Topic awaiting preservation: Any comments on this? (Page 1 of 1)

"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." - A. J. Liebling (1904 - 1963)

Just a confimation of what I thought...Maybe the Iraqi oil will refund him ? Hehe but that's another topic.

Edit : Hey I didn't noticed but Mr. Bush is the most loosing money president of this document ! Good performance !

Silence is another speech. -Me

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 02-23-2003).]

I'm hardly surprised. Can we get Clinton back?

Sweet sig mahj.

makes me wonder what Bill was doing while he wasn't spending our money.
or should i rather ask "who"?
hehehe

Outcydr I should say that what you said was a shot under the belt

Silence is another speech. -Me

I'd rather have a president who got a little head in the oval office, than one that makes enemies with the rest of the world.

Sure the economy had gone down the crapper, we're on the verge of going to war, we've lost a signicifcant amount of jobs, our leader still can't get the names of Europe's leaders correct ... but he isn't having oral sex.

Jestah

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 02-23-2003).]

i somehow don't think a blowjob is going to save the world......

mw...that doesn't suprise me in the least! i voted for c*****n and was very happy with the job he did! on the other hand, i also voted for bush jr. and knew the risks in doing so lol
i just get concerned with the idea that we're spending billions on national defense, going to spend billions going to war, then billions rebuilding after the war. just where exactly is all this money going to come from??

quote:

---

i somehow don't think a blowjob is going to save the world......

---

I think you underestimate the power...

Surplus... silly... that means we were taxed so much that they had more money then they knew what to do with... If that c*****n dude would have let us keep more of our money, we would have spent it... keeping the economy nice and happy and from crashing as badly as it did. The Past president directly effects the economy under the next president... It is a bit if a delayed effect.


                                   

~volunteers to save the world~

Iz. Clinton was there for 8 years. One would've thought that the economic effects of his presidency would've kicked in earlier.

(On the other hand, he also was lucky to have America in a stable situation to begin with)

If this is your way of making some politically motivated point, MW, then why don't you just come out and say it?

If, on the other hand, you actually want to understand why the graph looks like that perhaps a course in economics might help?

But I have a feeling you want to talk politics so let me give you the party line from the right. Congress is the only branch authorized to spend money and the Dems held control of it for 40 years marking the beginning the down turn in the graph. Ronal Reagan came along and cut taxes dramatically during the 80's *and* spent a bunch on winning the Cold War *however* the increase in the economy due to the tax cuts actually resulted in higher government revenue as you can see on the graph. Then Bush #41 agreed with the Dems to raise taxes, remember "read my lips", this induced a minor recession and led to his downfall. So C*****n takes over and raises taxes even higher and things looked pretty grim the first couple of years so the country actually gives control of Congress to the Republicans in 1994. The fiscal responsibility imposed on C*****n by Newt's Congress combined with the internet tech bubble saved C*****n's butt big time but after the tech bubble burst shortly before the end of his second term the recession began, yes, Bush #43 inherited the recession. So Bush #43 lowers taxes and now we are actually out of the recession but there was this little thing called a war that started, you might recall, in 2001 so that has the markets very shaky until more confidence returns. Did I leave anything out? I can't wait to hear your take.

. . : slicePuzzle

off topic....bugimus and eyezaer....why do you never spell out c*****n's name? is it a total loathing of him or will you finger tips catch fire for typing it out? am just curious...so thought i'd ask.

Bugimus: Thank you for the economics course - Sounds pretty convincing, if there are any flaws in your explanation, they´d need to be found by someone who knows more about the history and present of US domestic policies than me.

Just one question: Do you think there´s a point where a government should not increase the deficit any further?
I´m asking because in germany something like 10% of our taxes are used just to pay the interest rates for our enormous deficit.

Lacuna; Clinton is actually automatically censored, like f**k and a*****e and a*********************************d.

C*****n.

edit:
1. seems like fuck isn't censored at all.
2. oh, and I don't have any clue about economics (not much anyway), so I'll stay out of this discussion.



[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 02-24-2003).]

Lacuna, I don't loathe Clinton the man as he seems a very likable sort of person. I just think he was a horrible leader for this country. What I did loathe were many of his policies and how much damage they caused. Typing Clinton is automatically censored just like mahjqa said.

MW, that wasn't and economics course because I don't claim to understand economics. What I did give you was the political position of the right wing in this country. I'm not sure anyone really understands economics because it seems more like magic than anything else.

Generally, I am against high deficits and that is why I laugh when Democrats in this country complain about them because they never seem to care unless a Republican is in office. But I don't mind deficits during time of war because that is the first priority of government -- to protect its citizens.

As far as your economics system goes. I really don't think socialism is a healthy form of economics. It totally takes away from your prosperity and growth. From what I understand the taxes are so high in most European countries that business can barely operate. I believe it is much better to keep taxes no more than 15% of anyone's income and let business do what it does best. Then we ride that engine of economic growth and use it to benefit more people than if we kept the economic growth down by high tax rates.

"... our leader still can't get the names of Europe's leaders correct ... but he isn't having oral sex."

Probably because he thinks that oral sex means talking about it, and some of those words could be really tough to pronounce.


// please don't blame me, I voted 'Green'

Thank you so very very very much for voting Green Gore would have been too much for me to take

not that it really matters at this point, but did Bush actually get elected or appointed?


//I wish I had a brother in Florida...

[This message has been edited by norm (edited 02-24-2003).]

If it wasn't for Nader we wouldn't even be asking that question. The exact same thing happened to Bush #41. If Perot hadn't run Bush would have been reelected. It's politics, it happens.

and don't forget that d****************************************************************************************************c is censored to...

quote:

---

As far as your economics system goes. I really don't think socialism is a healthy form of economics.

---

Well, socialism was the system in the DDR, eastern germany before 89, so I agree that this was not the right thing Our "Social Democrats" (SPD) OTOH are more like your Democrats - a bit more left than the conservatives (Just like in the US, the times of a "worker´s party" are long gone).


[quotes]It totally takes away from your prosperity and growth. From what I understand the taxes are so high in most European countries that business can barely operate. I believe it is much better to keep taxes no more than 15% of anyone's income and let business do what it does best. Then we ride that engine of economic growth and use it to benefit more people than if we kept the economic growth down by high tax rates.[/quote]I don´t know how it compares to the US situation, but taxes seem indeed very high, and every week they come out with new plans to rise them. I agree that this is more than stupid in the current situation of an overall weak economy (if we had elections now, the conservatives would gain absolute majority, according to the weekly polls).

The problem, and that´s what people over here seem to have forgotten, is that in the 16! years from 82 to 98 when the conservatives (CDU) were in power, they promised to lower the taxes before every re-election and did the opposite afterwards (politicians are the same worldwide, it seems). And they still left the new government a record-deficit.

Anyways, I don´t think it has to go as far as socialism, but I am not convinced that if you lose your job you should be left out in the cold with no real social security and healthcare whatsoever. Am I mis-informed or is it basically like that in the US?

quote:

---

Anyways, I don´t think it has to go as far as socialism, but I am not convinced that if you lose your job you should be left out in the cold with no real social security and healthcare whatsoever. Am I mis-informed or is it basically like that in the US?

---

This a partial explanation of our taxes... Well I am not really aware of that but in France I think they are arround 7%. It may seems high to you Americans BUT there are explanations. We have the best health system in the world. Why ? Because many of this money is used to pay to EVERYONE FREE aids. Everyone, from the poorest homeless to the richest man is healed for free. This is one of the differences between our countrys...

Silence is another speech. -Me

Alan Greenspan. 'Nuff said.

He who listens, will be enlightened...he who doesn't...

Yimmer Yammer Yonkers yodle with yellow yarn.
I posted something, than decided to delete it.

~ delete ~

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 02-24-2003).]

quote:

---

Anyways, I don´t think it has to go as far as socialism, but I am not convinced that if you lose your job you should be left out in the cold with no real social security and healthcare whatsoever. Am I mis-informed or is it basically like that in the US?

---

MW, we definitely have a "safety net" here in the US. There is plenty of government aid for when you lose your job. The system had even been designed to support people indefinitely but measures have been taken the last several years to reverse that.

Our president Johnson had a program called the "Great Society" where he believed we could spend millions of dollars to eliminate poverty from the country. This was based on the assumption that people when given lots of money would gladly lift themselves out of their lower status and become productive members of society. What we found was that there were a good number of people who were more than willing to live off of government handouts and were not interested in working for a living.

So C*****n made a move to link work with getting government aid a few years ago. It put time limits on aid money and required recipients to get jobs to justify extended help. I believe this was termed "work fare". From what I can tell, this program has been successful for the most part. There are always going to be problems and some people are going to fall through the cracks but government policy has to be concerned with the societal trends as a whole since it is extremely poorly suited at handling exceptions.

Local private organizations do a much better job at handling special cases and that is where Bush's "faith based" programs come into play. He wants to fund local church's and civic organizations that are already doing welfare work at the local level because it is a much more efficient use of the tax payers money. I have reservations about accepting government money for our church because I fear government repression as a result but that is another issue.

So to make a long story short, we aren't quite as harsh as you may have heard. I'm sure we're not as lenient as some may wish but we're far from "sink or swim".

giving churches money to hand out to the poor/needy/unemployed etc??? what a beautiful idea!! the churches are corrupt enough...lets give them incentive to be even more so?! what dill came up with that idea?!

do you have a link reguarding this bugimus??

But of course ~said in my best French accent~
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

I'll let that corrupt church comment slide for now

hehehe thanks bugs

Lacuna:

quote:

---

i somehow don't think a blowjob is going to save the world......

---

Oh really?

(Apologies for not even being close to on topic, not to mention being crude...)

ROTFLMBO Nice job, Suho

LMAO ok ok....i concede!
aside from that stunning graph that suho was so kind to share with the rest of the group (lmao) i can see that i am completely outnumbered!!!

so, yes, while men run the world....a blowjob can save it!

somone should have told those women in washington state this....would have saved them a trip to iraq!

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Nice one, Master Suho...hehe...

Lacuna - just remember also that as long as men can be so effected by a blow job, it's not really men ruling the world anyway

hehehe good point DL! i hadn't thought of it that way!

what was the topic of this thread??

*looks both ways before crossing the point of no return*

I think the point is that a man may think he can hold the world in the palm of his hand, but a woman knows she can hold a man's world in the palm of her hand.

It's all in the mindset, though. No matter who may be doing what to whom, if the man can make the woman feel subservient, then the man holds the power. But if the woman realizes her position and uses her influence wisely, she can guide the man like a marionette. It all depends on the man and the woman.

Take Asia, for example. Most Asians societies influenced by Confucianism (like Korea) are very patriarchal on the surface, but women hold exceptional power below the surface. During the Joseon period (1392-1910) the kings ruled the land, but power was held and lost based on the schemings of the queens and ladies of the court. Women are kept from overt displays of power, but they are not nearly as weak as they may seem to be (especially to Western eyes). The fact of the matter is that women probably had more power in the Joseon period than they do today.

Um, I think that was too much. I'd better stop now before I get any deeper into this subject

*takes out a small notebook and places another checkmark in a column labeled "derailed threads"*

quote:

---

A man may think he can hold the world in the palm of his hand, but a woman knows she can hold a man's world in the palm of her hand.

-- Suho1004

---

That's a gem right there, Suho. A pure gem

Two comments.

The graph starts its downslide while we are still in the C*****n Administration and;

This graph makes no mention of 9/11 which was the single greatest blow to the US economy and the worlds economy by proxy.