TEFRA and gasoline. Tefra concentrated on loophole closure and Medicare...gas tax was for SS so they say.

Deficit spending goes strait into the economy? Well, hell, son, why not just give every man, woman and child a credit card? Oh, wait. That's been done, in the Reagan era. We are STILL reaping the results of that.

So the government is now to blame for >our< excess?

War s good for the economy? NO. WW2, for example. Economy good during war? No.

1940-45 is the highest growth rate in US economic history. GNP grew by 100% in 5 years. You cen get the series data [link|http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm|here]. On [link|http://www.bepatient.net/GNP.pdf|this chart] run from the series, the huge spike on the left is WW2.

As to government spending programs being the best thing for an ailing economy, yes. If those programs employ vast numbers of out-of-work taxpayers - you know, so they have spending money. About the only way Bush will 'employ' vast numbers of Americans will be to send them to war. Those that die will no longer burden SS, those that live will send thier pay right back into the economy, no?

Ben is at least partially correct in that some of the money ends up outside of the US in the hands of other western economies. You are completely off base.

Government spending buys goods and services in the US. Those goods and services are provided by employed folks. Huge increases in need create increases in employment. And before you rail about "no new jobs" you are going to have to prove to me how 5.4% unemployment rates are the end of the world as we know it.

Is that number a perfect measure. No. Is it what we have. Yes. I know alot of independent contractors. All are counted as the "millions of jobs lost" in this economy when they left corps to do this. Some of them make more money now than ever. So, yes, the number is flawed on the bad side (because it is a GOVERNMENT number which has nothing to do with R or D). It is also flawed on the good side.

So - just dissolve it and give me my money back then. What? That money doesn't exist? SO HOW THE HELL DO WE 'INVEST' MONEY FOR OUR FUTURE THAT DOESN'T EXIST? Oh, right. More deficit spending without tax increases to cover it - at least no taxes within this Neocon president's term.

How about he does what we were told he would do...use Iraq's resources to pay for the war in Iraq? Not likely.

On the counter side, Kerry proposed 2 TRILLION in increased spending in his "Plans". Even if he raised taxes, which would be a given, we STILL couldn't afford him.

Sorry Bill - even Reagan realized that living on credit was a bad idea. When he couldn't get spending cuts to match his tax cuts he went back and increased taxes. This administration wants to increase spending while cutting taxes and you claim it's a GOOD thing?

First, wanna try and find where I said anything about it being a "good thing" (tm). Tax cuts lead to growth lead to increased federal tax revenues. That is the Laffer curve. I offered no value judgement whatsover in that post.

2nd. I have said only to see the plan before you say it will never work. This is not the first guy to promise and fix it. However it is the first guy with the "political capital" on the hill to pull it off. Both the candidates were serious a**holes in their own right...if something can be done to shore up the system till its my turn to get my money (back) out of it...more power to him.

Reagan operated at huge deficits. That money goes into the economy. Availability of money is essentially a closed system (unless you just elect to print more...which Germany did...didn't work too well).

Your mixing my points also.

Example

Not at all. Just re-iterating that the money that flushed into the economy was CC/personal loan money - NOT due to "tax cuts that increased federal revenues"

Personal credit certainly didn't hurt (but the huge growth in that came in the 90s when the economy was great...right?) And that doesn't explain the ww2 spike. Government spending can and has driven the economy out of recession over and over and over again.

And you still are trying to qualify these things as good or bad and attach them to this administration as such. Thats crap. I know what you went through. Do you claim it now to be the fault of GW Bush? Manufacturing jobs have been fleeing this country for 40 years. Are you saying now that >that< is also the fault of GW Bush? You are employed in the service sector. Insurance companies were supposedly huge benefits of his policies. If all that shit was >his< fault (or even true) you should have had huge opportunity.

You can fault the system all you like. I'll likely agree with you until you start assigning it to one party or another. That is crap...and you know it to be.

In this election the choice was heads or tails of the same quarter. Any positive attributes of either candidate were completely eliminated by their downside. Kerry's wife owes her fortune to the first company I ever heard outsource jobs. Heinz moved hundreds of high paying jobs out of Pittsburgh to Ireland. Do you think that man of privilege understands anything about what is needed in West Philly to end their problems? Clinton "felt their pain"...but the only people he made rich were folks with money in the market already. No huge chunks of manufacturing jobs were created on his watch either.

This is systemic. As long as we feel the need to create layer upon layer of regulation that makes it more and more expensive for things to be made in the US then we will continue to lose jobs in manufacturing. Nearly 20% of cost in many states is just >state< taxes and fees...and thats before we hit the effects of spurious regulations and necessary insurances against bullshit liability cases. (coffee anyone?)

Additionally, we're just plain better at putting crap together than we used to be. Automation has made HUGE strides in the past 40 years. Factories I knew needed 1000 employees to run full shifts now need 300...and most of them need full engineering degrees to maintain the control room equipment.

On a percentage basis, we're going to lose these jobs anyway as money shifts away from durable mfr'ed goods purchases to service purchases...which is one of the largest factors in the decline in jobs since the late 80s.

One other factor that could help short term is to depress the US dollar on the world market. Carrying huge debt may just do that...at a disastrous effect to teh rest of the economy...but hey...we'll have those manufacturing jobs.

And I expected better than to listen to the 1% kool-aid here. No the one percent won't live in 100 houses. They also aren't the ones that bought all the houses that are currently owned at the moment. That one % shoulders 20% of the income tax burden and control 35 % of the wealth. Move that down to Top 20% and its aligned with the tax burden. Income taxes are the 80/20 rule. 80% of the taxpayers pay 20% of the taxes. (technically 80/28...but it doesn't work with the metaphor ;-) while the rest comes from those vast wealthy folks.

Look at the big picture long enough to get pissed of at ALL sides and we may begin to understand each other here.

[link|http://www.polarizationandconflict.org/papersanseb/AmbrosioSS.PDF|http://www.polarizat...eb/AmbrosioSS.PDF]

as long as you stick with the non-partisan bashing of the setup, we're cool. Ain't dealing with this hate speech, woe-is-me cause of this one election bullshit. It ain't speeding up or slowing down or changing anything.

Wanna know my opinion. Just like with his father...had a candidate like Clinton been there I would have voted for him (Like Kerry...I voted for him before I voted against him). You know how much I love Bill.

This time we had a choice of "I say it wrong and do it wrong consistently" versus the "man of every position that has a plan to fix everything" (i got this hangnail John..can you help...WELL I'M sorry about that and maybe Dicks lesbian daughter can help you)

Hopeful that the other side understands this issue...and that mainstream can be consolidated away from the fringes. 3rd party idea..."Real People".