gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
cnredd said:I agree with both gordons also...:2wave:
gordontravels said:For those who want to Blame Bush - be glad that Kerry or Al Gore wasn't elected.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/B]:duel
cnredd said:I've ALWAYS said that...
Certain people believe that there was flowers and happy trees and blue skys until Bush made the oath; then it became dark and gloomy, and will remain so until a Democrat gains power...then it will be automatically "peachy keen" again...Doesn't work that way...
Bush was handed FAR more work then Clinton did...All Clinton had to do was stand back and watch the reaping that occured due to the sowing of the Reagan/Bush41 era...Clinton never had his hands full the way Bush43 does(economically, that is)...
Some people don't understand that the economy was tanking when he took office...His job was to "stop the bleeding" which was done through his tax cuts...Gore, then Kerry would've repealed this and we'd end up in the same position we were in at the end of the 90s...tanking...
We MIGHT have continued to have a surplus under Gore/Kerry...But when the government becomes richer at the cost of the taxpayer, the economy would've been in serious jeopardy...
SKILMATIC said:I thought I would never say this but Gordon you have truly out done yourself. Your talking points memos on this very thread have been outstandingly put.
I agree with this fully.
Keep up this very good work.
I think its about time someone literaly put it into retrospect for people to understand on both sides.
Thanks gordon for a masterful thread.
Well ok. So what do you want. lil weird
Hoot said:Nice of all you republicans to pat each other on the back and praise Reagan and Bush for this economy...or was that the first Bush we should thank?
The truth is, Clinton's tax increase was directed at the richest 1% of Americans. Clinton provided tax relief to middle and lower income families.
Maybe Bush is enjoying the Clinton economy? After all, most of you are still crediting Reagan for our economy today, eventhough Reagan RAISED TAXES and practically spent our nation into the poor house, just as this current president is doing.
The truth will set you free....
http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html
Well my family suffered in the Carter years, thrived in the Reagan years, did okay in the Bush the Elder's years until his idiotic consent to a major tax increase drove the economy into deep recession. The Clinton tax cut hit every senior citizen earning $30,000 or more, thank you very much. I know some of you think that's rich, but it really doesn't qualify do you think? A heavy tax on the rich via luxury items just about put the manufacturers of those items out of business. Most of the employees of those industries were not what anybody would call rich, and they sure weren't rich after they lost their jobs.
Reagan's tax cuts triggered record peacetime growth and doubled the GNP and U.S. treasury revenues. The only trouble was, the Democratically controlled Congress spent one third again the amount of revenues coming in and that triggered record deficits.
Bush the Second's tax cuts are having the same effect. And Congress is spending it per usual.
The problem is not with the president, but with a Congress who can't seem to bring themselves to say no to anybody. (Okay GWB could veto more of this stuff, but trust me on this: if he did he would be accused of obstructing the will of Congress or something.)
I suggest more sternly worded letters to our respective elected representatives.
SKILMATIC said:I hear angels singing. :applaud :yt :clap
gordontravels said:Where are these young dissatified, dissolutioned, disemployed French citizens going to improve their lives? Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the UNITED STATES. Hey, why not go where economic conditions are 4 or 5 times better.
vergiss said:WTF? Yeah, France is just such an impoverished, third-world nation. :lol: Especially compared to New Zealand.
Hilarious.
gordontravels said:There is also trouble for President Bush in our economy. Nearly everything in our economy is near booming with higher housing prices and still low inflation.
One of the main things that has revived our economy are the Tax Cuts that President Bush fought for and won from Congress. The Democrats and the liberal groups that opposed him had a non-stop campaign with everything from the damage the Tax Cuts would do to our country to their low of how stupid President Bush was. They were wrong and now our economy proves that they were wrong.
I've never really worried about deficits at the federal level because they can be financed and much of that finance comes from foreign investors. To prove how strong our economy is, those foreign investors invested record amounts of money in our government even when we had some of the lowest interest rates in approximately 40 years. This was a safe investment for them as well as us. On the federal level when we run a deficit the Fed has the ability to simply issue more money. This is done by selling Treasury notes.
:duel
AlbqOwl said:I just noticed that I wrote "Clinton tax cut" in a previous post. Man that is wishful thinking to the extreme. It should have read 'tax increase'.
Note to the younger ones who haven't taken a good economics class yet: in my opinion, there is no way to tax the rich substantially more without hurting the poor. The only fair taxation is across the board with everybody paying the same percentage except for a few truly poor who should be able to opt out.
Well my family suffered in the Carter years, thrived in the Reagan years, did okay in the Bush the Elder's years until his idiotic consent to a major tax increase drove the economy into deep recession. The Clinton tax cut hit every senior citizen earning $30,000 or more, thank you very much. I know some of you think that's rich, but it really doesn't qualify do you think? A heavy tax on the rich via luxury items just about put the manufacturers of those items out of business. Most of the employees of those industries were not what anybody would call rich, and they sure weren't rich after they lost their jobs.
Reagan's tax cuts triggered record peacetime growth and doubled the GNP and U.S. treasury revenues. The only trouble was, the Democratically controlled Congress spent one third again the amount of revenues coming in and that triggered record deficits.
Bush the Second's tax cuts are having the same effect. And Congress is spending it per usual.
The problem is not with the president, but with a Congress who can't seem to bring themselves to say no to anybody. (Okay GWB could veto more of this stuff, but trust me on this: if he did he would be accused of obstructing the will of Congress or something.)
I suggest more sternly worded letters to our respective elected representatives.
SKILMATIC said:I hear angels singing. :applaud :yt :clap: :cheers:
Iriemon said:I hear history being revised.
What Clinton tax cut? Taxes were increased in 1993, which is the only reason this country is not couple trillion more in debt.
AlbqOwl said:I just noticed that I wrote "Clinton tax cut" in a previous post. Man that is wishful thinking to the extreme. It should have read 'tax increase'.
cnredd said:You missed this post...
Iriemon said:Note to younger ones who have not taken economics yet: About the only folks who think a guy earning minimum wage at $10k a year and trying to raise a family ought to pay the same 25% of his income that Bill Gates should are those who are wealthy, because they desparately need to be taxed less so they can buy that bigger yacht and jet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?