Clinton's Elder Statesman Role

[swansont]

I've never (deliberately) changed anyone's meaning' date=' I've not misused any terminology related to stocks, and acting like I have was a deliberate attempt to make me look bad in order to demean my point, which you went on to agree with (which you could have just done in the first place). That's called a straw man argument, swansont. I guess we're done here, but I'm sorry to see it, because I thought you had some interesting points that made me think about something in a different way, but I'm not going to have a conversation with someone that's only mature on one side.

 

You're welcome to your usual last word on the subject. Enjoy.

[/quote']

 

 

You just proved my point for me. "[it] was a deliberate attempt to make me look bad in order to demean my point, which you went on to agree with"

 

You have absolutely no evidence what my motives were. You're guessing, and asserting it as if it were fact. And you're wrong.

 

If the changing of peoples' meaning isn't deliberate, what is it? I didn't think it was lack of reading comprehension, but since I didn't agree with your point (about conflict of interest), I guess I could be wrong about that.

[bascule]

You have absolutely no evidence what my motives were. You're guessing, and asserting it as if it were fact. And you're wrong.

 

Ooh, ooh! I know that one! It's... a strawman, right! Yay...

 

BUSH WANTS TO EAT YOUR BABY! Just look at him with... his teeth, and that crazy look in his eye, like a drooling hyena... c'mon, don't tell me you can't see it.

 

I'm sorry, I had to release some pent up seriousness from this thread.

 

So Pangloss, am I right in guessing your solution to the skyrocketing national debt would be to end entitlement spending, which you so clearly point out is the problem...

 

I mean, despite inflation Bush is yet to top 2000 revenues, despite claims that the economy is "back on track" with where it used to be. You can claim it was scandalously overheated at that point, but what about inflation? If the economy is doing so well as so many pundits insist (ones with which you seem to agree, correct me if I'm wrong) then why haven't revenues topped 2000 levels yet again?

 

I mean, you're trying to use the Laffer Curve argument with Bush's tax cuts, and it seems to me that it didn't work under Reagan and it isn't working now...

 

And spending has substantially increased under Bush, while revenue is yet to break $2 trillion/yr like it did under Clinton.

[Douglas]

I mean' date=' you're trying to use the Laffer Curve argument with Bush's tax cuts, and it seems to me that it didn't work under Reagan and it isn't working now...[/quote'] Gosh, and all these years I've been thinking that Reagan's tax cuts laid the foundation for Clinton's .com boom.

 

And spending has substantially increased under Bush, while revenue is yet to break $2 trillion/yr like it did under Clinton.

Yes, but Clinton's 2 trillion was 21% of GDP, Bush's 1.9 trillion is 16% of GDP

[john5746]

Gosh, and all these years I've been thinking that Reagan's tax cuts laid the foundation for Clinton's .com boom.

 

Al Gore didn't invent the internet, and Reagan didn't either. At best, I could say his tax cuts freed up money to fuel some of the dot com blast. But as usual, I would think the majority had nothing to do with government, just people taking chances. That had more to do with the speculation towards the future rather than anything from the past.

 

Yes' date=' but Clinton's 2 trillion was 21% of GDP, Bush's 1.9 trillion is 16% of GDP[/quote']

 

What's your point?

 

 

% GDP

[Pangloss]

Ooh' date=' ooh! I know that one! It's... a strawman, right! Yay...

 

BUSH WANTS TO EAT YOUR BABY! Just look at him with... his teeth, and that crazy look in his eye, like a drooling hyena... c'mon, don't tell me you can't see it.

 

I'm sorry, I had to release some pent up seriousness from this thread.

 

So Pangloss, am I right in guessing your solution to the skyrocketing national debt would be to end entitlement spending, which you so clearly point out is the problem...

 

I mean, despite inflation Bush is yet to top 2000 revenues, despite claims that the economy is "back on track" with where it used to be. You can claim it was scandalously overheated at that point, but what about inflation? If the economy is doing so well as so many pundits insist (ones with which you seem to agree, correct me if I'm wrong) then why haven't revenues topped 2000 levels yet again?

 

I mean, you're trying to use the Laffer Curve argument with Bush's tax cuts, and it seems to me that it didn't work under Reagan and it isn't working now...

 

And spending has substantially increased under Bush, while revenue is yet to break $2 trillion/yr like it did under Clinton.

 

 

LOL! Funny post.

 

I didn't get a source from you on the tax revenue thing we talked about in the other thread, so I looked it up myself. According to the document I've linked below (page 30), tax revenue peaked under Clinton in 2000, and dropped significantly in 2001/02. It's apparently gone (or going) up slightly in the 2003/04 numbers listed there, and that that could be in part due to the tax cut, but one could just as easily say that the numbers indicate the opposite, so I'm going to agree with your point on the issue -- the numbers do not suggest an increase in revenue due to the tax cut. Thanks for posting it.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf

 

In answer to your question, no, I don't propose ending all entitlement spending. I propose actually spending it on people who need our help, rather than people who have trouble keeping up with the Joneses. The government is not in the business of putting all citizens in the same income bracket.

 

It's INSANE what we're spending on Iraq. So what does that say about the orders-of-magnitude-GREATER amounts that we're wasting so that poor little Oliver, who lives in a foster home, can play with an X-Box instead of G.I. Joe?

[john5746]

According to the democrats it is.....They want no part in a social security program that invests a portion of the taxes in the stock market.

 

If a democrat were President, he would be able to get a mojority of democrats to support it. Privitization of the accounts has been the biggest battle.

 

Investing in the stock market can be moronic if it is money that you need to survive. So, while an upper class person will need to downsize his home if he loses 30%, less fortunate people will be in poverty, which is the whole reason for Social Security. A portion of the money can be placed in index funds without going through all the mess of private accounts. This way, it is far less likely you will have unfortunate losers.

[bascule]

LOL! Funny post.

 

I didn't get a source from you on the tax revenue thing we talked about in the other thread' date=' so I looked it up myself. According to the document I've linked below (page 30), tax revenue peaked under Clinton in 2000, and dropped significantly in 2001/02. It's apparently gone (or going) up slightly in the 2003/04 numbers listed there, and that that could be in part due to the tax cut, but one could just as easily say that the numbers indicate the opposite, so I'm going to agree with your point on the issue -- the numbers do not suggest an increase in revenue due to the tax cut. Thanks for posting it.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf

 

In answer to your question, no, I don't propose ending all entitlement spending. I propose actually spending it on people who need our help, rather than people who have trouble keeping up with the Joneses. The government is not in the business of putting all citizens in the same income bracket.

 

It's INSANE what we're spending on Iraq.[/quote']

 

Wow, awesome post up until there...

 

So what does that say about the orders-of-magnitude-GREATER amounts that we're wasting so that poor little Oliver, who lives in a foster home, can play with an X-Box instead of G.I. Joe?

 

Aiee, another strawman!

[Douglas]

Investing in the stock market can be moronic if it is money that you need to survive. So, while an upper class person will need to downsize his home if he loses 30%, less fortunate people will be in poverty, which is the whole reason for Social Security.

The average person works about 40+ years. Show me any 40 year period since 1929 where the stock market hasn't out performed the meager SS payback

[Pangloss]

Actually that's not a straw-man argument, Basc, because it's factually accurate. In order to qualify for that categorization it has to be off the subject and/or inaccurate.

 

(BTW, even if you view that as a straw-man argument I hope that you don't think I was trying to "straw-man you", i.e. as a personal attack.)

[john5746]

The average person works about 40+ years. Show me any 40 year period since 1929 where the stock market hasn't out performed the meager SS payback

 

I'm not going to argue with you much on this one, I happen to agree that SS should be invested in the market. I think most of the ideas I have heard about will have the monies in diversified funds and will require that more conservative investments be chosen for the years near retirement. If that is done, it should be safe, although there is no guarantee. If the overall stock market loses money over a 40 year period, no plan will work!

 

If the plan includes aggressive growth funds that are concentrated in one sector or individual stocks, then people can lose thier shirts.