Demons made Clinton have an affair

[Guest MikeSC]

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

 

You've managed to confuse actual proposed budgets with OMB projections. Congratulations.

Reality check: The President's budget ALSO includes deficit forecasts.

The president only proposes budgets one year at a time, and those OMB projections (including the deficits) were educated guesses that proved to be wrong.

You are aware that the ADMINISTRATION provides those numbers and the

Congress provides their own. Congress' TENDS to be closer to reality.

I'll admit though, although the majority of Republican proposals were vetoes by the president, they did put the necessary pressure on him to make additional cuts in the federal budget.  The Republicans also proposed (in the "Contract With America") tax cuts and military spending increases that would've made balancing the budget impossible, and attempted to pass them into law.  If Clinton hadn't vetoed them, the budget might not have ever been balanced.

Tax cuts equal higher revenue. Let's keep that in mind. Not ONE Clinton policy led to the budget surplus (which, BTW, shouldn't occur --- governments AREN'T businesses and surpluses simply mean they stole more than they needed).

Packwood is known to have forced himself on many women, Clinton was accused by one person of sexually propositioning her (which she admits he never tried to use his position as governor or to phsically force her to do anything). BIG difference.

Kathleen Willey.

Juanitta Broaddrick.

Paula Jones.

 

Hell, at least Packwood had the decency to not completely BURY them whenever anything came out --- something Clinton did with glee.

I guess anytime someone makes an accusation against Clinton, that automatically makes it true? (I forgot about the other two accusers, although my understanding was that their allegations were later proven to be unfounded.)

Nope. None of the charges have been proven to be unfounded. Broaddrick and Willey basically kept quiet and only testified when called under oath --- at which point Hillary sicced the pit bulls upon them to destroy their reputation.

Didn't Packwood confess?  That would also make a difference in how believable his accusers are.  I hope you weren't trying to imply that the treatment of Packwood (censure by the Senate and forced resignation) was a politically motivated attack by the Democrats, since he usually voted with them (Packwood was a liberal). 

It ABSOLUTELY was a politically motivated attack. If it was not, they'd have gone after Kennedy LONG ago.

The Paula Jones lawyers used her case to bring the Lewinski matter into the case's deposition for NO REASON.

No, when you're doing a sexual harassment suit, you have to show a history of behavior. This showed a history of behavior.

Lewinski NEVER accused Clinton of sexually harrassing her. THEREFORE this has nothing to do with the case.

Jones did and demonstrated that Clinton had a history of pursuing sex with underlings.

 

You know what the sad thing is?

 

To avoid it, ALL Clinton had to do is say that Jones is a moral and upstanding woman and did not pursue a relationship with him. That was ALL she sought --- until he decided to get nasty.

Bringing the Lewinski affair into the Jones case served no real legal purpose in the Jones case.  Admit it.

Demonstrates a history of pursuing sex with underlings. Very much had a legal purpose.

 

Hell, Clinton was BEGGED by his lawyer and several Congressmen to not lie under oath.

 

It's HIS fault he did it.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

^Please go back and reread my last post.^

 

I've made a few corrections to it.

 

 

We're going to argue in circles about the Packwood/Lewinsky/Jones shit, which is fine and dandy, but before we do, I gotta point out one thing:

 

Tax cuts equal higher revenue.

No, they don't. I'll totally take you to school on this if need be.

[Guest MikeSC]

^Please go back and reread my last post.^

 

I've made a few corrections to it.

 

 

We're going to argue in circles about the Packwood/Lewinsky/Jones shit, which is fine and dandy, but before we do, I gotta point out one thing:

 

Tax cuts equal higher revenue.

No, they don't. I'll totally take you to school on this if need be.

You can try and take me to school over that. But, if you do that, I imagine Stephen Joseph will take up the argument even more forcefully than I do.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You can try and take me to school over that. But, if you do that, I imagine Stephen Joseph will take up the argument even more forcefully than I do.

That was such a cop-out.

 

 

Back on topic: there was no reason for the laywers for Jones to ask so many questions about Lewinski except to entrap him in future perjury charges.

[Guest MikeSC]

You can try and take me to school over that. But, if you do that, I imagine Stephen Joseph will take up the argument even more forcefully than I do.

That was such a cop-out.

Hardly a cop-out. You feel that you can prove lower tax rates DON'T lead to higher revenues. knock yourself out.

 

I have, you know, the 1980's to disprove it.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You can try and take me to school over that. But, if you do that, I imagine Stephen Joseph will take up the argument even more forcefully than I do.

That was such a cop-out.

Hardly a cop-out. You feel that you can prove lower tax rates DON'T lead to higher revenues. knock yourself out.

 

I have, you know, the 1980's to disprove it.

-=Mike

Republicans like to claim that Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue to the government in the 80s, but the reality is that revenue only increased after Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

 

Look it up.

[Guest MikeSC]

You can try and take me to school over that. But, if you do that, I imagine Stephen Joseph will take up the argument even more forcefully than I do.

That was such a cop-out.

Hardly a cop-out. You feel that you can prove lower tax rates DON'T lead to higher revenues. knock yourself out.

 

I have, you know, the 1980's to disprove it.

-=Mike

Republicans like to claim that Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue to the government in the 80s, but the reality is that revenue only increased after Reagan raised taxes in 1983.

 

Yup.

The only person I've read who discussed this tax hike is Paul Krugman, who I couldn't conceivably trust less.

 

I'll go with the Cato Institute's study of his record, which tends to contradict Krugman's nicely.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Nope. None of the charges have been proven to be unfounded. Broaddrick and Willey basically kept quiet and only testified when called under oath --- at which point Hillary sicced the pit bulls upon them to destroy their reputation.

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

None of the charges have been proven to be unfounded.

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

Yes. Mike has all the answers. Since it wasn't DISPROVED, it's OBVIOUSLY true. I forgot that Mike is allowed to use leaps of logic in his horribly intelligent debates, whereas no one else is.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nope. None of the charges have been proven to be unfounded. Broaddrick and Willey basically kept quiet and only testified when called under oath --- at which point Hillary sicced the pit bulls upon them to destroy their reputation.

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

None of the charges have been proven to be unfounded.

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

Yes. Mike has all the answers. Since it wasn't DISPROVED, it's OBVIOUSLY true. I forgot that Mike is allowed to use leaps of logic in his horribly intelligent debates, whereas no one else is.

Hmm, what was said that I replied to?

 

Why, it was

(I forgot about the other two accusers, although my understanding was that their allegations were later proven to be unfounded.)

Did I say they were true? Nope. I assume they likely are, but I didn't say they are.

 

I simply said that they WEREN'T proven to be unfounded, as was claimed here. And I said that Hillary sicced the attack dogs on them, which she almost assuredly did. She tended to be the mean one of the two.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

My apologies, but that's painstakingly close to Howard "I'm just saying... it's an interesting theory!" Dean

[Guest MikeSC]

My apologies, but that's painstakingly close to Howard "I'm just saying... it's an interesting theory!" Dean

I replied to precisely what was said.

 

Do I THINK they're true? Yes.

 

Do I KNOW they're true? Absolutely not.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Stop talking, I was giving you more credit than you're earning now

[Guest MikeSC]

Stop talking, I was giving you more credit than you're earning now

Damn.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Man, those demons make people do craaaaaaazy things

 

 

The interview was recorded ahead of Monday's publication of Mr Clinton's autobiography, My Life.

 

"It happened at a time when I was angry, I was under stress, I was afraid I was going to lose my fight with the Republican Congress," said Mr Clinton.

Some people smoke a cigarette. Some have a drink. Some squeeze a stress ball. Others get a blow job.

Clinton's way is the best.

 

It's not your business, what he did anyway. The Republican witch hunt wasted HOW MANY tax dollars again?

[SuperJerk 0]

You can try and take me to school over that. But, if you do that, I imagine Stephen Joseph will take up the argument even more forcefully than I do.

That was such a cop-out.

Hardly a cop-out. You feel that you can prove lower tax rates DON'T lead to higher revenues. knock yourself out.

 

I have, you know, the 1980's to disprove it.

-=Mike

Republicans like to claim that Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue to the government in the 80s, but the reality is that revenue only increased after Reagan raised taxes in 1983.

 

Yup.

The only person I've read who discussed this tax hike is Paul Krugman, who I couldn't conceivably trust less.

 

I'll go with the Cato Institute's study of his record, which tends to contradict Krugman's nicely.

-=Mike

No "anaylsis" is necessary. The tax increase is a matter of public record.

 

The Cato Institute is a conservative propaganda machine. If you want to trust their "analysis" of Reagan's tax policy, then you're guilty of only listening to sources that confirm what you want to hear.

 

Now, onto the matter at hand...

 

Tax cuts equal higher revenue.

 

The supply-side argument that tax cuts can increase additional government revenue is based on the Laffer Curve theory, proposed by economist Arthur Laffer. Even the Laffer Curve acknowledges that tax cuts do not increase revenue all of the time (hence the name "Laffer Curve" rather than "Laffer Slope").

 

credit: Macroeconomics (5th edition) by Byrnes and Stone.

 

See?

 

If the tax base were unaffected by the tax rate, tax revenue would be exactly porportional to tax rates, as demonstrated by figure T0. By moving "x" too far to the right on the graph (no pun intended), revenues will drop. Admittedly, this idea is usually lost on most liberals.

 

The point lost on most conservatives is that by shifting "x" too far to the left and decreasing rates too much, revenue will also decrease. Therefore, theory does not support the idea that EVERY TIME taxes are cut, revenue increases.

 

I actually beleive that the Laffer Curve is a good economic theory, but it is abuse of the theory to suggest that EVERY TIME taxes are cut, revenue is increased (as you said in your post). For example, the top tax rate in 1964 was 91%. When it was lowered to 70%, revenue did grow. When Reagan had taxes cut in 1981 and 2001, revenues decreased. However in 1982, 1990 and 1993, the government raised taxes and revenues also grew.

 

Therefore, it is logical to deduce that there is a perfect point at which government can set tax rates and get the maximum amount of revenue. However, as I said before, it is abuse of the Laffer Curve theory to suggest that EVERY TIME taxes are cut, revenue is increased.

 

Not ONE Clinton policy led to the budget surplus

 

Clinton's 1993 tax increase did lead to increased government revenue. Just to drive my point home further...

 

Red = deficit

Black = surplus

 

Notice how the red bars are always get bigger when Republicans are in charge? COINCIDENCE?

[Guest MikeSC]

No "anaylsis" is necessary.  The tax increase is a matter of public record.

 

The Cato Institute is a conservative propaganda machine.  If you want to trust their "analysis" of Reagan's tax policy, then you're guilty of only listening to sources that confirm what you want to hear.

They're actually libertarian, but who wants to nitpick?

Therefore, it is logical to deduce that there is a perfect point at which government can set tax rates and get the maximum amount of revenue.  However, as I said before, it is abuse of the Laffer Curve theory to suggest that EVERY TIME taxes are cut, revenue is increased.

We've yet to hit the mark where tax cuts don't generate more revenue.

Not ONE Clinton policy led to the budget surplus

 

Clinton's 1993 tax increase did lead to increased government revenue. Just to drive my point home further...

 

Red = deficit

Black = surplus

 

Notice how the red bars are always get bigger when Republicans are in charge? COINCIDENCE?

Wow, that is some shoddy logic there. I'm arguing REVENUE --- as in HOW MUCH MONEY IS COMING IN TO THE GOVERNMENT. Your chart only deals with deficits and surpluses, which ignores such factors as MASSIVE spending increases that dwarf the increase in revenues.

 

Notice how large the red was in the 1980's?

 

How many Reagan budgets were passed in the 1980's? How many times was the budget Reagan proposed passed by the Democratic House?

 

Why, NONE.

 

Not one time was it passed.

 

How many times did the Democratic budget spend LESS than Reagan in his ENTIRE administration?

 

Why, ONCE.

 

One single time.

 

Which means that SEVEN TIMES, they spent more.

 

Tax REVENUES DOUBLED in the 1980's. DOUBLED (look it up).

 

You can't blame Reagan's cuts for the massive deficits.

 

Hell, he was for investments to end the Cold War (which permitted Clinton to SLASH the military, which provided almost ALL of the "spending cuts" he had --- which, sadly, led to the problems we now face) but not the excessive increases in social spending that was ALSO a huge problem. He and Bush BOTH ended up raising taxes because they had a deal with the Democrats to cut spending --- but only one side actually did what they said they'd do.

 

Bush? He spends money like a high school girl with her daddy's credit card. His social spending is disastrous and done solely to attempt to triangulate, ala Clinton. His military and intelligence spending is a necessary evil, but such debacles as the Medicare bill are beyond the pale.

 

But notice that when Democrats get what they want, the deficits tend to go up?

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

That was such a cop-out.

 

How is that a copout? Steve deals with this sort of stuff for a living...

[SuperJerk 0]

^It is a cop-out to pass the buck to someone else.^

 

Thankfully, our good friend A MikeSC did manage to step up to the plate and attempt to prove his points, despite the earlier attempts to pass the buck to Stephen Joseph.

 

They're actually libertarian, but who wants to nitpick?

You are correct, but they support the conservative economic agenda. They are conservative in that regard.

 

We've yet to hit the mark where tax cuts don't generate more revenue.

The tax cuts of 1981 and 2001 failed to do so.

 

Wow, that is some shoddy logic there.

Actually, I just wanted an excuse to show off that neat chart.

 

How many Reagan budgets were passed in the 1980's? How many times was the budget Reagan proposed passed by the Democratic House?

 

Reagan proposed a cumulative total of $7.3576 trillion dollars.

The Congress passed $7.5549 trillion dollars.

 

If the budgets that were passed were so against what Reagan wanted WHY DID HE SIGN THEM INTO LAW? The budgets that were passed were the result of Reagan compromising with the House of Representatives (controlled by the Democrats) and the Senate (controlled by Republicans!!!!).

 

 

How many times did the Democratic budget spend LESS than Reagan in his ENTIRE administration?

 

Reagan proposed a cumulative total of $7.3576 trillion dollars. The Congress passed $7.5549 trillion dollars. Thats a 2.6% difference.

 

2.6%!!!! WOW. That'd have really put a dent in the national debt!!!! [/sarcasm]

 

Besides, if the budgets that were passed were so against what Reagan wanted WHY DID HE SIGN THEM INTO LAW? Why did he sign them into law EIGHT TIMES? There wasn't that much difference between what Reagan signed and what he proposed. Social spending was cut, while revenue going to the military increased, just like he wanted.

 

Tax REVENUES DOUBLED in the 1980's. DOUBLED (look it up).

Are those in inflation adjusted dollars? If revenue goes up, but the value of the currency goes porportionally down, then no real increase has occurred.

 

I have already shown, though, that revenue did not double because of a tax cut. In terms of inflation adjusted dollars, revenues didn't match what they had before the tax cut until two years after Reagan's tax increase.

 

Did I mention that Reagan raised taxes in 1982? At the time it was called "the largest tax increase in American history," and was sponsored by Bob Dole.

 

You can't blame Reagan's cuts for the massive deficits.

His policies created them, therefore it is his fault. Reagan agreed to and signed every single budget he was sent during that time.

 

But, you're right, we can't just blame the tax cuts. The spending increases Reagan proposed must also be blamed. Social spending was cut, while revenue going to the military increased, just like he wanted.

 

But notice that when Democrats get what they want, the deficits tend to go up?

Reagan got what he wanted in the 1980s, not the Democrats.

[Guest MikeSC]

They're actually libertarian' date=' but who wants to nitpick?[/quote']

You are correct, but they support the conservative economic agenda. They are conservative in that regard.

They will disagree with Republicans.

We've yet to hit the mark where tax cuts don't generate more revenue.

The tax cuts of 1981 and 2001 failed to do so.

Figures from the Heritage Foundation. If you can find ones to contradict these, knock yourself out.

 

Revenues (in 1996 dollars):

1980: 956B

1981 (the cuts WERE retroactive): 1004.6B

 

And 2001? Gee, only had an economy in total collapse LONG before Bush's first economic plan took effect.

How many Reagan budgets were passed in the 1980's? How many times was the budget Reagan proposed passed by the Democratic House?

Reagan proposed a cumulative total of $7.3576 trillion dollars.

The Congress passed $7.5549 trillion dollars.

 

If the budgets that were passed were so against what Reagan wanted WHY DID HE SIGN THEM INTO LAW?

Possibly --- and this is just a possibility --- he didn't wish to be blamed for all of the "problems" a government shutdown might cause (yes, we know that the shutdown of 1995 didn't do a damned thing, but lord the press acted as if we were moments away from chaos).

The budgets that were passed were the result of Reagan compromising with the House of Representatives (controlled by the Democrats) and the Senate (controlled by Republicans!!!!).

The House spends the money. The Senate has precious little control over the budget --- save to refuse passing it. Then, they'd be "starving little kids".

How many times did the Democratic budget spend LESS than Reagan in his ENTIRE administration?

Reagan proposed a cumulative total of $7.3576 trillion dollars. The Congress passed $7.5549 trillion dollars. Thats a 2.6% difference.

 

2.6%!!!! WOW. That'd have really put a dent in the national debt!!!! [/sarcasm]

Then hearing the Dems bitch about it when they'd have made it WORSE is laughable. Hell, Kerry intends to spend more than Bush.

Besides, if the budgets that were passed were so against what Reagan wanted

WHY DID HE SIGN THEM INTO LAW?  Why did he sign them into law EIGHT TIMES?  There wasn't that much difference between what Reagan signed and what he proposed. Social spending was cut, while revenue going to the military increased, just like he wanted. 

Social spending wasn't cut, hate to break it to you.

Tax REVENUES DOUBLED in the 1980's. DOUBLED (look it up).

Are those in inflation adjusted dollars? If revenue goes up, but the value of the currency goes porportionally down, then no real increase has occurred.

Sorry. In that case, it was only an increase of about 33% from 1980.

I have already shown, though, that revenue did not double because of a tax cut.  In terms of inflation adjusted dollars, revenues didn't match what they had before the tax cut until two years after Reagan's tax increase.

They surpassed them the first year. They surpassed them the second year, too.

Did I mention that Reagan raised taxes in 1982?  At the time it was called "the largest tax increase in American history," and was sponsored by Bob Dole. 

Care to provide a link to this info?

But notice that when Democrats get what they want, the deficits tend to go up?

Reagan got what he wanted in the 1980s, not the Democrats.

Hold on to the pipe dream, if you so desire.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Did I mention that Reagan raised taxes in 1982?  At the time it was called "the largest tax increase in American history," and was sponsored by Bob Dole. 

Care to provide a link to this info?

I didn't use the internet as a source. I used several books.

 

 

Proof of Reagan's tax hike

credit: The Almanac of American History, edited by A.M. Schleshinger, Jr. (1992), page 614.

 

 

Proof of Dole's involvement

credit: The Congressional Quarterly's Annual Politics in America: Members of Congress in Washington and at Home, 1986, edited by Alan Ehrenhalt (1985), pages 561-562.

 

I'm remembering the "the largest tax increase in American history" stuff from old newsclips that ran during the 1996 election. Steve Forbes was also really taking Dole to town on this issue. I'm sure if I searched the CNN archives long enough, I might be able to find some reference to it.

[SuperJerk 0]

Hold on to the pipe dream, if you so desire.

 

For this I'll use some of my college textbooks.

 

Here we go...

 

The effects of Reagan's taxes and spending

credit: Macroeconomics, 5th edition, by Byrns and Stone (1993), page 331.

 

More on Reagan's taxes and spending

credit: The American Past, Part 2: A Survey of American History Since 1865, 4th Edition, by Joseph R. Conlin (1993), page 835.

 

 

Apparently, my dreams so POWERFUL that I can bring back BOOKS from them and scan them into my computer!