Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 94
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    It's an increasingly hourglass economy by any economists standards.
    But to say that the middle class gained nothing is false. It's a Democratic campaign lie. All taxpayers gained. The median gain, $470, ain't nothing.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    But to say that the middle class gained nothing is false. It's a Democratic campaign lie. All taxpayers gained. The median gain, $470, ain't nothing.
    Yes, and cuts to State budgets from the fed to pay for that $470 caused State and Local gov'ts to increase taxes AND cut services, resulting in a net loss for the lower and middle classes.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yes, and cuts to State budgets from the fed to pay for that $470 caused State and Local gov'ts to increase taxes AND cut services, resulting in a net loss for the lower and middle classes.
    That's a tenuous string of logic. Cite sources please:
    1. "cuts to State budgets from the fed to pay for that $470"
    2. "caused State and Local gov'ts to increase taxes"
    3. "AND cut services"
    4. "resulting in a net loss for the lower and middle classes."
  4. DHart's Avatar
    Posts
    273 Posts
    Global Posts
    274 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    I'm amused. The discussions as to why the Republicans lost so many elections, and what it means, will go on for months. What's amusing, though, is the immediate reaction of conservatives to blame the "liberal media."

    And just what media is this? Last I saw, Fox is the most watched broadcast news show, and no one can claim that to be even a tiny bit liberal (nor 'fair and balanced,' for that matter). It's conservative, republican bias is more blatant than any other TV news show's liberal bias. And I doubt that very many people in the heartland get their news from the Washington Post or New York Times. Even if they did, it's been a long time since the Post has really been a "liberal" newspaper. They even endorsed a republican for governor of Maryland this year.

    Even Fox News, the Washington Times and other more conservative outlets have been forced to acknowledge that fact that this administration's foreign policy has been a disaster, rockin' and rollin' from one blunder to another. Bush's foreign policy group is really The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. When all 4 military newspapers call the administrations military policy a failure, you know this has gone way beyond the 'liberal media.'

    But it's much easier to blame someone else than accept responsibility for your own failure, I guess.
    meyerweb -

    1000% on the money. I always laugh when I hear conservatives bleat like sheep about the "liberal" media. Last night on Fox I saw a graphic on a Fox poll that said the number one issue on voters' minds was the economy. I suppose this was an attempt to convince voters that since the economy is going so well for some portions of the population, they should vote Republican. Most folks understand however that the Republican credo is "I got MY income up. Now UP YOURS."

    I was in Mexico City last week. The only morning news show available at the hotel I was at was Fox and Friends. They spent the entire morning trying to inflate the Kerry faux pax into a major issue. And the "liberal" media pundits called it exactly right - it didn't have much impact on the elections.

    So we have FOX for TV and Rush Limbaugh - the highest rated show on the radio. Someone please expain to me again about how the media is dominated by liberals. It is just pure BS.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That's a tenuous string of logic. Cite sources please:
    1. "cuts to State budgets from the fed to pay for that $470"
    2. "caused State and Local gov'ts to increase taxes"
    3. "AND cut services"
    4. "resulting in a net loss for the lower and middle classes."
    Not really. It was all well documented and well known in the runup to the 2004 pres election.

    I'm sorry but I don't have time to cite history. You can easily research this yourself.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    Most folks understand however that the Republican credo is "I got MY income up. Now UP YOURS."
    Yeah, those evil Republicans.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'm sorry but I don't have time to cite history. You can easily research this yourself.
    I say you're wrong. The tax cuts spurred personal spending which benefited local economies and increased sales tax revenue.
  8. #48  
    Ha ha ha! Suck it, neocons!

    And with that, later TC. You've been good to me
  9. #49  
    now we're getting things done - Rumsfeld just QUIT!
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I agree with TastyPeppers, its time for the GOP to confront what it is doing wrong. If the GOP tries to live in some fantasy spin world that this is a closet conservative victory and nothing is wrong, or spends their energies attacking John Kerry, who is long dead already, they are going to continue to be losers.
    You guys make a good point. Today's Republicans have to be careful not to sound like yesterday's Democrats.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    I say you're wrong. The tax cuts spurred personal spending which benefited local economies and increased sales tax revenue.
    Yea, well that would have been nice but it's not what happened.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Not really. It was all well documented and well known in the runup to the 2004 pres election.

    I'm sorry but I don't have time to cite history. You can easily research this yourself.
    Nice try. Your string of logic isn't supported by data, just anecdotes.

    And the actual analyses of the tax cuts in 2004 assumed that the economy would suffer and that federal revenue would decline, resulting in a greater tax burden on the poor and middle class. They were wrong. Federal revenue has increased despite lower tax rates for everyone.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Nice try. Your string of logic isn't supported by data, just anecdotes.

    And the actual analyses of the tax cuts in 2004 assumed that the economy would suffer and that federal revenue would decline, resulting in a greater tax burden on the poor and middle class. They were wrong. Federal revenue has increased despite lower tax rates for everyone.
    History is not an anecdote. The tax burden shifted to States and Local gov't which took it out of people one way or another and services were cut.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yea, well that would have been nice but it's not what happened.
    Sure it is. In fact, it's still happening.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    History is not an anecdote. The tax burden shifted to States and Local gov't which took it out of people one way or another and services were cut.
    That is an anecdote. People who were against the tax cuts argued that that would happen. That's much different from having any evidence that that did happen. "They" assumed that the pie was a fixed size, but they were wrong. The fact is, the economy grew, and so did spending.
  16. #56  
    fellow progressives...it is not too early to start keeping an eye on this new bunch of rat bastards. They will have all the power that the outgoing bunch of rat bastards had and are therefore destined to become just as corrupt. Keep 'em honest ...keep them under the microscope!
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio View Post
    Your entire post falls apart when you state "When all 4 military newspapers call the administrations military policy a failure,". The 4 peridicals you speak (at least I assume you speak of) AF Times, Army Times, Navy Times, Marine TImes, are not military newspapers. They are civilian owned and printed peridicals that cater to the military men and women on items such as promotion statistics, pay scales, proposed uniform changes and the like. Please try to stop indicating they are military newspapers and express the views of the military. The editorial is from an individual that works for the paper, all 4 papers actually. The papers are part of the Garnett publishing company.
    Of course they're not official military publications--the military would never allow anything contradictory to official policy to be printed. But if you don't think the editors and reporters have very close ties to the military, you're fooling yourself. Ditto if you don't think they do a pretty good job of reflecting the feelings of the men on the ground. I'd argue the papers come a lot closer to the truth than anything that comes out of an official pentagon source and, getting back to the original point, I don't think anyone characterizes them as 'liberal.' (BTW, if you want to get picky, it's Gannett publishing, not Garnett.)

    But like I said, it's easier to blame others, or try to deflect attention, than to accept responsibility for failed policies, isn't it?
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  18. #58  
    I love it. The conservative "anti-tax" partisans are still claiming it's the tax cuts that spurred economic growth, in spite of the fact that Bush's own Treasury department says, after in-depth analysis, that the tax cuts don't even pay for themselves, much less result in a net benefit.

    http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-06bud.htm

    The Treasury analysis concludes that making the President’s tax cuts permanent — and paying for the tax cuts with future reductions in spending — may ultimately increase the level of economic output (national income) in the long run by as much as 0.7 percent.
    and

    Even if an increase in the level of economic output of 0.7 percent ultimately were to result from making the tax cuts permanent, the effect of this assumed additional economic growth would be to offset only a tiny fraction of the cost of the President’s tax cuts.
    Finally:

    Thus, even if the Treasury’s optimistic assumptions are accepted (and the full 0.7 increase in economic output that the Treasury estimates would occur in the long run has taken effect in 2016), the cost of the tax cuts in 2016 would still be more than 90 percent of the cost of the tax cuts under the standard cost estimates
    (In simpler terms, the analysis says that even under the most generous assumptions, economic growth from the tax cuts pays for at most 10% of the cost of the tax cuts. So much for the president's arguments.)


    What I find even more entertaining , though, is the observational bias (which, in fairness, affects democrats as well as republicans). When the economy grew is spades under Clinton, and the federal budget was balanced after taxes were raised, conservatives said that presidential policy had little real impact on the economy, and the economy grew because of market forces, not Clinton's tax increase.

    But when the economy tanked during Bush's first term (even AFTER tax cuts), the republicans changed their tune, a little bit. Now they said that the president DOES have a large impact, but the downturn was Clinton's fault!

    And now that the economy is (in some respects) showing an upturn, republicans tell us again that it's because of the president. Give me a break! Or at least a little consistency.

    Facts are facts, though, and republican tax cuts have increased the deficit, not decreased it.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    Of course they're not official military publications--the military would never allow anything contradictory to official policy to be printed. But if you don't think the editors and reporters have very close ties to the military, you're fooling yourself. Ditto if you don't think they do a pretty good job of reflecting the feelings of the men on the ground. I'd argue the papers come a lot closer to the truth than anything that comes out of an official pentagon source and, getting back to the original point, I don't think anyone characterizes them as 'liberal.' (BTW, if you want to get picky, it's Gannett publishing, not Garnett.)

    But like I said, it's easier to blame others, or try to deflect attention, than to accept responsibility for failed policies, isn't it?
    Well, as one who has been there and done that, I can tell you that the AF Times is not even close to reflecting the feelings of the vast majority of military members. The articles that get read in those mags are pay scale and promotion articles, everything else is basically material to read if nothing else is laying around in the bathroom. You are right on the spelling, I made a mistake. Others should really try to type that last statement sometimes instead of digging in their heels when they print false information.

    Can not verify the information, but I have been told that the author of the article was informed that Rumsfeld would be stepping down after the elections over two weeks ago. Others knew that a major military announcement would be made the day after the election, many of us thought it would be concerning troop numbers in Iraq or Korea, we were wrong.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio View Post
    Can not verify the information, but I have been told that the author of the article was informed that Rumsfeld would be stepping down after the elections over two weeks ago. Others knew that a major military announcement would be made the day after the election, many of us thought it would be concerning troop numbers in Iraq or Korea, we were wrong.
    Then I guess President Bush lied to us last week when he said Rumsfeld would not be leaving.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions