You are the only person who likes Republicans that I've heard mention Nixon's name since 1974.

Quite frankly, I don't think the Republicans have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. The people are sick and tired of being pushed aside and ignored while the Republicans stroke and pander to big businesses who want nothing more than to suck the American wallet dry and laugh all the way to the bank.. just look at what you're paying in credit card fees alone if you have any doubts there.

BOTH parties are guilty of being deeply in the pockets of the lobbyists, and both have plenty of shame painted on them for many things. Still, I just don't think a Republican has a chance.

Originally Posted by cbwm

vote in favor of the Republicans, or that of anyone with more than a third grade education.

I have a Bachelors of science. My wife has a master's degree. I wrote out a page of factual analysis - this is a telling reply. With this kind of "facts is ivory tower horse spit fer yonder democrats" being so easy for certain people to accept, it's no wonder there are people who don't understand Steve Colbert is satire, and not a real Republican.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Newbie, I thought you burned that graph when I reminded you that it indicates the debt fell under Nixon and LBJ, both Republicans. Oh well, thanks for the reminder!

You need a reminder!

Lyndon Baines Johnson (August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973), often referred to as LBJ, was the thirty-sixth President of the United States (1963–1969). Johnson served a long career in the U.S. Congress, and in 1960 was selected by then-Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to be his running-mate. Johnson became the thirty-seventh Vice President, and in 1963, he succeeded to the presidency following Kennedy's assassination. He was a major leader of the Democratic Party and as President was responsible for designing the Great Society, comprising liberal legislation including civil rights laws, Medicare (health care for the elderly), Medicaid (health care for the poor), aid to education, and a "War on Poverty." Simultaneously, he escalated the American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 in early 1968.

If you need an encyclopedia to remember which party presidents in very recent memory belonged to, you really aren't in a very good position to be telling us what facts are and aren't.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Wasn't he the Texan who escalated that overseas war? Haha. Oops. You have to admit the graph omits Nixon, the Republican who got us out of that war.

No, you just need to open your eyes, like a 7 day old cat.



Nixon became president in 1969 and left office in 1974. This graph shows 1943 projected out to 2012. Nixon's presidency corresponds to a very minor down cycle on this graph before the period labeled "Reagan Bush Debt Buildup." You would have to be blind, willfully or blinded by the daily Talking Points, to not see that.

Yes, cbwm, isn't it amazing that the parties flip-flopped: Before Reagan the Democrats were the "warmongers" (FDR, Kennedy, LBJ) and the Republicans were the ones pushing civil rights with the "solid South" in staunch opposition. What does that have to do with this election? Show me a candidate with Republican foreign policy/Democrat domestic and fiscal policy and he/she/it will have my vote. Alas, as you are demonstrating we have become such a polarized society that it would be easier to find Sasquatch.

O what a wonderful debate!

Yes your graph is nice Newbie and that is exactly what our democratic canidates and “drive by media” will have America believe. True enough our deficits are high, but its not because of Bush’s tax cut. If you don’t mind I’ll show you the graph that democrats will not want you to see.




Bush’s’ “voodoo economics” works very well. And if was not for the enormous amount of money that we are spending on the war (that I think we can both agree we do not need) your graph would look different. Now let me ask you if a democratic candidate gets the Presidency, they will rise taxes, we will still be in a war because no matter what lies they feed people they will not be able to bring everyone home the next day, what then will happen to our national deficit?

I don't understand your comment Phil. The revenue was rising under Clinton prior to 2000.

Bush has drastically increased the national debt. I don't think anyone else could be worse in terms of making it rise (in percentages).

Taxes will go up on the top few %. Not everyone. Don't believe the FUD.

@Cheshire. See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8...axRevenues.pdf

[The Congressional Budget Office] analysis shows that the overall
increase in revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) since 2003 is
disproportionately accounted for by increases in corporate income tax revenues.

They further attribute the tax revenue increase "with the effects of legislation excluded" to be due to their profits increasing. Sounds like it's business running well. Now, that is likely in a large part due to increased revenues by defense related contractors which are being paid with borrowed money. I haven't found statistical data, though, on which business sectors have shown substantial growth in profits.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

And if was not for the enormous amount of money that we are spending on the war (that I think we can both agree we do not need) your graph would look different.

Well, just pulling out the numbers you don't like seems very drive-by to me! We wouldn't be at war if not for incompetence, so ignoring that incompetence doesn't put the money back in the account. (Yes, I did catch the Rush Limbaugh hate speech.)

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

..they will rise taxes, we will still be in a war because no matter what lies they feed people they will not be able to bring everyone home the next day, what then will happen to our national deficit?

First, your assumption is wrong. None of the top-tier candidates are saying that the trooops will be home "the next day." Most are saying combat troops out in a year. But, throwing that error aside and considering "...they will rise taxes...what then will happen to our national deficit?" Well, it's definitely a shock given the last decade of death and borrowing to pay for everything, but when you make more money and spend it properly, you will then pay down your debts. I saw a number somewhere (can't recall, so it may be off), that claimed that we spent $406 billion on interest payments alone. How might all these graphs change without such debt payments?

Originally Posted by joder

I don't understand your comment Phil. The revenue was rising under Clinton prior to 2000.

Good catch! When trying to do a drive-by, never let your opponent see the whole picture -- you might miss the shot! And he was accusing others of being the drive-by media ... apparently we're seeing that Limbaugh has been blinding his own followers. Well, not much of a surprise there.

People's quality of life is more important than the economy IMO. The poor have suffered under Bush and under the capitalism of the late 90s and 2000s. What is needed is someone who can put money into healthcare and education and start to improve social mobility. This is one of the most important aspects of education - allowing any individual to achieve their best.

Tax increases are needed to improve education and ensure that the economy is healthy in the VERY LONG TERM. That should be a focus, rather than a short term tax cut.

Originally Posted by whym

People's quality of life is more important than the economy IMO. The poor have suffered under Bush and under the capitalism of the late 90s and 2000s. What is needed is someone who can put money into healthcare and education and start to improve social mobility. This is one of the most important aspects of education - allowing any individual to achieve their best.

Tax increases are needed to improve education and ensure that the economy is healthy in the VERY LONG TERM. That should be a focus, rather than a short term tax cut.

Great points. These are the areas, in fact, where I withdraw my usually-unfettered support of capitalism. I am willing to be taxed to ensure an intelligent, healthy community. I am also willing to say that paying such taxes ought to be a condition of being part of our society.

A long-term view is hard for most humans to properly consider -- they consider only their short life. It's encouraging to see those who can see beyond their own lifespan. (aside: I have always admired the ancients who built the pyramids and other structures for their long-term thinking, though the means did not justify the ends if via enslavement.)

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

A long-term view is hard for most humans to properly consider -- they consider only their short life.

That's true for most people - the Japanese seem to do a good job of thinking miles ahead of the game though - they build infrastructure and a society for the future, hence why they remain a global power. We should all take a leaf out of their book when thinking about how to run a country - investing miles into the future can be highly beneficial (examples of this are their expensive, but ultimately beneficial high speed broadband networks, or their bullet trains).

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

I'm much more a proponent of paying for things as you go than passing the buck.

So am I. Then again, there is also a time to borrow, like when you go to war. Bush inherited a bankrupt economy and has held it together for seven years despite a successful terrorist attack at one of our financial centers which nearly bankrupt our Airline and Insurance sectors. People like to forget this because they dislike him, but it doesn't change the truth of it.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

They further attribute the tax revenue increase "with the effects of legislation excluded" to be due to their profits increasing. Sounds like it's business running well. Now, that is likely in a large part due to increased revenues by defense related contractors which are being paid with borrowed money. I haven't found statistical data, though, on which business sectors have shown substantial growth in profits.

What, defense contract money is no good? Mind you, I'm not a fan of the government being the country's largest employer, but in a time of war, the boost to the economy is a nice side effect.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

We wouldn't be at war if not for incompetence, so ignoring that incompetence doesn't put the money back in the account.

You lost me there. Osama is incompetent? We wouldn't have been at war if we didn't invade Iraq? Did you forget about Afghanistan? Maybe it's just me, but IMO, if we hadn't erroneously invaded Iraq, I find it likely we would have invaded Pakistan just for good measure. We may get around to that yet.

Originally Posted by joder

I don't understand your comment Phil. The revenue was rising under Clinton prior to 2000.

Bush has drastically increased the national debt. I don't think anyone else could be worse in terms of making it rise (in percentages).

Taxes will go up on the top few %. Not everyone. Don't believe the FUD.

1) Clinton Revenue = Web 1.0 bubble and in no way reflects on Clinton's financial genius.

2) The national Debt during the WWII ramp up was pretty much the same.

3) Removal of the Bush tax cuts increases taxes on anyone with a pension plan or savings. Granted the rich will pay more in terms of real dollars, but everyone who has savings will pay.

Originally Posted by whym

Tax increases are needed to improve education and ensure that the economy is healthy in the VERY LONG TERM. That should be a focus, rather than a short term tax cut.

As the Cat's chart shows, raising taxes does not equal more more tax revenues, regardless of what you want to spend it on. If anything makes sense, it is another tax cut.

Originally Posted by cbwm

As the Cat's chart shows, raising taxes does not equal more more tax revenues, regardless of what you want to spend it on. If anything makes sense, it is another tax cut.

How on earth do you work that out?! More tax increases = more tax revenue - it's simple! If you want a privatize education, why not start a party and propose this. IMO, for society to be somewhat fair, companies (which are only self interested in the end) should be out of education entirely (as in no private schools at all) and also out of healthcare - this is not impossible as our NHS system has been around for about 60 years providing the general populace with free health care.

I work it out as follows:

10% of $100,000 > 40% of $20,000. Didn't you ever play Sim City?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Maybe it's just me, but IMO, if we hadn't erroneously invaded Iraq, I find it likely we would have invaded Pakistan just for good measure. We may get around to that yet.

We'll never invade Pakistan. Barak Obama was talking about doing just that, a few months before Bhutto's murder. Mushy is one of GWB's closest friends. That's not Bush's fault, though - Pakistan is an obedient ally in a corner of the world where we aren't popular. They've shown us support time and time again, going back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We owe them for that, and our close "friendship" helps paint us as not an enemy of Islam.

Plus, they have nukes. Again, I don't know why a Pakistani nuke is less dangerous than an Iranian one, since the Iranians bought their technology from AQ Khan, but that's another story.

Originally Posted by cbwm

1) Clinton Revenue = Web 1.0 bubble and in no way reflects on Clinton's financial genius.

That was a slice of the largest financial boom in American history, yes.

I think privately-paid-for education and health care is a good idea. Education & health care should be available for all who want it. I hated being stuck in classes with dopes who didn't want to try and wasted instructors' time as I was there to learn. Health care needs to be tightly controlled - publicly or privately - to stop people who abuse it's services with imagined sicknesses (can't recall what that's called right now). I would like to see the FDA gone, though, for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that common medicines can't be purchased but by going to a doctor whose knowledge isn't always necessary. Not having any insurance myself, I'll just let my body deal with issues that I know a few meds could fix b/c I'm not willing to pay a doctor just for permission to buy what I know I need. Ultimately, I'm sure I'll one day get really sick, be unable to afford that and then the govt will have to step in whereas I could have probably fixed it myself w/o a doctor but for that limitation...I've been reading the constitution and just can't find where such an entity as the FDA is even allowed -- to regulate commerce? Doesn't look like they're regulating commerce to me as much as killing people.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I work it out as follows:

10% of $100,000 > 40% of $20,000. Didn't you ever play Sim City?

Yes I understand that (and as a matter of fact I have played Sim City 4).

Lowering taxes is not sustainable - short term tax breaks may easy the economy but if it is heading for a economic meltdown, you might as well be over it. Personal (and national) debt has grown and this needs to be taken out of the American system sooner or later - cheap loans and mortgages got you into this problem and aren't going to solve the situation. Keeping the interest rate steady (or rising it) may be painful but it has to be done to slow down borrowing and the economy and ensure that people begin to pay back their debt rather than get themselves deeper into it!

Investing in education is also a primary concern - if you want to be a serious economic power in 2030 or 2040, then you'll need plenty of well educated people to keep the economy stable. Cutting down now or failing to invest may be a temporary relief but in the long term, it'll be the downfall of the US economy (or any economy that doesn't invest a sensible amount of money to improve social mobility etc.)

Dan

By the way, privatized education = total destruction of social mobility. The rich can pay for a good education while the poor go to the equally poorly funded state schools.

Grammar schools, although not popular, did generally allow those who wanted to succeed and worked hardest to get somewhere. Education needs to absorb a major amount of national funding, not just for the benefit of the economy but for the benefit of the individual. It should be noted that the USA spends as much on it's military in a day, that the UK spends on it's military in a whole year! Maybe you can see where all your taxes are going now...

You may not believe this Daniel, but I agree that Education and Social Mobility are primary concerns for any nation that expects to be a real player in the new world economy. I think the U.S. has traditionally done very well on these counts, which has been one of the primary motivators for Immigrants legal and otherwise. I also am a strong believer in fiscal responsibility.

I would answer your statement that lowering taxes is unsustainable with the comment, raising taxes is unsustainable. The idea of raising or lowering is only relative to where you are today. Most certainly we have a higher federal tax rate today than we did in 1776, by a long shot.

Privatized education = Why people come to America to get educated. Not being a communist state, we will always have privatized education, no matter how much funding our state schools receive. Given that, there will always be a group of rich kids getting a better education at all levels then the poor kids. Personally, I'm a fan of an optional voucher system where, with a little money and the tax dollars I would already be contributing, my kid can get the same quality of education the richer kids are getting.