1776-2000 1.01t, 2000-2004 1.05t

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


We've actually been paying off our debt over the last decade. WTF have you guys been up to, you crazy mother****ers?

Buying Celine Dion recordings, watching Canadian actors impersonate Americans in American television series, and whacking off to Canadian Pamela Anderson's unofficial sex tapes.

Canada- the stealth invader.

[Saras]

Celine Dion

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Saras
Celine Dion

Ah yes, the Celine Cuisine Diet- listening to her recording of 'Titanic's' theme tune induces projectile vomiting.

[Saras]

Much better than Atkins or South Beach

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Saras
Much better than Atkins or South Beach

But hell on the enamel, and awkward in cinemas.

[Saras]

[Pekka]

Wait a minute.. what's the point of this? I mean, what needs to be done is not tax cuts but raising taxes just a bit. So, this scenario goes that people are fed up with this spending and everything else, thus vote for Dems. They don't give tax cuts anymore, but the opposite to counter these massive spendings. People get tired of those tax raising bozos because Republicans attack it by saying taxes are from Satan, and while doing that, the economy actually revives a little bit, and then you get Republicans back in power and they'll basically give tax cuts and run the figures high again.

Then they'll give you (Republicans) estimations on paper how they would have given tax cuts, and this is how much money you would have made more because of that (despite the economy going to ****ters overall). This makes people think, woaaah, this much more money? What are this Dems doing! Then Dems come back and defend it saying it's a long term solution but they have already lost it because the word is out there, because it's not necessary to prove you're guilty, accusation leaves damages enough.

Then Republicans say we give more tax cuts to rich people so that the economy overall does better, but where does that leave middle class and poor people? In the crapper. The Dems are not helping middle class and poor people either, because they have to revive the national economy after the big spendings and tax cuts to rich folks, because they might think well that increases the economy overall, thus gives more tax money to go around, thus gives way more bang for your buck and help everyone that way.

But you know this is BS, right? I mean, you guys do know this?

I mean this is only hypothetical scenario of how this could go, kind of funny if it wasn't so stupid. Let's hope this is not the way it goes.

[GePap]

From whom is Bush supposed to borrow from? Americans don't save, so of course its going to be from those funny foreigners that we will have to borrow.

[BlackCat]

Surely this is the end of US - raising the tax with one or maybe two percent certainly will kill this Atlantis in spe.

Please stop the whining - it's quite annoying to hear over here.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by GePap
Americans don't save . . .

But the richer ones do buy tax-free government bonds.

[Odin]

Bush's crap is sending us in the red...

... and still the theologians of Neoliberalism think that cutting taxes will increase revenue.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It really doesn't take a genius to see that cutting taxes while spending insane amounts of money on the military is going to end up sending you into the red...

Does anybody still remember the rationale behind the tax cuts when Bush first came into office?


You know, the ones based on 10 YEAR PROJECTIONS of increased revenue every year?

These were the ABSOLUTE WORST projections I have ever seen. They were the equivalent of the dot com companies that were putting out 300% increases in revenue projections every year.

It was absolutley absurd, and then we had politicians actually arguing for a saftey valve to be put into effect in case tax revenues actually slipped and we could not afford the tax cut. And they pretty much got shut down.

This is where Bush started to lose me.

That tax cut was absolutley incompetent.

[KrazyHorse]

Bush et al cut taxes as an almost religious policy.

And the dependence on foreign credit is not being aided by the American public, who seem to be content to spend more than they earn.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ted Striker



Does anybody still remember the rationale behind the tax cuts when Bush first came into office?


You know, the ones based on 10 YEAR PROJECTIONS of increased revenue every year?

These were the ABSOLUTE WORST projections I have ever seen. They were the equivalent of the dot com companies that were putting out 300% increases in revenue projections every year.

It was absolutley absurd, and then we had politicians actually arguing for a saftey valve to be put into effect in case tax revenues actually slipped and we could not afford the tax cut. And they pretty much got shut down.

This is where Bush started to lose me.

That tax cut was absolutley incompetent.

And yet people get Nobel prizes in economics for spouting this BS.


Neo-liberal A-holes:

If there is a Hell, Friedman and Hayek are burning in it.

[Ted Striker]

You're right, it's part of their idealology whether or not it actually makes sense in a particular situation.

I would happily trade in my tax break, and think the tax cuts for the rich should be rolled back completely. Only the poor should keep their tax cuts.