|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/01/2004 06:43:07 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally after 911, the Patriot Act came about quickly and when it did it sounded real good. Considering its size most officials probably didnt read it through. Most likely not until later did he realize what all it was and then decided its not right. |
If you're an elected official voting on things without reading and understanding them, you should be fired because you are useless. That is what we elect you to do. That's unacceptable for any elected official. |
Even if they don't read the whole thing, the summary should have been enough. If their summary wasn't good enough to let them know what it was about, then we're in big trouble for any bills that are passed.
Message edited by author 2004-08-01 18:44:30.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2004 06:59:28 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
"Taxing the rich" sounds real nice and all; the problem with the Democrat version of this is that they seem to consider anybody making over, say, about $25,000 a year as rich and fair game for taxing. The real rich people simply hire top-flight tax lawyers to open the loopholes for them no matter how high the 'official' tax rates might be, while the not-really-rich middle class workers get stuck with the majority of the tax burden. |
I belive the figure he gave was $200,000 of annual income, not your figure of $25,000. I know the "cult of the tax cut" holds out that they are protecting the middle class, but in the last two decades the shift has been towards middle class taxation.
Many of my friends make over that 200k figure as a family income, none think of themselves as rich. Most of them belive that the more fortunate members of society owe more to society than the less fortunate. There are a few people who are willing to sign up for a higher tax rates, Heck some of the rich even signed up for active service in wartime. Of course some prefer to doge taxes and military service, and anyother form of payback to the country that blesses us.
When you concider that vote on the Patriot act remember that the vote was taken first thing in the morning, less than twelve hours after this five hundred page act was published. Noone had been allowed to read it but the authors. The legislators had to vote based on faith in the executive branch. Turns out that for some that faith was not warranted. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 07:33:44 PM · #78 |
| Those guys know they can have no faith in what the other members say. They see what they do on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 07:42:44 PM · #79 |
The truth is that middle class and "the rich" are defined via tax brackets and have very little to do with where one stands within the economic heirarchy. Many that are taxed in "higher" brackets don't think of themselves as "rich".
Regarding taxes on the rich.....Massachusettes has an option where the "rich" as Kerry definately is, can check a box and pay a higher rate. Mr. Kerry doesn't check that box. He could, but he doesn't.
Regarding taxes to help the "less fortunate".....I believe that the true real tax should be as Ms Heinz does. Donate it. It is not governments job to help the "less fortunate" That is the communities responsibilities. Primarily the community church. Perhaps, local and State government. Not Federal. The federal governments job is to "protect" its citizens from invasion and occupying forces. To establish an Army. To secure its borders.
As one who has worked every day of my life since the eighth grade, worked 35-40 hours a week through school (stock boy), paid all my own tuition, books, expenses, had 213 dollars in the bank after the down payment on my first house, went without furniture for 7 years (had an innertube covered in a blanket for a couch/chair & 2 orange crates w/flattened cardboard boxes on top for a table),I do not need to be told what it takes to make a dollar. Neither do thousands of other folks who have very similar stories. I do not mind paying my fair share of taxes, I just do not want to pays yours.
I do not want to fund a Federal study that determines that "women feel down or blue 3.5 days a month". No sh*t. US tax money is given to almost every country on earth. Many are very deserving. Some are given our money to encourage capitulation to one of our policy positions.
Taxes is an issue for this election that transcends every party, religion, and camera model user. Decide who will let you keep more of the money that you make. OR for that matter, who has already given some of it back. AND who wants to tax you more, but doesn't himself volunteer to pay more. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 08:05:48 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Regarding taxes to help the "less fortunate".....I believe that the true real tax should be as Ms Heinz does. Donate it. It is not governments job to help the "less fortunate" That is the communities responsibilities. Primarily the community church. Perhaps, local and State government. Not Federal. The federal governments job is to "protect" its citizens from invasion and occupying forces. To establish an Army. To secure its borders. |
The government is a corporation organized by a community for the puprose of carrying out its mandates.
I'm not quite sure why that responsibility should not fall all the way to the Feds, but if they're not supposed to interfere with local policy, could you please write Mr. Ashcroft and tell him to butt out of the pot raid business in California, and let people who can no longer stand his tenure die with dignity in Oregon. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 10:12:59 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by louddog:
If you're an elected official voting on things without reading and understanding them, you should be fired because you are useless. That is what we elect you to do. That's unacceptable for any elected official. |
I agree. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 10:13:45 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by emorgan49:
Did you hear Ron Reagans speech about stem cell research? |
Did you hear the unborn babies cry while he made it? This type of research is not necessary. But this is just my opinion. Give up the good of some for the good of others? Is this democracy---freedom?
No matter how you phrase it, the result is the same. Abortion, Women's right to choose, Research, Killing human babies.....it is all the same result. One may have a better sound than the other, all the same in the end.
Does Mr. Kerry favor the killing of unborn human babies? Yes, he does. |
So, "killing unborn human babies" is wrong why? Because of moral implications?
What about if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant? Is she just supposed to be forced to deliver the baby of a rapist, a baby she would surely resent?
What about 13, 14 and 15 year old girls getting pregnant? Your saying you advocate children having children? Your saying a child raised by a 13 year old girl will have a good life? I wonder the statistics on that.
The world is highly overpopulated. Between the year 1990 and today there has been a jump of 1 billion to the count of humans on earth. Thats a 20% increase in only a decade. Human babies are not a "gift from god", they are just human babies and there are too many of them on earth. The less we have around the better, especially those being born in a less than optimum situation.
Stem cell research is a large future of medicine. To ban such scientific progress is short sided and ignorant of the benefits. In a world filled with humans dying of terrible disease and living in pain, as I type this now and as you read it, you want to destroy the possibility of radical and awesome new technologies in medicine to help these people?
Moral issues of this type should never be enforced by government, its not their job.
Just like gay marriage. In a world like todayĆ¢s with the problems we have, gays getting married is a non issue.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2004 10:32:38 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The government is a corporation organized by a community for the puprose of carrying out its mandates.
I'm not quite sure why that responsibility should not fall all the way to the Feds, but if they're not supposed to interfere with local policy, could you please write Mr. Ashcroft and tell him to butt out of the pot raid business in California, and let people who can no longer stand his tenure die with dignity in Oregon. |
Ah, I think I see the source of your problem.
The Ant and the Grasshopper
OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, CNN, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green." Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephart, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean stage an interview with Peter Jennings claiming that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of Federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.
As the story ends, as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow. Later, the grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2004 10:46:19 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by louddog:
If you're an elected official voting on things without reading and understanding them, you should be fired because you are useless. That is what we elect you to do. That's unacceptable for any elected official........
I agree. |
Originally after 911, the Patriot Act came about quickly and when it did it sounded real good. Considering its size most officials probably didnt read it through. Most likely not until later did he realize what all it was and then decided its not right. |
Holy Waffelcake Mr.Mad, you can't have it both ways. Why hire him when you just gonna fire him anyway?
Message edited by author 2004-08-01 22:49:01. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 10:55:34 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by louddog:
If you're an elected official voting on things without reading and understanding them, you should be fired because you are useless. That is what we elect you to do. That's unacceptable for any elected official........
I agree. |
Originally after 911, the Patriot Act came about quickly and when it did it sounded real good. Considering its size most officials probably didnt read it through. Most likely not until later did he realize what all it was and then decided its not right. |
Holy Waffelcake Mr.Mad, you can't have it both ways. Why hire him when you just gonna fire him anyway? |
My agreeing with that stands for all senators, not just Kerry but including him. However, given our current situation, he is still the far better pick, and a pretty good guy for the job otherwise. Its more a problem pattern of government than some singled out senator. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 10:58:46 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The government is a corporation organized by a community for the puprose of carrying out its mandates.
I'm not quite sure why that responsibility should not fall all the way to the Feds, but if they're not supposed to interfere with local policy, could you please write Mr. Ashcroft and tell him to butt out of the pot raid business in California, and let people who can no longer stand his tenure die with dignity in Oregon. |
Ah, I think I see the source of your problem.
The Ant and the Grasshopper
OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, CNN, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green." Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephart, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean stage an interview with Peter Jennings claiming that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of Federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.
As the story ends, as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow. Later, the grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican. |
That is an old story that should be retired. Modern times with modern problems create a large gray area in that equation. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 11:02:10 PM · #87 |
FLIP
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The world is highly overpopulated. Between the year 1990 and today there has been a jump of 1 billion to the count of humans on earth. Thats a 20% increase in only a decade. Human babies are not a "gift from god", they are just human babies and there are too many of them on earth. The less we have around the better, especially those being born in a less than optimum situation.
|
Adolf? Is that you?
FLOP
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Stem cell research is a large future of medicine. To ban such scientific progress is short sided and ignorant of the benefits. In a world filled with humans dying of terrible disease and living in pain, as I type this now and as you read it, you want to destroy the possibility of radical and awesome new technologies in medicine to help these people? |
Now lets see, are there too many people or too many babies?
As far as medecine........people know smoking, drinking in excess and illegal drugs kill. Is this stem cell research going to save them too?
Have you ran the numbers to see what this does to the population?
|
|
|
|
08/01/2004 11:04:57 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
FLIP
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The world is highly overpopulated. Between the year 1990 and today there has been a jump of 1 billion to the count of humans on earth. Thats a 20% increase in only a decade. Human babies are not a "gift from god", they are just human babies and there are too many of them on earth. The less we have around the better, especially those being born in a less than optimum situation.
|
Adolf? Is that you?
FLOP
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Stem cell research is a large future of medicine. To ban such scientific progress is short sided and ignorant of the benefits. In a world filled with humans dying of terrible disease and living in pain, as I type this now and as you read it, you want to destroy the possibility of radical and awesome new technologies in medicine to help these people? |
Now lets see, are there too many people or too many babies?
As far as medecine........people know smoking, drinking in excess and illegal drugs kill. Is this stem cell research going to save them too?
Have you ran the numbers to see what this does to the population? |
There is a large difference between trying to help those allready with lives, and stopping new ones from being created. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 11:05:31 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Adolf? Is that you? |
Godwin's Law invoked.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
08/01/2004 11:10:57 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
That is an old story that should be retired. Modern times with modern problems create a large gray area in that equation. |
yes, that's what some might think but I believe it is not so different today than thousands of years ago and what was true then is still true today. morality runs in cycles and unfortunately we are on one of the downward sides. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 11:12:27 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Adolf? Is that you? |
Godwin's Law invoked.
-Terry |
knew that was coming. Are you pulling rank?.....BUT, did you read his comments?
Message edited by author 2004-08-01 23:18:57. |
|
|
|
08/01/2004 11:19:07 PM · #92 |
Yes I did. I'm pro-choice but I think they were over the top.
There's an important distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I am not pro-abortion... but I do favor a woman's right to choose. Circumstances vary from one situation to another and I personally would have a hard time saying abortion is never justified (I believe this is where Mr. Kerry's opinions fall as well). This is very different from saying "the more the better" as MadMordegon seems to have done.
EDIT: And no, I'm not pulling rank. Note the thread is not locked (though traditionally outside the Rant folder we do lock threads when Godwin's Law is invoked).
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-08-01 23:20:19.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2004 11:37:59 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
This is very different from saying "the more the better" as MadMordegon seems to have done.
-Terry |
If that is what I implied, my apologize, it was not my intention. I was just trying to point out the few of many different situations that could merit abortion. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 09:42:17 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
That is an old story that should be retired. Modern times with modern problems create a large gray area in that equation. |
OK, how about this...
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, the ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia
What does Kerry want to do? Using the analogy above, he want's the tenth guy to pay an even higher percentage of the dinner bill so more people can "eat for free". The tenth guy isn't gonna like that very much, so he'll hire a financial advisor to find some tax shelters and investment loopholes for his money (because he can afford to hire people to do that sort of thing). And then guess what happens? All the other guys (the "middle class") get stuck paying a larger portion of the bill...
Message edited by author 2004-08-02 09:59:01. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 10:52:51 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
That is an old story that should be retired. Modern times with modern problems create a large gray area in that equation. |
OK, how about this...
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, the ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia
What does Kerry want to do? Using the analogy above, he want's the tenth guy to pay an even higher percentage of the dinner bill so more people can "eat for free". The tenth guy isn't gonna like that very much, so he'll hire a financial advisor to find some tax shelters and investment loopholes for his money (because he can afford to hire people to do that sort of thing). And then guess what happens? All the other guys (the "middle class") get stuck paying a larger portion of the bill... |
Want to be a "good American"? Help your fellow man. If you make over 200k a year I think you can pay it a little bit more to help out your fellow American humans in these current times of hardship.
As far as loopholes, if Kerry is serious he should address those as well.
Or just look at it like this, Bush gave you the biggest chunk of the tax cut change which has caused drastic problems with our economy and budget deficit. That was a large mistake and Kerry is wanting to fix it.
The whole tax cut thing is a mess. Who in their right mind would give away the biggest tax cut in history and then start a war in 2 countries? AND THEN say you want to make those tax cuts perminent, meanwhile spending far more money than usual.
Jeez..
Message edited by author 2004-08-02 10:55:58. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 11:48:31 AM · #96 |
Speaking of Taxes and the economy...
From Reuters:
U.S. manufacturing expanded in July for a 14th straight month and employment in the factory sector was still on the increase, a report released by the Institute for Supply Management Monday showed.
The ISM said its index of national factory activity rose to 62.0 in July from 61.1 in June, right in line with Wall Street forecasts. Any reading above 50 indicates growth.
In January the index stood at a two-decade high of 63.6, and it has now been above 60 for nine straight months.
"Apart from the slight hiccup in June, everything is consistently positive for the manufacturing sector," said William Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services (search) in Boston.
The ISM index is compiled from monthly responses by purchasing executives at more than 400 industrial companies, ranging from textiles and chemicals to paper and computers.
--------------------------------------
And from CNN/Money:
This marked the ninth straight month the index has remained above 60.0, the longest period of growth at that pace since a 12-month stretch from July 1972 to June 1973.
--------------------------------------
Do you think that this news has ANYTHING to do with the Tax and Economic policies of the Bush Administration?
If you want to blame the (non)recession on Bush, then you have to give him props for the turnaround that is producing gains that outperform anything that occurred during prior administrations all the way back to the Nixon administration.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 12:15:10 PM · #97 |
| Shame about the trade deficit, the budget deficit, long term unemployment numbers & the stock market. How fast was the ecomomy growing in the numbers last friday? 3.what precent? I don't lay all this at the feet of the current administation as these thing do have a life of their own, cycles that run inspite of any intervention, however this is far from a robust economy despite what the numbers of the ISM might say. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 12:17:13 PM · #98 |
Kennedy's, Regan's, and W's tax cuts worked, but Congress didn't stop spending and these presidents didn't have the guts to veto. The presidents in between and Congress increased taxes. So, as usual its a cycle of power to tax and to not tax, but tax cuts always work to stimulate spending and growth.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2004 12:20:11 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Do you think that this news has ANYTHING to do with the Tax and Economic policies of the Bush Administration?
If you want to blame the (non)recession on Bush, then you have to give him props for the turnaround that is producing gains that outperform anything that occurred during prior administrations all the way back to the Nixon administration.
Ron |
I'm just curious how much of that increase has to do with the manufacture of war materiel and related goods, as opposed to items actually needed for us to live better?
I noticed Chevron/Texaco's profits are up again to almost $4/share for the last Quarter ... : ) |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 12:20:14 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Kennedy's, Regan's, and W's tax cuts worked, but Congress didn't stop spending and these presidents didn't have the guts to veto. The presidents in between and Congress increased taxes. So, as usual its a cycle of power to tax and to not tax, but tax cuts always work to stimulate spending and growth. |
The difference is, its a bad idea to make tax cuts, and then go make 2 wars.
Also, more detailed manufacturing stats can be found here |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 06:45:38 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 06:45:38 AM EDT.
|
