 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / March 2006US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions
US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions http://www.nysun.com/article/26874 Unless the underlying problems are fixed, American automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. Cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. The 14 plant closings announced by Ford last week won't actually be implemented for several years, and the 25,000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the "jobs bank," where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. Bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. Federal judges can abrogate contracts. But threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the United Auto Workers is another. A strike, or even work-to-rule, would be potentially fatal, leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. Fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier, the bankrupt Delphi Corp., has caused GM to commit a substantial chunk of cash for Delphi's pay and benefits - even as GM itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. Miracles do happen. The no-longer-so-Big Three are starting to produce some fine products. When it was at death's door in the 1980s, Ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped Taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. Alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. Even Chrysler's bailout was only a temporary palliative; it's now part of Daimler. Unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are "relevant" to the 21st century, the prospect is that some day the Big Six will once again become the Big Three - and headquartered somewhere else than Detroit. Bill P. > US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Big Six will once again become the Big Three - and headquartered somewhere > else than Detroit. When I first saw this post I was going to ignore it for a couple of reason's. One, it would undoubtedly become a heated thread as these threads tend to. Two, William Boyd imo is a friggin' troll. Having said that, I was watching the national news tonight and saw the piece about United Airlines out of bankrauptcy after three years. The highlights were the airline is flying with a few less planes, a whole lot of lay offs, the union workers took(or was it demanded) a 30% pay cut, retired workers saw their pension's reduced 75%. Oh, the CEO recieved a 15MILLION DOLLAR BONUS, other upper managers also recieved some hefty bonus's. As I said there are good and bad union's. ymmv Roy > Bill P. >> US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Roy >> Bill P. Isn't United owned by the Union? Don >Isn't United owned by the Union? > >Don I don't think so.... my 2 brothers are both retired from United and they bought stock for years on some kind of company contribution thing... kind of like you buy "x" amount of stock out of your paycheck and we'll throw in "x" amount with it.. Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm Tell this to Lee Iacocca. Unions are usually the scapegoat for bad management. Ford and GM automobiles have suffered in quality and lack of imagination. Just look at the design and quality of these cars compared to foreign counterparts, and one can see where the real problem is. If the assembly line workers don't show up to work, no cars are built. If management doesn't show up to work, everything runs fine. > US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Bill P. > If the > assembly line workers don't show up to work, no cars are built. If > management doesn't show up to work, everything runs fine. That is true only for the very short term. A rather absurd line of logic to carry any further although I've heard it often with production line manufacturing workers. >> assembly line workers don't show up to work, no cars are built. If >> management doesn't show up to work, everything runs fine. > > That is true only for the very short term. A rather absurd line of logic > to carry any further Yep... obviously someone who's never read 'Lord of the Flies' Unions aren't the cause of the demise of ANY US industries I can think of. The cause is the complete lack of protection of our markets and trade by BOTH parties of crooks in Washington. I'll admit that Unions contribute to higher auto prices in order to maintain a livable wage for American workers. Take away the Union and the US auto industry might come back, but the factories will be filled with immigrant labor. Enough of this and it won't matter whether we build cars or not because there will be no middle class to buy them. I'm not Union, nor am I from a Union family, I just miss those days when there was some stability in the workplace and we didn't have to be Union to get it. MMC > Tell this to Lee Iacocca. Unions are usually the scapegoat for bad > management. Ford and GM automobiles have suffered in quality and lack of [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > > > Bill P. Did I read that right? "A livable wage"???? You're joking, right? There's no such animal anymore. Back when the monies of the US were backed by tangible material, silver and/or gold, a "livable wage" was far less than today. As a fact, a spouse didn't _have_ to work to help make ends meet . . .uh, correction, wave at each other in a semi-friendly manner. But, of course, the dollar in your pocket was really worth nearly a dollar back then also and purchased a true dollar's worth of product or service. Then, to be more exchangeable with worthless foreign currencies, we dropped those standards, opening the way to rampant inflation, with a government, especially the spend-it-like-there's no-tomorrow liberals, printing more fiat money to cover wasteful expenditures. So, the government is at least partly to blame for those ridiculous union wages, but it would help if everyone would demand our money to be returned to a physically supported status. BTW, Clinton never "balanced" the budget as he, and Congress, blew monies that should have gone toward the National Debt on pet projects. Budd > Unions aren't the cause of the demise of ANY US industries I can think of. > The cause is the complete lack of protection of our markets and trade by [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >> > >> > Bill P. > BTW, Clinton never "balanced" the budget as he, and Congress, blew monies > that should have gone toward the National Debt on pet projects. Thats true. There never was any surplus. Clinton WH projected that based on spending and tax trends there would be a surplus over a 10 year period. Trouble is, during Clintons years spending increased at twice the projected amount...8% a year increase instead of the 4% average seen under Bush Sr (and Bush Jr.). > > BTW, Clinton never "balanced" the budget as he, and Congress, blew monies > > that should have gone toward the National Debt on pet projects. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the projected amount...8% a year increase instead of the 4% average seen > under Bush Sr (and Bush Jr.). LOL, more horseshit. Funny how the war budget is not included here.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>>BTW, Clinton never "balanced" the budget as he, and Congress, blew > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > LOL, more horseshit. Funny how the war budget is not included here. Look it up TBone. Budget increases were 4% under Bush Sr., 8% per year under Clinton and 4% under Bush Jr. This years increase will be about 2.5% over the prior. Add in the war budget if you want. Still, under 4. Go ahead TBone, look up the average increases especially under Clinton...I'll wait. Play with your fuzzy math all you want Miles. The bottom line says it all. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > >>>BTW, Clinton never "balanced" the budget as he, and Congress, blew [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 4. Go ahead TBone, look up the average increases especially under > Clinton...I'll wait. > Play with your fuzzy math all you want Miles. The bottom line says it all. Fuzzy math? Budget increases are not subject to your personal biased wishes. They are what they are. 8% increases per year under Clinton, 4% under Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. and this years increase is 2.5%, or 3% if you add in the war budget. That TBone, is the the bottom line despite your wishfull politically biased desires for it to be different. > > Play with your fuzzy math all you want Miles. The bottom line says it all. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you add in the war budget. That TBone, is the the bottom line despite > your wishfull politically biased desires for it to be different. What was the national dept a year before Clinton left office and what is it now? http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>>Play with your fuzzy math all you want Miles. The bottom line says it > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > now? > http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm We're talking budget increases and you can't argue your own fuzzy math. Instead you bring up the debt. lol. > >>>Play with your fuzzy math all you want Miles. The bottom line says it > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > We're talking budget increases and you can't argue your own fuzzy math. > Instead you bring up the debt. lol. No, I was always talking about the dept. You were the one who tried to switch it over to budget increases. But since you mention it, funny how Clinton can raise spending 8% per year, make minimal to no cuts on important social programs, and still reverse the national dept while your God increased it by only 3% and still put us into record numbers. Another issue that you fail to mention is how many cuts to important social programs were cut by him. I did notice however that Billions have been allocated for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska by its Republican congressman and most of the people there don't even want it. Even the republicans are saying that your man has yet to veto anything. I guess that he doesn't have to as long as he keeps taking from the poor and defenseless to pay for the "right wing" pork barrel spending. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > No, I was always talking about the dept. You were the one who tried to > switch it over to budget increases. But since you mention it, funny how > Clinton can raise spending 8% per year, make minimal to no cuts on important > social programs, and still reverse the national dept Sorry TBone, the national debt increased each year Clinton was in office. You keep buying into the projections of the time and believe there was a surplus of $'s sitting in a huge vault somewhere. > increased it by only 3% and still put us into record numbers. Another issue > that you fail to mention is how many cuts to important social programs were > cut by him. Important social programs? To whomever is on the receiving end they are always important. > I did notice however that Billions have been allocated for a > bridge to nowhere in Alaska by its Republican congressman and most of the > people there don't even want it. Billions? You read too many leftist propaganda headlines. The Mat-Su Valley is the 2nd fastest growing area outside of Anchorage. This bridge will connect the two instead of having to drive all the way around the Cook Inlet/Knik Arm. It is not a bridge to nowhere as the propaganda tries to tell those that know nothing of the region. > Even the republicans are saying that your > man has yet to veto anything. I guess that he doesn't have to as long as he > keeps taking from the poor and defenseless to pay for the "right wing" pork > barrel spending. You won't allow him to veto anything. You want those 'needed' social programs. If Bush vetoed anything with any social spending you and your liberal ilk cries foul every time. Your social programs are costly and are pork barrel spending. You really think Dems are low on the pork barrel spending ladder? lol > > No, I was always talking about the dept. You were the one who tried to > > switch it over to budget increases. But since you mention it, funny how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > office. You keep buying into the projections of the time and believe > there was a surplus of $'s sitting in a huge vault somewhere. LOL, Wrong. What I saw was the yearly increase go to zero by his last year in office, go look it up. Oh never mind, Ill do it for you http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Notice that the curve was beginning to reverse until Bush Jr took office. Spin all you want Miles, the numbers say it all and there is no fuzzy math on the bottom line. > > increased it by only 3% and still put us into record numbers. Another issue > > that you fail to mention is how many cuts to important social programs were > > cut by him. > > Important social programs? To whomever is on the receiving end they are > always important. This is correct and you have more than proven to everyone in here that you really don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. > > I did notice however that Billions have been allocated for a > > bridge to nowhere in Alaska by its Republican congressman and most of the > > people there don't even want it. > > Billions? You read too many leftist propaganda headlines. The Mat-Su > Valley is the 2nd fastest growing area outside of Anchorage. Oh yea, astronomical growth, LOL. > This bridge will connect the two instead of having to drive all the way > around the Cook Inlet/Knik Arm. It is not a bridge to nowhere as the > propaganda tries to tell those that know nothing of the region. There is a ferry that does this as well and it is nowhere near capacity. The bridge is not necessary and is nothing more than pork barrel spending. > > Even the republicans are saying that your > > man has yet to veto anything. I guess that he doesn't have to as long as he > > keeps taking from the poor and defenseless to pay for the "right wing" pork > > barrel spending. > > You won't allow him to veto anything. Hahahahahaha, how am I going to stop him. He does pretty much whatever he wants regardless of public opinion. > You want those 'needed' social programs. If Bush vetoed anything with any social spending you and your > liberal ilk cries foul every time. More bullshit. He is cutting away at those social programs, no veto needed, especially with the right controlling congress. You watch way to much FOX news. > Your social programs are costly and are pork barrel spending. Once again, you talk out of you selfish a.s. Hear that Budd, the money being spent to help keep you alive is nothing more than pork barrel spending. > You really think Dems are low on the pork > barrel spending ladder? lol At least the Dems pork barrel spending helps people to live, not just make some senator look good building a bridge to nowhere. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, Wrong. What I saw was the yearly increase go to zero by his last year > in office, go look it up. Oh never mind, Ill do it for you > http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm > Notice that the curve was beginning to reverse until Bush Jr took office. > Spin all you want Miles, the numbers say it all and there is no fuzzy math > on the bottom line. Numbers? You showed some individuals own personal graph. Want numbers? Heres some for ya. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm Look under prior years. Please show me where the debt ever stopped increasing. Wheres the surplus TBone? I made the statement that the debt INCREASED every year Clinton was in office contrary to your BS and most liberals who have no clue. My statement is CORRECT! Can you spin it to show me where it didn't increase every single year and where the surplus is? > This is correct and you have more than proven to everyone in here that you > really don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. And you have proven that you are nothing more than a socialist who thinks government is responsible and should take care of all everyone needs and problems. > There is a ferry that does this as well and it is nowhere near capacity. > The bridge is not necessary and is nothing more than pork barrel spending. Thats your opinion based on the fact you've never even been there. Whats worse is your belief that a transportation infrastruction should come last when developing a region. Thats a common method and one that causes massive problems. The valley is growing and the ferry won't handle the demands for the already planned communities. > More bullshit. He is cutting away at those social programs, no veto needed, > especially with the right controlling congress. You watch way to much FOX > news. He is? How is he cutting anything? He doesn't write spending bills. You need to go retake some government classes...probably socially funded ones for you! > At least the Dems pork barrel spending helps people to live, not just make > some senator look good building a bridge to nowhere. Thats complete BULL. Lets have a look at who the most well known pork barrel spenders are. Top of the list, Robert Byrd of W. Virginia. His nickname from waste watch groups such as http://cagw.org/ was King Of Pork. Hillary Clinton for her defense of the absurd CDBG project. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin who on her own website proudly brags about how much $'s she's won for the state for various projects (none were to help anyones health or assist the poor). TBone, Dems are full of pork barrel spending. They have been for decades. Your wishfull BS that Dems are all great is a bunch of crap. The richest pigs in congress are mostly Dems. The poorest of congress are mostly Reps. Get a clue! > > LOL, Wrong. What I saw was the yearly increase go to zero by his last year > > in office, go look it up. Oh never mind, Ill do it for you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Numbers? You showed some individuals own personal graph. Want numbers? > Heres some for ya. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm Did you actually look at those numbers Miles. They kinda go along with the chart. Hell, Bush as caused greater increases in a month than Clinton did in a whole year. > Look under prior years. Please show me where the debt ever stopped > increasing. Wheres the surplus TBone? I made the statement that the > debt INCREASED every year Clinton was in office contrary to your BS and > most liberals who have no clue. My statement is CORRECT! Can you spin > it to show me where it didn't increase every single year and where the > surplus is? LOL, it is hard to say where the surplus went but we are now at all time highs and at a severly increased rate. How is that possible if Bushy baby is so conservative. Sounds like fuzzy math to me. > > This is correct and you have more than proven to everyone in here that you > > really don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. > > And you have proven that you are nothing more than a socialist who > thinks government is responsible and should take care of all everyone > needs and problems. Really??? Where did I say that? The problem Miles is that greedy people like you cause many of the problems that the gubberment has to try and deal with. > > There is a ferry that does this as well and it is nowhere near capacity. > > The bridge is not necessary and is nothing more than pork barrel spending. > > Thats your opinion based on the fact you've never even been there. Oh yea Miles, I forgot, some of your 10,000,000 relatives must live in the area, LOL. > Whats worse is your belief that a transportation infrastruction should > come last when developing a region. Thats a common method and one that > causes massive problems. The valley is growing and the ferry won't > handle the demands for the already planned communities. What is the need for these planned communities. Where are these people going to work? Why would you want to build up an area that has about 1 month of warm weather a year? You whine and complain about our dependency on foreign oil and then you want communities build where energy requirements would be at an all time high??? You are too funny Miles. > > More bullshit. He is cutting away at those social programs, no veto needed, > > especially with the right controlling congress. You watch way to much FOX [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You need to go retake some government classes...probably socially funded > ones for you! LOL, feel free to stick your head in the sand Miles. Like I said, he doesn't have to, his right wing majority in congress is doing it for him. All he has to do is sign his name and ignore the right wing pork that goes along with it. > TBone, Dems are full of pork barrel spending. They have been for > decades. Your wishfull BS that Dems are all great is a bunch of crap. > The richest pigs in congress are mostly Dems. The poorest of congress > are mostly Reps. Get a clue! But the Reps claim to be responsible and only spend what they have and yet, the most rapid increases in the national dept are ALL under republican presidents and the projected highest under this one. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Did you actually look at those numbers Miles. They kinda go along with the > chart. Hell, Bush as caused greater increases in a month than Clinton did > in a whole year. Debt went up EVERY SINGLE YEAR Clinton was in office. Got it yet TBone or are you still living in the liberal dream world of surpluses? > LOL, it is hard to say where the surplus went but we are now at all time > highs and at a severly increased rate. How is that possible if Bushy baby > is so conservative. Sounds like fuzzy math to me. How can there have been a surplus during Clintons years when every single year of his term spending exceeded revenue? Dang liberal spin and you bought it and won't give up on it even when proven wrong by your own numbers (graph). > Really??? Where did I say that? The problem Miles is that greedy people > like you cause many of the problems that the gubberment has to try and deal > with. Greedy? I work for a living and am paid for it. Just cause your ilk wants some of my money doesn't make me greedy. Makes you jealous and lame. > What is the need for these planned communities. More than just a ferry boat. > Where are these people > going to work? In Anchorage most likely as well as newly developed businesses. > Why would you want to build up an area that has about 1 > month of warm weather a year? If thats true then so is Anchorage. We're talking about a region just opposite across the knik arm. Maybe 10 miles from Anchorage. The current problem is the only way to that region is by a ferry or drive the 70 miles or so around. Now possibly you're talking about the other planned bridge out of Ketchikan. That city is a very rapidly growing city. I don't know what you mean by only a month of warm weather there. It doesn't get alot of snow. Mostly rain. Ketchikan is backed by mountains. Little room to grow except across the channel. Whats more, the airport is on the opposite side and the only way is by ferry. That airport is rapidly becoming a busy place. > You whine and complain about our dependency > on foreign oil and then you want communities build where energy requirements > would be at an all time high??? You are too funny Miles. So Anchorage or Ketchikan should be kept from growing? All time high? We're talking about far southern Alaska TBone. Not the Artic Circle. > But the Reps claim to be responsible and only spend what they have Ah, so you excuse the pork barrel Democrats because they don't claim to be responsible anyways. Now thats some funny stuff right there!! > > Did you actually look at those numbers Miles. They kinda go along with the > > chart. Hell, Bush as caused greater increases in a month than Clinton did > > in a whole year. > > Debt went up EVERY SINGLE YEAR Clinton was in office. Got it yet TBone > or are you still living in the liberal dream world of surpluses? LOL, perhaps you need to poke your head out of your world of denial and see the bottom line. Any way you try and spin it, the dept is at all time highs in both amount and rate of increase and the only ones close to this rate of increase was Reagan and Bush Sr. You keep claiming that Bush Jr only increased spending by 3.5 while Clinton was closer to 10 but the rate of increase curve in the national dept does not support either one of your claims, unless of course, the tax cuts have a much stronger negative affect on the dept level than you would ever admit to. > > LOL, it is hard to say where the surplus went but we are now at all time > > highs and at a severly increased rate. How is that possible if Bushy baby [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and you bought it and won't give up on it even when proven wrong by your > own numbers (graph). Creative accounting can make things appear to be different that they were. Who knows where the money went, do you? The graph does indicate that the rate of increase was substancially reduced during the Clinton years which you also refuse to look at, LOL. > > Really??? Where did I say that? The problem Miles is that greedy people > > like you cause many of the problems that the gubberment has to try and deal > > with. > > Greedy? I work for a living and am paid for it. LOL, yea Miles, you work but you decide how much you are paid and it is the amount you pay yourself compared to your workers and the complete lack of concern for your workers that makes you greedy. > Just cause your ilk > wants some of my money doesn't make me greedy. Makes you jealous and lame. Justification is a wonderful thing, even when it is complete BS. > > What is the need for these planned communities. > > More than just a ferry boat. That is not what I asked. What is the need for these planned communities EXISTANCE? And BTW, more than one boat can be used. > > Where are these people > > going to work? > > In Anchorage most likely as well as newly developed businesses. Again, why build there and if people want to live there, then they should deal with the situation the way it is or raise the money through state and local taxes. Why should my money be used for crap like that. > > Why would you want to build up an area that has about 1 > > month of warm weather a year? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > current problem is the only way to that region is by a ferry or drive > the 70 miles or so around. I am not talking about Anchorage but even there, how many outdoor swimming pools do you see in peoples back yards. > Now possibly you're talking about the other planned bridge out of > Ketchikan. That city is a very rapidly growing city. I don't know what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > opposite side and the only way is by ferry. That airport is rapidly > becoming a busy place. What is your definition of rapidly? And if the area is rapidly growing, then the cost of the infrastructure needed to support it should be paid by the people benefiting from it in the form of local taxes and builder impact fees. > > You whine and complain about our dependency > > on foreign oil and then you want communities build where energy requirements > > would be at an all time high??? You are too funny Miles. > > So Anchorage or Ketchikan should be kept from growing? All time high? > We're talking about far southern Alaska TBone. Not the Artic Circle. Why should I support this growth? How does it benefit me? In actuality, it hurts me in the higher cost of fuel. If people want to live their, they should pay for the infrastructure themselves or deal with what is currently there. > > But the Reps claim to be responsible and only spend what they have > > Ah, so you excuse the pork barrel Democrats because they don't claim to > be responsible anyways. Now thats some funny stuff right there!! It doesn't excuse anything, just puts things into perspective. The right keeps making the claim that they are the responsible party which is being proven to be complete BS. While cutting medicade and welfare, they still manage to raise the dept to record levels at record rates of increase. And where is the money going, to the wealthy, of course. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, perhaps you need to poke your head out of your world of denial and see > the bottom line. So you are still in denial about the debt going up every year Clinton was in office? You are still in denial that since spending exceeded revenue each and every year Clinton was in office there was no surplus? Your only defense is to attempt to change the subject to Bush. > unless of course, the tax cuts have a much stronger negative affect > on the dept level than you would ever admit to. You have no clue as to how the Gov. gets its money. You seem to think its all a matter of tax rates. Raise the rates, they get more $'s, lower them and they get less right TBone? You need to take another look beyond your simple comprehension based soley on tax rates. Current revenues are at their highest levels ever. The deficit is not from too low of tax rates as you seem to believe. >>>LOL, it is hard to say where the surplus went How could there ever have been a surplus when by your own figures spending exceeded revenue every year Clinton was in office. You are still in complete denial and will never ever admit the truth even when faced with it from YOUR own figures. Are you big enough to admit there was no surplus? >How is that possible if Bushy baby is so conservative. Bush is no conservative. Never has been. > Sounds like fuzzy math to me. Your fuzzy math which has led you to believe there was a surplus despite deficit spending all of Clintons years. > Creative accounting can make things appear to be different that they were. Oh thats true. Creative accounting is why you still believe there was a surplus despite deficit spending. > Who knows where the money went, do you? The graph does indicate that the > rate of increase was substancially reduced during the Clinton years which > you also refuse to look at, LOL. Instead of admitting you are wrong about the existance of any surplus you try to water it down, spin it a bit as above. I told you months ago that the rate of increase was reduced, not the deficit. Your response was more ranting about a surplus and how I was wrong. Well TBone, you ready to admit that there was no surplus so we can move on to other subjects? > That is not what I asked. What is the need for these planned communities > EXISTANCE? And BTW, more than one boat can be used. I see. In the perfect liberal world there will be no growth in any region because its not needed. Communities are built because of the demand for them. More people = the need for more housing. > Again, why build there and if people want to live there, then they should > deal with the situation the way it is or raise the money through state and > local taxes. Why should my money be used for crap like that. So you admit to being greedy with your money. Do you drive on the highways around your area that were paid for by federal $'s? Oh ya, they were all state funded huh? You're a dang liberal hypocite TBone. > I am not talking about Anchorage but even there, how many outdoor swimming > pools do you see in peoples back yards. What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying people shouldn't live in Alaska? Tell us TBone, what is it you are trying to say about growth in Alaska? > What is your definition of rapidly? And if the area is rapidly growing, > then the cost of the infrastructure needed to support it should be paid by > the people benefiting from it in the form of local taxes and builder impact > fees. What complete BS. Every state in the country gets federal highway funds yearly. The vast majority of this countries highways and bridges are built with the help of federal $'s. I ask again what is your beef with growth in Alaska vs. anywhere else? > Why should I support this growth? How does it benefit me? In actuality, it > hurts me in the higher cost of fuel. If people want to live their, they > should pay for the infrastructure themselves or deal with what is currently > there. There you go again with your own greed. Spend only if it benifits TBone. You benifit from federal $'s spent in your area although you might try to deny that. > > LOL, perhaps you need to poke your head out of your world of denial and see > > the bottom line. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > revenue each and every year Clinton was in office there was no surplus? > Your only defense is to attempt to change the subject to Bush. It is not a defense, just a response to your constant whining about how the dept didn't do down with Clinton when the real problem is how fast it is going up with Bush. > > unless of course, the tax cuts have a much stronger negative affect > > on the dept level than you would ever admit to. > > You have no clue as to how the Gov. gets its money. You seem to think > its all a matter of tax rates. LOL, it is a matter of taxes. > Raise the rates, they get more $'s, > lower them and they get less right TBone? For the most part in todays world, that's correct. > You need to take another look > beyond your simple comprehension based soley on tax rates. Current > revenues are at their highest levels ever. The deficit is not from too > low of tax rates as you seem to believe. More spin and fuzzy definitions. If current revenues are at their highest levels ever AND Bush is only raising spending at about 1/3 of what you said Clinton did, then why in the hell is the dept level also at all time highs in both amount and rate of increase? Now lets see an actual answer instead of more of your typical spin. > >>>LOL, it is hard to say where the surplus went > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bush is no conservative. Never has been. Then why did the Republican party nominate him for his current postition? Are they just a bunch of idiots or did they need a fall guy while they rape the middle class to feed the rich? > > Who knows where the money went, do you? The graph does indicate that the > > rate of increase was substancially reduced during the Clinton years which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ready to admit that there was no surplus so we can move on to other > subjects? How do you think the drop in the rate of increase happened without a surplus? > > That is not what I asked. What is the need for these planned communities > > EXISTANCE? And BTW, more than one boat can be used. > > I see. In the perfect liberal world there will be no growth in any > region because its not needed. Communities are built because of the > demand for them. More people = the need for more housing. Back to the liberals fault cry again, huh Miles? How lame. Now you are saying that all planned communities are formed out of need? Do you really think that we are all this stupid or is it just you? While true need is one reason, it is more like some developer(s) building inexpensive housing up there because of the low cost of land, no impact fees, and little to no cost for inspections and the low price drawing people up there? There is a big difference between supplying needed housing because of a shortage and building to draw people to another area because of cheap housing. > > Again, why build there and if people want to live there, then they should > > deal with the situation the way it is or raise the money through state and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > highways around your area that were paid for by federal $'s? Oh ya, > they were all state funded huh? You're a dang liberal hypocite TBone. LOL, get real Miles. Every state is allotted money for highway and bridge programs based on the population and size of the state. This is just a political pork barrel spending to make the representitive look good and is a complete waste of my money. Of course, you don't see it that way because it is money being used to make the rich richer at the cost of the poor and to you, that is fine and dandy. > > I am not talking about Anchorage but even there, how many outdoor swimming > > pools do you see in peoples back yards. > > What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying people > shouldn't live in Alaska? Tell us TBone, what is it you are trying to > say about growth in Alaska? No, what I'm saying is that despite your bullshit, the weather there is not Shangri-La as you would have us believe and the added need for heat over other areas in the country will further increase our dependence on foreign oil. > > What is your definition of rapidly? And if the area is rapidly growing, > > then the cost of the infrastructure needed to support it should be paid by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > built with the help of federal $'s. I ask again what is your beef with > growth in Alaska vs. anywhere else? Sorry Miles but this isn't the same thing and you know it. I have no beef with the growth but the cost of that growth should be supported by those benefiting from it such as the builders and the owners. BTW, there is a big difference between federal aid and the free ride that this bridge is. > > Why should I support this growth? How does it benefit me? In actuality, it > > hurts me in the higher cost of fuel. If people want to live their, they > > should pay for the infrastructure themselves or deal with what is currently > > there. > > There you go again with your own greed. LOL, what a case of PKB. > Spend only if it benifits TBone. Yea, right. At is more to your tune, just like this bridge, federal tax dollars to make the rich richer and a right wing politician look good. > You benifit from federal $'s spent in your area although you > might try to deny that. I deny no such thing but my area is already established and had already been before the big federal dollars arrived. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > It is not a defense, just a response to your constant whining about how the > dept didn't do down with Clinton when the real problem is how fast it is > going up with Bush. Bush wasn't the discussion until you changed the subject to avoid answering a question. Ok so it's not a defense of yours. Then are your ready to admit there could never have been any surplus? If you still hold onto your claim of such then please explain how. > LOL, it is a matter of taxes. Whats that mean TBone? Tax rates or what? >>Raise the rates, they get more $'s, >>lower them and they get less right TBone? > > For the most part in todays world, that's correct. Then you are VERY wrong and is why you are so confused on this. Tax rates were cut right? Take a look TBone. Tax revenues are now at their highest rates ever. You still think its simply a matter of tax rates? You're too simplistic in your thinking and is why you have the views you do. Tax revenues are UP now!!!! They are at their highest levels ever TBone. Now can you understand how it all works? > Now lets see an actual answer instead > of more of your typical spin. Look at the total tax revenues in years 1999 through 2003 here. They increased every year despite the tax cuts. You keep trying to argue based on your own personal bias rather than anything factual. Do some more research on your own and look back further if you desire. Revenues have been increasing TBone. Not decreasing as you seem to think tax cuts would do. No clue TBone!! http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic2id=90 I'll give you a hint TBone. Private sector spending has far more to do with total tax revenues than tax rates themselves. As private sector spending goes up then revenues go up. > Then why did the Republican party nominate him for his current postition? > Are they just a bunch of idiots or did they need a fall guy while they rape > the middle class to feed the rich? Ask them. Fact remains that Bush is not and has never ever been a conservative. > How do you think the drop in the rate of increase happened without a > surplus? Now that takes the cake TBone!! You are now attempting to equate a drop in the rate of increase to mean there was a surplus. LOL. Surplus means more revenue than spending. Lower rate of increase means just that. The two were closer but still spending exceeded revenue. Sheesh, you're confused on this one!! Lower rate of increase means surplus??? Care to explain your math to show a surplus while still having deficit spending? > No, what I'm saying is that despite your bullshit, the weather there is not > Shangri-La as you would have us believe So people should only live where you deem it to be Shangri-la? Where exactly is this magical paradise of yours that everyone must live so as to appease you? For many it most certainly is Shangri-la. That is exactly why they live there. As for your notion that people should only live in moderate climates you are speaking complete BS. Anchorage and Ketchikan have warmer climates than most of the northeastern US. Whats more is your notion about oil consumption. Most up there heat with coal, wood being 2nd. Oil is down on the list below even electricity. Do some research before you try to make politically biased arguments. > Sorry Miles but this isn't the same thing and you know it. I have no beef > with the growth but the cost of that growth should be supported by those > benefiting from it such as the builders and the owners. BTW, there is a big > difference between federal aid and the free ride that this bridge is. Oh so now you think bridges should only be built with state $'s? You must be aware there are numerous bridges federally funded all over the country. Maine, Kentucky and Minnisota are all currently building federally funded bridges and they're not the only ones. But, Alaska is different because TBone's gotta jump on the liberal band wagon. > Yea, right. At is more to your tune, just like this bridge, federal tax > dollars to make the rich richer and a right wing politician look good. You're the one asking how it benifits you as if thats the requirement. Pure greed on your part there TBone. Your area all built up before federal funds arrived huh? Then no need for federal funds now right? Then why has there been considerable discussion on a bridge over the Currituck Sound to be paid for with federal funds? > >>Raise the rates, they get more $'s, > >>lower them and they get less right TBone? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do. Tax revenues are UP now!!!! They are at their highest levels ever > TBone. Now can you understand how it all works? This once again did not answer the question so I'll ask again. If tax revenues are at their highest rates ever (and by your provided link, the are not) and Bush has only increased spending by about 1/3 of what you claim Clinton did, how is the dept at record levels and increasing at record rates? The rest of your crap is just that and nothing more now either answer the question or shut the hell up. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > If tax revenues are at their highest rates ever (and by your provided link, the are > not) Tell me which of Clintons years were tax revenues ever higher than they are now? You refuse to answer how there could be a surplus if every year under Clinton there was deficit spending (your figures but at least we agree on them). Instead you keep trying to turn the discussion to Bush. Lets finish the current discussion which was with regards to deficit spending under Clinton to which you refuted and still insist there was a surplus. Like I said Miles, you cannot answer the question because the bottom line simply say's that these tax cuts along with the war are bankrupting the country. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > If tax revenues are at their highest rates ever (and by your provided link, the are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > current discussion which was with regards to deficit spending under > Clinton to which you refuted and still insist there was a surplus. > Like I said Miles, you cannot answer the question because the bottom line > simply say's that these tax cuts along with the war are bankrupting the > country. IOW's you're too small of a person to admit you were flat out wrong about any surplus and refuse to discuss it. Instead you change the subject to Bush. Care to explain how these tax cuts are the reason for the deficit considering that revenues have gone up, not down. Instead of answering, you reply with your question above. TBone, if you do not understand what causes revenues to go up and down then any discussion on the matter won't be understood by yourself. > > Like I said Miles, you cannot answer the question because the bottom line > > simply say's that these tax cuts along with the war are bankrupting the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about any surplus and refuse to discuss it. Instead you change the > subject to Bush. I must say that it is funny to watch you twist and spin on the rope that you hung yourself on. You cannot answer a simple question based on the facts that YOU claimed to be true and are now trying to spin it into something else. Please show exactly where I made all these claims about Clintons surplus. But since you brought it up: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ Now if you want to argue, do it with CNN and as I said, creative accounting can make gains look like losses and losses look like gains (just look at Enron). Then you can add the fact that Bush and the Republican party based their tax cuts on that Clinton surplus.... > Care to explain how these tax cuts are the reason for the deficit > considering that revenues have gone up, not down. Instead of answering, > you reply with your question above. The revenues are not much more than what Clinton had and with creative accounting, are they really valid. If you go back to YOUR link and look at 2001, 2002, and 2003 you will see that 2001 was pretty good but 2002 had a significant drop and 2003 still has not caught up to 2001, and this is with the creative accounting. So much for those "record " gains. I guess that the expenses have gone up MUCH more than the increases in revenues. So much for your bogus reduced spending increases by Bush and come to think of it, that is specifically what I laughed at you about. > TBone, if you do not understand > what causes revenues to go up and down then any discussion on the matter > won't be understood by yourself. Could you get any more lame. I fully understand what causes revenues to go up and down but many of the right wing assumptions simply are not happening. Pay scales are lower, many high tech jobs are outsourced, the gubberment turns a blind eye to the high level of illegal immigrants coming in (even with the risk of terrorism) which further reduces the average pay rate for hard working Americans, and investors tend to invest in the very companies that outsource their high paying jobs which does the exact opposite of what the right claimed it would do. Now are YOU going to answer the question or run and hide again? If the revenues are at record highs AND Bush is holding increases to about 1/3 of what Clinton was, how is it possible that the deficit is also at record highs and at a record rate of increase? Now be a man for a change and answer the question or just STFU for a change. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Please show exactly where I made all these claims about Clintons > surplus. You have stated over and over there was a surplus. Yet each and every year Clinton was in office there was deficit spending. > But since you brought it up: > http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ Talk about creative accounting. None the less the Gov.'s own records show spending exceeded revenue every year. There was no surplus and you continue to try to argue there was. It was only a projection. > Could you get any more lame. I fully understand what causes revenues to go > up and down but many of the right wing assumptions simply are not happening. > Pay scales are lower, many high tech jobs are outsourced, the gubberment > turns a blind eye to the high level of illegal immigrants coming in (even > with the risk of terrorism) You think raising taxes at this time would help the economy, help create jobs, help raise salaries and do all sorts of other wonderfull things for our society? If so, care to explain your resoning? As for illegals I agree with you there but its not just the Reps. Dems especially in the border states have continued to open the flood gates to them. > > Please show exactly where I made all these claims about Clintons > > surplus. > > You have stated over and over there was a surplus. Yet each and every > year Clinton was in office there was deficit spending. Like I said, show me where. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. > > But since you brought it up: > > http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ > > Talk about creative accounting. None the less the Gov.'s own records > show spending exceeded revenue every year. There was no surplus and you > continue to try to argue there was. It was only a projection. It was not a projection, it was a budget surplus. Unfortunately, there is no law that forces congress to stay within its budget and the continued deficit shows that they didn't. BTW, who was and still is in control in congress? > > Could you get any more lame. I fully understand what causes revenues to go > > up and down but many of the right wing assumptions simply are not happening. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > jobs, help raise salaries and do all sorts of other wonderfull things > for our society? If so, care to explain your resoning? You keep forgetting that the taxes were not raised, they were lowered and your own information (that you happened to delete, imagine that) shows a significant drop in revenue right after it. The point is that they should have been left alone until the congress actually fell within its budget restraints and defenintly not be lowered during a time of war. The record increase in both the actual and projected deficit as well as the massive cutbacks in programs shows these cuts to be the wrong answer. Putting the taxe rates back where they were would have no effect on the current state of the economy other than increase funds to the programs that were cut such as education. > As for illegals I agree with you there but its not just the Reps. Dems > especially in the border states have continued to open the flood gates > to them. Care to back that up. BTW, I'm still waiting for that answer. Now who is the one trying to change the subject, why the same person it always was, YOU! But I'll ask again (so that you can delete it again). If these tax cuts are resulting in record revenues (which is false) and Bush has managed to keep spending increases to around 1/3 of what you claim Clinton did, then why is the deficit at record levels and at a record rate of increase? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Like I said, show me where. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. I did show you the numbers. I've shown you the numbers many times over the months. Some from the Gov.'s own website. In fact, there isn't a single credible source that shows a single year where revenues exceeded spending during Clintons years. Care to show me a credible source which shows yearly totals for ACTUAL revenues and spending through those years that show a surplus? Don't show me projections, just actual figures. > It was not a projection, it was a budget surplus. Unfortunately, there is > no law that forces congress to stay within its budget and the continued > deficit shows that they didn't. BTW, who was and still is in control in > congress? Ahhh....at least you now admit it was a budget surplus and not actual $'s spent or received. So now you also admit that Congress did not stay within the budget....guess what TBone, that means NO SURPLUS ever existed. There was never a time that the deficit went down except on someones piece of paper that nothing more than just that...a piece of paper. So all a president has to do is set a small budget that is lower than revenues and theres a surplus regardless of how much was actually spent? Too funny! > You keep forgetting that the taxes were not raised, they were lowered and > your own information (that you happened to delete, imagine that) shows a > significant drop in revenue right after it. The point is that they should > have been left alone until the congress actually fell within its budget > restraints and defenintly not be lowered during a time of war. The drop was short lived and was far more because of the economy drop than the tax rate drop. Revenues go up and down as the economy does far more than from rate changes. You really think keeping high taxes when the economy is sagging is a good idea? Federal revenues would have been lower, not higher as you keep assuming. You fail to realize that tax revenues are now higher even though the taxes were cut. Opposite of your absurd logic. > The record > increase in both the actual and projected deficit as well as the massive > cutbacks in programs shows these cuts to be the wrong answer. It means nothing of the sort. What it does mean is that spending is too high. You keep trying to work it from the wrong end. Revenues are now UP with the LOWER tax rates. > Putting the > taxe rates back where they were would have no effect on the current state of > the economy other than increase funds to the programs that were cut such as > education. Bull. Having high tax rates while the economy isn't strong will cause reduced revenues, not higher as you keep trying to assume. A stronger economy is what drives revenues higher far more than any rate hike could do. > BTW, I'm still waiting for that answer. I was waiting till you finally admitted there was no surplus except on paper in the form of a budget and not ever what actually occurred. Congrats, you finally admitted that even in your own watered down version in an attempt to save face. > Now who is > the one trying to change the subject, why the same person it always was, > YOU! Change subject? You mean back to what it was all along before you kept trying to switch it over to Bush? lol > If these tax > cuts are resulting in record revenues (which is false) and Bush has managed > to keep spending increases to around 1/3 of what you claim Clinton did, then > why is the deficit at record levels and at a record rate of increase? It's the difference between the two TBone. Revenues rose faster during Clintons term because of a growing economy. Spending under Clinton averaged 8% increases every year. Under Bush Jr. it has been 4% on average (1/3?? must be the new math). It's public record TBone. Instead of whine about it, look it up. Oh ya, you have no interest in actually learning. Your bias just tells you to argue. At least you admitted there never was a surplus. Congrats on that. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > Like I said, show me where. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shows yearly totals for ACTUAL revenues and spending through those years > that show a surplus? Don't show me projections, just actual figures. Once again, you simply spin the question because you cannot answer it. I asked you to show me where I made these multiple claims about Clintons surplus. > > It was not a projection, it was a budget surplus. Unfortunately, there is > > no law that forces congress to stay within its budget and the continued [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > existed. There was never a time that the deficit went down except on > someones piece of paper that nothing more than just that...a piece of paper. Which is still far more than our current administration has done so far. > So all a president has to do is set a small budget that is lower than > revenues and theres a surplus regardless of how much was actually spent? > Too funny! LOL, no, the budget has t actually make sense and your man has yet to do that either. > > You keep forgetting that the taxes were not raised, they were lowered and > > your own information (that you happened to delete, imagine that) shows a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The drop was short lived and was far more because of the economy drop > than the tax rate drop. LOL, actually, the economy took its big dump just before the tax cuts went into effect. > Revenues go up and down as the economy does far > more than from rate changes. You really think keeping high taxes when > the economy is sagging is a good idea? Yep, it would have had no effect on the economy at all with the current way of thinking. > Federal revenues would have been > lower, not higher as you keep assuming. You don't know that and cannot prove it. I think that they would have gone higher. > You fail to realize that tax > revenues are now higher even though the taxes were cut. Opposite of > your absurd logic. LOL, complete bullshit. The revenues are higher because the economy is recovering and there are more people in the country of working age and working. You keep ignoring the rise in population as a reason for increased revenues which would have been even greater without those bogus tax cuts. > > The record > > increase in both the actual and projected deficit as well as the massive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > high. You keep trying to work it from the wrong end. Revenues are now > UP with the LOWER tax rates. But there are more people as well and you cannot prove that the tax cuts had a damn thing to do with it because they didn't. You claim that Bush increased spending (now by only 1/2) of what Clinton did and with considerably more money (according to you), how is spending too high? > > Putting the > > taxe rates back where they were would have no effect on the current state of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reduced revenues, not higher as you keep trying to assume. A stronger > economy is what drives revenues higher far more than any rate hike could do. How is it going to reduce revenues? The simple answer is that they will not because the actual tax cuts dod nothing to improve the economy. They just made the very richer much richer at the cost to the rest of us. > > BTW, I'm still waiting for that answer. > > I was waiting till you finally admitted there was no surplus except on > paper in the form of a budget and not ever what actually occurred. > Congrats, you finally admitted that even in your own watered down > version in an attempt to save face. There is nothing to save face about. > > Now who is > > the one trying to change the subject, why the same person it always was, > > YOU! > > Change subject? You mean back to what it was all along before you kept > trying to switch it over to Bush? lol Keep spinning. > > If these tax > > cuts are resulting in record revenues (which is false) and Bush has managed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Clintons term because of a growing economy. Spending under Clinton > averaged 8% increases every year. Now it's 8%, before you claimed it was closer to 10% > Under Bush Jr. it has been 4% on LOL, now it's 4%, before it was 3.5% > average (1/3?? must be the new math). Apparently it is now right wing math. Change the figures when it suits you. > It's public record TBone. > Instead of whine about it, look it up. Oh ya, you have no interest in > actually learning. You still haven't answered the question. What caused this increase in spending to the point that it is causing record dept at a record rate of increase? > Your bias just tells you to argue. My bias, LOL. Perhaps you should look at some of your own history. >Once again, you simply spin the question because you cannot answer it. >I asked you to show me where I made these multiple claims about >Clintons surplus. WTF? TBone, are you saying you have never stated that under Clinton there was a surplus???? Further more, are you telling us that you also have never said that Bush JR. spent that surplus? Oh man. Now thats hysterical!! >Which is still far more than our current administration has done so far lol, you give credit to a president that just says there is a surplus when no such thing ever existed? Hmm...just BS, say there is a surplus and you're all happy. Good grief. >LOL, no, the budget has t actually make sense and your man has yet to >do that either. So you are now retracting from there being a surplus to comparing who is worse. Well, at least you're moving in the right direction. >Yep, it would have had no effect on the economy at all with the current >way of thinking. Well now, theres where your flaw is. High taxes in a down economy would sink it further, causing lower revenues, not higher as you seem to blindly assume. Economy has a larger effect that the rate itself. >You don't know that and cannot prove it. I think that they would have >gone higher. Pretty easy to see it. Note the trends in revenues when taxes were raised vs. lowered during economic downturns. You'll figure it out eventually TBone. LOL, complete bullshit. The revenues are higher because the economy is recovering and there are more people in the country of working age and working. Hmm...so now you're backing away from all this unemployment you whined about not long ago? The economy would not have grown with high tax rates. Don't forget, Bush did not cut taxes. He removed the massive tax hikes that Clinton gave us (after he campaigned saying he would lower them). >Now it's 8%, before you claimed it was closer to 10% Nope. I've said many times Clintons budget increases averaged 8% per year. > > Under Bush Jr. it has been 4% on > LOL, now it's 4%, before it was 3.5% Nope. lol. You're arguing with yourself! > >Once again, you simply spin the question because you cannot answer it. > >I asked you to show me where I made these multiple claims about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have never said that Bush JR. spent that surplus? Oh man. Now thats > hysterical!! No, what is hysterical is you level of spin. You claimed that I said the first part many times and have yet to show me where I said either, never mind many times. I admit that I said Clinton formed a budget surplus which he did. I don't recall claiming that Bush spent it but again, I await your proof. > >Which is still far more than our current administration has done so far > > lol, you give credit to a president that just says there is a surplus > when no such thing ever existed? Hmm...just BS, say there is a surplus > and you're all happy. Good grief. Gee, could it possibly be that the right wing congress spent it when Clinton wouldn't give out the tax cuts that they demanded or have a Democrat do what the <LOL> financially responsible Republicans couldn't do. Gee, politicians couldn't possibly do something that would harm the country for partisan reasons, would they... > >LOL, no, the budget has t actually make sense and your man has yet to > >do that either. > > So you are now retracting from there being a surplus to comparing who is > worse. Well, at least you're moving in the right direction. Where are you deriving this BS from but at least you are correct as to who is worse. > >Yep, it would have had no effect on the economy at all with the > current >way of thinking. > > Well now, theres where your flaw is. High taxes in a down economy would > sink it further, causing lower revenues, not higher as you seem to > blindly assume. Economy has a larger effect that the rate itself. LOL, complete bullshit. How do high tax rates on the personal income of the rich reduce revenues. Perhaps a better idea would be to remove the loopholes that allow those scumbags to hide money and then the tax rates for everyone can be validly reduced. > >You don't know that and cannot prove it. I think that they would have > >gone higher. > > Pretty easy to see it. Note the trends in revenues when taxes were > raised vs. lowered during economic downturns. You'll figure it out > eventually TBone. LOL, back to the fuzzy math thing again. I did look and saw a significant drop right after those tax cuts went into effect. > LOL, complete bullshit. The revenues are higher because the economy is > recovering and there are more people in the country of working age and > working. > > Hmm...so now you're backing away from all this unemployment you whined > about not long ago? That was over 2 years ago and then it was a problem. Now the problem is low salaries for the same work. > The economy would not have grown with high tax > rates. Once again, you make claims that you can never back up. > Don't forget, Bush did not cut taxes. He removed the massive > tax hikes that Clinton gave us (after he campaigned saying he would > lower them). LOL, more spin. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Gee, could it possibly be that the right wing congress spent it when Clinton > wouldn't give out the tax cuts that they demanded or have a Democrat do what > the <LOL> financially responsible Republicans couldn't do. Just what did those Dems do? Under Clinton spending exceeded revenues every single year in office. How could the reps spend a surplus that never even existed? Is it possible the so called piece of paper that said their was a surplus 'projection' was a result of very poor figuring? Was it possible that surplus projection was the result of massive campaign spin for Gores campaign? To answer one must consider the fact that economists were saying there would be a large economic downturn despite Gore and Clinton saying how great things were. > Where are you deriving this BS from but at least you are correct as to who > is worse. TBone, you seem to have forgotten how much you argued in months prior about the Clinton surplus. I told you it was only a projection and you whined and cried saying I was wrong. Well, at least you admit I was right in your own spun way. Theres hope for you yet as you're learning. > LOL, complete bullshit. How do high tax rates on the personal income of the > rich reduce revenues. Perhaps a better idea would be to remove the > loopholes that allow those scumbags to hide money and then the tax rates for > everyone can be validly reduced. How many jobs do the poor provide to the masses of people in this country? Ya, lets sock it to those rich bastards and make them move out of the country and take those jobs with them. That'll teach em. > LOL, back to the fuzzy math thing again. I did look and saw a significant > drop right after those tax cuts went into effect. Significant drop? lol. > That was over 2 years ago and then it was a problem. Now the problem is low > salaries for the same work. Care to back up that claim? According to the labor boards own figures the new jobs created are at salaries above the median. Hardly low paying but keep believing what you may based on your biased doom and gloom standard liberal way of thinking. > LOL, more spin. Spin? Clinton most certainly did campaign saying he would lower taxes. Instead one of his first things in office was to give us one the highest tax hikes in history. > > Gee, could it possibly be that the right wing congress spent it when Clinton > > wouldn't give out the tax cuts that they demanded or have a Democrat do what > > the <LOL> financially responsible Republicans couldn't do. > > Just what did those Dems do? Under Clinton spending exceeded revenues > every single year in office. Funny how you forgot to mention who was in control of congress at the time. Actually, it was fully expected. > How could the reps spend a surplus that never even existed? By purposely going over budget and attaching the cost to bills that cannot be easily vetoed. > Is it possible the so called piece of paper that > said their was a surplus 'projection' was a result of very poor > figuring? Was it possible that surplus projection was the result of > massive campaign spin for Gores campaign? To answer one must consider > the fact that economists were saying there would be a large economic > downturn despite Gore and Clinton saying how great things were. Yea, the right wing ones were and while all of the above are possible, so is the possibility that it was purpously wasted by the right to weaken the Gore campaign, just like the Monica crap. > > Where are you deriving this BS from but at least you are correct as to who > > is worse. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whined and cried saying I was wrong. Well, at least you admit I was > right in your own spun way. Theres hope for you yet as you're learning. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. I have asked you many times to back this up and you have yet to do so. I think that you are confusing me with someone else in another group but with your extreme right wing view point, I suspect you have these arguments often and with many people. > > LOL, complete bullshit. How do high tax rates on the personal income of the > > rich reduce revenues. Perhaps a better idea would be to remove the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > country? Ya, lets sock it to those rich bastards and make them move out > of the country and take those jobs with them. That'll teach em. More COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!!! The wealthy are going nowhere for no other reason as there is nowhere better to go. This is nothing more than a right wing fear tactic that is proving to be complete crap. You are forgetting the fact that they are rich and rich here and rich because of what this society provides. Sure, greed may make them whine and want more but they know that they will have it better nowhere else and are not willing to give up all this country has to offer due to personal income tax that even at Clintons level, still allowed them to be very wealthy. > > That was over 2 years ago and then it was a problem. Now the problem is low > > salaries for the same work. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > paying but keep believing what you may based on your biased doom and > gloom standard liberal way of thinking. And what did you say the median income is, IIRC you said under $25,000. Could you support your family where you live on this? You can hide behind the fuzzy math of the government all you want, I see the real world for what it is and so do you. You just like to hide from it in the hopes of increasing your own wealth at the cost of others. > > LOL, more spin. > > Spin? Clinton most certainly did campaign saying he would lower taxes. > Instead one of his first things in office was to give us one the > highest tax hikes in history. Pretty much like Bush Sr with the difference being of a significant economic growth during Clintons time in office, unlike Bush. Face it Miles, you keep whining about Clinton because you have nothing positive to say about the idiot you helped to elect the last two terms and want to keep the failure of our current president in the background but his dismal approval rating speaks for itself. Even during the Monica episode, Clinton didn't do this bad. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Funny how you forgot to mention who was in control of congress at the time. > Actually, it was fully expected. Funny how you forgot that Clinton had veto powers. Actually, it was expected of you. > By purposely going over budget and attaching the cost to bills that cannot > be easily vetoed. LOL. Anything can be vetoed. If that happens then congress has got to submit a bill without the crud attached. > Yea, the right wing ones were and while all of the above are possible, so is > the possibility that it was purpously wasted by the right to weaken the Gore > campaign, just like the Monica crap. If thats true then Clinton should have revised his 'surplus' projection somewhere along those 8 years. Did he? Hell no. Kept right on saying there was a surplus right through his 8th year. So if you defend him on that then I guess the spending was all late in the 8th year huh? > More COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!!! The wealthy are going nowhere for no other > reason as there is nowhere better to go. Kewl. Then you'll shuddup about the the companies that have moved away cuz according to you they couldn't have. > And what did you say the median income is, IIRC you said under $25,000. You best check again. Median income is way above 25K. The newly created jobs are not lower paying as you claim. Please back this up TBone rather than just tout your own biased wishes. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html > Could you support your family where you live on this? You can hide behind > the fuzzy math of the government all you want, I see the real world for what > it is and so do you No TBone. You see the world as YOU want to see it, not how it really is. You believe newly created jobs are mostly low paying. I've asked you to back that claim up. All you gotta do is look at the labor boards figures then post the URL here. I'll wait. Course it will be a long time since they won't substantiate your own claim. > Pretty much like Bush Sr with the difference being of a significant economic > growth during Clintons time in office, unlike Bush. Bush Sr. entered office with a negative economy and left with it positive. Clinton entered with it positive and left with it negative. None the less I don't credit nor blame either one for the economy. What drives it is far more than anything a president or even congress can do. > Even during the Monica episode, > Clinton didn't do this bad. The hell he didn't. He sold us out to countries such as China and N.Korea to name just a few. The so called love that other countries had for us was at a high price we're paying now. > > Funny how you forgot to mention who was in control of congress at the time. > > Actually, it was fully expected. > > Funny how you forgot that Clinton had veto powers. Actually, it was > expected of you. I forgot nothing but once again you try and spin it. Using the veto is not all that easy, especially when the congress is controlled by the other party. > > By purposely going over budget and attaching the cost to bills that cannot > > be easily vetoed. > > LOL. Anything can be vetoed. If that happens then congress has got to > submit a bill without the crud attached. Ya see, I said that I didn't forget but once again, you spun it and again, it was fully expected. If Clinton vetoed every bill with crap in it, nothing he wanted to do would ever make it thru congress. > > Yea, the right wing ones were and while all of the above are possible, so is > > the possibility that it was purpously wasted by the right to weaken the Gore [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there was a surplus right through his 8th year. So if you defend him on > that then I guess the spending was all late in the 8th year huh? IIRC. the idiot you helped to get elected projected an even greater surplus and have yet to see him revise that one either, even after putting us into record increases in dept. > > More COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!!! The wealthy are going nowhere for no other > > reason as there is nowhere better to go. > > Kewl. Then you'll shuddup about the the companies that have moved away > cuz according to you they couldn't have. Once again, either you think we are all idiots or are just one yourself. While many of these companies have shut down operations in this country, it never had a damn thing to do with personal income tax and in most cases, the wealthy corporate execs and owners are still here. > > And what did you say the median income is, IIRC you said under $25,000. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html Hahahahahaha, you truly are an idiot. These numbers have nothing to do with what you are saying. This is the median income of 4 person homes where the income shown is the total income from all persons over 15 in the household. Are you taking lessons on supplying meaningless facts from MAX? Now either show us a report stating that in fact your median income job creation is based on this figure or show us the individual income figure where it is actually based on. I would probably even limited it to 19 year old male income because that is actually what they are basing this claim on. > > Could you support your family where you live on this? You can hide behind > > the fuzzy math of the government all you want, I see the real world for what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > figures then post the URL here. I'll wait. Course it will be a long > time since they won't substantiate your own claim. I go by what I see in the paper, on line, and what the news tells me which is still far more than anything you have come up with. > > Pretty much like Bush Sr with the difference being of a significant economic > > growth during Clintons time in office, unlike Bush. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > None the less I don't credit nor blame either one for the economy. What > drives it is far more than anything a president or even congress can do. The economy was still in the toilet when Clinton took office and when he left, was still much higher than when he started but that was 6 years ago. While the economy is better than it was after the Bush disaster, it is still not what it should be, despite your smoke and mirrors attempts to make it look otherwise and while I also don't blame Bush for everything, he is doing nothing to help correct it either. > > Even during the Monica episode, > > Clinton didn't do this bad. > > The hell he didn't. He sold us out to countries such as China and > N.Korea to name just a few. The so called love that other countries had > for us was at a high price we're paying now. More right wing bullshit and again, not what I said. What was Clintons lowest approval rating???? What is the rating of the one you helped to elect??? Face it Miles, you helped to elect an idiot and it does not look good for your party during the mid-term elections and I guess that is why you feel the need to keep bringing up Clinton. I hate to break it to you, but he has not been president for 6 years now. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I forgot nothing but once again you try and spin it. Using the veto is not > all that easy, especially when the congress is controlled by the other > party. lol, Congress has little to do with a veto except to override it, which is pretty rare. > Ya see, I said that I didn't forget but once again, you spun it and again, > it was fully expected. If Clinton vetoed every bill with crap in it, > nothing he wanted to do would ever make it thru congress. Then I suppose that holds true for Bush Jr. as well for not vetoing spending bills right? Your BS doesn't h |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message