The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

man with no head · 12-10-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

All you need to do sursak is cite your credentials and I'd be inclined to consider your opinion credible.

I'll take the dude with the MBA over some anonymous cyber poster 24/7 365.

Too bothered to read an official government reports? Where do you think the MBA gets his data from?

You can't get any more non-biased than what I posted above.

Read the PDF and then feel free to then make comments.

BTW, is this the same Crutsinger who has been known to post erroneous information in the past?

Is The AP's Martin Crutsinger Lowballing Economic Growth Expectations? | NewsBusters.org

AP's Martin Crutsinger Botches Story on November Construction Spending | NewsBusters.org

Bizzyblog » The Jobless Claims Report: AP’s Martin Crutsinger Discounts the Present, and Gets the Past Wrong

Yeah, I'll trust the government's sources over some anonymous clown with a fake MBA.

Storekeeper · 12-10-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by king of uranus

For those that don't know about the area in which storekeeper lives, Bremerton; it's VERY conservative. It's in the middle of 3 major naval sites and is referred to as 'The Land of Limbaugh'.

The per capita ditto-head density there exceeds even the deep south. He is the norm in his views there. Even the working poor there (without medical coverage) will parrot the corporate line.

So now that you know where he gets his rose colored glasses vis-a-vis the bush economy, be understanding, be kind.

Another genius troll in the forum. Bremerton is a solid Democrat county headed by good ole Norm Dicks (D). Not only that but the state of Washington has been pretty solid Democrat for years ... hopefully that will start to change with the Senate this year.

I'm born and raised in Ohio ... that's where I got my solid Republican roots. Give credit where credit is due.

Amazing though how we have all these huge military bases in solid Democrat states like Washington, California, Hawaii ... I think you left wingers are being sold a bill of goods by your elected representatives.

Storekeeper · 12-10-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Yeah, I'll trust the government's sources over some anonymous clown with a fake MBA.

Subtlety flies right over your head ... I was talkin' 'bout GWB.

Milkman · 12-10-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

All you need to do sursak is cite your credentials and I'd be inclined to consider your opinion credible.

I'll take the dude with the MBA over some anonymous cyber poster 24/7 365.

And your "take" of the due with the MBA is quite selective, isn't it?

You've got to look at the big picture when it comes to the deficit.

There will be tens of millions of boomer hitting the "rail" soon.

Current account deficit is widening ever year also.

man with no head · 12-10-2006, 01:01 PM

Since math is so difficult:

During the Clinton years the debt went up from $4.3 trillion to $5.6 trillion (an increase of $1.3 trillion over 8 years). Under Bush it has gone from $5.7 trillion to $8.6 trillion, an increase of almost $3 trillion in less than 6 years. Yeah, looks like the Bush plan is working!

Storekeeper · 12-10-2006, 01:07 PM

I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. If I were a Democrat I'd be bragging how GWB has cut the deficit in half in such a relatively short time.

Milkman · 12-10-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. If I were a Democrat I'd be bragging how GWB has cut the deficit in half in such a relatively short time.

I have said this many times.

The last several decades of the American economy do NOT have anything to do with the 2 American political parties.

It's not about D and R.

You've got to look at the big picture both short, medium, and long-term.

man with no head · 12-10-2006, 01:22 PM

The deficit goes down in 4 ways:

1. Increased taxes.
2. Decreased spending.
3. Overstating a future deficit so that a lower deficit actually looks good.
4. Moving spending around from one fiscal year to another, or, from from non-discretionary spending to discretionary spending.

Now, if tax revenues are increasing what does that tell you? That tells you that taxes are increasing. How can taxes be lowered but revenues are going up? Only because more taxes are being paid. Hook, line, and sinker with you guys who really think that the 2003 tax cuts actually cut taxes.

I know you''re a big fan of Heritage's prior report on U.S. military recruiting, so, surely you will read this:

Runaway spending: Left unchecked, Washington's overspending could drown America in taxes and debt

man with no head · 12-10-2006, 01:36 PM

What should really send shivers up people's spines are these facts:

Social Security spending is forecast to double from 2006-2016. Medicare will triple in cost, and, Medicaid will double.

And all that debt Bush is running up is costing us $220 billion per year.

mad_dog · 12-10-2006, 07:11 PM

"The federal budget deficit, helped by a gusher of tax revenues, fell to $247.7 billion in 2006, the smallest amount of red ink in four years. "

Boasting of a federal deficit of only 247.7 billion is the ultimate double speak.

kerux · 12-10-2006, 08:08 PM

"Since Bush took office, the US has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs.

At the beginning of this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that for the first time in 90 years, the US is now paying noticeably more to foreign creditors than it receives from its investments abroad."

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

man with no head · 12-10-2006, 11:08 PM

That's because all the new jobs are mainly healthcare desk clerks. And, incidentally, health care costs have skyrocketed since Bush took office.

Storekeeper · 13-10-2006, 08:31 AM

Thankfully ole GWB didn't sign that Kyoto Treaty thing either ... otherwise many, many jobs would have been lost. China and India would have loved to see the US sign the piece of crap.

man with no head · 13-10-2006, 08:46 AM

True or false: overall poverty is higher now that Bush has been in office for 5 years than before.

True or false: median income is higher now that Bush has been in office for 5 years than before.

True or false: the numbers of Americans and the percentage of Americans without health insurance is at a record high.

True or false: consumer prices have increased more in the past 5 years than in any 5 year period in over 30 years.

Storekeeper · 13-10-2006, 12:05 PM

Lower Tax Rates Yield Higher Tax Revenues

"Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush II all understood what the Laffer Curve was all about. They all cut taxes, they all enjoyed consequent explosions of economic growth so vigorous that the Treasury was awash in ever greater tax revenue. This is not a matter of political opinion or partisanship; this is an empirical, objective fact backed by hard data.

The U.S. budget deficit has fallen more quickly than even the Bush administration predicted, despite the tax cuts that Democrats moronically claim boost deficits. It is an excess of spending, not a dearth of taxation (the federal government confiscates about 18.4% of what the private sector produces), that causes deficits. If Democrats were genuinely concerned about red ink, they'd demand entitlement reform. That they stymie entitlement reform is all you need to know about their sincerity on deficits."

(Hit the blue inserted link for more good reading)

man with no head · 13-10-2006, 12:44 PM

Because the deficit projection was overstated. Back in the late 1990s the deficit for the mid 2000s was projected to be....guess......$250 billion.

Quote:

Phelps, 73, who owns neither a house nor a car, showed that cutting interest rates or taxes would give only a short-term boost to employment and create higher inflation down the road.

Evidently they awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics to the wrong person.

You realize, of course, that higher tax revenues = higher taxes?

And you posted Crutsinger again? You might want to read all about him before using him as a source.

man with no head · 13-10-2006, 12:59 PM

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/0xx/doc2/E&b01-97.pdf

In case anyone's interested in the real thing instead of fluffy articles.

Milkman · 13-10-2006, 01:05 PM

Storekeeper is lost again.

The Laffer curve was created on a bar-room napkin over drinks.

Lower taxes are good. But you also have to cut big spending. You said you supported "big government." Now you say you like Kennedy-esque supply-side.

You cannot have it both ways.

man with no head · 13-10-2006, 02:09 PM

Lower taxes and increased spending = higher taxes than before. There's just no other way around it...unless you borrow yourself to death.

And the biggest increase in profits of all leading to those 'unexpected' increased revenues? You guessed it: oil and banks (as I demonstrated based on the DJIA 30 industrials: oil companies and banks are driving the profit stream...profits based on raping consumers).

king of uranus · 28-10-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

12-10-2006, 08:08 PM	#451 (permalink)
kerux Suspended from Issues Last Online: 16-09-2007 08:25 AM Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Padded Cell Next to Zundel Posts: 1,510	"Since Bush took office, the US has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. At the beginning of this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that for the first time in 90 years, the US is now paying noticeably more to foreign creditors than it receives from its investments abroad." Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. __________________ Please, no more greens and what ever you do, don't throw me in that briar patch. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

12-10-2006, 01:01 PM	#445 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	Since math is so difficult: During the Clinton years the debt went up from $4.3 trillion to $5.6 trillion (an increase of $1.3 trillion over 8 years). Under Bush it has gone from $5.7 trillion to $8.6 trillion, an increase of almost $3 trillion in less than 6 years. Yeah, looks like the Bush plan is working!

12-10-2006, 01:07 PM	#446 (permalink)
Storekeeper Because I said so. Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Ban Phe Posts: 4,822	I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. If I were a Democrat I'd be bragging how GWB has cut the deficit in half in such a relatively short time.

12-10-2006, 01:22 PM	#448 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	The deficit goes down in 4 ways: 1. Increased taxes. 2. Decreased spending. 3. Overstating a future deficit so that a lower deficit actually looks good. 4. Moving spending around from one fiscal year to another, or, from from non-discretionary spending to discretionary spending. Now, if tax revenues are increasing what does that tell you? That tells you that taxes are increasing. How can taxes be lowered but revenues are going up? Only because more taxes are being paid. Hook, line, and sinker with you guys who really think that the 2003 tax cuts actually cut taxes. I know you''re a big fan of Heritage's prior report on U.S. military recruiting, so, surely you will read this: Runaway spending: Left unchecked, Washington's overspending could drown America in taxes and debt

12-10-2006, 01:36 PM	#449 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	What should really send shivers up people's spines are these facts: Social Security spending is forecast to double from 2006-2016. Medicare will triple in cost, and, Medicaid will double. And all that debt Bush is running up is costing us $220 billion per year.

12-10-2006, 07:11 PM	#450 (permalink)
mad_dog Elite Member Last Online: Yesterday 07:30 PM Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,466	"The federal budget deficit, helped by a gusher of tax revenues, fell to $247.7 billion in 2006, the smallest amount of red ink in four years. " Boasting of a federal deficit of only 247.7 billion is the ultimate double speak.

12-10-2006, 11:08 PM	#452 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	That's because all the new jobs are mainly healthcare desk clerks. And, incidentally, health care costs have skyrocketed since Bush took office.

13-10-2006, 08:31 AM	#453 (permalink)
Storekeeper Because I said so. Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Ban Phe Posts: 4,822	Thankfully ole GWB didn't sign that Kyoto Treaty thing either ... otherwise many, many jobs would have been lost. China and India would have loved to see the US sign the piece of crap.

13-10-2006, 08:46 AM	#454 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	True or false: overall poverty is higher now that Bush has been in office for 5 years than before. True or false: median income is higher now that Bush has been in office for 5 years than before. True or false: the numbers of Americans and the percentage of Americans without health insurance is at a record high. True or false: consumer prices have increased more in the past 5 years than in any 5 year period in over 30 years.

13-10-2006, 12:05 PM	#455 (permalink)
Storekeeper Because I said so. Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Ban Phe Posts: 4,822	Lower Tax Rates Yield Higher Tax Revenues "Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush II all understood what the Laffer Curve was all about. They all cut taxes, they all enjoyed consequent explosions of economic growth so vigorous that the Treasury was awash in ever greater tax revenue. This is not a matter of political opinion or partisanship; this is an empirical, objective fact backed by hard data. The U.S. budget deficit has fallen more quickly than even the Bush administration predicted, despite the tax cuts that Democrats moronically claim boost deficits. It is an excess of spending, not a dearth of taxation (the federal government confiscates about 18.4% of what the private sector produces), that causes deficits. If Democrats were genuinely concerned about red ink, they'd demand entitlement reform. That they stymie entitlement reform is all you need to know about their sincerity on deficits." (Hit the blue inserted link for more good reading)

13-10-2006, 12:59 PM	#457 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/0xx/doc2/E&b01-97.pdf In case anyone's interested in the real thing instead of fluffy articles.

13-10-2006, 01:05 PM	#458 (permalink)
Milkman Gone Off Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: shelf Posts: 9,390	Storekeeper is lost again. The Laffer curve was created on a bar-room napkin over drinks. Lower taxes are good. But you also have to cut big spending. You said you supported "big government." Now you say you like Kennedy-esque supply-side. You cannot have it both ways.

13-10-2006, 02:09 PM	#459 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	Lower taxes and increased spending = higher taxes than before. There's just no other way around it...unless you borrow yourself to death. And the biggest increase in profits of all leading to those 'unexpected' increased revenues? You guessed it: oil and banks (as I demonstrated based on the DJIA 30 industrials: oil companies and banks are driving the profit stream...profits based on raping consumers).