Slashdot Mirror
Crawford Newspaper Endorses Kerry
ramoth4 writes "Local Crawford, TX (Bush's adopted hometown) paper The Lone Star Iconoclast has endorsed John Kerry for president. Kerry's home paper, the Boston Globe, hasn't come out with an endorsement yet. It's a very interesting editorial, especially in light of Bush's performance in the first debate."
A paper in town of 46,000 people makes an endorsement? Who cares if it's Bush's 'adopted' home town?
I'm asking because a paper named "The Lone Star Iconoclast" doesn't sound too mainstream, and suggests pre-existing partisanship.
Rob
mass newyorkers rooting for the Red Sox?
I think that it just goes to show, that true conservatives cannot vote for Bush. The Republican Party is no longer conservative, they are a bunch of various single-issue voters who cobble together for political strength. As the debates progress, more people will see John Kerry, not as the man Bush and his cronies has spent million to defame, but as a strong leader, who really cares about the people of America and America's place in the world. Other than a couple of retread ideas from his first campain (tort reform, etc) Bush has a campain based on attacking Kerry as weak; he cannot run on his record, so he tries to burn his opposition.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
I don't see how anyone voting for Bush is doing so based on his record, anyhow.
This junk is quoted from the Democratic Party's website and framed as the independant thoughts of the editors. If you want to slam someone at least be creative about it instead of committing plagarism.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's sad that the AP picks up the fact that a paper with a circulation of 425 supports Kerry. But there is not mention that the Lowell Sun, a ciculation of 100,000+ and a major newspaper in Massachusetts, Endorses Bush.
No Bias here. Noooooosiirrreeee.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Odd that you complain about a section which you have made posts to (real posts rather than this off-topic whining). Perhaps you are disappointed in the recent turns of the election!
I was just wondering, why would a Newspaper or a news outlet go out and say "We're endorsing this candidate over this other one".
I mean, shouldn't they at least TRY to be non-biased about the news they report? I know I know...there is this "Liberal Media" that's suppose to pump up all Democrats and rake-across-the-coals all Republicans...at the same time there are conservative news outlets that almost try to convince us that Democrats cause cancer....but shouldn't they at least pretend to not be biased?
I want my news from unbiased..."we don't endorse anyone" kind of thing. I know, it's a pipe dream to try to find just raw news reporting without SOMEONE saying it's biased one way or another.
Just always wondered why newspapers go out on a limb like that.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Kerry's home toilet paper, the tabloid Boston Herald, hasn't endorsed anyone yet either.
in their facts. Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc. The Social Security privatization plan has been pushed since before Bush was in office. And Kerry has had to tear down the plan Bush has pushed. It promises to be more successful than anything else Kerry can come up with, which is basically to keep the current plan until the Social Security plan goes bankrupt, which will be in most of our lifetimes.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
As with most of the stories that wind up in this section, this is:
1) Ludicrously insignificant
2) A week old
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Well that settles it then! Everyone vote for Kerry!
I mean, really - I have no idea who to vote for until someone tells me. I'm just scared that someone will come along and endorse Bush, and then I'll have no idea what to do...
Research the candidates on their issues. Then research to see if they stuck to their campaign promises. Don't go by endorsements, that's the lazy thing to do, unless you really trust the source. For example, I'll try going through my state's voters' guide for all the candidates. I'll create a text file called "Vote". I'll list all the candidates, then write down YES, NO, MAYBE, MAYBE/YES, and MAYBE/NO. Then come when my absentee ballot arrives, I'll go through the list, and then try deciding. A few issues might throw me, and sway my vote to vote no on that candidate.
Social Security as it exists today is a massive government mandated pyramid scheme that lets politicians in Washington dupe millions of people out of hard earned money on the grounds that it's "for retirement". In truth had the government issued savings bonds (the lowest yeild investment you can get) to everyone on Social Security everybody would have been better off. The government could have used the lower interest debt to pay off higher interest debt and the retireees would have more money. Furthermore the retirees would know EXACTLY how much money they have for retirement and know it is gauranteed instead of having some vague promise subject to political whims. Instead, the current scheme was concocted where people working today pay for those who worked before them and they in turn will be paid for by those who work after them. Obviously this rely's on the pool of workers never dropping, a rediculous assumption. Furthermore, as it is, the payouts on Social Security for almost all beneficiaries are below inflation (that is they are getting less value out then they put in) and served as a worse investment than savings bonds (which is considered the lowest return you should every accept and then only in small ammounts). While this isn't that big of a deal for those of us making enough money to plan for retirement without social security, many people who are less fortunate then us NEED that money to be invested wisely so that they CAN retire. Ripping them off for political gains is amoral behavior and should stop. What we need to do is get the government and it's bueracray out of running a retirement bussiness. Steps:
- Give everyone who has paid into social security savings bonds retroactively for all of the money they put in. Use this lower interest debt to pay off the higher interest debt the government already has. This should free up enough cash to deal with the people who choose to cash out of their savings bonds early.
- The treasury deparment already has an automatic payroll program for savings bonds. Transition social security to this (including the employer matching).
- Given any american who wants it, the option of opting out (and being responsible for themselves).
These steps can "privatize" social security without any added beuracracy, legislation, and little cost.The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's ironic, but meaningless. The owner/editor is a Democrat who has run for office, been defeated, and doesn't live in Crawford.
Most of the town residents have started boycotting the paper since the editorial ran.
Quotes from various places in the article:
"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda."
"He let us down."
"He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong."
"Again, he let us down."
"Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House."
People in Crawford are in a position to know George W. Bush a little better than most citizens. It seems that the newspaper is merely saying openly what a lot of people in that town think.
Also, Bush's alcoholism is a matter of importance. For example, look at this: Is Bush drinking NOW?. For a more in-depth analysis, see this: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. Remember, Bush quit the Air National Guard the same month the ANG instituted drug testing. Did he fall off the wagon again?
--
Bush: "When Saudis attack, invade Iraq."
The Lone Star Iconoclast participates with the rest of the USA in the self-delusion that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and won't inevitably fail. So much for being Iconoclast.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
This is like the "Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. What you will find in the establishment clause is that the state should not establish religion. It is actually the "Supreme Court mandated separation of church and state" based on its interpretation of the Constitution.
Abortion is the same. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow or forbid it so legislation must settle the issue. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, but that still doesn't put any words about abortion in the Constitution.
Please note that I am not saying anything about my views either way. I am merely pointing out what the Constitution does and does not say. My views on what legislation should or should not be passed are a different matter.
Most daily newspapers endorse candidates or proposals. The difference is endorsements always appear on the Opinion/Editorial page. (That's the page with the comics on it that you don't understand)
While some make the case that newspapers (and the Media) are liberal biased, my hometown paper, The Birmingham News, endorses candidates from both parties, although not for the same election of course.
This is a real service to readers not so much for presidental elections, but for local and state elections when the candidates and issues are not well know or understood by the public. I had no idea which candidate was better for State Commissioner of Agriculture and Industry, but I was alble to read the News analysis of the candidates to decide.
i have the same problem. and i've seen posts from other people with that problem as well.
whats really weird is that i can't stop clicking on these politics links even though they're stories about insignificant garbage.
The AP has just reported that slashdot.org's very own AnonymousCoward has endorsed President George W. Bush for another term as President of the United States of America.
This is a true sign that the country is leaning toward endorsing President Bush in the upcoming election and that Slashdot has gone WAY THE HELL OFF TOPIC!!!
politics.slashdot.org
Politics reported by its bias-crap-o-meter.
Stuff real people know doesn't matter.
I'll see your anecdote, and raise you mine:
All of the alchoholics in my family are fully functional. So much so that you wouldn't know they were alchoholics if you didn't see them with beer in hand at 8:00 am. Sharp as tacks, not a slur or a drunken moment, just smiles and good cheer all day long.
And no, I don't endorse it or practice it. And I'm not voting for Bush. My point is that you can't judge the man for that one picture because it is all about the individual's biology.
Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
i generally hate all your posts including this one, but you aren't usually angry which i appreciate and i'm curious what someone on the left would think:
what if the tax system had no loop holes at all. everyone paid the same graduated tax rate. that goes for people and corporations and charities and nonprofits and every other legal entity. (note i'm not talking about a flat tax.)
i think that this would make things more fair and simple and reduce the tax code to 10 pages. and it would raise government revenue a lot. (so we could then cut taxes, yeah!) also when we had tax cuts or tax increases it would be a lot more obvious who was getting screwed and who wasn't. politicians would be more likely to just pass a general 1% increase or 1% decrease or something like that.
not that this will ever happen.
but i'm curious. what do all you kerry freaks think about this?
This might have actually been an interesting development, if the newspaper that ran the editorial had a circulation of at least 100,000. But, unfortunately for Michael, it so happens that we are talking about a paper in Crawford, Texas (population 705). The town paper in question, The Lonestar Iconoclast, has a reported circulation of 425.
In other news, the Po Dunk Junior High Tribune in Dustville, Nebraska has endorsed Donkey Kong for President. According to the editors of the school paper, "We believe that Donkey Kong is the best candidate for president this year. I mean, after all, he's a video game ape. How many other candidates can put that on their resume?" Interestingly, the junior high's recommended candidate for Vice President? Michael, from Slashdot.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
This isn't a respectable paper. Its founder was a very virulent anti-Baptist writer. One who took very negative views of black Americans.
Nah, I don't think I would want this endorsement, regardless of how many years since its founding. The original founder is just to shameful.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President - by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower
THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word "Republican" has always been synonymous with the word "responsibility," which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation's financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today's Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
there are certainly a lot of things i don't like about the president's record. mostly i am hoping he won't be as bad as kerry.
specifically i am hoping he won't be as protectionist as kerry and he won't grow the size of government as much as kerry. i think these things are vital to the economy and the well being of americans.
probably the 2 things he has done which i feel fairly happy about are:
1. the invasion of afghanistan. i think it needed to be done. maybe there were some bad choices made, but i don't see kerry or anyone else doing better. mostly i expect mediocre results from government, and generally i thought this response to sept 11 was pretty well done. i really like harmad karzai or however the hell you spell his name.
2. tax cuts. i saved a few hundred dollars i suppose. mostly i'm happy about the dividend tax cut. i don't have a huge amount of money in the stock market but i hopefully will someday. people say this is a tax cut for the rich, but i think something like 60% of americans have money in the market so i still think its an important, fairly broad cut. nothing is perfect. at least he didn't raise taxes like democrats wanted to do. democrats complain about the deficit and i'm not happy with that either. bush cut taxes and grew the size of the government when he should have cut more taxes and shrunk government. still i figure kerry would have grown government more than bush and not cut taxes at all or worse. i'll take what i can get.
bush isn't my ideal candidate. i just think he will do better than kerry. and really who is an ideal candidate anyway? i mean other than myself.
It is kind of amusing you claim that Bush cannot run on his record, which he is doing, yet Kerry refuses to run on his record in the Senate. Why is that?
/.
Fact is that Kerry faces a party where a good number of his people support the war and then are balanced out by many who oppose it. He can't please both meaning he is bound to lose out somewhere. Where you have a party powered by anti-religous bigots colliding with many ethnic groups who base most of their values in religion. No, Kerry has more work cut out from him. Assembling groups on the idea of "Anyone but Bush" doesn't get you to the finish and isn't something to be proud of. Of course he could ditch his integrity and be like Carter and accept victory at any cost (taking a Nobel prize when it was clear it was given to somehow insult Bush)
The key thing to remember is how one sided the press is in general and slashdot is great evidence of this. The whole politics section seems to revolve around negative Bush stories, negative modding of anyone expressing pro-Bush ideals, and then topped off with stories of nearly zero value like this one.
If you looked closely at the newspaper which claimed to be backing Kerry you would quickly realize this isn't something you want to brag about. The found was a anti-Baptist Zealot who not only viruently attacked religon but he also showed quite a bit of racism when he referenced blacks.
Your insightful mod points only show off the nearly blind liberal hate that infests
I won't be voting for Bush either, but at least I am not delusional nor filled with hate as many here are.
Karma to BURN.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I have a friend like that. But, there are times when he is super crabby.
Do you see any behavior, other than drinking alcohol at 8 AM, that would make you think they were being affected by alcoholism?
Yes. I responded. And got fed up with the blowhards (yes, on both sides, but mostly the ACs), and now don't want this crap anymore
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
The Lowell Sun endorsement is based solely on national security and it can be argued that Bush is wrong on security. He's sent a major portion of the National Guard to Iraq. The National Guard was intended to protect the homeland (National Guard means guard the nation), not to be sent for the pResident's overseas adventures. Also, Bush let the chemical industry off easily by agreeing not to force them to take certain measures to protect their infrastructure - this endangers many cities in the US because chemical plants are still easy targets.
The Iconoclast's (OK, I agree, that is a strange name) endorsement by contrast covers not only security but also economic issues. The article cogently outlines all of the reasons they can't support Bush this time. Since I voted for Bush last time, I know how they feel - betrayed!
Given his record, I'm at a loss to figure out why Bush has the amount of support he does this time around. I chalk it up to Kerry's appearance as a being a weak candidate - though he seems to be doing of good job of dispelling this image in the debates.
I'm not a huge Kerry fan, but I look at it strategically: The Republicans will probably still controll Congress on Nov. 3rd. If we return Bush to power with a Repuplican congress he'll be able to do a lot more damage. If we send up Kerry with a Republican congress it'll slow down the damage.
This article enunciates many of the things I've been thinking for a long time now. The only item they missed is the sheer terror that I have about how this administration would behave if it were not concerned with re-election. It eloquently states what's really wrong with what this administration is doing, an posits (as have I) that Kerry might make an acceptble president, given the undeniable fact that this current president has got to go.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Bush is against abortion and the destruction of embryos for stem cell research; Kerry is not. For this reason alone, Bush will be receiving my vote.
But that's such a simplistic view of 'pro-life'. Sure, I voted for Bush last time for similar reasons. However, I no longer consider Bush to be truely 'pro-life'. Killing 20000+ Iraqis (it's estimated that half of them were innocent civilians) , 1050 US soldiers dead, 24000 wounded - this doesn't seem to me to be 'pro-life'. Also, Bush's environmental record is abysmal - again this doesn't seem to be 'pro-life'. He's for the death penalty - how is that 'pro-life'? Cuts in medical care for the poor - again, how is this 'pro-life'? We need to also be concerned with people who are no longer in the womb as well...
I'll be voting for Kerry this time.
No, that's not a conservative value. That's an economic policy goal, and it's one that not all conservatives agree about.
Oh, if this is about what values all Conservatives share, that's easy.
Conservatives have no values. There is not a single value shared by every Conservative. Not a one. None.
Conservatives are for open markets and free trade.
Oooh, I'm sorry. Wasn't it Clinton that passed NAFTA? Wouldn't that make it a LIBERAL value?
It would be more honest if you would change the name of this section from "Politics" to "Bush Sucks. Vote for Kerry."
Both major parties want to control your life. There's about five inches between the agenda of the Democrats and the Republicans, and only on highly divisive issues which are harped on because they're highly divisive.
They're also both aided and abetted by a media which never concentrates on substantive issues and instead gives us a constant, meaningless stream of soundbytes, empty endorsements, and stupid comments about which candidate had the slicker speaking style or better hair.
We've let politics in America degenerate to the banality of the Redskins/Cowboys rivalry, (btw: Go Cowboys!) and in effect, insured that the government will grow stronger at our expenses, and for the benefit of big business and other special interests.
What to do about it? This year, I'm seriously planning to vote for a third party candidate who more closely matches my values. I'm also taking the attitude that I should live my life the way I want to. If I don't like one state's tax policy, I'm not moving there. I voted with my feet and moved to Texas instead of California. If you don't like Wal-mart and other unethically run businesses, then find some locally owned businesses to patronize. If you don't have any, please move to Austin and support our local businesses. I didn't buy an SUV bacause I don't want to consume that much fuel, and I bought a 1000 square foot condo instead of the big house I can afford. I don't see the need to buy a bunch of needless crap to fill up a big house.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
frankly i could care less about reputation. i don't understand this obsession. this isn't a high school popularity contest. i just want the right thing to get done. if you want to tell me the wrong thing is being done we can argue about that, but i could care less about whether you are ashamed or not.
Could it be that when you cut taxes the amount of money moving in economy increases and therefor the government income actually increases. And before you spout off how theres no evidence to support that please review the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 which clearly shows that government income doubled in during the 80's and the Reagan Tax cuts.
Now look at the numbers from 1999 on.
1999 - 2000 = growth
Bush comes into office
2000 - 2001 = decline
2001-2002 = decline
2002-2003 = decline
So by your "data", the government income DECREASED when Bush cut taxes. How is that possible when you say that cutting taxes INCREASES the government's income?
Maybe the situation is not as simplistic as you portray?
I am no fan of Bush. Nonetheless, the incredible bias of the media in favor of Kerry should cause us to re-think what we read.
If you hate what is happening to our nation, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
Precisely, to me, that the death tax needs to be on liquid assets only, eventually, and even then, PERSONAL liquid assets. But as you say- the super wealthy can hire lawyers- though it's pretty amazing to me that it's cheaper for a small business to keep back 45% of it's value in a bank account than to hire a lawyer to advise them on a better way to do it. Even if you had to pay the lawyer $150,000/year, well, you could have that lawyer in house working ONLY on stuff for the business for 36 years before you'd spend as much money as holding back 45% of a $12 million capital-intensive business's worth. Thus creating a job, if only a parasitical one.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
To me, a business worth $12 million with 50 employees ain't a small business anymore- and they could save $80,000 a year by paying themselves the same as their employees, right off the top. $50,000 a year is enough for anybody to be comfortable on, just about anywhere in the US.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This is a week old.
Why does slashdot think it can do political reporting? You have a hard enough time getting tech stories correct, and I swear every time you post a political article it just makes you look like a bunch of fuckwits.
Talk is cheap, bullshit is free, vote the record.
XML causes global warming.
Then you certainly can't support Kerry.
n/t
Social Security wasn't created to be retirement program. It was put into effect to keep old folks from dying in the streets, and evaluated on that criteria, it has been very successful.
And fear moners and profit mongers nonwithstanding, social security is still in solid health. By the most pessimistic of predictions, the program is slated to take in more revenue than pay out for another 15 years. And every year the CBO and Social Security Trustees release their report, that number gets bumped up (previous years accounting showed 2017 as the year where payouts finally match revenues).
According to the latest trustee report, 2053 is the year where full scheduled payments may be impacted. But again, every year the trustees produce their report, the margin from the current date increases.
The scare is a manufactured one, a campaign of Wall Street making to get their grubby hands all over lucrative administrative fees for such a regulated, bureaucratic alternate privately funded looting.
AZspot
I've read a little about Crawford. I get the impression that the newspaper's EXTREMELY negative view of George W. Bush is not so unusual that they would have to worry about people canceling their subscriptions, or advertisers boycotting the paper. Newspaper must reflect the ideas of their readers and advertisers at least a little just to stay in business.
--
U.S. Gov.: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. You must pay it back.
When I was a teenager I worked in a restaurant for a short time. There were alcoholic chefs that had both 1 and 2.
What about behavior that is of more direct concern to others? Here are traits that many people think are characteristic of George W. Bush. Do you see these traits:
Likability, anger, lying, absence of deep or analytical thinking, polarized thinking, rigid thinking, obsessive repetition, inability to perceive the needs of others and inability to understand someone different from oneself, grandiosity, believing that one's own ideas are all-important, impatience, incoherence, illogic, and mood swings.
The first needs a little explanation. Often alcoholics can be very socially engaging for short periods.
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good. You must pay it back.
Here, I'll do it for you.
2000 - 2,096,916,925
2001 - 2,128,831,182
2002 - 2,016,627,269
2003 - 1,952,929,045
Love how you guys always play the "Let's make up data" game.
I didn't read the first one right when I posted that, but both of the other items are correct. So, your statement that cutting taxes increases government income is STILL shown to be incorrect from data in 2002 and 2003.
In fact, 2002 is less than 2000.
What's WORSE is that 2003 is LESS than 2000.
Now what could possibly have cause a financial downturn in 2001??? Hmm what could have "attacked" our financial system like that?
Again, what's WORSE is that 2003 is LESS than 2000. An attack in 2001 should NOT mean that 2003 is worse than 2000. How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that?
Its almost like the system shutdown for days and a primary means of moving goods within the country was interrupted for three days!!!
Yeah, you're right. Yet three YEARS later we're showing WORSE numbers than BEFORE the attack. How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that attack?
Ofcource if you were not so afflicted with selective memory you'd remember and see in the data the exact same decline in 1983 when Reagan's cuts were pasted.
Ummm, no.
1982 - 632,240,506
1983 - 627,246,793
difference = -4,993,713
Then a jump UP!
2000 - 2,096,916,925
2003 - 1,952,929,045
difference = -143,987,880
With NO jump up.
Not 2x as bad.
Not 5x as bad.
Not even 10x as bad.
Almost 30x WORSE than your example. And still trending downward.
The Reagan tax cuts created the most explosive growth of wealth the world has ever seen. Now are we going to see the same levels of growth? No because the rate cuts are not as dramatic but alas that is not the issue at bar here.
No. Stay on your original topic. Tax cuts increase governmental income. Yet the numbers do NOT show that happening. In fact, the CONTINUING trend is over 30x WORSE than with Ronnie.
Where is the "increased government income" that you're promising? Or are you going to continue to hide behind an attack that took place over 3 years ago?
Not 30x, just 3x. I had an extra zero there.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
As soon as I thought of the Subject "Bush != Conservative", I knew that this was going to be a big loud thread, I knew that my post would be among the first couple of posts, and the title 'jumped'. Honestly the title was an afterthought, I would have like to have supported it more by quotes from the article, but the story was live at that point and if you wait for 10 minutes to post on a hot topic you had better attach your post to someone else's thread (as I think that you did).
When someone replies to my post, I have something substancial to add (or subtract, if you will), and I feel like it, I will reply. For example I posted a 'funny' about 'my Evil Twin' a couple of days ago, several posters 'burned' me (in a funny way) and if it was IM I'd would have replied "ROFL", I couldn't think of anything meaningful or funny, which was even remotely 'on topic' so I am letting it age. I might make the effort to thank them for the good laugh before the topic is closed, but it's not on the 'a' list. Of course I am getting so off topic here, I think that I would be a little disappointed if I didn't get at least one 'off topic' mod point!
Judging from your userId you have been on slashdot a good while, you should know better. Complaining that someone replied to your post on slashdot is like complaining that the Mountains aren't flat, it's just not their nature.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
No its not because you are making the assumptions that you can not prove true. The Reagan data clearly shows an increase in government income.
It is correct that the data for the Reagan years shows an increase in income.
You assume that if the Bush tax cuts had not happened that government income would have at least remained steady, this is easily proved to be a false assumption.
No I am not assuming that. I am pointing out that the data does not support your claim that cutting taxes increases government income.
And I am showing that in a very easy to understand fashion. I am taking the data that YOU provided and showing that the governmental income DROPPED after Bush's tax cuts.
Therefore, tax cuts do NOT mean increased governmental income. It's simple science (unlike your pseudo-science).
You claim change X has effect Y.
Change X occured at two instances.
Effect Y was noticed at one instance.
The OPPOSITE effect was noticed at the other.
Therefore, you are wrong.
And as such my argument is that the tax cuts, in this case, saved the economy from a further downhill slide.
Typical pseudo-science. Just like phrenology. When your claims don't match reality, claim that there was something that you didn't mention that more than countered the factor you claimed would have an effect.
Flip-flop Alert: You tell me is the economy improving or not? You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell. I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
Can't you read? The economy is DECLINING. Did you miss the numbers? Did you miss where I pointed out that 2003 is WORSE than 2000?
You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell.
Why not? They are the same thing. The tax revenues are down because the economy is down.
I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
How? Unemployed people do not pay taxes. Therefore, since the economy is bad and so many people are unemployed, the tax revenue is down.
Or do you live in a world where unemployed people pay federal taxes? Life must be extra hard for those unemployed people in your world.
I'm not the one off topic and looking for micro trends to prove my point. The overall Macro trend from 1980 to today does show a "CONTINUING trend" in government income not the "3X" decrease you site but instead a 4X increase.
But that macro trend you are quoting covers 8 years of Clinton's budget management.
You cannot use revenue growth data from Clinton's tax-and-spend years to compensate for the decline during the cut-taxes-borrow-and-spend years of Bush.
If you do want to use Clinton's data, that just shows that his management policy resulted in growth over his administration and further illustrates the decline during Bush's regime.
To put is simply, Bush's tax cuts have resulted in lower governmental income. Just look at Clinton's years to see the difference.
Bush has gotten slammed again and again for unfair trade practices, e.g. putting tariffs on steel.
bush has endorsed outsourcing. kerry has spoken out against outsourcing. much of kerry's support comes from unions. if you are against protectionist policies, you won't be voting for kerry.
Somehow I'd think "reflects the ideas of their advertisers" has a somewhat higher level of importance than "reflecting the ideas of their readers", seeing as how subscriptions barely cover delivery costs- it's the advertising that keeps the whole shebang going.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The editorial board of a small town newspaper is not indicative of anything. But you're making it out to be big news. Sheesh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I agree. That's a shocking conclusion, however, because business owners are usually a higher proportion of Republicans. Do Republicans in Crawford know something we don't know?
--
U.S. Gov.: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 Billion.
RTFA- Republicans in Crawford know that their boy W has been a HUGE disappointment as far as their own conservative values go. *ANY* honest digging into this administration at all, will return a similar judgement.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yes I can read, very well infact, well enough to tell you that government income is not the economy as your statement implies.
... and the dot com bust. ... and whatever else you can claim in an attempt to support your unsupportable position. Just like any other pseudo-science, when reality doesn't match your claims, claim that other factors that you hadn't mentioned were even more adverse than the one you did mention.
...
The federal government's income is not the economy, but it is based off of the economy.
Bad economy == low income.
Was that too hard for you?
I countered with the attacks of 9/11 that were directed against and had massive effect on the economic infrastructure of the US.
That wasn't a counter. That was a fantasy. You are not able to provide any evidence that the economy is still suffering from that single attack three years ago.
There is also the burst of the dot.com bubble and its slow down effects on the economy to consider. But I wouldn't want to put to many balls in the air as you appear to have trouble with just two.
No, you presented some data to "support" your claim that cutting taxes raised revenues. The data you provided contradicted that when looking at the latest tax cuts.
So now you say that it is because of the WTC attack.
By your logic I should be able to ask why 2003 is still better than 1999 when Clinton's tax rates were still in effect?
No. But if Bush is re-elected, look for 2005 to be worse than 1999.
As for the economy declining, maybe you'd care to explain how in your "declining" economy this is possible?
Nice try. Now look at the 5 year chart. See the huge drop?
Carville has told you this enough times so it must be true, right???
No, that's from the data you originally submitted to support your position. Go back and look at it if you need a refresher.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03db07co.xls
It looks like the federal income went up with Clinton. That is the material you originally sited.
So we see that tax cuts can increase government income by stimulation of the economy and in the case of the GW Bush cuts forestalled a major decrease in government income that would have occurred due to the massive negative economic effects that occurred during 2000 and 2001.
Pure fantasy. All you have are your fantasies about what would have happened. Otherwise known as a "false assumption".
The fact is that federal revenue is DOWN even with all of Bush's tax cuts.
It's so far down that it is worse today than it was three years ago.
Whereas Clinton showed growth.
Strange how someone doing the exact opposite of what you claim increases revenue
while someone doing exactly what you claim decreases revenue.
But you aren't wrong. Those figures you presented must be wrong. Clinton couldn't have had growth and other things lead to Bush's tax problems. Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket. You're never ever wrong.
France tried to talk the US out of going into Vietnam and France tried to talk the US out of going into Iraq. Both appear to have turned into little more than a boon and arms manufacturers and funeral home proprietors.
Where's the enemy in that?
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The fact that most business owners are conservative doesn't mean that this one must be, you moron.
What a stupid thing to say.
I mean, that was really, really, really dumb.
It just boggles the mind.
Ooh. And the fact that they're REPUBLICAN by DEFAULT must mean that they KNOW SOMETHING WE DON'T... RIGHT!?!???
Retard.
He identifies himself as a democrat, just not a "hide bound democrat".
Not so shocking now, is it? Stupid fucker.
Nope, but you are certainly having a hard time excepting it.
:)
... but that those TWO instances had the OPPOSITE results.
Hey, I posted it. You are the one that with the reality problem.
Thats correct and if you would read carefully you might understand that it is not suffering NOW from those attacks and I provided both stock market and Fed interest rate data to support the fact that the economy is improving.
Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None. It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.
Just like phrenology.
Just like astrology.
And you seem unable to get past that point. There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now.
Rather, for every dollar Bush cut taxes, only 9 cents have worked their way into circulation.
Just extending the unemployment benefits and keeping taxes as they were would have put over 70 cents of each dollar back into circulation.
The fact is that Bush's policies have trashed this economy and blind fools like you are attempting to claim otherwise by latching onto any fantasy that will allow you to blame someone else.
Nope to the best of my knowledge they are correct but they are only pieces of the puzzle if you want to look at the pieces individually then you must look at the factors that effect those pieces. You refuse to acknowledge anything other than the piece. And then spout off about what that piece must mean, yet you fail to provide anything that backs up your claim other than the piece you started with.
No, that was the evidence YOU originally sited and what YOU originally claimed it showed.
When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.
Either it is accurate - and you are wrong about Bush.
-or-
it is not accurate - and it doesn't support your claims about Ronnie.
Maybe you didn't know this but when you say that data has a certain meaning and then come around and use the same data as proof of your theorem, there's a name for it. Its called circular reasoning and its not good science!
Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you?
I only pointed out that your data covered TWO instances where taxes were cut
I think you're just trying to throw words and phrases around in an attempt to get anything to stick. Whereas I am focused and detailed. But you can't see that because you're caught up in your pseudo-science.
Go back to your astrology.
This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.
1 04 56496
Really? I do that? Well I would expect an example from you then.
Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.
No you have not. And if you refuse to post your evidence, this is the last reply from me. I will not sink to your level of did did-not did-too did-too-not. Grow up.
Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim.
Maybe you're new to this "scientific method" thing. You make a statement (tax cuts increase revenues) and provide supporting evidence (Ronnie's tax cuts).
I then looked at that evidence and found a second case (Bush's tax cuts) of your claims that contradicted your position (the revenue went down).
Therefore, either your position is incorrect or the supporting evidence you provided is incorrect.
Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=
It was you that refused to remove the data that was effected by economic anomalies, which when you do shows that the trend is still present.
Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.
Translation: astrology.
Since the data does NOT show what you claim it shows, you try to explain it away by claiming that other factors offset it by more. The same pattern that is present in astrology.
Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.
Again, let me explain this "science" thing to you.
You make a statement that is contradictable. You provide supporting evidence.
If your evidence does not support your statement, then your statement (or the evidence) is in error.
By your "logic", Bigfoot and astrology would be facts because no one can provide any evidence that they are not correct.
The same as your "facts" about the WTC attack counteracting Bush's tax cuts.
Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...
The data itself provides that. Look at the ORIGINAL data you provided. Look on that for the years that Bush has been in office. See the DECLINE? Do you know what "DECLINE" means?
You said that cutting taxes raised revenues and you presented data to support that, but the data shows that you are wrong, so you provide interpretations of what may have been in an attempt to compensate for the failings of your original data.
Again, pure astrology.
First off, an analogy to illustrate the flaws in your logic.
... and/or Z caused it not to rain.
You claim that washing your car makes it rain. You post a calendar showing the days it rains and the days you washed your car. On some of the days that it rained, you had washed your car.
I point out that there were also days you washed your car that it did not rain so the "evidence" that you provided does not support your statement. This was the original exchange.
All subsequent exchanges have been you claiming additional criteria to account for the days without rain.
So, washing your car causes it to rain, and you have evidence supporting this, except when it doesn't rain in which case it would have rained except specific circumstances A and/or B and/or C and/or D
Coincidence is not causality.
The second line is especially important as it is your point, yet you continually simplify your own argument as we progress to suit your needs.
No I do not. I am showing that your claim is very simplistic, but only for those cases where the results match your beliefs.
For those cases where the results do not match your beliefs, you feel free to pile on additional factors until you can justify to yourself that you're still correct.
You're problem is that you have an extremely limited understanding of Keynesian economic theory. The most notable of that is your failing to understand that it is a model and, as such, is abstracted to a degree of simplicity for people like you that makes is useless for discussing real world situations.
And so I respond ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 46242 )pointing out within the data the same trend of a decrease in revenue when the tax cuts are first phased in.
The Ronnie trend was a one year drop, then consistent gains over the following years.
The Bush example was a one year increase, then consistent drops over the following years.
They are the opposite of each other and not the same as each other.
I may have made and over estimation of you intelligence at this point by assuming that you know that both the Reagan and Bush tax cut were not all phased in at one time, but over the course of several years. (At this time less than half of the Bush tax cuts are in place! ) but in both cases we see a downturn in government revenue, The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue and the reports I showed you in later post predict the same upswing in revenue.
Emphasis added. If the same pattern is present in both cases, why haven't they resulted in the same effect?
Ronnie had increases the second year, Bush is still showing a loss three years later. The same pattern, that has different results indicates that the pattern is not a factor.
Your right there's no jump up, because theres no where to jump to. Theres no data.
I posted the data right there.
You've yet to provide anything to support this statement. On the other hand I've provided you with two reports as well as stock market data that contradict this statement.
Incorrect. All you've done is pile on the rationalizations for why your predicted outcome did not materialize. Again, back to the car/rain analogy. When the result is what you predict, you believe your simplistic model accurately predicted it.
But when the results are NOT what you claim, you pile on rationalizations for why it did not happen.
In science, this shows that your original theory is incorrect.
If the economy does not need stimulation theres no point in cutting taxes!
And now you've gone completely off about "need". This isn't about "need", this is about whether cutting taxes increases revenue. Car/rain. Coincidence is not causality.
Cutting taxes increases revenue (Ronnie).
Raising taxes increases revenue (Clinton).
Cutting taxe