OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

archaeolept · #1 July 27th, 2004, 07:45 PM

Quote:

The tax cut isn't a "few" billion. It's well over 300 billion over ten years. For more info, check out this link, and this link, and this link.

in the context in which i was speaking, that of a yearly 400 billion dollar deficit or so, the comparable tax cut for that year does qualify as a "few billion" and is still dwarfed by the deficit, which was my claim.

vigabrand · #2 July 27th, 2004, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:
Originally posted by vigabrand:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those policies led to the good economy of the 90's.

You are massively clueless. If you think that deficit spending leads to a good economy you should talk to former Soviet economists. Deficit spending was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR. The US (along with NATO) bankrupted them by forcing them to spend more on their military than they could afford. Contrary to Khrushchev's famous line "we shall bury you", we buried them -- in debt.

EDIT: what led to the good economy of the 90s was the so-called "peace dividend" when we dramatically cut back on how much money we spent on defense after the USSR collapsed. IOW, when we quit deficit spending.

Your argument is based on a comparison to the USSR? You obviously don't remember the economy during the Carter years. Reagans policies pulled us out of the worst and kept us afloat until the economy was able to create a wider tax base. More people employed + higher paying jobs = more tax dollars. Yes the money saved from defence helped, but you leave out other great things, like welfare reform, the first balanced budget in decades, cutbacks to almost all social programs. You could look at the defense return as a result of Reagans investment in the military. Looks like the deficit spending was eventually fixed when congress cut their spending. Meanwhile the bandaid it gave primed us for the 90's. I'm no fan of deficit spending, but the fix is not raising taxes. BTW please keep your arrogant personal comments to yourself. I'd like to keep this civil.

Gandalf Parker · #3 July 27th, 2004, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vigabrand:
Meanwhile the bandaid it gave primed us for the 90's. I'm no fan of deficit spending, but the fix is not raising taxes. BTW please keep your arrogant personal comments to yourself. I'd like to keep this civil.

Your kidding right? I know its common to say the good things are because of my guy in office or my guy who just left office (depending on your party) and all bad things are because of their guy in office or their guy who just left office (whoever the other party is). And usually Id consider such things not worth commenting on. But thats with the 4 year thing.

Clinton had 2 terms and I remember first election of his. Much of it was all fear of communism and the horrible debt that looked like it would be with us forever. At then end of Clintons second term we had balanced budget, no debt, no russia, no job problem, no real wars, and the important topics of the day were things in tabloids and entertainment magazines. I got a tax refunds. I bought a house. I put kids thru school. Life was good.

Now I admit that I havent studied the subject but really are you STILL trying to say that ALL of the good stuff was from the guy BEFORE Clinton? And all the bad stuff now I guess was done by him? I didnt vote for him but still I have some problem swallowing that fish whole.

vigabrand · #4 July 27th, 2004, 09:24 PM

No Gandalf, I was specifically talking about Reagan's economic policies enabling the 90's boom. Had the economy persisted as they were under Carter, Clinton and/or Bush Sr. would have been dealing with what Reagan had to. Whether you want to give credit to Clinton or the Republican Congress for jump starting it and keeping it going into 9/11, that's up to you, I won't argue. I don't really know what the heck Clinton did to help, but take a look at how much he wanted to spend, and then how much he spent. Look at the wars we were in like Somalia, Haiti, Serbia, bombing Baghdad. The debt was erased, but do you remember how much congress had to fight him, and override his vetoes, in order to get a balanced budget? He did act to have defense cut, but he wanted giant increases in almost all social programs. I guess the fact is, good things happened when he was president so he gets credit. Oops, I said I wasn't going to argue, sorry.

Stormbinder · #5 July 27th, 2004, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:
Originally posted by vigabrand:
Meanwhile the bandaid it gave primed us for the 90's. I'm no fan of deficit spending, but the fix is not raising taxes. BTW please keep your arrogant personal comments to yourself. I'd like to keep this civil.

Your kidding right? I know its common to say the good things are because of my guy in office or my guy who just left office (depending on your party) and all bad things are because of their guy in office or their guy who just left office (whoever the other party is). And usually Id consider such things not worth commenting on. But thats with the 4 year thing.

Clinton had 2 terms and I remember first election of his. Much of it was all fear of communism and the horrible debt that looked like it would be with us forever. At then end of Clintons second term we had balanced budget, no debt, no russia, no job problem, no real wars, and the important topics of the day were things in tabloids and entertainment magazines. I got a tax refunds. I bought a house. I put kids thru school. Life was good.

Now I admit that I havent studied the subject but really are you STILL trying to say that ALL of the good stuff was from the guy BEFORE Clinton? And all the bad stuff now I guess was done by him? I didnt vote for him but still I have some problem swallowing that fish whole.

Well, actually USSR collapsed 1 year before Clinton took office Gandalf. But the rest of your comments are correct and I generally share your position. I am certanly not big fan of Kerry, but Bush irritates me too much with his self-righteuous attitude that he applys to each and every policy issue. "Consolidator" my arse! I mean, the guy who lost a popular vote should at least *try* to govern from the center and *try* to be somewhat moderate, as he humbly promised during his election compain. As it is, he is most radical USA president that I know since Nixon.

To be fair, I have to say that I do approve several of his major actions as a president, including even some controversial ones. However I disaprove significantly more of his deeds both in internal and external policies.

But what worries me most is that during his first term Bush had to always keep in mind the reelection year, and moderate his retoric and his urges somehow, to avoid alienating too many people with his policies. But it is scary to think what he may do during his 2nd term, if he gets reelected, since than he will likely to pull all breaks off, reshaping the America according to his vision during his future 4 years in the office. I mean, think about it - if during the Last 4 years we have seen "careful, compasionate, moderate" Bush, as he proclaimed himself, than what the hell he will do during his next 4 years, when he will no longer have any 2nd thoughts due to his need to be reelected?!? Frankly I think it is scary. This guy is loose cannon and I don't trust him and his extremely self-righteous attitude. I am not democrat. I share a lot of GOP's values. I don't like Kerry at all. But I think he is certanly a lesser of two evils here, and I don't want to live in the USA shaped acording to Bush's image for the next 4 years.

-Stormbinder

vigabrand · #6 July 27th, 2004, 10:08 PM

So Clinton gets credit for the good things that happen in the 90's, but Bush doesn't get credit for anything because he's self righteous? Seems hardly fair. At the very least, he kicked alqaeda's booty and we haven't been attacked since. Any credit? Anyone? What about the economy? Whether he's responsible or not, shouldn't he get credit?

Stormbinder · #7 July 27th, 2004, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vigabrand:
So Clinton gets credit for the good things that happen in the 90's, but Bush doesn't get credit for anything because he's self righteous? Seems hardly fair. At the very least, he kicked alqaeda's booty and we haven't been attacked since. Any credit? Anyone? What about the economy? Whether he's responsible or not, shouldn't he get credit?

No, as I said I agree with certain Bush's decisions, including some controversial ones, such as his tax cuts program(mostly), invasion to Afganistan, several others. He deserve to take credit for it in my opinion. Hell, I even approve the invasion in IRAQ in principle (althouth I do NOT approve his reasons for it, no do I approve the way the occupation policy was conducted and his lying to the public about WMD, and I certanly don't approve him totally ruining USA image in the eyes of entire world because of his clumsy and very narrow-minded foreing policies) But I disagree with significantly more of his policies. And I simply do not trust him to lead USA for the next 4 years. The combination of extremely self-righteous attitude, with very low IQ(let's be frank about it) and with strong "religious right" positions would be very dangerious during 2nd term, when he will not longer have whatever little regard for public opinion he still had during his 1st term. As I said, this guy will be loose cannon if he gets reelected, and I think USA in its current position just can't afford it.

And Vigabrand, I have voted myself for the Bush in 2000, I think that should tell you something.