Clinton has some warnings, but are you saying 9/11 happened on his watch? Best
check your occupancy list for the White House.
Same old, same old. Except we don't know if any guards got lucky this time
around. Maybe, maybe not. Seems to me that Homeland security is mostly security
for the employees.
Can't prove a negative, can you. WTF is the relevance of combat in Germany or
Where have 10 of Kerry's contemporaries come out against Kerry's version of
events versus one for Kerry? Seems to me that the records are starting to show
that the whole melange was a set-up, something neocons thought would derail the
Kerry campaign. It has created problems, I'm sure, but it may in the end do
more damage to Bush's Babies.
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken
The object of the sentence was terrorism. And Clinton had
much more than warnings.
That's the beauty of Federal employment.
I can't think for you. He was talking about casualties in war. It will be
too tiring for me to explain every point to you.
I agree. There's many that have been so brainwashed that they are infected
with the disease of liberalism.
Well, there's 250 on the anti-side compared to his handful of supporters.
Every now and again they drag out another supporter, if that's what you mean.
But we would have to discount many accounts in favor of Kerry's supporters.
Seems to me that would be a whole lot of men who are outright lying. Some have
been saying so for 30 years or so. Those Republicans sure plan ahead.
It would seem that way to the mentally challenged. The polls prove otherwise.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:37:43 -0700, Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Actually, among the men who actually served on Kerry's boat, as opposed to
in the same general area, or in the same war, the ratio is reversed. Only
one of the men who actually served under Kerry's command does not support
But what I really think is hilarious about all this is that the
Republicans can find a couple hundred men to criticize the way Kerry
fought in the war, but they can't find a single person who can prove that
Bush didn't desert from the ANG. Politics. Too weird. Oh well. As my
father used to say, "In a hundred years, who'll care?"
Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
We can't afford it, though.
Not liberal hysteria. Reports of the President's own economists.
You are right that government is growing. Tax revenues are also
decreasing. A sure recipe for deficit. The current deficit is
upwards of 20% of all federal expenditures. Caused by growing
government, growing entitlements, and cutting tax revenues.
9/11 isn't the excuse for everything. It didn't cause the tax cuts.
It didn't cause the retroactive refunds to AMT. It didn't cause the
expansion of Medicare prescription drug benefits. It didn't cause the
expansion of farm subsidies, etc. It maybe did arguably cause
Homeland Security, but even most conservatives would agree that
Homeland Security is a bloated bureaucracy.
Yes, and as the leader of the world's economy we have a fair role in
how that global recession goes.
You are suggesting that Clinton would have ignored terrorism after
9/11? That's preposterous. You are suggesting that Clinton ignored
terrorism before 9/11? That's refuted by many sources, including the
To fail to reasonably assign blame and credit is really just
Where were they before 9/11? Do you really think the country is
prepared and do you think we have done all we can/should do? I don't.
Wow, your impeccable reasoning has got me there.
Yeah, I do think some lefties go over the top. Some Bushies do, too.
But there's a difference between propaganda and actually paying
attention to current events.
I think if you read the above you will see several references you made
to only being able to draw these conclusions if you are paying
attention to "lefty" hate books, films, and propaganda.
On 26 Aug 2004 10:22:39 -0700, n email@example.com (Nate Perkins)
You assume this is a zero-sum game. i.e. if less money is taken from the
taxpayers, then less is available in the future for the government. The
tax cuts enacted in the early '80s show the fallacy of this argument. The
top tax rate was cut from 50% to 28% which should have resulted in a
devastating loss of revenue for the tax coffers. What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.
When WE can afford it? i.e. you believe that somehow you have a claim
upon the fruits of the labors of someone else who happens to make more
money than yourself?
As a percentage, the tax cuts benefited all taxpayers equally. The fact
of the matter is that in 2001 (the latest data for which IRS figures are
The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes yet
only earns 86% of all income
The top 10% of wage earners pay 65% of all federal income taxes yet
only earns 43% of all income
the top 5% of wage earners pay 53% of all federal income taxes yet
only earns 32% of all income
Now, regarding the argument that an increasing burden is being placed on
middle class taxpayers from 2000:
The top 50% of wage earners paid 96% of all federal income taxes
yet only earned 87% of all income
The top 10% of wage earners paid 67% of all federal income taxes
yet earned 46% of all income
the top 5% of wage earners paid 56% of all federal income taxes yet
earned 35% of all income
So, although the total burden to the top wage earners did go down, so did
overall share of income. How can this be? I thought the rich kept getting
richer under the Bush regime?
I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
of deficit growth. Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.
Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
You believe that somehow you have a claim upon only a *portion* of
government services? Which aircraft carrier is the one you bought?
Which section of road is the one that's yours? "We" is our nation.
"We" are all using these things, and "we" are all obligated to pay for
Data is available from 2003 that shows a different result. Otherwise
wouldn't you blame the 2000/2001 data on Clinton? I mean don't most
of your numbers precede most of Bush's tax "cuts"? Several links have
already been cited in other messages on this thread, but here it is
again: http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut /
... (remainder mercifully snipped) ...
No it did not, you might not like that fact, but it is a fact.
No, fact, not myth.
From your own reference. Table I, revenues, the Reagan tax cuts started
in 1982. The following are the revenues for just prior to following:
Year Revenue ($B)
Now, you will note that in 1983, the year after the tax cut, revenue did
go down, however, in subsequent years, revenue continued to increase even
in 1986, the year that there was a recession.
??? Half the tax on incomes? This is simple math, 7.5% is NOT 1/2 of 28%,
thus SS/Fica cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to 1/2 of the
taxes on incomes paid by wage earners. The "rich" pay SS/FICA on the same
amount of income as everybody else. Only after exceeding a certain
threshold do they no longer pay the OASD portion, but continue to pay the
Medicare portion. Then again, if you contend that government revenue went
down after the Reagan tax cuts, I can see how you would also say that the
7.5% is half the tax on incomes. Now, before you jump in here and scream
about the fact that SS tax is really 15%, 7.5% of that 15% is NOT being
paid by the taxpayer, but by those eeevil corporations employing those low
wage earners. The fact is, the "rich" are still paying the same amount of
SS/FICA as all other wage earners, since no one's SS taxes are being cut,
the "rich" are going to also pay a larger share of the SS/FICA taxes as
well since they earn more.
Again, the statistics given are for INCOME taxes.
Those figures aren't adjusted for inflation, the last pre-tax cut year
was 1981, and payroll taxes are included (whose rates went up). Real
(inflation-adjusted) income tax revenues were lower in each of the
first five years after the tax cut (1982-86) than they were the year
prior to the tax cut (1981).
On 30 Aug 2004 07:21:50 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:
You are correct, the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, these are raw
revenue numbers. The Inflation rate decreased after the 1982 tax cuts.
The poster I was responding to contended that there was a devastating loss
of revenue after the 1982 tax cuts. As shown above, with the exception of
1983, which makes sense because that was the first full year for tax-cut
induced growth to ramp up, revenue continued to increase. Payroll taxes
(SS and Medicare) may have gone up, they only went up marginally (6.8 to
7.5% I think, I'm too tired to look up the exact number) while income taxes
were drastically reduced, thus an 0.7% increase in payroll taxes cannot
begin to have accounted for the entire amount of revenue increase.
Remember also, that beginning with the 1982 tax cuts, the tax rate tables
were indexed for inflation, eliminating the "bracket creep" that had been
prevalent during the high-inflation rate 70's when peoples' tax rates
increased while their spending power decreased.
On 31 Aug 2004 05:57:29 -0700, email@example.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:
OK, one more time, Inflation adjusted revenue, inflation numbers from
Year Rev, Delta % change Inflation % Real
1975 279.1 - - - -
1976 298.1 19.0 6.37% 5.80% 0.57%
1977 355.6 57.5 16.17% 6.50% 9.67%
1978 399.6 44.0 11.01% 7.60% 3.41%
1979 463.3 63.7 13.75% 11.30% 2.45%
1980 517.1 53.8 10.40% 13.50% -3.10%
1981 599.3 82.2 13.72% 10.30% 3.42%
1982 617.8 18.5 2.99% 6.20% -3.21%
1983 600.6 -17.2 -2.86% 3.20% -6.06%
1984 666.5 65.90 9.89% 4.30% 5.59%
1985 734.1 67.60 9.21% 3.60% 5.61%
1986 769.2 35.10 4.56% 1.90% 2.66%
1987 854.4 85.20 9.97% 3.60% 6.37%
1988 909.3 54.90 6.04% 4.10% 1.94%
1989 991.2 81.90 8.26% 4.80% 3.46%
Not knowing how the above table will translate to other newsreaders,
looking at only the % real increase:
Year Inflation adjusted increase
So, in the years prior to the tax cut, inflation-adjusted revenue both
increased and decreased from a hight of 9.67% to a loss of 3.1%
Following the tax cuts, in year by year inflation adjusted rates, income
increased by as much as 6.37% (in 1987) to a decline of 6.06% (in 1983, the
first full year of the tax cuts, but came back to a 5.59% real increase
over inflation in the following year.
So, although revenues in 1981 were up 13.7% over revenue in 1980,
inflation in 1981 was 10.3%, thus real revenue only increased by 3.42%
compared to the prior year (which actually lost ground relative to
inflation). Even more telling are the inflation numbers which dropped from
double digit 10%+ down to around 4% in subsequent years.
Now, given these facts, how can one still spin them to show that revenue
was catastrophically reduced by the Reagan tax cuts?
You have again lumped together income and payroll taxes. Let's re-do
that table with only income taxes (starting with 1982, the first year
of the tax cut), and let's also add cumulative percentage compared to
Year % from prior year Cum % from 1981
1982: -6.6% -6.6%
1983: -10.4% -16.3%
1984: 3.7% -13.2%
1985: 7.8% -6.4%
1986: 1.6% -4.9%
The catastrophe was the debt grew by leaps and bounds immediately
after the tax cut, in large part because of the tax cut as evidenced
by the lower revenue in each of (post tax cut) 1982-86 compared to
(pre tax cut) 1981 (the cumulative effect is what impacts the debt).
Your analysis amounted to nothing more than noting single-year revenue
growth for a few selected years before the tax cut (9.67% in 1977,
-3.1% in 1980, 3.42% in 1981) and a few selected years after the tax
cut (6.37% in 1987, -6.06% in 1983, 5.59% in 1984). What meaning does
that have with regards to the debt?
On 1 Sep 2004 06:11:20 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:
A) A few selected years? I showed all years starting from 1975, could have
gone back farther, could have gone forward more, but the story would have
been the same. I also showed *real* per year revenue growth based upon
inflation adjusted value of that year's revenue. Even in your case, you
show that revenue started growing.
B) Why is it only income that should be considered for debt computations?
If *I* don't make as much money *I* don't SPEND as much money. Now, the
next argument you will raise is that Reagan broke the bank by spending
money we didn't have on defense in a huge indefensible defense build-up.
The fact is that if Reagan could have just increased spending on defense,
we would not have added to debt, or added minimally. The problem was that
in order to get his defense spending approved (something that he viewed as
paramount to the survival of this republic), he had to compromise and allow
entitlements to also be raised.
I am not arguing with the years you showed in the chart. I am taking
issue with your subsequent analysis of those numbers because 1) you
only used pre-tax cut 1977, 1980, 1981 and post-tax cut 1983, 1984,
1987 and 2) you did nothing more than repeat the figures from the
selected years without explaining what/how conclusions can be drawn
That's good. But, you still included payroll taxes whose rates went
up under Reagan. You need to limit your analysis to income tax
If you wait long enough (6 years in Reagan's case), revenue will
eventually get back to pre-tax cut levels. However, debt has exploded
in the meantime. Moreover, if revenue in years 6+ would have been
bigger without the tax cut than with it, even the additional debt in
years 6+ would also be bigger without the tax cut than with it.
Firstly, spending and revenue must both be considered. The debt
explosion under Reagan was caused by both the military expansion and
Secondly, non-military spending, exlcusive of Social Security and
Medicare, decreased under Reagan. And, the Social Security and
Medicare surpluses (they are funded through payroll taxes) grew under
Reagan. Therefore, the debt explosion had nothing to do with
Tax cuts are only a loan if you assume the government had a right to my
money in the first place. That makes you a socialist, or, at the least, a
I would think that a $600 tax rebate is much more influential to the
spending of a "middle-class" earner than to someone like Dick Cheney. I'd
be surprised if he even noticed that his butler deposited the check in (one
of) his (many) account(s).
If you've noticed, interest rates are as low as they've ever been, so your
assessment crumbles. The "economy" that existed in the '90s was based on
the dot-com revolution, which proved to be about as real as paper money and
as substantial as the Social Security Trust Fund. Would you like to go back
to that situation? Unemployment is lower, by all accounts. I thought you
said you pay attention?
I don't see Iraq as a bungling mess, at all. We've deposed a tyrant, and we
are cautiously installing a democratically-elected government in a region in
which it is historically unwanted. It's happening much faster than it did
in the US, over 200 years ago, and I don't hear you complaining about that
bungling mess. How would you go about democratizing the Middle East? Or,
would you just let it continue to fester, the way Clinton did?
How about we look at the statistic that records the frequency and severity
of terrorist attacks in the US since September 11, 2001? Batting a
thousand, ain't we? Maybe we should look at the statistic that indicates
the number of Middle Eastern countries still governed by tyrants? It's
declining, isn't it? Which statistics _are_ you looking at?
Left hate books and films would be anything from Al Franken or Michael
Moore. I thought you said you pay attention?
Understanding that you have to pay for government makes you a
socialist? Wow. Which part of government should come for free --
national defense, service on the national debt, fire and police
protection, trial by jury, federal currency?
Yes, tax cuts to the middle and lower class tend to be immediately
spent, and therefore they are more immediately stimulative to the
economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not spent as quickly, and may
be stimulative in the long run depending on which economic theory you
believe in. Recently it does not seem to be working very well.
Look, there are two primary economic levers: fiscal policy and
monetary policy. The government controls the first with spending and
taxation. The Fed controls the second by trying to manipulate the
short term interest rate. Both are influencing the same variable, the
monetary supply. Deficit spending increases the debt, which increases
long term interest rates. Most economists (from both sides) estimate
the current level of debt as adding a couple of points to the
effective long term rate of interest. The Fed rate is now at, what,
1.5%? Surely you have noticed that you can't take out a long term
loan at 1.5%?
The economy in the 90's was (for the most part) a fairly solid
economy. It was achieved by moderate economic growth coupled with
overall growth in worker productivity and modest gains in wages. Yes,
the dot-com bubble which came later was in large part artificial, but
it would be misleading to attribute all of the prosperity of the 90's
to the dot com bubble. A lot of it was real gains in worker
productivity, consumption, and corporate profits.
Do you really think unemployment is lower now than it was during most
of the 90's?
Opinions will differ as to whether Iraq has become a bungling mess.
All polls show that the majority of Americans now think it was a
mistake. No WMDs. No 9/11 links. Personally, I think it was a huge
mistake. Even Pat Buchanan, who is quite conservative, calls it a
worse mistake than Vietnam.
Demonstrably poor by almost any statistic for economic growth, crime
rate, size of government, deficit spending, education, etc.
Your slogan for reelection seems to be "Vote for Bush, at least he
didn't let 9/11 happen twice." I don't think it would do very well in
the general election, though.
How do you think that somehow reading the Denver Post and the Washington
post make you well-read? You are really reading the Associated Press and
Reuters and the Associated Press and Reuters. ... and those two outlets
are hardly unbiased.
On 24 Aug 2004 10:46:56 -0700, n email@example.com (Nate Perkins)
What? I agree that this has come to a pretty comical point, but your
post falls into the comedy of the absurd. Kerry is the guy who brought up
his war record as a primary qualification for his ascension to the
presidency. Kerry, since the beginning of the year was touting the fact
that "he volunteerd for Vietnam", was "highly decorated", then returned
home to "fight against the war he thought was unjust. Earlier this year,
you couldn't hear a speech from Kerry without him saying "when I was in
Vietnam ...." John Kerry made his service a political issue, not Bush.
John Kerry is the one going back 35 years to find something that should
qualify him to be president. Why isn't Kerry touting his record in
Congress? Why isn't he trumpeting what he has done in the past 10 years?
*Those* should be the issues; instead, Kerry and his camp intone in every
commercial that he was a great war hero, he really cares about us, and
therefore we should vote for him. Then, when somebody who served with him
pipes up and says, "hey, wait a minute, his service in Vietnam wasn't all
he is touting it to be", the Kerry camp goes ballistic, "How DARE you
impugn my record!? (never mind that they've been doing that to Bush since
election 2000), It happened the way *I* said it did, and nobody knows
better than *I* do! I'm going to send my lawyers out to stop these pesky
people from exercising their freedom of speech. Those ads have got to
stop! Hey, watch me wind-surf! See, I'm a regular guy! By the way, did
you know I served in Vietnam?"
Yeah, I agree, when you have no record to run on, you find other things
to gain attention. Kerry has attempted to do it with his Vietnam service
record. Others have taken exception to that.
So, what *exactly* is Kerry proposing he will do at President? ... and I
mean specifically. The only things he has said (and the sycophants in the
press label as major policy statements) is say, "I will fight the war on
terrorism better, I will fight a more sensitive war", or "I will restore
our reputation in the rest of the world". "We've got better ideas" He
never says *How* he is going to do those things. He never says what those
better ideas are. We get this vague, "I'll do better, trust me"
So far from supporters of Kerry, all I hear is "he's not Bush". Nobody
has clearly articulated a good reasong to vote *for* Kerry. What is going
to make him better? What does he stand for? He voted for the Iraq war.
He voted against sending more funds to Iraq, but "he voted for it before he
voted against it". Those SUV's in the Kerry compound aren't his, the
family bought them. What, specifically is Kerry going to do as president
(other than not being Bush)? What, specifically is he going to do to make
All of his statements vs. actions seem to show that he is an elitist who
views the electorate as a bunch of dumb sheep who will vote for him if he
just shows enough compassion for them to make them think he cares about
them. It's OK for his family to have a fleet of Suburban SUV's since they
are, after all part of the chosen to watch out for the rest of us. For the
rest of us, we need to get rid of those evil gas-guzzling SUV's and
conserve those precious natural resources [for him]. It's OK that Theresa
jets around in a G5, the rest of the little people need to conserve natural
resources [for her]. What John Kerry says happened 35 years ago (like
being in Cambodia for Christmas 1968) happened. If it was physically
impossible, that doesn't matter, what matters is that *he* cares.
(snipped all the rest)
I don't have the time to answer all of the same essays from half a
dozen Bush supporters who still want to cling to the idea that the
stories of the Swift Boat guys hold water. I don't have time to
answer all of the same essays from guys who still believe in trickle
down economics and who think the size of government or the deficit has
shrunk under the Republicans. II don't have time to answer all the
same essays from guys who think we are better off having alienated all
of our allies with unilateral actions and who still believe WMDs might
really be out there.
You guys are part of the 30% core that will vote for Bush no matter
what he does, and no matter how things go. It might be a consolation
to know that even Herbert Hoover received 38.6% of the vote in 1932.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.