From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ab2b555$0$1614$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look
>>> at the present and near future. How can any good come out of spending
>>> several trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary
>>> loss by spending more money, whether you are an individual or a
>>> country. We are on a big path to certain doom.
>>
>> Spending that money will indeed devalue our currency and lead to
>> inflation. Thanks to W, the U.S. standard of living will be lower for
>> decades or even a century.
>>
>> However the alternative of letting the economy go from recession to
>> depression would have been much worse. You have to learn to look at
>> the big picture.
>>
>> There is a big difference between the reckless deficit spending of
>> Reagan and W, and the current bailout of major financial institutions
>> and manufacturers. The former was to enrich the wealthy at the expense
>> of the lower and middle class. The latter is to prevent the whole
>> world from going into a depression caused by the former. As
>> distasteful as it may be to bail out GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., the
>> alternative would have been much worse.
>>
>> It will take many decades to undo the problems wrought by supply-side
>> economics, ignoring the threat of radical Islam, ignoring
>> environmental degradation, and alienating most of the industrialized
>> world in the process, but it isn't hopeless or certain doom.
>
> This is ridiculous. It wasn't "supply side economics" that got the banks
> lending money to people who didn't have any down payments and jobs to
> pay for their homes. It was the erroneous belief that real estate prices
> would rise forever, plus the lack of regulation that encouraged the
> banks to be so stupid. Neither Regan nor Bush, (nor Clinton) had
> anything to do with this.


But massive deficit spending did affect all of this. You can't spend
BILLIONS on a war and at the same time LOWER taxes. You blame the dem
for "Tax and spend" but ignore the effects of "Tax rebate but spend a
lot more". That is EXACTLY what Regan AND both Bush's did.

And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war while
lowering taxes came from?

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
> news:4AB228D8.59CB1866(a)bytecraft.com...
>>
>>
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>
>>> > I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US >
>>> electorate
>>> > very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as
>>> specifically > to
>>> > "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
>>> > unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans
>>> have > sold
>>> > to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich
>>> is > best for us
>>> > (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a
>>> > fantasy,
>>> > but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with >
>>> widespread
>>> > popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the >
>>> "anything
>>> > socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail
>>> to > mention
>>> > that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is* >
>>> socialistic...
>>> > Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is
>>> often > able
>>> > to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths,
>>> > with
>>> > repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, >
>>> alas...
>>>
>>> The other issue many people don't understand is how the salary
>>> structures have evolved in the U.S. in regards to gross pay and net pay.
>>> A position paying $100K where $30K is paid in a combination of all taxes
>>> is not going to be paying $100K if the tax burden falls to $10K. Even
>>> within the same corporation there are differentials based on cost of
>>> living of different areas of the country (and world), and these
>>> differentials are based on both expenses for taxes and the costs of
>>> goods and services.
>>>
>>> If, after the past eight years, anyone voted Republican with the idea
>>> that Republicans would protect their savings, investments, and job, then
>>> they haven't been paying attention. Yet Republicans can talk about tax
>>> cuts (unfunded tax cuts) and there are still some naive middle and lower
>>> class voters that think that they'll automatically be better off paying
>>> slightly lower taxes. These people are unable to look at the big picture
>>> of how government is funded and the effects of increasing deficits. It's
>>> the same people that whine about how we should have just let GM and
>>> Chrysler go into liquidation, without understanding that the cost of
>>> liquidation would be much higher.
>>
>> For most of the last generation in the US fiscal reality has been almost
>> the opposite of the rhetoric. The Democrats by an large have balanced
>> budgets and some cases created government surpluses and invested in
>> economic growth. The Republicans have been deficient spending and
>> investing in special interests.
>>
>> w..
>>
> Usually because the Republicans have had to handle the wars, (mostly
> because they have happened to be in office when we were attacked, or
> otherwise obligated to wage them)


The KEY thing to note is: IF the country is at war spending BILLIONS,
you don't give HUGE tax breaks to big business at the same time.

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ab17f94$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4ab132d8$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think of it as the lesser of two evils. Right now, the government
>>>>> is giving my money away to the illegal aliens in bushel baskets,
>>>>
>>>> Actually they're not, at least not the federal government directly.
>>>> It's the states that are required to provide education, and that are
>>>> not allowed to turn away anyone from emergency rooms regardless of
>>>> their ability to pay or whether or not they are here legally.
>>>
>>> When I use the term, "government" I mean either stste or federal. (or
>>> even local county) They are all the same to me, since they all take
>>> tax money from me.
>>
>> The difference is that the state and local governments have no power
>> to enforce immigration laws. The federal government mandates on
>> education and emergency health care are unfunded mandates that the
>> state is forced to accept. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for
>> welfare unless a state or locality decides to provide it, so of course
>> you never actually saw piles of welfare checks that were being
>> distributed to illegal immigrants in Oregon, unless you're referring
>> to welfare that is being distributed to U.S. citizens that were born
>> here to illegal immigrants. If that's the case I suggest that you work
>> on changing the law to eliminate the provision that anyone born in the
>> U.S. is automatically a citizen--you'd have a lot of support for that.
>
> Yes. I knew a family who were illegal's, but they worked very hard, and
> the guy fixed my automobiles for me, so I got along well with him.



Well my friend YOU are the reason they even come to this country and
stay. My guess is you were paying this guy cash, probably at a very
discounted rate to have your car repaired, so this was a "good illegal"
according to your post. What you did was NO DIFFERENT that buying stolen
goods. YOU are the people who encourage ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. Just like
theives wouldn't steal if they couldn't sell what they stole, if people
didn't pay illegals to work, they wouldn't be here.

Stephanie
From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at the
>present and near future. How can any good come out of spending several
>trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary loss by
>spending more money, whether you are an individual or a country.

Of course you can. It's done all the time and is commonly known as
"investing". Everyone, from governments to corporations to
individuals take on debt to invest and earn more money in the future.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: SMS on
stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote:

> But massive deficit spending did affect all of this. You can't spend
> BILLIONS on a war and at the same time LOWER taxes. You blame the dem
> for "Tax and spend" but ignore the effects of "Tax rebate but spend a
> lot more". That is EXACTLY what Regan AND both Bush's did.

Well to be fair, George H.W. Bush did have to clean up the mess Reagan
made with the S&L's, and he did agree to a tax increase to reduce
deficit spending slightly. And no doubt this was behind his loss for
re-election. George H.W. Bush also correctly called Reaganomics,
"voo-doo economics."

> And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war while
> lowering taxes came from?

The deficits run up by the tax cuts for the wealthy exceed the cost of
the health care proposals.

People complain a lot about George W. Bush because not only was his
presidency a failure in terms of domestic and foreign policy, but he
also was personally unpopular, and not well-spoken. Reagan was more
dangerous because his policy failures were not as well understood or
publicized because he was personally very popular. It's only in the past
couple of years that everyone is beginning to realize the damage Reagan
wrought.