puernhg9-yus0bf0b grf8awer8frwy8b got pony ?

[quote="Low spark":676f0].... But for the most part the top 2% do not take their tax refunds and go out and buy things, or use it to help feed and educate thier children. They are not living paycheck to paycheck like so many in the middle class. I know to many people that have lost their jobs, that are either not working or are working for less pay. I totally agree with a middle class tax cut, because for the most part that money goes back into the economy and keep everyone working. [/quote:676f0]

I disagree. I would say that most folks, regardless of income, take the money that they have left after taxes and buy things. If they have more left after taxes they buy more. Even if they save more it helps fuel the economy by giving the banks greater resources to lend to the lower income folks, to small businesses for working captial etc. And, btw, I know a lot of people in the 2% you are talking about that live paycheck to paycheck. They are all in debt up to their butts trying to keep up with the Joneses and they spend every dime they make. (Keep in mind that the 2% figure includes all folks making $200,000 or more) They live in houses too expensive for their income (but the construction of that house employed a bunch of folks). They drive expensive cars (think job security for Detroit auto workers). And they go on vacations that they can't afford (think employment of hotel, airline, and travel related jobs). All tax cuts are good, regardless of what income group gets them. I wish we all had to write a check to the government instead of them taking it through payroll deduction. Then folks would realize how badly they are getting screwed.

[quote="Low spark":676f0]What good does any tax cuts reallydo for any one? When our present congress and administration make no attempt to control spending, except for social program for the poor/.[/quote:676f0]

Amen brother. At least the part about Washington not controlling spending. I think the problem is that ALL government programs have built in spending increases. (even social programs for the poor). The problem is that every year they go up X amount. So if they are scheduled for an 8% increase and the President or Congress wants to cut the increase back to 7% (still above the inflation rate) (these numbers are arbitrary and are for example purposes only) then everybody starts screaming that they are cutting programs and taking money away from hungry children! That's what chaps my butt. They are still getting 7% more than they did the year before!! I wish they would have a year when they say, "Every program regardless of what it is, defense, welfare, whatever, has to get by with exactly what they got last year...or even with 2% less". We could get rid of the deficit in no time. Heck my company has been cutting expenses every year since 1998, trying to stay competitive. (and trying to get in the black - the chemical industry has been hurting and losing money since '98-'99 and has just been making a comeback over the last year or two) I don't see why the government can't do the same thing.

Clinton was a great Prez. Clinton, in 8 years created a 400+ billion dollar Surplass, Bush in just 4 short years has turned that 400+ billion dollar into a 300+ Billion Dollar DEFICET. That's a 700 BILLION dollar difference

Clinton can thank the two Republicans before him for a large amount of that.

And what is 'surplass'? eek:

stfu vance. thats not true.

A surplus is the opposite of a deficit.

[quote="Short Hand":77d25]stfu vance. thats not true.[/quote:77d25]

Do you know ANYTHING about Economics? Seriously I would like you to explain how by virtue of being THEMSELVES someone can just come in and completely SHIFT the economic structure of the United States.

This is such a bullshit statement made by pro-Clinton groupies - ESPECIALLY by foreigners who get fed their anti-Bush bullshit. So please, explain to me how Clinton "turned our economy around".

Yea, clinton had help from Bush SR. and Reagan probably. But still doesnt change how bush lost 700 billion dollars in debt in 4 years.

[quote="TGB!":78aeb]The fact that you people are getting the number wrong tells me how "informed" you are.[/quote:78aeb]he still lost a shitload of cash....am i rite???

[quote="TGB!":7de60]The fact that you people are getting the number wrong tells me how "informed" you are.[/quote:7de60]

Ok, then. Let me get you the exact numbers.

The budget swung from a record 313billion surplus projected when Bush took office to a record 422 billion deficit this election year.

Better?

I knew what you were trying to say, I just poked fun at the fact that you spelled it wrong. happy:

Oh, ha.

P.S. Who's that in your sig?

your president should be a penguin

you guyz, we obviously have no where near the brain power of this twat, who goes around parading his economic knowledge on a gaming forum. WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE KNOWLEDGE INSIDE YOUR HEAD. NOW PLEASE CONTINUE TELLING US CLINTON GROUPIES HOW RETARDED WE ARE !!!!!

Shut the fuck up short.

africa.

shut the fuck up you cunt.

hahaha

care to dance ?

[quote="Mr. maple":194f5]africa.[/quote:194f5]

oOo:

Bush and kerry can suck the back of them

[quote="Short Hand":62cf0]you guyz, we obviously have no where near the brain power of this twat, who goes around parading his economic knowledge on a gaming forum. WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE KNOWLEDGE INSIDE YOUR HEAD. NOW PLEASE CONTINUE TELLING US CLINTON GROUPIES HOW RETARDED WE ARE !!!!![/quote:62cf0]

In case you fucking lost your god damned mind you piece of shit - you're on the low rung of this fucking forum and Im a god damn moderator - you pull anymore of this bullshit and youre done. Youre all out of fucking passes asshole.

[quote="TGB!":bc963][quote="Short Hand":bc963]you guyz, we obviously have no where near the brain power of this twat, who goes around parading his economic knowledge on a gaming forum. WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE KNOWLEDGE INSIDE YOUR HEAD. NOW PLEASE CONTINUE TELLING US CLINTON GROUPIES HOW RETARDED WE ARE !!!!![/quote:bc963]

In case you fucking lost your god damned mind you piece of shit - you're on the low rung of this fucking forum and Im a god damn moderator - you pull anymore of this bullshit and youre done. Youre all out of fucking passes asshole.[/quote:bc963]


LOL !!!

oh jesus christ, stop talking and just ban the kid.

It amazes me that people are so ignorant when it comes to the economy. Go ask your economics professor about the short-term and long-term economic policies and how long it takes each of them to reflect on the economy. Then ask your professor about the fallout from Clinton's short-term policies that began before Bush even took office officially.

Tech Crash.
Dot Com Crash.
9/11
War in Afghanistan
War in Iraq
Still funding all of Clinton's peacekeeping missions
Etc Etc

Of course we have a defecit. We wouldn't be NEARLY as bad off if Clinton wouldn't stopped banging interns long enough to realize that he was practically disarming the country. He tried to cut intel spending along with Democrats by $7.5 billion. He practically halved the military and closed bases down all over the country. So yeah, he had a surplus. At the cost of two significant raises in taxes in two terms and the utter destruction of our military. Good fucking game.

ddo the wars not generate money in ways, via arms spending, into companies like GE. + a 400 million surplus easily covers the cost of those 2 wars over twice....+ its not like we really needed the war in Iraq...I don't want to get all personal about this noc, but aren't wars good for buisness is a lot of ways ?.

Of course wars generate spending in the economy, but it takes time, and isn't instant. Also, it's not like it was in 1941 when we started building hundreds of tanks. We already have most of the equipment. Once we get a handle on Iraq and the oil starts flowing like it should be, paying for reconstruction as well as our own costs, and everyone's gas gets back down to $1.40 a gallon, people won't bitch so much.

so what is more important... gas or the lives of the people who have died for it ?

If someone came to me and asked me to trade the lives of 1,000 brave soldiers for the lives of millions of innocent civilians, I wouldn't be likely to hesitate before accepting. I know that not one of those soldiers died in vain or for a cause that was unjust. I don't care why we went there or whose toes we stepped on to get there. The bottom line is that those soldiers saved hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions (Saddam was on track to break being responsible for over 2 million deaths within the next decade) of lives and that's where we are now. No one can change anything prior to where we are right now.

And anyway, when did the ACLU tote bag Liberals decide that American lives were more valuable than the lives of any other human beings?

>>And anyway, when did the ACLU tote bag Liberals decide that American lives were more valuable than the lives of any other human beings?

Dunno when the ACLU did - but Johns Kerry and Edwards did when they put a pricetag on the safety of American soldiers in Iraq by voting AGAINST the appropiations bill.

i voted green party, fuck the majority

my party won't become the majority. however, the more support they receive the more legit their stand on the issues become. a party that doesn't receive any votes has no legitimate plans since they are just ideas without followers. democracy is not choosing between just 2 parties. they don't always offer the best. i dont like either kerry or bush so i'm voting for what i think would be the best choice for receiving my support.

Okay look kids...

The "shut the fuck up" - "no you shut the fuck up" - "no no you shut the fuck up OMFG someone ban0r him and his pen0r" conversation is getting real annoying. This is not just another calmdown: quick post of mine - appropriate action will be taken if I'm bothered into reading pages upon pages of bullshit again.

No finger pointing please I can read and I have k thx.

P.S. Short Hand, on a related note I seriously think you should show a little more respect for our moderators, whether he is appointed by me or elected by your fellow members.

Back on topic...

[quote="Old Reliable":a6007]my party won't become the majority. however, the more support they receive the more legit their stand on the issues become. a party that doesn't receive any votes has no legitimate plans since they are just ideas without followers. democracy is not choosing between just 2 parties. they don't always offer the best. i dont like either kerry or bush so i'm voting for what i think would be the best choice for receiving my support.[/quote:a6007]

Understandable, but most "third parties" seem like nothing more than policy specific pacs more than actually "parties" - since their platforms are so finely tuned to a certain aspect of government that compromising on other platforms invalidates much of what theyd like to do. The green party - in my estimation and opinion - is one such example of this. Parties need to offer a total package, not just form a party on a single ideal and hope thats enough to resonate with the people.

yeah, well thats the hope, that if they garner enough support they will spread their opinions and become something that resembles a party. right now its more or less an interest group. with more support though, who knows

This is offtopic, but wasn't there supposed to be another election?