|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
 Posted: 06/07/03 - 21:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
i always favored fascist dictatorship myself.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Alarach
Banned
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 597
|
|
Posted: 06/07/03 - 22:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Vote Alarach for dictator in 2028.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kin
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 388
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 00:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
interesting fact
average growth in GDP based on chained 1996 dollars under republican presidents since 1930 = 1.678%
under democrats it's 4.89%
interesting eh?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Janoth
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 00:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Another interesting statistic is that 99.9% of statistics are pulled out of said persons ass on the spot.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brash
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 01:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Janothhhh wrote: | | Another interesting statistic is that 99.9% of statistics are pulled out of said persons ass on the spot. |
unless they happen to support something you believe in, then its true for sure.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
atarom
Guest
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 03:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
100% of what brash just said is TRUE!!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Domination
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 06:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
Communism in theory is a perfect society, in practice, a nightmare. I like how you assume I spoke of it in a bad light. Keep on assuming...
Income redistrubition is wrong.
Glad you approve of it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 07:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
You could turn "No weapons, no Bush" into a protest song. Just sing it to the tune of "No woman, no cry", and make up a couple more verses...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kin
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 388
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 08:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I have the excel spread sheet I used to compute the data, which I pulled from the govt website at www.bea.doc.gov if anyone wants to dispute my computation
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 11:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kin wrote: | | I have the excel spread sheet I used to compute the data, which I pulled from the govt website at www.bea.doc.gov if anyone wants to dispute my computation |
Allow me to quote myself.
| WheresNWS wrote: | | The president does not control the economy. Congress does not control the economy. Nobody controls the economy. It is an incredibly complex system that is controlled by billions of individuals. |
Edit: But, if you want to ASSume that the president is in control of the economy (which is completely false), take into consideration that Bush inhereted Clinton's bad economy, Reagan inhereted Jimmy Carter's bad economy, etc. The accountability would have to be reversed if you assumptions were true...which they're not.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kin
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 388
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 13:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
just pointing out a bit of interesting info... though by that same logic bush had regan's, ford had nixons, hoover had coolidge's, etc..
republicans follow republicans, democrats follow democrats... they don't always alternate so the argument that the republicans get the shaft from a democratic president is flawed
it's not all to put a finger on republican presidents saying that they are always the sole cause, because I'll agree that the president doesn't have total control of the economy. I would argue that he is an influence on the economy if not by any policy, then by the psychological effect he can have on the american consumer.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 13:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kin wrote: | just pointing out a bit of interesting info... though by that same logic bush had regan's, ford had nixons, hoover had coolidge's, etc..
republicans follow republicans, democrats follow democrats... they don't always alternate so the argument that the republicans get the shaft from a democratic president is flawed
it's not all to put a finger on republican presidents saying that they are always the sole cause, because I'll agree that the president doesn't have total control of the economy. I would argue that he is an influence on the economy if not by any policy, then by the psychological effect he can have on the american consumer. |
Ok, I think this is a moot point, but based on your same data (you requested somebody look at it), here are some other figures:
Neglecting the recovery from the great depression (under Roosevelt), the figures are much closer:
2.6% growth on average for Republicans and 3.6% under democrats. Another interesting figure, is the standard deviation. The federal reserve consideres a high standard deviation bad because it mean economic instability. The standard deviation under republicans is 2.6 and 3.6 under democrats.
Including pre-war figures (this actually helps the democrats considerably):
Look at the total output (in 1996 trillions of dollars) under both parties. 144,570.7 trillion under republicans and 129,657.5 trillion under democrats. Also take into consideration the fact that Democrats have held the office for 40 years and Republicans for 34 years since 1929. That makes the average GDP under Republicans 4252 trillion/year and and under Democrats 3241 trillion/year. Average Republican presidential output is actually almost a third greater than average Democratic presidential output.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kin
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 388
|
|
Posted: 06/08/03 - 16:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
very true
but I wouldn't be fueling the arguement if I pointed out both sides now would I 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Haroun Zehra
Sir Postalot
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1235
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 08:13 Post subject: Re: no weapons = no bush ?
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | | if we never find any weapons ya think bush will get reelected ? |
Sure... as long as he finds another war to use to distract Americans for the signficant domestic issues he's not addressing, and continues to build up the idea that disagreeing with him = treason.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 12:38 Post subject: Re: no weapons = no bush ?
|
|
|
[quote="Haroun Zehra"] | Brash wrote: | | and continues to build up the idea that disagreeing with him = treason. |
disagreeing with him = stupidty
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Haroun Zehra
Sir Postalot
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1235
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 12:41 Post subject: Re: no weapons = no bush ?
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | disagreeing with him = stupidty |
Wow... I didn't realize people like John McCain and Colin Powell were idiots.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 12:45 Post subject: Re: no weapons = no bush ?
|
|
|
| Haroun Zehra wrote: | | Kbarr wrote: | | disagreeing with him = stupidty |
Wow... I didn't realize people like John McCain and Colin Powell were idiots. |
Both are closet democrats.
That alone makes them dopes.
Besides, the ex general is on board now, your facts are a little old.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 12:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
John McCain is an idiot. I used to like him, until he led the passage of that bill (McCain-Feingold) that completely suppresses free speech. Of course, liberals support that bill because it effects speech contrary to their own more, and they're hippocrites.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 12:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
That is a really loopy bill, what were they going for?
I don't see how it benefits any particular faction, in all honesty. Doesn't matter though, the court will see it as unconsitutional.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Therros
Rookie
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 68
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 13:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
They are correct, you cannot possibly blame George Bush for the current economy. First of all the president has very little to do with the economy, the congress a bit more, but NONE of this comes into effect for at least a year or two.
So.... right now we're seeing economic effects of things that happened 2-6+ years ago, which is mostly Clinton. If he wins a second term, and I expect that he will, then we can view his economic policy based on what he did in this term. And again, much of the economy is completely out of the government's control. Changes happen, shifts happen.
These economy problems were mostly due to changes in technology and people's view of technology in the late 90's and the subsequent shifts in what people trust and don't trust out there. Since this is not a long term problem, things will get better, regardless of what the government does.
As for a deficit... wars create them, it's natural.
No, he's not a bright man, but he has surrounded himself with some good advisors.
As for the tax cuts, *sigh*, when will people learn to be fair in statistics. The cut DOES help everyone. Would you believe that over 80% of those who benefit make under 50k a year? It's actually closer to 90% now that I look closer.
Oh? Am I screwing with the numbers by counting PEOPLE and not DOLLARS. Ooops. I guess I'm doing exactly what democrats are doing by talking in dollars.
Just making up numbers here to prove a point.
If 500 people making 25k save 1k each (4%)...
And 1 person making $25,000,000 saves $1,000,000 (again 4%)...
Who is this tax cut 'directed' at.
Well, democrats can say that the top 0.2% of the people get 66% of the total money... it's insanely targetted at the rich!
The republicans can say that 99.8% of the people benefiting from this tax cut make 25k or less... it's all for the poor!
And of course... the most balanced way to view this is that it's a FLAT tax cut... 4% for everyone... most people might think this is FAIR if they aren't too biased to one side or another.
Oh the wonders of sloppy and quick statistics.
With income ranges that go from $0 to $12 Billion you can't look at total dollars, it's just not fair. You should look at what the 'median' people are getting and decide if it's fair or enough, and plenty of people (including myself) are seeing and will continue to see a nice tax cut coming up soon.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 13:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | That is a really loopy bill, what were they going for?
I don't see how it benefits any particular faction, in all honesty. Doesn't matter though, the court will see it as unconsitutional. |
The courts already reviewed it. They came back with a ruling of the constitutional intricacies printed on paper that was stacked over a foot high. I think it's on appeal right now, though. It actually benefits both factions. Basically, nobody is allowed to talk bad about any of the candidates for a month before elections.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
eqchanter
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 1544
Location: tennessee
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 13:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Zwadrich wrote: | I wish all teh americans good luck when there are new elections.. must be a bugger  |
RECOUNT!
RECOUNT!
that was f*****g annoying.
anyway as for the economy every time i think about this i just have to laugh.
| Quote: | from president calvin coolidge
when more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Derringer
Luke Warm
Joined: 25 Oct 2002
Posts: 384
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 14:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | You're a f*****g idiot Tolanin, I won't cut corners with you.
Since it is quite obvious that you never read what exactly was entailed, most of the cuts went to businesses and individuals that made considerably more then 27k/year. People who make that much didn't get a whole lot.
Economic decline? Under Clinton? I don't think so. Spending was cut dramatically. The budget was balanced. There was infact a budget surplus. Now there is a deficit that is unmatched by any other in our history. That's some great common sense thinking there.
Natural economic upturn eh? Yeah, guess that's why Bush the First had it all f****d up when Clinton arrived. Guess it just magically ironed itself out. Right. f*****g uneducated, ill informed moron. Maybe that is what your parents spew to you at the dinner table, but that is a factually wrong interpretation of the past 10 years.
Terrorism and Mid East extremism? Clinton? My, how we like to blame people for things. How many blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor?
You have to realize a couple of things here when it comes to September 11, 2001.
The first thing, is that the assailants <i><b>did not break the law until they attacked the flight crews on those planes</i></b>. PERIOD. They didn't smuggle items on board. They took box cutters on board. Plane hijackings have not EVER been a situation where the plane was then turned into a kamikaze death machine for those on board. People assumed that they would be landed, the hijackers would get what they wanted, who knows. Instead they got flown into the WTC. We're talking about crazy f****n people. George Bush couldn't have stopped that. Bill Clinton couldn't have stopped that. Nobody could have. Fortunately, the people on the 3rd plane found out what had happened to the other planes that were hijacked. That is why that one ended up as a smoking crater in Pennsylvania and not in the Pentagon or who knows where else.
One thing that MIGHT have prevented the 9/11 attacks was a simple device.
Armored doors had been recommended to be installed on planes PRIOR to 9/11. Airlines did not want to put them in because of the 'cost'. Now most of them are going bankrupt. GG guys.
Oh, and you are f*****g wrong when you say that Bush and Clinton don't have the same funds to use. What the f**k are you talking about, you must think Clinton was president of some other country. Tidbit of news for you: Bush was elected, er, sorry, <i>appointed</i> right after Clinton left office. The reason for the change in the budget is because of the policies applied to it, reckless spending, with irresponsible tax cuts.
You are a f*****g idiot, Tolanin. Keep your posts to topics like rap music and other subjects where you might actually be qualified to open your f*****g pie hole. |
No Rennol, I'm afraid your the idiot, in this post.
You jump all over a previous post describing 'income redistribution', yet that is exactly what you want! The U.S. has been practicing some form of 'income redistribution' for many years now, so its not like its a new concept, but for some reason you take offense to the term.
The Bush tax cut most definately does help people in the income brackets you cite it doesn't. I assume that because it doesn't help them 'enough' is what your b******g about?
When you cut the average person's taxes by 10% it might equal 500.00, lets say. When you cut the taxes of a high income bracket by 10%, that number might be 10,000.00 . Its called a percentage tax cut, and while one person got 10,000.00 and one got 500.00, it was the same percentage of their tax contributions.
You essentially want to tax people in this country who have 'made something of themselves financially' at an alarmingly higher rate than the average person. Its one viewpoint to have, but lets not pretend, for a second, that its the only viewpoint or that others on this thread are somehow 'idiotic' for completely disagreeing with you.
The difference between you and me, other then our incomes, is that I believe everyone in this country has opportunity to attain those incomes and shouldn't be lopsidedly taxed for getting there. You, on the other hand, want the people who have made it to pay for those who haven't. What a conveniently communistic view to harbor.
Furthermore, if you refer to people as 'uneducated' one more time based on your interpretation of how long it takes for a President to be 'responsible' for an Economic Up/Downturn, I may have to puke. When you can give us all the formula for determining how long it takes the Economy to react to a new President, I'll show you the time machine I'm building out back... In other words, to refer to someone as an 'uneducated moron' because they don't share your short-sighted and singly self important opinions on something that is *anything but obvious or conditional on being educated* is illogical and stupid at best, moronic at worst.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 15:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | You could turn "No weapons, no Bush" into a protest song. Just sing it to the tune of "No woman, no cry", and make up a couple more verses... |
Excellent idea, Ill get on this right away!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 19:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
g*****n it, Derringer!! Stop spreading Republican propaganda!
It's obviously unfair that the poorer person in your example doesn't get a $10,000 tax cut like the person that makes 20 times as much as he does. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 06/09/03 - 21:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
cutting taxes to much for the poor makes the economy really top heavy.. if anything ever happened to the rich and they lost their money then the govt would like colapse from lack to funds.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 06/10/03 - 08:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | g*****n it, Derringer!! Stop spreading Republican propaganda!
It's obviously unfair that the poorer person in your example doesn't get a $10,000 tax cut like the person that makes 20 times as much as he does. :roll: |
If a person who makes $20,000/year and pays no taxes gets a $10,000 tax cut, isn't that welfare?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 06/10/03 - 09:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | g*****n it, Derringer!! Stop spreading Republican propaganda!
It's obviously unfair that the poorer person in your example doesn't get a $10,000 tax cut like the person that makes 20 times as much as he does. |
If a person who makes $20,000/year and pays no taxes gets a $10,000 tax cut, isn't that welfare? |
hehe.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lotek
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1598
|
|
Posted: 06/10/03 - 11:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
"No weapons, no Bush"
sounds like the dating mantra of most of you that post here.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Haroun Zehra
Sir Postalot
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1235
|
|
Posted: 06/10/03 - 15:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Derringer wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | You're a f*****g idiot Tolanin, I won't cut corners with you.
Since it is quite obvious that you never read what exactly was entailed, most of the cuts went to businesses and individuals that made considerably more then 27k/year. People who make that much didn't get a whole lot.
Economic decline? Under Clinton? I don't think so. Spending was cut dramatically. The budget was balanced. There was infact a budget surplus. Now there is a deficit that is unmatched by any other in our history. That's some great common sense thinking there.
Natural economic upturn eh? Yeah, guess that's why Bush the First had it all f****d up when Clinton arrived. Guess it just magically ironed itself out. Right. f*****g uneducated, ill informed moron. Maybe that is what your parents spew to you at the dinner table, but that is a factually wrong interpretation of the past 10 years.
Terrorism and Mid East extremism? Clinton? My, how we like to blame people for things. How many blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor?
You have to realize a couple of things here when it comes to September 11, 2001.
The first thing, is that the assailants <i><b>did not break the law until they attacked the flight crews on those planes</i></b>. PERIOD. They didn't smuggle items on board. They took box cutters on board. Plane hijackings have not EVER been a situation where the plane was then turned into a kamikaze death machine for those on board. People assumed that they would be landed, the hijackers would get what they wanted, who knows. Instead they got flown into the WTC. We're talking about crazy f****n people. George Bush couldn't have stopped that. Bill Clinton couldn't have stopped that. Nobody could have. Fortunately, the people on the 3rd plane found out what had happened to the other planes that were hijacked. That is why that one ended up as a smoking crater in Pennsylvania and not in the Pentagon or who knows where else.
One thing that MIGHT have prevented the 9/11 attacks was a simple device.
Armored doors had been recommended to be installed on planes PRIOR to 9/11. Airlines did not want to put them in because of the 'cost'. Now most of them are going bankrupt. GG guys.
Oh, and you are f*****g wrong when you say that Bush and Clinton don't have the same funds to use. What the f**k are you talking about, you must think Clinton was president of some other country. Tidbit of news for you: Bush was elected, er, sorry, <i>appointed</i> right after Clinton left office. The reason for the change in the budget is because of the policies applied to it, reckless spending, with irresponsible tax cuts.
You are a f*****g idiot, Tolanin. Keep your posts to topics like rap music and other subjects where you might actually be qualified to open your f*****g pie hole. |
No Rennol, I'm afraid your the idiot, in this post.
You jump all over a previous post describing 'income redistribution', yet that is exactly what you want! The U.S. has been practicing some form of 'income redistribution' for many years now, so its not like its a new concept, but for some reason you take offense to the term.
The Bush tax cut most definately does help people in the income brackets you cite it doesn't. I assume that because it doesn't help them 'enough' is what your b******g about?
When you cut the average person's taxes by 10% it might equal 500.00, lets say. When you cut the taxes of a high income bracket by 10%, that number might be 10,000.00 . Its called a percentage tax cut, and while one person got 10,000.00 and one got 500.00, it was the same percentage of their tax contributions.
You essentially want to tax people in this country who have 'made something of themselves financially' at an alarmingly higher rate than the average person. Its one viewpoint to have, but lets not pretend, for a second, that its the only viewpoint or that others on this thread are somehow 'idiotic' for completely disagreeing with you.
The difference between you and me, other then our incomes, is that I believe everyone in this country has opportunity to attain those incomes and shouldn't be lopsidedly taxed for getting there. You, on the other hand, want the people who have made it to pay for those who haven't. What a conveniently communistic view to harbor.
Furthermore, if you refer to people as 'uneducated' one more time based on your interpretation of how long it takes for a President to be 'responsible' for an Economic Up/Downturn, I may have to puke. When you can give us all the formula for determining how long it takes the Economy to react to a new President, I'll show you the time machine I'm building out back... In other words, to refer to someone as an 'uneducated moron' because they don't share your short-sighted and singly self important opinions on something that is *anything but obvious or conditional on being educated* is illogical and stupid at best, moronic at worst. |
Goddammit, Derr. We KNEW you had to be saving it up... guess we're lucky you came here for your dum..., er your release. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
