic.
*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.
*We get what we deserve.
*Bill C

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. Oddly enough, if you check the FBI website for
Osama's 10 Most Wanted profile, the Trade Center attack isn't listed.

On Mar 4, 8:07*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"K. Gringioni" wrote in message

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



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

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

I love it when you demostrate and almost total lack of the ability to look
around yourself.

Generally there was prosperity under Reagan. Clinton also.

Neither one of those guys really deserves that much credit.

Obviously you were too young or too stupid to see what happened under both
those Presidents.




Dumbass -


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.

Our economy is capitalist. The government's job is to referee the
markets.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

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? *Or, why should we assume that the New Deal
had anything to do with ending the depression?




Dumbass -


You have your head up your ass.

I didn't blame Bush. I blame Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan.

Bush is way down on the list.

BTW, we don't live in a country that has a socialist economy. Ours is
capitalist. The government's job is to referee the markets. Gramm and
Greenspan ****ed up the refereeing. Gramm de-regulated the financial
system and allowed for the creation of the derivatives that have us in
this situation today. Google "Commodities Futures Modernization Act".
Greenspan compounded the problem by making the post-9/11 cheap money
last way too long.

Gramm and Greenspan reset the rules which gave rise to conditions that
favored instability. The deriviatives (credit default swaps) are not
backed up by any collateral. It's the equivalent of selling insurance
with no assets whatsoever to back up the policies if a claim is made.

BTW, have I said yet that you and Kunich are clueless on this subject?
If not, I'm going to do it now. You and Kunich don't know what you're
talking about. Hence, the head up your ass.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.