"It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Except states like California ..., which are finanically well off while the red states slide ever backwards into economic feudalism.

Well off? Didn't Hollywood sieze control over your government recently due to economic trouble?

[DaShi]

Yes, but Cali has better looking women.

[StarLightDeath]

For some reason Florida seems to be doing pretty damn well for itself...and it doesn't even have a state income tax. Texas doesn't have a state income tax either and they aren't in trouble like California. Maybe you should just realize that socialism doesn't work and reunite with the US again?

[Odin]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath


It usually is a good speech for Europeans when they think there is something wrong with America. Can't say I blame you though, I'd look for esteem boosters too if I lived in europe.

Anyone who thinks anti-Bush = anti-America is a moron. You RWers who think it's OK for Bush to ignore the constitution are the ones who hate America.

[StarLightDeath]

You're a socialist so your very existence is a blight on America...but that's beside the point. They are anti-Bush because they don't want a strong America. They were anti-Reagan too, but they loved it when clinton sold us out and made us the lapdogs of the UN. If you ask a Euroscum who our best president ever was they will say Clinton because he didn't serve America's interests rather he served everyone else's. By the way, why don't you push for a socialist movement? I'm sure it will go over well with the vast majority of America. You guys are really doing yourselves a disservice by only posting on here. You should make your views clearly known and preferably make sure you associate yourself with the democratic party.

[Odin]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
You're a socialist so your very existence is a blight on America...but that's beside the point. They are anti-Bush because they don't want a strong America. They were anti-Reagan too, but they loved it when clinton sold us out and made us the lapdogs of the UN. If you ask a Euroscum who our best president ever was they will say Clinton because he didn't serve America's interests rather he served everyone else's. By the way, why don't you push for a socialist movement? I'm sure it will go over well with the vast majority of America. You guys are really doing yourselves a disservice by only posting on here. You should make your views clearly known and preferably make sure you associate yourself with the democratic party.

Clinton gave us a booming economy with budget surpluses. Reagan gave us Voodoo Economics (a term made by another conservative, Bush Sr).

[DaShi]

How is America stronger today than it was 8 years ago?

[StarLightDeath]

Clinton gave us a booming economy with budget surpluses. Reagan gave us Voodoo Economics (a term made by another conservative, Bush Sr).

Clinton didn't give us anything but higher taxes. The booming economy had nothing to do with Clinton or his policies. That was caused by the tech boom and Clinton's tax hikes actually slowed what could have been even bigger growth. Reagan ended the cold war and spent Russia into oblivion, not to mention he took an ailing economy and revitalized it through tax cuts.

[Sava]

[Odin]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath


Clinton didn't give us anything but higher taxes.

It's called balancing the budget, moron; something Reagan never did.

[StarLightDeath]

You balance the budget by decreasing the size of government (I know, Bush is a ***** when it comes to this) and decreasing the amount government spends (again, I'm not saying Bush is doing this). You don't do it by raising taxes which is what Clinton did and we are still dealing with them today.

[Odin]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
You balance the budget by decreasing the size of government (I know, Bush is a ***** when it comes to this) and decreasing the amount government spends (again, I'm not saying Bush is doing this). You don't do it by raising taxes which is what Clinton did and we are still dealing with them today.

You can only cut so much before you risk political suicide by touching a "3rd rail" like Social Security and Medicare. Oh, and tax cuts to the rich don't help the economy, tax cuts for the middle class and the poor (such as JFK's tax cut) do.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath

It usually is a good speech for Europeans when they think there is something wrong with America. Can't say I blame you though, I'd look for esteem boosters too if I lived in europe.

Actually, I'm half American, and left the USA 3 years ago at the outset of the war in Iraq.

I continue to think, as I stated to you once before, that you are simply offensive.

EDIT: I think it was a good speech, not because it portrayed a bleak picture of US government, but because I felt Al Gore showed inspiring leadership.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Odin


You can only cut so much before you risk political suicide by touching a "3rd rail" like Social Security and Medicare. Oh, and tax cuts to the rich don't help the economy, tax cuts for the middle class and the poor (such as JFK's tax cut) do.

No.

Tax cuts to the middleclass help win votes.

Tax cuts to the poor do literally nothing; the "poor" pay little to no taxes anyway.

Neither class are effected significantly in their spending habits by tax cuts to them, and the total dollar value to them for any realistic tax cut is fairly small to any individual; sometimes you see a small temporary boost, particularly if there's a one-time-refund sort of deal like a few years back, but there's no significant long-term benefit. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to buy your vote.

The tax cuts that have a significant effect on the economy are certain kinds of tax cuts/breaks to corporations (targetted tax breaks for investing in underpriveleged areas, for example; most of these are offered by states or municipalities), and cuts to the wealthier crowd, targetted at encouraging investment (dividend tax cuts, for example, encourage them to invest in dividend-producing stocks, rather than keeping money in a CD or similar bank-related account). No economist worth his salt would tell you that tax cuts help the economy because they give people money back. That's baloney. They help the economy because of where that money is then invested. The poor and much of the middle class don't invest much of their money, so it doesn't do anything other than give a small, one-time spike in consumption.

[Odin]

Originally posted by snoopy369


No.

Tax cuts to the middleclass help win votes.

Tax cuts to the poor do literally nothing; the "poor" pay little to no taxes anyway.

Neither class are effected significantly in their spending habits by tax cuts to them, and the total dollar value to them for any realistic tax cut is fairly small to any individual; sometimes you see a small temporary boost, particularly if there's a one-time-refund sort of deal like a few years back, but there's no significant long-term benefit. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to buy your vote.

The tax cuts that have a significant effect on the economy are certain kinds of tax cuts/breaks to corporations (targetted tax breaks for investing in underpriveleged areas, for example; most of these are offered by states or municipalities), and cuts to the wealthier crowd, targetted at encouraging investment (dividend tax cuts, for example, encourage them to invest in dividend-producing stocks, rather than keeping money in a CD or similar bank-related account). No economist worth his salt would tell you that tax cuts help the economy because they give people money back. That's baloney. They help the economy because of where that money is then invested. The poor and much of the middle class don't invest much of their money, so it doesn't do anything other than give a small, one-time spike in consumption.

Trickle-down economics has already been tried, it doesn't work.