 | | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) But have you heard Democratic administrations using the apparent ten-year delay as evidence of the strength of their own policies (ie, those that come to fruition during Republican administrations) or to commend Republicans for enacting (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) I haven't heard anyone using the ten-year-trail other than economics teachers period. In that context it makes sense, outside that context is anyones guess. (...) I haven't acctually heard anyone saying that. (...) That is because most people (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote: <snip> (...) K, I don't follow American issues *that* closely, but didn't Bush sr. talk about "VooDoo Economics", and wasn't the basis of "VooDoo economics" tax cuts for the rich, such that the (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) Really? Pretty much every discussion about the economy that I hear gives Reagan all the credit for the mid/late 90's boom, while all the blame for the Dubya-era recession goes to Clinton. I would go so far as to say that, among conservative (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) Well that's the first thing I have heard on the subject that makes any sense at all. (...) Personally I think the real reason the Democrats are always against tax cuts is so they can spend the money on their social engineering agenda rather (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Economy, Stupid! (was Re: How many things etc)
|
|
(...) You're so cynical, Dave! Too bad it is not more contagious, it might keep more politicians on their toes. In theory, I'd like to see taxes so low that much of what we now have as part of local, state, and federal governments would be (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) Republicans tend to spend the Federal budget into hideous deficits while cutting useful[1] social programs, so that any subsequent tax that Democrates apply to restore such programs can be villified as "tax-and-spend" liberals. [1] I know, I (...) (21 years ago, 15-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) Yeah so they are both full of crap. (...) I agree, that is basicly what my indended meaning was. (...) Nothing, however for the 1 person like her there are 100 that are just leaching off the system. Half my aunts and uncles come to mind. I am (...) (21 years ago, 15-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) I dispute that statistic as non-representative of reality. Do you have a citation? Alternatively, if you're just making a rhetorical specultion, that's fine, but you need to disclaim it as such. And again, let's distinguish Federal assistance (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
I wasn't overly impressed with the nature of the rhetoric or information at those links either. And while I can't speak for the specifics of what Mr. P was referring to, something similar to it can be found here: We Have Met the Wealthy, and They (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) *snip* (...) Most sharply-biased (in either direction) media sources hope that the audience never makes the connection that you point out, and all too often thats exactly what happens. It's interesting that a common conservative tactic is to (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) Mostly that statement was based from a women I used to work with who grew up in North Philadelphia and basicly told me as much. She litterally told me that they should just drop a bomb on the whole area because most of them (her relatives (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) How badly do you want out of your situation? McDonalds is hiring. Seriously. Your wife could presumably (if college educated or reasonably hard working, (and she must have been smart to select such as yourself Dave!)) become a manager in no (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) No, they're not. In most cases menial work like that is available part-time only so that the employer can avoid granting an employee much by way of the benefits that usually go to full-time workers only. Plus, how do you realistically explain (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) That's actually not true, or at any rate it's only true insofar as you can become a manager in no time for $7.50 an hour or less, along with guaranteed straight-rate overtime, minimal benefits, and minimal job security. (...) Given the (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
