Subject:
|
Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:16:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
332 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
>
> > > Additionally (though not
> > > conclusively) I've heard the point put forth most vehemently by
> > > conservative pundits, who conveniently interpret the results in a way that
> > > favors >Republican administrations.
> >
> > Well I have heard the same thing from liberals favoring Democratic
> > admistrations that is why I tend to accept it moreso than not.
>
> 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 policies that bear fruit during later Democratic administrations? My
> point is that, if the ten-year-swing is used by both parties equally to praise
> themselves and to malign their opponents, then the ten-year-swing is no good
> indicator of anything.
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.
>
> > > Additionally, the Reagan tax cut preceded a huge deficit that can't be
> > > readily blamed on Carter. Should we blame Ford and Nixon instead? Also, if
> > > the economy makes a massive recovery in 2005, is Dubya going to say "Thank
> > > Bill Clinton" or
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > is he going to claim success of his reward-the-rich stimulus package?
> >
> > Well duh.
>
> But that's my point! Dubya (or at least his supporters) blame Clinton for
> current economic woes because, alledgly, the impact of Clinton's policies is
> only now being seen (due to the 10-year-swing).
I haven't acctually heard anyone saying that.
> But if we experience an
> economic turnaround, then Dubya (et al) will claim victory for the
> reward-the-rich package, even though it'll be far too early (by their own
> calculations) to make determinations about such policies!
That is because most people are stupid and wouldn't catch that if it smacked
them in the face.
> Interestingly, early in Dubya's appointment, he asserted that he wouldn't
> resort to blaming previous administrations for problems during his tenure.
> However, soon after 9/11, elements of his administration were blaming it on
> intelligence failures during Clinton's administration, just as elements have
> blamed (and are still blaming) subsequent economic woes on Clinton. This, from
> the man who claimed that he would restore dignity and integrity to the
> Whitehouse.
I think the best way to restore dignity and integrity to the whitehouse is with
a wrecking ball.
> "The buck stops somewhere else." -- George W. Bush
Of course the original point was the only way for the Government to help the
economy is to cut taxes. Anything else is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Unless of course they go into deficit spending. Even the previous "study" you
cited stated that they did not take into account state and local tax rates,
which really invalidates any conclusions they could make.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
