's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Why is everyone so surprised?(60 posts)

Why is everyone so surprised?Live Steam
Jun 3, 2003 3:10 AM
GW is doing everything he said he was going to do in his platform speech - lower taxes, rebuild our military, work on creating jobs and strengthening the economy, go after terrorism and work on ME peace. So far he has been keeping to his platform. Why are you surprised at this? Is this something you are not used to - a politician doing what he said he is going to do?

Also, maybe this should be another thread, but if GW is able to get the Palestinians and Israelis to agree on terms that will bring peace to the region, are you "liberal panty wastes" willing to give him his due?
re: Why is everyone so surprised?MJ
Jun 3, 2003 3:23 AM
lower taxes - for the very few - most people don't see any reduction - does this point include the newly acquired budgte deficit or should we consider that separately?

rebuild the military? was it in atrophy before GWB?

work on creating jobs and strengthening economy - he may be working on it but doesn't he get graded on his poor results?

go after terrorism work on ME peace? by invading a country that didn't have WMD's or links with terrorists and furter inflaming the terrorist threat and building their support - is that what you mean?

I guess it depends on how you interpret these things... but you keep setting them up for me

if he has succes with the Israeli Palestine everyone will have to give him his due - but to be honest I think that's an unfair measuring stick as it's such a protracted problem (for anyone) - he will probably get points for beast endeavours in any event
You make statements, but they lackLive Steam
Jun 3, 2003 4:39 AM

You need to research the tax plan before you say "most people don't see any reduction". It sounds like the crap the liberals have been spouting off without any numbers to back it up. Every "tax payer" gets something. If you don't pay taxes, you don't get a reduction. Isn't that a simple principle?

"rebuild the military? was it in atrophy before GWB?"

Clinton's slash and cut initiatives and the closing of many military bases across the country had a debilitating and demoralizing effect on the military and the local communities that serviced them. GW has infused a new vigor in the military. He has increased the military budget and has imparted the notion that the job they do is important and appreciated. Clinton looked down his nose at the military and it was obvious to everyone who paid attention.

How could his record on creating jobs and restoring the economy be judged as of yet? Most of the tax incentives he wanted were watered down and strung out over the next 10 years in order to pass through the legislature. This new tax cut may see better results sooner. The economy has lagging response to stimulus just as it does to negative forces. The collapse of the markets started before he took office as the Internet bubble burst and thousands of high paying tech jobs evaporated. So his ability to stimulate the economy will be judged on a longer term basis as his plans are just being implemented.

I think it is fairly well documented now that Iraq did harbor terrorists and did do business with them. So your claim is a self serving falsity. I don't think that those with a bent toward terrorism need to be "further inflamed". They have a warped sense of reality and their desire to perpetrate acts of terror are not influenced by what we do. They are however influenced by what we do not do - that is to say, they become more aggressive when they believe that retaliation is less likely to occur because of equivocation and inaction on the part of the US brain trust.

Gee wiz. You are willing to give GW tempered kudos on the Palestinian Israeli issue be cause it's "protracted" as you so conveniently put it. Clinton tried in vein for years to do this - without a real plan I might add, unlike GW who has one - and he was given more than your tempered response by the press for just trying. That's a double standard if ever there was one.

Your dislike of GW colors and influences you appraisal of his abilities. It's a shame to be so closed minded :O)
You make statements, but they lackMJ
Jun 3, 2003 5:01 AM
tax - sorry I missed your number crunching on that point - fact is the tax breaks benefit a very small number of people - you can call it what you will

you're right GWB has begun a little pep rally for the armed forces - but your assertions against Clinton lack any basis in fact - any info. on that or should I just trust you?

economy and jobs - hey you were the one who mentioend he's fixed the problem and is delivering - I didn't realise that the assertion carried a ten year wait and see caveat... now that I do I agree you must be right?!?

any thoughts on the huge US budget deficit?

it's not 'well documented' that Iraq harboured or colluded with terrorists or had any WMD's - where have you been hiding? any info.? not even Fox news has come to your conclusions

I agree terrorists are nasty people - the point is that GWB's actions aren't making anybody any safer but in fact more endangered - I think you'll find that the overwhelming force scenario just doesn't work with terrorists just look at Israel...

re Israel - Clinton tried - Bush is trying - it's a huge task - the effectiveness of the plan remains to be seen but that's not the point - what is important is that he's engaged on the subject - I don't temper my comments or set a double standard on that point in any way - it's a good and necessary step - my point is that if he (or anyone else) succeeds it will be a huge accomplishment - I wouldn't set the bar that high for reviewing his contribution towards peace as it may not be possible to effect meaningful change (not because of his actions, Clinton's actions, his plan or anythign else) - the responsiblity for solving the problem remains with the main protagonists - there's no criticism in my post re this point - you need to work on reading comprehension skills

what you're saying is that if he is able to bring peace will he recieve his dues - I say yes but that he should be recieving dues for even entering the fray
Too many items to argue - Let's talk about onemoneyman
Jun 3, 2003 6:33 AM
Taxes. The latest round of tax cuts totals about $350 billion (or thousand million, as they say in the UK) spread over ten years. The government leaves an additional $35 billion a year in a $10 trillion economy? Hardly a blip on the fiscal radar screen. The equivalent of pocket change.

Who gets the benefit of this measly little cut? People who pay taxes. Its an amazing concept, really, that people who pay taxes should benefit from tax relief. The recent uproar about the tax cut is that the poorest citizens don't get any benefit at all. Let's crunch some numbers, shall we?

This information is from the Wall Street Journal, which I would consider to be a biased source for opinions, but they are pretty good at adding and subtracting. The tax bill expands the 10% tax bracket - upward - which means that those with lower incomes won't creep up into the 15% and 25% brackets anytime soon. That's real relief and likely to do more good for the economy than most other measures.

The IRS tells us that the top 1% of earners paid 37.4% of ALL federal taxes. The top 5% paid 56% of taxes. The top 50% paid 96.4% of all federal taxes. That means that before the President started cutting taxes, half of income tax filers had little or no tax liability.

Low income workers have to pay payroll taxes as well. The Earned Income Tax Credit was designed to offset those taxes and is refundable. "In 2000, the EITC totaled $31.8 billion for 19.2 million Americans, for an average credit of $1,658. Some 86% of that went to workers who had little or no income tax liability." (Source: The Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2003)

The great fallacy in all this is that if Bush really wanted to benefit his "wealthy" friends, he wouldn't even fool around with the income tax. For the wealthiest of Americans, their income is almost insignificant when compared to their net worth. For the lowest paid, their income is generally greater than their net worth. The most dramatic - and positive - effect of tax policy on the largest number of Americans is a reduction in payroll tax, which is what this essentially is. If he wanted to pander to the really rich, he'd advocate tax-free transfers of wealth between parties, not a reduction in payroll taxes that have little or no bearing on them at all.

I've actually become offended by the tax cut...TJeanloz
Jun 3, 2003 6:45 AM
In reading the effects of the tax cut on various taxpayers, I've become downright offended by some of its implications.

A married couple with one child earning 40,000 will owe $1,503 in taxes under the new structure. That's an effective tax rate of 3.5%. If they had another kid, their tax burden is $45. Or 0.1% of their income.

I'm not going to say that it's easy raising a family on 40,000 a year, because that isn't a lot of money. But how do people sleep at night, paying $45 annually for everything the government gives us? I'm sorry, but I don't see the equity in this tax structure, and I'm not sure how anybody does. I don't mind if I don't see a tax cut, but we really ought to consider raising taxes to a credible level for some of these brackets.
flat tax?DougSloan
Jun 3, 2003 6:57 AM
What do you think about a flat tax, or a graduated flat tax? No social engineering.

Families with kids get lots more breaks. When single and with no kids, I paid property taxes for 20 years with no direct benefit from schools. Even with one child here, my property taxes will exceed the cost for one kid for school, and that's still 4 years away.

Yes, single no-kid tax payers get screwed. That's easy to fix, though... ;-)

Currently have unstable funding for governmentContinental
Jun 3, 2003 7:40 AM
A major problem with the current complex tax code is that a narrow segment of the population pays a huge portion of the income tax, while a wide segment pays virtually nothing. When the high income segment has a bad year, like last year, it creates a funding crisis in federal and state governments. The GDP was flat last year, but the tax revenue for state and federal government is way down. Personally, I paid way less tax last year than I did in 2001. No bonus, no capital gains, capital loss. Now the federal government is running a huge deficit and the state of Missouri is planning to lay off teachers, increase college tuition by 20%, and cut public health inspectors.
spending spending spending spending spendingDougSloan
Jun 3, 2003 8:20 AM
That's true, and another problem is that governments spent like a drunken sailor when times were good. Now, they are stuck with those spending budgets but less income.

..."...taxes for 20 years with no direct benefit..."...HAL9010
Jun 3, 2003 12:24 PM
If by direct benefit you only mean that your child is partaking in the schools, you are a bit short sighted as to the benefit(s) direct and indirect to you. We all benefit from the labor, taxes and (other)contributions from the kids who pass through the school systems. They bag your groceries, take your movie ticket, babysit your child, work fast food jobs, go on to college and or military... They are and have always been everybodys future (and present) whether you have children of your own or not.

Further more your property taxes do go to things other than schools.

If you live in a "Community" you benifit from the "Community "and it takes money to run that "Community".
direct vs. indirectDougSloan
Jun 3, 2003 12:33 PM
Yes, I meant without my kid being in school. Otherwise, I would not have included the qualifier. I'm well aware of the indirect benefits of public schools.

it seems not everyone agrees with you on thatMJ
Jun 4, 2003 8:11 AM
Middle Class Tax Share Set to Rise
Studies Say Burden Of Rich to Decline

By Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 4, 2003; Page A01

Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies.

As critics of the tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 have noted, the very wealthiest Americans -- those earning $337,000 or more per year -- will be the greatest beneficiaries of the changes in the nation's tax laws. And, as administration officials have argued, low-income taxpayers will also enjoy a disproportionately lighter tax burden.

The result is that a broad swath of lower-middle, middle- and upper-middle-income people, as well as some rich Americans, will carry a greater share of the federal tax burden after the laws passed in the past three years are fully implemented. While taxes are scheduled to decline for all income groups, those earning more than $28,000 but less than $337,000 will end up paying a greater share of the taxes than they did before the changes.

The findings, by two groups that have been critical of the Bush administration's tax policies, add a new wrinkle to the increasingly contentious debate over the fairness of Bush's tax policies and which income groups would benefit most.

Liberal groups have argued that the Bush administration is penalizing the poor while rewarding the rich. In part to answer those critics, Republicans have targeted the poor with expanded tax refund checks for families with children, a new 10 percent tax bracket and a larger earned-income credit for married couples who are poor.

The result may be a surprise to both sides: By the end of the decade, the middle class will be picking up a greater share of the government's tab.

"It's hard to get a lot of progressivity at the very top," said R. Glenn Hubbard, the architect of Bush's most recent tax cut proposal and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. By slashing taxes on dividends, capital gains and inheritances, the cuts ensure that tax burdens will no longer rise consistently with income, as they would with a perfectly "progressive" system. "But," Hubbard added, "we've very much retained progressivity overall because so much money was dumped into the bottom rates."

The two studies focused on separate issues. Citizens for Tax Justice examined the percentage changes in total federal taxes that would be paid by different income groups through 2010. The Tax Policy Center, jointly run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, looked at the share of federal taxes that would remain for the various groups once those changes are fully phased in. But the studies reached similar conclusions.

Citizens for Tax Justice found that for the lowest fifth of taxpayers -- those earning below $16,000 -- federal taxes would fall 10 percent between now and 2010, while federal taxes for those in the second quintile -- earning between $16,000 to $28,000 -- would fall 12 percent. At the other end of the scale, the decline for the top 1 percent of taxpayers -- those making $337,000 and up -- would be 15 percent.

In contrast, for taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $337,000, the decline would be 7 percent, less than half the cut reaped by the very wealthy.

Citizens for Tax Justice assumed that those provisions in the tax laws scheduled to expire before 2011 would expire as scheduled, although administration officials have said they are determined to make those changes permanent.

The Tax Policy Center assumed that all proposed tax cuts would become permanent. It found that the share of federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers would dro
Your sourcesmoneyman
Jun 4, 2003 8:53 AM
Are a bit questionnable. The Citizens for Tax Justice is a group dedicated to the "progresssivity" of the tax code. This is an organization that has an agenda that, among other things, is to "Requir(e) the wealthy to pay their fair share" and "Close corporate tax loopholes" While "Adequately funding important government services", which can be interepreted many different ways. I would not consider their information unbiased in the least.

The Tax Policy Center is very similar in its makeup. For a good example of their opinion, see

Both think-tanks are essentially conclusions in search of evidence. They twist and distort the numbers to fit their agenda. That I disagree with them is no surprise. I still maintain that I am right in my interpretation of the situation.

Thanks for the post.

that's the think about sources and evidenceMJ
Jun 4, 2003 9:09 AM
they always seem to have conclusions when they begin... :-)

there's more than one way to skin a cat...

seriously all the stuff I've read on this tax stuff says that it's the folks in the middle who are getting crunched and shouldering the bulk of the tax burden - is that not accurate? seriously explain it to me

I thought the Post article was pretty objective giving both liberal and conservative positions - are they distorted?

I've read the WSJ stuff and agree they can crunch numbers well but conclude they also have an agenda and conclusions prepared in advance - still it's nice to know what the smart conservatives think
Skinning Catsmoneyman
Jun 4, 2003 12:39 PM
I believe that I qualified my post with the statement: "This information is from the Wall Street Journal, which I would consider to be a biased source for opinions, but they are pretty good at adding and subtracting."

Shouldering the bulk of the burden - I think this statement reaches the crux of the matter. Those opposed to the tax cut are insistent that there is a "cost" to it. In one sense, there is in that there is less money for Congress to spend. On the other hand, it is not taking any more money away from the taxpaying citizens, so the only "cost" IS to the amount that can be spent. In other words, there is no burden to be borne. The logic of tax cuts "costing" eludes me, unless one thinks that all income earned belongs to the government first, the producer of the wealth second. That is not how our system was established, but it seems to have been hijacked by the more Socialist-inclined citizens.

If the tax brackets are revised upward, how does that "crunch" the folks in the middle? There is less of a tax burden on them, giving them more money to spend on things of their choosing, rather than the choosing of Congress.

Here is something else to consider. The tax-exemption of stock dividends will have multiple positive effects even on the lower paid folks. Joe Blow works for the state of Euphoria. Euphoria has a pension plan that is made up of assets invested in the stock and bond markets. Tax-free dividends cause stocks to be more attractive to investors, thereby pushing their prices higher. The Euphoria Retirement System (ERS), owning stocks, sees it total assets rise. With the increased value of the plan, the ERS is able to provide it's workers - Joe Blow - greater benefits in his pension. Joe also has a 401(k), where he makes contributions. He has some of his money in the stock market, which has benefitted from the rise in prices as well. All that is money in Joe's pocket, where he can decide what to do with it, be it send his grandson to Med school or buy a new C-40. Joe may not own a single share of an individual company, and he may never put on his 1040 (that's our tax form, for your foreign types) that he received tax-free dividend income, but he benefits from it nonetheless.

I really and truly do not understand all the hubbub and brouhaha about the tax cut. It is almost meaningless in terms of its size, the benefits go to the lower and middle income earners, and Congress has no plans to reduce spending / cut programs, which is the only reason the deficit will grow larger. If the full force and effect of the tax cut were to take place in one year ($35 billion), the screaming is about a 3.5% reduction in income to the Treasury.

Congratulations on the Queen celebrating the 50th anniversary of her coronation. That was a nice hat she had on.

Now moneyman you know as well as I (me?) ...Live Steam
Jun 4, 2003 1:21 PM
never could get that straight - anyway you know why they say it will cost don't you? The incumbents will have less to doll out in subsidies and pork barrel projects to their constituencies for re-election. The politicians spouting off about costing are the ones whose constituencies consist of low and lower middle income earners. They know that these voters do not look at the details. They also know they can start a class war by making a false statement - the rich guy is going to get richer on your back sort of thing. There is no real hubbub as you said. It is just a political football to be kicked around to stir controversy and drum up support for their own re-elections.
how you can say that with a straight face is amazingrufus
Jun 4, 2003 4:55 PM
that this tax cut favors the poor and middle class. and the rest.

the poor's tax bracket is revised upward, meaning that their tax rate will not go higher as their income rises slightly, say from $15,000 to $16,000. they stilkl stay at the lower rate. meanwhile, the very wealthy have their margin lowered from 39% to 36%, meaning they will pay less. who makes up the difference? those in between-the folks in the middle.

every thing you said about the markets may happen, or it may not. the exemption of dividends may have only a short-term efect, or none at all. similarly, most companies these days do not even offer pension plans anymore, moving that cost on to the employees in the form of 401k's. 401k's as you know, are exemmpt from taxes on dividends anyway, as taxes are only taken upon distribution after retirement. 401k's are how most people are invested in the market, so they don't recieve the entire benefit of tax-free dividends. those who will recieve the most benefit are those who invest in the market in taxable accounts, mainly, the most well-off members of society.
What do you mean by "makes up the rest"TJeanloz
Jun 5, 2003 6:59 AM
There's an implication in saying "makes up the rest" that the middle class have to pay in taxes what the rich are no longer paying. This is clearly not the case. Total tax reciepts will decline - what is being cut from the rich isn't being "made up for" by anybody, except lower government spending (lower than it could be, anyway).
It is not a given that ...Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 7:36 AM
"Total tax reciepts will decline". The idea is that even with a lower percentage of income going to the government in taxes, the total tax collected may go up if incomes rise as a net result of the tax reduction. There may still be the same amout of money in the pot after economic recovery.
bad terminology.rufus
Jun 5, 2003 7:51 AM
but the point remains that if the tax burden is eased more on both the very wealthy and the very poor, the folks in the middle end up shouldering more of the burden. and for these purposes, middle means anywhere from roughly $20,000 to $300,000.
Jun 5, 2003 8:00 AM
But doesn't it make the most sense to ease the tax burden on those most effected by taxes, from an equity perspective?

And I also have a hard time with your definition of the "middle class" - I don't know anybody making $21,000 a year who isn't poor, or anybody making $299,000 who isn't rich; at least by my standards.
similar to govt definitions i believe.rufus
Jun 5, 2003 9:43 AM
as someone made the point earlier that the top 50% of wage earners accounted for 94% of taxes paid. in real dollar figures, that 50% line is somewhere around $28,000. now i don't consider that to be too wealthy, but for this person's argument, it seemed to be implied.
bad terminology. - No symantics!!!!!!!!Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 8:18 AM
Firts off the numbers for middle are about $28k - $258K. Second, the taxes for those in that range will have a net reduction. If you want to say they will be paying in more on a percentage of the whole OK, but that is still playing with reality. Actually the tax reduction is expexted to have another effect aside from reducing individual income tax. It is expected to help the economy grow, thus producing more taxable income. I am sure you understand these simple concepts. :O)
don't use symantic, i have mcafee.rufus
Jun 5, 2003 9:46 AM
oh, you meant semantics. ;)

and my numbers don't really make a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme of things.
Ewe! I actually wrote that?Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 12:40 PM
I guess you get used to seeing something and it sticks. It came out that way in almost a second nature fashion. I better get back to my A,B,Cs :O)
My face is straightmoneyman
Jun 5, 2003 7:37 AM
Because what I said not only can happen, but DID happen (when the dividend tax cut idea was first floated) and IS happening now.

About 401k's - While you are correct on the taxation, you missed the point about the indirect benefit of growth in the market, due to the tax-exemption of dividends and tax cut as a whole, carrying over to the balances of the individual.

About pensions - You're just wrong. Chew on this for a minute - the top 1,000 plans (in terms of assets) total $4.8 trillion. Of that total, $3.6 trillion were in defined benefit (pension) plans, and $1.2 trillion were in defined contribution (401(k) type) plans. Of the top 200 plans, which constitute 74% of assets of the top 1,000 plans, 80% of plans are defined benefit, 20% are defined contribution. (Source - Pensions and investments magazine. Statistics are for 2001 and 2002, the latest available.)

Finally, the assumption that the middle class has to make up the difference is fallacious. There is nothing to be made up. The issue that the critics are wailing about is that the "rich" get a bigger cut than the middle- and lower-income workers. No one is paying additional taxes.

Is there perhaps another discussion you can add to of which you actually have some knowledge?

BRAVO!! :O) nmLive Steam
Jun 5, 2003 7:44 AM
fine. so there are at least 1000 decent pension plans out there.rufus
Jun 5, 2003 7:58 AM
the story for the hundrerds of thousand other business out there is a movement away from defined pensions to 401k's.

again, what is happening in the markets right now cannot be attributed to the elimination of taxes on dividends. it may be or it may be not, it is too soon right now to tell. and if this is so, will it be a lasting effect, or will allowances eventually be factored in for this and end up having a neutral effect in the long run.

and nothing changes the fact that whatever benefits do accrue to those who hold their stock exposure in 401k plans, the benefits accrue to a far greater degree to those who own stocks in taxable accounts, for the most part, the very wealthy.

thank you for playing.
Why not?TJeanloz
Jun 5, 2003 8:02 AM
You say "what is happening in the markets cannot be attributed to the elimination of taxes on dividends". Why not?

It's certainly too early to say that XX% of the movement is attributed to the tax reduction (but we'll never know with that exactitude); however it's quite reasonable to speculate that the reduction is one of the causes for the current rally. Certainly not the only reason, but we can't eliminate it from contention.
second sentence:rufus
Jun 5, 2003 9:39 AM
"it may or may not be, but it is too soon to tell". i agree it may be a contributing factor, or perhaps even the sole factor. but it is far too soon to tell, or whether the effect will be long term or shortlived.

until such time, such statements like the ones moneyman has made attributing the market's current situation to be solely the result of the tax cut are unfounded.
Hey rufusmoneyman
Jun 5, 2003 11:42 AM
Please direct me to the post where I stated the dividend exemption was "solely" responsible for the rise in the markets.

Also, "the story for the hundrerds of thousand other business out there is a movement away from defined pensions to 401k's" please cite your source for such information. If it's something you just "feel", it does not count.

Finally, this ridiculous statement: "and nothing changes the fact that whatever benefits do accrue to those who hold their stock exposure in 401k plans, the benefits accrue to a far greater degree to those who own stocks in taxable accounts, for the most part, the very wealthy"

If I own a share 10 shares of Cisco and Bill Gates 1 million shares of Cisco, and Cisco goes from 17 to 22, we BOTH have a gain of 29.41%. It does not matter that his pool of money is much bigger than mine. The benefit is proportionately the same.

If you want more advice on how the capital markets work, I'd be happy to help. I charge $150 an hour. Please let me know where I can send the paperwork. Until then, you should probably stick to your area of expertise. Whatever that may be.

Jun 5, 2003 3:15 PM
bill gates would probably buy individual shares of cisco, while those of us less fortunate would probably hold our shares of cisco in a mutual fund in a 401k. as dividends are distributed, those who own the 401k's would not have to pay taxes on those dividends, while bill gates would owe a bundle.

now, dividends are tax free in both accounts. yes, you both get the benefit of the gain in value of those shares, but now gates does not owe the huge bundle in dividend taxes that he otherwise would have. therefore, he benefits more, from the savings in taxes in addition to the increase in value.

as for a quote, this will have to do. "Because what I said not only can happen, but DID happen (when the dividend tax cut idea was first floated) and IS happening now"
and i believe that 50% dollar figure is somewhere around $28,000rufus
Jun 4, 2003 9:00 AM
so what you are saying is that 96.4% of all taxes are paid by those earning $28,000 or more.

doesn't sound so unfair when you realize at what dollar level that 50% mark comes at does it? yeah, those damn wealthy folk, they really geet jobbed on taxes. those people earning $28,000 ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking they pay too much.
You make statements, but they lackSpoiler
Jun 3, 2003 9:51 AM
"The collapse of the markets started before he took office as the Internet bubble burst and thousands of high paying tech jobs evaporated"

9/11 was the when economic bubble burst. His economic prowess will be judge on the countries rebound from that.

"I think it is fairly well documented now that Iraq did harbor terrorists and did do business with them."

Well, that idea was certainly well perpetuated, but I don't know about "well documented."

"Clinton's slash and cut initiatives."

What does this mean? An initiative has no effect. It's a non-binding proposal. Only a statute, law, ordinance, etc can have an effect. Any cuts were approved by Congress and the Senate.
I can't speak to any of the others,TJeanloz
Jun 3, 2003 10:36 AM
I can't speak to anything else, but the recession peaked, in economic terms, in March 2001; well before September 11. In fact, we haven't had a "recession" in economic terms, since Q2-Q3 of 2001.

The "bubble burst" significantly earlier than 9/11. The NASDAQ peak was in January of 2000, about a year before Bush took office. It had already declined by ~40% (from ~5000 to ~3000) before he took office. I'd be the first to tell you that financial markets and the economy are not the same thing, but the decline in the stock market was well underway before Al Gore won the popular election.
yup, proof (re stock market)DougSloan
Jun 3, 2003 11:13 AM
Maybe some forget what happened here.
they aren't surprised, just miffedDougSloan
Jun 3, 2003 7:03 AM
They still can't stand to be the ones out of power, so they are throwing fits. Simply cannot accept it.

News last night -- percentage of Democrats' approval of Bush (33%) approaching the low of Republicans' approval of Clinton (26%). The Ds' approval of Bush was up over 50% for a while. The story was spun as if this was shocking and foretelling of problems for Bush. I'm surprised *any* Ds' approve of Bush...

Doug, do you see any gray at all, or just black/white?cory
Jun 3, 2003 8:32 AM
I'm continually surprised, even after all these years, at your propensity for seeing things only in b/w.
Do you actually believe nobody sincerely disagrees with Bush, they just resent being out of power? That's absolute crap. I (and millions of others who didn't vote for him) have deep, abiding and well-reasoned objections to many of the things he's done, starting (in my case) with the executive orders he's slipped through without public or congressional debate and continuing through the abuses of civil rights, favoring business and the wealthy, his environmental positions and the tax package, for which your kids and mine will be paying when I'm long gone.
I don't expect you to share those beliefs (not your fault; it's a matter of not being properly reared), but it's arrogant, disrespectful and ultimately stupid to claim, as you often have, that they're not sincerely held.
"executive orders he's slipped through" ? Huh?Live Steam
Jun 3, 2003 8:51 AM
Do you mean the war?
Got no time to educate you, Steam. Watch something besides. . .cory
Jun 3, 2003 9:33 AM
. . . Fox News.
C'mon. . ., you can do better than that!jesse1
Jun 3, 2003 10:34 AM
I for one, mainly watch MSNBC and don't know what you're talking about.
It's OK Jesse. Cory sounds like ...Live Steam
Jun 3, 2003 12:58 PM
the typical democrat that spews inflamatory soundbites without supporting them. 12 million children being hurt by the tax cut - please! I know more children will be helped by it when their parents have more money to put clothes on their backs or to send them to camp instead of hanging around on the streets.

As for the war reference - ask Tom Daschle what he voted for back on Oct 11, 2002. The House and Senate both voted to give Bush the power to engage Iraq. The link below is from CNN. Cory I hope this meets your criteria of a news worthy source.
I forgot the link :O)Live Steam
Jun 4, 2003 4:53 AM
I get it now!!!!!!!!!!!!Live Steam
Jun 3, 2003 4:08 PM
I saw Charlie Rangel crying on TV on the evening news. Yup I saw a few tears. He was crying for the CHILDREN. The CHILDREN who were left out of the tax cut bill. The CHILDREN from families who DO NOT pay income taxes because they are below the the minimum required to pay. These are the same people who already get EITC. They already get money back for not paying taxes, but dear old Charlie and his tears what them to get more - WELFARE! Hey I got that on MSNBC, but it was repeated on Fox News too. Now hao about that? :O)
of course notDougSloan
Jun 3, 2003 9:48 AM
I never said this: "nobody sincerely disagrees with Bush, they just resent being out of power?"

You are taking only part of what I said and then inferring more than what was said. Isn't that a strawman? Of course they disagree with Bush. It would be idiotic to state otherwise. But, it is about power, too. They have lost the power to implement their ideas (whereupon they disagree...).

No, not black and white. I don't know how you got that idea. Some things are black and white, but certainly not everything.

BTW, while I'm primarily libertarian, I realize that carried to its logical extreme it would be pretty horrible, as would *any* political theory. So, yes, there are gray areas, maybe only gray areas.

Right, right: "Friend of the environment;" I forgot.cory
Jun 3, 2003 8:22 AM
Bang-up job on civil rights, too, and those 12 million kids that sort of fell through the cracks on the tax cuts. He didn't exactly SAY he'd do that, but I'm certainly not surprised.
By the way, that's panty WAIST. It's from old-style kids' underwear that buttoned at the waist.
Right, right: "Friend of the environment;" I forgot.Live Steam
Jun 3, 2003 8:39 AM
Let's deal with the simple issue first. I know it should be "waist", but I posted it as "waste" one day (a typo) and it sort of became a board joke. Personally I think that either works well for my purposes :O) (another joke OK don't get your panties in a bunch)

Now lets deal with the civil rights issue. Where exactly has he hurt civil rights? From what I can see, he has appointed and hired more minorities to high level cabinet positions and government jobs that any president before him including Slick Willie who was supposed to be the champion of minorities. Second, he appointed an Hispanic, Miguel Estrada, to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Dumocrats have been filibustering and blocking his appointment.

What 12 million children are you referring to?
Jun 3, 2003 9:39 AM
Stick to the plan-

GW has largely been side-tracked by the so-called "war on terrorism." In fact, the entire administration is getting bogged down on this issue. One may argue that there was no need for a tax cut to "stimulate" the economy at the beginning of Mad King George's reign. I'm not assigning blame here, but feel free to read into it whatever you may.

I'm baffled at how many STATES are having their own economic crises. We are at a point where almost every government agency is expected to participate in this "war on terrorism" (from the Library, to the fire department, to the DMV ?!?) while at the same time facing budget cuts- all the while we are footing the bill for a war fought under dubious pretenses.

If I may digress- if there were no WMD AND the gov is blaming "bad intelligence"- WHAT IS this bad intelligence when out of the thousands and thousands of bombs used in the war, so very few hit "innocent" targets? I'd expect "bad intelligence" to be pervasive. It was not. For this, I find GW unforgivable.
I, for one, am shocked!czardonic
Jun 3, 2003 9:55 AM
Please direct me to the platform speech you are referencing specifically the one where he promised to go after terrorism and work on ME peace.

If he actually made such a claim, then his inattention to the Israel-Palestinian crisis for the first two years of his administration is a dereliction of the duty he assigned for himself.

But even that pales in comparison to the manner in which he blew off the out-going Clinton administration's warning that terrorism should be his top priority. Why was he loafing on his porch in Crawford while the pre 9/11 dots were left unconnected?

I assumed that he just didn't take terrorism seriously and wanted to change course from a battle against Al Queda that conservatives had been pooh-poohing as a Clinton wag-the-dog campaign. But you are suggesting that he knew the terrorism deserved his attention, but for some reason ignored it anyway.

Why would he do such a thing!?
Boy, it's no surprise. Same ol song & dance. As for you128
Jun 3, 2003 11:04 AM
ya blustering conservative patsy gnat, here's something almost up to your level of pointed argument:

Peace, Love, rent control, implausable resumes and Bolshevic herring.
Blustering conservative patsy gnat, great visual, heheh nmrwbadley
Jun 3, 2003 12:15 PM
Why would anyone choose to be conservative?purplepaul
Jun 3, 2003 3:31 PM
I know you liberals like to think of yourselves as morally superior to conservatives as well as more accepting, fair and loving, but in my experience there is as much bigotry and hatred in the one as the other. The targets are different but the sentiment is the same.

For a very long time, liberal hatred has been acceptable because any "right" thinking person would supposedly feel this way. But I think the guilt that prevented the targets of liberal hatred from fighting back has been pretty well assuaged, and now some considerable hypocrisy is being shown to exist under all that "peace and love." The hatred goes both ways, as does the lack of tolerance and open-mindedness. Notice I don't suggest that conservatives are morally superior to liberals, or more fair or whatever. I think people are people regardless of their political leanings which means that all the good and bad is represented as well.

The surest way to know that someone is not morally superior is that they keep telling you that they are. Enough already. Liberals ain't angels.
Tell me. . .czardonic
Jun 3, 2003 4:28 PM
. . .who are the "targets of liberal hatred"?

Don't tell me this is some lame attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the racists and misogynists and other assorted bigots who make consevativism their home and liberals who are "intolerant" of intolerance.
Right, liberals hold the golden key of virtue.purplepaul
Jun 3, 2003 5:46 PM
Liberals hate:

All White men.

More specifically:
White male conservatives.
White female conservatives.
Black conservatives.
Hispanic conservatives.
Women who don't follow the feminist mantra.
Minorities who don't follow the "victimist" dogma.
Christians and Jews.
Successful people.
"Average" Americans.
Patriotic people.
Gun owners.
And anyone else who doesn't see the overwhelming and undeniable righteousness of the liberal cause.

You may self-righteously call it an "intolerance" of "intolerance" but the reality is it's just intolerance of difference.
Disagree? Yes. Disdain? Maybe. Hate? B.S. (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 10:23 AM
Speaking of racists...jesse1
Jun 4, 2003 2:24 AM Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson & Robert Byrd?
Let me know when you need two hands to count them all. (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 10:21 AM
"Liberal panty wastes"...pdg60
Jun 3, 2003 1:25 PM
in your post is counter to the psuedointellectual image that Republicans try to portray IMO.

Kind of ironic that Repubs. always resort to name calling during "intellectual" debate.

Just an observation.
I'd love to respond to each one of you individually, but ...Live Steam
Jun 3, 2003 2:16 PM
that would be a real "waste" of time.

Filtersweep, Doug hit the nail right on the head. Government at federal, state and local levels were spending like the goose would continue to lay golden eggs, but it didn't. The economy is cyclical and in this instance the cycle came from way above the norm. Look at my chart. They should have been more responsible, but Dumocrats love to spend money, just like the future Mrs.:O)

CZAR you should go back and look at the debates and read Bush's platform to see what he was talking about on the campaign trail. Clinton warned about terrorist activity? OK, show me! As for blowing up an aspirin factory, I do not think that equates to a war on terror.

128 I have to admit that was funny, but also far off track. Nice to print as an image on a cocktail napkin, but not reality. Just some hippy sh!t! Peace dude!!!!!

PDG60 I guess you haven't read many of my posts or you would know that the reference to "panty wastes" is tongue in cheek humor. CZAR is usually the one to resort to insults and name calling. He is a liberal if you didn't already know it. So don't get your panties in a bunch either :O) This is debate and opinion, not the law according to whom ever.

You can try to blame GW for the current economy, but it is just foolish to try and dispute the facts. Look at where the NAZ was for most of Clinton's tenure. I am not blaming Clinton for the bust either as he shouldn't get credit for the boom. Technology and the Net developed quickly. The tech boom lasted just long enough to make everyone feel rich for a little while. The bust lasted just as long. We are in recovery now. I have a lot riding on that belief.
Just to pick a nit...Brooks
Jun 4, 2003 3:25 PM
not all local and state governments are run by "Dumocrats" who like to spend. Here in Utah, the white male LDS Repubs run the Legislature and the Dems have very little voice. Closed door Repub caucuses settle all the important legislation without public hearing since the Dems could never hope to outvote the Repubs. Yep, the economy is in the toilet but the Repubs are the spenders and we are ranked just ahead of Mississippi and behind Arkansas (49th) in per child education spending.

But we sure can make buying a drink a difficult and confusing experience! Let's legislate morality!