You are correct, Kimstu, I was getting Reagan’s terms mixed up.
Considering we now have to borrow MORE money to pay for the tax cut…
grumbling
And you seem to have confused bitching about what I say as being a logical argument. And I love how so many people question my use of words and look right over two people saying that people are stupid for voting for a candidate who is white.
BBB, I realize that it galls you that some people called you a racist in another thread, but a number of people in this thread have written posts to you which have raised some interesting points. Would you care to reply to them? Because I would be very happy to be able to have a mature, intelligent conversation with you.
If you feel that your complaint against archmichael and Mr. O deserves further discussion, then I suggest you either do so in the original thread, as Mr.O suggested, or start a Pit thread in which you can quote people’s comments from both the relevant threads. In this thread, I would much rather discuss your ideas about economics. Remember, most of the people in this thread probably didn’t read the other thread, and probably don’t really care about your dispute with Mr. O and archmichael.
-Ben
I should also point out that aaslatten has a very good point, which you would do well to listen to. Think of it this way:
Sua presents very detailed information on NAIRU.
vs.
You call people “morons,” and then go on to grouch about “damn liberals.”
Who do you think people are going to listen to? I think people will find that Sua’s arguments make him look intelligent and convincing, while your insults merely make you look childish. Is that how you want to present yourself?
Moreover, I don’t remember aaslatten calling you a racist, so why bring up what someone else did in another thread? I find it ironic that you complain that Blacks are oftentimes too quick to blame their problems on racism, while you yourself consistently excuse your faults by blaming Mr.O for calling you a racist (which, in fact, is an oversimplification of what he actually said.)
-Ben
Nah, I don’t waste logical arguments on the likes of you. However, I will say that I for one have been against the “tax cut” from the beginning because I think it’s irresponsible to simply ignore the national debt. The rebate check program in particular is patently offensive, when you look at how much money is being spent to send out the letters, cut the checks, etc. All of this so that I go out and buy a new DVD player.
Damn conservatives …
You find the returning of the money offensive, but you have no problem spending it? Is that supposed to be one of those “logical” arguments you were talking about? Sure as hell could have fooled me.
BabaBooey, please note what aaslatten actually said.
S/he did not claim a desire to purchase a DVD, S/he contrasted the government waste in notifying people and sending the checks against the administration’s urging of people to spend their refund swiftly in order to buck up the economy.
The discussion will move more smoothly if posters are not assigned positions that they have not taken.
OK, I misunderstood what he said, but I’m still willing to bet that he spends the money returned to him, even though he finds it “offensive”.
And BBB has learned nothing from Lord Ashtar’s loss of $20.
Actually, I donated the money to charity. The DVD player comment was an attempt at irony.
pantom:
[quote]
Ex-Tank: You are way too sane for GD. Somebody needs to feed you some Mexican fat burners. (Wildest Bill, are you listening?)
Mere camouflage. I’ll hit 'em with the old switcheroo in the next thread. And on this note:
let me say that you are, indeed, a Prince. The Doge of Venice would be proud of you. Then he’d poison you.
Uhm…Elvis?
“…used to…”? I don’t feel like a "traditional (non-Reaganite) conservative.
Not that I’m an economist, or such, but I couldn’t agree more with your post. Well said.
Aw, shucks, ExTank, ‘tweren’t nuthin’.
I always thought that the tax cut (not the piddly $300/$600 rebate) was payback to the Bush supporters who gave $100,000 or more.
Think of it - if you make $5,000,000 per year and your marginal rate goes from 38% to 32%, you save $300,000 or so in taxes. Not bad, assuming you pay taxes at all, which is a big assumption, I suppose.
So, to the 175 people who gave $1,000,000 to Bush’s campaign, this might have been a pretty good deal over 4 years, assuming that they earn $5,000,000 or more and pay taxes.
My issue is it feels like no one in Washington gives a rat’s ass about the debt, like its better to give most Americans a few extra bucks than to stop us from being a debtor nation. Excuse the jingoism, but that strikes me as terribly unpatriotic.
Patty
Like Marvel, I too assume that the G doesn’t care too much about paying off the debt.
Does anyone have a breakdown of the major T-Bill, etc. holders?
I just always assumed it was fabulously wealthy Republicans, the Japanese, Germans, etc. but since the Japanese economy sucks, it probably isn’t them anymore.
Maybe this is why the GOP doesn’t want to pay down the debt - they own most of it. If we pay them off, they will have to invest in more risky and taxable investments???
Amen. And that complaint goes for high-spenders as well as tax-cutters.
The last person in Washington who actually managed to get us some debt reduction was Newt Gingrich. Look at how popular he became. 
DECEMBER poots forth:
“The last person in Washington who actually managed to get us some debt reduction was Newt Gingrich. Look at how popular he became.”
I think it’s a stretch to say Newt was the last one - he may have done his part, but I believe that Robert Rubin should get most of the credit. (Newt was spending his time trying to get on talk shows during the last 2 years when most of the debt was reduced)
George W. thinks voters are stupid. That’s why he thinks we’d rather have a $300 check than pay off the national debt. He’s trying to buy the approval of voters, and he’s using our money to do it. Every American voter should be insulted.