Voting for Republicans or Democrats is worse than "wasting" my vote. It is an enabling vote, a positive reenforcement for them and their evil policies. I would rather make a wasted protest vote of affirmation of liberty than affirm the evil policies and lying bastards in those other parties.

You vote for them and you're telling them "I support you." That's not the message I want them to get. I want them to get this message: "I would rather make an effort to piss my vote away than give it to you, you worthless shitbag. I'm not even going to sit at home and not vote -- that's how much I loathe you."[/b][/quote]
That's why I don't vote. Sorta.

when you pay 1,500,000 for a pack of cigarettes, do you really care what tax bracket you are in?[/b][/quote]
Sure. It still comes down to how hard you're working per unit of purchasing power. It's up to you, but as a rich person under the Democrats, you're working a lot harder per unit than you would be under the Republicans.

That's why I don't vote. Sorta.[/b][/quote]
I like my way better. Besides, it might eventually do some good if the libertarians ever get enough publicity.

Please remember if you vote you don't have a right to complain

Either your idiot gets elected which means you have no right to complain or

your idiot didn't get elected which is even worse, you didn't work hard enough and you should be ashamed and you really have no right to complain

Don't vote so you have your right to complain

Sure. It still comes down to how hard you're working per unit of purchasing power. It's up to you, but as a rich person under the Democrats, you're working a lot harder per unit than you would be under the Republicans.[/b][/quote]
Hmmmm ... the deficit is how much right now? And how much of that is due to the tax suspensions?

So it boils down to tax and spend, or don't tax and spend anyway.

Given a choice, I'd rather have Serge and Mike pay now, instead of shoving the bill off on my Grandson.

I'm pretty ok with things as they are.

Sure. It still comes down to how hard you're working per unit of purchasing power. It's up to you, but as a rich person under the Democrats, you're working a lot harder per unit than you would be under the Republicans.[/b][/quote]
you are wrong....
"Rich folks" don't have to work,
they do not rely on earning power, thus making their tax brackets LESS relevant than their eroding buying power...
;-)))

try arguing this point
;-)))

Hmmmm ... the deficit is how much right now? And how much of that is due to the tax suspensions?

So it boils down to tax and spend, or don't tax and spend anyway.

Given a choice, I'd rather have Serge and Mike pay now, instead of shoving the bill off on my Grandson.[/b][/quote]
PD: a deficit is caused when spending is greater than income. See that? Two variables in the equation. Spending and income. I think it's fair to say that government's income is as more now than it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. In other words, our taxes have been going up since government came into being. So the problem lies in the fact that spending has been going up even more. If we have to balance the budget, I think it's fair to say that it should be done by lowering spending, not raising taxes.

So instead of tax and spend or borrow and spend, how about we try not to spend so much?

A little more about the so-called fiscal responsibility of the Republicans - they refused to allow the government to negotiate price discounts for medication purchased under the new Medicare prescription bill.

Oh, I know, you're not a Republican. You're just a fellow traveller. Torone can explain the term ... :)

I don't think you can make Serge pay shit....at least while I am alive
;-))

My income today is smaller than yours,
I am the last person on this board to worry about INCOME TAXES
;-))))

not on my $1000 a months salary!
;-))))

you are wrong....
"Rich folks" don't have to work,
they do not rely on earning power, thus making their tax brackets LESS relevant than their eroding buying power...
;-)))

try arguing this point
;-)))[/b][/quote]
Ha!

Rich folks work the hardest. They take more risks and put in more hours than everyone else. Sure, some inherited their fortunes and some had buddies in politics who helped them scam taxpayers, but by and large the wealthy in this country had a vision and outworked everyone else toward that end.

I know you know this, but we have some people around here who think the rich tripped over a bag of gold coins....

PD, my voting record:

1992: Andre Marrou (L)
1996: Harry Browne (L)
2000: Harry Browne (L)

Easily said when YOU don't pay any significant taxes anyway...

I wonder how many people would change their party affiliation when they have seven figures to worry about...

(Note that I don't even have four figures...)

today is a funny message board day. :)

PD, my voting record:

1992: Andre Marrou (L)
1996: Harry Browne (L)
2000: Harry Browne (L)[/b][/quote]
holy shit! Buff and I have the same voting record!

I see it as we traded some debt for some peace of mind. How bad would the US economy have been last year without tax cuts and increased government spending? I think it would have been painful and a lot more people would have been out of work.

Since debt/GDP ratio has been higher in the recent past (and much higher during WW II), I think we have plenty of breathing room.

On a percentage basis, these are not record deficits. Not even close. 30%+ during WW II. They were actually higher (by 33%) in 1983 than today. When your economy is $11 trillion (!) and your economic policy is to spend to get out of recessions you're going to record deficits on a strict dollar by dollar comparison all the time.

holy shit! Buff and I have the same voting record![/b][/quote]
but he has a bigger cock!
;-)))

It was funny listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio today because he was ranting about how the liberals wanted to regulate the airwaves now after the janet Jackson thing. I mean excuse me, you guys go on for years about how the liberals are at fault for all of this and now it's them who are driving this push to regulate cable and satelitte as well as broadcast networks?

That anyone would take him seriously about that is scary beyond belief.

BTW- I am not a Kerry fan by any stretch of the imagination. My hope is that Edwards wins enougn primaries that kerry will be unable to get enough delegates to outright claim the nomination and they end up having a battle at the convention. I hope he could just outright overtake him but that is not likely to happen. Should Kerry gain the nomination I will vote third party or for Edwards as a write-in candidate.

You missed Torone's posts? ;-)

It's a real dog of an election year. Most people agree with that.

100 people who think their scumbag is the more righteous scumbag.



Last edited by JR at Feb 27 2004, 12:36 PM

And as far as terror attacks go... i mean simply as a #'s game here... we've had what.. ONE TERROR ATTACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY???? and this is grounds to devote the entire government to god?

[/b][/quote]
I'm not a big defender of Bush by any stretch but to say we have had only one terrorist attack on US soil is untrue.

You missed Torone's posts? ;-)[/b][/quote]
Sigh... must you remind me that there are people who do!! :P

I've voted Democrat for President one time - Clinton's first term.
I was in a very liberal college and doing work on the side counseling drug/alcohol/abuse addicts.
I summarily watched Clinton destroy our defense, lay thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people off work in the defense industry, and saw my Dad get laid off from his job for simply LOOKING around to see if there was anything better. (Lockheed Martin doesn't like hearing rumors that you're thinking about leaving.)

Thanks to Clinton's cuts, Dad got laid off 3 times in a year and a half and had to move to another state in between.

Now he, Mom, and Hubby are all working for the same defense contractor who just laid off 40 people two weeks ago and the work just isn't there... they're struggling to keep enough work to keep the people that they have.

Vote for Kerry?
Fuck no.

At this time about the *only* thing I can be sure of with Bush is that he won't cut defense even more... everything else he's turned into such an overspending socialist on I can't even believe he's Republican.

I don't know what the hell I'm going to do come November. There truly is no one for *me* to vote for.

In six of the 8 years that Bill Clinton was President, the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress - and they are the ones who approved the budget that included the defense cuts.

Remember the "peace dividend"?

The worst part about the whole system is that the current government can spend like drunken sailors AND lower taxes, for a while. Usually about 4 or 5 years. The problem is that the bill comes due sooner or later, and everyone ends up paying.

Deficit spending is deficit spending. If they don't take you now, they will have to tax you PLUS interest later to pay for it all. It is sort of like not having deductions on a paycheck all year - at the end of the year, you end up paying an assload of tax. You felt good all year with that extra cash in your pocket (that you probably spent) but in the end, you have to tighten your belt to the max to pay your taxes.

With the 4 / 8 year presidential cycle, it is easy to set budget problems to blow up after you are gone. Both sides do it.

Buff, "tax and spend liberal" is as approproate a term as "Bush is a ficsal conservative". Don't let preconceived notions block your ability to see the actual numbers for the last 10 years. You would see a trend that would surprise you. Would you like to be taxed $1 now, or $1.10 next week?

Alex

10 years?

US DEBT
09/30/1994 $4.692 T
12/31/2003 $7.001 T

GDP
3rd Q 1994. 7.115 T
4th Q 2003. 11.252 T

DEBT/GDP

1994 65.9%
2003 62.3%

Lower. Surprised? Most people are. They discount how fast the US economy is growing. $11 trillion boggles the mind.

I realize that, but I also realize that Clinton was a vetoing and executive ordering madman - so basically nothing got passed unless it fit *his* agenda and would have to get reworked and reworked until it did.

Bush is the other extreme - put it on his desk and he'll sign it. I think if a bill included the terms that his daughters would become Congressional whores to be passed around each week to a new Senator/Representative, he'd still sign it. We can't dare look like we're not working with both sides here.

Sigh. Where's the person in the middle? Someone who will work with both sides but won't run over Congress with his personal vision nor bend over and take it up the ass just to look conciliatory?

contrary to certain individual's deluded self-image - no one individually, or collectively here will change shit.

porn peddlers have such a great influence over the people at large...if that's the case larry flynt would actually be governer...sucks to realize yer vote means nothing more than a welfare mom. :salute:



Last edited by aeon at Feb 27 2004, 03:25 PM

" contrary to certain individual's deluded self-image - no one individually, or collectively here will change shit."
You must not have paid much attention during the last Presidential election.

"sucks to realize yer vote means nothing more than a welfare mom."
A welfare mom's vote, you mean. :awinky:
And it shouldn't - each vote counts the same.

Larry Flynt for President? HAHAHAHA
Only in the dreams of uneducated misled GFYers... thank god.

my spelling sucks - sue me - I don't rely on message boards to the point I'll take the time needed to check for spelling or grammatical errors - that's just idiotic - anyone that anal is just fucked & probably part of the reason bill gates created spell check...once I got out of the high school teacher slavery mentality - I realized...spelling means shit - it's presenting a position that counts...

;)

best of luck -
aeon

You are correct.

Because you are right, you should learn to spell.

Piss up a rope with your mouth open -
PD



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 27 2004, 09:15 PM

my spelling sucks - sue me - I don't rely on message boards to the point I'll take the time needed to check for spelling or grammatical errors - that's just idiotic - anyone that anal is just fucked & probably part of the reason bill gates created spell check...once I got out of the high school teacher slavery mentality - I realized...spelling means shit - it's presenting a position that counts...

;)

best of luck -
aeon[/b][/quote]
Part of presenting a position is looking educated enough to back it up.
Presentation is, after all, everything.

Colin:

End 1999 Debt: 5.656T
End 2003 debt: 7.001T (your number)

End 1999 GDP: 9.268T
End 2003 GDP: 11.252T

Increase in debt: 1.345T
increase in GDP: 1.984T

Ratio of debt increase to GDP increase (1999-2003):
67.7%

Go the other way:

1994 debt: 4.692T
1999 debt: 5.656T

199 GDP: 7.115T
End 1999 GDP: 9.268T

Increase in debt: .964T
Increase in GDP: 2.153T

Ratio of debt increase to GDP increase (1994 to 1999): 44.7%

The numbers speak clearly for themselves. that is where the "look over the last 10 years" tells a whole story.

The only thing that is clear is that four years is not ten years. ;-)

Yes, in the last 10 years debt as a percentage of GDP decreased and then increased and ended lower than where it started. What you're really saying though is "look over the last 4 years" which is not much of a trend at all. If you want to look at four years, it is up. If you want to look at ten years, it is down a little.

I guess you could say look over the last 20 years and then you would see a clear trend up. Or you could say, compare to 1946 and then you would see it is now much lower.

You could also compare to the other large economies of the world (say the G7 countries) and you would find that the US debt/GDP ratio is pretty much the same as that of France and Germany and much less than that of Italy or Japan. The US debt ratio is not remarkable in any way compared to the G7 average. In fact it is completely average. What is remarkable in comparison is not the US debt but the size of the US economy.

Colin, that isn't the point. Look at 10 years. 6 years of only 44% ratio, and the last 4 years of 67% ratio. It doesn't matter if the GDP is growing if the debt is growing almost as fast. That is something that in the long run can cripple an economy (see Italy, Japan). It is even more significant that this is happening during economic growth... the GDP growth for those two time frames are similar, but the debt increases are VERY different.

If 4 years is a short time to judge things, then 2 quarters ain't nothing important!

Alex

There's no evidence whatsoever that a constant debt/GDP ratio of around 60% is harmful to an economy. You have it backwards anyway. There has been solid economic growth partly because of deficit spending not in spite of it. Look at the history of the US economy in the 20th century (it's the one I am mostly familiar with) and there are plenty of examples. The strongest growth the US experienced this century occured during World War II. The US economy grew a whopping 22% in one year in 1943 at the same time as a massive surge in US debt nearly doubling the total debt in one year. Debt up 88%. in one year! Economy roars to life. Surprising? No, Expected. Meanwhile, attempts to balance the budget during slow times have done nothing but harm the economy. Look at the balanced budget attempts throughout the depression. They were obsessed with balancing the budget. What happened? Spend less money, GDP shrinks. You attempt to balance the budget and spend less so less money went into the economy and this shrinks the economy further. Repeat that a few times and you have 1929-1932. Start deficit spending and BOOM! Immediate economic recovery.

What do we have to show for our recent deficit spending? Well, the economy has taken off. GDP is up more in the last six months than any other period during the last 20 years. The US cut taxes and spent lots of money and now it's economy roars to life. Amazing, huh? No, Simple.

Whether you want to look at 10 years, 20 years, 30 years or 40 years what you will see if that the US economy has grown at a very strong clip. There's not even a record to compare it to. The US economy is 10x larger than the 5th largest economy. No one has found a better way.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 28 2004, 03:55 PM

How can you argue with history? The worst recessions in US history all occured prior to World War II.

1819 depression. Began immediately after a 5 year long 29% reduction in the debt.

1837 depression. Began immediately after a 14 year long 99.7% reduction in the debt.

1857 depression. Began immediately after a 6 year long 59% reduction in the debt.

1873 depression. Began immediately after a 7 year long 27% reduction in the debt.

1893 depression. Began immediately after a 14 year long 57% reduction in the debt.

1929 depression. The US debt was reduced 36 % from 1920-1930.

What has happened since? No sustained periods of debt reduction whatsoever and no "depressions".

The highest deficits in US history occured during World War II. This was also the period of greatest growth.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 28 2004, 04:11 PM

Colin, the discussion isn't about what causes a recession, there are many things not related to deficit reduction that cause recessions, you know it, I know it. Not the issue.

The question is simple:
With a democrat in the whitehouse, the economy expanded more than twice as fast as the debt.

With a republican in the whitehouse, that number has changed dramatically, even during an almost exact dollar for dollar increase in the GDP. The GDP is only growing 1/3 faster than the debt.

Just one of those things. I won't keep going back and forth, I just see it as a little weird, thats all.

Alex