Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie at Work on January 30, 2002, 12:48:22 PM
-
I watched the whole dang thing even Gephardts response. I thought the speech was OK[/i]. His delivery was off to me and it made it hard for me to follow him because my roommate and I would cringe and start yelling at the TV. To me it looked like he was reading faster than the teleprompter which caused him to "run out of words". The congress interupted him too many times w/ applause too! I like the overall message of the speech and agree with probobly 99% of it, who'd a thunk it :rolleyes:
I was left with a general overall feeling of anger and disgust at the congress, more so the Senate than the House. I was happy to see his little dig at the Senate too :) What a bunch of hipocrites! Everytime he'd talk about anything bipartisan, like um helping our nation get through the recession, they'd all start clapping. The camera would pan around the room and you could tell by the looks on their faces they knew that starting today (really last night) it would be back to the same old crap. Our congress sux real bad, that goes out to both parties. I honestly wonder if there are ever 2 or 3 in the group that truely know what the hell they talk about. Most of my anger is pointed at Dashle and the Senate, since he decided that they should all go on Christmas break instead of simply voting on the economic stimulass thing. Then the next week Dashle went on the attack blaming Bush for the recession. Same ole same ol. I've already heard Democrats today talking about "tax cuts for the wealthy" God that argument's old.
One other feeling I'm left with is the happiness of FINALLY[/i][/u] having a person in the White House who means what he says, does what he says and has respect for the office he holds, even if he doesn't have the best speech delivery ability....
-
I like the fact we have someone in there now that knows the difference between good and evil and is not afraid to use the "God" word.
-
I was bored and channel surfing ... I saw your President yapping at a bunch of fat people in suits and paused to watch.
I was amused with the whole group getting up and applausing after every point he was making. ALL of them would clap when he discussed military spending, fighting taliban, education.
BUT you could see a defiinate division in the room when he discussed tax cuts, and anything to do with getting the economy going. Half would stand and clap ... the rest would sit on their hands and mumble to themselves.
I'm not up to speed on the American Government, but I like what I saw.
A few Questions:
1. How much longer can the US spend a Billion dollars an month and not have to raise your taxes?
2. How do you folks with kids feel about them having to spend two years in service to your country? My thoughts were...I'd be concerned for their saftey with all the trouble spots around the world.
3. What was he talking about when he mentioned working with Kennedy on some project?
I liked the fact that he will increase spending towards gathering Intelligence, and maintining security at the borders. I hope he squeakslaps our Prime Minister into doing the same thing.
-
Originally posted by skernsk
I was bored and channel surfing ... I saw your President yapping at a bunch of fat people in suits and paused to watch.
hehehe about the same feeling I had watching the congress.
I was amused with the whole group getting up and applausing after every point he was making. ALL of them would clap when he discussed military spending, fighting taliban, education.
Yeah it's all pomp and circumstance, bloated hipocrites trying to show the country they really do care, to be fair I'm sure a few do.
BUT you could see a defiinate division in the room when he discussed tax cuts, and anything to do with getting the economy going. Half would stand and clap ... the rest would sit on their hands and mumble to themselves.
Democrats with never comprimise on tax cuts unlessed forced to by a bad election.
I'm not up to speed on the American Government, but I like what I saw.
Neither are most of us down here :) I wonder if most even know what they saw. :D Tongue in cheek
A few Questions:
1. How much longer can the US spend a Billion dollars an month and not have to raise your taxes?
John Kenedy and Ronny Raygun both proved that lowering tax rates increases revenue, through expanded growth due to more capital in the market place. Also there is PLENTY of fat to trim off the budget, oops that's the congress' job probobly won't happen.
2. How do you folks with kids feel about them having to spend two years in service to your country? My thoughts were...I'd be concerned for their saftey with all the trouble spots around the world.
That's voluntary not required.
3. What was he talking about when he mentioned working with Kennedy on some project?
Education reform bill, neither got exactly what they wanted. BUT :D middle ground was reached and passed, bout the only good thing they did last year.
I liked the fact that he will increase spending towards gathering Intelligence, and maintining security at the borders. I hope he squeakslaps our Prime Minister into doing the same thing.
You guys ever want to be the 51st or 52nd we will welcome you with open arms, just make sure to pay your taxes :D
-
Originally posted by skernsk
BUT you could see a defiinate division in the room when he discussed tax cuts, and anything to do with getting the economy going. Half would stand and clap ... the rest would sit on their hands and mumble to themselves.
Yeah. We call this "unity". :)
"1. How much longer can the US spend a Billion dollars an month and not have to raise your taxes? "
Probably forever... that's only $12 Billion per year. We're used to TRILLION dollar defecits in recent past. :)
"2. How do you folks with kids feel about them having to spend two years in service to your country?"
That isn't what he asked for.
From the White House site:
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced his plan to launch the new USA Freedom Corps a comprehensive, integrated citizen service initiative. The USA Freedom Corps includes three major programs:
A new Citizen Corps to engage citizens directly in improving homeland security
An improved and enhanced AmeriCorps and Senior Corps
A strengthened Peace Corps
All of these elements of the "Freedom Corps" are made up of Volunteers
"3. What was he talking about when he mentioned working with Kennedy on some project?"
He and Ted agreed and promoted the recent Education Act. Like it or not, at least the Executive and the Legislative actually DID something!
That's getting to be rare enough. ;)
-
Originally posted by skernsk
I'm not up to speed on the American Government, but I like what I saw.
A few Questions:
1. How much longer can the US spend a Billion dollars an month and not have to raise your taxes?
About 9 Years following the Reagan Plan lol
Now I have a question for you about Canadian
Polotics:
Do you guys use a single member district plurality
system for electing people to your Parliament?
-Sikboy
-
Executive and the Legislative actually DID something!"
Dashhole has FIFTY pieces of legislation setting on his desk, that he is effectively blocking.
-
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 2000 (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm)
Or you can take a look at the Public Debt over the last 50 years and draw your own conclusions about whether or not it was just Reagan. :D
Or take a look at THESE years... of course, our taxes went UP in these years but it seems the Public Debt still went up.. hmmmmmmm
Date/ Public Debt
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
:D
Let me see... two methods...
Debt increases and taxes go DOWN
or
Debt increases and taxes go UP
Which do you choose? :D
It's all smoke, mirrors and black magic anyway.
-
Do you guys use a single member district plurality
WTF does this mean?:)
-
Yeah, Easy.. that's what makes the Education thing such a memorable event.
They actually passed something that might help.
Amazing, isn't it? ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
[Or you can take a look at the Public Debt over the last 50 years and draw your own conclusions about whether or not it was just Reagan. :D
Or take a look at THESE years... of course, our taxes went UP in these years but it seems the Public Debt still went up.. hmmmmmmm
I don't get it Toad, we almost always seem to agree on things, but you're always misconstuing my posts.
I wasn't bashing Reagan for his budgetary policy, that was just the longest stretch of increased spending W/O any sort of Tax increase that I could think of. leaving the Sr. Bush holding the baby so to speak, was the joke (the 9th year being on his watch). I really don't comunicate well on these things lol.
-Sikboy.
-
Originally posted by skernsk
WTF does this mean?:)
Yeah, I saw that one coming back at me....
It means: In Canada, when they elect MPs, do they divide the nation into individual districts, then elect ONE person to represent each district. And if so, does a person need a majority of all the votes cast (51%+) or simply more votes than anyone else?
-Sikboy
-
My mistake then... I thought you were leading into the old Regan deficits/supply side thing.
I guess my point is.. look at that Public Debt chart. 1950-2000... see any years where the debt was ZERO?
Nope.
Hey, it's a traditional US thing.
;)
-
It means: In Canada, when they elect MPs, do they divide the nation into individual districts, then elect ONE person to represent each district. And if so, does a person need a majority of all the votes cast (51%+) or simply more votes than anyone else?
We have the REP by POP mentality. Representation by population. In other words if you live in a more populated area you have more MP's.
Canada is divided into 301 electoral districts or ridings. Voters in each riding elect one member of parliament (MP) to send to the House of Commons. (The Senate in Canada is not an elected body.)
The party that wins the most ridings is asked by the Governor General to form the government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. If the party wins in more than 150 ridings, it will have a majority government, which makes it much easier to get legislation passed in the House. If the winning party has fewer than 151 seats, it forms a minority government. In order to get legislation through the House, a minority government usually has to adjust policies to get enough votes from MPs of other parties.
The party that has the second highest number of seats in the House of Commons is called the Official Opposition.
-
I'm now worried. Lots of talk about spending and in the same breath more talk about tax cuts.
Where does Dubya think this money is coming from?
Social Security?
Oh yeah... that's where he's gettin' it.
-
Hey Sikboy, they don't need a majority, just more then the next guy.
$5,656,270,901,615.43?? Heheh, that's like saying a million bajillion dollars.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Social Security?
Oh yeah... that's where he's gettin' it.
Let's be fair here. Daschle is/was the first one since the recent election to propose cracking open the Social Security lock box.
That would be Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader. Democrat. :)
He proposed that anyone that didn't pay income tax should also not have to pay the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. They would still get full benefits of both programs, however. Therefore, their benefits and "premiums" as it were would be coming straight out of the old Social Security lock box.
So far, Bush has NOT proposed using SS lockbox money.
He said in last night's speech that there would be a deficit budget, however.
See the chart in the Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 2000 link in the post up-thread. Nothing new here, is there?
:D
-
Daschle ain't the guy wearing the big hat.
-
Skernsk,
Are Canadian elections held in Downtown Canada? Do all 4 people vote at once?
:D
-
Whooo... that'll leave a mark.
-
Yeah, I know. Thank Cod.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Debt increases and taxes go DOWN
or
Debt increases and taxes go UP
Which do you choose? :D
I think the proper way to frame this would be to say:
Debt increases a little bit when taxes go up.
or
Debt increases A LOT when taxes go down.
I was reading about this the other day, actually, and under Reagan the debt increased at a percentage rate of growth almost twice as much as any other president in history. He "enjoyed" an average annual growth in debt of about 23% compared to Gerald Ford, who came in a distant second place at about 15% increase per year. Those numbers under Clinton appear to hover around an average growth of 5%.
Incidentally, the annual interest paid on the debt right now is about $350 billion, more than we spend on our military. That's about 3-4% of GDP. Ouch.
Unfortunately, Udie, "Reaganomics" did not produce increases in revenue for reasons discussed in other threads (increase in money does not necessarily increase demand, nor does it necessarily offset higher taxes with increased income or productivity), and in fact it created massive budget shortfalls. These coupled with massive increases in defense spending led to record growth in the national debt.
Of course, whether or not this was a price worth paying to win the Cold War is up for another discussion elsewhere. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
real funny Target. You should try to get a copy of Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans :D Any other Canucks that watch "this hour has 22 minutes" will know what I'm talking about. Next time its on I'm taping it for sure. (I can do that now that we've legalized VCR's :D )
newguy
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I think the proper way to frame this would be to say:
Debt increases a little bit when taxes go up.
or
Debt increases A LOT when taxes go down.
I was reading about this the other day, actually, and under Reagan the debt increased at a percentage rate of growth almost twice as much as any other president in history. He "enjoyed" an average annual growth in debt of about 23% compared to Gerald Ford, who came in a distant second place at about 15% increase per year. Those numbers under Clinton appear to hover around an average growth of 5%.
Incidentally, the annual interest paid on the debt right now is about $350 billion, more than we spend on our military. That's about 3-4% of GDP. Ouch.
Unfortunately, Udie, "Reaganomics" did not produce increases in revenue for reasons discussed in other threads (increase in money does not necessarily increase demand, nor does it necessarily offset higher taxes with increased income or productivity), and in fact it created massive budget shortfalls. These coupled with massive increases in defense spending led to record growth in the national debt.
Of course, whether or not this was a price worth paying to win the Cold War is up for another discussion elsewhere. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
And just what role does the congress play in all of this? Afterall the congress controls spending right? I'm still waiting to hear 1 democrat admit that the congress went haywire on spending in the 80's, Reps and Dems alike. Sure the president signed the bills into law, but the congress is who porked them up with defecits. His tax cuts did have an effect too, if i rember right (I was a kid then) I remember that we came out of a recession just after the cuts. The Democrats controlled congress then right? I think the Republicans had the senate for 2 years, but the rest of the time it was the donkey running the show in the congress.
You talk about 5% debt growth under Clinton. What was it durring his first 2 years compaired to after the 94 elections when the Reps took the congress? That's not just coinsidence that the Republicans controlled spending when the budget was ballanced for the first time in 30 years. I guess it's a whole lot easier to just blame Raygun huh. That's an intellectually dishonest thing to do. Reagan bares some of the responsibility, maybe even half since he signed the bills, but no way in Hell should he be pegged with 100% of the blame. And yes the increase in military spending was worth winning the cold war. Though no screw or toilet seat was or is worth $5000 :)
Come on democrats throw me a bone here, admit congress' roll in the debt from the 80's, yeah big chance of that happening....:rolleyes:
-
The President submits a budget to congress, congress suggests changes, the president either makes some changes or says "screw you." If the latter we might wind up like in 1995(?) and have a government shutdown because of failure to come to an agreement. The trick with the Reagan budget is that he was elected with such a mandate, that I don't think congress thought it too wise to argue. So in a sense, the Voters got the budget they wanted, and the results are their fault.
-Sikboy
PS: Can anyone thing of "Voodoo Economics" Without thinking of Ben Stein?
-
From the same thread the other numbers came from,
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm)
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
These are the Reagan/Bush1 years right?
Looks like Public Debt was LOWER. :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Skernsk,
Are Canadian elections held in Downtown Canada? Do all 4 people vote at once?
:D
LOL! No only 2 out of the 4 show up, BUT all four will squeak and complain AFTER the election is wrapped up:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by skernsk
LOL! No only 2 out of the 4 show up, BUT all four will squeak and complain AFTER the election is wrapped up:rolleyes:
ahhhh.. So it IS like a US election except a higher percentage actually vote up there. ;)
-
Originally posted by Udie at Work
And just what role does the congress play in all of this? Afterall the congress controls spending right? I'm still waiting to hear 1 democrat admit that the congress went haywire on spending in the 80's, Reps and Dems alike.
[/B]
Congress, especially the House under O'Neill's leadership, went absolutely nuts with cutting taxes and increasing spending under Reagan. Republicans and Democrats alike share responsibility for the massive debt burden from the 1980s. However, there's also no doubt that such freewheeling occurred in part due to Reagan's highly effective legislative agenda when he came into office. Only Lyndon Johnson shows a similarly high level of achieving his policy objectives, but he did it with an unprecedented partisan advantage in Congress. That Reagan was able to accomplish this during divided government speaks well to his abilities as the Great Communicator, and it suggests a finely-honed political sense for which most don't give him enough credit.
You talk about 5% debt growth under Clinton. What was it durring his first 2 years compaired to after the 94 elections when the Reps took the congress? That's not just coinsidence that the Republicans controlled spending when the budget was ballanced for the first time in 30 years. I guess it's a whole lot easier to just blame Raygun huh. That's an intellectually dishonest thing to do. Reagan bares some of the responsibility, maybe even half since he signed the bills, but no way in Hell should he be pegged with 100% of the blame.
[/B]
I wasn't pegging Reagan with 100% of the blame. However, his policies, enacted by a willing Congress, certainly had a lot to do with the ballooning budget deficits and unprecedented growth in the national debt. You're being naive if you believe that presidents don't have a powerful place in the budget-making process. The Executive Branch even has its own accounting and budget projection office around which it bases the annual budget that it submits to Congress. The president is the single most important actor in the entire budget process, and presidents deserve both credit and scorn for effective or ineffective fiscal policies. It's not surprising that the state of the economy is the single greatest predictor of several political events: How well the incumbent president does in a reelection bid, and how well his party does during the midterm elections.
And yes the increase in military spending was worth winning the cold war. Though no screw or toilet seat was or is worth $5000 :)
[/B]
Hey, keep this in another thread! :)
Come on democrats throw me a bone here, admit congress' roll in the debt from the 80's, yeah big chance of that happening....
Well, I can't speak for Democrats since I'm not one, but Congress certainly deserves some of the blame. With that in mind, it's curious how Democrats got stuck with the "tax and spend" label when it should instead be "cut taxes and spend." ;)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Toad
[BThese are the Reagan/Bush1 years right?
Looks like Public Debt was LOWER. :D [/B]
Nice try, Toad. ;)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Well, I can't speak for Democrats since I'm not one, but Congress certainly deserves some of the blame. With that in mind, it's curious how Democrats got stuck with the "tax and spend" label when it should instead be "cut taxes and spend." ;)
-- Todd/Leviathn
Thanks for the bone :) just wish you were a Dem so I could quit waiting for them to admit it. :) BTW I agree with your post just didn't want to quote all of it.
For sure Raygun (thanks weaz that's a funny name) set the agenda. BUT if, and yes it's a freaking huge if, congress had controlled itself maybe the budget could have come in ballanced? or not as bloated. I know Ron still signed them which is why I'm willing to give him part of the blame. I guess I am nieve, I still to this day expect elected officials to actualy do what we send them there to do. God only knows how I got that stupid idea in my head.
That said, big huge freakingly large S![/i] to President Bush. So far as I can tell, he's done everything he said he would durring the campaign. He hasn't gotten it all through, but considering that he only had 49.99999999999999999% of the vote I think he's done a remarkable job of getting his agenda through a divided congress (thanks jeffords you salamander). Nice to have somebody with honor in there for a change.
-
Hey, I didn't make up the numbers... those are from a quasi-official Public Debt site.
Numbers don't lie, do they? ;)