BonzoHansen |
11-06-2007 07:32 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacdout96
(Post 392810)
John G, FTW, bringing in the 411 on Bonzo. I would continue to talk to those two, but just like all republicans, they dont listen to you, but you better listen to them cause they are always right, even when wrong
|
What? Bring the 411 on me? Did you read what I wrote? Don't you lump me in with right hand ramblings. I certainly did not throw you down for liking BC. I did not and have not shown support for either Bush. Sorry I don't think Clinton was the greatest guy on the planet, nor do I think GB2 has mismanaged everything. And I replied why some people think his 'affairs' had an impact on things down the road. Who won't listen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG
(Post 392802)
one month, dude. one month.
|
No. Check out the unemployment numbers. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt I commented on ‘unemployment increasing.’ It has remained pretty steady over the past 18 or so months. According to the BLS, there has been job growth since September 2003. I’m not saying it is enough, but there has been growth. Unemployment in that time has not been low enough, but it is certainly not out of control, it is a few points above what economists argue is normal unemployment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG
(Post 392802)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonzoHansen
Any economist worth his weight in pretzels knows lower tax rates leads to increased growth which leads to higher gross tax collections.
|
If the $$ saved from lower taxes gets RE-INVESTED, not SPENT
|
I agree. So stop spending instead of raising taxes. It’s happening right here in NJ. If NJ could figure that out maybe the population exodus being reported would stop. They are taxing us out. Rampant spending does not make my statement wrong. It makes the spending wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonzoHansen
And my #1 complaint with billy clinton (who had his good points) was he was a pussy driven by polls
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG
why is that a bad thing ?
isn't it "elected by the people, for the people" ?
I want my president to represent my best interests, not the best interests of Texas oil company CEO's
|
|
Again, I do not disagree on the Bush Administration & oil. However, a leader should make tough calls. Clinton failed to follow up on attacks on our citizens because he was more concerned with popularity then doing what was right. The Lewinski thing (again I disagreed with the whole thing; I could care less what he was doing) should not have impacted his decision to go after terrorists. But it did. After he left office, I heard him say that in intereviews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG
oh yeah, all the Clinton "taxes" of 92 - 00 did was lead us to a budget SURPLUS -- a surplus that Bush II squandered in 01 by giving us all a $300 check.
sure, the $300 was nice -- but I could've lived without it. especially when I'm paying TRIPLE what I should be paying for a gallon of gasoline !!
|
Yeah, none of that came because of the insane stock market prices. The Fed had more to do (blame?) for that then the central government.
Typical politics and why threads like this often suck, and talking politics in general sucks. God forbid you point out positives or negatives on either side. No one is allowed to see both sides or makes points about both sides. Which is of course exactly what the politicians want – they want us to takes sides.
|