It was a joke based on movie reviews... Geez man. You take yourself way too seriously.
The Bush tax cuts are working?
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
It's the only one that seems to be during the war rather than "post-war".
Sweat him Damo, put him on the rack and sweat him good!
LMAO.
Topper, man, you got no sense of humor.
AHaHaHaHahahahaha
Still blaming 9/11 for the weakest post-recession recovery on record? LOL
What a bush apologist you are!
Dude, the statute of limitations has run out on blaming 9/11 for bush's failures. That happened 6 years ago
Sweat you? I wasn't "sweating" you. I was just pointing out that she wasn't saying it was "quarter 6" she was making a joke. But heck... If you want to take it personally I can't stop you.
cawacko
Well-known member
Waiting For A Promised Boost From Tax Cuts
Commentary: Years After Several Tax Breaks Took Effect, The Economy Has Nearly Stalled
June 25, 2007
President Bush, taxesPresident Bush pushed major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, saying families and entrepreneurs would have "more to spend, more to save, more to invest," which would "help boost the entire economy and create jobs." But some economists say that still hasn't happened. (AP)
Quote
"Sadly, this appears to be another case of ugly facts discrediting a beautiful theory."
Economist Paul Kasriel, on the administration's
argument that supply-side tax cuts
boost private savings
(Christian Science Monitor) Economist Paul Kasriel is still twiddling his thumbs, waiting for the predicted good results in the economy from the major tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
In an analysis a month ago for his bank, Northern Trust Co. in Chicago, he referred to the famous Samuel Beckett play, "Waiting for Godot," in which Godot never shows up.
Last week, Mr. Kasriel said he still can't detect the promised big boost in national output, investment, and savings from what economists call "supply side" tax cuts made by a GOP-led Congress and approved by President Bush.
"The data don't seem to support the hypothesis," he said in an interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/25/business/main2974805.shtml
Of course remember that Christian Science Monitor is a liberal outlet
Quoting Paul Krugman to say the tax cuts didn't work is rich.
You are allowing your partisan blinders to not allow you to view the success of the tax cuts for two reasons. You are ideologically opposed to tax cuts and you are ideologically opposed to tax cuts by a Republican (and more specifically Bush).
Enjoy this article on the success of the tax cuts.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008699
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Tax cuts certainly work (to an extent) but they work more effectively when you have subsequent cuts in spending (or at the least no increases).
The only reason the economy is in trouble now is that individuals are trying to mimic the idiots in DC by spending more than they make. By buying more home than they can afford, buying more car than they can afford, buy buying more and more toys that they do not need and cannot afford, simply because they are a part of the instant gratification culture.... the future be damned. Very similar to the line of thought the idiots in DC follow. What's 46 years of increasing the nations debt? Who cares if we do that? It won't effect us.... just our kids and grandkids.
It is time to hold both parties accountable.... as well as the individuals whose heads are spinning looking for someone to blame for their "sudden financial problems"
The only reason the economy is in trouble now is that individuals are trying to mimic the idiots in DC by spending more than they make. By buying more home than they can afford, buying more car than they can afford, buy buying more and more toys that they do not need and cannot afford, simply because they are a part of the instant gratification culture.... the future be damned. Very similar to the line of thought the idiots in DC follow. What's 46 years of increasing the nations debt? Who cares if we do that? It won't effect us.... just our kids and grandkids.
It is time to hold both parties accountable.... as well as the individuals whose heads are spinning looking for someone to blame for their "sudden financial problems"
cawacko
Well-known member
There's no question politicians in Washington spend too much and there's no question both parties are responsible. They both believe in big spending and big government, the differences lie in what they want to spend it on. Democrats want to tax and spend. Republicans want to cut taxes and spend.
On the campaign trail many a politician has promised to "limit federal government spending" upon being voted into office. Of course once in D.C. they fall into the same trap as all the others and spend, spend and spend in the hopes of being re-elected.
uscitizen
Villified User
If killing 3,000 people or so and blasting down 2 buildings is that bad on the entire country, we are in piss poor shape.
uscitizen
Villified User
SF our economy is 66% based on what consumers spend, if we started spending wisely the economy would crash.
Not arguring one way or the other, just stating the obvious.
Wasn't it bush I who told people to buy on credit to boost the economy ?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"SF our economy is 66% based on what consumers spend, if we started spending wisely the economy would crash.
Not arguring one way or the other, just stating the obvious.
Wasn't it bush I who told people to buy on credit to boost the economy ?"
True, the consumer spending accounts for about two thirds of the economic growth... however, it is false to assume that the economy as a whole would crash. Certain parts, typically luxury goods, would certainly take a hit, but consumer staples, utilities, energy, healthcare, technology etc... would all continue to be needed.
Not arguring one way or the other, just stating the obvious.
Wasn't it bush I who told people to buy on credit to boost the economy ?"
True, the consumer spending accounts for about two thirds of the economic growth... however, it is false to assume that the economy as a whole would crash. Certain parts, typically luxury goods, would certainly take a hit, but consumer staples, utilities, energy, healthcare, technology etc... would all continue to be needed.
uscitizen
Villified User
Tech would fail as well, how many NEED to buy a 42 inch plasma tv or an Ipod while eyeball deep in debt ?
How many need to eat out ?
How many need to buy DVD's ?
how many need a new vehicle every 2-3 years ?
etc, etc,etc...
Our economy is precariously peerched on top of consumer spending now instead of the way it used to be with most based on manufactruing.
When we fall we will fall hard once we cross a certain threshold.
How many need to eat out ?
How many need to buy DVD's ?
how many need a new vehicle every 2-3 years ?
etc, etc,etc...
Our economy is precariously peerched on top of consumer spending now instead of the way it used to be with most based on manufactruing.
When we fall we will fall hard once we cross a certain threshold.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You are thinking with a very limited view on tech.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"We are pretty much no longer the tech leader in the world anyway."
Ummm... bullshit.
Ummm... bullshit.
Just out of curiosity, how many times have you, topper and usc had this exact argument?
because if the 3 of you want, I can just go and find the last thread, and bump it up. No point in topper having to write "your (sic) a lowclass undegreed dumbass usc, but the gashopper is hear (sic) too (sic) help you anyway
" over and over again.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Darla,
I think this would be the 4329th time.
Just lends credibility to the saying..." ya can't teach an old dog new tricks".
US could not be more wrong, but because he has an article somewhere that says the US is not the leader, then it must in fact be correct. Despite the fact that the criteria used in downgrading the US were political... NOT technological.
I think this would be the 4329th time.
Just lends credibility to the saying..." ya can't teach an old dog new tricks".
US could not be more wrong, but because he has an article somewhere that says the US is not the leader, then it must in fact be correct. Despite the fact that the criteria used in downgrading the US were political... NOT technological.