A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

STOP THE FEAR MONGERING



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old March 5th 09, 05:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:37:32 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:



JT's vision of democracy and free debate:

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


That stuff sounds pretty much exactly like the way the Republicans whipped the
media into submission after 9-11 to me.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Ads
  #122  
Old March 5th 09, 05:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

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.


But that's kind of the point. bin Laden had hopes of achieving those things. I
doubt he thought that we'd just shrug off the 9-11 attacks and move on. He knew that
there were enough people in power here to at least get the ball rolling on what he
wanted. But Bush did such a great job of handing him exactly what he'd hoped for it
is sick. I will say that the anthrax thing helped too.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
  #123  
Old March 5th 09, 05:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

In article ,
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.


*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.


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


Other people have discussed this but here's my two cents. I think that you're
again missing it on cause and effect, Scott. If you remember, Clinton raised the
marginal tax rates for the top a bit - I think the economy of the Clinton era was
pretty good. So that one sort of counters your Reagan example.

Anyway, you did state that you think the Obama economic policy is having a bad
effect on the stock market. This is the other cause and effect problem I mentioned.
The stock market has been slowly tanking for months and picked up steam on that in
the last week or so. I'd suggest a few reasons for that would be the market
responding to the bad economy and news of companies like AIG reporting huge losses.
The bad slide of the stock market is much more attributable to that kind of news than
it is to the economic policies of the new administration. Robert Reich offers this:
_______________________
Second, it's inevitable that stocks, led by the bloated financial sector, would lose
their remaining hot air as the new administration begins "stress-testing" the big
banks, many of which are technically insolvent. After all, their share prices were
built on a tissue of lies and dreams. Other sectors whose values were similarly
distorted and distended by years of financial deception and regulatory disregard,
such as housing and insurance, will also have to return to the real world before they
can recover.
_______________________
http://tinyurl.com/dfpjk6 (Goes to TPM)

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
  #124  
Old March 5th 09, 05:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Paul G.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,393
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 4, 2:21*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:
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.


Yeah they do! Interest rates have a huge effect on the stock market,
and govt fiscal policy has a major effect on interest rates. Econ 1A.

-Paul
  #125  
Old March 5th 09, 05:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Paul G.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,393
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 4, 4:28*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
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.


Yeah, you got exactly what I was driving at. You had to be really
gullible to vote for Bush twice.
-Paul
  #126  
Old March 5th 09, 05:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Paul G.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,393
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 4, 4:33*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:55:40 -0800 (PST), Scott

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


I find this hard to believe, but I guess that's it -- you've answered
it.


I'm not so sure. I asked him how many times he voted for Bush. He
didn't say "I never voted for Bush". Maybe he's saying he didn't
vote for Bush for Texas governor, I dunno.

Myself- I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, then straight
Democratic ticket thereafter. I've never voted for any scum sucking
Bush, AND I've voted in every election since 1972. We wouldn't be in
this mess if McCain had beaten Bush in the 2000 primary.
-Paul
  #127  
Old March 5th 09, 05:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Paul G.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,393
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 4, 7:30*pm, RobertH wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:10 am, Scott wrote:



On Mar 3, 2:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:


On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:59 -0800 (PST), 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?


That no one should take you seriously.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


We're not talking about President Bush here, so your reference to him
is useless. *We're not even talking about ANY republican alternative
to President Obama. *We're talking about the current president, the
"stimulus" bill and the state of the economy. *You hate President
Bush, we all get that. *But let's try to stay on point.


Here's something serious for you to consider. *Check the level of the
market the day before the election, the day of the inauguration, the
day the House released their initial version of the spending bill, the
day the House republicans voted against it, the day those three
miserable Senate republicans voted to prevent further debate, and the
day the spending bill was signed into law. *Check the level the day
they announced another 4+ bil dollar pork bill laden with 9000
earmarks, and then you tell us what's driving the market down. *The
pattern is pretty clear. *When it looked like there may be some
serious debate on a STIMULUS bill the market was stable, or even a
little up. *It's been on a significant spiral ever since it was clear
there was no stimulus but lots of spending. *The markets have spoken:
Obama/Pelosi spending bill is NOT going to stimulate anything other
than big govt and big debt.


The stimulus is chicken feed. The markets are getting sucked into the
black hole where the banks used to be.


Good analysis. That's a fact.
-Paul
  #128  
Old March 5th 09, 05:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Paul G.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,393
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 4, 8:34*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,



*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.
*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.

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


* *Other people have discussed this but here's my two cents. I think that you're
again missing it on cause and effect, Scott. If you remember, Clinton raised the
marginal tax rates for the top a bit - I think the economy of the Clinton era was
pretty good. So that one sort of counters your Reagan example.

* *Anyway, you did state that you think the Obama economic policy is having a bad
effect on the stock market. This is the other cause and effect problem I mentioned.
The stock market has been slowly tanking for months and picked up steam on that in
the last week or so. I'd suggest a few reasons for that would be the market
responding to the bad economy and news of companies like AIG reporting huge losses.
The bad slide of the stock market is much more attributable to that kind of news than
it is to the economic policies of the new administration. Robert Reich offers this:
_______________________
Second, it's inevitable that stocks, led by the bloated financial sector, would lose
their remaining hot air as the new administration begins "stress-testing" the big
banks, many of which are technically insolvent. After all, their share prices were
built on a tissue of lies and dreams. Other sectors whose values were similarly
distorted and distended by years of financial deception and regulatory disregard,
such as housing and insurance, will also have to return to the real world before they
can recover.
_______________________http://tinyurl.com/dfpjk6(Goes to TPM)


Yep. The bad news FROM LAST YEAR keeps coming, this for example. They
revised the Q4 GDP change from -3.8 to -6.2. That's a whopping
revision:

US ECON: Preliminary Q4 GDP Down 6.2%, Core Inflation at 0.8%
02.27.09, 08:45 AM EST

Washington, February 27 - The Commerce Department downwardly revised
fourth quarter GDP to a 6.2% decline, now the largest contraction
since 1982, when the economy was just pulling out of another steep
recession. Economists were expecting Q4 GDP to be revised only to a
5.4% decline from the 3.8% decline first reported.

Got that Dumbass Scott? Think Obama jumped in a time machine, went
back and did that? That was on Bush's watch. That's one factor
causing the stock market to decline.
-Paul
  #129  
Old March 5th 09, 06:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
K. Gringioni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 162
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 4, 6:13*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:23:38 -0800 (PST), "K. Gringioni"

wrote:
Dumbass -


You don't even understand what the problem is.


They're not trying to stabilize the stock market.


They're trying to free up the financial system. Right now, it's semi-
frozen and it has a possibility of getting much worse.


Yeah. And frankly I'd be a little worried is the stock market rallied
w/o some of the fundamental issues being worked out. *It would be a
sign that leaders on Wall Street have found ways to scam more money
out of the government and the public. *

I hope the market turns around. *But I want it to happen because the
economy is turning around.




Dumbass -


Me too.

I'll be happy if it lasts only through this year. Or maybe the next.

The worry is that it'll last 10 years.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
  #130  
Old March 5th 09, 06:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

In article ,
"Paul G." wrote:

Yep. The bad news FROM LAST YEAR keeps coming, this for example. They
revised the Q4 GDP change from -3.8 to -6.2. That's a whopping
revision:


That's one of the many things about the Bush admin. that bugged the hell out of
me: they'd toss out some number (like GDP or unemployment), then about a week or two
later, quietly issue a "revised" version of it (that was *always* worse) in the late
Friday afternoon news drop (in other words, after most of the reporters had gone
home).

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BBC documentary exposes the Zionist jew conspiracy and the NeoCon war mongering - using our countries to carry out Israel's dirty work. Australia needs to stop supporting these racist terrorists, Israel. Midex Australia 0 May 6th 07 03:52 PM
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs Tom Keats Social Issues 5 August 4th 04 07:55 AM
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs Pete Racing 1 August 3rd 04 06:13 AM
Aren't bicycles suposed to stop at stop signs? Ken General 85 September 22nd 03 11:22 PM
The Fear dannyfrankszzz UK 33 August 29th 03 09:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.