Typical lefty thinking there. Obviously unable to use any form of logic to reach a conclusion. These people let their hatred blind them and they come up with all these insane rants.

Good thing the Grown ups have been running the country for awhile now...

"I feel your pain" doesn't translate out to "I feel your pain - and will do something about it", though it DOES imply that something will be done. That usually the something is "Shelve the problem and drag it out next election as an issue" seems to be lost on folks is rarely noted.

Hitler and Stalin 'meant well', so they're better than Bush. You gotta be shittin' me. I read the comments there...

Man. It's... ummm... I got nothin'.

So when will Pete Mehlman be getting his own gig on WizBlue?

"They honestly thought were doing good things.." Yeah, "eliminate" sounds so much nicer than murder. Hoh-lee crap!

Remember the writer is a forgotten and unemployed Hollywood wonk that helped write a tv series about nothing. He's been nothing about nothing for years so you can overlook his idiot ravings. How else was he to get his name in print one more time before he overdoses (suicide) like half of Hollywood.

Talk about 'Hate Speech'. The libs got that one under control

in fact, that his post reads like rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic who's off his meds.

Oh, so that's where bryanD goes to write during the day...

So when will Pete Mehlman be getting his own gig on WizBlue?

When he comes to Wizbang Classic, rants, whines and slings enough poo. You know, the WizBlues guys have to vet their potential contributors. They need to be sure someone new is radical enough for Blues POV. Not even one little posting on HuffnPuff is enough proof. You have to prove you're disruptive and whiny enough for WizBlues.

"What about my rich friends' good?"

A very concise distillation of the Bush vision for America. Follow the money.

This idiot reminds me of a couple "progressives" that called into C-Span's Washington Journal a few days ago.

The subject was whether Gitmo should be closed, one nutjob said yes because those in Gitmo were receiving the best health care while millions in America were uninsured.

Another claimed it should be closed because "we" didn't know whether "innocent" U.S. citzens were scooped off main street of Podunk Iowa and sent to Gitmo.

The shear stupidity of the majority that called in were so detached from reality I thought I had somehow tuned into The View or the Olberfool.

"Oh, so that's where bryanD goes to write during the day...
Posted by: James Cloninger"

(Me sooo tempted to pick up kim==="s felch meme, but no!!!) I sell oil paintings to Jew$$ and homosexual$$ (and the lesser ones to goths *insert coins*) during the day.

And by "day", I mean 1 day(or 2 or 3)/ month. The rest is Bryan Time at variable levels of discipline.

Even my friends kind of hate me for it. (I can tell.) But I'm a sharer: one of Max Eastman's "hosts". (see Host and Guests, his tour de force essay. The best writing guidelines fulfillment ever written, perhaps, speaking of "writing", James!)

Groucho -

Quick question - when did you ever hear of a poor man giving someone a job?

Rich people buy things - which have to be made, shipped, fixed, installed... They go to restaraunts, which have to buy food, employ cooks, servers, cleanup people... They travel - which requires a pretty significant infrastructure for both transportation and tourism. Rich people were the first air travellers - now pretty much everyone can fly. They invest money - which provides fuel for the economy to grow.

Follow the money? Sure - but it moves pretty damn fast, and in ways you don't expect.

A poor person isn't virtuous because they're poor, a rich person isn't virtuous because they're rich. There's no wall keeping the poor person poor, or the rich person rich - they're both a product of their choices and environments. The rich person is more likely to come from an environment where education is prized, the poor person from an environment where education is seen as a useless thing, or even bad for you, after all, to some it's 'acting white' - far better to keep everyone down than let some who actually strive for something better escape.

I spent about six years after I got out of the AF trying to get my feet under me, living paycheck to paycheck and sharing an apartment, seeing how far ramen would stretch. (You ever stretched out one of those blocks? Boy, those noodles sure are long.)

I've lived in pretty-near poverty, but since I've gotten married (another choice which separates the 'rich' from the 'poor') we've worked our way into upper-middle-class respectability. We spend money - putting the little guy into private school (helping employ good teachers) and bought a popup camper trailer (helping employ the folks who build, transport, and sell the things) and travel within about a 500 mile radius, going to museums, tourist attractions, and state parks. Again - putting money into the economy through small purchases...

So - screw the rich? Sure, bud, but only if you really want to screw yourself. Because that's what it amounts to - all you've got to do is look at the history of the Luxury Tax and what it did to the light aircraft and small boat makers in the US, while costing about twice what it brought in from revenue.

kim: What's going on? Is not getting banned taken as an intellectual affront where you come from, or what? And yes, I had to look up "felch". Despite a wayward adolescence in German porn bars, I've never heard the term. And my Deutsch was limited to "Swei bier, bitte."

groucho

I suspect you have no clue about economics, capitalism, morality or values. I even bet you've never held a real job, either.

You're an academic, correct?

Must not forget: Hashish? Zehn grams, zweizig marks? Gut!!!

"Max Eastman's "hosts". (see Host and Guests, his tour de force essay..."

Correction: Max Beerbohm.

....who don't see Bush's malevolence...

Wow....just wow.

Is Peter any relation to the late Larry "Bud" Melman? Both appear to be comic geniuses.

/snark

You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at least meant well....

Not even in the realm of satire would that be close to being considered remotely humorous...

It's....FUBAR

That's a sock-puppet at 12:01 AM. Or at least the asshole of a sock-puppet.
===============================

I channeled "Bud".

Even he'd be rendered speechless by Mehlman's stupidity...

Hey, Darleen - I come from a blue-collar family with a lower-class economic earning. Oh, and I'm not an academic either. And guess what?

a) Trickle-down economics don't necessarily work. So what's great for the rich man isn't necessarily best for the country. There's a reason why George Bush himself coined the term "voodoo economics" when he was running in the primary against Reagan in 1980.
b) Corporations are amoral creations which don't necessarily care if they produce long-term harm, as long as they produce profits for the company this quarter. For this reason, regulation of rich men's actions as the heads of corporations is a good idea.
c) realizing these realities doesn't make me a communist, or even the slightest bit anti-capitalist; it makes me a realist.

Peter Mehlman honestly thought he was doing good analysis.
================================

jim

Look at history... has tax cuts that shrink the "progressivity" of the income tax increased or decreased tax revenues?

Each time... be it by Dem JFK or Reps Reagan or GW, tax revenues have increased.

In the words of JFK "a rising tide lifts all boats".

And what is "rich"? Someone who makes $50K a year? $100K? $200K?

In California a 3 bed 2 bath 1200 sq ft house is going to cost you 400K-500K or more, necessitating a combined income of 100K or more.

Houses in COMPTON average $500K!

"Progressive" income taxes are confiscatory "wealth" distribution schemes. The hysterical support they receive is born of sheer greed (the wish for the unearned) or envy. For every middle manager who believes socialism grants him a "right" to a vacation home just like the founder of his company there are three clerks below him that believe it is their "right" to have a stainless steel refrigerator and professional stove just like his.

Jim, one thing is certain, trickle up economies have never worked. If you are so sure a government controlled economy is such a good idea, go live in Europe for a while. I suggest that economic powerhouse, France. That seems like a fine place to try to grow your wealth. Those on the left do not believe in freedom hence they cannot fight for it. I suspect the real left is using the 1917 Russia template. If the United States suffers a devasting defeat against radical Islam, or some other entity, the left feels they can dominate and dictate the nation. The real problem comes when their plans fail and they must sacrifice a portion of those who supported them. Who would it be, the undocumented immigrants, other minoritys or the elderly? Probably all of them. Jim it is understandable to lie to us, but I think you may be deluding yourself. Face it, Jim, you are a communist.

If Bush was 1/1,000th as bad as the leftists say, they would all be rounded up and put in concentration camps. Instead, they are all free to write crap like this Mehlman chump. And don't forget Rosie. Fire has never melted stell. Google it!

Lefties= The government knows better.
Repubs= Self regulation.
Lefties= The government should have the profits.
Repubs= The share holders that took the risk should.

It goes on and on. Republicans KNOW that we are the government. Lefties think the government is a separate entity from themselves. ww

'....he cared about people.' What a joke. The only thing the Clintons care about is power, and they will use any means possible to get it. They could care less about the people.

Welcome to the American leftist mind -- where genocide of your own countrymen can be "well-intentioned."

It is absurd to make comparisons between our current president and Hitler and Stalin. I think, although it may be a nice intellectual exercise, it's difficult to even make comparisons between presidents because each has faced unique circumstances during their term(s). I think Bush should stand or fall on his record and his decisions without comparing him to anyone else.

I wish my friends from the left would leave out the extremist comments about Bush. They are stupid and insulting. There are many many things about this man and his administration that can be debated openly and honestly. He has several accomplishments which should be acknowledged - No Child left Behind and some positive economic results. He should be given credit for those accomplishments.

On the other side his foreign policy and conduct of the war are disasters - but those things should be fairly debated. His administrations executive power grab, the disgraceful secrecy of this administration and the abridgement of civil liberties are also issues which can and should be seriously debated.

He is not an evil man (though I sometimes wonder about Cheyney ) in my mind, just a bad president. I don't doubt his sincerity. just his decisions.

From the Melhman piece,

Even with the low poll numbers, liberals still feel stymied in conveying just how bad this administration is

Uh huh. That why this piece was never written or published ?

JFO:

Good post.

I'm not an academic. Sorry.

Like JLawson, I too spent several years getting my feet under me after I left college hovering around the poverty line, or below. I've since completed my education and have done OK for a middle aged white guy. What Lawson's voluminous response to a single line post is largely what should be good about America and I agree with much of it. My problem is not with wealth, but the degree of political influence it has been allowed to wield in this administration. Drug companies and HMOs should not be driving our health care policies. Big energy should not be having secret meetings with Cheney to write energy policy. Timber,chemical and other large corporations should not be able to control environmental regulation. Virtually every department of the gov. is headed by Bush yes-men, cronies of dubious qualification, who give corporate interests carte blanche in peddling their interests.

Maybe this is OK with you, I don't know, but I think things are top heavy to the point of doing more harm than good to the general public's well-being. Conservatives rail against the "redistribution of wealth", but what do you think is going on with tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations and individuals? Tricke-down is a myth propogated by those who stand to collect the biggest pot of gold in this bit of legalized thievery.

Bush and Cheney should just drop the pretense, declare they are above and beyond our constitutional government, form a third party, the Plutocrats, and declare themselves co-Chancellors for life.

groucho, and JFO, nice comments. You are both sensing the myth of Bush's incompetence. In fact, we've had an awfully good run for these first years of the century and it will eventually be recognized. You are smelling the truth through all your media propaganda.
==============================

Maybe this is OK with you, I don't know, but I think things are top heavy to the point of doing more harm than good to the general public's well-being. Conservatives rail against the "redistribution of wealth", but what do you think is going on with tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations and individuals? Tricke-down is a myth propogated by those who stand to collect the biggest pot of gold in this bit of legalized thievery.
-------------------------------------------------
I think this is a problem with the liberal or progressive policies. When you want the government to have more power, the more power will breed more corruption. Fascism is simply government using its power to get in bed of big corporations. IT is simply another variation of communism where the gov itself is the single biggest corporation. The liberals are a danger to this country. For example, the liberal democrats are showing the dictatorial tendency in power already. They are trying to squash market competition by using the power of the gov to shut down talk radio.

I think progressive/liberal policies are a disaster given the experience with fascism and communism.

I don't doubt his sincerity. just his decisions.
-------------------------------------------------
I think FDR made a much bigger mistake at Yalta in giving away the whole Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. Again, his liberal/progressive advisors had given him bad advice regarding the Soviet Union.

The progressive/liberal policy of cut-and-run in Iraq again is a disaster in encouraging the jihadists that America is about to collapse and will hasten the next war (just as Yalta gave way to the global cold war and various regional hot wars).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010256
Today, this same dynamic is creating a moment of great danger. The radicals are becoming reckless, asserting themselves for little reason beyond the conviction that they can. They are very likely to overreach. It is not hard to imagine scenarios in which a single match--say a terrible terror attack from Gaza--could ignite a chain reaction. Israel could handle Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria, albeit with painful losses all around, but if Iran intervened rather than see its regional assets eliminated, could the U.S. stay out?
With the Bush administration's policies having failed to pacify Iraq, it is natural that the public has lost patience and that the opposition party is hurling brickbats. But the demands of congressional Democrats that we throw in the towel in Iraq, their attempts to constrain the president's freedom to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program, the proposal of the Baker-Hamilton commission that we appeal to Iran to help extricate us from Iraq--all of these may be read by the radicals as signs of our imminent collapse. In the name of peace, they are hastening the advent of the next war.

You know the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; now think of the Paradise, Peter, had those good intentioned ones had the wherewithal to actually pull it off. Imagine, a jewless world! Probably no neocons, either.
=======================

I ask Proggrressives to growl when they say the word so I can see their intentions on their faces. Peter Mehlman is as evil as they come, and he is absolutely typical. Do you wonder that I revel in the unconscious irony of all these amazingly blind leftists?
========================================

jim:

b) Corporations are amoral creations

Why do you support amoral creations ? You've obviously supported them through your purchase of at least a computer. I'm betting you support a number of 'amoral creations'. What's your verdict on someone who supports that which they deem to be 'amoral' while fully aware of its 'amorality' ?

Something so rigidly proscribed by 'policy and procedures' is 'amoral'?
==========

the funny thing is if you take this idiots worldview to its logical conclusion, he shouldn't have any problem with booosh, hitler, mao, stalin, etc., because according to his worldview which he places in Seinfeld, Nihilism, life is meaningless and if life means nothing, then what these world leaders do is ultimately meaningless.

yet this clown contridicts his own worldview by saying "atleast they MEANt well"

Why do you support amoral creations ? You've obviously supported them through your purchase of at least a computer. I'm betting you support a number of 'amoral creations'. What's your verdict on someone who supports that which they deem to be 'amoral' while fully aware of its 'amorality' ?

Here's the deal Mike: there's a difference between immoral and amoral.

An immoral is against all that's good. An amoral doesn't care if something is good or bad, as long as it benefits.

So, I support corporations when they're performing for the public good, and I resist corporations when they're against the public good. And resist only to the degree that I'm able - boycotts and supporting regulation, and just taking my business elsewhere.

It is a fact that corporations are constructed only to make money, and if money can be made in a way that's harmful, they just don't care.

Darlene, you are conspicuously missing Clinton's policies in your short overview of US taxation.

Clinton pursued the direct **opposite** of supply-side economics - demand-side economics. He raised taxes on the wealthy, and cut taxes on the poor and middle-class. This should have destroyed the economy, if there was any basis to supply-side theories at all.

The thing with supply-side is that the wealthy **may*** spend their new earnings on investment or production in the US - or they may not. They may put their money into other countries, or just let it sit in the bank.

Whereas the poor and middle class will take that money and spend it right away - and thus fuel a boom in consumer spending.

This was how Clinton presided over 8 years of unparalleled prosperity that resulted in our first budget surplus in decades.

there was also a major recession that started just as he was leaving office and accelerated by 9/11, Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc.

most of Clinton's economy was a fake as well that mask everything else, can you say .com bust???? a huge bubble, rare in history, in which econ was booming thanks to people investing in something that wasn't there and was an illusion...

Clinton never actually balanced the budget either, National Debt increased each year in 90's, even with all the defense budget slashing that was foolish. And if the Govt. was forced to use the same accounting methods as corporations its an even worse defeciet from that error than we realize. Basically the govt. cooks the books

Wow, Zeldorf, just....wow.

Jim, one thing is certain, trickle up economies have never worked.

Demand-side economics. Clinton era. remember that? Prosperity?

If you are so sure a government controlled economy is such a good idea, go live in Europe for a while.

We have a government-controlled economy now. To make the changes we need, don't require any more controls. Just enforcing the laws we have, and shifting the tax base back to what it was when it worked.

Those on the left do not believe in freedom hence they cannot fight for it.

Sure, right. FDR, Truman, JFK - pussies. Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin - pinko cowards.

I suspect the real left is using the 1917 Russia template.

Just who is the "real left"?

Is Harry Reid, conservative Mormom ex-boxer, a member? Howard Dean, a man who got an A+ rating from the NRA as governor of Vermont? Jim Webb, is Jim Webb a member of the "real left"?

I suspect you're comparing someone you don't like to a totalitarian regime. It's wrong to compare Bush to Hitler, right? Then I suggest it's wrong to compare any of those I mentioned. WHy don't you be real specific about who you're comparing to the genocidal dictator Lenin and the tragedies he made?

If the United States suffers a devasting defeat against radical Islam, or some other entity, the left feels they can dominate and dictate the nation.

Please put down the crack pipe.

The real problem comes when their plans fail and they must sacrifice a portion of those who supported them. Who would it be, the undocumented immigrants, other minoritys or the elderly?

Ooooh, I don't know. I'll have to check in with my guru at the Streisand compound. Maybe the information is in my tofu if I rearrange it right. Good thing that aluminum hat is saving you from the flouride.

Face it, Jim, you are a communist.

Preserve your precious bodily fluids. P.O.E. O.P.E.

clinton didn't do the 'complete opposite' either, can you say NAFTA? among other things.

"Trickle Down" economics is a misnomer, It doesnt' "trickle down", generally it goes first to the bottom and then to the top if the investment/risk works out.

Business gets more money thanks to tax cuts, invest in the form of new jobs as part of the expansion(trickle down) and then if it works out the Investor/owner gets a reward on the backside....

"basic economics" by Thomas Sowell, read it.

well, jp, there was also the recession under GWB. Which was either his fault, or was caused by Reagan before him. Either way, Supply-side hurt us bad.

Also, Clinton reduced the debt and brought us a budget surplus, while Reagan, GWB 1 and GWB 2 have all increased the deficit astronomically.

all that said, we are still living under Reagan's economy/BOOM, Clinton's tax rate was nowhere near the 70% rates that Reagan slashed. as well as deregulation, etc.

the Debt DID NOT reduce, it increased each year in the 1990's....economies run in cycles, however when they recess its not as bad as it use to be, ala 1970's/early 80's...

Business gets more money thanks to tax cuts, invest in the form of new jobs as part of the expansion(trickle down) and then if it works out the Investor/owner gets a reward on the backside....

Sure - IF they invest it in their business.

Who's to say they will?

Who's to say they won't just relocate overseas, or just keep the money in a bank instead?

All I know is what works. There's plenty of economists who back Clinton's tax policies as well.

jim,

Can you give one single example of where Clinton "cut taxes on the poor and middle-class"?

jp, The National Debt **did** reduce under Clinton. Go hear and look at these graphs:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

The 1st graph is not correcting for inflation, the 2nd one is. On the second graph, you can clearly see the reduction in national debt, during Clinton's 2nd term.

Now, admittedly, that's correcting for inflation. If one does not correct for inflation, then yes, the debt did increase. However, as you can see on the first graph, during Clinton's term as President, it did flatten out and show the slowest rate of growth in 25 years.

This is in addition the yearly budget surpluses that Clinton's economy brought about.

And the unparallelled growth and shared prosperity during Clinton's term occurred while, once again, he was pursuing the exact opposite policies of Reagan and Bush.

So I don't see how Clinton doing the exact opposite of what Bush 1 and Reagan did, shows that his economy was due to supply-side economics.

no it didn't, do the fiscal years, 9/30...

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

every year, even with the foolish defense cuts.

Sure, p. bunyan - here's some info on the clinton-era tax cuts

http://www.cbpp.org/clinttax.htm

"The Clinton plan differs from the House and Senate bills in the extent to which it assists near-poor and lower-middle-income families, in part because of differences in the design of the child tax credit."

"... * The Clinton plan would provide the child tax credit to four million children in near-poor and lower-middle-income working families who would be ineligible for the credit under the Senate bill. It would provide the credit to six million such children who would not qualify for the credit under the House bill. Most of these children live in families that pay taxes after the effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit are taken into account.

* The Clinton plan would provide the child credit to several million fewer children in near-poor working families than would be the case under the Senate Democratic tax plan that Senator Tom Daschle offered last week. "

If they invest overseas, i.e. outsourcing, the money still comes back as documented by Foreign investment. This is why Trade Defeciets are a good thing, b/c they are not telling the whole story. We get over $1.50 for every dollar we send over seas back, it goes into things like new Toyota plants and other companies which create American Jobs.

the best Trade "surplus" we ever had was during the great depression and was the result of 'protectionist' trade policies, the Harley Tarrif acts...

"This was how Clinton presided over 8 years of unparalleled prosperity that resulted in our first budget surplus in decades."

What a crock of shit. "unparalled prosperity" is what is happening right now. The Rats had to raise taxes and butcher the Army in half to claim their phantom surplus.

"It is a fact that corporations are constructed only to make money, and if money can be made in a way that's harmful, they just don't care."

Says you.

It is a fact that the Criminal democrat party of perpetual fraud is only interested in taking power. They don't care how they get or who get harmed in the process, THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

jp, those figures don't appear to be adjusted for inflation.

As I said, even if the figures aren't adjusted for inflation, the Clinton years showed the slowest rate of growth in the debt in decades - and before Reagan or Bush 1.

I should also include the last two years of Clinton's Fiscal budgets, 9/30/2000 and 9/30/2001

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

if you want the numbers to go in Clinton's favor for spin, don't use Fisal budget dates, put in 12/30 to 12/30 of following year between 99 and 2000 and you'll see a reduction.

Rob, always great to chat with you.

Sure. Prosperity is up all over, and poverty is down because you said it is. Too bad no one told the poor. I guess they're too busy polishing their Rolexes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31census.html?ex=1182916800&en=e3534bbbe5804545&ei=5070
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Thanks for setting me straight.

there is 200 billion plus of "inflation" from one year to the next?

inflation has been pretty low the last 15 years thanks to trade agreements, tax cuts and the general environment that made companies like Wal-Mart exist and drive prices/inflation down....

If they invest overseas, i.e. outsourcing, the money still comes back as documented by Foreign investment.

Sure, IF they invest it and just don't sit in on it, and IF foreign investors decide to trickle back down on us, and IF their US workers have enough money now to buy anything to keep them afloat.

the best Trade "surplus" we ever had was during the great depression and was the result of 'protectionist' trade policies, the Harley Tarrif acts...

Can't blame the depression on protectionist trade policies, sorry.

"There's plenty of economists who back Clinton's tax policies as well."

Foreign economists don't count and there are alot more that do not back the the Bent One or his tax policies.

jp, those figures are not adjusted for inflation.

Are we discussing figures that are adjusted for inflation, or are we not?

If we are discussing figures which are **not** adjusted for inflation, please show where Reagan or Bush 1 had a lower rate of debt growth than Clinton.

Why don't foreign economists count, Rob? Do they frighten you?

referring back to the main article...

And you folks all thought I was nuts when I mentioned the lefties and their belief in the "Eeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans."

I'd like to thank Mr. Mehlman for making my point for me. And if he sends me his address, I'll consider (no guarantees now) sending him a copy of Reagan's Revolution for Christmas.

LOL jim,

I'm talking about something that actually happened. Can you give us a real example of something that actually happened?

The poor? You mean those with kids 50 lbs overweight with 30" TV W/Cable. Or are you talking about those who are here illegally sucking our Country dry.

Democrats always want to give their failed leaders credit for things that never where or did not exist and deny responsibility for those that did happen and a result of their incompetance. Thanks BJ for 9/11 and doing nothing. BL Clinton has earned the title "THE GREAT SATAN".

You're absolutely right, Rob. Everyone who's poor in this country is either an illegal alien, or is sitting at home watching cable.

Incidentally, glad you agree with Al Qaeda that Bill Clinton is the great Satan.

P. Bunyan, I'm pretty sure that's the bill as it went through. However, I can just cut ahead to afterwards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton#The_economy

"Clinton's presidency included the longest period of economic growth in America's history, credited in large part to budget reforms as well as the peace dividend following the demise of the Soviet Union. After numerous reports revealed that the federal budget deficit would be far greater than expected, Clinton quickly made cutting the deficit a high priority. Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[22] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[23]

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal.In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[24] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[25] The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and FICA taxes, providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. The bill contributed to dramatic decline of the budget deficit in the years following its enactment-in 1998, for the first time since 1969, the nation achieved a budget surplus.[26] The surplus money was used to pay down the national debt, which had risen to $5.4 trillion by 1997. The economy continued to grow, and in February 2000 it broke the record for the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history--lasting ten years.[27] In the year 2000, the nation was on track to be debt free for the first time in history by 2008.

After Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, Clinton vehemently fought their proposed tax cuts, believing that they favored the wealthy and would weaken economic growth. In August 1997, however, Clinton and Congressional Republicans were finally able to reach a compromise on a bill that reduced capital gain and estate taxes and gave taxpayers a credit of $500 per child and tax credits for college tuition and expenses."

If it's on Wikipedia, and uses sources from 2000, it must be true.

jim,

The problem is that you lack the ability to distinguish between "fact" and "opinion".

Fact- during the Clinton Presidency EVERYONE paid more taxes. Even if they were cut a little in '97 (I know mine weren't) they were still more than they'd ever been (percentage wise).

If I get some time later on I'll link to some factual documents to show this. Not opinion pieces likes the ones you linked to.

Paul, I could say the same thing about Reagan. Who also actually raised taxes 3 times during his presidency.

And **all** presidents have increased the size, power and funding of the Federal government, promises to the contrary.

What was different about Clinton's approach, is that his worked; and when he cut taxes, the economy responded, disproving supply-side economics.

And separately, sigh - Wikipedia is not an opinion piece. It's a freakin' encyclopedia. There have been several studies showing it to be Britannica's equal if not it's superior in terms of accuracy. Once articles become controversial they become locked down and only edited with approval of multiple bipartisan sources...but fine. If you think it's wrong, show it.

Paul, the problem with *you* is that you want to believe I'm wrong, but aren't citing any evidence. Go get some and then we might have a discussion.

Using Jim 's source, I found this. Clinton just happened to be there to enjoy the fruits of the Rep work (the peace dividend and the budget reforms). IT was the Rep congress that pushed for balancing budget including the balanced budget amendment. Clinton resisted until 1997. Clinton should be given the credit for finally giving in the Rep successful policies of the 1990. That is the real story to be spinned by the liberal media.

Clinton's presidency included the longest period of economic growth in America's history, credited in large part to budget reforms as well as the peace dividend following the demise of the Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment#Clinton_and_a_budget_surplus
The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget as part of the Republican Contract with America campaign.

Of course he uses Wiki. It fits his worldview, and, if it doesn't, it's easy enough to edit to make it fit his worldview.

Using Wiki as a primary source just shows the intellectual vacuity of an argument.

ccg,
Even using his own biased source, we can show that Clinton gets the credit just to be there when the Reps did all the heavy lifting.

"Incidentally, glad you agree with Al Qaeda that Bill Clinton is the great Satan."

What's the problem jim, does it bother you that even a foreign terrorist enemy can recognize the evil in the Clintons.

"Why don't foreign economists count, Rob? Do they frighten you?"

The truth and the facts frighten all democrats. I don't have to agree with AL Qaeda, just the truth and the facts. The Clintons are evil , the shole democrat party is evil. They have no good to offer and only care about themselfs. Selfish opportunistic serial liars and frauds. Why do support such and evil party who look forward to more deaths of our soldiers in exchange for political points? (Withdrawal/losing war)

"Once articles become controversial they become locked down and only edited with approval of multiple bipartisan sources...but fine. If you think it's wrong, show it."

The Vietnam War

When democrats lied 3 million died

"multiple bipartisan sources" WHAT CRAP!

Jim,
FYI, AlQ has joined Carter in praising Hamas coup.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010342.php

You can be proud of your defense of Carter.

"AlQ has joined Carter in praising Hamas coup."

The worst President in our History praises a terrorist group....

Democrats in fear are already running a smear campaign against Fred Thompson.

Why do you hate us Americans so much?

And kiss the ass of our enemies?

Hey LAI, you missed this part of what you even quoted:

"credited in large part to budget reforms"

Thank you, thank you...

Ignoring information you don't want to see doesn't serve anyone well.

Using Wiki as a primary source just shows the intellectual vacuity of an argument.

On the other hand, using no source at all shows the iron strength of your argument.

Is that all that's left, whining about my sources? You're big strong, personally-accountable guys who don't need help from anyone, right? Go look it up yourselves! Find a source that proves me wrong.

What's the problem jim, does it bother you that even a foreign terrorist enemy can recognize the evil in the Clintons.

Hey, if you want to be on the same side as Al Qaeda, feel free.

Jim,
Using your own source, I have shown that the Reps deserve the most credit for the 1990s economic expansion. Clinton just happened to be there to enjoy the fruits of the Rep labor.

"Why don't foreign economists count, Rob? Do they frighten you?"

The truth and the facts frighten all democrats.

So what, exactly, does that have to do with you not wanting to believe anything any foreign economists say?

I don't have to agree with AL Qaeda, just the truth and the facts. The Clintons are evil , the shole democrat party is evil.

Right. The Democratic party is evil.

They are all born from the Devil and given secret messages throughout their adulthood, waiting for the proper moment to start burning flags, smoking crack and forcing straight conservative sons to marry each other at gunpoint.

Does this make any sense to you? Really?

How about: they look at the world differently, but just because of that they don't hate everything good? Just a thought.

Why do support such and evil party who look forward to more deaths of our soldiers in exchange for political points? (Withdrawal/losing war)

An interesting question. Here's why: They're not evil, and they don't look forward to the deaths of our soldiers.

Now here's a question for you:

Why does over 70% of America want us to leave Iraq? Why does most of America hate America and want America to fail so they can take over America?

No, LAI; using my own source, you see the "peace dividend" getting some mention, **after** the Clinton budget reforms.

See that sentence you quoted, that I then quoted at you again? It mentions "credited in large part to budget reforms" and then mentions "peace dividend". This indicates the budget reforms played the larger part.

The only thing I am arguing in this thread is that using Wiki as a primary source is a sign of desperation.

Do I need a source for that? Can I use Wiki?

Hey, you can claim that using the alphabet is a sign that I'm on Sesame Street.

It's just that if you want to actually **prove** a claim, it works to cite a source.

Got some actual proof that my facts are wrong? Cite it. Otherwise your claim has the same weight as a UFO sighting.

Do I need to link to prove your an asshole?

No, I think not.

In Biblical days , actors were called HYPOCRITES.
Did they have an internet to prove it ? No

Some things are self evident like you and the criminal democrat frauds. It's called reality being played out in front of our eyes. I see and hear the liars when they are actually telling the lie. To you and your despicable party of fraud , reality is on a piece of paper that can be easily altered edited or even destroyed, Sandy Berger style. That and whatever the democrat media wishes to make up , distort or ommit.

Why should I bother proving your an idiot when it is self evident , you prove it yourself right here live and on memorex. DUH

"Why does over 70% of America want us to leave Iraq? Why does most of America hate America and want America to fail so they can take over America?"

Prove it. get back to me in a few years when you have spoken in person to those aprox. 210 million AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Idiot , 70% of Americans don't even vote.

weni, widi, wiki.
===========

Prove it.

Here you go. From Dec. of 2006.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200278.html

"The public is more open to the Iraq Study Group plan, with 46 percent for it and 22 percent against it. When asked about some of its specific recommendations, respondents are dramatically more supportive. Seventy-nine percent favor shifting U.S. troops from combat to support; 69 percent support withdrawing most combat forces by early 2008; 74 percent support reducing aid if Iraq fails to make progress toward national unity and civil order; and about six in 10 support talking with Syria and Iran to try to resolve the conflict."

So, pardon me for rounding upwards; %69 .

This figure can go up or down, depending on the poller and the specific wording of the questions; but not one poll shows a majority of Americans want us to stay in Iraq, nor do they have faith in Bush.

Why do they hate America, do you think? This majority of Americans must hate America, don't they?

Do I need to link to prove your an asshole?

No, I think not.

No, Rob, I guess you don't. In that vein, then, I know that you're an asshole. And a liar and a hypocrite and a poopyhead poopypants. And I know that you poop your pants. I don't need any evidence for it. I just know it.

In Biblical days , actors were called HYPOCRITES.
Did they have an internet to prove it ? No

You're wrong, Rob. In Biblical days they were called Robs. How do I know? Because I know it. So there.

Some things are self evident like you and the criminal democrat frauds. It's called reality being played out in front of our eyes.

Oh, you mean like that reality that's everywhere, but you just can't be bothered to find any actual evidence for it, right?

I see and hear the liars when they are actually telling the lie. To you and your despicable party of fraud , reality is on a piece of paper that can be easily altered edited or even destroyed, Sandy Berger style.

By citing the propaganda blitz against Sandy Berger, you prove yourself a true master ironist. Are you Stephen Colbert? Admit it. That last one was just too good.

Why should I bother proving your an idiot when it is self evident , you prove it yourself right here live and on memorex. DUH

You're right Rob. You've proven everything and you win. There's no more need to argue, is there?

jim finds truth in push polls. Why am I not surprised?
==============================

Trust a lefty to use a poll to try and prove a point.

Hey, Jim... polling shows most people are against the so-called immigration "reform" bill, too... are you against that as well?

Let's see...on the one side, we have imperfect evidence. On the other side, no evidence. Which wins?

As for the immigration reform bill, to drift off topic a bit, I'm against it as far as I think it's a complete and total joke. We all know why illegal aliens come here: to work. Just put every US citizen who hires an illegal alien in jail, and watch those jobs dry up in a heartbeat.

But neither party wants that, because business depends on this labor. So instead this dog-and-pony show is hustled around. Increased enforcement along the border will do for illegal immigration what it's done for illegal drugs: exactly jack.

But Bush wants to push it, the Dems don't want to lose business funding by being against it, and the rest of the GOP is unsure who to back.

It's a shame unions have become such a dirty word among middle-class and lower-class conservatives, because they're one of the few groups that would really fight for the US citizen worker here. A real coalition could be formed, like could have worked well against NAFTA. But so it goes...that's my $.02 on that.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/13/224737.shtml?s=ic

"that's my $.02 on that"

No that is your 2 stinkin pesos worth. You really are stupid. Are you the best the party of Rats could come up with to blow smoke for them?

"the Dems don't want to lose business funding by being against it"

Are you really that stupid or are you a typical democrat lousy liar?

"Voter Registration Drives at Illegal Immigration Rallies"

"Some of the biggest pro-illegal immigration rallies lately have featured a disturbing phenomenon: Democratic Party operatives conducting voter registration drives."

"After Sunday's massive illegal-immigration rally in Dallas, for instance, the Dallas Morning News headlined their coverage: "Activists sign up protesters to put them on road to polls."

"The paper quoted Lena Levario, a criminal defense lawyer who's running as a Democrat to be a judge:

"I am so optimistic that I have 5,000 voter registration cards," she told the News.

By the day's end, the paper said - Levario had yet to tally the new voters she'd harvested from the massive - and largely illegal - crowd."

"Also working the illegal immigration rally was David Hanschen, another Democratic candidate for judge. He handed out fliers that read: " Vota Democrata en 2006."

"Elsewhere activists exhorted: "We march today, we vote tomorrow."

Here are the Criminal Democrat party hard at work. Democrat candidates for judge eager to commit felonies by aiding and abbetting felons. Registering illegal aliens to vote. Not a single democrat in any position of power and resposibility can be trusted to perform their duty with competance and integrity. NONE.

The democrats are disingenuous , duplicitous and dubious. They aren't called left handed for nothing...

"In more technical contexts, 'sinistral' may be used in place of 'left-handed' and 'sinistrality' in place of 'left-handedness'. Both of these technical terms derive from sinister, a Latin word meaning 'left'[13]."

sinister:

"Suggesting or threatening evil: a sinister smile."

"On the left side; left."

Well looky here, some more self evidence for ya evil jim.

"He (Clinton) raised taxes on the wealthy, and cut taxes on the poor and middle-class."

"President Clinton's 1993 tax hike that increased taxes on the elderly middle-class by taxing the Social Security benefits of people earning a mere $32,000 per year or more."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4952

Broken Promises From the President

1. MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT:
"I believe you deserve more than 30-second ads or vague promises. That's
why I've offered a comprehensive plan to get our economy moving again. It
starts with a tax cut for the middle class and asks the rich to pay their
fair share again."
Clinton's first campaign ad, January 1992.

"We will lower the tax burden on middle class Americans by asking the very
wealthy to pay their fair share. Middle class taxpayers will have a choice
between a children's tax credit or a significant reduction in their income
tax rate."
Putting People First, September 1992.

"I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If
the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut
other government spending or we will slow down the phase-in of these
programs. I am not gonna raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these
programs."
October 19, 1992.

"From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the
press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle class tax
cut. I never did meet any voter who thought that."
January 14, 1993.

"To middle class Americans who have paid a great deal for the last 12 years
and from whom I ask a contribution tonight..."
February 17, 1993.

2. TAX BURDEN:
"You know what my plan is, to raise taxes on people whose incomes are above
$200,000..."
July 13, 1992.

The new 36 percent Clinton tax rate takes effect on couples earning more
than $140,000 and individuals making more than $115,000.
P.L. 103-66, Clinton's Tax and Spend Plan.

http://www.trettel.com/ccrc/quotes/quotesClinton.html

He also raised taxes on gasoline (5 cents a gallon), or are rich people the only consumers of gasoline?

From Newsmax.com:

Ruddy, who serves as editor-in-chief, describes NewsMax.com as "the leading independent online news site with a conservative perspective."

Well, Rob, it's good to know that the absolute certainty of your opinion is coming from a non-biases source.

Suggestion: If you want to make your case, it's best to use sources that are well-rounded and unbiased. Using Newsmax just shows that you are easily manipulated.

"President Clinton's 1993 tax hike that increased taxes on the elderly middle-class by taxing the Social Security benefits of people earning a mere $32,000 per year or more."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4952

Marc, you seem to suffer from the same economy of opinion that Rob does. Human Events is hardly a reliable non-biased source. There are any number of well-known, long running papers that you can quote from that won't reduce your answers to rubble.

Whether you'll find anything that jibes with your opinion remains to be seen, however. But if you do, please get if from a source that the vast majority isn't going to laugh at you over.

Trust a lefty to use a poll to try and prove a point.

Trust a righty to de-value all polls since they don't work to his/her advantage.

Trust a Stevenrobb to devalue anything not to his advantage.
===================================

Trust a lefty sophist like Stevenrobb to stick an 'all' in front of polls to insinuate that righties don't believe any poll. Remember, I chided jim for his 'push' poll.
===============

Go at it then, Kim. Show me a reliable, non-biased poll that illustrates that the American people are actually FOR the Iraq war instead of against it.

Don't slam me again. Just show me that poll - the one you support - and let it stand on it's own merits.

Steven:

When I look at both the late-term polls and the exit polling from both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential races, and then I look at the actual results, I can only conclude that the polling was flawed, as I cannot find a single poll that accurately predicted the outcome of either.

If you can find a late-term poll, or an exit poll, that accurately predicted the results of either of these elections, I might (note, I said might) be willing to trust polls run by that company. Can you find such a poll?

It is clearly obvious to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells that it is absurdly easy to skew a poll. Simply call people from zip codes which are known to be mostly of one political stripe or the other, and you can pretty much guarantee your outcome. With modern databases, this is so easy to do it's hardly worth considering it a hurdle.

So, you're right. I do not trust polls, even when they show data that go along with what I wish to see. If you'll glance at my own humble blog, you'll see that I have never once posted about a poll. And I will not until they show that they accurately reflect reality.

Stevenrobb,
What are your unbiased sources?

Trust a lefty sophist like Stevenrobb to stick an 'all' in front of polls to insinuate that righties don't believe any poll.


So, you're right. I do not trust polls, even when they show data that go along with what I wish to see. If you'll glance at my own humble blog, you'll see that I have never once posted about a poll.

C-G-B (or Kim),

Well, you're answering my question directly so I'm assuming C-C-G is Kim's other name. Anyway, you are contradicting yourself.

Stevenrobb. What are your unbiased sources?

I'm not making a case - as Marc and LA are. In fact, I don't have to say anything - I'm not making any claims. But regarding THEIR credibility, it's up to them to back their opinions with solid facts - and - if these sources they link to are the crux of their case - they haven't done that.

It's hardy my burden to do their homework - and not my responsiblity to counter claims that just don't hold up.

stevenrobb,
I would say their sources are as good if not better than the NYT, CNN, CBS etc... All these big news sources have been caught red-handed lying.
Since you don't have any sources to dispute their sources, their claims are valid as stated until you can prove that they are wrong. You simply discounted their sources as biased, which is cheap in my opinion. If you go back, I used Jim's own source to prove that his assertions are wrong. Can you at least do the same?

I used Jim's own source to prove that his assertions are wrong. Can you at least do the same?

I've read back on this post. I would hardly conclude you've proven him wrong - especially having read the link myself. But you're entitled to your own fantasies.

As far as Newsmax being as good or better than CNN, CBS or NYT? Hmmm, that's a helluva opinion, not based on any form of fact and ignoring the deliberate bias of the former, but, once again, live your fantasy life if it makes you happy.

You simply discounted their sources as biased, which is cheap in my opinion.

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/about_newsmax.cfm

Try looking at their own promotion. "The #1 conservative news agency online is NewsMax.com." While they refer to themselves in fine text as "fair and balanced", their description of themselves by themselves, and their articles tell exactly the story they want you to hear - conservative news. Not global news, not national news - conservative news. In fact, every source that their columnists link to refer to their employer as "...the leading source for conservatives looking for news on the Internet, with more than eight million unique visitors every month." If that isn't biased, there is no such thing as a bias.

So check your facts before you refer to someone's posting as "cheap."

Try looking at their own promotion. "The #1 conservative news agency online is NewsMax.com." While they refer to themselves in fine text as "fair and balanced",
------------------------------------------------
They are more honest than the NYT, CNN, or CBS which do not dare to admit that they are liberal. They disclose their leaning upfront and that is a good sign. The liberal news sources pretend to be what they are not. You haven't proven that what they post is wrong. You just attacked their HONESTY for making sure you know their leaning. That 's cheap.

You haven't shown how Jim 's assertions are correct either. You simply made cheap non-substantiated assertins so far.

Steve,
NYT, CNN, CBS have been caught red-handed lying. It tells much about you if you get your news from these sources.

"the Dems don't want to lose business funding by being against it"

Are you really that stupid or are you a typical democrat lousy liar?

Rob, are you suggesting I"m **wrong**, when I say big business funds Democrats too?

Are you suggesting that big business **only** supports the Repubulicans?

Sure, Democrats have something to gain from keeping the Latino community happy, too. And the Latino community tends to identify with illegal immigrants, because the US Latino community knows more recently than a lot of other US communities, what it's like to come here to work and face a lot of struggle.

But what exactly are you saying I'm wrong about, in my comment? Do you even know?

LAI:

Posting other news sources that say Clinton's bad, don't contradict the ***facts*** that I've posted.

If you say my facts are wrong, then show **which** facts are wrong, with other sources showing what you think are the correct ***facts***.

"description of themselves by themselves"

That is what the demcocrats do all day long every opportunity they in front of the camera. Oh the "hard work" or the "leadership displayed". This constant self praise is nothing but a perpetual fraud .

Jim,

When the person on the other end of the argument insists the sky is black and not blue, despite all evidence to the contrary, well, there's no real discussion you can have there. These folks can't even admit there's even a sky up there.

I've admitted mistakes many times on this blog, but I have yet to see LAI do the same. Could be wrong there, but he can't seem to accept the obvious. Rob LA, well, don't expect much from him. He's a one-note wonder.

I always take heart in the fact that 75% of the American public (and probably a larger percentage of the world) agrees with my side of the argument. Of course, to the 25% here, they still think George Bush is approved by the majority. Ignorance is bliss - what it's not is correct.

"description of themselves by themselves"


That is what the demcocrats do all day long every opportunity they in front of the camera. Oh the "hard work" or the "leadership displayed". This constant self praise is nothing but a perpetual fraud .

Wow. Really nice counter, Rob. You sure shut me up there. How can I respond to such a well positioned, thoughtful, assertive argument. You must be the pride of your neanderthal tribe.

Steven, I just checked. I do not have the proper plumbing parts to be Kim. Thank you for comparing me to such an astute blogger, tho.

Now, as I asked earlier, can you please show me one late-season or exit poll that correctly predicted the 2000 and/or 2004 elections? Cause if you can't, you cannot prove that polls are accurate.

"Take heart" in the fact that your polls are hopelessly skewed, that you know that they are, and so do we, and that we're smart enough not to believe them.

Jim,
I pointed out to you using your own source that the Rep should deserve most of the credit for the 1990s boom and reduced deficit, not Clinton. He deserved the credit for finally giving in to the Rep policies.

Steve is trying to wiggle out of his cheap unsubstantiated assertions. Steve can be sure that the Dem congress gets the lowest poll rating from Gallup (not a right wing polling soruce). Maybe the public is not happy with the liberal culture of corruption by Reid/Pelosi.

BTW, have you seen any polls that ask these questions:

We should withdraw from Iraq even though it means

(1) American defeat and the terrorists winning there

(2) dire consequences for Iraq and the ME
(3) This time the terrorists may follow us back to the US.

Please let me know of the results of that poll with your reliable sources.

I pointed out to you using your own source that the Rep should deserve most of the credit for the 1990s boom and reduced deficit, not Clinton. He deserved the credit for finally giving in to the Rep policies.

No, LAI. You pointed out to me that the sentence said **some*** credit goes to the 'peace dividend' of the Soviet Union.

I then pointed out to you, in the same sentence that you quoted, that it said the boom was due "credited in large part to budget reforms as well as the peace dividend" - do you understand what "as well as" means? It means "in addition to".

So according to the source, the credit goes IN LARGE PART to the budget reforms, with the "peace divided" being a secondary possibility.

Do you understand this?

And this sentence is completely off:

He deserved the credit for finally giving in to the Rep policies.

Which policies are this? He ****changed**** the budget policies, via reforms. This is not even in dispute.

Read this again, Jim. I use wikipedia, your own source. It was the Rep who pushed the balanced budget and welfare reform (clinton resisted 3 times), that Clinton claimed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment#Clinton_and_a_budget_surplus
The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget as part of the Republican Contract with America campaign.

http://wizbangblog.com/2007/06/24/bush-derangement-syndrome-hits-a-fevered-pitch.php#600203

LAI, the quote exactly below yours reads:

"Despite political conflicts with President Clinton, the Legislature and the Chief Executive reduced the deficit. Major economic growth and spending controls such as welfare reform, favored by both the President and Congress, allowed for a balanced budget..."

Also note, that your claim the GOP started the push for a balanced budget in 1994 is ***false***.

Clinton wanted the budget balanced before the GOP picked this up; it was a part of his 1993 budget, which passed without one GOP vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#First_term.2C_1993.E2.80.931997

"In August of 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers,[33] while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses.[34] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, through the implementation of spending restraints."

You don't like it, prove these statements of fact wrong.

Stevenrobb
You don't have to tell us , we already know you take heart in lying to yourselves just to get through the day and oh ya , feel good.

"Well, Rob, it's good to know that the absolute certainty of your opinion is coming from a non-biases source."

Hijo de tres mil putas, you idiot , you wish you were capable of having an opinion. That would mean you were capable of thinking on your own. You don't think, you only repeat democrat talking points , lies and smears. You even take what Republicans say about you losers living in a fantasyworld and not in reality. You can't even come up with an original thought.

"It's hardy my burden to do their homework - and not my responsiblity to counter claims that just don't hold up."

Then why don't you just stfu. You can't counter shit , you just spout out the cowardly democrat response "that just don't hold up"'t hold up." You are a democrat, which means you have no integrity or credibility to even make such a claim.

Jim,

"Rob, are you suggesting I"m **wrong**, when I say big business funds Democrats too?"

That's irrelevant .What's wrong is you are trying to deceive , because your lying by omission. You are trying to distract from the fact that democrats are mostly concerned with buying the illegals immigrants vote for whatever price. Nice smokescreen though.

OK, Rob. Have it any way you want.

OK, Stevenrobb, I give you the poll of the American people in November of '04, in selecting electors. That was a referendum on the war.

I'm not C-C-G, but wish I were as gracious as he.
===========================

"Despite political conflicts with President Clinton, the Legislature and the Chief Executive reduced the deficit. Major economic growth and spending controls such as welfare reform, favored by both the President and Congress, allowed for a balanced budget..."

Also note, that your claim the GOP started the push for a balanced budget in 1994 is ***false***.
--------------------------------------------------
Jim,
Time to admit that you are wrong.
I agree with you that your source Wikipedia is wrong. Fair enough. Your link and my link are both from Wikipedia. when one section from your same source says sth opposite to your view, then it is wrong. I will show you that your source is extremely biased in favor of Clinton. Even then, it still shows that most of the credit goes to the Rep.
Let 's look at welfare reform. Clinton didn't favor it. He actually vetoed it 3 times until he knows that his veto will be overridden by Congress in any case, then he signed. He was forced into accepting welfare reform by the Rep.

From your liberal source CNN

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9608/12/church.shtml
With not a little drama, Clinton grudgingly approves the G.O.P. bill, and the U.S. starts a vast and risky experiment

Here is another proof of the wrongness of your source (wikipedia).

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html
Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

More from the links above.
Jim, can we agree that the only credit that Clinton deserves is giving in to Rep policies?

(1) On welfare reform
Ripping Up Welfare
With not a little drama, Clinton grudgingly approves the G.O.P. bill, and the U.S. starts a vast and risky experiment

(2) On balancing the budget
And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

Gee, Rob. You've really shown your superior intellect and command of the issues with your last post. How you intermix salty insults and unsubstantiated ranting is sublime.

Suffice to say, you've not answered anything, but you've gone very far in showing your maturity level. I suspect that by the time you made your last post, you were drunk off your ass, in a soiled undershirt (and possibly underpants as well) sulking in your Ikea-decorated bachelor pad in Van Nuys.

When you wake up this morning with a Chiquita banana stuck up your rear, don't blame the apartment super who did it, blame yourself.

Steve,
For all your pretention, you have show a substantial posts with reliable sources yet. All you are trying to do is to distract from the discussion at hand. Cheap tactic.

Show me a reliable, non-biased poll that illustrates that the American people are actually FOR the Iraq war instead of against it.


KIm:


"OK, Stevenrobb, I give you the poll of the American people in November of '04, in selecting electors. That was a referendum on the war.

'04 is not '07. Based on that approach, I could make the case that Jaws is still the highest-grossing movie ever.

Find a reliable poll TODAY that illustrates that - since the validity of our discussion is what's happening now, not 3 years ago - unless your conceit is that polls were accurate in '04 and have mysteriously become innacurate today.

In which case I will have to say "how convenient."

Steve studiously avoid a substantiated post. I guess Steve is simply trying to employ the liberal tactic of diversion. I am still waiting for a reliable source from STeve.

Jim has been proven wrong and Steve is trying to divert attention to cover up his Bsuh derangement syndrome, just a guess.

Where's your proof of accuracy, Steven? Since it's impossible to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove the positive: that polls are accurate. Where's your proof? Or do you just accept it as a matter of faith in the DNC and Algore that the polls are accurate?

Stevenrobb wrote:

"but you've gone very far in showing your maturity level."

"I suspect that by the time you made your last post, you were drunk off your ass, in a soiled undershirt (and possibly underpants as well) sulking in your Ikea-decorated bachelor pad in Van Nuys.

When you wake up this morning with a Chiquita banana stuck up your rear, don't blame the apartment super who did it, blame yourself."

This serves as further proof as to why the democrat party should be completely removed from any and all positions of power , responsibility etc.

HEY DUMB DUMB , I DON'T DRINK . LOL

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS SUCH MISERABLE CREATURES?

Where's your proof of accuracy, Steven? Since it's impossible to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove the positive: that polls are accurate

I'm not the one who made the claim that polls are accurate. When I said in my post some people thought all polls were inaccurate, she corrected me by stating "Trust a lefty sophist like Stevenrobb to stick an 'all' in front of polls to insinuate that righties don't believe any poll. Remember, I chided jim for his 'push' poll."

So, I asked her, as a righty, what poll about Iraq she thought was accurate, and she gave me one - from 2004. Hardly a current view of the issue. So, it's not me claiming ALL polls are accurate, I'm just simply pointing out the hypocracy of her selective information.

You want a link. Here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/26/poll.iraq.schneider/index.html

That's today, but of course CNN can't be trusted.

Why don't we look at all the polls and take an average, here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

But of course every poll in existence can't be trusted, right? I've got more - I guess every one of them is wrong. Personally, I don't care if these are right because I'm not making the case that my information is valid (But if I had to, at least my sources aren't coming from an unknown blogger from East Bumble#$$%).

Here's a better idea. When you make a claim that an article or poll is a source that vindicates your opinion, as most on this site do, defend your information. If it's knocked down as a source, or proven bias, and you claim it isn't, tell my why (no LAI, that doesn't mean calling NYT or CBS as invalid means that your source is not). Don't expect someone else to do your homework for you. If you do, your should consider your source invalid as you don't feel the need to defend it.

Steven, you still haven't proven that any poll is accurate, so why bother posting more polls?

That's like saying, "no, I can't prove that my product works, but here, buy some more!"

Prove that they're accurate, then post the ones you want us to consider. After all, that's what you instructed me to do, right?

When you make a claim that an article or poll is a source that vindicates your opinion, as most on this site do, defend your information.

All I am asking you to do is prove that your information is accurate, and you consistently fail to do that.

Perhaps because you know it's not?