Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Jesus fucking Christ, don't any of you people know how to read a disclaimer? I said I wasn't there; I said I didn't necessarily approve. I even said that the only reason I had been watching that video was because I wasn't at that rally and was catching up. I thought I would share, as it was pointed out earlier, because some of you people have been using the term "correspondent" to describe what I've been telling in this thread. I exercised no editorial control over the presentation or content of that speech - I linked it as-is. What I posted was unfiltered video of a speech in its entirety. I'm also going to note that this particular video became the most watched clip on YouTube the day it was put up. I'm not going to apologize for telling people what is going on here, so realize that if you're going to press me on this I'm not going to budge and I will outlast you.
Now yes, I have referred to one man holding up both puppets. Think of Oz behind the curtain if it helps you to visualize what I'm talking about. If someone would like to point out to me the part where I said that each and every actor in the political arena is a puppet, go right ahead. I never said so because I know this is not to be the case. Some men can be bought; others have principles. The man behind the curtain need not buy everyone off to attain his goals.
Dominating debate does not require buying off the entirety of political actors. It takes buying a majority stake in one party, and buying a plurality stake in the other; one to do your bidding, one to be complacent opposition. Note that I'm focusing on parties here, as they are primarily where this phenomenon occurs - because they are closest to the power which is being sought/bought. The way I see it, politicians need to be bought off for one reason and one reason only: the buyer has an agenda which places their personal/shareholder profit.
It's how the rich get their tax cuts, despite not obvious lack of benefits "trickling down" to the rest of society. For pretty much my entire lifetime, politicians operated from behind the curtain have been telling us "Cut taxes and there will be job growth." Reagan cut the top tax rates, and the nation went into recession. Papa Bush didn't fare much better. Nor did his son - W's tax cuts further pushed this agenda, and he left office with ZERO net job growth. I'm sorry, but this should be called out for the baldfaced lie that it is. During the Eisenhower economic boom, rates for the top tax brackets were hovering around 90%. The top tax rates when Reagan took office were twice what they are now. Today, the political debate ponders whether a percentage in the upper 30s is too high. It is complete and utter BS. This pursuit of profit over people, "Greed is good" philosophy has been continually propagated in this country over the past few decades to the detriment of our society as a whole. It is not merely taxation, though that is a major cause. It is also evident in: the decline of domestic manufacturing (bigger stockholder dividends if GM - for example - builds those cars in Mexico instead) outsourcing of jobs (spoken to an Indian on the phone seeking customer service lately? if not, they're probably also looking at X-rays your doctor emailed them overnight) declining environmental standards (cleaning up pollution costs money) ...and so much more.
In a nutshell, in the words of the late great Bill Hicks: "Quit putting a goddamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!"
Jesus quacking Christ, don't any of you people know how to read a disclaimer? I said I wasn't there; I said I didn't necessarily approve. I even said that the only reason I had been watching that video was because I wasn't at that rally and was catching up. I thought I would share, as it was pointed out earlier, because some of you people have been using the term "correspondent" to describe what I've been telling in this thread. I exercised no editorial control over the presentation or content of that speech - I linked it as-is. What I posted was unfiltered video of a speech in its entirety. I'm also going to note that this particular video became the most watched clip on YouTube the day it was put up. I'm not going to apologize for telling people what is going on here, so realize that if you're going to press me on this I'm not going to budge and I will outlast you.
Now yes, I have referred to one man holding up both puppets. Think of Oz behind the curtain if it helps you to visualize what I'm talking about. If someone would like to point out to me the part where I said that each and every actor in the political arena is a puppet, go right ahead. I never said so because I know this is not to be the case. Some men can be bought; others have principles. The man behind the curtain need not buy everyone off to attain his goals.
Dominating debate does not require buying off the entirety of political actors. It takes buying a majority stake in one party, and buying a plurality stake in the other; one to do your bidding, one to be complacent opposition. Note that I'm focusing on parties here, as they are primarily where this phenomenon occurs - because they are closest to the power which is being sought/bought. The way I see it, politicians need to be bought off for one reason and one reason only: the buyer has an agenda which places their personal/shareholder profit.
It's how the rich get their tax cuts, despite not obvious lack of benefits "trickling down" to the rest of society. For pretty much my entire lifetime, politicians operated from behind the curtain have been telling us "Cut taxes and there will be job growth." Reagan cut the top tax rates, and the nation went into recession. Papa Bush didn't fare much better. Nor did his son - W's tax cuts further pushed this agenda, and he left office with ZERO net job growth. I'm sorry, but this should be called out for the baldfaced lie that it is. During the Eisenhower economic boom, rates for the top tax brackets were hovering around 90%. The top tax rates when Reagan took office were twice what they are now. Today, the political debate ponders whether a percentage in the upper 30s is too high. It is complete and utter BS. This pursuit of profit over people, "Greed is good" philosophy has been continually propagated in this country over the past few decades to the detriment of our society as a whole. It is not merely taxation, though that is a major cause. It is also evident in: the decline of domestic manufacturing (bigger stockholder dividends if GM - for example - builds those cars in Mexico instead) outsourcing of jobs (spoken to an Indian on the phone seeking customer service lately? if not, they're probably also looking at X-rays your doctor emailed them overnight) declining environmental standards (cleaning up pollution costs money) ...and so much more.
In a nutshell, in the words of the late great Bill Hicks: "Quit putting a goddang dollar sign on every quacking thing on this planet!"
Jesus quacking Christ, don't any of you people know how to read a disclaimer? I said I wasn't there; I said I didn't necessarily approve. I even said that the only reason I had been watching that video was because I wasn't at that rally and was catching up. I thought I would share, as it was pointed out earlier, because some of you people have been using the term "correspondent" to describe what I've been telling in this thread. I exercised no editorial control over the presentation or content of that speech - I linked it as-is. What I posted was unfiltered video of a speech in its entirety. I'm also going to note that this particular video became the most watched clip on YouTube the day it was put up. I'm not going to apologize for telling people what is going on here, so realize that if you're going to press me on this I'm not going to budge and I will outlast you.
Now yes, I have referred to one man holding up both puppets. Think of Oz behind the curtain if it helps you to visualize what I'm talking about. If someone would like to point out to me the part where I said that each and every actor in the political arena is a puppet, go right ahead. I never said so because I know this is not to be the case. Some men can be bought; others have principles. The man behind the curtain need not buy everyone off to attain his goals.
Dominating debate does not require buying off the entirety of political actors. It takes buying a majority stake in one party, and buying a plurality stake in the other; one to do your bidding, one to be complacent opposition. Note that I'm focusing on parties here, as they are primarily where this phenomenon occurs - because they are closest to the power which is being sought/bought. The way I see it, politicians need to be bought off for one reason and one reason only: the buyer has an agenda which places their personal/shareholder profit.
It's how the rich get their tax cuts, despite not obvious lack of benefits "trickling down" to the rest of society. For pretty much my entire lifetime, politicians operated from behind the curtain have been telling us "Cut taxes and there will be job growth." Reagan cut the top tax rates, and the nation went into recession. Papa Bush didn't fare much better. Nor did his son - W's tax cuts further pushed this agenda, and he left office with ZERO net job growth. I'm sorry, but this should be called out for the baldfaced lie that it is. During the Eisenhower economic boom, rates for the top tax brackets were hovering around 90%. The top tax rates when Reagan took office were twice what they are now. Today, the political debate ponders whether a percentage in the upper 30s is too high. It is complete and utter BS. This pursuit of profit over people, "Greed is good" philosophy has been continually propagated in this country over the past few decades to the detriment of our society as a whole. It is not merely taxation, though that is a major cause. It is also evident in: the decline of domestic manufacturing (bigger stockholder dividends if GM - for example - builds those cars in Mexico instead) outsourcing of jobs (spoken to an Indian on the phone seeking customer service lately? if not, they're probably also looking at X-rays your doctor emailed them overnight) declining environmental standards (cleaning up pollution costs money) ...and so much more.
In a nutshell, in the words of the late great Bill Hicks: "Quit putting a goddang dollar sign on every quacking thing on this planet!"
Sorry, couldn't resist.
So long as you are blaming Presidents for the current economic crisis, point a finger at Clinton too. Clinton, since it is his signature on NAFTA, is responsible for both the swell of illegal immigrants from mexico, as well as the outsourcing of jobs to mexico.
Also, blame Nixon, he ended the gold standard.
I believe in a flat tax. Our current tax situation is broken, and certainly favors the rich. "The Good Ole Days" that you describe were also broken, as the rich were footing the bill for everyone else. Our federal government is not quacking Robin Hood. Set the tax rate at 18% across the board, and stop giving tax writeoffs for charitable (including political campaign) contributions.
I also believe that all standing Trade Agreements and Trade Embargoes should be burned. If it is not made 100% in the united states, a 20% import tax will be levied. That, by God, will create some jobs.
Thanks for the "you mad" post guys. It adds so much to the tread.
So long as you are blaming Presidents for the current economic crisis, point a finger at Clinton too. Clinton, since it is his signature on NAFTA, is responsible for both the swell of illegal immigrants from mexico, as well as the outsourcing of jobs to mexico.
- Jham
I'm pretty sure you are being partly sarcastic. This isn't even a party issue. This is an across the board issue on why this country is so quacked up. We are all being sold down the river.
Also, I come from the carpet manufacturing capitol of the USA. Mexicans were migrating here way before Clinton became president. I don't see it as a party issue. It's a corporate issue. They reap the benefits, no matter if it's overseas labor or stateside. They are getting the greases wheeled in Washington.
Last Edit: Mar 8, 2011 5:22:42 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I do agree with you on a few of your points, jhammett... Clinton deserves blame. NAFTA had a negative impact on the economy. Our current tax situation is broken. ...if we're talking black & white instead of shades of grey. Let's talk shades of grey here.
So long as you are blaming Presidents for the current economic crisis, point a finger at Clinton too. Clinton, since it is his signature on NAFTA, is responsible for both the swell of illegal immigrants from mexico, as well as the outsourcing of jobs to mexico.
I don't not blame Clinton. I did not mention him alongside Reagan & Georges Bush for reasons, yes, but probably not for the reasons you'd think. You probably suspect I omitted mention of him because he was a Democratic president, and you'd probably suspect wrong. I did not mention Clinton because Clinton did not campaign on upper-class tax cuts in his platform; rather, he slightly increased some of the upper-class taxes during his presidency and we wound up with a surplus by the end of his term! I omitted mention of Clinton because, at least on the taxation front, Clinton wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid the Republican presidents around him were. Free trade Kool-Aid, perhaps, but not upper-class tax cuts Kool-Aid. I was specifically discussing a taxation approach I opposed, which Clinton did not espouse so I - rightfully - did not include him there.
H. Ross Perot was right about the fact that there would be a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the country after NAFTA passage... he was just wrong about where from. Mexico isn't thriving because of our shift towards free trade policy, China is. I don't see how NAFTA is responsible for that. I would imagine that, if we sent so many of our decent jobs down to Mexico as you're claiming, Mexicans would have no incentive to emigrate here. Yet out the other side of your mouth, you're saying there is a "swell" in illegal immigration. We sent so many good jobs in Mexico, and Mexicans all want to GTFO? Either we sent them some of our decent jobs and their standard of living went up, or things got bad enough that an increasing number of them wanted to leave for our country. I don't think it can be both, and as such your argument here doesn't carry much water with me. The scapegoat here shouldn't be Mexicans, or the Chinese for that matter, but rather the corporations and individuals who push such a treaty. You know, the ones who wouldn't have done this without our government's involvement/approval, the ones who are making the extra profit off the outsourcing. The damage isn't done without their involvement. Why do you think I've been babbling on about the man behind the curtain here? Funny thing how your sentence is pretty much perfectly capitalized (I myself would challenge upper-casing "Presidents" when not as a title or beginning a sentence.) except for two instances... both of which are the word "mexico." Sometimes you tell people things without actually saying them...
I believe in a flat tax. Our current tax situation is broken, and certainly favors the rich.
I find flat tax to be regressive taxation. The lower your tax bracket, the larger your share of the burden shall be proportional to your income. I do not think this is wise policy. For one, consumer spending - which accounts for about 70% of our nation's economic activity - occurs primarily when the lower/middle classes have spending money. Give Joe Six-Pack a thousand dollars, and he'll catch up on some bills, take his family out to eat, perhaps buy a new washing machine or something. Give Joseph Reginald Chardonnay III a thousand dollars, and it's just going into a bank account or the stock market. I think doing the former is more stimulative of the economy than the latter. I'll go you one further and suggest that this whole crisis of the economy, and the crash that initiated it, happened precisely because we had rich people with money to burn acting recklessly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this behavior is representative of ALL wealthy people, but since it exists something ought to be done about it - and it's currently not enough. I'm not saying every last person is a murderer, either... but I think murder statutes should apply to all persons, regardless. Same goes for some tightening of financial/market regulations. Behavior that has a negative impact on society should be regulated.
"The Good Ole Days" that you describe were also broken, as the rich were footing the bill for everyone else. Our federal government is not quacking Robin Hood. Set the tax rate at 18% across the board, and stop giving tax writeoffs for charitable (including political campaign) contributions.
The rich were footing the bill for everyone else how? When we had those higher tax rates, businessmen were more likely to invest their earning back into their businesses to avoid those tax rates. When that happened, we had more people working, wages increasing, economic growth. Surely you're not implying the 1950s were some kind of socialist nightmare, are you? I don't think they were. The rich weren't getting as big a piece of the pie, yes... but at least then the pie was growing. As far as the rich "footing the bill for everyone else," I just want to say Fuck You on behalf of my honest, working, tax-paying grandfathers who put in their fair share in their day. They were better men than the deadbeats you imply they were. Our government is not Robin Hood. I'll agree to that. However, I suggest that you've got your head firmly planted betwixt your buttocks if you're trying to deny that levying taxes, generating revenue, and distributing funds are not basic essential functions of government. ANY government worth justifying its own existence is going to perform those functions. It's just a matter of how that government goes about it. I'll keep my reasoning short and sweet: the people who pay for the campaigns are the people who get the breaks, justly or (more likely) not.
I also believe that all standing Trade Agreements and Trade Embargoes should be burned.
Um... I've been chanting "Kill the bill!" a lot lately (see my sign up there?) and even I think this statement is extreme. Our trade agreements leave a lot to be desired, but I am in favor of renegotiation before withdrawing from them. As for trade embargoes, I will point out that these are not always economic - they are often used as (dis)incentive in the realm of international relations - and as such should not be judged on their economic merits alone. (I bet there's a shitload of money to be made selling arms to North Korea, after all, but that doesn't mean I think it should be done...) I think making such a generalization about withdrawing these treaties/embargoes does not necessarily consider our national best interest.
If it is not made 100% in the united states, a 20% import tax will be levied. That, by God, will create some jobs.
I'm glad you brought up a specific proposal. Hope you don't mind if I borrow the keys and drive it like I stole it. I went to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics website. They estimate that (as of 2008) your average Chinese manufacturing worker earns $1.36. Technically, $2.38 in urban areas and $.82 in towns and villages. The site also says more than two-thirds of all these workers are in the town/village category. Minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 as of mid-2009. How many Chinese workers does that price buy you?
2.38/7.25 = 3.05 urban manufacturing workers per U.S. minimum wage worker 0.82/7.25 = 8.84 rural manufacturing workers per U.S. minimum wage worker 1.36/7.25 = 5.33 average manufacturing workers per U.S. minimum wage worker
The return on investment of Chinese labor instead of American labor, in terms of hours worked, are 305%, 884% and 533% greater through outsourcing. Do you really think your 20% tariff is going to provide a disincentive by comparison to those rates? The return on that investment far exceeds the disincentive for which you advocate. It still makes economic sense to outsource that labor, even with your 20% tariff - hell, even with a 100% tariff. And beyond. You claimed that your policy suggestion would create jobs domestically. I see nothing to suggest that your prescription would do anything to remedy the actual problem. At best, it's ineffective... which would kind of make it a waste of taxpayer money to execute, don't you think?
I hope this helps cover two of the points of our agreement I mentioned at the beginning of this post: NAFTA had a negative impact on the economy. Clinton deserves blame.
As I said, I am with you to a degree on these points. I am myself far from pleased with his trade policies. Let's revisit that third point, in your exact words: "Our current tax situation is broken, and certainly favors the rich."
The ends of job creation have not been achieved by the means of elite-class tax cuts. Trickle-down economics did not deliver on its promises. As such, I find them to be a waste of taxpayer money as well. If you say "Cut my taxes and I'll create jobs" and then don't create jobs... you deserve to lose that tax cut. We put our money where the supply-siders' mouths were, and we lost. Balancing budgets isn't just about reducing expenses; it is also about generating revenue. I think it's a no-brainer to rescind tax breaks that failed to deliver on their promise. Rand Paul was on The Daily Show tonight. Even he was willing to concede that "the last time we had a balanced budget was Bill Clinton. If you take Bill Clinton's budget and just increased it with inflation, which should cover our cost, we'd be balanced." Think about what I was saying earlier, about the taxation agenda of recent Republican presidents occuring to the detriment of the public interest. For crying out loud, even Rand Paul admits that the Democrat had it right. That ought to make one stop and think.
Our budget problems are not exclusively on the reducing expenses side of things. It is also, and I think more crucially so, on the revenue generation side. Specifically, our increasing inability to raise them properly on account of the tax dodgers funding our politicians. Two or three years ago, Ohio - a state seeing a struggle similar to Wisconsin's these days - eliminated all corporate income tax. Their Tea Party-approved governor is also claiming a budget crisis as his basis for a similar measure. Scott Walker has made the same claims, but not before handing out $117 million in corporate tax breaks his first few weeks in office. Such ideological inconsistency screams to me that a politician has been bought off.
This budget crisis is not the fault of firemen, police, doctors, teachers, librarians, other school faculty, garbagemen, sewage workers, or any other public workers. Despite that, they have made the financial concessions asked of them - and their rights are under assault. Why should they sacrifice twice before others - who had a hand in creating the problem, mind you - are asked to sacrifice once?
To address pretty much every comment other than jhammett's since my last post: Hell yeah, I'm mad! (It certainly doesn't help that it's been three weeks since my last proper cigarette, which also has me rather testy lately.)
I don't think unjustifiably so, either. I'm a bit of a heathen, I'll admit, but I don't deny that there's good stuff to be found in the organized religions of the world. And I know all of the major ones have some room for a man named Jesus. From what I know about Jesus, I can only really think of one time where he ever got angry. That came when he cast the moneychangers out of the temple. He saw the poor and widows being scammed, overturned the merchants' tables and blocked merchandise from entering the temple. He called it a "den of thieves."
Before you accuse me of being selective or perhaps exaggerate things a bit further, allow me to proceed with a couple other things this Jesus said for context: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24 "Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him." Mark 12:17
In light of all I've been saying about wealthy elites (and their corporations) and their tax avoidance... I think I'm quite justified in my anger over something rotten in Wisconsin.
I still have 46,745 characters remaining. At this point, I figure there's no way anyone will ever be able to fill out the entire post form. Thanks for reading, anyone who kept up with the entirety of this rant.
Funny thing how your sentence is pretty much perfectly capitalized (I myself would challenge upper-casing "Presidents" when not as a title or beginning a sentence.) except for two instances... both of which are the word "mexico." Sometimes you tell people things without actually saying them...
Thanks for the "you mad" post guys. It adds so much to the tread.
So long as you are blaming Presidents for the current economic crisis, point a finger at Clinton too. Clinton, since it is his signature on NAFTA, is responsible for both the swell of illegal immigrants from mexico, as well as the outsourcing of jobs to mexico.
- Jham
I'm pretty sure you are being partly sarcastic. This isn't even a party issue. This is an across the board issue on why this country is so quacked up. We are all being sold down the river.
Also, I come from the carpet manufacturing capitol of the USA. Mexicans were migrating here way before Clinton became president. I don't see it as a party issue. It's a corporate issue. They reap the benefits, no matter if it's overseas labor or stateside. They are getting the greases wheeled in Washington.
That wasn't REALLY sarcasm, but kinda. Remember, Nixon was a republican, and I blame him equally for screwing up the economy.
Also, I am not saying that illegal immigrants didn't exist before clinton, but the rate at which they are crossing the boarder has certainly increased since his first term. And that is because when he signed NAFTA, the mexican government rewrote a few articles in their constitution, one of which that promised land distribution among the impoverished people. So, not only were these people without a pot to piss in, but they no longer had land to farm as a means to provide for themselves and their families.
KDogg, I didn't have time to read your doctoral thesis, but I will later on today.
Funny thing how your sentence is pretty much perfectly capitalized (I myself would challenge upper-casing "Presidents" when not as a title or beginning a sentence.) except for two instances... both of which are the word "mexico." Sometimes you tell people things without actually saying them...
OH Snap!!!
Just forgot the caps, I have nothing against mexicans, aside from their food, I get horrible diarrhea from it.
Here are some fun facts on why I do NOT blame Clinton, also congrats Kdogg I am still on the e-ciggy diet myself. Not that NAFTA was great, but it sure was not the problem.
Last three presidents by the number of jobs created during their administrations.
G.W. Bush: 3 million Bill Clinton: 23.1 million G.H.W. Bush: 2.5 million
MYTH: Tax cuts stimulate the economy by creating jobs. After the 2001 Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, unemployment rose the next two years.
WHICH PARTY HAS THE BEST HISTORY OF ECONOMIC GROWTH: ON ECONOMIC GROWTH: Annualized percentage change in real GDP per capita: Eisenhower: 1.11%. Worst year: -2.58%, Best year: 5.3% JFK-LBJ: 3.48%; Worst year: 0.66%; Best year: 5.3% Nixon-Ford: 1.70%; Worst year: -1.41%; Best year: 4.75% Carter: 2.14%; Worst year: -1.37%; Best year: 4.46% Reagan: 2.45%; Worst year: -2.87%; Best year: 6.25% Bush I: 0.93%, Worst year: -1.48%; Best year: 2.57% Clinton: 2.49%; Worst year: 1.30%; Best year: 3.26% Bush II: 1.57%; Worst year: -0..29%; Best year: 2.91%
A flat tax of 18% is laughable. Our budget would be a fraction of what it is now. Good luck balancing that one. It makes me laugh when people suggest simple solutions for complex problems. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Tea Party is all about. Simpletons. It's sad that so many people think that the magical fix to all of our economic woes is some type of simple answer.
Here are some fun facts on why I do NOT blame Clinton, also congrats Kdogg I am still on the e-ciggy diet myself. Not that NAFTA was great, but it sure was not the problem.
Last three presidents by the number of jobs created during their administrations.
G.W. Bush: 3 million Bill Clinton: 23.1 million G.H.W. Bush: 2.5 million
MYTH: Tax cuts stimulate the economy by creating jobs. After the 2001 Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, unemployment rose the next two years.
WHICH PARTY HAS THE BEST HISTORY OF ECONOMIC GROWTH: ON ECONOMIC GROWTH: Annualized percentage change in real GDP per capita: Eisenhower: 1.11%. Worst year: -2.58%, Best year: 5.3% JFK-LBJ: 3.48%; Worst year: 0.66%; Best year: 5.3% Nixon-Ford: 1.70%; Worst year: -1.41%; Best year: 4.75% Carter: 2.14%; Worst year: -1.37%; Best year: 4.46% Reagan: 2.45%; Worst year: -2.87%; Best year: 6.25% Bush I: 0.93%, Worst year: -1.48%; Best year: 2.57% Clinton: 2.49%; Worst year: 1.30%; Best year: 3.26% Bush II: 1.57%; Worst year: -0..29%; Best year: 2.91%
Numbers like that without context are absolutely worthless...
A flat tax of 18% is laughable. Our budget would be a fraction of what it is now. Good luck balancing that one. It makes me laugh when people suggest simple solutions for complex problems. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Tea Party is all about. Simpletons. It's sad that so many people think that the magical fix to all of our economic woes is some type of simple answer.
And people who make it sound like it's an exceedingly complex issue that can never be fixed are just as clueless. It's very easy to figure out how to balance the budget, it's just that the pandering idiots in Washington and the nanny state morons in this country will never let it happen... they'd sooner see the country collapse economically.
I never said it couldn't be fixed. I just said that anyone with a bit of knowledge can understand that lowering everyone's taxes isn't going to balance the budget. It's going to 1/2 the tax revenue making a balanced budget impossible. I mean, we theoretically could balance a budget that was only 1/2 of our current budget, there would just be major major cuts. Entire programs would have to be abandoned.
Ok, so you're saying that the people in Washington would rather see the country collapse than balance the budget for 2011? Because according to you, it's "very easy." So they're just Anti-American shills who are trying to bring down America rather than balance the budget? Whoah.
Ok, so you're saying that the people in Washington would rather see the country collapse than balance the budget for 2011? Because according to you, it's "very easy." So they're just Anti-American shills who are trying to bring down America rather than balance the budget? Whoah.
That's not what I said at all, but I appreciate your ability to read that much into it.
Here are some fun facts on why I do NOT blame Clinton, also congrats Kdogg I am still on the e-ciggy diet myself. Not that NAFTA was great, but it sure was not the problem.
Last three presidents by the number of jobs created during their administrations.
G.W. Bush: 3 million Bill Clinton: 23.1 million G.H.W. Bush: 2.5 million
MYTH: Tax cuts stimulate the economy by creating jobs. After the 2001 Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, unemployment rose the next two years.
WHICH PARTY HAS THE BEST HISTORY OF ECONOMIC GROWTH: ON ECONOMIC GROWTH: Annualized percentage change in real GDP per capita: Eisenhower: 1.11%. Worst year: -2.58%, Best year: 5.3% JFK-LBJ: 3.48%; Worst year: 0.66%; Best year: 5.3% Nixon-Ford: 1.70%; Worst year: -1.41%; Best year: 4.75% Carter: 2.14%; Worst year: -1.37%; Best year: 4.46% Reagan: 2.45%; Worst year: -2.87%; Best year: 6.25% Bush I: 0.93%, Worst year: -1.48%; Best year: 2.57% Clinton: 2.49%; Worst year: 1.30%; Best year: 3.26% Bush II: 1.57%; Worst year: -0..29%; Best year: 2.91%
Numbers like that without context are absolutely worthless...
That is 20 years of Jobs data, and 50 years of average growth, how much more context do you need?
Ok, so you're saying that the people in Washington would rather see the country collapse than balance the budget for 2011? Because according to you, it's "very easy." So they're just Anti-American shills who are trying to bring down America rather than balance the budget? Whoah.
That's not what I said at all, but I appreciate your ability to read that much into it.
It's very easy to figure out how to balance the budget, it's just that the pandering idiots in Washington and the nanny state morons in this country will never let it happen... they'd sooner see the country collapse economically.
It's very easy to figure out how to balance the budget, it's just that the pandering idiots in Washington and the nanny state morons in this country will never let it happen... they'd sooner see the country collapse economically.
Apparently YOU don't even know what you said.
Nope, you read into it. Their actions will lead to that but I'm sure in their own minds they've convinced themselves that it will not.
It's very easy to figure out how to balance the budget, it's just that the pandering idiots in Washington and the nanny state morons in this country will never let it happen... they'd sooner see the country collapse economically.
Apparently YOU don't even know what you said.
That is what I thought Rooter said too. Maybe we read Rooter's post wrong?
Okay, so maybe I was wrong. Ideological inconsistency doesn't always suggest someone has been bought off... it could also be a sign of intellectual inconsistency...
Update on what's been going on lately, so far as I can tell... my vehicle has been in for work so I haven't been to the capitol since Friday
Lawsuits: the Department of Administration is getting sued over capitol access on two fronts, inside and out. At issue in one lawsuit is the administration's permit process for demonstrations on the lawn. This one's apparently spearheaded by the state's most prominent pro-corn activist, whose Hempfest long ago sued - and the findings were that assembly with/without amplification on the capitol did not require a permit. This one should succeed easily (meaning the DoA has to pay court fees/damages) as this case appears to be already-settled law. The second lawsuit concerns whether or not the DoA has restored capitol access in accordance with the judge's ruling as of last Thursday; this lawsuit is being spearheaded by the previous attorney general Peg Lautenschlager, a Democrat, and is not nearly as predetermined as the first.
Tonight's big protest: brown bag dinners on the capitol lawn. The brown bag imagery was prominently featured in Walker's campaign, in an attempt to relate him to the working voters. This weekend's big protest: farmers from around the state will be driving their farm equipment into Madison to parade around the capitol square.
Recalls: Eight Republican & seven Democratic state senators face recall and efforts are already underway. In the district represented by Republican Sen. Alberta Darling, recall activists collected ten percent of the necessary signatures on their first day out. Our process allows for sixty days to collect the needed signatures. In La Crosse, recall efforts against Republican Sen. Dan Kapanke have generated so much interest that the Democratic Party reopened their office from election season. All seven recall efforts against Democratic state senators were co-sponsored by a group out of Utah. This same group is seeking to recall the Tuscon sheriff who, in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, made comments critical of increasingly heated political rhetoric in the country; these recall supporters are also suspected to be those who meddled in California's passage of Proposition 8, though it can be difficult to determine with anonymous money.
Oh, and the Republicans in state government have recently been discussing the possibility of changing recall laws - in the middle of the game. This will not occur without a legal challenge, as such a change pretty much necessitates being done through amending the state constitution. Our recall law, first in the nation, goes back to the great "Fighting Bob" La Follette's time in office. For those unfamiliar: Fighting Bob was a WI Senator, governor & one of the top-three third party candidates (17% of the popular vote & took WI) in presidential history; historians have proclaimed him one of the five greatest Senators in US history and his statue (every state gets two, he is one of ours) is in our nation's capitol building. A bust of him in the capitol in Madison became something of a shrine for protesters. Photo: protesters sleep around the La Follette bust/shrine in the capitol, approximately 2am on February 25th. I myself have walked around the protests with a sign asking "What Would Fighting Bob Do?" and I should note that I was not alone. I have also seen "Fighting Bob would be Fighting Mad!" I believe my sign was the only one to offer specific positions that Fighting Bob would have taken: - support labor unions - resist corporate influence - protect public assets - recall recall recall - progressive taxation - oppose corruption Think of him as a different era's Russ Feingold, but even better. It is also worth noting that he was a Republican... oh, how times have changed.
We also have spring elections on April 5th. Of particular importance on this ballot is for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice. In Wisconsin, justices are elected to ten-year terms (I personally prefer merit-based appointment for judicial positions.) The court is currently split 4-3 and leaning right. These races have grown increasingly contentious/nasty in past election cycles, with the big business-supported candidate usually winning. The conservative candidate lost the most recent election, which still left the court with a 4-3 conservative slant. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, traditionally the biggest candidate sponsor in these races, apparently decided they had bought a majority and declined to support the conservative candidate. This time around, there is a conservative defending their spot on the court against a challenger. As such, there is great potential for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to flip 4-3 away from conservatives. Seeing as this court is going to hear any cases resulting from legal challenges to Walker's bill, people are more fired up about a court race than I've ever seen. The protests have a great deal of signs supporting the challenger, JoAnne Kloppenburg, Assistant Attorney General of 20+ years, who has served under attorneys general of both political parties. Wisconsinites: www.kloppenburgforjustice.com/ Don't forget to vote on April 5th.
