Bill Clinton seemed to be taking more pleasure in Monday’s 10th anniversary of welfare reform than he did his 60th birthday Saturday (though the latter will be celebrated by the Rolling Stones in late October). Writing in the New York Times this week, Clinton noted that three members of his administration resigned in protest of the reform and said, “The last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew it, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans.” The key, he argued, was the bill’s bipartisanship. Now, he said, “We should address the inadequacies of the latest welfare reauthorization in a bipartisan manner, by giving states the flexibility to consider higher education as a category of ‘work,’ and by doing more to help people get the education they need and the jobs they deserve.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Is McCain overusing the ‘POW card’?
- SolDevVB on Open thread 8/28
- Phantom on Is McCain overusing the ‘POW card’?
- Franklin on Is McCain overusing the ‘POW card’?
- Raptor on Open thread 8/28
- lindainks55 on Is McCain overusing the ‘POW card’?
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 8/28
- Franklin on Is McCain overusing the ‘POW card’?
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 8/28
- Freebird1971 on Is McCain overusing the ‘POW card’?
62 Comments
AFDC, Aide to Families with Dependent Children, was really the only program targeted by Clinton’s reluctant “Welfare Reform.” ( I say reluctant because the bill Clinton finally signed was pretty much identical to the bill he had previously vetoed.)Food stamps, WIC, HUD and other programs need reform as well. Simply requiring that these folks show up regularly and “look” for work or give evidence that they have looked for work will stop much of the fraud in the programs.This approach, contained in the legislation Clinton signed is now proven very effective.This is the primary benefit of Clinton’s ‘reluctant’ reform: Welfare rolls stopped growing after the bill went into effect, and have now declined by 60%!http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/index.cfmAllowing the states more flexibility would be fine with me!
Thank God for Bill and his bipartisan accomplishments.I’d take that over what we have now, in a heartbeat.
Agreed…another thought, I wonder what we’ve spent on this war so far. Just think of what we could have done with that money here at home.
Bill Clinton understand the power of free markets and reform that gave people the responsibility to help themselves and allowed businesses to thrive in a global economy.
Not only Welfare reform, but NAFTA, PTR for China, limit liability reform (especially for aircraft that helped us here locally) and many other initiatives.
Clinton was a good President indeed.
Clinton was Republican light.It is easy to bash on those who need help when you are not one of them.I have been trying without success for more than 2 years to get on disability.
What is your disability claim? I was aware that SSDI is pretty broad to include many disabilities, either physcial or mental, can get on the program.
Well, it must not be too broad, Joe, otherwise you and Bush would qualify for “impaired cognitive function.”
Paul is either ignorant of (or just ignorant) the fact that Clinton’s reform throws people off of welfare after two years.
That explains the huge drop in welfare expenditures.
But, as our massive historically high NATIONAL DEBT shows, welfare to the poor was never a big cost item.
It’s WELFARE TO THE RICH that busting our backs.
CapnDebt is relative.Our national debt as a percentage of GDP is very low, historically.Federal revenues are at an all-time high.Federal tax revenues have increased by more than 14% per year for two years straight now.Is it your intent to “punish” businesses and the “rich” or is it your intent to promote a healthy economy with strong growth rates? (You can’t do both at the same time.)http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE0OA==
That is SOOO NOT TRUE, Paul.
This is why you people scare me so much.
Here you are working in the field of finance, and you believe what you want to rather than the simple truth.
Furthermore, your news spinners (Fox, Rush, O’Reilly etc.) keep repeating this wrong sh*t, so that you misinformed idiots think it must be true.
NATIONAL DEBT IS AT A POSTWAR HISTORICAL HIGH–both in nominal dollars and as a percent of GDP.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html Scroll down to FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF THE YEAR
FactCheck, February 9, 2004: “President Bush slipped up in his hour-long interview with NBC’s Tim Russert over the weekend, claiming that the growth of discretionary federal spending has slowed markedly since he took office. But in fact, annual growth has been in double digits for the past three years, far higher than in any year of the Clinton administration.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm shows National Debt topping 8.5 TRILLION
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
More at wikipedia
*****
You can make up whatever crack-brained opinions you want.
But you’re not allowed to make up facts.
Paul,
You are correct. I recall hillary trotting out a couple of negro grandmammies and there were bleating about welfare reform being akin to genocide, Slick willie later co-opted and took credit for that very same welfare reform program. Some people have short and/or very selective memories.
V.L.R.B!!
Thanks for the link, Ian.
Oh, wait, you don’t have one.
I have a very good memory, CapnA. Besides, whenever links are posted they are rejected as being a “wingnut” source anyway.
V.L.R.B!!
CapnYOU ARE YOUR OWN WORST ENEMY ON THIS POINT PAL:Did I ever mention spending? Yes, spending is too high.However, my point remains that federal revenues are exploding, federal tax revenues are at an all time high.Where did you disprove that point?You instead use your petty nit-picking style to show that Bush misstated a point on discretionary spending!!Again, the Deficit is Declining, the Debt and the Deficit, compared to the wealth of the country and to GDP, are not, historically, out of line.Your link says it all: “Postwar historical high.”We are NOT post war, we are in a war!Bush inherited a tech melt down, bear market recession from Clinton.Then came 9-11 and Katrina.After all of this,we have 14% growth in federal revenues two years in a row.Raising tax rates would lower revenues Capn.It won’t happen.The Dems in Congress might fight against making cuts permanent, but there will not be a majority in the next Congress to raise taxe rates.Only the economically illiterate think that tax rate increases will always increase revenues.By the way, Wikipedia is not reliable.Wikipedia is little more than an opinion Blog.
We have only had 6 quarters of negative growth since the Ronald Reagan tax cuts.That can not be said about the 25 years prior to the Reagan tax cuts.Tax cuts work.(Tax rate cuts actually fueled the Clinton economy!)http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjIxNDVlYmZhZjI4ODk3ZDMzMjViZjdhMTE3NjMwZjA=
The clinton economic bubble was actually fueled by a massive expansion of the money supply. This was combined with the illegal suppression of the gold price to keep the dollar high to ward off the inevitable hyperinflation that we are starting to experience. The chickens are coming home to roost and we are now starting to pay for those shares of pets.com at $200 a pop and the high tech mirage.
v.L.R.B!!
Ian! Not to mention the leftist punks that made millions of the bubble and laugh all the way to the bank. They screwed a lot of people over, including many working people’s 401K’s and pensions. Ned Lemont 300 Million dollar bank account. Terry McCullough and his theivery of millions out of Global Crossing (Enron sytle). Yet they are lifted up as wonderful elitist.
The left want a ruling nobility class in America.
Paul, the deficit isn’t declining, it’s still higher than when Bush went into office. To raise the deficit from $0 to a half a trillion then lowering it down to 300 billion is still raising the deficit. Free trade policies from failures like NAFTA have caused the deficit to increase. Before NAFTA America had a surplus in trade with Mexico, now it’s a huge deficit. It isn’t the Mexicans getting rich because poverty in that country increased and poverty in this country increased. Those whose wages are declining get a tax cut, because there is no tax to pay when you are unemployed. Those getting the tax cuts are the rich and corporations. Corporations pay a lovely little 5% rate, the rich pay the same rate as the middle class yet reap so much more benefits from their taxes. As a result of cuts in taxes local and state taxes have to be increased because of less federal spending to the states.
So Paul I’m assuming you aren’t a rich person, why else would you be wasting so much time online. Were you one of the many who got that immense $300 tax cut that you had to report on your taxes as income? If you are then you lost that with all the added local taxes and fees, or the increase is gas because of the weakened American dollar. With poverty and personal debt increasing to pay higher bills to say people are better off because Bill Gates got a hundred million dollar tax cut is bullshit.
Corporations getting a tax cut isn’t good for the economy especially considering taxpayers still have to subsidize companies when they shut down and relocate overseas. A company in America makes their cars in China, sells them to customers in India and brings the profit home. How many Americans does that employ? Only the people hired to build the CEO a new yacht.
Try to keep in mind Clinton raised taxes on the rich and required corporations to pay a minimum tax. That’s what helped fuel the economy. The distribution of wealth allows for a larger market as more people are able to buy more and consumer confidence increases. Feudalism wasn’t exactly the best economy in the world no matter how much Republicans lie and say it’s so.
DougYou are preaching class envy, not economics.You are wrong.NAFTA is barely even topical, as far as deficits and the debt are concerned.You live in Kansas, Doug. If America went protectionist (Like the Smoot Hauley Trade Tarriff Act) we would destroy the economy. Smoot Hauley helped cause the Great Depression!Again, you live in Kansas. In a trade war, who would buy our Beef? Who would buy our Wheat? Who would buy our Airplanes??A trade war would ruin the Kansas economy.Back to the topic:According to Jerry Webman, a Chief Economist at Oppenheimer Funds:https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/targetedCopy/InvestorPages/EOM/equityCommentary.jhtml
There were $58 Billion in total assets held by mutual funds in 1980. There is now more than $6.9 Trillion in total assets held by Mutual funds, assets would include stocks, bonds, money market and cash. (Actually, the higher figure comes from end of year 2000, but we are above that figure now.)Mutual Funds have been the great equalizer in wealth management, giving the ‘little guy’ the ability to diversify and obtain professional management.—-There was about $16.1 Trillion in total stock market capitalization at the end of 2004.Of that figure, $2 Trillion is in Defined Benefit (old fashioned) Pension Plans.I would hazard a wild guess that when you add in 401(K) Plans, 403(b) TSA plans, 408 (a) IRA plans and PAYSOP plans, and all the other pension plans, the percentage of Corporate Stock held by retirement and pension plans might well be better than 50%. If not now, it will be soon!I don’t know where to find that number for sure, but I am looking!Also, Doug, a great deal of Corporate Stock is held by UGMA accounts, Coverdale IRA acconts and 529 Education accounts.Another big chunk of Corporate Stock is held by College Endowment Funds. Another big chunk of Corporate Stock is held by Charitable Trusts.”Widows and Orphans” stock is a phrase given to utility company and other conservative corporate stock that throws off a dividend but is very safe, comparitively speaking.—-In short, Doug, when you bash corporate profits, you bash little old ladies, charities, and educational institutions.Women live longer than men. Little old ladies end up with these retirement plans, or with the stock, outright.Much of the stock that is held outright is held by people of rather modest means, and they need their dividends to survive.I, too, think some CEO’s are overpaid. Buy stock in the company and then you have a right to complain about it!There are many stock-holders’ rights groups who do try to enforce ethics in the board-room.However, if you are not willing to risk your money in a particular company, you are NOT an owner and you forfeit your right to have any input on executive benefits at all.
Only WEALTH cures poverty.Let me know if you find another cure!
OkEnd of 2000, 401K assets at over $2 Trillion now!http://www.efmoody.com/401(k)/overview.html
You are a shill Paul.
Unless and until you cite who is paying you to post here, your comments should be viewed as suspect.
I note here again that Paul is an acknowledged rep for and poster here in favor of the energy industry. Deny it Paul! I can do a bonedig.
I can’t imagine what right wing “think” tank is paying you to “proll” here Paul. What they couldn’t get a REAL journalist but a failed jounalism student who “nobody wanted”. Bonedig time again?
Let’s just ruin one of your lines since you are barely worth my time.
“who will buy our beef? who will buy our wheat?”
Hungry folks you dolt!
We can’t eat Chinese imports. They can’t eat the slave labor produced crap they sell us because American companies are too cheap to pay a living wage.
IRA assets at $3.5 Trillion!http://www.ebri.org/pdf/EBRI_Notes_01-2006.pdf#search=‘IRA%20total%20assets’
Of course, some of the IRA and 401(K) assets I have listed are not in stocks.
However, I have not posted SIMPLE IRA plans, SEP IRA plans, PAYSOP plans etc. These plans are almost entirely invested in the stock market.I am quickly approaching 50% of total market capitalization held by pension and retirement plans, as I predicted that I would.I have not started to post Educational Savings Accounts, Charitable Trusts and College Endowments.The country is getting richer, almost everyone is benefiting.Debt and Deficit numbers pale in comparison to the total wealth of the country.By the way, even with all this corporate stock holder wealth, small businesses still account for most of our job growth.These wealth figures dont include individual homes, self employed businesses, Chapter S Corporations, etc.Only Wealth Cures Poverty!
“Only wealth cures poverty”
Some of us won’t sell our opinion to the highest bidder prollie Paul!
For our readers, “proll” is an amalgam of “paid” and “troll”
A “troll” is someone who posts to provoke.
A paid troll is someone paid to shill an opinion that provokes. “proll”
Paul?
Let’s just look at your “name”
P A U L F R O S E L L
P R O LL
Proll?
Truth between the lines friends.
JRYou are too insecure to deal with the fact that an intelligent person can disagree with you and make a valid point.Therefore, in your mind, I MUST be stupid or a shill, lol.I am still guessing that a majority of the people who read these posts, and dont post themselves, see YOU as a bully and a bitter malcontent.In answer to your badgering,I do this because I enjoy getting under your skin.I also do it to relax after a day of hard, capitalist-tool work lol.JR, there isnt a SINGLE Democrat capable of winning the Democrat nomination, much less the general election, who supports repeal of NAFTA.Not one JR!Name a Democrat who would repeal NAFTA!—-To the roomJR is a bully on these posts, he employs the tactics of Stalin or Castro in that he tries to silence the opposition to his hard left views.JR rarely addresses the issues, he just insults people and tries to get them to give up the fight.In my lifetime, and I am 47, I am guessing that my total commissions for sales of oil and gas related investments are less than $20,000.My total Commissions for purchases of natural gas (GREEN FRIENDLY ENERGY) royalties in the Hugoton Field, for Pension investors through a deal with Prudential Insurance, was also less than $20,000.00. That was more than 10 years ago.I have also made a few bucks through clients that were employed by the energy industry.Last year, I spent more than $5,000 on gasoline.I want lower gas prices more than most of you, I drive all over the state every day!Sorry for the personal stuff, but JR, a coward who wont post his real name, gets personal information out of you by:Saying you NEVER worked a real job.— so you respond!Saying you are too stupid to post your own work.— so you tell him where you were trained to write.— calling you a “failed journalist”— so you tell him you have an Advertising, Public Relations and Marketing Degree, (Which is a journalism degree for those who understand MATH, most reporters picked their major to avoid math!!)Yes, just like Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity and dozens of others, I found that the journalism profession was dominated by people who despised free speach and wanted to promote liberalism. Yes, when I graduated, no “hard news” outlet would hire a conservative! With FOX news and other outlets, that is now changing, thank God!Anyway, sorry to bore the rest of you, but JR is again loosing a fight. He gets mean, nasty and personal when that happens.JR is the kind of liberal that would give Felons the right to vote, but would take away the right to vote, speak or even think from anyone who ever made a dime off the oil industry.He is an unhappy, bitter man.Try to enjoy his contradictions, such as — telling you you are too stupid to post your own material-that you are copying and pasting from somewhere else, then telling you that you just make stuff up.(All in the same thread, lol)
Okay, Paul, nice spinning. I’m dizzy, in fact.
But let’s cut through your snow job, shall we?
In September of this year, the GDP is estimated to be 13.6 Trillion dollars.
http://www.neatideas.com/gdp.htm
The National debt is 8.5 Trillion dollars.
see it ticking frantically away at the top right at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Now let’s think back to 7th grade math. 8.5 is what percentage of 13.6?
Answer: 62.5 percent.
You with me so far, Paul?
I know Rush and Bill and Sean don’t like to confuse you people with a lot of pesky statistics, but hang in there, we’re almost done.
Here’s where the national debt stood as a percentage of GDP at the beginning and end of each President’s term–
JFK: 55.1, 51.8
Johnson: 51.8, 38.6
Nixon-Ford: 38.6, 35.8
Carter: 35.8, 32.6
NOW, WATCH WHAT HAPPENS UNDER REAGAN - BUSH and slash taxes for the rich “voodoo economics”
Reagan: 32.6, 53.1Bush I: 53.1, 66.2
They DOUBLED THE NATIONAL DEBT!
Clinton: 66.2, 57.4
BUSH II:
2002–59.72003–62.62004–63.72005–64.32006 est. 66.12007 est. 67.52008 est. 67.9
So, you’re right, Paul. I was a little bit off. Bush’s national debt is not a historical high since WW2. His FATHER’S national debt was a historical high.
However, W. is only 2 points off his father’s historic high, and considering how much money they’re spending off the books in Iraq, it’s only a matter of time.
So I stand corrected, Dubya is only ON-TRACK to hit a historic national debt high, but he hasn’t quite done it yet.
Nevertheless, the national debt stand at very close to his father’s all-time high.
Well done, Republicans!
Nice rant Paul.
“Therefore in your mind I MUST be too stupid or a shill.”
In MY mind? I think that is consensus here “Paul”.
“I do this because I enjoy getting under your skin”
Seems I skin you every time we meet Paul. I can show that. Bonedig where you ever got the best of me. You are little more than a reactionary puppet. Be it with me or your politics.
“J R is a bully on these posts”
You are the only poster in the history of this forum to call me a bully. Are you projecting? Am I a “bully” for taking you and your sponsor on?
“J R rarely addresses the issues”
I’m not paid to address issues. Are you Paul? My agenda is my own. I have been known to break news….and posters. When do you ever do anything but shill the neocon agenda?
Rant rant rant….
I never asked you ANY of the “qualifications” you present. You did that yourself to TRY and make yourself relevant. I can bonedig that too.”J R is loosing an arguement again”Yup Paul I am loosing an arguement. YOU are losing an arguement. You failed wannabe journalist you!
“He gets mean, nasty and personal” I’m laughing up a storm Paul! What? I use your own words against you? Choose them better or get a new script writer!And then you ranted further and called ME an angry bitter man?Let’s see your proof of that?
I laugh at you Paul. I have always laughed at you.As ever you are melting down and I am busting up.Note to Paul’s sponsor. Send me more seasoned meat. This clown is too easy!
Correction–he’s 4 points off his father’s historic high, but the year isn’t over yet . . .
CapnYou left out the stats for FDR, why did you do that?Because FDR was a war time President and was too relevant to list??The JFK tax cuts were what helped LBJ, JFK’s rate cuts didnt take effect until after Oswald!The Reagan tax cuts are still pretty much intact, though Bush 1 and Clinton both did, unwisely, raise rates a bit.Beyond the number wars, what, exactly, did Clinton do? Other than finally signing Welfare Reform, Clinton’s “stimulous package” never made it through Congress.The Clinton economy primarily benefited from the Baby Boomers entering their peak earning, spending and tax paying years and from the Reagan tax cuts.I honestly want to know: What did Clinton do, in your opinion, that could be considered more of an economic driver than the demographics of the boomers combined with the Reagan tax cuts?—-I would also tell you that your “Out Year” estimates of Bush II are wrong on two counts: The projected deficit is too high in these figures. (As you know, past debt plus current deficit equals future debt — leaving out maturities, redemptions and other details.)Also, the static models used in these projections underestimates economic growth.By the way, with all of the social programs the government now finances, every president, every Congress, will be burdened by paying off past promises. (A chunk of our debt is held by the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund” which is nothing more than a funnel from the SS tax to the General Fund).Having said that —Time will tell.I am guessing that W will leave office in much better shape, GDP compared to debt, than what your projections show.”Deficits are caused not by wild eyed spending, but by periodic Recessions.” JFKOne other thing, I really was trying to make the point to Doug, who seems to resent corporate profits, that most corporate stock is owned by retirement plans. Much of the remainder is held by charities and by eductional institutions or within eductional savings accounts.I am not unconcerned about national debt, I only argue with the premise that we can tax ourselves out of debt.Only economic growth will pay down the debt, nothing else will ever do the job.Therefore, we must concentrate on policies that expand the economy.Tax rate increases resrtrict the economy.—-JR, I found at least one other person who called you a bully, and I didnt even look very hard. Once again, you are wrong!You are the only person on these posts who regularly tells other people to quit posting. You feel this is your personal space.Since you demand links all the time, here is a place that a Tom Cat like you, who likes to spray his territory and chase out competition, might like to visit. You can set up your own little corner and only let people in that agree with you!:
http://www.myspace.com/
By the way, JR, I am guessing that you would never survive in an environment dominated by conservatives. I invite you to post your stuff with Free Republic or any number of conservative blogs. They would eat you alive. Instead, I come in here to hone my arguements. I must say that this forum does me much more good than preaching to the choir.I will admit, for instance, that Gore never ran a TV ad about Willie Horton, he just brought up the Dukakis furlough program in a Televised debate.I will admit that I cant prove Ken Lay spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom as Clinton’s guest, though I can find dozens of people with very large audiences that say Ken Lay did stay overnight in the Clinton White House.However, in the course of arguements, I found a picture of Ken Lay playing golf with Clinton and financial disclosure records showing Lays connection to Clinton and the Democrat Party.Again, this is sparring practice for me.When I gets sloppy, I get popped, as expected.However, my points that Gore fist attacked Dukakis on Furloughs and that Ken Lay was buddies with Clinton still stand.Being wrong on details does not make one wrong on general arguement.And the willingness of you die hard liberals to argue details into the ground actually keeps the arguements going longer than they would otherwise.This is all to the good, for my side.Thank you.
Siggggggggh…..
Paulie?
“J R I found at least one other poster who called you a bully”
Uh…..why not name them. Now I admit I get that now and then. Usually it is from a defensive smallmind like you. I’m curious who you cite.
“You are the only other poster here who regularly tells people to quit posting”
POOR “persecuted” Paul! Cite ONE example of me EVER telling anyone to “quit posting”. I won’t have to look very far to show me encouraging you to post. Let me just affirm that. PLEASE keep posting PAUL!…..it makes me look good.
“By the way J R, I am guessing you would never survive in an environment dominated by conservatives.”
Probably true Paul. I’d die either from boredom or laughter.
We get alot said about you Paul you and I.
But it is not just about us is it?
You didn’t ask ME this but it is too big a softball for me to resist!.”I honestly want to know: What did Clinton do, in your opinion, that could be considered more of an economic driver than the demographics of the boomers combined with the Reagan tax cuts?”
Paul? You used it to type and share with us your usual shilly drivel.
Creation of public use of the internet maybe??
Only THE greatest US and world “economic driver” of all time.
Keep posting Paul! I need ya! My last playmate blew up and ran away.
Oh and by the way Paul, you might want to hone that “poor persecuted me” line.
I aint even a heavy hitter here. I just find you amusing.
You are not even on the radar of the best of this blog.
Try harder so you can cry harder.
So Paul you are saying that taxpayer must foot the bill for corporate profits even if we don’t buy their products. You see that as good economic policy but if a mobster did that it’d be called extortion.
Your “evidence” that there is no deficit is the amount invested in mutual funds? Sorry bub, there’s no logical connection there. Without the trade protections there is no economic incentive to keep manufacturing jobs in America so they move to Mexico. They build them using cheaper labor then export them to America so we are buying more products from Mexico. On the other hand we sell them subsidized corn so the Americans foot the bill for cheaper corn, not the Mexicans. Well that simply drives the Mexican farmers into poverty because they can’t sell their corn nor can the Mexican government protect them with tariffs so they come to America looking for work.
Paul is in favor of illegal immigrantion, well there’s the Republican solution for you.
Tariffs are completely necessary to avoid the dumping of cheap foreign products. China and Japan will sell their products at a loss in America just to drive American manufacturers out of business. When the American plants shut down they raise the price. No competiting goods and no protective tariffs so that increases the deficit some more. Paul sees this as an impossibility but he’s never been informed on the subject.
American steel manufacturers demanded tariffs to protect them against cheaper, lower quality steel imports from Asia. Somehow Paul thinks that tens of thousands of Americans losing work is good for the economy. Paul thinks becoming a service economy with lower wages is better for the economy. If that’s the case how come lower wage workers aren’t buying bigger houses? How come the poverty rate is increasing as well as the personal debt rate? People aren’t becoming rich because their auto manufacturing jobs are in Mexico.
If you haven’t noticed Paul the vast majority of stock is held by corporations and the wealthy. So using the stock market as an indicator of general wealth throughout the whole population is inaccurate. Perhaps if you knew this you could have saved yourself the embarassment.
Paul you remained deluded the trickle down theory of economics. That has been proven a failure by the last three Republican administrations. Your belief that corporations will become so overburdened with wealth they’ll just throw it to the poor is absolutely stupid it’s amazing a thinking person could actually vomit that concept with a straight look on their face.
Sure Paul, if I don’t like how Microsoft is doing something I’ll just up and buy 51% of the stock. Do you just have billions lying around? Why don’t you grow up and mature a bit before sounding so childish and uneducated.
BTW, I don’t resent corporate profits, I do when it means those profits come at the expense of the people. Why is it that you resent the American worker so much and want to see so many go into poverty?
“I honestly want to know: What did Clinton do, in your opinion, that could be considered more of an economic driver than the demographics of the boomers combined with the Reagan tax cuts?”
He raised taxes on the rich. By making people pay their fair share and showing fiscal responsiblity, the equity markets responded positively.
Investors know that when gov’t borrows less, it frees money up and drives down interest rates.
That’s exactly what happened, spurring one of the greatest expansions in the economy and equity markets we’ve ever seen.
The facts stubbornly remain and you can’t account for it.
Reagan-Bush cut taxes for the rich and the national debt MORE THAN DOUBLED.
Read it again, Paul, Reagan-Bush MORE THAN DOUBLED the national debt.
According to you, all that tax cutting should have resulted in so much growth that the national debt practically disappeared.
You can quibble with the marginal rates all you want. Lowering taxes didn’t work then to reduce debt. It’s not working now.
We have been talking about Corporate Business, but Kudlow makes the case that small business is leading the boom, as they always do, because of their positive response to tax cuts:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTVlZWE2NDQ3ZDkyMDA3ODhkNzIzOTNmOGRkMmYyYjM=
“Only full employment will balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment.” JFK
CapnYou are using debt as percentage of GDP. That is not really fair, since every President and every Congress inherits debt from the pervious administrations. (As well as promises from previous Congresses and Administrations.)Also, George W is leading the nation during the worst attack on our soil in our lifetimes, and during the worst national disaster in history.We were in real danger of a full blown depression after 9-11. The Fed lowering rates helped, The Bush tax cuts helped, and the Congressional Spending was probably a bit too much, but that helped too.We avoided financial collapse, but that was not by accident, it was by good decision making in Washington and on Wall Street.Hoover was a green-eyeshade type, kinda like you Capn. Yes, we should be careful about debt, just as you and Hoover believed. I would agree that we are no longer in an economic emergency so the spending should slow, But raising taxes in a recession is a suicidal idea, and only a really bad idea now.Nobody can pay taxes if nobody is working, and nobody will work if we punish businesses too much for making a profit!Try running deficit figures as a percentage of GDP.Also, is it your opinion that our record high revenues would be even higher if we would raise taxes?That is absurd.”Tax” means burden.When a doctor says “smoking will tax your health” what does that mean?Taxes are a burden on the economy.—–Also, please read Harry Dent, “The Great Boom Ahead” — the book was published in 1995 and predicted a strong stock market and a strong economy based on demographics, regardless of who was President.I must admit some concern on Dent issues, since that “spending wave” and “investment” wave Dent rightly forcast would make the stock market boom, does not last forever. The boomers do get older, but will they behave like their parents?American Express Financial Advisors commercial has a point, where they say boomers will be different.Lets hope so.People buy more houses, more cars, more vacations, more stuff, in the 20 years before age 65 than they do in the 20 years after age 65, historically.This is the trend that Dent tracked, in a chart that looked identical to the stock market, until the tech bubble burst.Dent overlayed births, delayed 47 years, over the top of the S&P 500 index.It was a near perfect match for several years!Dents theories have proven correct, in many ways.There are several copies available on Ebay:http://product.ebay.com/The-Great-Boom-Ahead_ISBN_1562827588_W0QQfvcsZ1388QQsoprZ930221
You’re good, Paul.
After shovelling through all that horse dung, I almost forgot that there is a rock solid floor under it.
When Carter left office, the national debt stood at 32 percent of GDP. After 12 years of Reagan-Bush, it had doubled.
You can’t blame the high level on “the previous administration.” The doubling happened under Reagan-Bush.
Your guys lower taxes and raise spending.
That’s not sustainable, even if it were smart, which it is not.
I couldnt get the chart to post, but even a site sypmathetic to your views, Capn, shows clearly that FDR, Truman and Ike all ran higher deficits as a percent of GDP, than Bush:
http://www.issues2000.org/askme/NatDebt.htm
look at the 2nd chart please!
For clarification, we are spending too much, but we are at a point of efficiency in our tax code.Raising tax rates will cost us more than we will gain.Raising tax rates will slow growth, slowing actual tax receipts.Our federal revenues are growing faster than our federal spending.If we leave well enough alone, or even better, if we reign in spending, we can bring the deficit way down.—We are in the middle of a National Crisis now, just as bad as WW2, just as bad as the Great Depression.However, the economic part of the crisis is passing (unless we get hit again.)It would be wise to concentrate more on balancing the budget, but again, when you are stairing financial collapse in the face, we don’t want a Hoover in the White House.The Government borrowed its recent debt at historically low interest rates, by the way. Debt service payments are low based on the size of the total debt.I dont like the debt either, but we are strong enough to handle it, we have done it before.
Convenient and dishonest editing Paul. Truman and Ike inherited the tremendous debt unavoidably run up during WW2. Notice how Reagan-Bush and now Bush 2 have run run up deby again after all the efforts by others to deal with it. Your link shows conclusively the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan and the Bushes.
*****************************The national debt peaked at 120% of GDP in 1946 dueto the war effort, but Roosevelt, Truman, Ike,Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Carter all did their part tobring the national debt back to pre-war levels. Bythe beginning of 1981, the national debt had fallen to32.5% of GDP.
Then, Reagan took office and thenational debt took off. It rose non-stop for 12 yearsto 66.3% at the end of Bush’s term, erasing 25 yearsof progress in paying down the national debt.
Clinton turned around the debt growth in just three years andthen reduced the debt from 67% to 57% in his last fiveyears, resulting in the well-known and large budget surplus prominent in the 2000 election.Bush wasted no time in reversing this trend (primarily via his large tax cut)and is now forecasting that he will achieve thehighest ratio of debt to GDP in 50 years, if re-elected. The current projections top 70% for next year’s budget.
DougYou are attacking Republicans for NAFTA, why is that?Again, Doug, can you name a some Democrats who oppose NAFTA and have tried to repeal NAFTA?Doug, Didn’t Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry support NAFTA?I have heard the Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan attacks on NAFTA before. I don’t buy them.Even so, your anger at NAFTA should rightly be directed at BOTH political parties.NAFTA was and is bi-partisan and it is here to stay.
Ben and CapnI used a liberal site so I wouldnt have to argue with the numbers.I can find better numbers on other sites but I dont care about that too much.I, again, like the 2nd Chart that shows the national debt as a percent of GDP under FDR, Truman and Ike as higher than it is currently.
http://www.issues2000.org/askme/NatDebt.htm
I do disagree with that sites conclusions.There are lots of things Presidents and Congress can’t control.The economy, believe it or not, is usually one of them.Yes, I believe strongly that raising tax rates hurts the economy and that lowering tax rates helps the economy.(So do all of you, whether you admit it or not. Everyone on this thread has supported some type of “targeted” tax relief, like Muni Bonds for a new manufacturer or Tax Increment Financing for pollution clean up or urban renewal, or tax credits for fuel efficient cars or tax credits for energy conservation. If I am wrong, tell me, but I think ALL of you agree that the tax code, locally and nationally, CAN be used to sway opinions or encourage businesses to do what government wants. What some of you dont seem to like is “untargeted” tax cuts. I happen to think untargeted cuts make the most sense and are less prone to fraud and politics. The government is no good at picking winners and loosers, we should all play by the same rules. Everyone should enjoy the same cuts, when they happen.)Again, tax policy can have an effect on the economy, as can monetary policy, as can world events, as can fiscal policy, as can demographics.I push the proven,supply-side tax theory because there is little else that politicians can control, other than fiscal spending and taxes. But, I have no illusions that good tax policy, alone, can cure all the ills of the world.I only state firmly, with no fear of ever being proven wrong, that high tax rates are NEVER the answer and will always make things worse than they would have been with lower tax rates.—The economy was a disaster under Jimmy Carter. Reagans tax cuts got the country going again.
The economy was again near total melt down after 9-11. The Bush tax cuts were part of a package that saved us from ruin.
Do you think the Federal Reserve is run by political hacks? The Federal Reserve lowered the interest rates it controls to historic lows.Major lenders are not controled by government rates. However, home mortgages, Muni bond rates and all other rates of interest plummetted after 9-11 because NO ONE HAD ANY CONFIDENCE TO BORROW!Interest rates are set by supply and demand, not the government, and there was very little demand so rates fell!The economy was on the brink.Yes monetary policy played a big part in saving our shirts, but monetary policy alone could not have done the job.The economic crisis we faced after 9-11 was as great as Pearl Harbor, and the National Defense and National Security threat are actually greater than WW2.Japan and Germany could not nuke us, but some day someone probably will try to nuke the US. Does anyone disagree with that?Several firms that I do business with were hit hard on 9-11. This is true of every one in the financial industry.However, blowing up an office is nothing, economically, compared to having offices all over the country where nobody has to answer the phone, because nobody is calling, because nobody wants to borrow or invest or spend.That is the situation we faced after 9-11.That is the situation we will face again if we are hit again.Our economy is not much more than blips on a computer screen.Blips that only happen if people have confidence in our system.It was worth going into debt to save that system.Now it is time to grow our way out of that debt.
Ok, I gave you a lib site, now for a conservative site:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
The top 50% of wage earners already pay 96.03% of total tax revenues!The top 10% of wage earners already pay 64.89% of total tax revenues!The top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of total tax revenues!
Clinton for President!
What’s your point Pauly? I say we should tax them more! Who else can better afford to pay higher taxes? Face it Pauly, “trickle down (voodoo)” economics are just a scheme for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class getting poorer. This perversion of democracy only works to establish an aristocratic class with hereditary money and the rest of us their serfs.
Paul F. Rosell.”However, my points that Gore fist attacked Dukakis on Furloughs and that Ken Lay was buddies with Clinton still stand.”
No, your “points” do not stand. You haven’t proven anything, except that you’re an unreliable source, and don’t understand logic.
Many people criticized the furlough program. Bush Sr’s campaign is 100% responsible for using, and naming a black rapist.
You don’t have the correct details, or general ideas.
Paul, you amaze me with your willingness to advertise your ignorance. Are you completely unaware that the majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA and CAFTA? 156 Democrats in the House voted against it, do you need me to run off the names? Dennis Kucinich is among those who have worked to repeal NAFTA.
Many people voted for the trade agreement because they haven’t learned to distrust Republicans when they promise wealth for all. It makes perfect sense that someone making five dollars a day won’t be able to afford an American made car that cost $10,000. Free trade doesn’t open up millions of new customers, it only opens up millions more people available for cheap labor.
I really suggest you mature a bit and get an education unless you have some masochistic desire to be embarrassed some more.
Heh, Doug, excellent!
You think that Paul R. and Joe W. must listen to the same right-wing radio shows–they reiterate the same “do you walk or carry your lunch” arguments.
As has been shown about 3 dozen times here Paul, the rich pay a high percentage of all INCOME taxes. They don’t pay a high percentage of the other taxes the gov’t collects like sales taxes, social security (payroll taxes) taxes, car tags, property taxes (even rentors pay through rents), tax on telephones, and all the other ones.
Also, they pay a high percentage of income because . . . hold on to your hat, Paul . . . because they make a helluva lot of INCOME. That’s what happens when you make 36 million dollars in six months like Dick Cheney did in 2000. You pay a helluva lot more than the poor sot who’s mopping floors at Wal-Mart.
Do you think DICK would like to trade places with the mop handler so he wouldn’t have to pay so much in taxes?
What ever tax scheme one comes up with–even a flat tax–the top income earners will always pay a very large percentage compared with the rest because THEY MAKE A LOT MORE.
Duh.
Hello dear webmaster. I found your site via google and i like it very much. cia!!
Good day. I just wanted to say that you created realy great site. thanks!
How quickly we forget. Clinton vetoed it twice, on the third time, only 1/2 of the Dems voted for it.
“Clinton vetoed two early versions of the bill both because he thought the bills were too harsh and because he was trying to force Republicans to change the bill so that more Democrats would support it. Republicans made a few changes in the bill, including adding more money for child care, expanding Medicaid coverage for children, and reducing some of the cuts in social programs, and passed the bill a third time in July of 1996. On this occasion, half the Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the bill and Clinton signed it.”
Good day. I just wanted to say that you created realy great site. thanks!
4c811d9fc254fd46c020d2354d18fb63
Good day. I just wanted to say that you created realy great site. thanks!
Good day. I just wanted to say that you created realy great site. thanks!
Shalom.
I find real pharma info here:
Hi. dear webmaster i like your site.
Good day. I just wanted to say that you created realy great site. thanks!
It’s purely revisionist history to give any credit to Bill Clinton for welfare reform.
It was forced down his throat by a Republican Congress after he vetoed welfare reform 3 times.
Dang Eagle, are you really that far left or do you just dangle these posts to the conservative grassroots knowing that will get the most reaction?
Hi. dear webmaster i like your site.
Hi. dear webmaster i like your site.
Good day. I just wanted to say that you created realy great site. thanks!
Good day. I just wanted to say that you created realy great site. thanks!
Good day. I just wanted to say that you created realy great site. thanks!
Hi. dear webmaster i like your site.
capn,Duh the rich does pay more taxes…the rich have more expensive cars and more cars per household,I.e more taxes paidthe rich buy more expensive foods and allot more I.e more taxes.The rich buy more expensive houses. I.e more property taxes..also their is a little thing called luxery tax on planes and other expensive items..