Corruption in the US government?

[finalfantasynut]

he flew the plain when his daddy declared war on iraq its seems to be a bush traditon and lets not get one to florida now Clinton had a health care polisy and bush had a lets give money to the rich policy hmmm

 

[bamthedoc]

Actually I'm glad to say that I moved out of Charlotte. Almost to bad I'm still in NC... I prefer a colder climate.

The step-up was in economic plans and honesty. Clinton's economic plan is what we can currently thank for our current economy (said economy enough yet?). In any case, that's what happens when you cause the erasure of 10 million high paying jobs, and you only create 5 million minimum wage jobs.

Clinton destroyed more than 10 million families, and several trillian dollars worth of economy while he only replaced it with 5 million jobs to create only about 100 million dollars worth of economy. That's what you get for increasing taxes and decreasing other country tariffs to too far a degree.

Bush's plan will create jobs; even if it takes a while. Why? I've explained it a few million times, just look for it. And if finalfantasynut finds it, he'll see what I'm talking about. I actually disagree with medicare/medicaid, but I won't go into it here. Clinton's health care policy would have ended up the same way Canada's and Brittian's did, SCRAPPED!! Why? Pick up a book sometime. It ruined thier economy and medical field. Clinton's was the exact same as thier policy. Learn from mistakes people. Oh! And the so called rich are employers. You want people to have jobs, you have to cut taxes for them as well. Bush is still trying to cut taxes across the board.


I've got to get off now, but I'll check up later.

 

[finalfantasynut]

thx for bolding my name i will look for it but bush distroy a ton of familys by starting war after war and thats just in the us so dont push that subject you also seem like you are getting angery

 

[amrtin77]

war in afghanistan..... can you name someone who wouldnt go to take the taliban out? that war was needed. and its about time we finished our buisness in ira... or are finishing our buisness. took us over a decade thanks to clinton. we should have finished iraq up years ago. and you guys say "the government dont care about the people of iraq!" does that somehow change the fact that we stopped saddam from killing thousands of people at the cost of a few hundred innocent lives?

 

[SmokeyJoe]

hmm..funny how we were fine economically when Clinton was in office - after the Recession under Bush Sr..which was caused in large part by the overspending of the Reagan regime..And now with Bush's tax cuts we are sinking again..the federal rate/prime rate has been cut at least 3 times (most recently about 2 weeks ago) to try and stimulate some growth..the economy was the best it has been in decades under Clinton..

And glad to see you are out of Charlotte Bam..I am getting weary here too..originally a Northern so I understand the need for some cold weather.

 

[finalfantasynut]

yea the bush's are good at taxcuts to the rich and ruining the ecomomy i will hate it when he gets reelected

 

[bamthedoc]

finalfantasynut: I always try to highlight names I say. And I wan't really getting angry, just...interaiting points (or attempting thus).

SmokeyJoe: Which Clinton did you know? You have obviously forgotten about the rather severe tax increase to anyone who actually works for a living (wait...that's everyone) in increasing increments. What does that mean? He did the exact opposite Bush has been trying to do. Congress has made succeeding difficult. I'll continues this in the next paragraph. Also, do you recall the how much the prime rate was cut near the end of Clinton's era? *shudders* I hate the sound of that, but it's true enough. Now, I don't actually hate anyone, but, as a president, I hated him. Reagan and Bush Sr. were good, it's just that people mis-understand Reagan now thanks to the liberals and thier choke-hold on the media, and Bush ignoring the ecomonmy during Operation: Dessert Storm. Now then... A promise:

Bush is cutting taxes accross the board, but in increasing increments. Seems fair to me. Or do you not care if your parents are fired because their employer can't afford to keep them? The truth is that the group people see as rich, due to liberal propoganda, are actually not that rich. They are employers and busisness owners. These are the people who, in order to hire and make more money, need money that goes to taxes. This group was part of the 50% tax bracet (did you realize that?), and that means that 1/2 of their pay check goes to the government, before exemptions. Another thing that Bush is trying to do is reduce exemptions and rid us of that abhorant "marriage penalty tax".

Oh, finalfantasynut, I actually did start a thread all about economic planning (in a sense). I think it's something to the effect of

The Truth about "Trickle-Down" Economics

or something to that effect... If you want, I'll provide a link in my next post.

In any case, this might be starting to get a smidge off-topic.

 

[finalfantasynut]

plz provid that link but bush had to get his way payed through collage clinton passed on his own also you will bring up the monnaca scandle next that is his own personal life that says nothing about his skills and dont tell me the health care plan that he had would not work

 

[Forged]

Bam put it in a way I agree with I will just point out what was said about some of the taxing


By Making the rich who pay 90% of the taxces anyway have to pay less money we give them more money, when they have more money they can hire new employes giving more people jobs

That isnt his direct quote but it was pretty much what he said

 

[bamthedoc]

finalfantasynut http://www.battleforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17911
FYI: My arguements are somewhat incomplete. Happens when I don't have face-to-face discussions.

ForGeD: What do you mean "a way I agree with"?

 

[Forged]

Badlly written I wasnt paying attention to what I was typing I agree with what you said.

 

[bamthedoc]

Ah! Me sees now. Okays then.

I forgot something...

Clinton passing on his own, eh? Kinda easy in a liberal arts college. They seem to love the liberal mind set (bah, I flunk it all the time... I'm more charitable, I suppose). Bush passed on his own merit. What, just because he can afford college you're going to get mad at him? Clinton payed his way to (through family--same as most/all presidents). I don't trust a degree from many/most/all of the liberal arts colleges. They're usually messed up. I want to go to a private school, perhaps based around a church. Why? I'm a Christian, and I like honorable tradition.

Later! I'm out!
~~BAM the DOC

 

[SmokeyJoe]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
SmokeyJoe: Which Clinton did you know? You have obviously forgotten about the rather severe tax increase to anyone who actually works for a living (wait...that's everyone) in increasing increments. What does that mean? He did the exact opposite Bush has been trying to do. Congress has made succeeding difficult. I'll continues this in the next paragraph. Also, do you recall the how much the prime rate was cut near the end of Clinton's era? *shudders* I hate the sound of that, but it's true enough. Now, I don't actually hate anyone, but, as a president, I hated him. Reagan and Bush Sr. were good, it's just that people mis-understand Reagan now thanks to the liberals and thier choke-hold on the media, and Bush ignoring the ecomonmy during Operation: Dessert Storm.

Well, I am no expert on the economy or politics; matter of fact - I hate politics..I am just looking at the results..I think it is clear that the economy under Clinton was thriving..whether that hurt the middle class or the poor or the rich, I do not know..and when he took office it was not in the best shape..Unfortunately (and hopefully not), he will be remembered for a couple of scandals..I think most (if not all political debates)come down to the Republicans and Democrats trying to differentiate themselves form one another, not trying to find equal ground to work things out..Anyway, all politicians are untruthful and misleading..they have to be.
I really don't want to sling anymore mud, but I think Dubya is too influenced by big businesses to really do the rest of us any good..and I don't believe in trickle down economics..has it ever worked? (That's a serious question,,no sarcasm intended)

 

[finalfantasynut]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
Ah! Me sees now. Okays then.

I forgot something...

Clinton passing on his own, eh? Kinda easy in a liberal arts college. They seem to love the liberal mind set (bah, I flunk it all the time... I'm more charitable, I suppose). Bush passed on his own merit. What, just because he can afford college you're going to get mad at him? Clinton payed his way to (through family--same as most/all presidents). I don't trust a degree from many/most/all of the liberal arts colleges. They're usually messed up. I want to go to a private school, perhaps based around a church. Why? I'm a Christian, and I like honorable tradition.

Later! I'm out!
~~BAM the DOC

bush passed because his father payed off his teachers

Bam put it in a way I agree with I will just point out what was said about some of the taxing


By Making the rich who pay 90% of the taxces anyway have to pay less money we give them more money, when they have more money they can hire new employes giving more people jobs

That isnt his direct quote but it was pretty much what he said

nice the poor cant get ahead so lets give the rich more and our selfs rasies and give the poor the finger nice let me guess your a republican

 

[bamthedoc]

"Trickle-down ecomics" can't have ever worked as it was never really implimented. I call it "moving money economics" because that's what it does.

SmokeyJoe I agree with the politics part. But there are differences in the parties, and I want the lesser of two evils. When a third party becomes popular (that better agrees with me keeping human nature in the calculation), then I will vote that way.

finalfantasynut I love how well the liberal media's propoganda gets spread around... In any case, the poor can only have a chance to get ahead if no jobs are available. If employers cannot afford employees, they won't hire. Wow...economic sense right there. And if taxes squeeze that money away, employers won't have money.


Oh! I should also point this interesting fact to you all. People who come from money pay roughly...less taxes than you'd imagine. They have millions "invested" to the point where it doesn't exist to the IRS. They are able to "hide" it thanks to loopholes known as "charity". The "rich" you are so concerned about are protected by the liberal tax laws.

There is a difference between "rich" and "employer".

 

[finalfantasynut]

but if the employers hold all the cards and all the money how can anyone else get ahead you could compare this with the goverment body in communesism the goverment has everything and the normal people get barly anything go read animal farm then say your ecomonic plan is not any different any how i am not effected by propiganda i get my information from both sides

 

[bamthedoc]

I'm not refering to comunism, at all. In "moving money", the employers don't hold all the cards, they simply have the resources that employees shape. The employees are a valuable resource. One which, as all others, must be payed for. The emplyees, making money, will want to advance. This advancement comes in increased education or creation of new business. That creation or enhancement causes further increase in jobs therefore increasing monitary value of business, therefore creating further revenue to create more jobs. They cycle will repeat. Who's advancing in this scenario? Everyone, just as you want. But, since it is capitolist, it is all about the money. You have to keep in mind that everyone in this system (employee and employer) wants to make more money.

 

[D.F.I.]

Ah......both George Bush Jr. and Clinton were good presidents......it just depends on the circumstances.
Bush was unlucky to see 9/11...god.

 

[finalfantasynut]

i know you are not mentioning comunism but it is alot like it if you would read animal farm you would know

 

[bamthedoc]

In communism you don't have a "boss". There really is no need for money either. "Moving money" (you'll note I call it that and not "trickl down") works on a capitolistic notion of "bettering one's circumstances". But I think I see your point in similarity...

At least "moving money" doesn't rely on perfection, it should, in theory, play off human nature (bettering oneself).