Did Clinton do some good things for the economy ? Sure, absolutely. A president sometimes unfailry get's the credit too and the blame as well. Their are alot of other factors but sure they have some effect. It was easier for instance in the 90's to payoff debt or even spend more because revenues were higher. Why were they higher ? The same stock market that some love to hate. The dot.com and tech stock days were I think a huge factor in it. And it proves a good point, when people were investing in these companies everyone benefitted through jobs etc. Revenues were higher because of those investments. It wasn't a govt. program that made the economy good. When the dot.com and tech stocks started going south so did the economy which started to happen in mid 99. Was that Bill's fault, hell no. The economy is a fickle and an odd entity. So many things have an impact and the domino effect is amazing. So we had the dot.com bust and we were then attacked on our own soil, something which hadn't happened in 60 years and never on the mainland. It impacted and still impacts many many industries. Was that Bill or Bush's fault ? I don't think so.
Who thinks that a war on Iraq will benefit our economy?
JT makes a good point about the President not having a lot to do with the economy, however there are a few exceptions and I believe pushing America into an un-necessary war is one of them.
Anyone else think that the impending war with Iraq may have to deal with the lagging economy during Dubbya's term? Come on, how long have we "suspected" that Sudame has weapons?
Just an FYI, Wars are horrid to the economy. So you are either accusing him of waging war(which hasn't happened) to distract people from the economy or doing it to boost the economy. In the first case it's hard to distract people from the economy unless you give the public zero credit they notice when they have no money. In the second case if he's doing it to boost the economy it would be unprecedented because wars are very hard on the economy.
So either way your accusations have zero basis for fact and aren't even close to anything other than wild conspiracy innuendo and accusations.
L2F- My points are seperate, and I understand your confusion.
Dubbya is doing nothing to help the struggling economy by threatening war. And as we all know, War will hurt our economy even more.
So either way your accusations have zero basis for fact and aren't even close to anything other than wild conspiracy innuendo.
My accusation that Bush realizes that war will take at least some of the spotlight off of a struggling economy for at least a short period of time is a wild conspiracy? I did not mean that everyone is going to be 100% distracted, but if there were no impending war right now, I believe a lot more people would be mad about the economy, and fairly or not Bush's approval rating and chance for re-election would be dwindling.
Dubbya is doing nothing to help the struggling economy by threatening war. And as we all know, War will hurt our economy even more.
Ah so knowing it will hurt even more they want to do it anyway becuase they have some reason for wanting the economy to be bad right ?
My accusation that Bush realizes that war will take at least some of the spotlight off of a struggling economy for at least a short period of time is a wild conspiracy?
Yes I do. It's baseless and if you hadn't read a paper in the last few days the economy has been the main topic and Bush is amongst those prominent in talking about it, there was a big ol' story about a stimulus package it was front page for 2 days. So yea he's really tip-toeing around the economy.
So either you are making wild accusations and conspiracy theory just because you don't like him or there's another issue.
One other thing by the way. You accused the President of the United States for waging war to distract people from the economy. I have heard people accuse the Democrats of doing things to sabotage the economy so that they have a better shot at re-election because then they can blame Bush. Do you believe that too ?
I think they are both silly wild rhetoric and wild conspiracy IMO.
The poor pay NO taxes. How exactly are they paying to protect the property of the wealthy?
Crabgrass answered
sure they do.
you and I must have a different definition of poor.
I own no property, should I pay for an army to protect your property?
Nice non answer crabgrass. Do you always answer a question with a question? If you pay NO TAXES, how are you paying to protect the property of the wealthy? You are not paying for an army to protect my property. You are paying for an army to protect your life, liberty and freedom against enemies foriegn or domestic. You know I could ask the question"Why should I work hard and pay taxes so that someone else can be given my money when they do not work? Why do they and politicians think they are entitled to my money? The government does not create money or wealth, they confiscate it.
Gas taxes, Sales Taxes, Sin Taxes, License Fees, Auto Tags, Phone Taxes, Property Taxes, etc., etc., etc., and yes, Income Taxes...(Even SS Recipients pay income taxes on 15% of their income, and a retired person living on that small amount IS considered to be "Poor".)
"You are not paying for an army to protect my property."
sure I am...well, that and to protect some fat cats ability to get stinking richer
You seem really mad about something. What it is I don't know. So some guy makes more than you, so what people make more than me and you, get over it. You have the same ability. If you don't strive to be rich so be it. I probably won't be unless I hit the lotto or have some rich realitive I don't know that leaves me millions. What business is it of yours what someone else makes ? For someone who has talked a whole lot about private life lately you seem to care about other things that are none of your business.
But I was responding to Wolvie's assertion that the Poor, Didn't pay taxes.
I was talking income tax.
Corporate Welfare is taking more money out of the economy than ANY group of "Poor" people.
And if you taxed Corporations more, they still would not pay taxes. They just pass the expense on to consumers. This is done by raising prices for services or goods. A corporation tax is just a tax on consumers hidden by the government by using a middle man. BTW, Why should someone that pays no oncome tax get a tax cut/rebate check (read redistribution of wealth)?
Iraq has violated weapons sanctions, U.N. chief inspector says
Briefing the Security Council ahead of their trip to Baghdad next week, Hans Blix, chief of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said they were investigating illegal Iraqi imports of parts for its missile program and the fate of 32 tons of HMX high explosive that Iraq says was used for industrial purposes but which can also be used to detonate nuclear weapons.
Blix said Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration was ``rich in volume but poor in new information,'' and he told the council bluntly that ``Iraq must present credible evidence,'' to support claims that it long ago dismantled illicit weapons programs.
``The absence of a smoking gun and the prompt access which we have had so far ... is no guarantee that prohibited stocks or activities could not exist at other sites, whether above ground, underground or in mobile units,'' Blix told the council.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said cooperation needed to be about more than just ``opening doors'' and he said it was time for Baghdad to admit it still had such weapons of mass destruction.
``Anything less is not cooperation and will constitute further material breach,'' Negroponte said, using diplomatic language that could pave the way for war. The United States, backed by Britain, has threatened military action against Iraq if it does not comply with the United Nations.
ElBaradei complained Thursday that inspectors haven't been able to talk to scientists without Iraqi officials being present. ``That does not show the proactive cooperation we seek,'' he said.
Yea I'm sure the scientists are real chatty with an Iraqi govt. Thug loooking at him.
And Blix complained that the Iraqis hadn't made a ``serious effort'' to respond to his request for the names of Iraqi scientists who may have knowledge of the country's weapons programs.
And if you taxed Corporations more, they still would not pay taxes. They just pass the expense on to consumers. This is done by raising prices for services or goods. A corporation tax is just a tax on consumers hidden by the government by using a middle man.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that Corporations don't charge the public the MAXIMUM they think they can and still get sales. The idea of extra costs and/or taxes being passed on to the public is merely a scare tactic used so that the average joe stands up for Big Business when it comes to politics. If Marlboro thinks that the consumer will pay $3.50 for a pack of cigarettes, they will charge $3.50. If Marlboro gets taxed heavier and thinks that the consumer will pay $3.50 for a pack of cigarettes, they will charge $3.50. In order to believe that prices are increased by extra cost, you have to believe that there is room between what the price is now, and what the absolute top price that the company thinks they can charge is, and that is giving Big Business way too much credit.
I like that Missile Salesman, Frank Gaffney, avoided serving in Vietnam because he had zits. If that was the case, we wouldn't really have much of a military at all now would we?
We would still have the million national guard/reserve soldiers that VOLUNTEERED. However, that probably wouldn't make a military that is representative of all of the socio-economical groups in America.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that Corporations don't charge the public the MAXIMUM they think they can and still get sales...If Marlboro thinks that the consumer will pay $3.50 for a pack of cigarettes, they will charge $3.50.
what is supposed to counter this is another company deciding they too can make money if they sell 'em fot $3.25
thx- agreed, I am not attacking big business, just stating the "obvious"
crabgrass- the nature of a free market system allows companies to do that, great! that company wins! in my opinion that is one of the main reasons why companies CAN'T pass the cost of high corporate taxes on to the consumer, another company will low ball them. It's what makes a free market work.
Exactly CM, the mega-conglomorates can afford to under cut the prices of their smaller competitors. Now, if consumers shop on price alone, the monopolies will win everytime. But if consumers shop using other criteria, such as quality, service or reliablility it (theoretically)evens out the feild.
Unless it is a true monopoly where regulations keep others from even having the chance to enter the market. Then they pretty much have you where they want you.
in my opinion that is one of the main reasons why companies CAN'T pass the cost of high corporate taxes on to the consumer, another company will low ball them.
If the corporations are all taxed roughly the same,(does anyone argue that they shouldn't be?) they will all pass on the tax to their customers.
It was probably about an 86 Volvo station wagon with some serious rust all around the bottoms of the doors and wheel wells. It probably also had other bumper stickers telling us to save the whales, save the air or mother earth's forest floor. Of course the driver and passenger(s) were sitting on leather seats, while the engine belched blue smoke.
So it's someone else's fault, besides these flyboys, if they indeed got hopped up on speed, got in their jets and killed four people? It's "the governnment's" fault?
They probably get $1 million worth of training. I would think that's enough training to know you shouldn't fly a jet if you're impaired.
First off I have noticed that many people have voiced there opinion that they areupset because "x" person is being sent over seas to possibly fight. Alot of these people had no problem when it was someone elses child going but now that it's theirs they are upset.
1. Where were these people when my # or my frat brothers (2 of whom went) was close to being called to going overseas some 10 years ago?
2. What ever happened to the sense of honor to fight for your country? (Or did Vietnam ruin that?)
3. Isn't the possibility to be put to war a part of the passage into adulthood for a teenage boy?
4. If you didn't want you kid to go overseas then you should have paid for his entire tuition and not let him go into the service. You and your son are to blame, America fights in wars but youand your child have the right to decide if they are to be in the service, Correct?
One of my friends nephews is being sent over this summer, to do "clean-up" work. Clearing mine fields. And they are sad to know that he's going but they are also honored that he is going to serve for his country.
I will have 3 sons and if any of them are chosen for service they will go. I am an American, other people have had sons die so that I can proclaim that I am an American! So who am I to say that my son should not go because they may lose their life? We elect our leaders, with our vote we entrusted them w/ the decision to decide when to fight and when not to.
And they are sad to know that he's going but they are also honored that he is going to serve for his country.
At one time it was clear serving your country was honorable. With the direction the liberals are taking us I am having second thoughts on the subjecct.
One thing I've noticed from personal experience is that actually the people who are going or are sending there sons are the ones complaining the least. As you mentioned you have a realitive who's sending a loved one and they are sad but proud he's serving. I would say that's the way most that fit that category feel about it. They are all concerned of course but proud.
The ones who are bitching the loudest,.....well, nevermind.
Did Clinton do some good things for the economy ? Sure, absolutely. A president sometimes unfailry get's the credit too and the blame as well. Their are alot of other factors but sure they have some effect. It was easier for instance in the 90's to payoff debt or even spend more because revenues were higher. Why were they higher ? The same stock market that some love to hate. The dot.com and tech stock days were I think a huge factor in it. And it proves a good point, when people were investing in these companies everyone benefitted through jobs etc. Revenues were higher because of those investments. It wasn't a govt. program that made the economy good. When the dot.com and tech stocks started going south so did the economy which started to happen in mid 99. Was that Bill's fault, hell no. The economy is a fickle and an odd entity. So many things have an impact and the domino effect is amazing. So we had the dot.com bust and we were then attacked on our own soil, something which hadn't happened in 60 years and never on the mainland. It impacted and still impacts many many industries. Was that Bill or Bush's fault ? I don't think so.
Hey Wolvie :) How goes it ?
Pretty good L2F. Now that football season (fantasy football that is), I can spend more time here now. How about you?
sure they do.
you and I must have a different definition of poor.
I own no property, should I pay for an army to protect your property?
You should pay to protect your sorry....
Who thinks that a war on Iraq will benefit our economy?
JT makes a good point about the President not having a lot to do with the economy, however there are a few exceptions and I believe pushing America into an un-necessary war is one of them.
Anyone else think that the impending war with Iraq may have to deal with the lagging economy during Dubbya's term? Come on, how long have we "suspected" that Sudame has weapons?
Tim,
Just an FYI, Wars are horrid to the economy. So you are either accusing him of waging war(which hasn't happened) to distract people from the economy or doing it to boost the economy. In the first case it's hard to distract people from the economy unless you give the public zero credit they notice when they have no money. In the second case if he's doing it to boost the economy it would be unprecedented because wars are very hard on the economy.
So either way your accusations have zero basis for fact and aren't even close to anything other than wild conspiracy innuendo and accusations.
world war one was an unnecessary war. the american civil war was an unnecessary war.
L2F- My points are seperate, and I understand your confusion.
Dubbya is doing nothing to help the struggling economy by threatening war. And as we all know, War will hurt our economy even more.
So either way your accusations have zero basis for fact and aren't even close to anything other than wild conspiracy innuendo.
My accusation that Bush realizes that war will take at least some of the spotlight off of a struggling economy for at least a short period of time is a wild conspiracy? I did not mean that everyone is going to be 100% distracted, but if there were no impending war right now, I believe a lot more people would be mad about the economy, and fairly or not Bush's approval rating and chance for re-election would be dwindling.
Tim,
Ah so knowing it will hurt even more they want to do it anyway becuase they have some reason for wanting the economy to be bad right ?
Yes I do. It's baseless and if you hadn't read a paper in the last few days the economy has been the main topic and Bush is amongst those prominent in talking about it, there was a big ol' story about a stimulus package it was front page for 2 days. So yea he's really tip-toeing around the economy.
So either you are making wild accusations and conspiracy theory just because you don't like him or there's another issue.
Tim,
One other thing by the way. You accused the President of the United States for waging war to distract people from the economy.
I have heard people accuse the Democrats of doing things to sabotage the economy so that they have a better shot at re-election because then they can blame Bush. Do you believe that too ?
I think they are both silly wild rhetoric and wild conspiracy IMO.
I asked...
Crabgrass answered
Nice non answer crabgrass. Do you always answer a question with a question? If you pay NO TAXES, how are you paying to protect the property of the wealthy? You are not paying for an army to protect my property. You are paying for an army to protect your life, liberty and freedom against enemies foriegn or domestic. You know I could ask the question"Why should I work hard and pay taxes so that someone else can be given my money when they do not work? Why do they and politicians think they are entitled to my money? The government does not create money or wealth, they confiscate it.
sure I am...well, that and to protect some fat cats ability to get stinking richer.
Gas taxes, Sales Taxes, Sin Taxes, License Fees, Auto Tags, Phone Taxes, Property Taxes, etc., etc., etc., and yes, Income Taxes...(Even SS Recipients pay income taxes on 15% of their income, and a retired person living on that small amount IS considered to be "Poor".)
And the "rich" don't pay these?
Wolvie may be right.
There's people out there paying no income tax and actually getting refunds.
How does that work?
Crabgrass,
"You are not paying for an army to protect my property."
You seem really mad about something. What it is I don't know. So some guy makes more than you, so what people make more than me and you, get over it. You have the same ability. If you don't strive to be rich so be it. I probably won't be unless I hit the lotto or have some rich realitive I don't know that leaves me millions. What business is it of yours what someone else makes ? For someone who has talked a whole lot about private life lately you seem to care about other things that are none of your business.
Bill,
Really ? Which corporations ?
I am not sure, but I THINK it has something to do with being a "Corporation".
It has nothing to do with being a corporation.
Either CSC or Wolvie can provide the info, I know one of them has posted it here before.
Even if that's true, you forget to mention that they put more money into the economy than any other group.
What do the poor do for the economy?
See, you gotta think it through all the way.
You are not paying for an army to protect my property.
Someone must be paying to make sure crabs can spout his nonsense without risk of harm.
But I was responding to Wolvie's assertion that the Poor, Didn't pay taxes.
I was talking income tax.
Corporate Welfare is taking more money out of the economy than ANY group of "Poor" people.
And if you taxed Corporations more, they still would not pay taxes. They just pass the expense on to consumers. This is done by raising prices for services or goods. A corporation tax is just a tax on consumers hidden by the government by using a middle man. BTW, Why should someone that pays no oncome tax get a tax cut/rebate check (read redistribution of wealth)?
BTW, Why should someone that pays no oncome tax get a tax cut/rebate check (read redistribution of wealth)?
they shouldn't.
Yea I'm sure the scientists are real chatty with an Iraqi govt. Thug loooking at him.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3581746.html
-- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signs order to send additional 35,000 troops to Persian Gulf.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/852248.asp
And if you taxed Corporations more, they still would not pay taxes. They just pass the expense on to consumers. This is done by raising prices for services or goods. A corporation tax is just a tax on consumers hidden by the government by using a middle man.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that Corporations don't charge the public the MAXIMUM they think they can and still get sales. The idea of extra costs and/or taxes being passed on to the public is merely a scare tactic used so that the average joe stands up for Big Business when it comes to politics. If Marlboro thinks that the consumer will pay $3.50 for a pack of cigarettes, they will charge $3.50. If Marlboro gets taxed heavier and thinks that the consumer will pay $3.50 for a pack of cigarettes, they will charge $3.50. In order to believe that prices are increased by extra cost, you have to believe that there is room between what the price is now, and what the absolute top price that the company thinks they can charge is, and that is giving Big Business way too much credit.
Some interesting sites:
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
http://www.awolbush.com
I like that Missile Salesman, Frank Gaffney, avoided serving in Vietnam because he had zits. If that was the case, we wouldn't really have much of a military at all now would we?
We would still have the million national guard/reserve soldiers that VOLUNTEERED. However, that probably wouldn't make a military that is representative of all of the socio-economical groups in America.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that Corporations don't charge the public the MAXIMUM they think they can and still get sales.
Well duh.
You wouldn't make the highest possible salary a company is willing to give you?
what is supposed to counter this is another company deciding they too can make money if they sell 'em fot $3.25
thx- agreed, I am not attacking big business, just stating the "obvious"
crabgrass- the nature of a free market system allows companies to do that, great! that company wins! in my opinion that is one of the main reasons why companies CAN'T pass the cost of high corporate taxes on to the consumer, another company will low ball them. It's what makes a free market work.
It's what makes a free market work.
Sadly. it's also what makes monopolies work too.
Exactly CM, the mega-conglomorates can afford to under cut the prices of their smaller competitors. Now, if consumers shop on price alone, the monopolies will win everytime. But if consumers shop using other criteria, such as quality, service or reliablility it (theoretically)evens out the feild.
it (theoretically)evens out the field.
Unless it is a true monopoly where regulations keep others from even having the chance to enter the market. Then they pretty much have you where they want you.
Then they pretty much have you where they want you.
ah, yes, over the proverbial oil barrel ;-)
in my opinion that is one of the main reasons why companies CAN'T pass the cost of high corporate taxes on to the consumer, another company will low ball them.
If the corporations are all taxed roughly the same,(does anyone argue that they shouldn't be?) they will all pass on the tax to their customers.
Bumper Sticker seen 30th and Lyndale, bumper of a Volvo:
Forest Green with a Peace Symbol and WWWD:
What Would Wellstone Do
It was probably about an 86 Volvo station wagon with some serious rust all around the bottoms of the doors and wheel wells. It probably also had other bumper stickers telling us to save the whales, save the air or mother earth's forest floor. Of course the driver and passenger(s) were sitting on leather seats, while the engine belched blue smoke.
Seen it a hundred times.
No, it looked pretty new and clean.
And it was the only bumper sticker. If there were many stickers, I probably wouldn't have spotted it.
WWWD?
Is it any wonder they lost the election?
They just don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
If the corporations are all taxed roughly the same,(does anyone argue that they shouldn't be?) they will all pass on the tax to their customers.
Are you suggesting that all of the America's corporations are plotting against the public?
No, just suggesting that companies pass the cost of doing business on to the consumer. Which the all do.
so, you honestly believe that when a huge corporation avoids paying any taxes, it passes the savings along to us?
if they pass it anywhere , it's to the stockholders...but not before the top execs take huge bonuses for it.
Bill:
"Now they give bennies to our Pilots?"
So it's someone else's fault, besides these flyboys, if they indeed got hopped up on speed, got in their jets and killed four people? It's "the governnment's" fault?
They probably get $1 million worth of training. I would think that's enough training to know you shouldn't fly a jet if you're impaired.
Womens World Wrestling Diva?
First off I have noticed that many people have voiced there opinion that they areupset because "x" person is being sent over seas to possibly fight. Alot of these people had no problem when it was someone elses child going but now that it's theirs they are upset.
1. Where were these people when my # or my frat brothers (2 of whom went) was close to being called to going overseas some 10 years ago?
2. What ever happened to the sense of honor to fight for your country? (Or did Vietnam ruin that?)
3. Isn't the possibility to be put to war a part of the passage into adulthood for a teenage boy?
4. If you didn't want you kid to go overseas then you should have paid for his entire tuition and not let him go into the service. You and your son are to blame, America fights in wars but youand your child have the right to decide if they are to be in the service, Correct?
One of my friends nephews is being sent over this summer, to do "clean-up" work. Clearing mine fields. And they are sad to know that he's going but they are also honored that he is going to serve for his country.
I will have 3 sons and if any of them are chosen for service they will go. I am an American, other people have had sons die so that I can proclaim that I am an American! So who am I to say that my son should not go because they may lose their life? We elect our leaders, with our vote we entrusted them w/ the decision to decide when to fight and when not to.
think about that
what kind of world do you choose to live in?
And they are sad to know that he's going but they are also honored that he is going to serve for his country.
At one time it was clear serving your country was honorable. With the direction the liberals are taking us I am having second thoughts on the subjecct.
what, you don't think fighting to insure windfall profits for oil companies is honorable?
Chemist,
Interesting questions.
One thing I've noticed from personal experience is that actually the people who are going or are sending there sons are the ones complaining the least. As you mentioned you have a realitive who's sending a loved one and they are sad but proud he's serving. I would say that's the way most that fit that category feel about it. They are all concerned of course but proud.
The ones who are bitching the loudest,.....well, nevermind.