most overrated guitar player/musician
Matthew Gudites
newsgroup. how about the most overrated? my vote goes to carlos santana.
i saw him live a few years ago (before Supernatural). he wasn't all that
great IMO. seemed like he was trying "too hard" to play his guitar and in
the process just made it sound like a mess. as for Supernatural, i think
it's sad that the only way he could get out of a 20-year slump of having no
#1 albums was to put dave matthews, eric clapton, rob thomas, etc. on it.
without those guys breathing some life into it, it probably would've been
another bomb.
Chris
>I always see the topic "most UNDERrated guitarist/musician" come up in this
>newsgroup. how about the most overrated? my vote goes to carlos santana.
>i saw him live a few years ago (before Supernatural). he wasn't all that
>great IMO. seemed like he was trying "too hard" to play his guitar and in
>the process just made it sound like a mess.
I've always thought Santana was able to get a nice sound in the studio, but
struggled somewhat in live settings. I still think he's an outstanding
musician, although his technique isn't overly polished. The only time he
really stumbles is when he tries to play a fast run. I'd much rather listen
to a creative musician then a super-fast guitarist any day. As far as
really overrated guitarists, I'd have to nominate Eric Clapton, for one. Of
course he's had some really great moments, but he is overrated. Eddie Van
Halen is another example. He was innovative in many ways, but only for a
short period of time during Van Halen's early days. As far as underrated
guitarists, I'd list Alan Holdsworth, Robert Fripp, and Brian May for
example. I saw Eric Johnson a few years ago, and he was totally amazing as
well. His tone was so concentrated, so perfect. Even more impressive than
his blazing solos was his clean chord playing. I suspect that my tastes go
more towards subtlety than brute force. Overrated, underrated, or
otherwise, the role of every musician should be to listen to as much music
as possible and appreciate it for the gift that it is.
-Chris
Jakkal Polisher of the Golden Rod
he's in metallica. He's has a few good pieces but that's it.
Jakkal
"Get used to disappointment." (from the movie The Princess Bride)
"I am boldly tuning my guitar." -- Jason Becker
http://members.tripod.com/~PeanutChew/index.html WUSSNET!
AUDIOARC
Hugh D. Evans
group will ever reach a consensus for the most overrated guitarist, it's just
that personal. Vai and Satriani do nothing for me, I can't stand them at all,
and hell yes I think they're overrated. But some people dig everything those
guys do, and that is all that matters. It's the classic "one man's trash"
situation.
That should be enough ranting for now.
-Hugh
HoserDan
I'm not qualified to call anyone "overrated" ... how 'bout you?
Noname Mannix
sterile band to play in. He'd be 10 times better in a band that had even an
inkling of soul in their music. Metallica sucks, so that's why Kirk's
playing is so bad. Any good guitar player would lose their feel for playing
if they were to play in Metallica. I think Kirk is probably playing the best
anyone could, given the crap music he is working with. Quit blaming Kurt for
Metallica's empty music. They've never had soul or feel. They are mechanical
and heartless as a machine and Kirk is the one who get's blamed for it. Guns
and Roses is so much better than Metallica. Compare the "Spaghetti Incident"
with "Load". There's no contest there..it's plain to see that Metallica
sucks.
Jakkal Polisher of the Golden Rod <defj...@aol.come2me> wrote in message
news:20000831162617...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Adam Bravo
but
> struggled somewhat in live settings.
Yeah, and also he does his songs way too fast live. Most overrated? For me,
Jimi Hendrix. He's not bad; it's just that I can't see much in him. Charlie
Christian, too.
chris.kavanagh
Noname Mannix <poin...@you.org> wrote in message
news:MzCr5.513$6R1.2...@news.uswest.net...
> Kirk Hammett is only playing badly because Metallica is a lifeless
<snip>
another mental giant. why do you believe that your personal opinion is so
important that it should be presented and accepted as objective fact?
besides, you can't *honestly* believe you can debate someone out of enjoying
listening to a band they love, can you?
> it's plain to see that Metallica sucks.
only one thing's plain to me, and that is your utter lack of intellect. i
truly hope your guitar playing serves you better than your wit.
CK.
spiff1242
People have surpassed him 10 times over but he's the one who got something
started. Carlos's style brought that kind of music to the mainstream.
And I don't think he's overrated. I mean, I still haven't seen any posts
saying Carlos is the best guitarist ever or something along those lines.
Oh yea, and there's been Plenty of 'Most Overrated Guitarist" posts in this
group. I think the "most underrated guitarist" posts were made cause we
were so tired of talking about the Overrated guitarists.
--
Check out my band (Ipacak) at:
http://ipacak.8m.com
Allan Flippin
enough about Supernatural, etc.. My other choice for over-rated
guitarist is Eric Clapton.
Allan
In article <qkyr5.51759$56.2...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matthew Gudites
what i do is irrelevant to the topic.
"AUDIOARC" <audi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000831172210...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
Matthew Gudites
i've never seen one, but i don't hang around here too much
point taken
"spiff1242" <spif...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ORDr5.3978$AW2....@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
Noname Mannix
invalidate what I said. You just can't tell. I think that's great for you,
for because of that, you'll be able to enjoy listening to any mechanical
sounding band of rhythm wankers.
chris.kavanagh <chris.k...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EDDr5.4018$WT1....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
IBurydPaul
Korn, Limp Bizkit, Blink 182 and Papa Roach?
Y' know, I thought I could stay at the party forever, but it don't work that
way, because that shit'll kill you. - Stevie Ray Vaughan
Adam Bravo
"IBurydPaul" <ibury...@aol.comfuckspam> wrote in message
news:20000831230211...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
Adam Bravo
> Just because you like their souless, mechanical playing, doesn't
> invalidate what I said. You just can't tell. I think that's great for
you,
> for because of that, you'll be able to enjoy listening to any mechanical
> sounding band of rhythm wankers.
The world is a world of opinions. I agree with Chris, and, furthermore, you
should be killfiled, but I won't do it to you because I'm a nice guy.
Adam Bravo
obnoxious, apparenly outside of this thread you're normal.
Forgive me for any trauma it may have causes you.
"Noname Mannix" <poin...@you.org> wrote in message
news:kQEr5.553$6R1.3...@news.uswest.net...
Mark
Gotta cast my votes for Clapton - always plays it way too safe for me, never
challenged me as a listener or moved me in any way
and Santana - to my ears he's too staccato, not fluid-sounding. Never
heard the guy play a decent run, and I don't hear much progress in his
playing from the late 60's till today. To my ears he sounds like he's
struggling and trying too hard. To my ears, like on the Supernatural CD, he
sounds like he gets inspired, yeah, but doesn't have the technique to take
it anywhere. Maybe it's that giant triangular pick. I wouldn't want to try
and play with that big slab.
Also...
I think one could make an argument that Hendrix' music and playing might be
over-rated because his whole image and persona influenced guitarists as much
or, IMHO, moreso than the music. Rock guitarists of Hendrix' day and even
later were keenly aware of their image and looking cool (although I don't
hear a lot of guitarists copping to that). Hendrix came along and played
louder and looked cooler than anyone, had the coolest vibe. *That* is what
blew a lot of people away, especially people who weren't guitarists.
Noname Mannix
the time,(and not even the good ones), so you must understand how tiring
that becomes. There are a lot of great thrash metal bands, and Metallica is
not the only one, but certain radio stations get payola to play only
Metallica, and they just happen to be the ones in my locale.
As for trauma, what could you do to me? I've been shot at and stabbed at,
and generally had to deal severe and quite well deserved punishment to
unruly ruffians just to save my life, so what could words do to me, that no
one has been able to do with real deadly weapons? Nothing. I am completely
at ease. But, I'm going to killfile you. Nah. Changed my mind. Why? Here's
why:
I believe in free speech, and I don't object to anything being said
that's an opinion based upon personal taste. (If you contradict the facts,
then I'll say something.) But, opinions, they're just opinions. It's my
right to say I think Metallica sucks, and to provide my reasons. It's your
right to say they don't, but to give no reasons why you feel that way makes
your opinion and your backbone seem weak. I would never view someone with
disdain because of their opinion, lest the outbreak of wrongful action was
intended.
If someone said, "I hate Metallica!", and then proceeded to kill people
who objected to that opinion, then I'd be personally against that person,
but for their actions, not their opinion. So, I feel there is no need to
killfile you as you have not personally attacked me for my opinion. But,
should you cross the line..........you would leave me with no choice....I
don't like to deal with stupid people. Happily, I don't see you as such,
maybe young and brash, but that's worthy of forgiveness.
Adam Bravo <mra...@home.com> wrote in message
news:6XFr5.115432$3E6.1...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
Noname Mannix
and inventiveness as JH, but they never seem to get any public exposure
because the majority of popular players wouldn't like that, so they get
suppressed. For every 100 players that are being touted as being great,
there's always a few that really are, but they would upset the status quo,
and therefore must not be allowed to be widely heard. Jimi Hendrix slipped
through the cracks and he might have been killed for it. You never know,
it's big, big business. Would you kill someone if their existence meant
that you'd lose 20+ million dollars? You probably wouldn't, because you'll
never be in that situation, but there are those that are in those
situations, like the governments and big money making organizations, and
they would kill just as quick as snapping your fingers.
mark <mws...@aol.comb> wrote in message
news:20000831231932...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >Hendrix. People have surpassed him 10 times over...
>
> Not really. No one exhibits the passion, fire, inventiveness and
imagination of
> JH. The only thing one can say is that people can play faster- which is
like
> saying my car is faster than yours therefore it is more beautiful.
Irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
> **********
> thinks me
Allan Flippin
the issue is if they are being presented as something actually good.
Checking allmusic.com, those bands are rated decently, but there are
certainly no comments about the stellar guitar work HAHA
Allan
In article <20000831230211...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
joe
wouldn't live up to the hype. He was sloppy and inconsistant. Alot of that
has to do with the way his estate was handled after his death though. He
would not have allowed 90% of the crap that has been sold to be released. On
the other hand, if you could imagine yourself back in '67 hearing Hendrix on
a good night, you'd think you were seeing God. The same can be said of
Charlie Christian. It's all relative.
For me, most over rated?
Joe Satriani (Talented, but would not have gone anywhere if he wasn't known
for giving Vai and Hammet guitar lessons)
Kurt Kobain (genius songwriter, but the fact that someone even bothered to
TAB him...).
Kirk Hammet (He could have been alot better by now if he layed of the coke.
Hasn't played a decent lead since Justice)
joe
ago. He doesn't give a shit anymore. It's no ones fault but his own. He has
no integrety. He'd rather just live large, snort coke, and screw young boys.
Noname Mannix
with a nagging wife can ruin you for other women. Cocaine can also ruin you
for music, as can LSD and other drugs, especially the kind they prescribe as
tranquilizers like Thorazine. I thinks he fits right in with the style of
Metallica and neither the band or Hammett is the worse out of the two. If
Metallica would go back to the Ride The Lightning style of music, then I'd
like to hear what some of the newer super shred players would do for their
music. I liked them better when they were super heavy. They were probably
all doing lots of cocaine back then.
joe <lept...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mKHr5.2057$Dx1.5...@news.abs.net...
Trachea836
> I'm with you on the Santana thing... but I've already ranted
>enough about Supernatural, etc.. My other choice for over-rated
>guitarist is Eric Clapton.
>
>Allan
yeah, i too think santana is overrated. Plus I can't stand his guitar tone.
THat clean solo sound he has sounds so thin and without life and soul
Jakkal Polisher of the Golden Rod
>the issue is if they are being presented as something actually good.
>Checking allmusic.com, those bands are rated decently, but there are
>certainly no comments about the stellar guitar work HAHA
AllMusic has some of the biggest idiots for music critics I have ever known of.
Most of the reviews are completely useless, and what's worse is that they seem
to cater towards the simplistic and bland.
spiff1242
all too much in teenybopper land.
What the hell does Papa Roach play? Everytime my band plays Crazy Train or
something someone requests Papa Roach. I didn't even know that was a band
at first, I thought it was some kind of joke or maybe some new rapper.
--
Check out my band (Ipacak) at:
http://ipacak.8m.com
Adam Bravo
well-listened in metal. The only Metallica I hear is when my father plays
the radio.
Adam Bravo
Oh, he has, but whenever he tries to play fast, his choice of notes is bad.
He's about style, and when he tries to get technical, you get solos like the
one on Se a Cabo (ick).
Mike Sandler
> Is AC/DC considered in the same sort of music as Metallica? I'm not very
> well-listened in metal. The only Metallica I hear is when my father plays
> the radio.
AC/DC is more blues-based. More of a sense of humor, too.
Mike Sandler
Mahatmas King Jeeves
<axe...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>I always see the topic "most UNDERrated guitarist/musician" come up in this
>newsgroup. how about the most overrated? my vote goes to carlos santana.
>i saw him live a few years ago (before Supernatural). he wasn't all that
>great IMO. seemed like he was trying "too hard" to play his guitar and in
>the process just made it sound like a mess. as for Supernatural, i think
>it's sad that the only way he could get out of a 20-year slump of having no
>#1 albums was to put dave matthews, eric clapton, rob thomas, etc. on it.
>without those guys breathing some life into it, it probably would've been
>another bomb.
>
The first TEN spots on my list go to Kurt Cobain.
McT
fartboy
Ir...@bluesnet.com says...
> The first TEN spots on my list go to Kurt Cobain.
>
>
Who overrates Cobain's guitar work? I do think he did a very good
job at songwriting CONSIDERING his obvious lack of musical
accomplishment. I would rather have many more like Cobain who can
squeeze a lot out of very limited skills then a bunch of people
like Kirk Hammet who aren't even trying anymore to do anything
interesting. Cobain certainly one-ups many in that he could sing
and play simultaneously.
Mahatmas King Jeeves
wrote:
>Who overrates Cobain's guitar work? I do think he did a very good
>job at songwriting CONSIDERING his obvious lack of musical
>accomplishment. I would rather have many more like Cobain who can
>squeeze a lot out of very limited skills then a bunch of people
>like Kirk Hammet who aren't even trying anymore to do anything
>interesting. Cobain certainly one-ups many in that he could sing
>and play simultaneously.
Damning him with faint praise, heh? Sure, he may have been
innovative, but he was innovative in a way that I personally found
loud, dissonant and generally annoying. I almost crapped when some LA
producer/guru type came on an interview on MTV and compared his loss
to that of John Lennon. Comparing Cobain to Lennon is like comparing
chickenshit to solid gold.
McT
fartboy
Ir...@bluesnet.com says...
> Damning him with faint praise, heh? Sure, he may have been
> innovative, but he was innovative in a way that I personally found
> loud, dissonant and generally annoying. I almost crapped when some LA
> producer/guru type came on an interview on MTV and compared his loss
> to that of John Lennon. Comparing Cobain to Lennon is like comparing
> chickenshit to solid gold.
>
I agree that he was not even in the same league as John Lennon. I
never said Cobain was innovative either. In fact, I think he was
overall a piss-poor player. What was innovative was that people's
musical tastes changed to where a piss-poor player could still
have his music listened to, in it's totality including lyrics and
just overall feel, and be appreciated in spite of the lack of
virtuoistic playing ability. I don't think Cobain is overrated as
a player at all since most players think his skills sucked.
However, I think because of his poor guitar skills he is often
underrated by players for his ability to make something pretty
cool out of very little. Of course if you dislike Nirvana's music
you won't see that. I do like much of their music in spite of the
fact that I see very little excellent guitar work. Also, I rarely
like bands that have poorly skilled players. Conversley, I
dislike skill with no heart and soul. I get more excited choosing
which brand of toilet paper to buy than listening to someone like
say Yngwie Malmsteen in spite of the fact that he is extremely
skilled. If it don't got the feel it don't got nothing for me.
Nirvana has the feel for me so why should I care if he couldn't
play that good.
joe
how amazing of a guitar player he was, how to get his sound, etc.
fartboy
says...
> In the mid 90's, even this NG was filled with posts by adolescents stating
> how amazing of a guitar player he was, how to get his sound, etc.
OK, I should have asked "Who that matters thinks he is
overrated". ;)
joe
Well said.
Andy
"Dan-E" <dan-...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8ovufq$hue$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <39b27342...@news.pipeline.com>,> Kurt Cobain was far better as a musician than as a guitarist.
> He wrote, sang, and played guitar (somewhat) in most of
> Nirvana's songs. He might have been a mediocre guitarist at
> best but Kurt himself admitted to not having the chops to be
> considered a "guitarist." Whoever is overrating him, it's
> not Nirvana.
>
> Of course, if don't care for them, all of this is moot
fartboy
xn...@excite.com says...
>
> Does it really fucking matter?????
>
Now I see the error of my ways. Apparently those of us in this
thread thought this was a discussion group open to all but we
forgot that YOU decide what "matters" and what doesn't. From now
on why don't you do us all a favor and let us know what matters
and what doesn't a little earlier on in the thread so we don't
waste our time, and your patience, discussing it on YOUR NG.
Thanks for looking out for us.
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>Does it really fucking matter?????
Well....YOU read it, didn't you???
MCT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
wrote:
>Never underestimate the
>power of stupid people in large groups....the power of democracy.
Very true...just look at the Presidential opinion polls.
McT
Andy
death in this NG every other week someone asks the same question or a
variant of it. Perhaps we should dedicate more time to helping each other
instead of pissing contests about who is better worse or whatever!!
"fartboy" <far...@fartsalot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.141efd78c...@news.jps.net...
Jarl Sigurd
Mahatmas King Jeeves wrote
>
>>Never underestimate the
>>power of stupid people in large groups....the power of democracy.
>
>
>Very true...just look at the Presidential opinion polls.
Are they still predicting a Republican Camelot with George W. Bush
as King Arthur. What does the W. stand for anyway?
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a guitarist who won't be voting in the US election
visit: http://geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pavilion/4085
Jarl Sigurd
Mahatmas King Jeeves wrote
> I mourn the loss of the potential we will never see from John
>Lennon FAR more than the loss of the talents of Kurt Cobain.
I don't think you can really compare Kurt Cobain to John Lennon.
Heck you can't even compare Kurt to Buddy Holly. The Sex
Pistols or Axel Rose would be more apt comparisons for Kurt.
If you had to compare Kurt to any 60's rocker, it would be
Del Shannon. Both had one mega hit that they never managed
to duplicate and both died in the same way.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to music composed by Jarl Sigurd, visit
http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
J. Orlando
Jarl Sigurd wrote:
> Mahatmas King Jeeves wrote
>
>
> Are they still predicting a Republican Camelot with George W. Bush
> as King Arthur. What does the W. stand for anyway?
>
Witless
PMDavis
Actually George senior was elected president, Jeb elected Gov. and Geo W.
elected governor of a differant state. Seems to be to be more of an
accomplishment by popular mandate than merely one son elected president, and
then appointed his brother to Atty General. Little Teddy gets voted in on
sympathy for the assassination. Not much of a political dynasty there.
Jarl Sigurd wrote in message
SoSoBlazin
think is that kurt produced some of the best lyrics. His use of situational
irony and sarcasm was truly amazing...he should have been a poet cuz we all
know his guitar playing or singing was definitely not the best or even in the
top 500. Now does he compare to the beatles or axel, some might think so and
some might not. What does everyone else think
HoserDan
> What does the W. stand for anyway?
WORTHLESS
Haadi Mahairi
Haadi
PaulB
"PMDavis" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OMwt5.24691$p5.8...@newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Walker
> then appointed his brother to Atty General. Little Teddy gets voted in on
> sympathy for the assassination. Not much of a political dynasty there.
>
the water is considered birth control in Ma.
Mahatmas King Jeeves
<jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Are they still predicting a Republican Camelot with George W. Bush
>as King Arthur. What does the W. stand for anyway?
No, I was actually referring the the increased popularity of Gore when
he gave Tipper a stage kiss. It shows just how deeply the average
American understands the importance of government.
He should have ripped off her dress, dropped his pants and bent her
over a chair....his poll ratings, like the post-blow-job Clinton,
would have skyrocketed.
Suffragettes indeed!!!
McT
braderunner
>
> Gentlemen all was inferring is that perhaps this question has been done to
> death in this NG every other week someone asks the same question or a
> variant of it. Perhaps we should dedicate more time to helping each other
> instead of pissing contests about who is better worse or whatever!!
What are you saying Andy? That the News Group Barflies should get a
life; do something other than re-hash the same old shit over and over
again, year after year. Isn't this at least a form of musical existance?
Hey at least Muhatmus King whatever is still alive, damit.
braderunner
Jakkal Polisher of the Golden Rod
>he used cheap shit. His cabs had Radio Shack speakers in them. And he used
>Japanese made guitars.
Nothing wrong with a Japanese guitar if it kicks ass...
Jakkal
"Get used to disappointment." (from the movie The Princess Bride)
"I am boldly tuning my guitar." -- Jason Becker
http://members.tripod.com/~PeanutChew/index.html WUSSNET!
Mahatmas King Jeeves
<merc...@Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Hey at least Muhatmus King whatever is still alive, damit.
Actually, I got the name from a list of pseudonyms that WC Fields used
to keep several bank accounts open in various cites around the
country. Funny guy...didn't play guitar as far as I know...and,
unfortunately, he's dead.
MCT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>The "W" stands for "wastrel", and that will be a "cow pasture", not a
>Camel Lot. In a cow pasture you will find lots of bullshit.
...and everything Al Gore says is the golden truth???? Boy are you
"challenged".
McT
fartboy
Ir...@bluesnet.com says...
> ...and everything Al Gore says is the golden truth???? Boy are you
> "challenged".
>
>
down for awhile and now with high oil prices and tech stocks
diving there is no way we won't hit a recession in the next 4
years, probably much sooner. Why put a Republican in office when
it looks imminent that the economy will turn sour.
The point you say? Well God forbid Bush gets elected and
then the economy goes into recession, which it is going to no
matter who gets elected. Then all these idiots who think that the
President has much, if anything at all, to do with the economy
will blame Bush and then we will get an ultra-liberal Democrat in
2006. If people are going to be ignorant as to how the economy
works and give credit (good or bad) where it isn't due then lets
put a Democrat in there at a time when it looks inevitable that
we will hit a recession soon. Clinton and Gore have ridden a nice
wave that started before they took office in 1992 and have
taken credit because they know most people who would vote for
them are ignorant. It looks like the ride isn't going to last
much longer so let Gore, who likes to take credit for the economy
he had nothing to do with (well actually, didn't he invent the
internet?) explain in 4 years why things have gone downhill. I
have a feeling then we will see Gore explaining to the Democrat
morons how things really work. Or better yet, he'll just blame
any Republicans in Congress.
Also remember that as the economy worsens Gore will be
able to get less and less through Congress, even if it is a
Democrat majority, because they will want to distance themselves
from him since he will be taking the brunt of the blame for the
economy. So at least the damage he can do to the US Constitution
should be somewhat limited. The best thing for America in the
long-term is for Gore to get elected so more people can see how
totally and utterly full of shit the Democrats are.
Go Gore 2000!!!
HoserDan
wrote:
> Clinton and Gore have ridden a nice
>wave that started before they took office in 1992 and have
>taken credit because they know most people who would vote for
>them are ignorant.
What about all those enlightened Republicans who STILL claim that the
great economy of recent times can be credited to Ronnie Reagan?
Thank goodness we have a genius such as yourself to explain politics
and the economy to all us dumbass knuckle-draggers.
fartboy
nos...@anytime.net says...
> Thank goodness we have a genius such as yourself to explain politics
> and the economy to all us dumbass knuckle-draggers.
Hey, I'm happy to do it!
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>Thank goodness we have a genius such as yourself to explain politics
>and the economy to all us dumbass knuckle-draggers.
If you think RR's tax policy had nothing to do with stimulating the
economy, then you have done a better job of describing yourself than I
could.
MCT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
> blame him for high gas
>prices. Hmm...
What's the Federal tax on a gallon of gas?
Which President added a 10 cent surcharge to that tax as part of his
tax rape of 1992?
Who is responsible for the EPA and the fiasco with gas additives that
jacked midwest gas prices through the ceiling?
Whose administration has failed to pursue alternative drilling
technology that could have made us independent of OPEC?
Answer me when you finish your homework.
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
wrote:
> Why put a Republican in office when
>it looks imminent that the economy will turn sour.
What you say is very true.
My own interest is purely selfish. I've worked my butt off for 30
years to be in a position to be taxed higher than 95% of the rest of
the "working families". I've paid the equivalent of a year of college
tuition for boy-Clinton's retroactive tax rape alone.
Now all I hear is Gephardt telling me I don't pay my fair share,
Clinton telling me he wants a huge share of my money when I die, and
Gore telling me that the money I was overcharged (which helped create
the "surplus") needs to be paid back to others who "deserve it".
A simple "Thank You" from any of these fools would be good enough for
me....but failing that....I want them out of office and far away from
my house, my family, my business and my wallet.
There...that feels better....now let's talk about guitars.....
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
> the economy was in the toilet in 1992. The boom begin
>after passage of the President's budget in '93.
Guess you were born in 1990. There was a huge economic boom that
started in the mid 80's following RR's tax reform. You folks were
fond of calling it "The Decade of Greed". A cyclical depression in the
early 90's---coinciding with a Bush tax hike BTW....then an upswing
that we are enjoying....and, on the horizon, another cyclical
depression is already starting. Time for another tax rate cut to take
the edge off the coming slowdown. Elect Gore and you will pay through
the nose at tax time....AND when interest rates go up, because tax
relief in not in his rather limited vocabulary.
MCT
fartboy
mws...@aol.comb says...
> Speaking of ignorant, the economy was in the toilet in 1992. The boom begin
> after passage of the President's budget in '93.
>
You are wrong. The US economy began growing steadily in 1991 and
the effects were mostly felt from 1992 and on (1993 and on for
Calitoilet which was deeper in recession because of higher amount
of stupid people who live there). But go on living in your world
of ignorant fantasy while you can. Oh and please explain to me
how the President's budget magically made the economy boom. Damn,
I thought it had something to do with all the industries that
were exploding like the computer and telecommunications
industries. But I feel so much better now to know that business
and industry aren't the key components but simply a government
budget plan. Brilliant!
fartboy
mws...@aol.comb says...
> Aint it funny how Republicans say the President has nothing to do with the
> current healthy state of the economy but then try to blame him for high gas
> prices. Hmm...
>
If you are referring to me I did not blame Perjury-Boy Clinton
for high gas prices. What's funny is that you are too retarded to
have understood that. I simply pointed out that high gas prices
which can result in a loss of consumer confidence along with
stock market instability are signs that we are heading towards a
recession. Its not Clinton's fault, just like it isn't to his
credit either for the past 9+ years of economic growth.
Joe Pell
him with the Crowes in Charlotte, NC... He was on fire!
"Today I shine. Living life knowing I will someday be gone."
Joe C. Pell, Jr.
fartboy
mws...@aol.comb says...
> No, actually *you* are wrong. Because your "opinion" is based on your political
> views and not on any demonstrable facts.
>
It is a fact that the economic recovery started long before
Clinton took office. Even Clinton's own people don't always deny
it, though Clinton still tries to take credit anyway! The only
things debatable are the hows and whys. Here is a story from ABC
news if you have the time to read it. A quote from the story
dated February 11, 2000: "The U.S. economy is entering its
record 107th month of growth". Hmmm...Let's see, 107 months = 8.9
years. Hmmm...So you are saying that Clinton's 1993 budget falls
over 8.9 years ago from last February? And since that story is
dated February 11, it is now 114 months or 9.5 years of economic
expansion;) Hmmm... Didn't Clinton get elected in 1992 and sworn
in in 1993? Judging from your math I have to assume that you are
a product of the California public educational system. Its OK
though, its not your fault!
Now I will concede that I do not agree with some others who
feel that Reagan had anything to do with it either. There is no
point discussing this further with you because you obviously are
either one of the Democrat's favorite voter-types in that you are
an ignorant fool who believes whatever emotionally appealing crap
they spoon-feed you OR you are one of the manipulating Democrat's
who will say anything to get morons to vote for your party. Go
and read the article, you might actually like it since it has
Clinton claiming credit for the economy. Another quote: "“More
than 20 million new jobs have been created since Vice President
Gore and I took office in January 1993,” Clinton said in one of
the report’s numerous references to Gore, who is running to
succeed him.""
Notice Clinton doesn't say "We created 20 million jobs" just that
"new jobs have been created" while we happened to be in office.
Well damn, if there had been a cure for cancer he would have been
saying "Since I took office cancer has been cured!" implying
that he personally had something to do with it. You know there
have been several expansion NFL teams since Clinton took office
so I guess he is responsible for that too. Taco Bell started
those cute dog commercials since Clinton took office so he should
take credit for that too. Damn, I guess we all forgot to give
George Bush credit for bringing the Berlin Wall down and breaking
up the Soviet Union since after all those things happened while
Bush was in office too! If the Republicans were as full of shit
as the Democrats we would have heard George Bush proclaim "Since
I have taken office our cold war enemy, the Soviet Union, has
been dissolved and the evil Berlin Wall has finally come down".
Later in the article Clinton also takes credit for eliminating
the deficit and creating surpluses. I guess we are all supposed
to forget Clinton saying "Newt Gingrich and the Republican
Congress are holding the American people hostage" when the
Republican controlled Congress had a budget "stand-off" to force
Clinton to sign a balanced budget agreement. This was after he
claimed it would be detrimental to the future of the country but
he had to play ball. But low and behold, when that balanced
budget agreement worked out favorably for the country,
eliminating the deficit and creating surpluses, who is there
patting himself on the back?
Try and remember that Gore is a millionaire. He grew up in a
wealthy family. How full of shit can he be to be playing that old
"I am for the Working People and THEY are for the Rich" Democrat
garbage? Pulling those emotional strings yet again.
Read the article and then get YOUR story straight, dumbass. Which
type of Democrat are you anyway? A Puppet or a Puppeteer?
Go GORE 2000!!! "Koom-Ba-ya, My Lord, Koom-Ba-Ya."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/economicboom_00
0211.html
HoserDan
wrote:
>snippage
"blah,blah,moron this,blah,blah,ignorant that,blah,blah,stupid
this,blah,blah,blah"
The fact that you continually resort to name calling responsing to
your critics tells me all I need to know.
Robert Francis O'reilly
: started in the mid 80's following RR's tax reform.
It actually started in 1982, following both Reagan's tax cuts and a tax
increase of roughly $99 billion that Reagan himself signed off on. Lest
we forget, the Gipper signed off on more than a few tax increases (or
"revenue enhancements," as he called them) during his years in office.
: You folks were
: fond of calling it "The Decade of Greed". A cyclical depression in the
: early 90's---coinciding with a Bush tax hike BTW....
The recession in question ended in early 1991, shortly after the tax
increase in question. That recession was at least in part the result of a
relatively restrictive monetary policy and a glutted real-estate market,
not the tax hike that Bush signed off on.
: then an upswing
: that we are enjoying....
An upswing that has persited longer than the upswing of the Reagan years,
despite the tax increase that Clinton included in his deficit reduction
package and that conservatives said would drive the economy into the
ground. The moral of the story - the relationship between tax cuts and
increases and economic growth isn't nearly as strong and direct as you'd
think.
: and, on the horizon, another cyclical
: depression is already starting.
What are you basing this on? Yes, economic growth has slowed down, but
it's still positive. We're hardly in a recession yet.
Joe Pell
Charlotte.Brain fart... sorry.
Hugh D. Evans
know this is an alt.* group, but still!
-Hugh
Keep preaching the conservative word.
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>The fact that you continually resort to name calling responsing to
>your critics tells me all I need to know.
Hey...it works for Gore.
Then again, Bush called a NY Times reporter an asshole...but it it
still name calling when it's the truth??
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>To which "folks" are you referring?
Either you are a Democrat...or you deserve an honorary membership.
>
>The so-called Reagan boom was a simple matter of living high on credit and
>leaving the bill to the next generation to worry about.
How nicely you regurgitate the rhetoric....got any facts to back that
up?...I didn't think so.
>
>Like Reagan's budget of '81, Gore's tax cuts will help only the wealthiest few
>citizens.
Gore's tax cuts??? Gore's tax cuts wont help anybody...since he has no
tax cuts of any kind that anybody can find in his "budget".
Assuming you are talking about Bush.....and KNOWING that the top 5% of
taxpayers shoulders about ***35%*** of the total tax burden and the
top 50% of taxpayers shoulder ***95%*** of the tax burden (these are
FACTS, son)....well, who do YOU think should get a tax break, if not
the people who are actually PAYING for the Federal Spending Party?!
Do you really enjoy getting other people's money for nothing??? If
so...we need to talk no further.
MCT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>Oh, now you ask? You already branded me a Democrat. In fact I am not and have
>*never* been a Democrat. Chew on that awhile.
I've read your posts and have a pretty good idea of your understanding
of current events and your grasp of economic issues. I believe you
when you say that you are not a Democrat.
I believe you since I strongly suspect that you are too young to
register to vote.
Now go get your allowance from Dad and have a nice time playing in
your room...the rest of us have jobs.
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
Francis O'reilly) wrote:
>What are you basing this on? Yes, economic growth has slowed down, but
>it's still positive. We're hardly in a recession yet.
Most of what you say falls within the arguable area of Cause and
Effect....but I have no great disagreement with it. I think tax policy
has been shown to influence growth, but also have a very selfish
attitude about it since I am in the minority of citizens who actually
pay a significant tax bill, so that colors my thinking.
A lot of the folks who do the economic forcasting at various brokerage
houses that I read about and some that I work with directly have been
forcasting a "downturn" over the next 3 years...not a recession or a
depression...just a slowdown of unknown severity. I suspect it will
happen regardless of who is elected...but a tax break will make it
less onerous. Even if there is no "downturn", a restructuring of the
tax code is long overdue....you must admit that.
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
<hug...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>As much as I enjoy economics and politics, what is this post doing in here? I
>know this is an alt.* group, but still!
Just people talking. Every so often it happens. Click on something
else.
McT
Jablonski
Ir...@bluesnet.com says...
> Do you really enjoy getting other people's money for nothing??? If
> so...we need to talk no further.
>
Yes, the Democrats do. They call it "paying your fair share". You
see, as long as they take your money using tax laws they can
rationalize that they aren't thieves. The best part of it all is
that while they are stealing your money they will call YOU
"greedy" and claim that they, "the working people" are the
victims.
John Sessoms
>
> On 10 Sep 2000 03:38:40 GMT, mws...@aol.comb (mark ) wrote:
>
> > the economy was in the toilet in 1992. The boom begin
> >after passage of the President's budget in '93.
>
> Guess you were born in 1990. There was a huge economic boom that
> started in the mid 80's following RR's tax reform. Y
Oh yeah? I lived through it. There wasn't no damn tax REFORM. There
was only a massive shift of the tax burden onto the backs of working
people.
The filthy rich CEOs might have had a huge economic boom, but the only
boom the working class had was the sound made when the factories slammed
their doors and started laying off workers.
And when working people lost their jobs, tax revenues fell, making the
deficit ever larger. Without jobs, people didn't buy as many goods &
services, leading to the largest recession since the depression.
RayGUN also left us with a $3 Trillion debt that we're only now starting
to pay down. So what's Shrub's plan for the budget surplus that's
finally going to pay that debt?
Oh yeah. Lets cut taxes for the wealthy, increase defense spending
300%, and raid social security/medicare to pay for it.
BTDT and got the FUCKIN' $3 Trillion debt to show for it. Did you know
that for every $5.00 in taxes collected by the federal gov't, $1.00 goes
JUST TO PAY THE INTEREST ON RAYGUN'S FOLLY?
And not that I'm finally catching up to where I was before getting
fucked by RayGUN/Bush, I damn sure don't need another helping of voodoo
economics from some snot nosed fratty-bagger, cocaine snorting, draft
dodging, AWOL, corporate welfare suckup.
--
I do not speak for any corporation, organization or government.
All opinions expressed are strictly my own.
John Sessoms
>
> In article <20000909233840...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
> mws...@aol.comb says...
> > Speaking of ignorant, the economy was in the toilet in 1992. The boom begin
> > after passage of the President's budget in '93.
> >
>
> You are wrong. The US economy began growing steadily in 1991 and
> the effects were mostly felt from 1992 and on
No you're wrong. If the economy had been improving in 92, Clinton's
"It's the economy STUPID!" slogan wouldn't have worked.
And before you accuse me of having been born in 1990, I'll tell you I
had already been in the workforce for 25 years by then.
Robert Francis O'reilly
: > the effects were mostly felt from 1992 and on
:
: No you're wrong. If the economy had been improving in 92, Clinton's
: "It's the economy STUPID!" slogan wouldn't have worked.
Technically speaking, he is correct. IIRC, a "recession" is defined as
two or more quarters of zero or negative economic growth, and the
recession in question ended in early 1991. However, it was not until late
1992 that the economy really began to pick up; prior to that, it had been
growing, but only at a very low rate. When Bush and his proxies were
claiming that the economy was recovering, they were, technically, correct,
but the recovery was a very slow, drawn-out one (hence the "it's the
economy, stupid" refrain from the '92 election).
Your Hero and Role Model.....
>From: mws...@aol.comb (mark )
>Date: 9/10/00 3:37 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000910163739...@ng-cd1.aol.com>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>>Bush called a NY Times reporter an asshole...
>
>falsifying agency, the same people who erased 17 minutes of Watergate tapes
>which would have proven Nixon was innocent.
>
>
>**********
>thinks me
Good one. Sad thing is, that people like John McLaughlin (not the fusion
whiz!) actually convince themselves that this is true.
Anyone wonder why the Republicans were so dead set on impeaching Clinton for
his perjury, yet let the tobacco execs lie to them straightfaced under oath
without a single outcry? Or why Bush's people claim that Gore reneged on his
"anytime, anywhere" debate policy, when Gore said that he'd be glad to sign on
to the proposed additional debates? Why is it that Bush appointed a chemical
industry lobbyist to be in charge of enforcing environmental regulation in
Texas (talk about letting the wolf guard the sheep!)? There are still those
who claim that Nixon "didn't really do anything wrong". What happened to
Bush's pledge to avoid negative campaigning? Better not ask these questions,
or the die-hard Republicans will use their old trick of calling you
"non-rational and easily manipulated by emotion". God forbid we actually _have
emotion_! They'd rather campaign via subtle bullying.
Jim Gordon
"I've got a fever...and the only prescription...is more cowbell!"
-Christopher Walken
"Hail to thee, our infantry, still brave from beyond the grave"
-Manowar- "Battle Hymn"
fartboy
says...
>
> No you're wrong. If the economy had been improving in 92, Clinton's
> "It's the economy STUPID!" slogan wouldn't have worked.
>
the working people and They are for the rich" - Al Gore, who BTW
is very rich.
fartboy
jgord...@aol.compressor says...
> Better not ask these questions,
> or the die-hard Republicans will use their old trick of calling you
> "non-rational and easily manipulated by emotion".
>
I think you asked some good questions about Bush. I don't
particularly like Bush, I just dislike what Gore really stands
for much more. Notice I don't do a lot of patting Bush on the
back. I am a long-time Libertarian who used to think the 2 major
parties were about the same. In recent years, thanks to the great
work the Republicans have done and Clinton and his cronies trying
to take credit for it all, I have come to realize that the
Democrats are about 10x worse then I had thought while the
Republicans are about 10x better. This may be the year though,
where for the first time I cast my vote against a candidate
instead of for my candidate of choice because I feel Gore is just
about the worst thing for the future of this country. I only hope
he is limited to the damage he can do.
As for emotional manipulation, I say when people buy into the
whole "working-class vs rich" nonsense they are being emotionally
manipulated. When Gore implies that he will magically fix social
security and medicare and that the Republicans want to destroy
them - people are being emotionally manipulated. When Clinton
BLAMES Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress for forcing him
to sign a balanced budget agreement and then takes credit for it
when it is successful - people who believe it are being
manipulated. When Clinton promises to "change welfare as we know
it" and then does nothing for his first 2 years in office while
he has a Democratic Congress who would have passed reasonable
reforms had he only asked, and then he takes credit for the
effectiveness of the Republican's welfare reform bill of 1996 -
people are being manipulated. He even said he wanted to repeal
that bill right after he signed it, saying we needed to re-elect
him and give him a Democrat Congress to repeal it! Is that not
manipulation? Talk about playing both sides against the middle!
Most people who have been President and most Congressmen have
been wealthy prior to taking office. Now how can anyone say the
Democrat Politicians aren't being grossly manipulative when they
talk against wealth yet they themselves are wealthy. When talking
to people who don't even know what a corporation really is and
pulling up phrases like "corporate greed" or better yet "white
corporate greed" - people are getting emotionally manipulated.
There are people right now, who passed up on available
educational opportunities or who don't work very hard or who
aren't too bright; who have bought hook, line, and sinker into
the Democrats telling them that their lives would be better had
it not been for those greedy corporate bastards who kept them
oppressed.
When the Democratic Party goes to mental hospitals and homeless
shelters to recruit new members every major election season - are
you telling me that isn't done with the purpose of manipulating
people with shakey mental status' from voting for them? Or is the
rational that just because someone can't take care of their own
life doesn't mean they have no right to make decisions that
affect other people's lives. Hey, before you flame, I think they
should be able to vote but do we need to be instigating it from
people having trouble just taking basic care of themselves. Is
that really supposed to make the country a better place?
Next time the Democrats make the emotional claim that big
business is oppressing the "common people" maybe all the big
companies should have a 1 week shutdown in protest. No
manufacturing, No services, No payroll! We'd see how oppressed
people felt then. We'd see if some people started to question
what the Democrats were saying. We could see if the Democrats can
magically create that Utopian society they keep claiming we will
have if we only elect them again and again.
Robert Francis O'reilly
: Effect....but I have no great disagreement with it. I think tax policy
: has been shown to influence growth
Tax policy and government spending CAN influence economic growth, but that
doesn't necessarily mean that they will. Their effects can be
negated by monetary policy or international economic developments or other
such variables. The economic performance of any given country is often
the result of many factors, of which taxation levels are only one. If, as
a lot of Republicans argue, the US economy is over-taxed and
over-regulated and has still managed to grow non-stop for nine years, then
either (1) it's not over-taxed and over-regulated, or (2) the relationship
between taxation levels and economic growth is more complicated than the
Republican party line suggests.
: A lot of the folks who do the economic forcasting at various brokerage
: houses that I read about and some that I work with directly have been
: forcasting a "downturn" over the next 3 years...not a recession or a
: depression...just a slowdown of unknown severity.
"Slowdown" and "downturn" aren't the same thing; the former implies a
slowing of growth and nothing more; the latter implies negative growth
(i.e. a recession or a depression).
: I suspect it will
: happen regardless of who is elected...but a tax break will make it
: less onerous.
A tax break might have that effect; again, that doesn't mean it
necessarily will.
: Even if there is no "downturn", a restructuring of the
: tax code is long overdue....you must admit that.
If you're arguing that the tax code is overly-complicated and full of
loopholes and so on, I think that few if any people would argue with that.
I'd be surprised, however, if any alternative that is able to work its way
through Congress and the White House would be that much better. The US
political system is not (and was not intended to be) efficient.
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>Janet Reno's secret evidence
>falsifying agency
Reno doesn't falsify evidence, she just ignores it.
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
Role Model.....) wrote:
>Gore said that he'd be glad to sign on
>to the proposed additional debates?
Please tell us all when he said this. The facts as I understand them
are that Gore would NOT agree unless Bush agreed to the three basic
debates first. The "neutral" press had such a field day with it that
Bush was forced to reconsider.
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
Role Model.....) wrote:
>Anyone wonder why the Republicans were so dead set on impeaching Clinton for
>his perjury, yet let the tobacco execs lie to them straightfaced under oath
>without a single outcry?
Seems like Clinton got away with his perjury, and the "Big Tobacco"
execs are paying everybody through the nose.
...and, please, while you're at it....recall Gore's rather disgusting
speech about his deathbed pledge to his sister never to let children
use tobacco. The reality was he was reaping profits from his tobacco
ownership at the time that she died and for several years thereafter.
Pardon me, sir, but THAT kind of lie outdoes ANYTHING that the Tobacco
Execs said as they squirmed before a congressional committee. A true
low point in American politics (and that's saying something!!).
Who winds up looking more like OJ in this scenario??
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
wrote:
>BTDT and got the FUCKIN' $3 Trillion debt to show for it. Did you know
>that for every $5.00 in taxes collected by the federal gov't, $1.00 goes
>JUST TO PAY THE INTEREST ON RAYGUN'S FOLLY?
>
>And not that I'm finally catching up to where I was before getting
>fucked by RayGUN/Bush, I damn sure don't need another helping of voodoo
>economics from some snot nosed fratty-bagger, cocaine snorting, draft
>dodging, AWOL, corporate welfare suckup.
Let me give you a moment to wipe the spittle off your
keyboard....there...that's better...let's continue:
Reagan cut taxes...the Democratic Congress refused to cut
spending...thus the "Reagan" deficit. If you don't like it....write
your Democratic Congressman...don't belittle Reagan.
The "Deficit" will pay itself off, by the way....it is really nothing
more than a huge list of payable bank notes. IF the economy remains
healthy, the bank notes will be paid in time WITHOUT any extra money
being contributed to the effort. It's just like a mortgage or a car
loan. The most important factor in making the deficit go away is to
have the government STOP GOING INTO DEBT. All we need is a FIVE
PERCENT reduction in Federal Spending per year to pay the deficit off
in ten years and have money to spare. Hell...it's not even a
reduction...just STOP AUTOMATICALLY INCREASING THE ENTITLEMENT
SPENDING!!! Think that will ever happen?? Not with Democrats at the
helm.
So go ahead...vote for Gore. Believe what he's telling you. What the
hell do you care...YOU"RE NOT PAYING FOR IT!!!! All those rich
bastards that you are ranting about are carrying your sorry ass.
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
> I quit
>working for other people 10 years ago and now I basically just manage my
>portfolio, which has been way too easy during the Clinton-Gore boom.
>But you keep chuggin' away, okay?
In other words, you are claiming to be retired. If you really "manage"
your own portfolio and are under the impression that the economic boom
is a "Clinton-gore" phenomenon and if you REALLY think that Reagan
created the deficit and not a Congress spending out of control....than
I hope you are able to clear enough out of your "portfolio" to pay
your ISP's monthly charges. I fear you have a judgement problem.
McT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>Who do you think gave Bush the 50 million dollar war chest he started his
>campaign with? The super wealthy, that's who.
The average contribution to the Bush campaign was less than $1000. No
Teamster money......No Holywood millionaires.....No NEA.....NO Trial
lawyers...NO CHINESE NATIONALS...mostly just regular people who work
hard and are tired of being screwed by their government.
Facts are a bitch, aren't they....
McT.
Mahatmas King Jeeves
>The government has singled you out for special treatment because they fear you.
>They tremble at the thought your super-intelligent perceptions might spread to
>the masses and then they'd be in big trouble.
You, sir, are a fool.
MCT
Mahatmas King Jeeves
policy...but frankly I came here to get away from that. Nice talking
to you, in any event.
I'm going to cut this off (unless I'm flamed) and get on with the
GUITAR part of my surfing.
McT
Robert Francis O'reilly
: the deficits were the behavior by Reagan and both
: parties in Congress.
That should be, "the deficits were the result of behavior by Reagan and
both parties in Congress." My apologies for the typo.
Robert Francis O'reilly
: spending...thus the "Reagan" deficit. If you don't like it....write
: your Democratic Congressman...don't belittle Reagan.
The Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987, and there were
enough Republicans and conservative Democrats in the House from 1981 to
1983 to give Reagan an effective majority there (hence his ability to get
the Congress to pass his tax cut proposals). Neither Reagan nor
Congressional Republicans in general were willing to reduce spending for
popular programs such as Social Security. Saying that Reagan was an
innocent bystander in the budget debacles of the 1980's is a stretch, to
say the least, and the deficits were the behavior by Reagan and both
parties in Congress. And, it's also worth noting that Reagan didn't
propose any balanced budgets during his years in office; if you compare
the deficits that the government ran up and the deficits that were written
into Reagan's budget proposals, most of the deficits that were run up were
in Reagan's budgets when he presented them. Obviously, Congress
exacerbated the problem, but the problem was already there in Reagan's
budget proposals.
fartboy
mws...@aol.comb says...
> Who do you think gave Bush the 50 million dollar war chest he started his
> campaign with? The super wealthy, that's who.
>
Yeah and Gore got a ton of money from super-wealthy people as
well. Difference is Bush isn't claiming he is against wealth
whereas wealthy Al Gore is claiming to be against what he is and
what he panders to. Again, I see a Democrat try to turn one issue
into another.
fartboy
Ir...@bluesnet.com says...
> >Janet Reno's secret evidence
> >falsifying agency
>
> Reno doesn't falsify evidence, she just ignores it.
>
>
That's right! Don't cast shadows on her integrity like that. She
does not create fake evidence, she merely ignores real evidence.
fartboy
Ir...@bluesnet.com says...
> >Anyone wonder why the Republicans were so dead set on impeaching Clinton for
> >his perjury, yet let the tobacco execs lie to them straightfaced under oath
> >without a single outcry?
>
>
> Seems like Clinton got away with his perjury, and the "Big Tobacco"
> execs are paying everybody through the nose.
>
Not to mention that the question itself was just absolutely
asinine! "Do you think nicotine is addictive?" Well, Gee, the
whole world accepts that it is and has accepted that nicotine is
the addictive factor in tobacco for decades now. Ask a stupid
question....... Put me in front of the Senate and ask me what
color the blue sky is and I'll say Red too! That was where our
tax dollars were going that day, for our elected officials to ask
tobacco execs if they thought nicotine was addictive. Nice
government we have!
fartboy
mws...@aol.comb says...
> If the people institutionalized with "shakey mental status" can't take care of
> themselves, who should help them? Perhaps the Republicans? No, Mr. Reagan
> dumped them onto the streets by the thousands in the 80's. But I understand
> there was a positive side to this action. The money saved allowed a few people
> to upgrade their yachts from 40 to 60 feet.
> Perhaps corporate America could help them out.
>
Who do you think owns most of the mental hospitals? Most are
corporate and would love some more corporate welfare where they
could keep people for years while making no progress with them at
$17,000 a month from tax-payers.
fartboy
mws...@aol.comb says...
>
> >Yeah and Gore got a ton of money from super-wealthy people as
> >well. Difference is Bush isn't claiming he is against wealth
> >whereas wealthy Al Gore is claiming to be against what he is and
> >what he panders to.
>
> have less. He had no problem understanding it at all. He's only eight but is
> considered gifted.
>
This is my last post on this subject here because we are so off
the NG topic (guitars!!!!). If you want to take it to a more
appropriate group we can argue forever over it but I doubt we
will ever agree. I will still read any new posts. Try not to
flame me knowing that I won't reply :)
Yet again I made a point and you try to turn it into an issue of
nice people helping the less fortunate instead of dealing head on
with my assertion that Gore is full of crap and hypocritical . If
I hear Gore say "It is OK to be rich, I am, and we should all
hope to be so lucky and there is nothing wrong with financial
success, in fact it usually entails creating jobs along the way
giving others the means to find their own success, I just wish
more rich people would help other people out who have less", I
might have a shred of respect for him.
But that isn't how the Democrats operate. First, they don't ask
you to help people who have less, they just take a
disproportionate amount of your money if you are rich and THEN
blame you for societies problems. Second, they use the old
emotional "rich vs working class" and "rich vs poor" slogans to
get emotional support from people who have no idea how things
work.
I am not saying that all Democrats are stupid. I know better than
that. What I am saying is most ignorant (I mean that in terms of
"ignorant" of how the economy works, what the Bill of Rights is
etc... fundamentals any VOTING citizen should be somewhat
adequately educated on) people who vote end up voting for
Democrats because they appeal to people's emotions rather than
people's intelligence. You are obviously an intelligent person,
how can you not find the emotional string pulling the Democrats
constantly use insulting to your intelligence? They apparently
don't have enough respect for you to just speak the facts,
instead they act like used car salesman, putting their arm around
you and telling you that they are your best friend.
The way Gore goes about campaigning implies that he is against
"the rich" and that "the rich" have oppressed the working class.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how "the rich"
have done that. Not one example of a few rich people being bad
but how do "the rich" oppress the working-class and poor? By
starting businesses? By employing people so they have some money
to live on, money to get educated, acquire skills to get a better
job, and maybe even start their own business and become one of
"the rich" themselves? How does going out and becoming
financially successful, which often creates many new jobs for
others along the way, oppress the working-class and poor? Would
we be better off if everyone bought into the Democrat slogans and
never started any new businesses (because that would make them
greedy and God forbid maybe even rich) and just waited for the
government to take care of us?
And since it is reality that most people making over $75,000 a
year in a business of their own pay over 50% of their income in
federal income/SSI taxes, and that over 80% of what the Treasury
takes in every year in taxes comes from less than 20% of the
taxpayers (the wealthy oppressors), exactly how do rich people
put the tax-burdens on the working-class as the Democrats are
always claiming? Did you pay over 50% of what you made last year
in federal taxes? Add on state taxes, especially states like
Califorinia where over-taxing the rich is popular, and you may
well get to keep a whole 35-40 cents out of every dollar you
earned. All because you earned too much for your own good
according to the Democrats. This is before sales and luxury taxes
of course.
What more should wealthy people do for the working-class and
poor? Pay 80% of their income? 90%? And we're not talking about
what wealthy people who care might be compelled to do for people
who have less, we're talking about forcibly taking someone else's
money simply because a majority of people (working-class and
poor) can legally steal from a minority ("the rich"). Robin Hood
was a thief too, but I don't believe for one moment that the
Democrat's motives are as noble as his (assuming he had really
existed).
And over-taxing "the rich" could become self-destructive. When it
makes no sense to start businesses, since even if you beat the
odds and are successful, you will get taxed to death anyway,
where will the new jobs come from? Why would anyone start a
business to get to keep only 20% of what they earned? Do you know
what it takes in terms of time/money/effort/luck to get a
business going and there aren't any guarantees. More likely than
not it will fail so why do all that work and take all that risk
when you won't get to keep anything worthwhile anyway?
Which takes me right back to Gore's emotionally charged "Us vs
Them" campaign. He is a hypocrite since he is rich and he is a
liar since he knows better and he is a manipulator because he
knows many people will buy into it anyway. How can people not
find that emotional babble insulting?
OK, I'll leave it at that. We aren't going to agree on politics
anyway. At least we both have something we can agree about which
is our interest in guitars. Who knows, if someone hadn't started
a political thread, something we both obviously feel strongly and
differently about, ....... If you want to discuss it further with
me then please let's take it to: alt.politics.republicans or
suggest a group yourself.
John Sessoms
>
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:22:44 GMT, John Sessoms <jses...@pagesz.net>
> wrote:
>
> >BTDT and got the FUCKIN' $3 Trillion debt to show for it. Did you know
> >that for every $5.00 in taxes collected by the federal gov't, $1.00 goes
> >JUST TO PAY THE INTEREST ON RAYGUN'S FOLLY?
> >
> >And not that I'm finally catching up to where I was before getting
> >fucked by RayGUN/Bush, I damn sure don't need another helping of voodoo
> >economics from some snot nosed fratty-bagger, cocaine snorting, draft
> >dodging, AWOL, corporate welfare suckup.
>
> Let me give you a moment to wipe the spittle off your
> keyboard....there...that's better...let's continue:
>
> Reagan cut taxes...the Democratic Congress refused to cut
> spending...thus the "Reagan" deficit. If you don't like it....write
> your Democratic Congressman...don't belittle Reagan.
>
RAYGUN got everything he asked for from the "Democratic Congress",
including tripling the defense budget by cutting so called social
spending. That's where the deficit came from.
> The "Deficit" will pay itself off, by the way....it is really nothing
> more than a huge list of payable bank notes. IF the economy remains
> healthy, the bank notes will be paid in time WITHOUT any extra money
> being contributed to the effort. It's just like a mortgage or a car
> loan.
Except that SHRUB doesn't want to make the mortgage payments, he wants
to blow it all on another party for the obscenely rich.
Do you have a mortgage? How much do you pay ahead on the principal
every month? How much do you save on interest when you do pay ahead?
I'll give you a clue. An additional 1/2 half the principal ammount paid
ahead each month cuts 15 years off a 30 year mortgage and cuts the
intrest by TWO THIRDS.
So what happens if the economy DOESN'T remain healthy and we've
frittered away this chance to pay down the national debt? It's simple
Keyensian economics. You've got a good economy and a budget surplus,
pay down the debt so you'll be able to run a deficit if the economy does
tank.
> The most important factor in making the deficit go away is to
> have the government STOP GOING INTO DEBT.
No, the most important factor is to pay the fuckin' debt while we've got
the money instead of paying interest on the principal until hell freezes
over.
All we need is a FIVE
> PERCENT reduction in Federal Spending per year to pay the deficit off
> in ten years and have money to spare. Hell...it's not even a
> reduction...just STOP AUTOMATICALLY INCREASING THE ENTITLEMENT
> SPENDING!!! Think that will ever happen?? Not with Democrats at the
> helm.
>
What entitlement spending? Welfare has been cut to the bone.
There is Social Security of course. It's the excess in Social Security
and Medicare taxes OVER AND ABOVE the current costs of those programs
that accounts for the entire budget surplus. I've been paying those
taxes for over 30 years. Now as I'm approaching payback you think it's
time to cut 'em off? Fuck you and the white horse you rode in on.
Note also that the Democrats do not hold a majority in either house of
Congress. The Republicans have been in control since 1994. If you want
to blame Congress, go ahead, but it's a Republican Congress.
And the Republicans don't want to cut spending, they want to increase
spending while cutting taxes for the rich, throwing the burden even more
onto the backs of working people. Their current proposals benifit ONLY
THE RICHEST 1% taxpayers. And they want to screw over the one remaining
program that does benefit working people.
> So go ahead...vote for Gore. Believe what he's telling you. What the
> hell do you care...YOU"RE NOT PAYING FOR IT!!!!
I **AM** going to vote for Gore, because I CAN belive what he's telling
me. He's not a proven liar like SHRUB.
And I have been paying for it. I just think it's about time "all those
rich bastards" started paying their fair share. I don't expect that to
happen any time soon, but at least Gore doesn't propose to make the
screwing any worse.