...If the only black person Bush appointed was as Sec'y of Agriculture? Mississippi people remember this.....Clinton appointed Mike Espy. Espy was and IS involved in so much damn controversy it's pathetic. Tyson Chicken anyone? The Dems would be up-in-arms. "What, a black person only knows how to farm?" PULEEZE people. Bush appointed the FIRST black Sec'y of State, the FIRST black FEMALE National Security Advisor, and the FIRST black Sec'y of Education. ....and Danny "The dumb***" Glover has the balls to call him a racist? PULEEZE!!!!!!!!! Hell, if there is EVER a black President, it will be a Republican. Gossip, that's on the verge of being fact, has it that Dr. Rice will be Bush's running mate in '04. That WILL be great. I, as a Libertarian, will be able to vote for a black female from a party that believes in merit and hard work against a white female that believes in a welfare state.

On another note, what causes economic growth, money in YOUR hands? Or money in the gub'ment's hands? Bill Clinton, "I can spend your money better than you can" thought differently and killed growth that was caused by Reagan's tax cuts. The reason for our prosperity in the 90's was because of the information technology boom spearheaded by Bill Gates....and Clinton's justice dep't spent more money investigating HIM than they did Bin Ladin. We started having layoffs and started seeing a downturn when Clinton was still in office. Not to mention the LOW! freaking morale in the military. Blow-Job Billy should have just been a porn star. I, WE, determine the health of the economy....NOT the government.



<!--EDIT|RebelKev|Apr 29 2003, 11:15 PM-->

Are you saying that Bush is the first black president instead of Clinton?Now thats not going to fly with the lib..dems or the press. If the black appointments that Bush has made were usefull idiods for the lib...demacrats would that fly my friend.Rice for the vice.I like the sound of that.

Quote:...If the only black person Bush appointed was as Sec'y of Agriculture? Mississippi people remember this.....Clinton appointed Mike Espy. Espy was and IS involved in so much damn controversy it's pathetic. Tyson Chicken anyone? The Dems would be up-in-arms. "What, a black person only knows how to farm?" PULEEZE people.

Hey dumb ******.

Clinton also appointed Ron Brown secretary of commerce and Jesse Brown secretary of veterans affairs.

Latino Clinton appointments included Alexis M. Herman (secretary of commerce, after Brown died), Henry G. Cisneros (secretary of housing and urban development), and Federico F. Pe

Name-calling.....How Juvenile.... :rolleyes:

Harvard Studies have shown that if Clinton didn't raise taxes at the rate he did, the highest in history, our economic growth would have been a HELLUVA lot higher. Hmm, wonder why? Because a poor person doesn't create jobs. In a capitalistic society, competition is the only way to survive. How do you survive? You make the best product. How do you make the best product? R&D. How do you research and develop? You hire researchers and developers. How do you implement the product.......Bear with me.....YOU HIRE MORE FREAKING EMPLOYEES!

Clinton was working off the Reagan economy. Bush is working off the Clinton economy. How can you argue that every time taxes were cut, JFK Admin, Reagan Admin, and coming soon to an area near you, Bush's Admin, boosted the economy? How? You can't. All Democrats are trying to do is say how bad the economy is to regain power. Kinda like hypochondria. You keep saying you're sick, you will soon be sick. This is how Democrats work. They have never had a plan, just attack the Republicans to regain power and start working on your welfare state in which you have a nation dependent upon you(Gov't). That way, the people will vote for you everytime because they will become reliant upon you for their livelihood. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? Oh, that's right, you're a Democrat. Logic doesn't become you.



<!--EDIT|RebelKev|Apr 30 2003, 09:24 AM-->

Once again, there are many different economic components that can come together to formulate the success or malaise of the economy. Moreover, each component has its own timeframe as to when its benefit (or drawback) will be realized. Assuming "soaking the 'rich' = economic expansion", without considering anything else, is a dead end street.

Here's just <a href='http://www-int.stsci.edu/~jordan/other/economics/credit_us_economic_expansion.html' target='_blank'>one of many theories</a> regarding the expansion.

Quote:There is no direct link between credit and economic expansion, but the US in the 1990s is a case study in whether or not credit formed a significant component to economic expansion. Many economists do not agree that credit was the cause of economic expansion, but an effect. For example, Dr. Michael Walden of North Carolina State University indicates that most economists attribute the major underlying cause of the current expansion to business investment in productivity enhancing technology and equipment, and that an expansion in consumer borrowing is a result of the expansion and not the underlying cause. Whether credit expansion is the cause or an effect is not straightforward to prove, and there are opinions both ways.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:Hey dumb ******: Were you out of the country during the 1990s? Bill Clinton did raise taxes -- primarily on people who earn over $200,000 per year -- in 1993. What followed? Only one of the longest and greatest economic expansions in American history. Oh, and he balanced his budgets, too.

Tax cuts are almost irrelevant. They just make the wealthy happier. They will do very little for the economy.

Of course, that's what George Bush is about: Making wealthy people happier. This is a guy who was born on third base and figures he hit a triple.

Was this not my point? I don't know how old you are but the economy started turning around in about '90 and started tanking in about '99. Tax Cuts/hikes aren't retroactive. Carter imposed these same damn tax hikes, look what that did. No one wanted to invest, start a business, etc., because they didn't want to pay the high-****** taxes. That's understandable. It isn't JUST about income tax in the first place. It's about the Estate Tax, Capital Gains, and all OTHER taxes that are unconstitutional.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Duhuh???

I take BIG issue with this particular piece of garbage you wrote:

Bill Clinton did raise taxes -- primarily on people who earn over $200,000 per year -- in 1993.

What does this do besides retard the success of people wanting to succeed? What have YOU done to invest in yourself (A commodity in itself) to be worth this? How long do you think people work, go to school, invest, etc. to make an income like this? Is it YOUR business what they make? Hell no. This country is a meritocracy. If YOU'RE not happy with your income, then quit your damn job, get a better education, and invest in yourself to make yourself more attractive to the private world. Wealth redistibution doesn't do anything but lead this country to mediocrity and kills the competitive nature that exists in what we now know and associate with the American. It isn't by a damn accident that we are the greatest, most powerful, and richest country on Earth. It's by design and you liberals are trying your damndest to throw a monkeywrench in that design.

Motown Bronco Wrote:Assuming "soaking the 'rich' = economic expansion", without considering anything else, is a dead end street.

Mo, I think we're pissing in the wind trying to get through to him. People like him still think the ONLY reason the economy boomed in the '90's was due to one man, Bill Clinton. Gee, Oh Billy must be the last Roman God. :rolleyes:

Harvard studies show that Bill Clinton actually retarded the economy by raising taxes higher than anyone in history. While we enjoyed a booming economy, it wasn't because of him. It was because of Oracle, Cisco Systems, Nortel, Lucent, Microsoft, and others. Trust me, I'm IN the I.T. industry as a Network/Systems Admin. We started having layoffs during Clinton's Administration. Hmm, I wonder if it had ANYTHING to do with the Clinton Admin's incessant actions trying to break up a company that Bill Gates worked so hard to create.

As I said, if Bill Clinton's admin had spent as much money investigating UBL as they did Gates, UBL would be in custody. WHOOPS! He had that chance before. :rolleyes:

Working on Ft. Gordon and being a Veteran myself, it prides me to see so many military members with the highest morale I've ever seen. They actually have a President that respects them....and it's a mutual respect. He gutted the military, intel organization, and soiled the sanctity of the Oval Office, the White House, and the position in general.

My friend offered up the suggestion that raising minimun wage would help boost the economy. Anyone have any thoughts on that? I think that it might help those who have low paying jobs, but it will reduce the number of people hired because people won't want to pay more to their employees. He and I also determined that a tax cut would work if the people didn't hold all the money as soon as they got it back, and actually went and spent it.

Personally, I don't have much to add to your thoughts. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. First, wage controls are dubious to begin with. It is an unnecessary interference into the agreed-upon price (wage) between the buyer (employer) and seller (employee) for a service (labor).

Besides this, one of two things will happen with forced minimum wage increases:

1. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. Ironically, it'll make the "rich richer and poor poorer". Before wage controls, a store manager may have 20 employees making a certain wage. But after more wage controls, 15 people will enjoy the higher wage, but 5 people will be out of a job.

2. Raising the minimum wage causes price inflation. If, after the mandatory wage increase, the employer decides to keep all 20 employees and pay the new wage, he'll likely resort to increasing the costs of the products on the shelf to help cover the increased labor costs. So consumers will wind up footing the bill.

Motown Bronco Wrote:Besides this, one of two things will happen with forced minimum wage increases:

1. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. Ironically, it'll make the "rich richer and poor poorer". Before wage controls, a store manager may have 20 employees making a certain wage. But after more wage controls, 15 people will enjoy the higher wage, but 5 people will be out of a job.

2. Raising the minimum wage causes price inflation. If, after the mandatory wage increase, the employer decides to keep all 20 employees and pay the new wage, he'll likely resort to increasing the costs of the products on the shelf to help cover the increased labor costs. So consumers will wind up footing the bill.

Good points.