Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

crab bait · Feb 7, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

i still can't understand this tax cut.. it's like savin' money in a bank account an sayin' hey looky here,, we saved 500 dollars.. when ya owe 5,000 on visa bill.. loved how bush cramb that cut down our throats.. come he77 or high water,, the american people are gettin' a tax cut.. here take it..!! i said take it !! the checks in the mail.. looky people ,, NO NEW TAXES.. this bush is cuttin' taxes..so keep yhat in mind.. here take it..but just remember come november.. see no new taxes.. when really ,, just like ALL the others,, dole out a little to the peasents.. the big bone to the big dogs.. just remember come november..big ole bone,,ain't it..!! all this when we have a 500 billion dollar visa bill...an it was a 'zero amount owed' at the jump.. did we really need a tax cut..

Ralph 123 · Feb 7, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Everyone supports the troops

Right Toad - they just vote against funding them and then have the audacity to complain they are poorly equipped. They spend decades gutting our intelligence agencies and then complain when we have poor information. Please...

Maybe this theory of deficit spending does stimulate a poor economy... I don't see it...

I guess you never heard of Keynesian economics or read how FDR dealt with the Great Depression or have read how the economy is growing at a record pace... Some supply side and some Keynesian at the same time.

In contrast: The founders were against debt. It was their intention to pay off debt, using excise taxes on imports.

Well this is 2004 not 1786. The world and its economy are far more complex. If the nation did not take on debt we would have stopped functioning as an economy around 1900! It is well known, that increasing tariffs was a major contributing factor of the Great Depression. But hey, the debt was low...

Skinnywater · Feb 7, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Well this is 2004 not 1786.

Ralph, the Clinton administration gave me a fill of "the end justifies the means". Your dang right this isn't 1786! Tell me what "core principles" we have in 2004 Ralph. A tax cut now does nothing if after idiots create the means of a huge tax burden in the near future. 40 years after the Federalist Papers, in 1825, we have evidence that some wanted to alter the core principles but they received a strong warning from one of American's most respected presidents. "Aided by a little sophistry on the words 'general welfare', [they claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare." --- Thomas Jefferson 1825 to W. Giles. Such warnings as Jefferson's were effective for the next 105 years, as evidenced by spending continuing in the area of but 3% of the economy until, the "New Deal" of the 1930's. "We can pinpoint a time the late 1800s to early 1900s when America rose to world dominance, as the balance of power shifted from the Old World to the New World, a period of small government, no income tax and strong constitutional support for free enterprise when market entrepreneurs (Dow, Gerber, Ford, Kellogg, etc.) succeed by creating better products at lower cost and out-performed political entrepreneurs of the Old World who used government to gain an unfair advantage. The 1920s was the last decade when such could be built without major interference from government." --(historian Burton Folsom, Jr. senior fellow, Mackinac Center in Imprimis, 12/97).

It is well known, that increasing tariffs was a major contributing factor of the Great Depression.

"America's fundamentals were strong nevertheless, it was about to enter the Great Depression a financial collapse brought on by disastrous macro-economic policies of the government followed soon after by the worst world war in history" (The Economist, 12/20/97, pg. 15). Researchers (see "The Bubble That Broke the World" by Garet Garret, 1932) place prime blame for the Great Depression on the new Federal Reserve Bank and its undisciplined creation of 'money' (debt) out of thin air, which created a huge bubble and the 'roaring 1920s, followed by the eventual collapse. Note: this calamity was not generated by free enterprise. While pro-government forces began tinkering, free-enterprise auto sales zoomed from 181,000 in 1910 to 5,000,000 by 1929, and private truck freight out-performed the railroad industry (with its price fixing and government controls)mothers were able to buy Gerber's baby food and low cost bleach (as Dow defeated the European cartels).

POINTER94 · Feb 7, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

I have no love for GW Bush other than he has restored honor to a position that spent 8 years being defiled. He has put adults in position of authority, and provides a leadership regardless of your views on his positions. I really believe that the entire system has been corrupted. When the 9th circuit court believes it is above the law and create social policy from the bench. It is completely rediculous to pay millions of dollars to reverse obvious untennable positions. NAFTA is corrupt on it's face. Mexico and other central american countries do not play by the same environmental, minimum wage, health care, and insurance burdens that US mfg's are under. You don't need a degree in economics to see how that works out against the american worker. Our boarder's are a sive and we grant the same or increased priveleges to ILLEGAL ALIENS then are afforded CITIZENS. We know how to handle the situation but would rather buy the votes than do the right thing. We make excuses for a failed education system, and try to obscure our failure by throwing money at the situation instead of identifying the root causes and fixing the problem. But the union pays too much in contributions so kick this generation to the street. We spend $500 for a military hammer and we can actually justify it. Civil courts can actually give millions to someone who didn't know coffee was hot. And you wonder why medical expenses are unreal? We want every medical advance for everyone cuz its unfair not to, then complain about costs? Unless it is an abortion cuz its a right???? We sell our military secrets to China and then grant them most favored nation status? We give everyone the same rights and not the same responsibilities? Our courts are busy figuring out the rules of golf and let Ken Lay have a pass? Our system appears to be morally bankrupt and we seem comfortable choosing who is the best of the least. Our government is in a downward death spiral and we are cheering for the guys who pulled the plug. I am not completely cinical but I am confused by virtually every step we have taken the past 12 years. Personal responsibility is no longer in vogue. Who is minding the store? When setting a budget look at where to trim not where to spend. And sometimes you have to cut to grow, and vice versa. I can tell you we are ALL overtaxed. By any definition, taxation is the removal of freedom. Taxes should be a last resort not the first. But we love to consciously or unconsciously put added burdens on those who have succeeded. Everyone and I mean everyone should pay some tax. Even if it is $1. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. I am highly skeptical of anyone who anticipates and hopes for the leader of our country to fail, to meet their own agenda.

Skinnywater · Feb 7, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Posts like yours Pointer keeps me optimistic. I hope before my lifetime, empty rhetoric and confusion over what conservatism is, and isn't, will expose a duped people into genuine correction.

Who is minding the store?

Socialists Pointer94. Pro-centralized "government knows best" leaders in the 1990's planned to further increase citizen dependence on government first by implementing the two largest tax increases in history (1990 Bush, 1992 Clinton), trying to more than compensate for the Reagan tax cuts and fund further social expansion, then by proposing health care programs for all citizens despite our nation having less life expectancy at higher health cost than others, which if implemented would have increased government's control of the economy another 14 points to approximately 60% of the total and transfer even more sources of private sector revenue to government control. This meant, instead of the sum of federal and state & local government's share of the economy just being 4 times larger than before, it would be moved to a 5-6 times larger share of the economic pie. Such a plan would have been implemented had not at the same time national debt and the financial consequences of past social programs essentially placed the nation's national government in a "broke" situation, and by virtue of the carry-over impact of the Reagan revolution. Most leaders continue to sneak-in parts of this medical expansion, like they've recently done, with hopes another opportunity to accelerate a socialist agenda. This thread alone shows all the "self-proclaimed" students of economics are clearly in denial. Dang! 97% of this countrys citizens are in denial!

Balanced budgets, decreasing national debts, sheesh.....like the very unConstitutional Federal Reserve Board will let that happen...... Bwwaaahaahaaaa!

JGREGORY · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

This thread alone shows all the "self-proclaimed" students of economics are clearly in denial.

That may or May not be true Skinnywater. I am However, A Deputy CFO for a local Town and a Purchasing agent. I have also had Macro and Micro Economics. Along with Finance, Accounting, and Business Management courses. I still have to take Finance and Purchasing courses to remain current and get My certification for CFO. What Bush did was try to stave off a major resesion Doing everything in his power to give the people more money to spend. There is a triangle of Economics it's the 3 things that effect economic growth. 1.Government 2.Business 3. Consumer Increase spending by these groups and you have growth. What bush was doing was trying to increase the Government side (with Deficit spending) and The consumer side with the Tax cuts. Now I think we could all agree that some parts of the tax code are unfair like the marriage penalty. And even some of the Child care rebates and credits. I personnally do not have to much against the tax cuts. However, all the reports I'm hearing is saying the Business investing is starting to increase. With Bush's Deficit spending there Is a real possiblility of inflation. I think Bush needs to take a closer look at the budget and either cut some programs or cut back the increase in the deficit. Or get some more revenue meaning raise taxes. I do not know the answer and personnaly glad that I do not have to make that call. I think we all would agree that if he did nothing during there would be hell to pay just like there is hell to pay for doing something. If I remember correctly Plywwody was chastising Bush for the resession and now is Chastising Bush for the Policies of the recovery. Whether I agree or disagree doesn't matter, at least Bush tried to do something as opposed to other people (Republican & Democrat alike) refused to but their necks out and let the fed handle it all. Well the fed was pretty much out of tricks and something needed to be done somewhere. Bush saw the handwriting on the wall if he did not correct the ression as fast as possible he was definity going to be a 1 term pres. Just My 2 cents. and now I will not respond to this Troll again.

plywoody · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

To what "troll" are you referring? Is any questioning of Bush's policy decisions a "troll"? Yes, indeed I have questioned Bush's economic policies from the very start. When he trumpeted big tax cuts while at the same time Greenspan was raising interest rates in order to slow runaway growth...then, when we did go into recession, big tax cuts for the wealthy, when it was clear any recovery was going to be led by middle income consumers, and the tax cuts for the wealthy would have little impact on the recovery.. Most of his economic policies have made little or no sense. Of course you can get some short term recovery going if you finance the recovery with debt, and dramatically devalue the dollar, but someone at some point in time will have to pay for this recovery.

crab bait · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

or at least get pro athelets off of steriods. like he said in the S-O-T-U-adress.. it's just good smart intelligent policy an decision making from the oval office.. plus it cheap.. does'nt cost anythin'..good presidential decision..

Skinnywater · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Thanks for replying jg, The purpose of that statement was to point out that most solutions these days are at best, band-aids. Especially when obvious core causes are unknown, overlooked and ignored. Once this is done with this kind of consistancy, logically it's denial. Look, I'm not into double-talk and Clinton-speak. Again, a tax cut means nothing, when any economist should recognise that this deficit is a disguised and hidden form of taxation. "When government in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of innovation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player. In the United States, government has gone far beyond the basics."--Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize winner for excellence in economics,Hoover Institute

Is any questioning of Bush's policy decisions a "troll"?

No plywoody, it's not. However, your one of the most skilled on this forum on rhetoric. Rhetoric is usually the bait used while trolling.

Ralph 123 · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 raised US tariffs on over 20,000 dutiable items to record levels, and, in the opinion of many economists, protracted the Great Depression. The act was championed by Senator Reed Smoot, a Republican from Utah, and Congressman Willis C. Hawley, a Republican from Oregon. President Herbert Hoover had asked Congress for a downward revision in rates, but Congress raised rates instead. While many economists urged a veto, Hoover thought he could finesse the law through the Tariff Commission, and signed the bill. Although the tariff was passed after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, many economic historians consider it a factor in deepening the Great Depression. As nations resorted to protectionism, the general amount of international trade decreased, causing the economy to slow. In part as a result of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and other countries' responses to it, the post-World War II world saw a push towards multilateral trading agreements that would prevent a similar situation from unfolding. This lead in part to the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944 and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in the 1950s. There is still some historical debate as to whether the tariff was harmful or not. A revenue-generating tariff can be beneficial to an economy, if other countries do not respond with tariffs of their own. There has been debate as to whether other countries raised their own tariffs as a result of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, or if they were simply attempting to accomplish the same goal as the United States. Much of this debate has been centered upon Canada, the United States' largest trading partner, which raised their tariffs substantially. The cause of the Canadian decision is still disputed, however.

Another devastating factor contributing to Germany's economic collapse was the international trade war triggered by the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States in 1930. This provision effectively prevented many German industries from selling their goods in foreign markets.

Debt is often paid off by increased revenue from a larger economy (i.e., money from a bigger pie) not by raising taxes on a fixed pie. This is how we went from big deficits in the 80s to surpluses in the 90s. Debt is also often paid off in cheaper dollars (i.e., inflated dollars, taking advantage of the time value of money. Paying off money borrowed at 4% in a low/no inflation environment in the future with dollars valued at more normal inflationary environment) please explain to me, how in today's environment, debt is a hidden form of taxation. What Milton Friedman was speaking about is not cutting taxes and going into deficit spending thereby stimulating the economy, he was talking about government taking an active role such as owning businesses, regulations, prtotectionism (punitive tarrifs) etc.

Skinnywater · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

place prime blame for the Great Depression on the new Federal Reserve Bank and its undisciplined creation of 'money' (debt) out of thin air, which created a huge bubble and the 'roaring 1920s, followed by the eventual collapse.

Ralph, if a person with terminal cancer dies while receiving radiation therapy. They still die from the cancer. Creating money (debt) out of thin air, is actually argueable? Alright then, thats the denial I was talking about.

please explain to me, how in today's environment, debt is a hidden form of taxation.

Excellent Ralph! I'll do just that. Gotta run now, stay tuned.

Ralph 123 · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

No, but you can't simply ignore a contributing factor simply because it does not fit your world view. If the cancer was curable but you kill the patient by megadosing them with radiation who caused the death... Maybe thst's the kind of denial you really mean. Debt in the US is not taken on by increasing the money supply. It is borrowed on the open market through government obligations (T-Bills mainly). These instruments are bought by indivduals, institutions, corporations and even foreign governments.

An important part of monetary policy is the control of money supply. If too much money enters the system too fast, you get inflation. This is because an increase in money relative to a fixed number of consumable goods and services, results in rising prices. Think about it. If we all had 20% more cash next week than we do now, chances are we'd see a huge pickup in spending and we remember from Economics 101 that rising demand equals rising prices. Conversely, the effect of a shrinking money supply is to choke off the stimulus necessary to keep an economy expanding. The Fed tries to allow for enough money growth to sustain economic prosperity, but not so much as to cultivate inflation. The Fed controls the money supply in three ways. First, it sets the "reserve requirement" for all banks. The reserve requirement is the amount of money a bank must hold in its reserve (typically its vault or on deposit at other banks) relative to all the money it has lent out. Thus, the Fed can shrink the money supply (known as "tightening") by requiring banks to hold more in reserve, which pulls money out of the system. Of course, Fed governors can also expand the supply (known as "loosening") by lowering reserve requirements. The second way the Fed controls the money supply is through the buying and selling of Treasury bills and notes. When the Fed sells a T-Bill, it's taking money out of the system and replacing it with a security, which isn't counted in money supply and vice versa when the Fed buys back bills and notes. Finally, the Fed moderates the money supply through raising or lowering interest rates. The Fed sets the federal funds rate, the rate that banks charge each other for overnight borrowing, and the discount rate, which is the rate the Fed charges banks to borrow from it. Banks pass on the changes in these rates by adjusting their lending and borrow rates accordingly. Rising rates tend to to tighten money supply by discouraging use of money for spending. The opposite is true for falling rates.

The money supply has tended to rise more rapidly during business cycle expansions than during business cycle contractions. The rate of rise has tended to slow down before the peak in business and to accelerate before the trough. Since 1914 an actual decline of the money supply has occurred during only three business cycle contractions, each of which was severe as judged by the decline in output and rise in unemployment: 1920 to 1921, 1929 to 1933, 1937 to 1938. The severity of the economic decline in each of these cyclical downturns, it is widely accepted, was a consequence of the reduction in the quantity of money, particularly so for the downturn that began in 1929, when the quantity of money fell by one-third, an unprecedented reduction. The United States has experienced three major price inflations since 1914, and each has been preceded and accompanied by a corresponding increase in the rate of growth of the money supply: 1914 to 1920, 1939 to 1948, 1967 to 1980. An acceleration of money growth in excess of real output growth has invariably produced inflationin these episodes and in many earlier examples in this country and elsewhere in the world. To ignore the magnitude of money supply changes is to court monetary disorder. That is the lesson that the history of money supply teaches.

snapperbait · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

copy, cut, paste, quote......

Ralph 123 · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Better than making it up out of thin air... kinda fits my nature of liking facts

Skinnywater · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Better than making it up out of thin air... kinda fits my nature of liking facts

The www at its best. To think we could actually learn something. Rather then taking a party line stance or be a parrot of your favorite politician/lawyer. (rhetoric) Here Ralph, lets reciprocate open minds. This is a beautiful site and worth a place in your favorites. http://mwhodges.home.att.net/summary-b.htm "All truth passes through 3 phases: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed, and Third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer 1788-1860.

Ralph 123 · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

The www at its best. To think we could actually learn something. Rather then taking a party line stance or be a parrot of your favorite politician/lawyer. (rhetoric]

\\Funny is that what you cosider the Federalist Papers to be as well? I mean you quote them quite often you must consder them to be somthing other than rhetoric or a party line right? It seems to me, everything that does not support your view or is quoted in the FP is at stage 1. I've proven my independence of thought over years of academic achievement. The party line I subscribe to is my own.

Skinnywater · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Well this is 2004 not 1786.

This was your stage 1, Ralph. Obviously your academic achievemnts brought you to accept the statis-quo. Certainly it has made you think things more complex then they really are. And sadly, by inferring that because it's 2004 you're willing compromise core Constitutional values. I'm sorry your getting your back up Ralph. Thanks anyway, I'm done with it for now.

CrappieFisherman · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Originally posted by Toad2001: Thats OK I don't take Bush too seriously. I don't know if he can spell, but he does use words that aren't even real like "misunderestimate".

like I do anyone's so long as that view is not defamatory towards a defenceless group psssst ... not to call the kettle black there toad, but the way to spell that word is "defenseless" A tale of two very rich daddies two daddies were very very rich and had sons one daddy gave his son four thriving businesses, but the bumbling, dunderheaded son ran them all into the ground, totally inept, so since he was a failure at business, daddy bought him a seat on the senate, where he was still a bumbler, but money buys ya anything in DC The other daddy was also successful, and gave his kid a business. this kid did well, and created his own business, and made a fortune. the bumbler that took the four previously thriving businesses and bankrupted them was Al Gore. the second kid was president Bush, not the brightest guy in the world, but competent and the man has (lets say GUTS to avoid a censoring) that gutless wonder gore would have wrung his hands and planted a garden where the towers fell - and lets not forget that the attacks on 911 were deadlier and costlier than the attacks on Pearl Harbor - another Act of War that didnt go unpunished Say what you will about Bush, but I bet the islamic nations arent too hospitable towards the bin laden bunch, they dont want to be turned to rubble like iraq

Toad2001 · Feb 8, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

You are correct. Thanks for catching that Crappie. By the way, most of your punctuation is missing.

Carphunter · Feb 9, 2004

Re: Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Whaaaa, Whaaaa, Whaaaa,.......you poor little whiny Liberal Democrat babies. Al Gore was the best you had to go up against Bush, now it looks like the opposition to Bush will be even worse than Gore. Find a Democratic candidate that is not an idiot, and you might stand a chance in the next election. Odds are that won't happen. You all got so used to the President being an idiot, (a.k.a Clinton), that you forgot what it was like to have a dignified President, (a.k.a Bush). This is new for you all, a President that respects the position, ......gosh, we haven't seen that since........well.........Bush. Plywoody, the only threads that you ever start are "Bush bashing" threads, you keep recycling the same thing over and over. We all understand that you don't like Bush, but you really need to get some new material. We had to live through the Clinton era, now its your turn to live through the Bush era. Thank God all mighty its not the Gore era. Whine all you want to me, I got some big shoulders you can cry on.

Bsuh on meet the press on Sunday

Captain

Captain

Commander

Vice Admiral

Commander

Lieutenant

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Captain

Commander

Captain

Commander

Captain

Vice Admiral

Captain

Commander

Captain

Commander

Seaman

Chief Petty Officer

Commander