REAGAN Rapist????????? NOT
Al Ridemfi
> From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
> Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
> >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
> >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
> >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
> >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
> >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
>
> Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
> with his voodoo economic policy.
Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
again, repeating old canards.
Anyway, YOUR non-liberal president says the economy is the *best* it's
been in decades. Sure doesn't sound like "mourning" to me.
_________________________________________________________________________
"Probably, there are people in this room still mad at me and at that budget
because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to
know that I think I raised them too much, too."
-- Bill Clinton, September 1995, addressing a big buck$ fund raiser in Texas
"I think the ethical standards established in this White House have been the
highest in the history of the White House"
-- Al Gore, October 1996
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.politics.clinton">
Followup-To: <"talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.politics.clinton">
References: <327833...@ibm.net>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Al Ridemfi (a...@ibm.net) wrote:
: > From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
: > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
: > >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
: > >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
: > >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
: > >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
: > >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
: >
: > Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
: > with his voodoo economic policy.
: Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
: double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
: spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
: again, repeating old canards.
Well, if the Congress was supposed to do something that it didn't do, why
didn't Reagan use his veto? Or do only Democratic Presidents have the
gonads to veto budgets they don't like?
It seems to me that if a President signs something, he agrees with it in
principle, even if he grumbles about it for public consumption.
: Anyway, YOUR non-liberal president says the economy is the *best* it's
: been in decades. Sure doesn't sound like "mourning" to me.
Clinton is fixing it.
Hell, if everything that was wrong with the economy when Reagan was in
office was blamed on Jimmy Carter, why can't we return the favor?
--
Buddy K
James Doemer
Al Ridemfi wrote:
>
> > From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
> > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
>
> > >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
> > >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
> > >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
> > >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
> > >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
> >
> > Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
> > with his voodoo economic policy.
>
> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
> again, repeating old canards.
>
> been in decades. Sure doesn't sound like "mourning" to me.
>
> "Probably, there are people in this room still mad at me and at that budget
> because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to
> know that I think I raised them too much, too."
>
> -- Bill Clinton, September 1995, addressing a big buck$ fund raiser in Texas
>
> "I think the ethical standards established in this White House have been the
> highest in the history of the White House"
> -- Al Gore, October 1996
Yet, Personal Bankrupcies will top 1,000,000 this year, a record high..
William Barwell
In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
>> Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
>
>> >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
>> >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
>> >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
>> >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
>> >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
>>
>> Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
>> with his voodoo economic policy.
>
>Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>again, repeating old canards.
The right wing lies just keep on going and going.
No, Reagan got his cuts, Stockman has pointed out by 1986, social
spending im America had been cut 9% in his book "The Triumph of Politics".
The problem was supply-side did not work as advertised and they had made
massive errors in basic starting assumptions. See page 399 of Stockman's
book, the chart labled "the $2 trillion dollar error".
This $2 trillion dollar little mistake in budget numbers led to the
massive
deficits, despite the revisionist lies of the truthless and permanently
learning disabled myth peddlers.
You simply cannot base a 4 year economic plan on $2 trillion in
bad assumptions and a bad economic assumption such as teh laffer curve and
expect anything else than disaster.
All you can do after this is lie about it.
David Stockman "The Triumph Of Politics" Harper & Row 1986
Page 68-69
"This can't be!" I declaimed, while storming around my office like
some dervish.
So I went back to the to the drawing board. This time I discovered
the illusionary revenue windfalls owing to double-digit inflation.
When I substituted a rapid decline in infaltion, the Democrats' spending
promises resulted in plenty of red ink. But there was no $60 billion
budget surplus at the end of teh supply-side rainbow, either.
Instead, I discovered that to balance the budget we would need huge
spending cuts too - More than $100 billion a year. The fabled revenue
feedback of the Laffer curve had thus slid into the grave of fiscal
mythology forty days after the supply-side banner had been hoisted up
at the GOP convention.
these dramatic changes in my comprehension of budget estimation
and the true fiscal math of the supply-side program occured almost over
night. That should have been cause for second thoughts and reassessment of
the whole proposition.
But it didn't happen that way.
At the time the prospect of needing well over $100 billion in domestic
cuts to keep the Republican budget in equilibrium appeared to be more
as an opportunity than a roadblock. Once Reagan got an electoral
mandate for Kemp-Roth and 10-5-3, then we would have the Second Republic's
craven politicians pinned to the wall. They would have to dismantle
it's bloated, wasteful, and unjust spending enterprises - or risk
national ruin. The idea of a real fiscal revolution, a frontal attack
on the welfare state, was beginning to seem more and more plausible.
Now the fiscal elemenet had been linked into the chain reaction, too.
Page 399
Table 3
Rosy Scenario and Money GNP
The $2 trillion Error
(Money GNP in billions)
Year Rosy Scenario Actual Economy Error
1982 $3,192 $3,054 $138
1983 3,598 3,229 369
1984 4,000 3,581 419
1985 4,398 3,839 559
1986 4,812 4,152 660
total $20,000 $17,855 $2,145
1982-86
Note: Actual GNP based on 1985 mid-session review.
Reaganomics was a fraud. You cannot promise a balanced budget by 1983,
and then knowing full well that budget will actually give you $100+
billion deficts and call it anthing else.
Unless you are a right winger who cares little about facts or hruth.
If Al isn't capable at this late date of understanding these simple facts,
you wonder what else he doesn't understand.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <3278C5...@provide.net>,
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
>Al Ridemfi wrote:
>>
>> > From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
>> > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
>>
>> > >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
>> > >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
>> > >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
>> > >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
>> > >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
>> >
>> > Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
>> > with his voodoo economic policy.
>>
>> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>> again, repeating old canards.
>>
>> been in decades. Sure doesn't sound like "mourning" to me.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________>
>> "Probably, there are people in this room still mad at me and at that budget
>> because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to
>> know that I think I raised them too much, too."
>>
>> -- Bill Clinton, September 1995, addressing a big buck$ fund raiser in Texas
>>
>> "I think the ethical standards established in this White House have been the
>> highest in the history of the White House"
>> -- Al Gore, October 1996
>
>
>Yet, Personal Bankrupcies will top 1,000,000 this year, a record high..
Thanks to liberalized bankruptcy laws and the fact over the Reagan/Bush
years that bankruptcy lost it's disreputable cachet.
So it is easier now and less unacceptable to declare bankruptcy and many
people are taking advantages to do so. Lots of Yuppie types running up
huge credit card debts as the banks handed out cards like candy.
And electing to duck out the easy way now that it is no longer
socially unacceptable to do so.
So who's fault is that? Clintons. This economy? No.
This has been well covered in the press in the last year.
Maybe not on Rush's program or the sad little local newspapers many are
stuck with in their hometown, but it ain't the fault of this economy.
It's a social change in the nature of bankruptcy that is
allowing so many more bankruptcies to occur.
Dole knows it too. He voted for liberalizing bankruptcy laws.
He knows the issues. He is a cheap demagogue.
TJ "Spark" Miller jr.
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <3278C5...@provide.net>,
> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
> >Al Ridemfi wrote:
> >>
> >> > From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
> >> > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
> >>
> >> > >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
> >> > >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
> >> > >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
> >> > >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
> >> > >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
> >> >
> >> > Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
> >> > with his voodoo economic policy.
> >>
> >> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
> >> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
> >> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
> >> again, repeating old canards.
> >>
> >> Anyway, YOUR non-liberal president says the economy is the *best* it's
> >> been in decades. Sure doesn't sound like "mourning" to me.
> >>
> >
> >
>
> Thanks to liberalized bankruptcy laws and the fact over the Reagan/Bush
> years that bankruptcy lost it's disreputable cachet.
Now how did I guess you'd find some way to get a little mud thrown about
and sneak Reagan's name into all of this?
> So it is easier now and less unacceptable to declare bankruptcy and many
> people are taking advantages to do so. Lots of Yuppie types running up
> huge credit card debts as the banks handed out cards like candy.
> And electing to duck out the easy way now that it is no longer
> socially unacceptable to do so.
> So who's fault is that? Clintons. This economy? No.
Increased taxes taking a larger chunk out of a family's paycheck? Yes.
Workers laid off by downsizing US businesses because it's cheaper and
more efficient to put factories overseas to remain competitive and to
avoid paying confiscatory (and raised in 1993) federal/FICA taxes? Yes.
It is not Reagan's fault either, as you were trying to insinuate in the
above lines.
>
> This has been well covered in the press in the last year.
Let me guess... The NY Times? Don't make me rub your nose in that
again...
> Maybe not on Rush's program or the sad little local newspapers many are
> stuck with in their hometown, but it ain't the fault of this economy.
The same economy growth rate that Clinton complained about when he ran
for office. So... Why hasn't the economy grown at an increased rate like
Clinton said it would?
>
> It's a social change in the nature of bankruptcy that is
> allowing so many more bankruptcies to occur.
And increased financial pressure put on families and employers by our
oh-so-benevolent and caring Government...
>
> Dole knows it too. He voted for liberalizing bankruptcy laws.
> He knows the issues. He is a cheap demagogue.
Tell us, Barwell, which Senate bill dealt with bankruptcy, and when did
it exist?
And please, don't quote the Times again; I'd hate to find that they
don't have this article either...
--
Careful what you wish; careful what you say,
Careful what you wish; you may regret it,
Careful what you wish; you just might get it.
-from "King Nothing"
Scott Cummings
Unfortunatly when the bottom falls out of the economy, we all go with
it. Leading economists are predicting a "cliff" fall soon. Who would
like to be with Clinton and Gore then?
Suppose that when you register the liberals pay a tax of 45%. That is
for all the causes like "save the whales, save the trees, save welfare,
save the frogs, save the spotted owl, etc." You get the picture.
Suppose at the same time if you resister conservative you pay a tax of
15%. Now you can decide if you want to support "save the whales, save
the trees, save welfare, save the frogs, save the spotted owl, etc."
Wouldn't that make more sense? Why should Washing redistrubite my money?
I can make good choices and it doesn't cost the US government anything.
I might even be able to afford to send my kid to college and not get
"government" grants or some other government aid. I suppose that makes
too much sense for Washington.
ZB
On 2 Nov 1996 12:36:32 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <3278C5...@provide.net>,
>James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
>>Al Ridemfi wrote:
>>>
>>> > From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
>>> > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
>>>
>>> > >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
>>> > >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
>>> > >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
>>> > >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
>>> > >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
>>> >
>>> > Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
>>> > with his voodoo economic policy.
>>>
>>> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>>> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>>> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>>> again, repeating old canards.
>>>
The Democratic Congress cut all except one of Reagan's proposed
budgets.
>>> Anyway, YOUR non-liberal president says the economy is the *best* it's
>>> been in decades. Sure doesn't sound like "mourning" to me.
>>>
The economy, although not growing at a 5 or 6 percent clip that the
huge Kemp/dole tax cuts might produce, the growth has been steady,
interest rates and inflation low, no recessions, and unemployment low.
Stimulating the economy at this point with a tax cut that can't be
paid for, would more than likely return it to the cycles of boom- bust
we've become familiar with in the past.
_________________________________________________________________________>
>>> "Probably, there are people in this room still mad at me and at that budget
>>> because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to
>>> know that I think I raised them too much, too."
>>>
>>> -- Bill Clinton, September 1995, addressing a big buck$ fund raiser in Texas
>>>
>>> "I think the ethical standards established in this White House have been the
>>> highest in the history of the White House"
>>> -- Al Gore, October 1996
>>
>>
>>Yet, Personal Bankrupcies will top 1,000,000 this year, a record high..
>
>
>Thanks to liberalized bankruptcy laws and the fact over the Reagan/Bush
>years that bankruptcy lost it's disreputable cachet.
>So it is easier now and less unacceptable to declare bankruptcy and many
>people are taking advantages to do so. Lots of Yuppie types running up
>huge credit card debts as the banks handed out cards like candy.
>And electing to duck out the easy way now that it is no longer
>socially unacceptable to do so.
>So who's fault is that? Clintons. This economy? No.
>
>This has been well covered in the press in the last year.
>Maybe not on Rush's program or the sad little local newspapers many are
>stuck with in their hometown, but it ain't the fault of this economy.
>
Wouldn't expect rush to point out anything that might vaguely resemble
the truth.
>It's a social change in the nature of bankruptcy that is
>allowing so many more bankruptcies to occur.
>
Plus the record number of new businesses started during the period,
one would expect more bankruptcies.
>Dole knows it too. He voted for liberalizing bankruptcy laws.
>He knows the issues. He is a cheap demagogue.
>
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
ZB
Repubs who may want to leave the Planet.
1. Phone NASA. The number is 713 483 3111. Explain that
it's very important that you get away as soon as
possible.
2.If they don't cooperate, phone any friend you may have
in the White House 202 456 1414-to have a word on your
behave with the guys at NASA.
3.If you don't have any friends in the White House,
phone the Kremlin (0106 095 295 9051). They don't have
any friends there either, but they do seem to have a
little influence, so you may as well try.
4.If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His
phone number is 011 39 6 6983, and I gather his
switchboard is infallable.
5.If all these attempts fail, flag down a passing flying
saucer and explain that it's vitally important you get
away before your phone bill arrives.
RH
Scott Cummings <scu...@iglobal.net> wrote:
>Unfortunatly when the bottom falls out of the economy, we all go with
>it. Leading economists are predicting a "cliff" fall soon. Who would
>like to be with Clinton and Gore then?
I wonder if those are the same economists that predicted that the Dole
tax plan would blow a hole in the deficit?
RH
Paul H. Henry
>> From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
>> Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
>>
>> >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
>> >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
>> >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
>> >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
>> >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
>>
>> Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
>> with his voodoo economic policy.
>
> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
> again, repeating old canards.
For some reason, Republicans never seem to remember that if supply side
economics had worked, spending cuts would not have been necessary to
reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down, and
the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it was
supposed to do. That is how it was sold to the American people. By relying
on the old "it's the Democrats' fault 'cause they didn't cut spending"
canard, the Republicans are tacitly admitting that Reaganomics was a
failure.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || A cynic is someone who knows the price of
|_) || everything and the value of nothing. A
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| conservative thinks there's no difference.
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
keith
In article <55ibdp$k...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>Now that, I will agree with. But the solution is not to cut the
>federal government and force the states to pick up the slack.
>That just shifts the tax burden from income taxes to property
>and sales taxes.
That's a start. People will deal with it from there.
> Americans need to decide what services
>they are willing to lose,
Now you're talking like a true republican. Do I smell co-opt
if the face of reality?
>and the government at all levels must
>become more efficient. As I recall, Gore is doing that.
>
keith
>-Steve
>
>MAIL: ste...@usit.net
>WWW: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1131/index.html
>
>
>Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
>any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
>is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
>US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
>
James Doemer
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <3278C5...@provide.net>,
> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
> >> > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
> >>
> >> > >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
> >> > >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
> >> > >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
> >> > >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
> >> > >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
> >> >
> >> > Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
> >> > with his voodoo economic policy.
> >>
> >> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
> >> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
> >> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
> >> again, repeating old canards.
> >>
> >> been in decades. Sure doesn't sound like "mourning" to me.
> >>
> >> "Probably, there are people in this room still mad at me and at that budget
> >> because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to
> >> know that I think I raised them too much, too."
> >>
> >> -- Bill Clinton, September 1995, addressing a big buck$ fund raiser in Texas
> >>
> >> "I think the ethical standards established in this White House have been the
> >> highest in the history of the White House"
> >> -- Al Gore, October 1996
> >
> >
> >Yet, Personal Bankrupcies will top 1,000,000 this year, a record high..
>
> Thanks to liberalized bankruptcy laws and the fact over the Reagan/Bush
> years that bankruptcy lost it's disreputable cachet.
> So it is easier now and less unacceptable to declare bankruptcy and many
> people are taking advantages to do so. Lots of Yuppie types running up
> huge credit card debts as the banks handed out cards like candy.
> And electing to duck out the easy way now that it is no longer
> socially unacceptable to do so.
> So who's fault is that? Clintons. This economy? No.
>
> This has been well covered in the press in the last year.
> Maybe not on Rush's program or the sad little local newspapers many are
> stuck with in their hometown, but it ain't the fault of this economy.
>
> allowing so many more bankruptcies to occur.
>
> He knows the issues. He is a cheap demagogue.
>
>
Yeah right, if all else fails blame it on Reagan and Bush, neither of which
has been in office for four years, Reagan for eight. Problem is, if the
economy was as good as Clinton was telling us, then there would be no reason
for the bankrupcies.
William Barwell
In article <327BC8...@nwark.com>,
TJ \"Spark\" Miller jr. <tjmi...@nwark.com> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>>
>> In article <3278C5...@provide.net>,
>> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
>> >Al Ridemfi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > From "g.sand" <gth...@cs.com>
>> >> > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
>> >>
>> >> > >Ronald was a wonderful person with a great personality who did not have
>> >> > >a mean bone in his body. He was not filled with HATE, he was a very
>> >> > >positive, cheerful guy with a smile & twinkle in his eye. He was
>> >> > >filled with optimism for the future of this country---so that when he
>> >> > >was President it was truly "Morning in America" yasmin2
>> >> >
>> >> > Now we are "mourning in America" over the big debts he gave us
>> >> > with his voodoo economic policy.
>> >>
>> >> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>> >> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>> >> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>> >> again, repeating old canards.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, YOUR non-liberal president says the economy is the *best* it's
>> >> been in decades. Sure doesn't sound like "mourning" to me.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Thanks to liberalized bankruptcy laws and the fact over the Reagan/Bush
>> years that bankruptcy lost it's disreputable cachet.
>
>and sneak Reagan's name into all of this?
I note a simple truth and it causes you to flip and drool.
My, my, my.
Well, it's true. Sorry. But them's facts.
Numerous magazines and newspapers over teh last year have noted this,
better ones anyway.
Fact is, credit cards handed out like candy to all comers is a big
part of teh problem. People get into trouble and declare bankruptcy.
Businesses now use 'strategic' bankruptcies quite readily.
Going chapter 11 is a good way to break long and unwanted leases for
example.
Just the way it is.
Conservative values in the 90s.
James Doemer
The 1,000,000 figure is personal bankrupcies alone.
TJ "Spark" Miller jr.
No drool here; just calling you on your insinuations, that's all.
> My, my, my.
>
> Well, it's true. Sorry. But them's facts.
> Numerous magazines and newspapers over teh last year have noted this,
> better ones anyway.
And somehow Reagan's name was attached to all of these "articles"?
>
> Fact is, credit cards handed out like candy to all comers is a big
> part of teh problem. People get into trouble and declare bankruptcy.
> Businesses now use 'strategic' bankruptcies quite readily.
> Going chapter 11 is a good way to break long and unwanted leases for
> example.
>
> Just the way it is.
So how is it supposedly Reagan's fault, as you have insinuated?
>
> Conservative values in the 90s.
So you're saying that only conservatives use and max out credit cards?
How naive of you.
ste...@usit.net
kbr...@wwa.com (keith) wrote:
>In article <55ibdp$k...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>>Now that, I will agree with. But the solution is not to cut the
>>federal government and force the states to pick up the slack.
>>That just shifts the tax burden from income taxes to property
>>and sales taxes.
> That's a start. People will deal with it from there.
No, I'm just tired of people fucking with the tax
system. Everytime you change the rules, you
introduce waste because someone has to rewrite,
republish, re-study, etc. One side has to work
through shortfalls, while another side ends up
wasting the excesses. Quit messing with it,
unless there is a real improvement that can
be made (e.g., adjusting the deductions each
year for inflation).
>> Americans need to decide what services
>>they are willing to lose,
> Now you're talking like a true republican. Do I smell co-opt
> if the face of reality?
No, I have always held this view. Repukes just can't seem
to deal with the fact that some people who vote for
Democrats are fiscally conservative.
Brett Kottmann
Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
...
: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
: > again, repeating old canards.
: reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down, and
: the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
: cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it was
Bzzzzzzt. Supply side economics encompasses many things, and
the liberal liars always want you to forget about the spending cuts.
1) Lower tax rates
2) Less Regulation
3) Lower overall spending
That 1) allows you to do 3) more easily always gives liberals
the problems, because they just don't get it when it comes to understanding
the behavior of free people in a free economy.
Brett
_________________________________________________________________________
Laugh of the day from the Political Woman Hotline:
Using Waco and Whitewater hearings as a smokescreen, Republican lawmakers
escalated their assault on women, children, the poor, consumers, workers,
and the environment. (And a partridge in a pear tree!)
Robert Marriott
In article <55ltfj$c...@pike.dnaco.net>, bkot...@dnaco.net (Brett
Kottmann) wrote:
> : reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down, and
> : the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
> : cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it was
>
>
> Bzzzzzzt. Supply side economics encompasses many things, and
> the liberal liars always want you to forget about the spending cuts.
>
> 1) Lower tax rates
> 2) Less Regulation
> 3) Lower overall spending
>
> That 1) allows you to do 3) more easily always gives liberals
> the problems, because they just don't get it when it comes to understanding
> the behavior of free people in a free economy.
>
> Brett
Um, you neglected to mention a couple of things yourself:
1) expenditures on investment goods almost certainly come before expansion
of capacity (i.e., it may take years for aggregate supply to shift out
while the national debt becomes ever more astronomical--but Dole is old
and won't care about those "damn kids").
2) most supply-side cuts cannot help but concentrate benefits on the white
elite (i.e., Republican)
Van
bkot...@dnaco.net (Brett Kottmann) banged out:
>Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>...
>: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>: > again, repeating old canards.
>...
>: reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down, and
>: the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
>: cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it was
> Bzzzzzzt. Supply side economics encompasses many things, and
>the liberal liars always want you to forget about the spending cuts.
> 1) Lower tax rates
> 2) Less Regulation
> 3) Lower overall spending
> That 1) allows you to do 3) more easily always gives liberals
>the problems, because they just don't get it when it comes to understanding
>the behavior of free people in a free economy.
Intelligent people know to cut to the chase, to look at the bottom
line. They look beyond revisionism and rhetoric to outcomes. The
bottom line of the Reagan years was massive debt. You might do well
to read David Stockman's book "The Triumph of Politics" rather than
parrot the simplistic party line of poor maligned Reagan.
Van
--
>Brett
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Laugh of the day from the Political Woman Hotline:
>Using Waco and Whitewater hearings as a smokescreen, Republican lawmakers
>escalated their assault on women, children, the poor, consumers, workers,
>and the environment. (And a partridge in a pear tree!)
*****************************************************************************************
According to The Center for Public Integrity -
For each year but one between 1980 and 1986, Bob Dole was the leading
honoraria recipient.
Between 1981 and 1993 Bob Dole received $1,326,771.53 in honoraria
for speeches. From 1973 through 1994 Dole raised at least $47,612,125
for his Senate and presidential campaigns and his leadership PAC. Of
that total he received at least $5,445,595 in PAC money. ...
Those interests that have given most heavily to the Kansas senator have
reaped magnificent returns on their investments.
********************************************************************************************
"When the political action committees give money, they expect something
in return other than good government."
Bob Dole in a statement to the Wall Street Journal
keith
In article <55llk5$d...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>
>kbr...@wwa.com (keith) wrote:
>
>>In article <55ibdp$k...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>
>>>Now that, I will agree with. But the solution is not to cut the
>>>federal government and force the states to pick up the slack.
>>>That just shifts the tax burden from income taxes to property
>>>and sales taxes.
>
>> That's a start. People will deal with it from there.
>
>No, I'm just tired of people fucking with the tax
>system. Everytime you change the rules, you
>introduce waste because someone has to rewrite,
>republish, re-study, etc. One side has to work
>through shortfalls, while another side ends up
>wasting the excesses. Quit messing with it,
>unless there is a real improvement that can
>be made (e.g., adjusting the deductions each
>year for inflation).
>
Reform must start somewhere but your points are well taken.
Fair enough.
>>> Americans need to decide what services
>>>they are willing to lose,
>
>> Now you're talking like a true republican. Do I smell co-opt
>> if the face of reality?
>
>No, I have always held this view. Repukes just can't seem
>to deal with the fact that some people who vote for
>Democrats are fiscally conservative.
>
Well, it does go against the grain of 'traditional' dem legislation.
I only wish the dems at large had been in agreement with you.
>>>and the government at all levels must
>>>become more efficient. As I recall, Gore is doing that.
>>>
>
cheers
Zepp
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>Yeah right, if all else fails blame it on Reagan and Bush, neither of which
>has been in office for four years, Reagan for eight. Problem is, if the
>economy was as good as Clinton was telling us, then there would be no reason
>for the bankrupcies.
The biggest problem is that real wages dropped sharply for 80% of
Americans since 1978, and taxes for 80% of wage earners went up
sharply in 1986. There has been a 20% reduction in real wages since
1978.
Since a flat tax is even MORE regressive, you'll understand why there
isn't a lot of enthusiasm for it among America's millions of future
bankrupts.
======================================================================
tick...tick...tick...tick....................................
======================================================================
keith
In article <55mcrg$l...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...>>: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>...
>>: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>>: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>>: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>>: > again, repeating old canards.
>>: reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down,
and
>>: the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
>>: cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it
was
>
>
>> Bzzzzzzt. Supply side economics encompasses many things, and
>>the liberal liars always want you to forget about the spending cuts.
>
>> 1) Lower tax rates
>> 2) Less Regulation
>> 3) Lower overall spending
>
>> That 1) allows you to do 3) more easily always gives liberals
>>the problems, because they just don't get it when it comes to
understanding
>>the behavior of free people in a free economy.
>
>Intelligent people know to cut to the chase, to look at the bottom
>line. They look beyond revisionism and rhetoric to outcomes. The
>bottom line of the Reagan years was massive debt. You might do well
>to read David Stockman's book "The Triumph of Politics" rather than
>parrot the simplistic party line of poor maligned Reagan.
>
>Van
>--
Nothing personal, but since you're so 'intelligent' then why do you
repeatedly miss the major point. You REDUCE govt spending
which was impossible between the dems & Reagan but is possible now.
The misinformation from your end is humungous.
keith
Van
kbr...@wwa.com (keith) banged out:
>In article <55mcrg$l...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...
>>
>>bkot...@dnaco.net (Brett Kottmann) banged out:
>>
>>>Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>>>: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>>...
>>>: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>>>: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>>>: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>>>: > again, repeating old canards.
Kind of lonely being a supply sider isn't it? I don't see too many
jumping on your bandwagon. That's another clue you might do well to
rethink your position. That Laffer Curve is a real laugher.
Van
--
Rich Travsky
Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
"The Democratic Controlled Congress".
Hey Al, did you know that republicans controlled the Senate for
six out of the eight Reagan years? (And the AyaDOLEuh, as I recall,
was Senate majority leader.)
What was that again about "The Democratic Controlled Congress"?
RT
keith
In article <55mru3$3...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...
>
>kbr...@wwa.com (keith) banged out:
>
>>In article <55mcrg$l...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...
>>>
>>>bkot...@dnaco.net (Brett Kottmann) banged out:
>>>
>>>>Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>>>>: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>>>>: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>>>>: > again, repeating old canards.
I admit the timing of such policy doesn't seem to connect. But there's
only one way to reduce future tax liablility. That's to start now and
make some tough decisions. I don't see the prez as having the guts to do
it.
And no, there's nothing lonely about having deeply felt convictions.
I personally don't care who-if anyone-jumps on the bandwagon.
The validity and neccessity of a concept isn't dependent on agreement.
keith
>Van
>--
>
James Doemer
Zepp wrote:
>
> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>
> >Yeah right, if all else fails blame it on Reagan and Bush, neither of which
> >has been in office for four years, Reagan for eight. Problem is, if the
> >economy was as good as Clinton was telling us, then there would be no reason
> >for the bankrupcies.
>
> The biggest problem is that real wages dropped sharply for 80% of
> Americans since 1978, and taxes for 80% of wage earners went up
> sharply in 1986.
And again in 1993..
> There has been a 20% reduction in real wages since
> 1978.
>
There's been a 72% reduction in real wages since 1968..
> Since a flat tax is even MORE regressive, you'll understand why there
> isn't a lot of enthusiasm for it among America's millions of future
> bankrupts.
>
You mean they plan this years in advance?? Wow!! People in their homes out
there right now going, "I think I'll file bankrupcy in a couple of years!"...
ste...@usit.net
bkot...@dnaco.net (Brett Kottmann) wrote:
>Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>...
>: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>: > again, repeating old canards.
>...
>: reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down, and
>: the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
>: cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it was
> Bzzzzzzt. Supply side economics encompasses many things, and
>the liberal liars always want you to forget about the spending cuts.
> 1) Lower tax rates
> 2) Less Regulation
> 3) Lower overall spending
Pure supply side theory is based solely on
increased capital investment. Lower tax rates
on upper brackets is related. Lower government
spending is not.
Conservatives are into serious revisionism about the
1980's. They are basically saying "OK, it didn't work
the first time... give us another chance." But the
American people aren't going to swallow that crap again.
> That 1) allows you to do 3) more easily always gives liberals
>the problems, because they just don't get it when it comes to understanding
>the behavior of free people in a free economy.
>Brett
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Laugh of the day from the Political Woman Hotline:
>Using Waco and Whitewater hearings as a smokescreen, Republican lawmakers
>escalated their assault on women, children, the poor, consumers, workers,
>and the environment. (And a partridge in a pear tree!)
-Steve
Frank R. Hipp
Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>> again, repeating old canards.Oh boy, another right inwger repeating that old nonsense about
>"The Democratic Controlled Congress".
>Hey Al, did you know that republicans controlled the Senate for
>six out of the eight Reagan years? (And the AyaDOLEuh, as I recall,
>was Senate majority leader.)
>What was that again about "The Democratic Controlled Congress"?
>RT
The spending cuts never got past committees in the House because they
were controlled by democrats.
Frank R. Hipp
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-- David Hume
"Today the primary threat to the liberties of the American people
comes not from communism, foreign tyrants or dictators. It comes
from the tendency on our own shores to centralize power, to trust
bureaucracies rather than people."
-- Gov. George Allen
Walker on Earth
In article <327C19...@cco.caltech.edu>
"Brian S. Jenkins" <bsj...@cco.caltech.edu> writes:
>> For some reason, Republicans never seem to remember that if supply side
>> economics had worked, spending cuts would not have been necessary to
>> the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
>> cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it was
>themselves...indeed, any knowledge of economice tells us that that is
>the case. (They just think that tax cuts pay for themselves to a
>greater degree than most.) And since real, inflation-adusted revenues
>Brian Jenkins
Ummm, no, the poster you are responding to is correct; supply side
held that there was no need to cut spending, and that is how it was
sold to the people. Two? Three weeks ago, C-SPAN aired several
presidential debates from campaigns past, and in at least one of
them, Reagan explicitly stated that spending cuts were unnecessary
because 'we would grow our way out of the deficit.' Absolutely
heartbreaking to see Carter debate Reagan; he (correctly) pointed
out that under Governor Reagan, California had incurred a record
deficit, and that history would repeat itself should the country
elevate him to the Presidency. Worse was the cameo where Mondale
said that if he was elected that he would raise taxes. He then
went on to point out that Reagan would do the same (he did) and
that the difference between the two of them was that Reagan would-
n't tell the voters that and he just did.
I am guessing that you were not of an age to be aware of the '80
and '84 campaigns? Certainly everyone I knew was cognizant of the
republican rhetoric regarding deficit, which, again, I must point
out is in complete agreement with what the first poster wrote.
In fact, it wasn't until Bush was left holding the bag that any
serious worries concerning the deficit were voiced . . . as I'm
sure you'll recall :-)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends."
RHA
In article <327F84...@provide.net>,
Some do. When I was in grad school, one guy was bragging about the
thousands of dollars in student loans he had racked up. He had
invested it in the stockmarket (probably in his parents' name).
When asked how he intended to pay off the loans, he said didn't.
He planned to declare bankrupcty right after graduation....he
was active in the Young Republicans.
--
rha
Michael King Ross
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> delighted us all with:
>Zepp wrote:
>>
>> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>> The biggest problem is that real wages dropped sharply for 80% of
>> Americans since 1978, and taxes for 80% of wage earners went up
>> sharply in 1986.
>And again in 1993..
>> There has been a 20% reduction in real wages since
>> 1978.
>>
>There's been a 72% reduction in real wages since 1968..
Aren't you one of those who call the 1993 tax adjustment the "largest
tax hike in history"? And now you're claiming that wages have gone
down since 1968?
How do you decide when to use numbers adjusted for inflation,
population and the size of the economy and when not to?
***king Ross
But I could be wrong. Results may vary. Void where prohibited.
Do not void where prohibited. Oh, lighten up, I was _only joking_.
Zepp
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>> The biggest problem is that real wages dropped sharply for 80% of
>> Americans since 1978, and taxes for 80% of wage earners went up
>> sharply in 1986.
>And again in 1993..
No, that was 1.3% of wage earners.
>> There has been a 20% reduction in real wages since
>> 1978.
>>
>There's been a 72% reduction in real wages since 1968..
What a remarkable statistic. I don't suppose you have anything to
back it up with? I -can- demonstrate the 20% wage reduction.
>
>> Since a flat tax is even MORE regressive, you'll understand why there
>> isn't a lot of enthusiasm for it among America's millions of future
>> bankrupts.
>>
>You mean they plan this years in advance?? Wow!! People in their homes out
>there right now going, "I think I'll file bankrupcy in a couple of years!"...
No, what they are saying is, "It's getting tougher and tougher. We
have to borrow more and more just to make ends meet." Now granted,
real wages went up for the first time in 18 years last year, but it
remains to be seen if that continues, or was just a blip.
======================================================================
tick...tick...tick...tick...................BRRRRRRRRNNNNNNGGGGGG!!!!!
======================================================================
Van
kbr...@wwa.com (keith) banged out:
>In article <55mru3$3...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...
>>
>>kbr...@wwa.com (keith) banged out:
>>
>>>In article <55mcrg$l...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...
>>>>
>>>>bkot...@dnaco.net (Brett Kottmann) banged out:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>>>>>: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>>>>...
>>>>>: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>>>>>: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>>>>>: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>>>>>: > again, repeating old canards.
>>>>>...
>>>>>: reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down,
>>>and
>>>>>: the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding
>spending
>>>>>: cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it
>>>was
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bzzzzzzt. Supply side economics encompasses many things, and
>>>>>the liberal liars always want you to forget about the spending cuts.
>>>>
>>>>> 1) Lower tax rates
>>>>> 2) Less Regulation
>>>>> 3) Lower overall spending
>>>>
>>>>> That 1) allows you to do 3) more easily always gives liberals
>>>>>the problems, because they just don't get it when it comes to
>>>understanding
>>>>>the behavior of free people in a free economy.
>>>>
>>>>Intelligent people know to cut to the chase, to look at the bottom
>>>>line. They look beyond revisionism and rhetoric to outcomes. The
>>>>bottom line of the Reagan years was massive debt. You might do well
>>>>to read David Stockman's book "The Triumph of Politics" rather than
>>>>parrot the simplistic party line of poor maligned Reagan.
>>>>
>>>>Van
>>>>--
>>
>>> Nothing personal, but since you're so 'intelligent' then why do you
>>> repeatedly miss the major point. You REDUCE govt spending
>>> which was impossible between the dems & Reagan but is possible now.
>>
>>> The misinformation from your end is humungous.
>>
>>Kind of lonely being a supply sider isn't it? I don't see too many
>>jumping on your bandwagon. That's another clue you might do well to
>>rethink your position. That Laffer Curve is a real laugher.
>>
> I admit the timing of such policy doesn't seem to connect. But there's
> only one way to reduce future tax liablility. That's to start now and
> make some tough decisions. I don't see the prez as having the guts to do
> it.
>
> And no, there's nothing lonely about having deeply felt convictions.
> I personally don't care who-if anyone-jumps on the bandwagon.
> The validity and neccessity of a concept isn't dependent on agreement.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to work toward a balanced budget first?
Front loading more debt to try and get out of debt seems a bit risky,
IMHO. I would just as soon Clinton had not offered any tax cuts this
time around. But after Dole threw the 15%, 50% tax cuts into the mix
he had no choice but to offer targeted cuts. I hope these cuts will
still allow for further deficit reduction. There is still a lot of
pork in Dod and certain corporate subsidy programs if the pols have
the guts to cut some of it out.
Van
--
************************************************************************
GOPAC SPEAKER: Oh, Lord, deliver us from all evil. Look upon
us with Thy favor. Bless our GOPAC family and all its work.
Bless Speaker Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and their families.
And now, almighty God, we thank you for the food that is
before us. May it strengthen us to do Thy will. Amen.
keith
In article <55pei5$7...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...
I totally agree. And to the best of my knowledge that what was going
to happen. But the point is moot now.
>Front loading more debt to try and get out of debt seems a bit risky,
>IMHO. I would just as soon Clinton had not offered any tax cuts this
>time around. But after Dole threw the 15%, 50% tax cuts into the mix
>he had no choice but to offer targeted cuts. I hope these cuts will
>still allow for further deficit reduction.
I'm sure they will. Clinton's cuts are minimal but of benefit to those
inclined to use them.
Interest rates are heading lower and revenues to the govt are still
increasing. In the short term, at least, it's a win-win.
> There is still a lot of
>pork in Dod and certain corporate subsidy programs if the pols have
>the guts to cut some of it out.
>
That will be tough to see done. I don't know if anyone has those guts.
keith
James Doemer
>
> Some do. When I was in grad school, one guy was bragging about the
> thousands of dollars in student loans he had racked up. He had
> invested it in the stockmarket (probably in his parents' name).
> When asked how he intended to pay off the loans, he said didn't.
> He planned to declare bankrupcty right after graduation....he
> was active in the Young Republicans.
>
> --
> rha
One problem with your scenario, it's harder to string a camel through the
eye of a needle than to bankrupt out of your student loans. Most courts
will not grant a forgivness on federal or state debt unless you are
physically or mentally incompacitated, or otherwise prove severe hard
ship. Otherwise, you will have the same federal and state debt you had
after the bankrupcy, as you had before, even though all other debt may be
forgiven. I suspect that your story is geared to be more of a shot to
republicans, than it is a factual account.
James Doemer
Zepp wrote:
>
> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>
> >> The biggest problem is that real wages dropped sharply for 80% of
> >> Americans since 1978, and taxes for 80% of wage earners went up
> >> sharply in 1986.
>
> >And again in 1993..
>
> No, that was 1.3% of wage earners.
>
Thats what they keep telling me, however as a accountant who prepares a great
many tax returns every year I have to agree with the IRS who has said that
there was a tax increase for incomes of $28,000 and above in 1993.
> >> There has been a 20% reduction in real wages since
> >> 1978.
> >>
> >There's been a 72% reduction in real wages since 1968..
>
> What a remarkable statistic. I don't suppose you have anything to
> back it up with? I -can- demonstrate the 20% wage reduction.
>
"Taking average wage increases, and using the double digit inflation figures of
the 70's, inflation far outstripped wage during the period of 1968 - 1977, in total
real wages decreased 52% from 1968 to 1977" Wall Street Journal June 1977
Taking this figure and adding your 20% gives me the overall figure of 72% since 1968.
> >
> >> Since a flat tax is even MORE regressive, you'll understand why there
> >> isn't a lot of enthusiasm for it among America's millions of future
> >> bankrupts.
> >>
>
> >You mean they plan this years in advance?? Wow!! People in their homes out
> >there right now going, "I think I'll file bankrupcy in a couple of years!"...
>
> No, what they are saying is, "It's getting tougher and tougher. We
> have to borrow more and more just to make ends meet." Now granted,
> real wages went up for the first time in 18 years last year, but it
> remains to be seen if that continues, or was just a blip.
>
Well, let's hope it continues....
TJ "Spark" Miller jr.
I'm Baaaaaaaaaaack!
Patrick J. McGuinness
In article <55pei5$7...@news.netusa1.net> jv...@juno.com (Van) writes:
>Wouldn't it be more prudent to work toward a balanced budget first?
Well, what spending will you, the Democrats and Clinton cut?
you suggest ...
>.... There is still a lot of
>pork in Dod and certain corporate subsidy programs if the pols have
>the guts to cut some of it out.
Well, DOD spending has been spoken for in Clinton's plan. It's already being
cut, and he and the GOP are about 1% different.
What else should be cut? "corporate subsidy" is vague ... Please be specific.
What spending subsidies could be cut that hasn't been looked at?
Goliath
Walker on Earth wrote:
>
> Ummm, no, the poster you are responding to is correct; supply side
> held that there was no need to cut spending, and that is how it was
> sold to the people.
Ummm? - what is that about? Anyone as unfamiliar with the writings of
professor Arthur Laffer in the 1970's about Supply Side Economics
as you seem to be should be a little more humble. You must be one
of those baby boomers who knows everything and yet can count the
number of 300+ page, hard back books they have read COVER TO COVER
on one hand. Your mention of "everyone you KNEW"
and what they "thought" contributes to the indication that most of your
thoughts come from sitting around a table in some bistro or bar and
chatting with other boomers who are either similarly unversed OR who
lack the wisdom that comes from real world (outside college) experience.
If you had read Laffer, you would know that the theory pertains to
REVENUE, and does not suggest that there is "NO NEED to cut spending".
Reagan did say, during his campaign, that he had no plans to cut
spending. However, he made no mention of INCREASING the number
of dollars spent on social programs. As the welfare and medicaid
rolls grew, spending on social programs INCREASED proportionately.
His was a campaign promise. If you think about clinton's
campaign promises (equal rights for homo's, mid class tax cut, etc),
you will realize that Reagan was much more sincere about
vowing not to CUT, than was Clinton with his "promises".
Most of the budgets in the Reagan years caused "stop gap
spending measures" to go into effect. That was because Reagan
was reluctant to approve the INCREASES in the social
programs that the democrats wanted.
Non-defense spending INCREASED more under the liberal
congresses of the eighties than in any other decade. If
non-defense spending had remained flat (uncut), the deficits would
have been lower as a percent of GDP than under Carter.
You appear to me to be a leftover hippie wannabe, the enemy
of GenX and their progeny.
Isn't Missouri the state that produces the House MINORITY leader
Dickballs Gepheartless? I'll be you voted for the heartless bastard.
Anyone who would voraciously support a group of systems that
systematically discourage blacks from work and marriage the way that
he does would have to be heartless. My two bits say that you voted
for Gepheartless.
gas...@money.net
Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>> again, repeating old canards.Oh boy, another right inwger repeating that old nonsense about
>"The Democratic Controlled Congress".
>Hey Al, did you know that republicans controlled the Senate for
>six out of the eight Reagan years? (And the AyaDOLEuh, as I recall,
>was Senate majority leader.)
>What was that again about "The Democratic Controlled Congress"?
>RT
GASSMAN <says>
Hey dodo! How many times have you seen the Senate originate one single
spending bill?
<Answer> NEVER! Only the house can orighinate a spending bill. The
house controls the budget.
How many years did the Republicans control the House of
Representitives during the years 1980-1988?
<Answer> NONE!
Wake up
BFS
keith
In article <55qt1t$n...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net
sarcastically says...
>
>
>Bill Clinton is not responsible for the current health of the economy.
>
OK. Explain to me how Bill Clinton has created an economic upturn.
keith
ste...@usit.net
kbr...@wwa.com (keith) wrote:
Reduced the deficit = lower interest rates = more business start-ups
and expansions. Duh...
RHA
In article <3280DB...@provide.net>,
Sorry, but it's a true account. This was during the mid-70s, the
bankruptcy laws were modified recently. *And*, during the 70s,
student loans were taken out from banks, not a government entity;
the federal government guaranteed the loans.
--
rha
Wayne Mann
ste...@usit.net wrote:
>kbr...@wwa.com (keith) wrote:
>
>>In article <55ibdp$k...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>
>>>Now that, I will agree with. But the solution is not to cut the
>>>federal government and force the states to pick up the slack.
>>>That just shifts the tax burden from income taxes to property
>>>and sales taxes.
>
>> That's a start. People will deal with it from there.
>
>No, I'm just tired of people fucking with the tax
>system. Everytime you change the rules, you
>introduce waste because someone has to rewrite,
>republish, re-study, etc. One side has to work
>through shortfalls, while another side ends up
>wasting the excesses. Quit messing with it,
>unless there is a real improvement that can
>be made (e.g., adjusting the deductions each
>year for inflation).
>
>>> Americans need to decide what services
>>>they are willing to lose,
>
>> Now you're talking like a true republican. Do I smell co-opt
>> if the face of reality?
>
>No, I have always held this view. Repukes just can't seem
>to deal with the fact that some people who vote for
>Democrats are fiscally conservative.
>
>>>and the government at all levels must
>>>become more efficient. As I recall, Gore is doing that.
>>>
>
>>keith
>
>
>-Steve
>
>MAIL: ste...@usit.net
>WWW: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1131/index.html
>
>
>Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
>any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
>is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
>US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
>
>
>
========
From: p...@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Reagan's 1981 tax proposal was a 25% across-the-board tax
cut that
also raised personel exemptions and indexed brackets to
inflation.
The 1981 tax bill got several million people off the tax
rolls.
Indexing the personal exemption and tax brackets has ended
the hidden
tax increase that was due to inflation.
The bracket creep, of which the Democrats were quite fond,
was like
an unvoted tax increase every year, bringing in more revenue
while
leaving less and less after-tax income to the taxpayer.
It took the Reagan tax cut to end the nonsense.
indexing tax rates to inflation as well as lowering tax
rates.
Fact #1: Because of the Reagan 1981 tax cut, the top bracket
taxpayers
paid more taxes in absolute terms.
Reagan's 1981 tax cut included a provision to cut the top
rate from 70% to 50%.
The Government made more in revenues from the top-income
taxpayers
at the 50% rate in 1983 than they made at the 70% rate in
1981.
The actual revenues collected from income bracket above
$200,000,
in billions:
1981 - $22.6
1982 - $26.6
1983 - $31.7
1984 - $40.4
1985 - $47.6
[ source - Lawrence Lindsay "The Growth Experiment" ]
When faced with evidence that the rich paid more in taxes,
it is argued, the rich had their incomes go up by more.
Everyone seems to be failing to grasp the obvious and
unstated connection
here between taxable incomes and tax rates.
Let me state it - changing tax rates will CHANGE the level
of taxable income;
the higher the tax rate, the greater the tax avoidance, and
hence the
lower the taxable revenue. In fact, at a certain point, you
can raise
tax rates and *lose* revenue, because the reduction in
taxable revenue
will more than offset the expected increase from the higher
tax rate.
Fact #2: Because of the Reagan 1981 tax cut, the income tax
became
less of a burden on the working class
Ronald Reagan cut income taxes *more* on the poorest
Americans,
by raising the standard and personal exemptions, than he did
on the wealthy, when he cut the top rate of taxation from
70% to 50%.
Income taxes were eliminated for households with an income
of less
than $10,000. Income taxes for people making between $20,000
and
$50,000 were cut. Income tax RATES for "the wealthy" were
cut,
but actual receipts show them paying more taxes.
The idea that the rich got massive tax breaks in the Reagan
years is
unsubstantiated. The tax revenue did rise sharply - from
wealthy taxpayers.
The rich folks (top 10% of earners) who carried 36.4% of the
tax load
in 1980 carried 42.9% of the load in 1990. However, they had
the dollar
amount they paid increased by 17.9%.
"The richest 5% of the population paid 36.4% of the income
taxes collected in
1980. By 1990 they were paying 42.9% of the taxes. The
myth that the
rich got a big break under the Republicans is simply snake
oil. The
increase in the taxes paid despite the tax rate cuts came
from the
elimination of tax shelters and loopholes.
--Wall Street Journal 8/5/92
Fact #3: Tax revenues increased during the Reagan years
Revenues received by the Federal Treasury increased every
year from
1983 to 1990.
Between 1980 and 1989, overall taxes paid moved from 19.3%
of GNP to
19.1% of GNP. Hardly significant. What is significant is
that, thanks
to economic growth, the amount collected rose significantly
during the
1980s (from $599 billion to $976 billion in nominal terms).
The economy grew by one-third from 1983 to 1990. In 1983,
the German
economy was one third the size of the U.S. In effect, from
1983 to 1990,
we created another Germany. This robust growth enabled tax
revenue to increase
in real terms, and the increased tax revenue paid for much
of the
increased spending.
Fact #4: The Reagan tax rate cuts did not cost a lot in
terms of Federal
revenue
The net cost of the Reagan tax cuts to tax revenues was
about $33 billion
dollars in 1985, only a fraction of the actual deficit, and
much less of a
revenue loss than the critics had contended. The benefit
was economic
activity that was hundreds of billions higher than it
otherwise would have been.
[Source: Lawrence Lindsay " The Growth Experiment".]
Fact #5: Lower rates are better - for the economy, for tax
revenues,
and for tax fairness
Certainly, history has shown that there is a beneficial
effect from
lower tax rates. When we reduced the top tax rates in 1964
from 75-90%
down to 62-70%, revenues increased. For taxpayers earning
over $500,000
in income, it leaped 30%.
The evidence from the 1981 tax cuts is that the Laffer curve
peak is well
below 70% and probably below 50%. In just a few years, the
Federal Government
took in more revenue from the top income bracket taxpayers
at a 50% rate
than at a 70% rate.
"In addition, taxpayers in the $75,000 to $200,000 range,
whose rate were cut
from a range of 54-69 percent to a range of 38-50 percent,
paid about
92 percent of what they would have paid under the old law."
So cutting the rate from the 50% range to the 40% range lost
very little
revenue, even over the short term of a few years.
Over the long run, it probably would be a net plus.
Lower tax rates will ALWAYS generate greater economic
activity even
beyond the point where the increase in economic activity is
insufficient to offset the loss of tax revenue due to the
lower rate.
The experience of the 1986 tax reform and the 1990 and 1993
tax increases
show that tax rates above 30% yield small revenue gains
relative
to the expected direct-effect revenue. To put it in simple
terms, tax
rates above 30% are probably unwise, and tax rates above 50%
are most
certainly stupid. [Source: Lawrence Lindsay's "The Growth
Experiment"]
" [in reviewing the data] the implications of these finding
are
enormous. Tax rates over 50 percent are conterproductive
from the view of
collecting revenue." - Lawrence Lindsay, "The Growth
Experiment"
The five years after the the Reagan tax cuts were put into
place,
from 1983 to 1988, the economy grew at a faster rate than
any other
5-year period since the 1960s, when, coincidentently, we
*also*
had a tax cut (1964).
keith
In article <55thd2$h...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>
>kbr...@wwa.com (keith) wrote:
>
>>In article <55qt1t$n...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net
>>sarcastically says...
>>>
>>>
>>>Bill Clinton is not responsible for the current health of the economy.
>>>
>
>> OK. Explain to me how Bill Clinton has created an economic upturn.
>
>Reduced the deficit = lower interest rates = more business start-ups
>and expansions. Duh...
Oh thank you. But you'd better credit the house with at least an equal
share. They control the spending. Duh...............................
Thanks for making my point.
keith
In article <55ueme$1...@kirin.wwa.com>, kbr...@wwa.com says...
>
>In article <55thd2$h...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>>
>>kbr...@wwa.com (keith) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <55qt1t$n...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net
>>>sarcastically says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clinton is not responsible for the current health of the economy.
>>>>
>>
>>> OK. Explain to me how Bill Clinton has created an economic upturn.
>>
>>Reduced the deficit = lower interest rates = more business start-ups
>>and expansions. Duh...
>
Oh thank you. But you'd better credit the house with at least an equal
share. They control the spending. Duh...
It seems to me the correlation between deficits and interest rates
has not been a relative constant. There are many factors with many
variations that make manufacturing an economic upturn a lesson in
humility. If there was indeed a simple formula each party would stay
in relative control by tweeking the knobs. Not taking anything away
from the prez-meaning he didn't do it-but Clinton was fortunate that
an upturn has occurred under his watch.
And so are we.
Zepp
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>
>Thats what they keep telling me, however as a accountant who prepares a great
>many tax returns every year I have to agree with the IRS who has said that
>there was a tax increase for incomes of $28,000 and above in 1993.
Since you are an accountant, suppose you tell us what the exact
mechanism is that led to a tax raise on incomes of $28,000 and above.
>"Taking average wage increases, and using the double digit inflation figures of
>the 70's, inflation far outstripped wage during the period of 1968 - 1977, in total
>real wages decreased 52% from 1968 to 1977" Wall Street Journal June 1977
>Taking this figure and adding your 20% gives me the overall figure of 72% since 1968.
The WSJ, if they actually said that in June of 1977 or any other
time, were wildly, grossly in error. Minimum wage took a terrific
drop in value during that period and never really recovered (it was
$7.15 in early 1996 dollars in 1965), but overall wages gained through
1973.
=====================================================================
As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and
good. But that doesn't mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I
disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance.
And I detest dittoheads.
=====================================================================
Van
p...@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) banged out:
The last two congresses have given the DoD 20 billion more than the
Pentagon asked for. Once the budget is introduced, things have a way
of being added on by congressmen from districts all over the country.
Maybe the line item veto will help.
The 54 cent a gallon ethanol subsidy and the sugar subsidy come to
mind. If I'm not mistaken, the tobacco subsidy squeaked through last
congress. It could go. Somewhere I ran accross where all the money
goes. There were many outlays that looked like pork. I forget where
I found it. If I run accross it again, I'll post it.
Van
p...@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) banged out:
In article <55pei5$7...@news.netusa1.net> jv...@juno.com (Van) writes:
>Wouldn't it be more prudent to work toward a balanced budget first?
:Well, what spending will you, the Democrats and Clinton cut?
:you suggest ...
>.... There is still a lot of
>pork in Dod and certain corporate subsidy programs if the pols have
>the guts to cut some of it out.
:Well, DOD spending has been spoken for in Clinton's plan. It's already being
:cut, and he and the GOP are about 1% different.
:What else should be cut? "corporate subsidy" is vague ... Please be specific.
:What spending subsidies could be cut that hasn't been looked at?
The last two congresses have given the DoD 20 billion more than the
Pentagon asked for. Once the budget is introduced, things have a way
of being added on by congressmen from districts all over the country.
Maybe the line item veto will help.
The 54 cent a gallon ethanol subsidy and the sugar subsidy come to
mind. If I'm not mistaken, the tobacco subsidy squeaked through last
congress. It could go. According to an analysis done by the CATO
Institute:
* the federal budget contains more than 125 programs that
subsidize private businesses, and
* in fiscal year 1995, more than $85 billion of the taxpay-
ers' money will be spent on these programs.
This study which details these programs can be found at :
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa225es.html
Wayne Mann
ste...@usit.net wrote:
>>keith
>
>
>-Steve
>
>MAIL: ste...@usit.net
>WWW: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1131/index.html
>
>
>Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
>any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
>is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
>US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
>
>
>
James Doemer
Zepp wrote:
>
> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>
> >
>
> >Thats what they keep telling me, however as a accountant who prepares a great
> >many tax returns every year I have to agree with the IRS who has said that
> >there was a tax increase for incomes of $28,000 and above in 1993.
>
> Since you are an accountant, suppose you tell us what the exact
> mechanism is that led to a tax raise on incomes of $28,000 and above.
>
Someone already pointed out my mistake on this, I, as many accounting
types I associate with, use to term "income" when refering to taxable
income, and "gross income" for before tax income.. So more accurately
there was a tax increase for taxable incomes of $28,000.00 or more..
> >"Taking average wage increases, and using the double digit inflation figures of
> >the 70's, inflation far outstripped wage during the period of 1968 - 1977, in total
> >real wages decreased 52% from 1968 to 1977" Wall Street Journal June 1977
>
> >Taking this figure and adding your 20% gives me the overall figure of 72% since 1968.
>
> The WSJ, if they actually said that in June of 1977 or any other
> time, were wildly, grossly in error. Minimum wage took a terrific
> drop in value during that period and never really recovered (it was
> $7.15 in early 1996 dollars in 1965), but overall wages gained through
> 1973.
>
Overal all wages gained, marginally through the second quarter of 1972,
then dropped like a lead balloon through 1977. The article was quite
accurate.
William Barwell
In article <55ibdp$k...@news.usit.net>, <ste...@usit.net> wrote:
>John Steen <the...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul H. Henry wrote:
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>> I will never cease to wonder how
>>you socialists
>
>Name-calling.
>
>>can rationalize the bankrupting of the ecomomy and raping of the
>>American taxpayer via
>>your idiotic, convoluted, justification for open ended entitlements and
>>unrestrained,
>>irresponsible government spending. God help us all!
>
No, it was Reagan's military spending, his deficts and the resulting huge
debt service payments which nearly bankrubted us.
As usual, a neocon loudly displays his vast ignorance above.
Note as Stockman admits in his book, social spending, including social
security was indeed CUT 9% under Reagan.
Why we had vast deficits was that ss did niot work and Reagan's 'program'
was based on monstrously incompetent starting assumptions, as Stockman
admits, a $2 trillion dollar set of errors
***************************************************************
David Stockman "The Triumph Of Politics" Harper & Row 1986
Page 68-69
"This can't be!" I declaimed, while storming around my office like
some dervish.
So I went back to the to the drawing board. This time I discovered
the illusionary revenue windfalls owing to double-digit inflation.
When I substituted a rapid decline in infaltion, the Democrats' spending
promises resulted in plenty of red ink. But there was no $60 billion
budget surplus at the end of teh supply-side rainbow, either.
Instead, I discovered that to balance the budget we would need huge
spending cuts too - More than $100 billion a year. The fabled revenue
feedback of the Laffer curve had thus slid into the grave of fiscal
mythology forty days after the supply-side banner had been hoisted up
at the GOP convention.
these dramatic changes in my comprehension of budget estimation
and the true fiscal math of the supply-side program occured almost over
night. That should have been cause for second thoughts and reassessment of
the whole proposition.
But it didn't happen that way.
At the time the prospect of needing well over $100 billion in domestic
cuts to keep the Republican budget in equilibrium appeared to be more
as an opportunity than a roadblock. Once Reagan got an electoral
mandate for Kemp-Roth and 10-5-3, then we would have the Second Republic's
craven politicians pinned to the wall. They would have to dismantle
it's bloated, wasteful, and unjust spending enterprises - or risk
national ruin. The idea of a real fiscal revolution, a frontal attack
on the welfare state, was beginning to seem more and more plausible.
Now the fiscal elemenet had been linked into the chain reaction, too.
Page 399
Table 3
Rosy Scenario and Money GNP
The $2 trillion Error
(Money GNP in billions)
Year Rosy Scenario Actual Economy Error
1982 $3,192 $3,054 $138
1983 3,598 3,229 369
1984 4,000 3,581 419
1985 4,398 3,839 559
1986 4,812 4,152 660
total $20,000 $17,855 $2,145
1982-86
Note: Actual GNP based on 1985 mid-session review.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <3280CA...@right.wing>, Goliath <Gol...@right.wing> wrote:
>Walker on Earth wrote:
>>
>> Ummm, no, the poster you are responding to is correct; supply side
>> held that there was no need to cut spending, and that is how it was
>> sold to the people.
>
This is indeed how Reagan and crew sold supply-side and Reagan's progarm
to the rubes. This is indeed what he claimed.
>Ummm? - what is that about? Anyone as unfamiliar with the writings of
>professor Arthur Laffer in the 1970's about Supply Side Economics
>as you seem to be should be a little more humble. You must be one
>of those baby boomers who knows everything and yet can count the
>number of 300+ page, hard back books they have read COVER TO COVER
>on one hand. Your mention of "everyone you KNEW"
>and what they "thought" contributes to the indication that most of your
What 'everybody' knows, comes from remembering Ronnie Reagan promising
just that.
You, being a right winger obviously, don't remember any of Reagan's
promises he made to America. That we would raise military spending, cut
taxes, and yet have a balanced budget by 1983.
This is what he ran on.
He promised this more than once.
It was a lie. Stockman admits he knew 40 days after Reagans nomination
that it was not possible that this could work and was based on bad
assumptions.
Yet, you rightwing revisionists have absolutely no memories at all.
This is what Reagan promised. This is the program he sold America.
Your tiresome and woefully ignorant rant simply has no nodding aquaintance
with anything resembling facts.
>REVENUE, and does not suggest that there is "NO NEED to cut spending".
>Reagan did say, during his campaign, that he had no plans to cut
>spending. However, he made no mention of INCREASING the number
>of dollars spent on social programs. As the welfare and medicaid
As Stockman admits in his book, by 1986, social spending under Reagan was
cut 9%.
You simply do not know what the fuck you are ranting about.
Dave Griffith
In article <55qvi2$6...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
Patrick J. McGuinness <p...@anegada.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>In article <55pei5$7...@news.netusa1.net> jv...@juno.com (Van) writes:
>>Wouldn't it be more prudent to work toward a balanced budget first?
>
>Well, what spending will you, the Democrats and Clinton cut?
>
I've been thinking about this a bit recently, and have come up with
some ideas. My take on the recent elections is that the voters
choose Clinton as a politician well suited to moderate the downsizing
of American government and spread the suffering around somewhat
equitably. He was not elected to stop or reverse this downsizing, a
task he has neither the temperment or power to perform, but just
o slow it down a bit. With that in mind, Clinton is an excellent choice
for the role. He's charismatic enough and skilled enough at spin to
sell even quite steep cuts as 'necessary' and 'less awful than the
mean-spirited Republican proposal'. He's farther right than any president
since Hoover (bar Reagan), but he still manages to be a rabidly supported
by all of the leftish coalition that's been the Democratic core since
1968 (the rabid distastesome conservatives have for him only helps this).
He seems to have an uncanny sense for making small proposals
(<$200M) that get big press and make him seem compassionate and
simultaneously frugal. And finally, the evidence seems to be that
he doesn't have any deeply held beliefs to get in the way of the
butchers work ahead of him.
So what will be cut? I wouldn't be too surprised to see a bipartisan
commission on tax simplification set up, used by the Reps to cut top
marginal rates and the Dems to zero out a bunch of corporate subsidies.
(The most complete list of corporate subsidies I've seen is available
at the Cato Institute's web site, in case you want specifics.)
A couple of big ticket military items (B3, Seawolf) will likely be
quietly dropped now that their vote-getting use is over, and DOD cuts
will proceed apace. In spite of the bleating during the election,
expect Medicare to be 'slowly, fairly, and moderately reformed', which
is to say, cut 5-10%. The Republicans in Congress dramatically showed
that such talk is not necessarily political suicide, and if anyone can
push it through Clinton can. Don't expect any dramatic department closings,
but don't be surprised when marginal programs are 'saved from Republican
extremism' by a 'moderate compromise' that only means a 30% budget cut
(op. cit., NEA, NEH, NASA). Big losers will be the Department of
Agriculture (much less manpower needed after Freedom To Farm), the
Department of Commerce (less and less to do, and less political clout
to do it with), and the Department of Transportation (too many easy
targets in times of austerity).
In the end, only Nixon could go to China, and only Clinton will be able
to begin the end of the welfare state in America. Barring foreign
entanglements or ethical snarls, expect a delightfully boring second
term for Clinton, marked by fiscal prudence, whether he likes it or not.
--
--Dave Griffith, grif...@crl.com
James Doemer
Sorry, but Federal and State debt has always been near to impossible to
bankrupt out of, if you declare bankrupcy, and the courts forgive your
debt, the guarantor (The Federal Government) is responsible for paying
your debt. So eventhough the banks issued you your loan, the Federal
Government is still responsible if you default, in the eyes of the court,
it becomes a federal debt the second you file your bankrupcy. If the
person was able to prove severe hardship, then the courts would forgive a
student loan.
Zepp
TJ \"Spark\" Miller jr. <tjmi...@nwark.com> polluted the cyberspace
with this:
> I'm Baaaaaaaaaaack!
I thought you lost a bet and were off line for a month. You welshing?
Michael King Ross
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> delighted us all with:
>Zepp wrote:
>>
>> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Thats what they keep telling me, however as a accountant who prepares a great
>> >many tax returns every year I have to agree with the IRS who has said that
>> >there was a tax increase for incomes of $28,000 and above in 1993.
>>
>> Since you are an accountant, suppose you tell us what the exact
>> mechanism is that led to a tax raise on incomes of $28,000 and above.
>>
>Someone already pointed out my mistake on this, I, as many accounting
>types I associate with, use to term "income" when refering to taxable
>income, and "gross income" for before tax income.. So more accurately
>there was a tax increase for taxable incomes of $28,000.00 or more..
You'll have to explain this, too. I believe you're still wrong. My
taxable income is over 28,000 and my taxes did not go up.
***king Ross
But I could be wrong. Results may vary. Void where prohibited.
Do not void where prohibited. Oh, lighten up, I was _only joking_.
ZB
On 8 Nov 1996 19:50:23 GMT, kbr...@wwa.com (keith) wrote:
> Assumptions are most dangerous indeed.
> But am I missing something here or is SS an entitlement?
> Seems that's what the prior poster is alluding to.
>
> Whatever.
> I realize everyone on both sides of this thread loves to jab back and
> forth. However it appears a little less than relevant at this point.
> Perhaps our brains need more excercise rather than recant what we
> already know or believe.
>
> I guess the ultimate question is...
>'What the hell are we going to do about it?'
>
> That would be very interesting. And perhaps damned useful.
>
> So as an american who gives a damn, what would you do?
>
>
>keith
>
Ah, a sane post in an ocean of sore losing right-wing demagoguery.
ZB
Repubs who may want to leave the Planet.
1. Phone NASA. The number is 713 483 3111. Explain that
it's very important that you get away as soon as
possible.
2.If they don't cooperate, phone any friend you may have
in the White House 202 456 1414-to have a word on your
behave with the guys at NASA.
3.If you don't have any friends in the White House,
phone the Kremlin (0106 095 295 9051). They don't have
any friends there either, but they do seem to have a
little influence, so you may as well try.
4.If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His
phone number is 011 39 6 6983, and I gather his
switchboard is infallable.
5.If all these attempts fail, flag down a passing flying
saucer and explain that it's vitally important you get
away before your phone bill arrives.
keith
In article <55vkf6$7...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
says...
>
>In article <55ibdp$k...@news.usit.net>, <ste...@usit.net> wrote:
>>John Steen <the...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul H. Henry wrote:
>
>****************** Deleted ******************
>>
>>> I will never cease to wonder how
>>>you socialists
>>
>>Name-calling.
>>
>>>can rationalize the bankrupting of the ecomomy and raping of the
>>>American taxpayer via
>>>your idiotic, convoluted, justification for open ended entitlements and
>>>unrestrained,
>>>irresponsible government spending. God help us all!
>>
>
>
>No, it was Reagan's military spending, his deficts and the resulting huge
>debt service payments which nearly bankrubted us.
>
>
>As usual, a neocon loudly displays his vast ignorance above.
>
>
>Note as Stockman admits in his book, social spending, including social
>security was indeed CUT 9% under Reagan.
>Why we had vast deficits was that ss did niot work and Reagan's 'program'
>was based on monstrously incompetent starting assumptions, as Stockman
>admits, a $2 trillion dollar set of errors
>
>***************************************************************
>
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Assumptions are most dangerous indeed.
Van
mr...@goldengate.net (Michael King Ross) banged out:
>James Doemer <big...@provide.net> delighted us all with:
>>Zepp wrote:
>>>
>>> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> polluted the cyberspace with this:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >Thats what they keep telling me, however as a accountant who prepares a great
>>> >many tax returns every year I have to agree with the IRS who has said that
>>> >there was a tax increase for incomes of $28,000 and above in 1993.
>>>
>>> Since you are an accountant, suppose you tell us what the exact
>>> mechanism is that led to a tax raise on incomes of $28,000 and above.
>>>
>>Someone already pointed out my mistake on this, I, as many accounting
>>types I associate with, use to term "income" when refering to taxable
>>income, and "gross income" for before tax income.. So more accurately
>>there was a tax increase for taxable incomes of $28,000.00 or more..
>You'll have to explain this, too. I believe you're still wrong. My
>taxable income is over 28,000 and my taxes did not go up.
Ditto. My income taxes were actually less due to the increases in the
standard deduction and exemption amount. Though this indexing was
pre Clinton, it was still more dollars in my pocket. A lot of people
who think they paid more income taxes either earned more, or they
haven't taken the time to really look at the situation.
Van
--
>***king Ross
>But I could be wrong. Results may vary. Void where prohibited.
>Do not void where prohibited. Oh, lighten up, I was _only joking_.
************************************************************************
eric sieferman
In article <55ted2$7...@kirin.wwa.com>, keith <kbr...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <55qt1t$n...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net
>sarcastically says...
>>
>>
>>Bill Clinton is not responsible for the current health of the economy.
>>
>
> OK. Explain to me how Bill Clinton has created an economic upturn.
By not screwing things up.
It's nice to see more people acknowledge that the President has, at most,
a minimal effect on the US economy. Clinton has had a small effect on the
economy. This is in contrast to the dire warnings issued by numerous
financial "advisors" and political hacks in 1992 that a Clinton election
would herald a depression bigger than the 1930's. Just to prove that bad
ideas never die, I recently received another solicitation from a financial
advisor who claims that Clinton was just lucky during his first term and
that Clinton will cause a deep recession in his second term.
This is also in contrast to the boasting that Ronald Reagan created the
biggest peacetime economic expansion. If Clinton has had little effect on
the economy, the same is true for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Jimmy
Carter, etc.
--
Quote of the Week: "For some reason our party has a requirement that
you've got to be 73 before you run for president. I've got seven
presidential elections to go before I'm 73. But if I decide to run for
president, I'm not going to wait that long." Dan Quayle.
William Barwell
In article <55ltfj$c...@pike.dnaco.net>,
Brett Kottmann <bkot...@dnaco.net> wrote:
>Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>...
>: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>: > again, repeating old canards.
>: reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down, and
>: the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
>: cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it was
>
>
> Bzzzzzzt. Supply side economics encompasses many things, and
>the liberal liars always want you to forget about the spending cuts.
>
> 1) Lower tax rates
> 2) Less Regulation
> 3) Lower overall spending
Bzzzt Brutally ignorant, unintelligent, name calling right winged,
learning disability suffering dittoheads liek Brett, simply cannot
be taught facts.
Fact. Reagan and crew promised America that they would balance teh budget
by 1983 by cutting taxes, raising military spending and getting
spending cuts of $30 billions.
They got their tax cuts and their military spending, and as Stockman
pointed out in his book, social spending went down 9%.
They got $50 billion in cuts not teh $30 billion Reagan promised
was all that was needded to balance teh budget by 1983.
Brett as usual, is wrong, ignorant and the shame is, he wants everybody to
be as wrong and ignorant as he.
Brett, read the fucking book.
Brett and other loser screaming tight winged ignorami perpetuate the same
old revisionist lies again and again. Reagan had this tiny little budget
but the big bad liberals bent his arm behind his back and forced him to
spend, spend, spend. The facts are, Congress's final budgets were smaller
than Reagan's suggested budgets excpt for year 1, where Congresses was
bigger by only $150 million. Reagan's final budget were bigger by tens of
billions.
This has been pointed out numerosu times to Brett but he insists on lying
about this fact. He insists on lying about failure to get cuts when in
teh final analysis as Stockman admits, larger cuts were made than what
Reagan and his supply-side experts told Congress and teh American people
would be necessary for his prram to achieve a balanced budget by 1983.
What Brett will not admit, is that Stockman and Darman have admitted
knowing that Reaganomics as far back as 40 days after Reagan's nomination
that Reaganomics was based on massive bad assumptions and bad numbers.
That rather than achieve a balanced budget by 1983, we would instead be
wracking up $100 billion plus deficits.
He will not admit this truth. He cannot admit this truth. His well
trained reactionary brain cannot apprehend or understand this truth.
Stockman has admitted this. In writing. He and Darman also admitted in
in January 1983 to U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Brett will never, ever, ever, ever, ever admit these sad truths. He is
either a liar of the very first water, a propagandist who simply does not
care a shit about truth, or he is a brain damaged fanatic incapable of
accepting truth and factual information he does not want to believe.
Liar or damaged, it makes little difference.
Arguing with Brett is like arguing with a cultist, a Moonie or a
Scientologist. Some people have this inability to accept any facts they do
not want to believe, and acheive a sort of selective sort of brain damage
that makes them utterly untrustworthy and utterly lacking in judgement or
ability to discern fact from fiction.
Brett has apparently, as far as I can see, acheived this state,
near total self delusion. He is a Reagan cultist.
He is incapable of learning anything that might show Reagan was ever
wrong. He follows the Great White Light of Stupidity and is about as
capable of insightful and correct thought on subjects political and
economic as your average gerbil.
He knows no real facts and cannot possibly in his state of mind
learn any real facts. No more than your average Moonie will admit Rev.
Moon is not the new Messiah, the Third Adam.
He cannot learn. He doesn't want to know. He doesn't want you to know
either.
He is a true loser. It's disgusting what reactionary right winged
politics does to a human brain. Brett is a living example.
He is damaged beyond repair. He literally cannot think, not in a
rhetorical sense, but in a very real and literal sense.
What a failure of a human being.
What a waste of brain matter.
I heard that Barwell's acceptance speech for the lying
weasel award and lifetime hate awards were great...but even
better in the original German.
"Ich bein ein Nazi!"--original German text.
Brett Kottmann
William Barwell
In article <55mcrg$l...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <jv...@juno.com> wrote:
>bkot...@dnaco.net (Brett Kottmann) banged out:
>
>>Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>>: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>Intelligent people know to cut to the chase, to look at the bottom
>line. They look beyond revisionism and rhetoric to outcomes. The
>bottom line of the Reagan years was massive debt. You might do well
>to read David Stockman's book "The Triumph of Politics" rather than
>parrot the simplistic party line of poor maligned Reagan.
>
I have been throwing facts and Stockman in Brett's face for two solid
years now. Brett has absolutely no intention of reading Stockman,
or anything else that might explode his infantile Reagan worshipping
fantasies.
For Brett, a fact is something to ignore or distort.
He is stupid, the bizarre stupid one gets when a person decides to be
stupid and shut off their brains. You see this sort of stupid in Jehova's
Witnesses, Revolutionary Communist Party members, Scientologists, Moonies,
White Power Skinheads, Christian Fanatics and street preachers, and
New Age Chrystal Suckers.
Brett is damaged. There is no cure.
William Barwell
In article <55mnm2$d...@kirin.wwa.com>, keith <kbr...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <55mcrg$l...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...
>>
>>bkot...@dnaco.net (Brett Kottmann) banged out:
>>
>>>Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>>>: In article <327833...@ibm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>>: > Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>>>: > double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>>>: > spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>>>: > again, repeating old canards.
>>>...
>>>: reduce the deficit. Revenues would have increased as taxes went down,
>and
>>>: the deficit would have been reduced even without corresponding spending
>>>: cuts. That's what supply side economics was all about. That is what it
>was
>>
>>
>>> Bzzzzzzt. Supply side economics encompasses many things, and
>>>the liberal liars always want you to forget about the spending cuts.
>>
>>> 1) Lower tax rates
>>> 2) Less Regulation
>>> 3) Lower overall spending
>>
>>>the problems, because they just don't get it when it comes to
>understanding
>>>the behavior of free people in a free economy.
>>
>>Intelligent people know to cut to the chase, to look at the bottom
>>line. They look beyond revisionism and rhetoric to outcomes. The
>>bottom line of the Reagan years was massive debt. You might do well
>>to read David Stockman's book "The Triumph of Politics" rather than
>>parrot the simplistic party line of poor maligned Reagan.
>>
>>--
>
> Nothing personal, but since you're so 'intelligent' then why do you
> repeatedly miss the major point. You REDUCE govt spending
> which was impossible between the dems & Reagan but is possible now.
>
Beep. Error. Error. Error.
Read.. Stockman.
Read.. Stockman.
Social spending was indeed cut by 1986 by 9%.
Beep! Repeat! Beep!
Social spending WAS cut 9% by 1986.
Read. Stockman.
Read. Stockman.
Page ... 401 ... Table 4... Beep!
Great Society grants and services alone were cut 25%.
Beep!
William Barwell
In article <327EF1...@uwyo.edu>, Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>"The Democratic Controlled Congress".
>
>Hey Al, did you know that republicans controlled the Senate for
>six out of the eight Reagan years? (And the AyaDOLEuh, as I recall,
>was Senate majority leader.)
>
>What was that again about "The Democratic Controlled Congress"?
>
>RT
Do not forget that the GOP controlled the house also with the help of
conservative Boll Weevil Democrats who voted with Reagan and the GOP,
helping Reagan and the GOP set overall policy firmly on Reaganomics.
The Conservatives and the GOP firmly controlled Congress. Not the Dems,
who could only attack along the fringes when the GOP overstepped the
bounds constituents found acceptable.
William Barwell
In article <55o8gf$6...@news.tamu.edu>, Frank R. Hipp <f...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>
>>Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>>> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>>> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>>> again, repeating old canards.Oh boy, another right inwger repeating that old nonsense about
>>"The Democratic Controlled Congress".
>
>>Hey Al, did you know that republicans controlled the Senate for
>>six out of the eight Reagan years? (And the AyaDOLEuh, as I recall,
>>was Senate majority leader.)
>
>>What was that again about "The Democratic Controlled Congress"?
>
>>RT
>
>
>
>
>
>were controlled by democrats.
Social spending was indeed cut by 9% by 1986.
See Stockman, page 401, chart 4.
Please do not babble about things you know nothing about.
Reaganomics did not work. It seemed to work only because
all the giant-brained supply-side economists of the 70's
forgot that high inflation was the reason it seemed to work.
Without high inflation as Stockman found out, supplyside simply collapses
under it's own internal contradictions. It don't friggin' work.
You get deficts.
See Stockman.
Supply-side stupidity doesn't work for the same way Communist
collectivism didn't work. Both economic systems are based on delusions
and errors. Reality doesn't work either of these ways.
William Barwell
In article <55nfum$i...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Mitchell Holman <hol...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>In article <327EF1...@uwyo.edu>, Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>}Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>}> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>}> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>}> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>}> again, repeating old canards.Oh boy, another right inwger repeating that old
>} nonsense about
>}"The Democratic Controlled Congress".
>}
>}Hey Al, did you know that republicans controlled the Senate for
>}six out of the eight Reagan years?
>
>
> spending and debt creation than those submitted by Congress....
>
>
Let us not keep the little man in suspense, shall we?
Here are the numbers. Reagan's suggested budgets vs the final budgets of
Congress.
Proposed Outlays (in $ Billions)
......................
FY Reagan Congress
82 695.3 695.45
83 773.3 769.82
84 862.5 849.50
85 940.3 932.05
86 973.7 967.60
87 994.0 799.15
88 1024.3 836.20
89 1094.2 885.80
The Congress's budget is the final
Congressional Conference budget.
Combined GOP and Democratic, House and Senate
reconciled final budget.
Note in the last year alone, Reagan wanted to spend $108.4 billion more
than Congress.
Wow! What a spendthrift!
William Barwell
In article <55rc3b$4...@library.airnews.net>, <gas...@money.net> wrote:
>Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>
>>Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>> Not exactly, Gail. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that
>>> double crossed him. They were supposed to match his tax cuts with
>>> spending cuts--but they never kept their bargain. There you go,
>>> again, repeating old canards.Oh boy, another right inwger repeating that old nonsense about
>>"The Democratic Controlled Congress".
>
>>Hey Al, did you know that republicans controlled the Senate for
>>was Senate majority leader.)
>
>
>>RT
>
>
>GASSMAN <says>
>Hey dodo! How many times have you seen the Senate originate one single
>spending bill?
><Answer> NEVER! Only the house can orighinate a spending bill. The
>house controls the budget.
Beeeep! Wrong. The White house did under Reagan.
Reagan's Whitehouse originated the far reaching set of budget plans we now
call Reaganomics. Not the House. Reagan and crew sent ths to Congress
and the House and Senate supported it whole heartedly.
The House did not originate this.
DID IT!?
What, you didn't note this as it happened and don't have any idea
how Reaganomics became teh basic economic plan for America for well over a
decade?
Silly boy.
Now aren't you embarressed at your goofy, wrongheaded and irrelevant
little rant that has exposed you as basically ignorant about all of this?
Cut taxes, raise miltary spending. Reagan came up with this and teh
promise that it would balance the budget by 1983.
The House and Senate didn't. They just gave it to him as demanded.
The Whitehouse controlled the budgets with this overarching plan
that set out our basic budgets for years.
William Barwell
In article <55ueme$1...@kirin.wwa.com>, keith <kbr...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <55thd2$h...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>>
>>
>>>In article <55qt1t$n...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net
>>>sarcastically says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clinton is not responsible for the current health of the economy.
>>>>
>>
>>> OK. Explain to me how Bill Clinton has created an economic upturn.
>>
>>and expansions. Duh...
>
> Oh thank you. But you'd better credit the house with at least an equal
>
Duuuh. Only the Democrats. The GOP haters did not give a single vote
for Bill's plan that slashed $500 billion off of the deficits.
Duhhhh! What a bunch of losers.
And you know, Newt and his right wingers are the same shits that howled
and howled and howled when Bush and the Democrats in Congress slashed $500
billion in deficits from the budgets.
Duhhhh! They just don't get it.
Deficits hurt us. Slashing deficits helps us.
$1 trillion slashed from the budget deficits helped quite a bit.
But the far right doesn't get it. Duhhhhh!
Too bad that so many fucking right wing losers returned to Congress.
We could do OK if we could lose these retards.
Too bad we have so many retarded citizens voting for these morons.
Wilson
In article <55vl30$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
says...
>
winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
Bush was fighting the Cold War, then the Hot War in the Gulf, also money well
spent. Then he had to spend $400 billion on the S. & L. fiasco to cover the
fraud and corruption of people like Hillary, Bill and the McDougals.
Bush left Clinton with a growing economy (4,7%), falling interest rates and
decreasing unemployment, and for the first time in recent history no war to
fight. So what's Clinton's excuse for deficit spending? He cut the military
and still no peace dividend. Clinton is just adding to an already unmanagable
national debt, a ticking time bomb, and in peacetime yet!
Where's the peace dividend?
WNO
William Barwell
In article <5602tv$h...@kirin.wwa.com>, keith <kbr...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <55vkf6$7...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>says...
>>
>>In article <55ibdp$k...@news.usit.net>, <ste...@usit.net> wrote:
>>>John Steen <the...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul H. Henry wrote:
>>
>>****************** Deleted ******************
>>>
>>>> I will never cease to wonder how
>>>>you socialists
>>>
>>>Name-calling.
>>>
>>>>can rationalize the bankrupting of the ecomomy and raping of the
>>>>American taxpayer via
>>>>your idiotic, convoluted, justification for open ended entitlements and
>>>>unrestrained,
>>>>irresponsible government spending. God help us all!
>>>
>>
>>
>>No, it was Reagan's military spending, his deficts and the resulting huge
>>debt service payments which nearly bankrubted us.
>>
>>
>>As usual, a neocon loudly displays his vast ignorance above.
>>
>>
>>Note as Stockman admits in his book, social spending, including social
>>security was indeed CUT 9% under Reagan.
>>Why we had vast deficits was that ss did niot work and Reagan's 'program'
>>was based on monstrously incompetent starting assumptions, as Stockman
>>admits, a $2 trillion dollar set of errors
>>
>>***************************************************************
>>
>[ trimmed down the evidence ]
>
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
> But am I missing something here or is SS an entitlement?
> Seems that's what the prior poster is alluding to.
See Stockman page 401.
Under Reagan, "SS, Medicare, medicaid and other socila insurance"
were cut 7%. Yes, SS is an entitlement. It is further, a completely
seperate program from the budget proper and is thus considered 'off
budget'. Actually, some $60 billions are being stolen yearly out of teh SS
trust funds and applied to the general budget.
This should end. Senator Moynihan tried and failed twice to get Congress
and Bush to stop this outright theft. And lost.
Write your thieve Congressman and Senators.
Don't hold your breathe.
These same theives are now going to 'fix' Social Security for us.
They are so kind.
>
> Whatever.
> I realize everyone on both sides of this thread loves to jab back and
> forth. However it appears a little less than relevant at this point.
> Perhaps our brains need more excercise rather than recant what we
> already know or believe.
>
Maybe knowing basic facts would be a good start.
Read Stockman's book, The Triumph of Politics.
Basically he admits he knew Reaganomics was a crock from
year one. See page 399. He shows why. He has a chart there showing
"the $2 trillion error".
What a $2 trillion dollar error in basic assumptions, the infamous
'Rosy Scenario' error? Yes. And he admits it.
You cannot make $2 trillion dollar errors for a four year budget set of
plans and succeed. Why did we not change course when this became known?
Ask your Congressman.
Where did we get monster deficts we are still paying for?
Sticking with a massively erroneous plan.
Even when it's obvious errors were, well .... obvious.
If a CEO and upper management of a business does something stupid like
this, the board fires them. We re-elect our goofballs again and again.
Depressing, isn't it?
> I guess the ultimate question is...
>'What the hell are we going to do about it?'
>
> That would be very interesting. And perhaps damned useful.
>
> So as an american who gives a damn, what would you do?
I do not know. Basically, we can't even get the fuckers to stop stealing
our social security trust funds.
Shoot them? About all that is left.
We are screwed. There is no way out.
James Doemer
Excuse me, but if you will check, you will find that Clinton also stole
from the SS trust... In fact, every president since LBJ has..
Walker on Earth
In article <5622kn$s...@mozz.unh.edu>
p...@gravity.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
>>>Walker on Earth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ummm, no, the poster you are responding to is correct; supply side
>>>> held that there was no need to cut spending, and that is how it was
>>>> sold to the people.
>>>
>
>>This is indeed how Reagan and crew sold supply-side and Reagan's progarm
>>to the rubes. This is indeed what he claimed.
>
>to provide any verifiable source of Reagan (or his ``crew'') saying any
>such thing, either during his election campaign nor his
>administration.
I will do you the courtesy of assuming you did not read the original
post in its entirety. Here is what I said that you (perhaps) did not
read:
----begin----
Ummm, no, the poster you are responding to is correct; supply side
held that there was no need to cut spending, and that is how it was
presidential debates from campaigns past, and in at least one of
them, Reagan explicitly stated that spending cuts were unnecessary
because 'we would grow our way out of the deficit.' Absolutely
heartbreaking to see Carter debate Reagan; he (correctly) pointed
out that under Governor Reagan, California had incurred a record
deficit, and that history would repeat itself should the country
elevate him to the Presidency. Worse was the cameo where Mondale
said that if he was elected that he would raise taxes. He then
went on to point out that Reagan would do the same (he did) and
that the difference between the two of them was that Reagan would-
n't tell the voters that and he just did.
----end----
So there's your reference. Let me repeat what I went on to say
in my original post: everyone of my generation knew this, and many
were induced to vote for Reagan on the strength of that proposition,
(which seemed - at the time - to as credible as the now thoroughly
not Laffer Curve.) I would also point out that someone has suggested
reading Stockman on this point as well.
Of course, this is yet another example of the ingenuousness of those
who, knowingly, willlfully, or not, twist the rules of reasoned
discussion. Mr. Sand is playing out that tired old reactionary refrain,
'Who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?' Mr. Sand,
I have no desire to convince you; _I_was_there_. Unless you can come
up with compelling evidence for me to believe otherwise, I will trust
to the testimony of my own senses rather than your own blanket pro-
nouncements, stet?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends."
William Barwell
In article <Edina1996Nov1...@island.idirect.com.compulink.com>,
Wilson <hee...@idirect.com> wrote:
>In article <55vl30$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>says...
>>
>>In article <3280CA...@right.wing>, Goliath <Gol...@right.wing> wrote:
>>>Walker on Earth wrote:
****************** Deleted ******************
>>
>>As Stockman admits in his book, by 1986, social spending under Reagan was
>>cut 9%.
>>
>>You simply do not know what the fuck you are ranting about.
>>
>Speaking of ranting. You lefties all forget that Reagan was fighting and
>winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
Gee, I won the argument so decisivley somebody had to change the subject.
Uhmm, how does the chant go,"The Democrats controlled Congress for forty
years"? Decades of effort are ignored and only Reagan gets credit?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
No, the Reds did themselves in by self destructing for us.
This is a nation that had to mobilize the Army and college
students to get the potatoes harvested.
And they usually still wasted about a third of that.
That could not make a decent pair of boots. That made
the average citizens waste large parts of their lives waiting in immense
lines for third rates goods.
Or waste time wheeling and dealing and bartering for the small neccesities
of life. Opera tickets for a pair of windshield wipers.
No, Ronnie Reagan did not win the cold war. Idiots and ideologically
stunted fools make this assinine claim.
They show their vast ignorance by doing so.
The Soviet Union collapsed because they only achieved massive national
gridlock and had absolutely no ideas how to fix it.
This was a nation of 320 million people covering 1/3 the face of the
earth, and yet their GNP was smaller than that of Japan.
A third world nation going steadily backwards, grinding slowly to a halt.
A nation of no exports, except AK-47's to 3rd world countries, no future,
no real hope of keeping up with South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, much
less Europe. Much less Japan or the USA.
South Korea exports decent cars. The Soviet Union couldn't even manage
that. They couldn't even make enough spare parts to keep their nation's
small ramshackle fleet of second rate cars going reliably.
The Communist Party won the cold war for us by the most magnificent
display of utter incompetence outside of Mao's Cultural Revolution.
They won it for us by being utterly and absolutely incompetent and
because for decades, they simply would not let anybody else take a crack
at running a nation they had no abilities whatsoever to run.
If Zippy the pinhead had been president of the USA, it would have made no
difference for all. Reagan was about as close as you could get to Zippy,
come to think of it. Except maybe Dan Quayle.
Reagan had nothing to do with this. The Soviet Union collapsed like a
rotten melon utterly and totally in the end, due to the absolute and total
incompetence of it's rotten system and useless 'leaders' and clueless
ideologically idiotic Communist Party.
Only a fool thinks otherwise.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>Ditto. My income taxes were actually less due to the increases in the
>standard deduction and exemption amount. Though this indexing was
>pre Clinton, it was still more dollars in my pocket. A lot of people
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that. He put it in the 1981 tax cut
plan, to increase the standard deduction, exemption and all tax rates
at the rate of inflation, so taxpayers wouldn't get a "hidden" tax hike
from inflation. It has helped all tax-payers since 1985 avoid bracket creep.
The Democrats wanted to kill it several times so they could suck more
blood from the American worker, but Ronald Reagan, a good man and a good
President, wouldn't let them do it!
Once again, the good works of Ronnie Reagan live long after his benighted
Presidency!
>And now, almighty God, we thank you for the food that is
>before us. May it strengthen us to do Thy will. Amen.
Amen.
Tom Benton
In article <566dcl$6...@kirin.wwa.com>, kbr...@wwa.com (keith) says:
>
>In article <566ab7$9...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, ppar...@news.idt.net says...
>>
>>Bush ran up a huge debt, albeit not as much as Reagan. But while Bush
>>pushed the deficit up, Clinton has pushed it down every year. Yes, the
>>huge debt that Reagan and Bush accumulated has not been completely repaid.
>
> Excuse me? The national debt is still growing. No one has started to
> repay squat.
>
I think you are confusing "debt" and "deficit". Any reduction in deficit
will still be a deficit and result in more debt, or am I missing something?
>>But at least Clinton was able to get started on it.
>
> Because of the strength in the economy.
> Lets just hope we can get Japanese interest rates and never have
> another recession.
>
>keith
>
>>Pat Parson
>
James Doemer
Tom Benton wrote:
>
> In article <566dcl$6...@kirin.wwa.com>, kbr...@wwa.com (keith) says:
> >
> >In article <566ab7$9...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, ppar...@news.idt.net says...
> >>
> >>Bush ran up a huge debt, albeit not as much as Reagan. But while Bush
> >>pushed the deficit up, Clinton has pushed it down every year. Yes, the
> >>huge debt that Reagan and Bush accumulated has not been completely repaid.
> >
> > Excuse me? The national debt is still growing. No one has started to
> > repay squat.
> >
> I think you are confusing "debt" and "deficit". Any reduction in deficit
> will still be a deficit and result in more debt, or am I missing something?
Well, at least until you reach a 0 deficit or a surplus condition...
Which is probably day dreaming anyway..
Van
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) banged out:
I don't know. Pat Robertson claims the President had nothing to do
with the strong stock market. According to him, years ending in 5 are
naturally strong years, regardless of who is president. Also the 3rd
and fourth years of a presidential term and years ending in 6 are also
good, regardless of who is president. Numerology running rampant
among the good Christians. Har, har.
>Too bad we have so many retarded citizens voting for these morons.
How anyone could vote for the likes of Dornan, Helms, Burton, or
Thurmond beats the hell out of me. The idea of the yellow dog
Democrat pales before this nonsense.
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
************************************************************************
GOPAC SPEAKER: Oh, Lord, deliver us from all evil. Look upon
us with Thy favor. Bless our GOPAC family and all its work.
Bless Speaker Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and their families.
Walker on Earth
In article <566ab7$9...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>
PatParson <ppar...@news.idt.net> writes:
>>Speaking of ranting. You lefties all forget that Reagan was fighting and
>>winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
>>spent. Then he had to spend $400 billion on the S. & L. fiasco to cover the
>>fraud and corruption of people like Hillary, Bill and the McDougals.
they could have their cake and eat it too, and those lovely people,
descendents of pioneers, were just willfully ignorant enough to act as
though they believed it. No attempt by revisionists to distract my
attention or handwave the issue away (such as was tried above) will
change this historical fact. Parenthetically, if supply side eco-
momics were really a theory, its adherents should be willing to
modify it to make it more readily conform to observed reality and
to increase its predictive power; that they do not - witness the
doom and gloom forecasts that preceded Clinton into office - shows
the business for what it is - a slipshod piece of dogma which ap-
peals to the conceits of the very rich, the innate selfishness of
those who have never really had to sacrifice, and the ostrich
fears of the old and tired who have perhaps been required to sac-
rifice too much already.
>Don't you mean Jeb and Neil, his neer-do-well sons, both of whom ran their
>S&Ls into the ground?
As far as I know, Neil Bush was invited to join the board of directors
in the hopes that his famous connection would attract business, but
if the papers of the time are to be believed, he had no real influence,
certainly not enough to single handedly run the franchise into the
ground :-)
>Bush ran up a huge debt, albeit not as much as Reagan. But while Bush pushed
>the deficit up, Clinton has pushed it down every year. Yes, the huge debt that
Bush was not a bad president, imho, just not one great enough to rise
above the circumstances he inherited. Certainly the country would be
far better off now if he, and not Reagan, had captured the 1980 Republican
nomination and then the presidency. Who knows - we might have had
a Republican president in 1992 if such had been the case :-)
Stig O'Tracey
Wilson wrote:
>
> Speaking of ranting. You lefties all forget that Reagan was fighting and
> winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
Hardly, at the inflated levels that were paid...besides, the USSR was on the verge of
collapse anyway, and with Gorbachev in power, reform was inevitable, as any scholar who's
tracked Gorby's career since his days on the fringes could attest.
>
> Bush was fighting the Cold War, then the Hot War in the Gulf, also money well
> spent. Then he had to spend $400 billion on the S. & L. fiasco to cover the
> fraud and corruption of people like Hillary, Bill and the McDougals.
...and all the Republican friends and apolitical scam artists who ran many of the other
S & L's, benefiting from a GOP deregulation strategy that loosened requirements on the
liquid assets they had to keep on hand and the quality of their investments.
>
keith
In article <567ka8$p...@news.netusa1.net>, jv...@juno.com says...
>
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) banged out:
>
>>In article <55ueme$1...@kirin.wwa.com>, keith <kbr...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>>In article <55thd2$h...@news.usit.net>, ste...@usit.net says...
>>>>
>>>>kbr...@wwa.com (keith) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <55qt1t$n...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net
>>>>>sarcastically says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill Clinton is not responsible for the current health of the economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> OK. Explain to me how Bill Clinton has created an economic upturn.
>>>>
>>>>Reduced the deficit = lower interest rates = more business start-ups
>>>>and expansions. Duh...
>>>
>>> Oh thank you. But you'd better credit the house with at least an equal
>>> share. They control the spending. Duh...............................
>>>
>> Duuuh. Only the Democrats. The GOP haters did not give a single vote
>>for Bill's plan that slashed $500 billion off of the deficits.
>>Duhhhh! What a bunch of losers.
>
Not quite.
On the basis of tax increases. The GOP has stood firm that deficit
imbalances should be worked out on the govt side, not the taxpayer side.
Who's been doing the work the past 2 years?
>>And you know, Newt and his right wingers are the same shits that howled
>>and howled and howled when Bush and the Democrats in Congress slashed $500
>>billion in deficits from the budgets.
>>Duhhhh! They just don't get it.
>
>>Deficits hurt us. Slashing deficits helps us.
>
I guess I forgot that dems at large have worked so hard their whole
lives to address deficit spending as the all important goal. <g>
Maybe the dems will realize that mediscare lies are bound to hurt
their credibility in the long run, inasmuch as they have already hurt
the efforts for entitlement reform.
>>$1 trillion slashed from the budget deficits helped quite a bit.
>>But the far right doesn't get it. Duhhhhh!
>
And the left won't admit that greater efficiency in govt only goes
so far. At some point spending cuts or major tax increases are inevitable.
>>Too bad that so many fucking right wing losers returned to Congress.
>>We could do OK if we could lose these retards.
>
The dems will have to work harder to convince the american public
that they really meant it when they championed GOP strongholds of
agenda as if they had stood in support of them all along.
Or maybe running against Newt doesn't quite stem the reality tide.
>I don't know. Pat Robertson claims the President had nothing to do
>with the strong stock market. According to him, years ending in 5 are
>naturally strong years, regardless of who is president. Also the 3rd
>and fourth years of a presidential term and years ending in 6 are also
>good, regardless of who is president. Numerology running rampant
>among the good Christians. Har, har.
>
Gee I had no idea he was such a prognosticator.
I'd better subscribe to his market forecast. <g>
Will we blame Clinton if the markets tank?
Will he get credit for every quarter point in the S&P?
Nothing like a bull mkt to bring economic superstition to the fore.
From both sides.
keith
Michael King Ross
PatParson <ppar...@news.idt.net> delighted us all with:
>hee...@idirect.com (Wilson) wrote:
>>Speaking of ranting. You lefties all forget that Reagan was fighting and
>>winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
>Actually, he threw billions in Star Wars projects down the toilet . The
>toilet seats he purchased for thousands each. Turns out the Soviets had long
>before given up on any arms race, and watched us spend outselves into a
>debtor status with some amusement.
Yeah, but we got some _real_ nice toilet seats. Fur-lined, cushy,
y'know?
>1
***king Ross
But I could be wrong. Results may vary. Void where prohibited.
Do not void where prohibited. Oh, lighten up, I was _only joking_.
http://www.goldengate.net/~mross/index.html
Zepp
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) polluted the cyberspace with
this:
>In article <55uh17$j...@news.snowcrest.net>, Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>TJ \"Spark\" Miller jr. <tjmi...@nwark.com> polluted the cyberspace
>>with this:
>>> I'm Baaaaaaaaaaack!
>>I thought you lost a bet and were off line for a month. You welshing?
>Actually, Miller sounds more Irish than Welsh. ;)
>But seriously, folks, just look at the article in question :
> Path: news.tamu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!tjmiller
> From: TJ \"Spark\" Miller jr. <tjmi...@nwark.com>
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,[...]
> Subject: Re: Bankruptcy crap. Lies from Barwell
> Date: 6 Nov 1996 14:42:01 -0700
> Organization: Belle Malissima
> Lines: 1
> Message-ID: <55r0n9$q...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
> References: [...] <55kne5$p...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <327E3B...@nwark.com>
> X-Posted-By: har...@206.165.5.101 (harleyb)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Obviously, tjmiller did not originate this message.
>C'mon, this is a lame attempt a forgery.
Agreed, and at Miller's request, I posted the same evidence in another
thread, and notified Milt of the situation.
=====================================================================
As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and
good. But that doesn't mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I
disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance.
And I detest dittoheads.
=====================================================================
PatParson
hee...@idirect.com (Wilson) wrote:
>In article <55vl30$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>>
>>You, being a right winger obviously, don't remember any of Reagan's
>>promises he made to America. That we would raise military spending, cut
>>taxes, and yet have a balanced budget by 1983.
>>This is what he ran on.
>>
>>He promised this more than once.
>>
>>It was a lie. Stockman admits he knew 40 days after Reagans nomination
>>that it was not possible that this could work and was based on bad
>>assumptions.
>>
>>Yet, you rightwing revisionists have absolutely no memories at all.
>>This is what Reagan promised. This is the program he sold America.
>>Your tiresome and woefully ignorant rant simply has no nodding aquaintance
>>with anything resembling facts.
>>
>>
>>>REVENUE, and does not suggest that there is "NO NEED to cut spending".
>>>Reagan did say, during his campaign, that he had no plans to cut
>>>spending. However, he made no mention of INCREASING the number
>>>of dollars spent on social programs. As the welfare and medicaid
>>
>>As Stockman admits in his book, by 1986, social spending under Reagan was
>>cut 9%.
>>
>>You simply do not know what the fuck you are ranting about.
>>
>Speaking of ranting. You lefties all forget that Reagan was fighting and
>winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
Actually, he threw billions in Star Wars projects down the toilet . The
toilet seats he purchased for thousands each. Turns out the Soviets had long
before given up on any arms race, and watched us spend outselves into a
debtor status with some amusement.
>Bush was fighting the Cold War, then the Hot War in the Gulf, also money well
>spent. Then he had to spend $400 billion on the S. & L. fiasco to cover the
>fraud and corruption of people like Hillary, Bill and the McDougals.
Don't you mean Jeb and Neil, his neer-do-well sons, both of whom ran their
S&Ls into the ground?
>Bush left Clinton with a growing economy (4,7%), falling interest rates and
>decreasing unemployment, and for the first time in recent history no war to
>fight. So what's Clinton's excuse for deficit spending? He cut the military
>and still no peace dividend. Clinton is just adding to an already unmanagable
>national debt, a ticking time bomb, and in peacetime yet!
Bush ran up a huge debt, albeit not as much as Reagan. But while Bush pushed
the deficit up, Clinton has pushed it down every year. Yes, the huge debt that
Reagan and Bush accumulated has not been completely repaid. But at least Clinton
was able to get started on it.
Pat Parson
1
Garrett Johnson
In article <Edina1996Nov1...@island.idirect.com.compulink.com>,
hee...@idirect.com (Wilson) wrote:
[...]
>Speaking of ranting. You lefties all forget that Reagan was fighting and
>winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
>
>spent. Then he had to spend $400 billion on the S. & L. fiasco to cover the
>fraud and corruption of people like Hillary, Bill and the McDougals.
And his son.
>Bush left Clinton with a growing economy (4,7%),
What is amazing is that the GNP number for 1992 grows every year, at least
according to Dittoheads. Maybe they think inflation is retroactive.
> falling interest rates and
>decreasing unemployment,
Nevermind that unemployment peaked in 1992.
>Where's the peace dividend?
I don't know. Maybe they should actually cut military spending, and reform the
Pentagon's procurement and accounting practices, and we might see it.
-GJ
keith
>pushed the deficit up, Clinton has pushed it down every year. Yes, the
>huge debt that Reagan and Bush accumulated has not been completely repaid.
Excuse me? The national debt is still growing. No one has started to
repay squat.
>But at least Clinton was able to get started on it.
Because of the strength in the economy.
Steven Dodge
In article <5665pq$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
says...
>The Soviet Union collapsed like a
>rotten melon utterly and totally in the end, due to the absolute and total
>incompetence of it's rotten system and useless 'leaders' and clueless
>ideologically idiotic Communist Party.
>
>
>
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
Very true, Pope Charles! The many published post mortems on the failure of
the Soviet system blame two factors: economic and demographic. For it's
seventy-year history from roughly 1920 to 1990, the centrally managed economy
of the Soviet Union chronically underperformed the capitalist economies of
the West. When we had a depression, they had famine; when we had recession,
they had depression; when our economies boomed, theirs grew slowly.
The other factor was demographic. Over that same interval, the population
growth rate in what are now the "Independent States" exceeded that in Russia
itself. By the end of the Soviet Union, less than half of the citizens were
self-identified as ethnic Russians.
Zepp
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) polluted the
cyberspace with this:
All of this is stone true. But I can't resist pointing out that for
all the inept inefficiency, for all the rigid ideological stupidity,
for all the grinding, incompetant, over-centralized and
self-destructive methodology, here is a nation that has, from the
start, out-performed us in space, and continues to do so to this very
day.
Anyone care to argue that our space program matches our national
abilities?
Paul A Sand
[Followups again set to talk.politics.misc]
we: C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth)
we: Ummm, no, the poster you are responding to is correct; supply side
held that there was no need to cut spending, and that is how it was
sold to the people. Two? Three weeks ago, C-SPAN aired several
presidential debates from campaigns past, and in at least one of
them, Reagan explicitly stated that spending cuts were unnecessary
because 'we would grow our way out of the deficit.' [...]
I assume Mr. Earth's vague reference above is to the Reagan-Carter
debate of 1980, since he's referring to how tax rate cuts were ``sold''
to the electorate, and that's the election where it happened.
Unfortunately for Mr. Earth, I wandered over to the library to check
the transcript. [Specifically: _Public Papers of the Presidents: Jimmy
Carter, 1980-1981, Book III, pp 2476-2502]
In plain fact, Reagan makes numerous references to cutting government
spending in that debate. I can't find any place where he describes
spending cuts as unecessary. I can't find a phrase where he talks
(explicitly or not) about *simply* growing our way out of the deficit.
In fact one of the questioners (Harry Ellis of the Christian Science
Monitor) remarked to Reagan: ``You have centered on cutting Government
spending in what you have just said about your own policies.'' Reagan
states:
Yes, you can lick inflation by increasing productivity *and by
decreasing the cost of Government* to the place that we have
balanced budgets and are no longer grinding out printing press
money, flooding the market with it because the Government is
spending more than it takes in. And my economic plan calls for
that. [Emphasis added]
we: Absolutely heartbreaking to see Carter debate Reagan; he (correctly)
pointed out that under Governor Reagan, California had incurred a
record deficit, and that history would repeat itself should the
country elevate him to the Presidency. [...]
I couldn't actually find that claim in the transcript either, but
Carter did refer to dire ``inflationary pressures that would destroy
this Nation'' and--having been reminded by his daughter, Amy--nuclear
armageddon, and a whole bunch of other stuff that just didn't happen.
I'm afraid my ribs were tickled more than my heart was broken.
we: Worse was the cameo where Mondale said that if he was elected that
he would raise taxes. He then went on to point out that Reagan would
do the same (he did) and that the difference between the two of them
was that Reagan wouldn't tell the voters that and he just did.
Reagan adopted Mondale's tax increase proposals? News to me.
we: So there's your reference. Let me repeat what I went on to say in my
original post: everyone of my generation knew this, and many were
induced to vote for Reagan on the strength of that proposition,
(which seemed - at the time - to as credible as the now thoroughly
not Laffer Curve.) I would also point out that someone has suggested
reading Stockman on this point as well.
The only problem being that that the alleged ``reference'' doesn't say
anything like what Mr. Earth claims it does. If Mr. Earth would like to
try again, I'd suggest coming up with something more concrete than
something he thinks he might of heard once on TV. For example, if he
thinks that the we-don't-need-to-cut-spending Elusive Reagan Quote is
found in Stockman's book, he's welcome to come up a page number. I
won't be holding my breath.
we: Of course, this is yet another example of the ingenuousness of those
who, knowingly, willlfully, or not, twist the rules of reasoned
discussion. Mr. Sand is playing out that tired old reactionary
refrain, 'Who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?'
Mr. Sand, I have no desire to convince you; _I_was_there_. Unless
you can come up with compelling evidence for me to believe
otherwise, I will trust to the testimony of my own senses rather
than your own blanket pronouncements, stet?
I'm happy that Mr. Earth has no desire to convince me, because he seems
unable to come up with anything that would do so. If he's interested in
``reasoned discussion'' I can only advise that he do a better job of
coming up with checkable evidence for his allegations. Either that or
make an ``amendment'' to his misstatements, as I note Mr. Barwell has
already done, to his credit.
--
-- Paul A. Sand | This is so utterly trivial and inconsequential
-- University of New Hampshire | a point that your opponents, giving you the
-- p...@unh.edu | benefit of the doubt, assumed that you could
-- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pas | not be making it. More fools they. (B Vogt)
Garrett Johnson
In article <568iff$r...@ddi2.digital.net>,
Tyc...@digital.net (Steven Dodge) wrote:
>In article <5665pq$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>says...
>>The Soviet Union collapsed like a
>>rotten melon utterly and totally in the end, due to the absolute and total
>>incompetence of it's rotten system and useless 'leaders' and clueless
>>ideologically idiotic Communist Party.
>>
>
>the Soviet system blame two factors: economic and demographic. For it's
>seventy-year history from roughly 1920 to 1990, the centrally managed economy
>of the Soviet Union chronically underperformed the capitalist economies of
>the West. When we had a depression, they had famine; when we had recession,
>they had depression; when our economies boomed, theirs grew slowly.
That isn't quite true. WWI and, even more, Russia's civil war that followed,
almost destroyed their economy. In 1919 and 1920, their GNP was almost zero.
Literally.
But once that was over, their economy grew faster than almost every country
in the world up to the late 30's, when Germany passed them. I don't know what
the WWII and immediate post-WWII Soviet economy was, but I know that their
economy topped out around 1970, and started falling from there on. They didn't
have a single respectable year for economic growth after that. After 20 years of
that, it is no wonder that something was going to change.
-GJ
Wilson
>Wilson <hee...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>In article <55vl30$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>>>
>>>In article <3280CA...@right.wing>, Goliath <Gol...@right.wing> wrote:
>>>>Walker on Earth wrote:
>
>
>****************** Deleted ******************
>>>
>>>cut 9%.
>>>
>>>You simply do not know what the fuck you are ranting about.
>>>
>
>>winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
>
>Uhmm, how does the chant go,"The Democrats controlled Congress for forty
>years"? Decades of effort are ignored and only Reagan gets credit?
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>
Nah, they were outproduced by a free enterprise society.
>This is a nation that had to mobilize the Army and college
>students to get the potatoes harvested.
Socialism at it's finest.
>And they usually still wasted about a third of that.
>That could not make a decent pair of boots. That made
>the average citizens waste large parts of their lives waiting in immense
>lines for third rates goods.
>Or waste time wheeling and dealing and bartering for the small neccesities
>of life. Opera tickets for a pair of windshield wipers.
Socialism run wild.
>
>No, Ronnie Reagan did not win the cold war. Idiots and ideologically
>stunted fools make this assinine claim.
>They show their vast ignorance by doing so.
Talk to the leaders of the fromer slave States of the Communist boot.
Talk to the Soviet Generals who admitted the show of technology we used during
the Gulf war "demoralized" the Soviet military.
>
>The Soviet Union collapsed because they only achieved massive national
>gridlock and had absolutely no ideas how to fix it.
Socialism run rampant.
>This was a nation of 320 million people covering 1/3 the face of the
>earth, and yet their GNP was smaller than that of Japan.
Worker's paradise.
>A third world nation going steadily backwards, grinding slowly to a halt.
>A nation of no exports, except AK-47's to 3rd world countries, no future,
>no real hope of keeping up with South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, much
>less Europe. Much less Japan or the USA.
>South Korea exports decent cars. The Soviet Union couldn't even manage
>that. They couldn't even make enough spare parts to keep their nation's
>small ramshackle fleet of second rate cars going reliably.
A testament to failed Socialist ideology.
>
>The Communist Party won the cold war for us by the most magnificent
>display of utter incompetence outside of Mao's Cultural Revolution.
>They won it for us by being utterly and absolutely incompetent and
>because for decades, they simply would not let anybody else take a crack
>at running a nation they had no abilities whatsoever to run.
So you're invoking the old liberal excuse of "incompetence" and "snafu" to
cover up corrupt and criminal government.
>
>If Zippy the pinhead had been president of the USA, it would have made no
>difference for all. Reagan was about as close as you could get to Zippy,
>come to think of it. Except maybe Dan Quayle.
You really should travel a bit to get some real facts. Read the foreign press
perhaps.
>
>Reagan had nothing to do with this. The Soviet Union collapsed like a
>rotten melon utterly and totally in the end, due to the absolute and total
>incompetence of it's rotten system and useless 'leaders' and clueless
>ideologically idiotic Communist Party.
You got that bit right.
WNO
Wilson
>>In article <55vl30$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>
>>>
>>>promises he made to America. That we would raise military spending, cut
>>>taxes, and yet have a balanced budget by 1983.
>>>This is what he ran on.
>>>
>>>He promised this more than once.
>>>
>>>It was a lie. Stockman admits he knew 40 days after Reagans nomination
>>>that it was not possible that this could work and was based on bad
>>>assumptions.
>>>
>>>Yet, you rightwing revisionists have absolutely no memories at all.
>>>This is what Reagan promised. This is the program he sold America.
>>>Your tiresome and woefully ignorant rant simply has no nodding aquaintance
>>>with anything resembling facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>>REVENUE, and does not suggest that there is "NO NEED to cut spending".
>>>>Reagan did say, during his campaign, that he had no plans to cut
>>>>spending. However, he made no mention of INCREASING the number
>>>>of dollars spent on social programs. As the welfare and medicaid
>>>
>>>cut 9%.
>>>
>>>You simply do not know what the fuck you are ranting about.
>>>
>>Speaking of ranting. You lefties all forget that Reagan was fighting and
>>winning the Cold War, an expensive proposition but money well spent.
>
>toilet seats he purchased for thousands each. Turns out the Soviets had long
>before given up on any arms race, and watched us spend outselves into a
>debtor status with some amusement.
>
>>spent. Then he had to spend $400 billion on the S. & L. fiasco to cover the
>>fraud and corruption of people like Hillary, Bill and the McDougals.
>
>S&Ls into the ground?
>
>>Bush left Clinton with a growing economy (4,7%), falling interest rates and
>>decreasing unemployment, and for the first time in recent history no war to
>>fight. So what's Clinton's excuse for deficit spending? He cut the military
>>and still no peace dividend. Clinton is just adding to an already unmanagable
>>national debt, a ticking time bomb, and in peacetime yet!
>
>the deficit up, Clinton has pushed it down every year. Yes, the huge debt
that
Clinto
>n
>was able to get started on it.
Not completely repaid? Clinton has increased the national debt every year he
has been in office. What are you talking about?
WNO
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>In article <568iff$r...@ddi2.digital.net>,
> Tyc...@digital.net (Steven Dodge) wrote:
>>In article <5665pq$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>>says...
>>>The Soviet Union collapsed like a
>>>rotten melon utterly and totally in the end, due to the absolute and total
>>>incompetence of it's rotten system and useless 'leaders' and clueless
>>>ideologically idiotic Communist Party.
>>>
>>
>>Very true, Pope Charles! The many published post mortems on the failure of
>>the Soviet system blame two factors: economic and demographic. For it's
>>seventy-year history from roughly 1920 to 1990, the centrally managed economy
>>of the Soviet Union chronically underperformed the capitalist economies of
>>the West. When we had a depression, they had famine; when we had recession,
>>they had depression; when our economies boomed, theirs grew slowly.
> That isn't quite true. WWI and, even more, Russia's civil war that followed,
>almost destroyed their economy. In 1919 and 1920, their GNP was almost zero.
>Literally.
> But once that was over, their economy grew faster than almost every country
>in the world up to the late 30's, when Germany passed them. I don't know what
>the WWII and immediate post-WWII Soviet economy was, but I know that their
mostly in shambles. The Nazis destroyed most of it. Most of there
industry was in the western areas that had been occupied by the Nazis.
They did a remarkable job in moving war related industries eastward
durning the war. With some plants operating before the walls went up.
Apocalyptic Aardvark
His point, I believe, was: During Reagan's administration, more
was added to the national debt than during all the rest of the
administrations in the history of the country combined, Bush didn't have
time or he would have given Reagan a run for his money, and Clinton has
reversed the trend by at least attempting to shrink the yearly deficit
that Reagan and Bush lulled us into accepting as a fact of life. Yes, I
give a lot of credit for this to the Republican Congress as well, which
is why I pretty much voted for encumbents down the line for both
parties, in hopes that that very shrinking can continue until we start
working the *other* way and paying off some of the principal (and won't
THAT be a long road). Time to quit playing partisan politics (i.e.
Dirty Scumbag Hippie Liberal Demonrat! Oh, yeah, you stupid
big-business-loving polluting Conservative Repuglican!) and start trying
to do things to make it better.
Aardvark
--
"I wish the guy that shot John Lennon had missed and
hit Yoko instead." -- Tom Bernard, KQRS Morning Show
James Doemer
> >students to get the potatoes harvested.
> >That could not make a decent pair of boots. That made
> >the average citizens waste large parts of their lives waiting in immense
> >lines for third rates goods.
> >Or waste time wheeling and dealing and bartering for the small neccesities
> >of life. Opera tickets for a pair of windshield wipers.
>
> >stunted fools make this assinine claim.
> >They show their vast ignorance by doing so.
>
> >gridlock and had absolutely no ideas how to fix it.
> >earth, and yet their GNP was smaller than that of Japan.
> >A nation of no exports, except AK-47's to 3rd world countries, no future,
> >no real hope of keeping up with South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, much
> >less Europe. Much less Japan or the USA.
> >South Korea exports decent cars. The Soviet Union couldn't even manage
> >that. They couldn't even make enough spare parts to keep their nation's
> >small ramshackle fleet of second rate cars going reliably.
>
> >display of utter incompetence outside of Mao's Cultural Revolution.
> >They won it for us by being utterly and absolutely incompetent and
> >because for decades, they simply would not let anybody else take a crack
> >at running a nation they had no abilities whatsoever to run.
>
> all the inept inefficiency, for all the rigid ideological stupidity,
> for all the grinding, incompetant, over-centralized and
> self-destructive methodology, here is a nation that has, from the
> start, out-performed us in space, and continues to do so to this very
> day.
>
> Anyone care to argue that our space program matches our national
> abilities?
>
Are you saying that Russia's space program out performs the US space
program in any way today?? I don't believe that our space program
matches our national abilities either, but Russia's space program does
not our perform the US space program.
Michael King Ross
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> delighted us all with:
>Zepp wrote:
>> All of this is stone true. But I can't resist pointing out that for
>> all the inept inefficiency, for all the rigid ideological stupidity,
>> for all the grinding, incompetant, over-centralized and
>> self-destructive methodology, here is a nation that has, from the
>> start, out-performed us in space, and continues to do so to this very
>> day.
>>
>> Anyone care to argue that our space program matches our national
>> abilities?
>>
>Are you saying that Russia's space program out performs the US space
>program in any way today??
When Shannon Lucid spent a record number of days (in space for an
American), where did she do it? Where is Astronaut Blaha today?
(Hint: what's the Russian word for "peace"?)
> I don't believe that our space program
>matches our national abilities either, but Russia's space program does
>not our perform the US space program.
We did get to the moon before they did, and we have sent more probes
into the solar system to other planets, but they clearly esceed our
capabilities and knowledge in manned near-earth orbital platforms.
James Doemer
Probably because the US hasn't placed a great deal of emphasis on near
earth platforms until recently.
Walker on Earth
In article <56adco$p...@mozz.unh.edu>
> held that there was no need to cut spending, and that is how it was
> sold to the people. Two? Three weeks ago, C-SPAN aired several
> presidential debates from campaigns past, and in at least one of
> them, Reagan explicitly stated that spending cuts were unnecessary
> because 'we would grow our way out of the deficit.' [...]
>
>I assume Mr. Earth's vague reference above is to the Reagan-Carter
>debate of 1980, since he's referring to how tax rate cuts were ``sold''
>to the electorate, and that's the election where it happened.
----Snip of material to be explained below----
>we: Absolutely heartbreaking to see Carter debate Reagan; he (correctly)
> pointed out that under Governor Reagan, California had incurred a
> record deficit, and that history would repeat itself should the
> country elevate him to the Presidency. [...]
>
>I couldn't actually find that claim in the transcript either, but
>Carter did refer to dire ``inflationary pressures that would destroy
>this Nation'' and--having been reminded by his daughter, Amy--nuclear
>armageddon, and a whole bunch of other stuff that just didn't happen.
>I'm afraid my ribs were tickled more than my heart was broken.
again. I will give Reagan some slack on the strength of his state-
ment that this only happened because California's population grew
at an unprecedented rate. I offer this up to help you scan through
the transcript for the word 'population.'
>we: Worse was the cameo where Mondale said that if he was elected that
> he would raise taxes. He then went on to point out that Reagan would
> do the same (he did) and that the difference between the two of them
> was that Reagan wouldn't tell the voters that and he just did.
>
>Reagan adopted Mondale's tax increase proposals? News to me.
rather than a sloppy reader. Were you unable to find that bit as
well? Mr. Sand, that is a _very_ famous quote, first uttered in 1984;
were you unaware of the tax _increases_ of 1986? And where did I write
that Reagan adopted Mondale's tax proposals? Putting words in my
mouth for the sole purpose of refuting them is considered extremely
poor form.
Don't get me wrong; I'm grateful to you for having written this post.
It shows just how desperate revisionists are. Son, claiming Reagan
didn't raise taxes after Mondale famous little one liner is not only
wrong, it's stupid.
Now, if you want to discuss this rationally, you're first going to
have to admit that a) Mondale did in fact say that, and b) he was
dead on about Reagan's tax increase, enacted just two years later.
If you don't wish to budge on either point, that's your prerogative,
but don't expect anyone to take you seriously thereafter.
> original post: everyone of my generation knew this, and many were
> induced to vote for Reagan on the strength of that proposition,
> (which seemed - at the time - to as credible as the now thoroughly
> not Laffer Curve.) I would also point out that someone has suggested
> reading Stockman on this point as well.
>The only problem being that that the alleged ``reference'' doesn't say
>anything like what Mr. Earth claims it does. If Mr. Earth would like to
>try again, I'd suggest coming up with something more concrete than
>something he thinks he might of heard once on TV. For example, if he
>thinks that the we-don't-need-to-cut-spending Elusive Reagan Quote is
>found in Stockman's book, he's welcome to come up a page number. I
>won't be holding my breath.
on DejaNews. Or you might ask (more politely than seems to be your
want) Pope Charles for a repost, as he is the one who made the
Stockman reference, I believe.
Walker on Earth
Sorry for the addendum; I just came into the office to pick up a
reference and took a few minutes to logon:
>spending in that debate. I can't find any place where he describes
>spending cuts as unecessary. I can't find a phrase where he talks
but apparently I miss almost as many lines as Mr. Sand does when
perusing hard copy: In plain fact, Reagan _also_ makes numerous
references to _increasing_ government spending, e.g., military spending
as well. Is Mr. Sand also going to deny that this never occurred,
that 'Star Wars' is a figment of my (doubtlessly liberal in his
assessment) mind, that I'm going to have to provide documentation
for this as well.
So, what does Reagan advocate cutting? Be specific, please - no
vague references to 'entitlement programs' - that dodge just won't
corner any more. Now, purely on the strength of those two statements,
that Reagan made references to cutting spending, _and_ to increasing
spending, tell me, can we infer from them that Reagan advocated
increased spending or decreased spending? Remember, for you to
be credible, you're going to have to show that Reagan's proposed
decreases outstripped his proposed increases.
> original post: everyone of my generation knew this, and many were
> induced to vote for Reagan on the strength of that proposition,
> (which seemed - at the time - to as credible as the now thoroughly
> not Laffer Curve.) I would also point out that someone has suggested
> reading Stockman on this point as well.
anything to the Laffer curve as well? ;-)