Story Comments
Posted by: NoSpinDave 1 year, 3 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What should be scarry to EVERYONE is Obama's stance that he will raise the capital gains tax from the current level of 20 percent, to almost DOUBLE that at 39 percent.
Even if you are a partisan Obama supporter, you MUST admit that this will DESTROY the willingness of MANY small business owners to invest. This is nothing but pure populist pandering al a Hugo Chavez.
Now, IMAGINE the MASSIVE SELLOFF in December of this year if Obama is elected. If you think we are in a recession now, just wait until the "Black December" selloff. Can anyone say stock market crash?
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 3 months ago
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then why don't you and NOSPINDAVE provide your DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. Without it, your speculation means ******.
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/...
"The stock market does far better under Democrats. During those 72 years the stock market returned about 11% more a year under Democratic presidents and 2% more under Republicans - a striking difference."
DOW JONES UNDER CLINTON
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
"The DJIA rose steadily during the Clinton Presidency from 3300 in Jan 1993, to 11,500 by December 1999, before settling back at 10,600 by the time Clinton left office--a 221% increase."
DOW JONES UNDER BUSH
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
"The Dow Jones closing averages under George W. Bush has been relatively stagnant from 10,600 to 11,000--a meager 4% increase."
Reply-
Neutral
protoham1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you look at who controlled congress during these times of greatness you would see that it was the Republican party. Clinton only had 2 years when the dems had control of congress, and in that two years he and them increased taxes considerably.
Keep in mind the Budget is controlled by Congress, not the President.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, in the last several decades, it has been the president who sets economic policy and proposes a budget. Congress simply approves it and distributes the checks.
Here is Bush defending HIS (not Congress') economic policies.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/10/bush....
Nice try, but it'll take more than that to overturn an academic, pee-reviewed study conducted by UCLA.
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If you look at who controlled congress during these times of greatness you would see that it was the Republican party."
--So which Party was in control of Congress and the White House when we were given the biggest government in history? It was Republicans, right, proto? Of course it was...
Reply -
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Keep in mind the Budget is controlled by Congress, not the President."
This is false.
The president proposes how much money will be spent,
through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) .
The president vetoes what spending he does not like.
All congress can do is overide a veto, or else negotiate what to spend the proposed amount on.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CLINTON'S RECORD ON JOBS
"In 1992, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5%. 22.1 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration. The economy added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. Unemployment is down from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in June 2000, and in April 2000 the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years. The unemployment rate has fallen for 7 years in a row, and has remained below 5% for 34 months."
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BUSH'S RECORD ON JOBS
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
"The early returns of Bush's tax cuts have not been good. The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from projected large budget surpluses to projected deficits. The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households Ã;¢;; those least in need of additional resources Ã;¢;; at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. THE DESIGN OF THESE TAX CUTS WAS ILL-CONCEIVED, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS ECONOMIC STIMULUS THAN COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE SAME BUDGETARY COST. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/income.html
There was an INCREASE in Real Median Household Income under the Bill Clinton Administration from $43000 to $49500 (a 15.1% INCREASE); and a DECREASE in real median household income under George W Bush Administration from $49500 to $48201 (a 2.6% DECREASE).
Also, the poverty rating under Clinton fell from 40 million to 31 million; and rose under Bush from 31 million to 36.5 million.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech...
"The share of income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution rose from 42% to 50%, while the share of income received by those in the bottom fifth declined from 7% to 5%.
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
REPUBLICANS AND FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Alan Greenspan levels unusually harsh criticism at the Republican Party, arguing that Bush abandoned the conservative principle of fiscal restraint. Greenspan praises Clinton's tough anti-deficit policies as 'an act of political courage.' But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. 'My biggest frustration remained the Bush's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending.'
Greenspan accuses the Republicans of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. Dealing with a budget surplus, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to 'save Social Security first.' Greenspan writes, 'I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton's. The truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.'"
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184
"Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34% since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28%. The administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1999/0202fede...
"The big question is how to use these surpluses. Clinton called on the nation to save most of the budget surpluses that loom in our nation's economic future. At the same time, his Republican critics have been calling for sizeable tax cuts, which would underwrite increased personal consumption, and some of his Democratic supporters have been calling for increased government spending on long-neglected domestic priorities."
In effect, Bush's tax cuts represented the sentiment of the Republican party on how best to spend Clinton's budget surpluses. Republicans wanted to spend the money and cut taxes. Clinton wanted to save for SS, health care, and debt reduction.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DEMOCRATS & FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1999/0202fede...
"The significance of prospective surpluses of nearly $5 trillion over the next 15 years is hard to appreciate. The big question is how to use these surpluses. Clinton called on the nation to save most of the budget surpluses that loom in our nation's economic future. The largest component is the transfer of bonds to Social Security and Medicare. These transfers would go about half way to closing the projected long-term deficit in Social Security."
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
"House Democrats, seeking to show they will be better stewards of taxpayers' money than their Republican predecessors, approved new budget rules Friday that require any new spending or tax cuts to be paid for by other spending cuts or tax increases. The so-called pay-as-you-go budget rules were passed with broad support as part of a package that also requires lawmakers to disclose which "earmarks," or spending items, they have added to bills."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's ironic is that although Republicans are perceived as good for business, the economy actually performs worse when Republicans are in power. For example, today
1) the purchasing power of the American dollar is at record lows, inflation is a real threat
2) the banks are being crushed by the sub-prime crisis
3) energy and food prices are skyrocketing
4) the stock market is declining
5) the budget surplus has been squandered
6) the national deficit is at record highs, and
7) the unemployment rating is deceivingly high.
It's going to take more than yours and NOSPINDAVE's unsubstantiated speculating to spin these FACTS.
So go ahead. Throw your support behind McCain, who BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, has confessed that he doesn't understand as much as he should about the economy. Let's see how successful he will be at reversing Bush's disastrous domestic legacy, when McCain favors continuing much of Bush's economic policies.
I'll wait for YOUR EVIDENCE.
Reply -
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a suggestion dozey ... never ... NEVER question ybdoggy on the facts.
He's a walkin encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, this causes UNHOLY TROUBLE for the Righties who only want to repeat the Jingoism and Propaganda that Rush Limbaugh and the HUNDREDS of similar Right Wing Info-tainers who rule media.
I personally refer to ybdoggy as the Propaganda Killer.
Although, sometimes I refer to him as the Jingo Jouster.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No doubt he is a walking encyclopedia. Let's not forget that the restructuring of the American economy in the 80s and the end of the cold war set the stage for a booming economy in the 90s. While I am sure you and yours will deny that, it is a simple fact underlying all the others.
"non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28%. The administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs."
Where do you think the recessionary economy came from?
Furthermore, I am so very happy that the left is finding non-defense discretionary spending a problem. Let us join hands and put a stop to it!
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
JIMDOZE:
"Let's not forget that the restructuring of the American economy in the 80s and the end of the cold war set the stage for a booming economy in the 90s."
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1...
"In 1992, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5%. 22.1 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration. The economy added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. Unemployment is down from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in June 2000, and in April 2000 the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years. The unemployment rate has fallen for 7 years in a row, and has remained below 5% for 34 months."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720pres...
"Clinton campaigned on the economy and had remarkable success. GDP growth during his eight years averaged 3.5% per year. The economy also added jobs at a faster rate under Clinton than under any postwar president except Carter. The public's confidence in the economy hit an all-time high in the summer of 2000, near the end of Clinton's second term, according to Gallup. In the summer of 1992, before he was elected, it was at an all-time low.
Of the ten postwar presidents, the first President Bush brings up the rear. He ranks dead last for both GDP growth and income growth and also ballooned the deficit at a rate faster than every president but Ford."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Greenspan praises Clinton's tough anti-deficit policies, calling Clinton's 1993 economic plan 'an act of political courage.'
Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as saying, 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter.'
Greenspan says, '"Deficits don't matter," to my chagrin became part of the Republicans' rhetoric.' Greenspan argues that 'deficits must matter' and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation 'and economic devastation.'
'The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.'
Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to 'save Social Security first.' Greenspan writes, 'I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with.'"
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So you would blame a December 2008 stock market crash on a president-elect who wouldn't assume office until January 2009?
"No spin," huh?
LOL."
OMG, you just CLEARLY showed beyond a shadow of a DOUBT either...
A) your a complete idiot with ZERO knowlwdge of the tax code...thus your opinion means SQUAT
OR
B)YOU dont pay TAXES....thus you opinion menas SQUAT.
You see child, we ADULTS who actually have jobs and pay taxes pay them for the PERVIOUS year. So in April of 2009, you will pay your taxes for the 2008 tax year. Want to take a guess when the 2008 tax year ends.....wait for it.....wait for it....DECEMBER 2008. I.E. the policy he sets between January and April can be RETROACTIVLY instituited for the 2008 tax year. If you dont believe me ask anyone here (that paied taxes during Clinton's first term) about his retroactive taxes.
Now, go back to school, get a job and start paying taxes so you know these things...OR BOTH!!!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Spinny!
You are just upset cause you aint gointa get no more Welfare Checks from GeeDub!
I feel for ya!
But, I sense the middle class is getting tired of carrying the Ultra-Rich ... only to watch the Ultra-Rich muck things up time and time again.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NOFACTSDAVE:
"oh really, and what FACTS of mine are incorrect EXACTLY? Oh do tell?"
You don't present any documented facts. That's PRECISELY the problem. Provide DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE from reliable, nonpartisan, preferably-primary sources to prove that:
1) Obama's economic policy IN ITS ENTIRETY will cause the Dow Jones to collapse
2) a Dow Jones collapse in December 2008 is anticipatory and NOT directly caused by the credit crisis, high energy & food prices, inflation, record budget deficits, depressed consumer confidence, job losses, government bailouts (Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae) that has become prevalent during Bush's administration
Go ahead. Present your documentation. Show me your "facts." You certainly haven't presented ANY already.
LOL.
still waiting...Don't worry, judging from your previous posting history, I won't be holding my breath for your "facts."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well YOU shure aint no Financial Wizard ... THAT'S for shure!
Everybody knows that the Stock Market typically does better when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office!!
Thats why I sold my stock shortly after Bush took office and BOY OH BOYE did that make GREAT financial rewards for me and my family!!!
Here! If you don't believe me ... here's a breakdown of the Stock Market Performance since 1901.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/k...
And if you don't want to go ... (and I don't blame you ... the article DOES sort of mess up you and NoSpine's propaganda) ... I'll just give you one snippet.
"In the 56 years that a REPUBLICAN has occupied the Oval Office ... the Stock Market has gained 387.7%.
In the 48 years that a DEMOCRAT has occupied the Oval Office ... the Stock Market has gained 639.6%!
Not quite double ... but pretty ding dang good.
Reply-
Neutral
protoham1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your buying the wrong stocks. You are looking at the wrong part of government, Congress makes the laws not the President. Since the Dems took control of congress have you not noticed what is happening to the Stock market.
Clinton did great, because the Republican lead Congress wouldn't let him get any of his idea past them.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The people in this country that have any significant capital gains are very much in the MINORITY.
Capital gains does NOT impact the vast majority of taxpayers.
Besides, the stock market is already crashing.
Thanks to Bush's economic policies, the price of oil is sky-high, jobless rates are highest in years, the price of gasoline, food, utilities, and ANY goods and services are skyrocketing BECAUSE of the price of oil, banks are defaulting, and the value of the dollar is in the toilet.
My 401K plan is shrinking by the minute, thanks to the policeis of W and the Republicans over the last 12 years.
Reply-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The people in this country that have any significant capital gains are very much in the MINORITY.
Capital gains does NOT impact the vast majority of taxpayers. "
LAUGHABLE Bubba. If you actually pay them or not, it still crushes investment. I dont care who is doing the investing, if investment in this country is squashed it does not take a genious to figure out the end result for the country.
Also, it still effects EVERYONE considering any added costs to do business will be passed along to.....you guessed it....the consumer!
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It may be that investments of the FEW that have money to invest can impact the "cost of doing business".
But, added cost to do business happens MANY ways outside of "investments". The current price of oil is THE case in point. Speculators are getting FILTHY rich over the price of oil, while everyone else is getting hit HARD by the high prices they pay for EVERYTHING.
The average consumers are already being savaged by a collapsing economy while "investors" and "speculators" continue to line their pockets.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Besides, the stock market is already crashing."
Inconvenant facts that disturb the GOP plan to blame the next Democratic adminitration. The Psuedo-Conservatives would have us believe it is not the Bushes Administrations fault, it is the fault of the X, the new democratic President.
Reply-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Who is in charge of the Congress for the past 2 years? Where the laws are made."
--LOL...Proto...Well, cons have been pretending you weren't aware that the GOP was in charge of Congress for the previous 6 years so at least you're being consistently disingenuous. I'll give you points for that. ;-P
Reply -
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You didn't listen in your civics class when they discussed how laws are made in this country. U C even though the Dems have a slim majority in Congress they don't have enough votes to stop the obstructionist tactics used by the Rebublicans.
I have no doubt that all the economic woes of this country is the fault of the Bush Administrations short sighted goal.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Your House and your 401K, are the biggest investments of your life and they are subject to Capital Gains."
--The biggest investments of "your" life? I've bought and sold a couple of homes and I didn't worry about capital gains for one second (and hundreds of thousands more Americans won't have to worry about it now, btw). Just because you only know people who can afford to invest in 401ks and own homes worth upwards of half-a million dollars doesn't mean that's how the majority of Americans live. Get serious... You're only concerned about YOURSELF. Why don't you just admit that's what all the fear mongering is about, proto?
Reply -
Neutral
bubba21 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Capital gains for homes only comes into play if you sell a home and you do NOT use that money to buy another one.
The money put INTO a 401 K is not taxed. The taxes are taken out when the money is taken out of the fund. I don't know that the percentage of capital gains taxing applies to that.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What should be scarry to EVERYONE is Obama's stance that he will raise the capital gains tax from the current level of 20 percent, to almost DOUBLE that at 39 percent."
--Thanks for the warning (again), Henny Penny but considering both the prosperity brought to us by the previous Democratic Presidency and the hellish last 8 years we've had under Bush and the GOP, no one is dumb enough to believe that the sky is going to fall if we don't elect another Republican. Nice try but a disgusting and unbelieveably stupid lame duck GOP President once said "fool me once...you can't get fooled again." America has been permanently "scarred" by Bush. We don't need another GOP administration filled with corruption, criminal cronies, wars, lies, extreme debt, an explosion in terrorism worldwide, record fuel prices, and endless tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. No way. LOL
Reply -
-
loading ...
MacR
dBergeron
protoham
birddog54
libsRfunny
jimdoze
Wolfie2007
spkguy
bubba2
djn3nunez3
Goppy
baddad59
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.