Ladies and Gentlemen, this thread has reached a conclusion. After the liberals' inability to successfully respond my questions and their inability to provide a rebuttal to my assertions, I hereby accept their unconditional surrender. They have been reduced to attempting to answer well thought-out and well reasoned posts with thoughtless, empty one-line responses. Let this thread be a constant reminder to all who seek to engage the conservatives in a debate on financial matters. The next time you hear a liberal spouting off, recognize that after this sound, unquestionable drubbing, they have no basis for opining on financial matters. Demagoguery and baseless accusations do not form an economic policy for our nation. Advancing a negative agenda and attempting to propagate lies constitute the depths to which the Democrats have sunk. Once again, the liberals have been EXPOSED as having a completely superficial understanding of the topic at hand, thereby rendering their opinion meaningless. CASE CLOSED
Wow, nice to know you were able to declare victory 1 hour and 29 minutes after your "explanation." I guess that settles that.
why don't you write an explanation for the 3.3 million who lost their job and can't get a new one? TJ will 'plain it to you, Mr. and Mrs. Unemployed of America Bush can't even spell Keynesian, Khan. No, this is straight outta the Reagan/Bush game book: Spend like a drunken sailor, and run the nation further into debt to do it, while preaching temperance. No self respecting fiscal conservative would bless this mess and call it a game plan. I was calling for a balanced budget for 10 years before it happened, and most of those years were Reagan-Bush years. Reagan created more debt for this country than all other presidents combined. Were you talking Keynesian then, or were you one of those enamored of the Laffer curve? Keynesian holds that you deficit spend in recession to spur the economy, but you return to a balanced budget after the recession has abated. Reagan never did that, he just kept spending like it was free money. My problem with those on the right is they are so two faced on this issue. The most fiscally irresponsible president this country ever had was Ronald Reagan. He spent irresponsibly for 8 years, and built a multitrillion dollar debt that will never be retired. Grandpa Ronnie ran up the credit cards and the whole dang family has to pay them off over the next 40 years.
T_J give it up no one takes you seriously anymore, you are nothing more than someone who provides us with an occasional laugh. All of your appeals have been exhausted and yes you guessed it your case is closed.
the Deficit and the Debt are absurd, and it's ridiculous. TJ et al face facts. I've shown how much the interest of our debt accounts for govt. spending. Sorry Khan, the GDP growth doesn't cut it. The figures actuall dont' add up even with the GDP growth. Adding to our national debt adds to the the national spending.
Do you think we need to radically change our tax code and our spending policies for every fluctuation in the business cycle? Yes, apparenty you do, too. Your entire next post argues for tax reductions because we are in a downturn. Make up your mind. Oh, I know you are always for tax reductions. Clever, but intellectually dishonest or perhaps just unthinking to argue for not changing the tax code in one post and for changing in the next. Also please explain why you are talking about Bush or the Administration and giving them credit repeatedly in your following post when you state post after post that the President has nothing to do with the economy. The economy goes up and goes down in cycles That is the reason why you should not have tax cuts all the time. Government spending is good in a downturn. If you disagree, please explain why government spending is bad in a downturn. That is why you save money for a rainy day. See the mess in Texas where Bush’s cuts have led to among other things 50% projected increase in state tuition in the next three years and major cut backs in spending for the health care of poor children. I know, Jorge, you don’t care about the suffering this causes, but please explain how this reduction in government spending is good during a downturn. (Hint totat spending is government spending plus private spending). Also if the government spends money during an economic downturn you know it goes into the economy and if you give it to rich people who just let it sit in a bank because it doesn't pay to invest when demand is down you don't get the same stimulus. Bush and team have reacted. In their cooperative effort with Alan Greenspan, the Administration has promoted a very aggressive monetary policy of cheap money. This has kept the housing market strong and kept interest rates low. Nothing wrong with this. but do explain how this jives with the idea that the president has no control over the economy. Attacking this tax cut is absurd. First of all, the Democrats were pushing a tax cut of their own, so it seems as though both parties were in favor of tax relief. As you know Jorge the Democrats wanted a tax cut aimed to the poor and middle class the Republican wanted one oriented toward the upper classes with significant tax cuts starting only in the 100 k per year range. Economists are nearly unanimous a tax cut oriented toward the poor and middle class provides more stimulus than the Republican tax cut for the wealthy. Don't give me the standard flawed argument about a budget deficit causing higher interest rates. That little Rubin-esque fallacy has been successfully debunked *many* times. Please try to cite a source for once for your assertion that budget deficits and hence government bond issuances have no efect on interest rates. . It would enhance your credibility if you could do so. Through these joint efforts, the economy has righted itself and is back on a growth pace of close to 3% annually. The stock market has reached one-year highs. The Administration has done what it can and the results are *beginning* to show Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you now claim to be able to predict the direction of the market? Why don”t we hear of Jorge and Buffet in the same breath? Also if the business cycles just come and go please explain again how this possible upswing is all due to Bush.
Greenspan says we must pay down the deficit if we want to get out of this endless economic downturn. The cost-- only $1600 per American citizen to pay down the deficit (this of course doesn't include rebuilding Iraq).
So, you are saying that it is OK for the most powerful nation in the world to wage an unprovoked war in order to let its companies pillage the natural resources of the conquered land?
I am not a "liberal," but I am certainly more liberal than you. BTW, why do you paint with the liberal brush anything that does not point to the utopian wisdom you seem to credit these leaders with? I am more conservative than a large percentage of this board, but because I question the administration, all of a sudden I am a liberal? You act like Ann Coulter. Ideal budget: One that balances. I support a balanced budget. Occasionally you have to cut back services, but at least more of my tax dollars will not be going to paying interest. We need to radically change our tax code because it is unfair, not because of any fluctuation. We should have a tax code that is projected to hit a very modest surplus every year, to be applied to the national debt. I personally believe in a consumption tax, but could be persuaded to accept a loophole free flat income tax. We need to change our spending policies to keep the crooks in the government (not that all of them are, but many are) from paying kickbacks to the people that elected them. Pork barrel politics have created a situation where every member wants to tax and spend in order to keep themselves in power. A law that mandates a balanced budget makes good sense. It hurts every now and then (like this year in most states) but in the end it would be good for the country. If we need to deficit spend, it should be limited to special situations like wars and humanitarian efforts. Texas had a large shortfall this year and yet, magically, they were able to make the budget balance. Heck, they were even able to do it without (technically) raising taxes. The revenue went down, so the spending went down. It doesn't seem to work this way at the federal level. I don't put any faith in the 10 year projections, but I believe the two year projection of $855 billion this year and next. That is outrageous to me. It is appalling that they can put out a budget that is that far out of whack. There are times when I almost believe my conspiracy theorist friend who says that the upper classes are just feasting on us until they see an opportunity to rob the country blind, leave it in bankruptcy, and move to the next burgeoning superpower.
Only for those whose minds were closed to start with. I suggest that you read the subsequent posts and document your claims as was asked of you in a previous post. Because they will obfuscate, avoid, use econo-babble, and declare victory in the second round of a 12 round fight. As opposed to the conservatives, who simply offer no proof for their claims, only empty rhetoric. No, apparently nepotism and cronyism do. Again, I am not a democrat, but where is the negative agenda in wanting the government to spend less than it takes in rather than borrowing nearly a trillion dollars this year and next to give to rich people? And you have been exposed as the Bush bobble head we all know. Yep.
Ding Ding Ding... We have a WINNER BY K.O. AnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddyyyyyyyyMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN!!!
What, Trader, no witty rebuttal filled with a lambasting of liberals in general and the liberal media specifically? BTW, that is a joke. I don't expect you to monitor the BBS 24/7 like you seem to expect of people.
Moon, don't flatter yourself. After you "researched" for a few days to put something together, your "rebuttal" post still is nowhere near an effective counter. If you noticed, only the usual suspects - ie the liberal left-wing no-content posters were the ones who backed you up. Your points were broad generalities with little substance.
Um, I didn't do any research, it was a few hours not a few days (EDIT: I didn't realize it was a full day between his post and mine, but it was one day, not a few), and I do apologize if common sense is too hard to grasp for the far right wing but it is what many of the rest of us live by. You don't have to have a degree in economics to know that increasing the national debt by $850 billion over the next 2 years will increase our interest payments by $20 billion per year if we are able to borrow the money at 2%. That is ANOTHER $20 billion in interest payments that could be going to defending the country, shoring up social security, paying for prescriptions for the elderly, or any of the myriad of other needs we have in this country. It seems obvious to me that the proponents of "trickle down" economics expect to give the rich people loads of cash and hope that they will piss all over the rest of us. I don't need to be trickled on, I would rather have the government get its financial house in order. BTW, nice rebuttal yourself. It is obvious that you don't have anything of substance to say so you just disparage my rebuttal as being light on substance without pointing to any particular statements. Besides, Trader STILL has not documented his wild-eyed claims that he says debunks the "myth" that a large deficit does not negatively impact the economy.
And your point is...to attack another poster with no point at all. Deficit is good, it's such a good idea everyone go out and run-up all your credit cards to the max then get some more and do the same. Go out and buy anything you can to get yourself in as deep as possible. Paying all that interest on accumulated debt is a good thing I swear its really good to do that... *ROLLEYES*
Just give it up, trader t, Andymoon put down the joint long enough to whip you guys in your own game. For you to keep dragging this out is indecent "exposure".
Borrowing to give to rich people? Let us clarify one point, a TAX-CUT is not GIVING money to anyone. It is allowing one to keep more of their own hard earned income. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare are programs that GIVE away funds. That is a big difference. Stating that the money is being used to give to rich people is manipulative. If there is a tax cut across the board, then the wealthy will make the most, because they PAY the most. Most people in the lowest brackets don't even pay taxes in the first place, should we just start writing them checks because they live in the good ole USA? People shouldn't be penalized for making more money. The opportunists and capitalists are what have made this country great.
