# Bush pokes fun at himself



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/30/bush.press.dinner.ap/index.html

Fox news and right wing media isn't as horrible as people (snafu and dyl) think.  No its not fair and balanced.  I watch it all the time and I will say its no more leaning than CBS or CNN.  Give the "right" media  a break....we only have 1 network on our side. 

Its nice to see Bush still has a sense of humor.  Check out the comment Colbert said during the presidential dinner.  The bush admin isn't as media hating as people think.  They just appeal to their audience.


----------



## musclepump (Apr 30, 2006)

Why can't I have dinner with the 38% of people who like me?

Har har!


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

musclepump said:
			
		

> Why can't I have dinner with the 38% of people who like me?
> 
> Har har!



I don't get it....38%?


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 30, 2006)

I can't understand this President, he seems like a good guy but sometimes I feel like someone is pulling his strings.
Now the guys I really despise are both his father and Cheney.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I can't understand this President, he seems like a good guy but sometimes I feel like *someone is pulling his strings*.
> Now the guys I really despise are both his father and Cheney.



I agree...to an extent.  I think since he's obviously not an intellectual he is easily influenced by his advisory team.  I think Rummy is the worst of them all.  I don't dislike Rummy, but he is poor sec. of defense

did you watch the colbert skit at the dinner?


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 30, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> I don't get it....38%?


That was approval rating I believe.

No, I missed it.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> That was approval rating I believe.
> 
> No, I missed it.



actually his approval rating is 32%


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 30, 2006)

His real approval rating is probably like 10%


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> His real approval rating is probably like 10%



wrong.


----------



## Little Wing (Apr 30, 2006)

that was good


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 30, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> wrong.




You look tired.  Maybe I can help you take a long nap.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> His real approval rating is probably like 10%



that high?


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 30, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> That was approval rating I believe.
> 
> No, I missed it.




Here is the last seven and a half minutes or so. . .it's good...:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/29.html#a8104


----------



## DOMS (Apr 30, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I can't understand this President, he seems like a good guy but sometimes I feel like someone is pulling his strings.
> Now the guys I really despise are both his father and Cheney.



I think a great many people are pulling his strings.  After all, his choices are simple are not consistent.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 30, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Here is the last seven and a half minutes or so. . .it's good...:
> 
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/29.html#a8104




Stephen Cobert is the fucking man...


I'm starting to think kbm is cobert...


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 30, 2006)

That Colbert gig was hillarious.  I can't believe he said all that.  Some of it was pretty bold, even in the context of a good natured roast.


----------



## GFR (Apr 30, 2006)




----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>



mkay


----------



## GFR (Apr 30, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> mkay


----------



## topolo (Apr 30, 2006)

man down


----------



## Big Smoothy (Apr 30, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/30/bush.press.dinner.ap/index.html
> 
> Fox news and right wing media isn't as horrible as people (snafu and dyl) think.  No its not fair and balanced.  I watch it all the time and I will say its no more leaning than CBS or CNN.  *Give the "right" media  a break....we only have 1 network on our side.*



1.  My criticism of CNN, FOX, and ABC, CBS, etc is that the reporting is very 
_shallow_ and is not in-depth.

2. The media should not take, nor be on any, "side."  The media should present the facts and what is occurring in our world objectively, and then let the masses and individuals form an opinion.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

There is no such thing as true impartial unbias snafu.

Its very, very rare.  Its no so much what the networks say, but what they chose to not say and how they say is what makes the bias.  They all report the same facts, but present them in different manners.


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>



of all the people to use the bible for propaganda i must say im supprised in you foreman


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> of all the people to use the bible for propaganda i must say im supprised in you foreman


I the Bible before you had a drivers licence, and I know it better than you do still.


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I the Bible before you had a drivers licence, and I know it better than you do still.



what exactly did you do with the bible before i had my drivers licence?
and i must say even though ive read the bible on multiple occasions i wish i knew it better.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> what exactly did you do with the bible before i had my drivers licence?
> and i must say even though ive read the bible on multiple occasions i wish i knew it better.


Born again in 1987.......so I read it more than I care to admit.


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

That was a very funny roast.  I still prefer the roasting where Bush joked about looking under the oval office furniture for those darn missing WMDs.  Hilarious.


----------



## Steele20 (May 1, 2006)

"actually his approval rating is 32%"

Most people who don't like Bush, don't like him for no reason at all. Probably about 75% of people here do not have a ligit reason for not liking him.


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> "actually his approval rating is 32%"
> 
> Most people who don't like Bush, don't like him for no reason at all. Probably about 75% of people here do not have a ligit reason for not liking him.




Please seek help, for the sake of yourself and your family.


----------



## Steele20 (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Please seek help, for the sake of yourself and your family.



Can't handle the truth can we?


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> Can't handle the truth can we?




Hmm... I'll let Decker deal with the likes of you.


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> "actually his approval rating is 32%"
> 
> Most people who don't like Bush, don't like him for no reason at all. Probably about 75% of people here do not have a ligit reason for not liking him.


Nonsense.  There's always an object for scorn or hatred.  Take your pick:

Iraq
Economy
Katrina
Medicare 'reform'
9/11
Environmental policy
Torture
Secrecy
Rendition
Spying
And he's just a small man in a big job.  Completely out of his depth.

True blind hatred is difficult to find.  Unless you look to the Clinton Bashers.  The guy balanced the budget.  Manufactured a surplus.  Shrunk the size of government.  Was tough on Welfare.  Was so pro-business it was sickening.  

Yet Conservatives hated this "liberal."


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Hmm... I'll let Decker deal with the likes of you.


My posting was pure coincidence.  

I am, in fact, Batman.


----------



## Steele20 (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Nonsense.  There's always an object for scorn or hatred.  Take your pick:
> 
> Iraq
> Economy
> ...



Okay, I pick all of them. Tell me each reason you don't like him. Because most those reasons for disliking Bush are stupid IMO.


*wont be able to argue until I get back tomarrow morning!


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 1, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> *There is no such thing as true impartial unbias snafu.*
> 
> Its very, very rare.  Its no so much what the networks say, but what they chose to not say and how they say is what makes the bias.  They all report the same facts, but present them in different manners.



Of course there is bias and impartiality.  This is human.

But the degree of bias has been very bad.

And I don't just mean political spectrum bias, but nationalist bias, politically correct bias, and other forms.


----------



## CowPimp (May 1, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> Okay, I pick all of them. Tell me each reason you don't like him. Because most those reasons for disliking Bush are stupid IMO.
> 
> 
> *wont be able to argue until I get back tomarrow morning!



They're stupid?  If going to a war on false pretenses and then handling the situation once you are there very poorly is trivial to you, then what isn't trivial?  

He made fucking bold-faced lies.  The director of the CIA told him directly not to use certain statements in his state of the union address years ago before the war, and he did anyway.  Then, when Joe Wilson wrote an article condemning Bush for this act.  Bush, in response, decided he would commit a felony and reveal the true identity of Joe Wilson's wife, which potentially lead to the deaths of other agents and the crumbling of any networks which she setup during her occupation.

So, when a person lies and it leads to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, a strained military, a highly negative view by the world community, additional strain on the economy, and then commits a felony in response to someone calling him out on it, I don't like that person.


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 1, 2006)




----------



## Dale Mabry (May 1, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> They're stupid?  If going to a war on false pretenses and then handling the situation once you are there very poorly is trivial to you, then what isn't trivial?
> 
> He made fucking bold-faced lies.  The director of the CIA told him directly not to use certain statements in his state of the union address years ago before the war, and he did anyway.  Then, when Joe Wilson wrote an article condemning Bush for this act.  Bush, in response, decided he would commit a felony and reveal the true identity of Joe Wilson's wife, which potentially lead to the deaths of other agents and the crumbling of any networks which she setup during her occupation.
> 
> So, when a person lies and it leads to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, a strained military, a highly negative view by the world community, additional strain on the economy, and then commits a felony in response to someone calling him out on it, I don't like that person.



Why you always bringing up old shit, steele was talking about something from the last 3 or 4 hours, son.


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Nonsense.
> 
> True blind hatred is difficult to find.  Unless you look to the Clinton Bashers.  The guy balanced the budget.  Manufactured a surplus.  Shrunk the size of government.  Was tough on Welfare.  Was so pro-business it was sickening.
> 
> Yet Conservatives hated this "liberal."



he hardly did these things single handedly.  clinton said himself the strength of the economy had little to do with him. the guy had a weak foriegn policy. letting sadam walk all over UN resolutions. oh yeah, didnt he decide not to accept an offer of osama bin laden being turned over by sudan? and monica lewinski? shouldnt the most powerful man in the world at least have a good looking girl on the side? like kennedy and marlyn monroe


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 1, 2006)

*If the Ds win the House, which I think they will, there should be some investigations and hearings about the whole Iraq quagmire, and the intell.*


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> *If the Ds win the House, which I think they will, there should be some investigations and hearings about the whole Iraq quagmire, and the intell.*


it would be nice if the dems actually did something positive, like trying to come up with a solution for the economy, iraq, etc. saying over and over the other party is wrong may be true, but it helps little when you dont give a counter solution. any answer is viewed as better than no answer in this situation.


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> it would be nice if the dems actually did something positive, like trying to come up with a solution for the economy, iraq, etc. saying over and over the other party is wrong may be true, but it helps little when you dont give a counter solution. any answer is viewed as better than no answer in this situation.




It would help if your party stopped destroying humanity with greed.


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> he hardly did these things single handedly. clinton said himself the strength of the economy had little to do with him. the guy had a weak foriegn policy. letting sadam walk all over UN resolutions. oh yeah, didnt he decide not to accept an offer of osama bin laden being turned over by sudan? and monica lewinski? shouldnt the most powerful man in the world at least have a good looking girl on the side? like kennedy and marlyn monroe


Clinton's appointment of Rob Rubin paved the way for the economic miracles of the 1990s. Rubin is a business man's business man. Generally the economy follows an ebb and flow which is outside the president's power...but the power to appoint is huge--look at how Bush has fucked it up.

A weak foreign policy? Like in Kosovo? Clinton spearheaded an effort to bring down a true genocidal dictator. It was a success w/ ZERO american casualties. I wish I could say the same of the profoundly incompetent Bush regime.

Well as we all know Clinton is the UN? non-sensical.

For the millionth time, the OBL Sudan story was fiction--More Hannitized Bullshit. http://www.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004072813.html

Kennedy and Monroe? Why not reach back to Jefferson and Hemings?


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> it would be nice if the dems actually did something positive, like trying to come up with a solution for the economy, iraq, etc. saying over and over the other party is wrong may be true, but it helps little when you dont give a counter solution. any answer is viewed as better than no answer in this situation.



Agreed.

Both parties are extremely similar.  More similar than different.

One saying is: 'the Democrats represent 50% of corporate power.'


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> it would be nice if the dems actually did something positive, like trying to come up with a solution for the economy, iraq, etc. saying over and over the other party is wrong may be true, but it helps little when you dont give a counter solution. any answer is viewed as better than no answer in this situation.


The republican party has shown conclusively that it cannot govern this country with any competency or effectiveness.

You're not looking hard enough at the democrats.

Look to Russ Feingold if you want to find a democratic politician with a coherent positive agenda.

The republicans--the wrong answer and no solution

Russ Feingold--real, effective answers for today.*

*paid for by Feingold for president a non-profits org.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> "actually his approval rating is 32%"
> 
> Most people who don't like Bush, don't like him for no reason at all. Probably about 75% of people here do not have a ligit reason for not liking him.


Iraq
Economy
Katrina
Medicare 'reform'
9/11
Environmental policy
Torture
Secrecy
Rendition
Spying


Yes none of these are good reasons


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Iraq
> Economy
> Katrina
> Medicare 'reform'
> ...


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> it would be nice if the dems actually did something positive, like trying to come up with a solution for the economy, iraq, etc. saying over and over the other party is wrong may be true, but it helps little when you dont give a counter solution. any answer is viewed as better than no answer in this situation.



This reminds me of one of the debates in the last election.  Kerry said he would give all Americans the same health coverage that the senators have (I think the cost was around $700,000 per year).  When asked how he was going to pay for this (a question posed by the panel), he simply dodged the question.  The Dems have great aspirations, but always lack the details.  Not that the Republicans are much better.


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

True Story, aspirations are almost as bad as a BJ.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, aspirations are almost as bad as a BJ.



I bet you think that an "aspiration" is a sexual act involving the anus.


----------



## min0 lee (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> My posting was pure coincidence.
> 
> *I am, in fact, Batman*.


----------



## min0 lee (May 1, 2006)

> Iraq
> Economy
> Katrina
> Medicare 'reform'
> ...


 


			
				Steele20 said:
			
		

> Okay, I pick all of them. Tell me each reason you don't like him. *Because most those reasons for disliking Bush are stupid IMO*.
> 
> 
> *wont be able to argue until I get back tomarrow morning!


----------



## min0 lee (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The republican party has shown conclusively that it cannot govern this country with any competency or effectiveness.
> 
> You're not looking hard enough at the democrats.
> 
> ...


 
I never knew you possesed such a sharp wit.


----------



## Action-Jackson (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That was a very funny roast.  I still prefer the roasting where Bush joked about looking under the oval office furniture for those darn missing WMDs.  Hilarious.



You actually think that was funny? He was practically saying "Haha, all this war and death was for sweet fuck all."


----------



## lnvanry (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Iraq
> Economy
> Katrina
> Medicare 'reform'
> ...



None of these with the exception of Iraq bothers me what so ever.  We could have sent more men and planned better.

-Economy-Things are great for me and my community.
-Katrini-No one's fault just as much as everyone's fault.
-medicare- don't care
-9/11-Maybe a lack of creativity according to the 9/11  
 comission was a fault...Very few people saw this coming.
-evironmental- we are one of the most if not the most 
  environmental strict.  Even though we didn't sign away our autonomy to the Kytoto...our emission are still lower than that of the Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan admins.

Secrecy, Torture,Spying, etc....This is a necessary evil IMO.  Just do a better job of NOT getting caught!!!!


----------



## lnvanry (May 1, 2006)

Action-Jackson said:
			
		

> You actually think that was funny? He was practically saying "Haha, all this war and death was for sweet fuck all."



its called satire...I thought it was halarious.  most people did.


----------



## maniclion (May 1, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> Most people who don't like Bush, don't like him for no reason at all. Probably about 75% of people here do not have a ligit reason for not liking him.


His eyes are too close together, never trust a man with eyes that close together.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> None of these with the exception of Iraq bothers me what so ever.  We could have sent more men and planned better.
> 
> -Economy-Things are great for me and my community.
> -Katrini-No one's fault just as much as everyone's fault.
> ...


Commie


----------



## maniclion (May 1, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> None of these with the exception of Iraq bothers me what so ever.  We could have sent more men and planned better.
> 
> -Economy-Things are great for me and my community.
> -Katrini-No one's fault just as much as everyone's fault.
> ...


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Commie



Don't call him a commie ... he may be sensitive to that particular issue


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Don't call him a commie ... he may be sensitive to that particular issue


 Communist sympthizer


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)




----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Communist sympthizer



I also contribute financially to the special olympics and the Jerry Lewis telathon


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I also contribute financially to the special olympics and the Jerry Lewis telathon


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Clinton's appointment of Rob Rubin paved the way for the economic miracles of the 1990s. Rubin is a business man's business man. Generally the economy follows an ebb and flow which is outside the president's power...but the power to appoint is huge--look at how Bush has fucked it up.
> 
> A weak foreign policy? Like in Kosovo? Clinton spearheaded an effort to bring down a true genocidal dictator. It was a success w/ ZERO american casualties. I wish I could say the same of the profoundly incompetent Bush regime.
> 
> ...


ive never seen a picture of hemings. was she good looking?


----------



## min0 lee (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I also contribute financially to the special olympics and the Jerry Lewis telathon


That was nice of you to sponser Foreman.


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I also contribute financially to the special olympics and the Jerry Lewis telathon



whats better than winning gold at the special olympics?  not being retarded


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> whats better than winning gold at the special olympics?  not being retarded


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


im not catholic


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>



Alluha Akbar


----------



## CowPimp (May 1, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> None of these with the exception of Iraq bothers me what so ever.  We could have sent more men and planned better.



Or not done it in the first place, because it was initiated on false pretenses...




> -Economy-Things are great for me and my community.



Yeah, so who cares about anyone else?




> -Katrini-No one's fault just as much as everyone's fault.



Bullshit.  It was well known prior to the incident that the levies were insufficient, and there was lobbying to get something done about it.  This was ignored.




> -medicare- don't care



You don't care much about other people do you?




> -9/11-Maybe a lack of creativity according to the 9/11
> comission was a fault...Very few people saw this coming.



This administration presided over the largest intelligence failure in US history.  Yet, at the same time, people tout the administration as being the only ones that can offer security.  What a crock of shit.  Not to mention I have read the FBI's report that was given to Bush himself about a month before the attack.  There was a decent amount of information in it, enough that some type of initiative could've been taken.




> -evironmental- we are one of the most if not the most
> environmental strict.  Even though we didn't sign away our autonomy to the Kytoto...our emission are still lower than that of the Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan admins.



If you look purely at vehicle emissions then okay.  There are other factors to consider.




> Secrecy, Torture,Spying, etc....This is a necessary evil IMO.  Just do a better job of NOT getting caught!!!!



Necessary evil.  I love it.  Well, that's fine you think that; I actually have this emotion called sympathy though.  You should look into it.  It comes in handy sometimes.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> im not catholic


So you do not believe Jesus was the son of God...??


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> So you do not believe Jesus was the son of God...??



Jesus (SAW) was, acording to the teachings of Islam, a Profit of Allah ... not his son.  Polytheism is not followed by Muslims.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Jesus (SAW) was, acording to the teachings of Islam, a Profit of Allah ... not his son.  Polytheism is not followed by Muslims.


so you are saying bio-chem is muslem


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> So you do not believe Jesus was the son of God...??



what does me not being catholic have to do with my belief that Jesus is the Son of God. and while im not muslim i have read the koran and i like many of its teachings.


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> so you are saying bio-chem is muslem



According to Islamic teachings we were ALL _born_ Muslim ... so in a way yes he is.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> *what does me not being catholic have to do with my belief that Jesus is the Son of God*. and while im not muslim i have read the koran and i like many of its teachings.


you tell me


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> you tell me


i have no idea where your going with this.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> i have no idea where your going with this.


http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1334164&postcount=72


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

again what is the relationship between a non-catholic and whether a person believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God?  do you consider all Christians catholics?


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> again what is the relationship between a non-catholic and whether a person believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God?  do you consider all Christians catholics?


Ok this is simple but I will explaine it to you. You posted a comment that was a  bit crule to Mentally challenged people....I posted a pic of Jesus and this .......so It was intended to say Jesus would not approve of your comment.....are you with me so far ....now either you do or do not believe Jesus is a God, if not then fine, if so I would hope you would understand that Jesus would not think your  comment was funny...


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Ok this is simple but I will explaine it to you. You posted a comment that was a  bit crule to Mentally challenged people....I posted a pic of Jesus and this .......so It was intended to say Jesus would not approve of your comment.....are you with me so far ....now either you do or do not believe Jesus is a God, if not then fine, if so I would hope you would understand that Jesus would not think your  comment was funny...


dont treat me like a child jackass. you posted a catholic image of Jesus, one which i dont relate with.  and i know the joke is not politically correct, but its still funny. and your not really the person who should reprimand people with images of Jesus.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> dont treat me like a child jackass. *you posted a catholic image of Jesus*, one which i dont relate with.  and i know the joke is not politically correct, but its still funny. and your not really the person who should reprimand people with images of Jesus.


My brain just exploded 3000x 


Try Christian  son


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My brain just exploded 3000x
> 
> 
> Try Christian  son


that image was very catholic


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> that image was very catholic


Prove it mr art expert


----------



## lnvanry (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Prove it mr art expert


Foreman....I have to go with biochem on this one. I went to three Roman Cathlic Schools (even thought I'm Greek Orthodox) and that exact picture of Jesus was shown throughout my textbooks and hanging in Catholic families homes. I have visited a few Protestant and non-denominational churches and have never seen it before.

I'm not icon expert, but my experience agrees with bio.












you're still the man though


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

the image with jesus or mary holding a flaming heart or a sacred flaming heart is of catholic doctrine not protestest even in the slightest. i spent 2 years in a predominately catholic country (philippines over 80%)


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

LOL ... that





image was painted by Simeone a celibrated Italian art dude.  Aint all them Italians Catholic?

Some folks say Jesus looked more like this dude ...


----------



## bio-chem (May 1, 2006)

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery...red+Heart&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Sacred Heart



Sacred Heart 




A depiction of Christ and the Sacred HeartThe Sacred Heart is a devotional name used by some Roman Catholics to refer to the physical heart of Jesus Christ as a symbol of Divine love. Devotion to the Sacred Heart in focusing on Christ's heart metaphorically focuses on the emotional and moral life of Jesus and especially His love for humanity. It also stresses the central Christian concept of loving and adoring Jesus. In most depictions, Christ's heart is shown containing wounds to which Christ points, as well as a crown of thorns. This wounded heart is meant to symbolize Christ's pain at the rejection of God's Gospel message of salvation and righteousness by humanity. In including the crown of thorns, it alludes to the manner of Christ's death, which is further highlighted by the inclusion of crucifixion wounds on Christ's hands, in most images. Thus the Christ of the image is of a post-resurrection Jesus speaking to humanity, not the pre-crucifixion Jesus of the Gospels.

The most significant source for the devotion to the Sacred Heart in the form it is known today was Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque (July 22 1647 - October 17 1690), of the Order of the Visitation of Holy Mary, who claimed to have received visions of Jesus Christ. In these visions she was told that those who prayerfully looked to the Sacred Heart would be given specific graces. In his Papal Bull Auctorem Fidei, Pope Pius VI praised devotion to the Sacred Heart, which had its own critics within Roman Catholicism. However, devotion to the Sacred Heart has been traced back as early as Saint Mechtilde (d. 1298) and Saint Gertrude (d. 1301).

Following a theological review, Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Annum Sacrum (May 25, 1899) decreed that the entire human race should be consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, declaring this consecration on June 11 of the same year. In the mid-20th century, the revered Italian cleric Saint Padre Pio promoted and revived the concept of prayer directly to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.


Jesus of Nazareth 
Mary, the mother of JesusSacred Heart is still a widely used name for many Catholic institutions, including universities in Connecticut, USA, Tokyo and Luxembourg, and many Catholic parishes, hospitals, schools and religious orders. It also gives its name to a holy day in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar, the Feast of the Sacred Heart.

Religious imagery depicting the Sacred Heart is frequently featured in Catholic homes. Sometimes images display beneath them a list of family members, indicating that the entire family is entrusted to the protection of Jesus in the Sacred Heart, from whom blessings on the home and the family members are sought. The prayer "O Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in Thee" is often used. One particular image has been used as part of a set, along with an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In that image, Mary too was shown pointing to her Immaculate Heart, expressing her love for the human race and for her son, Jesus Christ. The mirror images reflect an eternal binding of the two hearts. (Compare the images displayed on this article.)




The Sacred Heart in Worship
Worship of the Sacred Heart mainly consists of several hymns, the Salutation of the Sacred Heart, and the Litany of the Sacred Heart. It is most common in Catholic and Anglican Services.


Criticism
Some non-Catholics, particularly Charismatic Protestants, have criticized devotion to the Sacred Heart as idolatry, even though (according to some) it is the Fountain of Christ's holy Blood. Although some Catholics have been critical of the overly sentimental nature of such imagery and devotion, most of these critics also recognize that the images essentially reflect the core Christian tenet of love. Marian imagery underwent a degree of a revival under the papacy of Pope John Paul II, who was a devotee of the Blessed Virgin. Anglicans generally reject devotion to the Immaculate Heart, except for a very small amount of Anglo-Catholics.


Folklore and Use by Non-Catholics
Folklore and legends exist regarding the Sacred Heart as an actual physical object, kept in a vessel or crypt, by the Catholic Church or Catholic individuals, or as an essence that is passed down through a lineage of holy descent. Interestingly, in not all versions is this essence or vessel kept by members of the Catholic Church, and not all the caretakers display Christian morality as known by most traditional Christian faiths. One conclusion of this legend is that caretakers of the Sacred Heart are supernaturally given perfect knowledge of all spiritual issues and are infallible. Other versions claim the Sacred Heart is precisely and specifically the soul of the Jesus Christ to be protected until God the Father establishes the Kingdom of Heaven.

Many members of the Spanish Carlist military forces of the 19th and 20th centuries wore detentes or amulets with an image of the Sacred Heart they believed would protect them against wounding by enemy firearms.

Devotion to the Sacred Heart is on the rise among Protestants and many Anglicans, Episcopalians,Orthodox (Which depict It in an iconic form) even Methodists, and other major Christian denominations are accepting It to some degree. They also see it as a way to bridge the gap between Protestants and Catholics.

Catholic Encyclopedia article 
The Sacred Heart is also a very popular symbol used in tattoos of the traditional style. Many have it symbolizing strength and the ability to endure, or to represent their passion for something that they may include along with the heart.


External links
Read the Sacred Heart at roman-catholic-prayers.com


----------



## topolo (May 1, 2006)

missile away........


----------



## DOMS (May 2, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> missile away........



If only Jesus were here to lay his hands on you.




...




I'm going to hell for that.


----------



## Decker (May 2, 2006)

One note about the economy.  As far as annual GDP is concerned, it's doing great--about a 4.8% clip.

But once you factor in the tripling of the debt and the deficit, the economy is one of the worst in decades.

A good analogy is that we are living the highlife on credit cards...we are Welfare queens driving cadillacs.

Our debt is incrementally undermining the value of our dollar and trade position in the world.  These are very very serious negative effects.

Also, there is a national negative savings rate.  That is bad also.

The fiscal mismanagement of this administration has been astounding.  Much worse than it was in the Reagan days.  At least Reagan had the guts to pay some of  his bills.  Bush is passing debt along to our grandchildren unmitigated.


----------



## BigDyl (May 2, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Some folks say Jesus looked more like this dude ...




BLASPHEMY!!!


----------



## Decker (May 2, 2006)

Jon Stewart Defends Colbert's Dinner Speech 

By E&P Staff 

Published: May 01, 2006 11:20 PM ET 

NEW YORK Probably to no one's surprise, Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show," hailed the performance of his stablemate Stephen Colbert at Saturday night's White House Correspondents dinner. Colbert's lampooning of the president and the press has generated a good deal of praise and criticism. 

"It was balls-alicious," Stewart said. "Apparently he was under the impression that they'd hired him to do what he does every night on television" -- that is, make fun of conservatives, public officials, and the press in the guise of an O'Reillyesque talk show host.

"We've never been prouder of him, but HOLY ----," Stewart added.


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> the image with jesus or mary holding a flaming heart or a sacred flaming heart is of catholic doctrine not protestest even in the slightest. i spent 2 years in a predominately catholic country (philippines over 80%)


*Ok...well is this better???





*


----------



## BigDyl (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *Ok...well is this better???
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is that  godhand????


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *Ok...well is this better???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you still have one of the original problems of YOU using a picture of Jesus to correct someone


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> you still have one of the original problems of YOU using a picture of Jesus to correct someone


If you spent as much time caring about people and their feelings as you do critiquing Religious art  the picture would not have been needed in the first place.  Check yourself before you preach to others son.


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> If you spent as much time caring about people and their feelings as you do critiquing Religious art  the picture would not have been needed in the first place.  Check yourself before you preach to others son.


all of this over a joke. really of all the shit you post here and you are the person to go around correcting people? honestly, you are the biggest hypocrite on this board.  by the way i totally disagree with your assesment of the situation that americans dont care. not only do we care more but we do more about these issues than any other nation. you blinded, hateful, petty little man who tries to push some of the most ridiculous agendas on this forum. grow up. and it has nothing to do with critiquing religious art its just common knowlege you were a little behind on.


----------



## lnvanry (May 2, 2006)

I still love you foreman


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> all of this over a joke. really of all the shit you post here and you are the person to go around correcting people? honestly, you are the biggest hypocrite on this board.  by the way i totally disagree with your assesment of the situation that americans dont care. not only do we care more but we do more about these issues than any other nation. you blinded, hateful, petty little man who tries to push some of the most ridiculous agendas on this forum. grow up. and it has nothing to do with critiquing religious art its just common knowlege you were a little behind on.


Making fun of the mentally challenged or "retards" as you called them is a joke in bad taste. And please point out how I am a hypocrite if you can son.


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Making fun of the mentally challenged or "retards" as you called them is a joke in bad taste. And please point out how I am a hypocrite if you can son.


i thought i did in my post. you corrected me over a joke "in bad taste" yet look at all of your posts. if half of that is not "in bad taste" then john h is strait


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> i thought i did in my post. you corrected me over a joke "in bad taste" yet look at all of your posts. if half of that is not "in bad taste" then john h is strait


Yes I post all kinds of irreverent stuff.....but I am not the religious man you claim to be. When you pretend to be a man of God you have allot more to live up to son...
* Matthew 7 * 



 "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank [is] in your own eye? *Hypocrite!* First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yes I post all kinds of irreverent stuff.....but I am not the religious man you claim to be. When you pretend to be a man of God you have allot more to live up to son...
> * Matthew 7 *
> 
> 
> ...


and so you hold me to a higher standard? is that it? whats it feel like to quote from a book you dont believe in and little understand?


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> and so you hold me to a higher standard? is that it? whats it feel like to quote from a book you dont believe in and little understand?


I have said many times that the new testament is a great book and I think most of it's teachings should be followed by all  I just do not buy the God part. So remember what I say and do not do the Fox news bit and try to twist it.....and yes you have to live up to a higher standard, is that not what your God demands


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

The train was quite crowded, so a U. S. Marine walked the entire
>> > > length looking for a seat, but the only seat left was taken by a
>> > > well dressed, middle-aged, French woman's poodle. 
>> > >
>> > > The war-weary Marine asked, "Ma'am, may I have that seat?" The
>> > > French woman just sniffed and said to no one in particular,
>> > > "Americans are so rude. My little Fifi is using that seat." 
>> > >
>> > > The Marine walked the entire train again, but the only seat left was
>> > > under that dog. "Please, ma'am. May I sit down? I'm very tired."
>> > > 
>> > > She snorted, "Not only are you Americans rude, you are also
>> > > arrogant!"
>> > >
>> > > This time the Marine didn't say a word; he just picked up the little 
>> > > dog, tossed it out the train window, and sat down.
>> > >
>> > > The woman shrieked, "Someone must defend my honor! Put this American
>> > > in
>> > his 
>> > > place!"
>> > >
>> > > An English gentleman sitting nearby spoke up, "Sir, you Americans
>> > > seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing. 
>> > >
>> > > You hold the fork in the wrong hand.
>> > > You drive your autos on the wrong side of the road.
>> > >
>> > > And now, sir, you seem to have thrown the wrong bitch out the 
>> > > window."
>> > >


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I just do not buy the God part.



then you missed the point


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> then you missed the point


That is your opinion 
I feel the same about you


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

and with 30000 posts i really dont have the time or inclination to remember what you say.


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

opinion? the new teastament testifies of Christ. what other point could there be? thats not opinion its just how it is.


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> and with 30000 posts i really dont have the time or inclination to remember what you say.


Then do not pretend to son


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> opinion? the new teastament testifies of Christ. what other point could there be? thats not opinion its just how it is.


It is a good story and that is all, just like 1984 is


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Then do not pretend to son



im not pretending to. i still feel what i said totally applies to you. you dont believe in the bible, and you little understand it. both are valid points.  i just like how you have decided to hold other people to a higher standard than you hold yourself. that seems hypocritical to me


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> im not pretending to. i still feel what i said totally applies to you. you dont believe in the bible, and you little understand it. both are valid points.  *i just like how you have decided to hold other people to a higher standard than you hold yourself. *that seems hypocritical to me


I do not but the Lord does


----------



## CowPimp (May 2, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> One note about the economy.  As far as annual GDP is concerned, it's doing great--about a 4.8% clip.
> 
> But once you factor in the tripling of the debt and the deficit, the economy is one of the worst in decades.
> 
> ...



Thank you.  It blows my mind when people say that the economy is doing so well.  I just think to myself that an 8.3 trillion dollar debt and a budget that isn't being balanced can't indicate a good economy.  Cranking more money out of the US mint may alleviate things in the short term, but it's asking for problems in the long run.

About $350 billion was spent last year on paying just the *interest* on the national debt.  It looks to be even worse this year as well.  Almost $200 billion has been spent already.  That's insanity.


----------



## KelJu (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> and so you hold me to a higher standard? is that it? whats it feel like to quote from a book you dont believe in and little understand?



I do not hold Christians to higher standards. I hold Christians to the standards for which they have shoved down my throat my whole life. If you can't live up to your own standards, stop expecting me to.
If you can't stop judging me, then don't expect me to listen to a god damn word you are saying. 
Judge that.


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I do not but the Lord does


the Lord you dont even believe in?


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> I do not hold Christians to higher standards. I hold Christians to the standards for which they have shoved down my throat my whole life. If you can't live up to your own standards, stop expecting me to.
> If you can't stop judging me, then don't expect me to listen to a god damn word you are saying.
> Judge that.


when have i not lived up to the standards i talk about? all of this started as a joke that foreman took exception to. one that was extremely tame by IM standards, let alone the crap he posts on here. and then he looked like a fool over a picture.


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> the Lord you dont even believe in?


nope


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> nope


well if your right then i dont have anything to worry about then do i?


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> well if your right then i dont have anything to worry about then do i?


I know I am right


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I know I am right


like you were about the picture?


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> like you were about the picture?


I  stil see no proof that that pic was Catholic  only....please post proof in detail


----------



## bio-chem (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I  stil see no proof that that pic was Catholic  only....please post proof in detail


you need to check out that website i gave again then. the sacred heart is a doctrine that only the catholic church espouses.  everyone hear who knows the least bit about chrisitanity understands this


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> you need to check out that website i gave again then. the sacred heart is a doctrine that only the catholic church espouses.  *everyone hear who knows the least bit about chrisitanity understands this*


I doubt that son, since you are catholic it might seem that all people of all christian religions would know that. But Jesus is Jesus no matter the color of his skin of the way he is presented in art...try not to digress.


----------



## lnvanry (May 2, 2006)

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1334207&postcount=86


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1334207&postcount=86


----------



## lnvanry (May 2, 2006)

#15 and #36


----------



## bio-chem (May 3, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I doubt that son, since you are catholic it might seem that all people of all christian religions would know that. But Jesus is Jesus no matter the color of his skin of the way he is presented in art...try not to digress.


im not catholic. ive already said that. thats what this was all about. stop making up things you obviously know nothing about like some liberal media outlet just because the disinformation helps your twisted arguement


----------



## BigDyl (May 3, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> im not catholic. ive already said that. thats what this was all about. stop making up things you obviously know nothing about like some liberal media outlet just because the disinformation helps your twisted arguement




I fear for the sake of your family and friends.  Please seek a medical professional who can administer therapy and prescribe drugs for your condition.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Thank you. It blows my mind when people say that the economy is doing so well. I just think to myself that an 8.3 trillion dollar debt and a budget that isn't being balanced can't indicate a good economy. Cranking more money out of the US mint may alleviate things in the short term, but it's asking for problems in the long run.
> 
> About $350 billion was spent last year on paying just the *interest* on the national debt. It looks to be even worse this year as well. Almost $200 billion has been spent already. That's insanity.


You're dead-on with your conclusion. How on earth can any politician even pretend to be conservative when casually living on shitloads of borrowed money? How about another tax cut? I swear, I saw a republican politician on Press the Meet and this fucker bragged about never raising a tax in his career. That is lunacy and gross negligence. Unfortunately debate on sound fiscal policy has degenerated into demagogic prattle b/c the supply-siders, like Bush, can't stop milking the treasury for all its worth even when circumstances call for tax hikes--sacrifice...like during a time of 'war'.


----------



## lnvanry (May 3, 2006)

national debt is overlooked b/c people don't care enough about it to impact their votes.

Rove said this back in 1998...As usual, he was right.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> national debt is overlooked b/c people don't care enough about it to impact their votes.
> 
> Rove said this back in 1998...As usual, he was right.


Yeah I know. Playing to and on the ignorance of the american public is Rove's forte. That's how we got into Iraq.  I think that's pathetic. He's no advisor of substance...just slime. Whatever happened to statesmen and nobility?


----------



## Arnold (May 3, 2006)

George Bush is a man of god and he is doing god's work, that is all that matters you fools. 

I am done here...watch Pepper come in here and rip me a new one for this post.


----------



## ALBOB (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to statesmen and nobility?



Bill Clinton killed those forever.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Bill Clinton killed those forever.


Jeez Al you are quick on the draw...zing.

Yeah, I have to say that Clinton did miss the mark at times. Sometimes his triangulation strategy just sickened me. Triangulation is a bastardization of the hegelian dialectic (thesis clashes w/ anthithesis resulting in a synthesis (which becomes the new thesis)). Clinton sometimes sold out w/ his triangulating especially over welfare reform.

But you have to admit that the 'Mayberry Machievellis' that DiUlio characterized the Bush admin as is on target. Where politics trumps policy. Where no white paper policy exists.

I can't think of another administration in modern history where that is the case.


----------



## BigDyl (May 3, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Bill Clinton killed those forever.




Bush lied, 1 million died.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> George Bush is a man of god and he is doing god's work, that is all that matters you fools.
> 
> I am done here...watch Pepper come in here and rip me a new one for this post.


 
In my "conservative Christian circles," very few have nice things to say about Bush. They hate him. Again, they would always vote for him over a liberal but they can't stand him. In fact, a bunch of people I know got a call from Secret Service over something they did to a Bush photo (in jest) at a church outing.

Neo-cons, not christian conservatives are his supporters.

I only defend him when you guys go on and on with your over-done crap  Around here, I spend more time bitching about him. It kind of reminds me of Clinton. The people I spend time with were frothing at the mouth and I found myself defending him at times. I despised him though.


----------



## ALBOB (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Jeez Al you are quick on the draw...zing.
> 
> Yeah, I have to say that Clinton did miss the mark at times. Sometimes his triangulation strategy just sickened me. Triangulation is a bastardization of the hegelian dialectic (thesis clashes w/ anthithesis resulting in a synthesis (which becomes the new thesis)). Clinton sometimes sold out w/ his triangulating especially over welfare reform.
> 
> ...



Rather than ask you to translate that into English I'll give you a gift.  I've officially removed GWB from my Christmas card list.  I still support the war on terror, but he's completely dropped the ball here at home and that I will NOT stand for.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Rather than ask you to translate that into English I'll give you a gift. I've officially removed GWB from my Christmas card list. I still support the war on terror, but he's completely dropped the ball here at home and that I will NOT stand for.


 
Well, AlBob, with these guys, that makes you a wing-nut Bush supporter. If you do not repeatedly bash him, you love him.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Jeez Al you are quick on the draw...zing.
> 
> Yeah, I have to say that Clinton did miss the mark at times. Sometimes his triangulation strategy just sickened me. Triangulation is a bastardization of the hegelian dialectic (thesis clashes w/ anthithesis resulting in a synthesis (which becomes the new thesis)). Clinton sometimes sold out w/ his triangulating especially over welfare reform.
> 
> ...


 
The reason I despised Clinton had little to do with his policies. Truth is, he did very little. That is his greatest accomplishment. He talked about what he was going to do, never did it, and the economy went nuts in the meantime.

He was fake and I can't stand people who are fake.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Well, AlBob, with these guys, that makes you a wing-nut Bush supporter. If you do not repeatedly bash him, you love him.



I like to bash bush.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I like to bash bush.


 
he is stupid
he lies
he is a religious zealot

all of these things MUST be included in your bashing, or you are wing-nut Bush-lover.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> he is stupid
> he lies
> he is a religious zealot
> 
> all of these things MUST be included in your bashing, or you are wing-nut Bush-lover.



Oh, I misunderstood.  I was talking about vaginae...


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> The reason I despised Clinton had little to do with his policies. Truth is, he did very little. That is his greatest accomplishment. He talked about what he was going to do, never did it, and the economy went nuts in the meantime.
> 
> He was fake and I can't stand people who are fake.


A fake? Yes he was a very good actor. An actor like Reagan the cowboy. A cowboy like Bush pretends to be even though he's afraid of horses (but he clears some mean brush). 

All politicians are phonies except for the statesmen. And currently there is only one of those: Sen. Russ Feingold.

Here are the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration:
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/summary.html

Like it or not, it was the most successful conservative administration in modern history...and Clinton was the leader.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Rather than ask you to translate that into English I'll give you a gift. I've officially removed GWB from my Christmas card list. I still support the war on terror, but he's completely dropped the ball here at home and that I will NOT stand for.


You are a true gentleman sir.  By the way, It took me about 2 weeks to finish that bottle of Dewars.  The bad news, or good, I'm buying another tonight.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> A fake? Yes he was a very good actor. An actor like Reagan the cowboy. A cowboy like Bush pretends to be even though he's afraid of horses (but he clears some mean brush).
> 
> All politicians are phonies except for the statesmen. And currently there is only one of those: Sen. Russ Feingold.
> 
> ...


 
I hope Clinton thanks Reagan every night when he goes to bed. Reagan set the economy up for him very nicely. Other than one tax increase, Clinton just rode the wave. I give him credit for that.


----------



## GFR (May 3, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Bill Clinton killed those forever.


*Nixon *did


----------



## lnvanry (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I hope Clinton thanks Reagan every night when he goes to bed. Reagan set the economy up for him very nicely. Other than one tax increase, Clinton just rode the wave. I give him credit for that.





Life was easy during the dotcom boom.


----------



## MCx2 (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I hope Clinton thanks Reagan every night when he goes to bed. Reagan set the economy up for him very nicely. Other than one tax increase, Clinton just rode the wave. I give him credit for that.




Where is it written that there must be drastic changes to policy when the office of the president switches hands? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Clinton understood that, I guess GW missed the memo....


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I hope Clinton thanks Reagan every night when he goes to bed. Reagan set the economy up for him very nicely. Other than one tax increase, Clinton just rode the wave. I give him credit for that.


Yes, that little 3 year recession from '89 to '92 was just a bump in the road to real growth from the tax cuts of the early '80s. 

Reagan expansion, Bush Recession, Clinton expansion*

*really due to Reagan's policies

hahahaha

Was it the tax cuts of the early 1980s or was it the largest tax increase in history signed by Reagan that caused this economic boom a decade later?

hahahaha

But really, what did Reagan do to affect the economy years after he left office?

I can mention the deficits and crushing debt Red Ink Reagan left behind, but Clinton(Rubin) fixed that mess to a degree.


----------



## Arnold (May 3, 2006)

FatCatMC said:
			
		

> Where is it written that there must be drastic changes to policy when the office of the president switches hands? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Clinton understood that, I guess GW missed the memo....



I think GW misses every memo, he does not like to read.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Real Growth of Gross Domestic Product
1973 5.2
1974 -0.5
1975 -1.3
1976 4.9
1977 4.7
1978 5.3
1979 2.5 
1980 -0.5
1981 1.8
1982 -2.2
1983 3.9
1984 6.2
1985 3.2
1986 2.9
1987 3.1
1988 3.9
*1989 2.5*
*1990 1.2*
*1991 -0.6*
1992 2.3
1993 3.1
1994 4.1
source:U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

See how the economy was shit for over 3 years after Reagan left office. Was that Reagan's fault? Did his magical tax cut rebound and save the economy? 

No.

Disposable personal savings 

1980 7.9%
1984 8.0
1985 6.4
1986 6.0
1987 4.3
1988 4.4
1989 4.0
1990 4.2

National Savings, public plus private 
1970 - 1979 7.7%
1988 - 1990 3.0

Private investment18 
1970 - 1979 18.6%
1980 - 1992 17.4

Economic conditions worsened under Reagan. Less savings and more debt. Bush is like Reagan fiscally only worse in geometric proportions.


----------



## lnvanry (May 3, 2006)

isn't the real GDP growth under W at 4.9%


hmmm


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Did his magical tax cut rebound and save the economy?


 
The economy rebounding was ABSOLUTELY a result of the Reagan administration. There was an excellent article about this in Forbes called "Reagan's Third Term."

Reagan set Clinton up for a great ride.


----------



## kbm8795 (May 3, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Life was easy during the dotcom boom.




Sure. . .I still thank Reagan every time that I buy a bottle of catsup...


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> isn't the real GDP growth under W at 4.9%
> 
> 
> hmmm


Correct.  Now factor in the tripling of our national debt and the deficit.

We are living high off the hog due to credit from China.  We drunken sailors.  We are welfare cadillac queens.

Bush's admin and party has spent more money than any other administration in history....by miles and miles.  

Still think 4.9% is a hell of an achievement?


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Bush's admin and party has spent more money than any other administration in history....by miles and miles.



Adjusted for inflation or, more likely, in absolute dollars?


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Adjusted for inflation or, more likely, in absolute dollars?


 
yeah, that strikes me as a "decker-fact" - one that may technically be true, but doesn't quite really hold up.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> yeah, that strikes me as a "decker-fact" - one that may technically be true, but doesn't quite really hold up.


All I'll say is this: don't ever turn your back on him in a debate.  Ever.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> The economy rebounding was ABSOLUTELY a result of the Reagan administration. There was an excellent article about this in Forbes called "Reagan's Third Term."
> 
> Reagan set Clinton up for a great ride.


And I can point you to any number of credible economists that will call your supply-side theory what it really is: propaganda nonsense.

In short, the tax cuts of the early 80s had a minute next to invisible effect on the Clinton expansion. The Laffer curve is just that, a laugher. Crank theory.

*You haven't answered my question. Did Reagan's tax cuts or Tax hikes cause the growth in the economy some six years later?*

The total federal tax burden was raised during the Reagan years.

During reagan's terms, the tax collections went down--Not up--a sound rebuff of Supply side nonsense.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> All I'll say is this: don't ever turn your back on him in a debate. Ever.


 
Decker is civil. KBM is the one who you really have to watch.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Adjusted for inflation or, more likely, in absolute dollars?


Constant dollars.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> And I can point you to any number of credible economists that will call your supply-side theory what it really is: propaganda nonsense.
> 
> In short, the tax cuts of the early 80s had a minute next to invisible effect on the Clinton expansion. The Laffer curve is just that, a laugher. Crank theory.
> 
> ...


 
Tax rates went down, tax revenue went up.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> yeah, that strikes me as a "decker-fact" - one that may technically be true, but doesn't quite really hold up.


You wound me sir.  I usually try to have all the sources lined up for support.  hahahha

Is it friday yet?


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Constant dollars.


 
So...the next President will likely set a new record. You are correct that Bush is spending like a Demo..er...drunken sailor.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Decker is civil. KBM is the one who you really have to watch.



Actually, I like Decker a lot. He's very intelligent and is fun to debate with.  Hell, he's even changed my mind on a few things.

KBM, however, plays the usual games of simply ignoring facts that he doesn't like and blaming everything bad on someone else.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Actually, I like Decker a lot. He's very intelligent and is fun to debate with. Hell, he's even changed my mind on a few things.
> 
> KBM, however, plays the usual games of simply ignoring facts that he doesn't like and blaming everything bad on someone else.


 
Word on both points.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> So...the next President will likely set a new record. You are correct that Bush is spending like a Demo..er...drunken sailor.



Asshat.  I like to think of his as an asshat.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Tax rates went down, tax revenue went up.


*Year Current Constant (87 dollars)*
-------------------------------------------
1981 $285,917 $367,692

1982 297,744 356,366 Reagan's irresponsible tax cut here
1983 288,938 332,033
1984 298,415 328,470
1985 334,531 354,677
1986 348,959 359,307 Reagan signed tax increase here.
1987 392,557 392,557
1988 401,181 387,128
1989 445,690 411,533
-----------------------------
82-89 total: 2,922,691
1981 (times 8) -2,941,536
-----------------------------
*Net 8-year loss -18,845*
Source: Original data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, _Budget of the U.S. Government,_ FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from tables located there. 

Corporate Income Taxes (millions)

*Year Current Constant (87 dollars)*
-------------------------------------------
1981 $61,137 $78,623

1982 49,207 58,991
1983 37,022 42,544
1984 56,893 62,623
1985 61,331 65,024
1986 63,143 65,015
1987 83,926 83,926
1988 94,508 91,224
1989 103,291 98,092
------------------------------
82-89 total: 567,439
1981 (times 8) -628,984
------------------------------
*Net 8-year loss -69,545*
*Combined individual and corporate income tax loss: $88 billion. *
1981 is the baseline used to measure gain/loss b/c it was reagans 1st year in office and not affected by his tax policy.

Are you absolutely sure the tax revenues went up after the tax cuts?


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Thanks DOMS and Pepper. I always enjoy discussing things with you guys. Nothing sharpens the mind like a good challenge. You two are really at the top when it comes to debate.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Thanks DOMS and Pepper. I always enjoy discussing things with you guys. Nothing sharpens the mind like a good challenge. You two are really at the top when it comes to debate.


Thanks Decker.  And like I've said many times before: You truly are the Master Debater.


----------



## BigDyl (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Thanks DOMS and Pepper. I always enjoy discussing things with you guys. Nothing sharpens the mind like a good challenge. You two are really at the top when it comes to debate.




Hey, what about me?


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

From OMB:
*FISCAL YEAR*
*REVENUE IN CURRENT DOLLARS (billions)*
*REVENUE IN CONSTANT FY2000 DOLLARS (billions)*​1981
599.3
1,077.4
1982
617.8
1,036.9
1983
600.6
961.7
1984
666.5
1,016.8
1985
734.1
1,082.6
1986
769.2
1,107.3
1987
854.4
1,196.1
1988
909.3
1,235.6


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Not to mention the poor were essentially removed from the income tax rolls and the % paid by the wealthy increased.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> From OMB:
> *FISCAL YEAR*​*REVENUE IN CURRENT DOLLARS (billions)*
> *REVENUE IN CONSTANT FY2000 DOLLARS (billions)*
> 1981
> ...


Do these numbers reflect only the individual income tax revenues and corporate tax revenues like in my chart or do they include payroll taxes which Reagan raised through the roof?


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm



> Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
> 
> <LI class=Bulleted>For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
> <LI class=Bulleted>For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
> ...


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Same article


> *HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?*
> 
> Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
> 
> ...


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Not to mention the poor were essentially removed from the income tax rolls and the % paid by the wealthy increased.


That's a cleverly deceptive chart for a few reasons:

The total federal tax burden of the wealthy went down during the 80's. By your own admission.

How did the burden shift to the wealthy? Simple. There were more rich people made in the 1980s to pay more taxes. Between 1980 and 1989 the no. of people reporting incomes of $500,000 or more increase from 16881 in 1980 to 183,240 in '89. That's 3% of total fed tax paid v. 14% in 1989.

What's wrong with more rich people?

Here's what's wrong: the 183,240 rich people are less than 1/5 of the richest one percent ('89). The ranks of the rich grew, this growth occurred in a microscopically small group, and didn't even come close to benefiting the overwhelming majority of Americans. 

Meanwhile, middle class income stagnated or fell as most of the income gains went to the rich. The top 1 percent increased their share of the national income from about 8 to 12-13 percent in the 80s, an increase of 50 percent. Likewise, their share of all federal taxes paid grew from 18 to 27 percent, also an increase of 50 percent.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Oh, let us not forget a small accomplishment like winning the cold war.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That's a cleverly deceptive chart for a few reasons:
> 
> The total federal tax burden of the wealthy went down during the 80's. By your own admission.


 
Huh? I'd never admit that. That is clearly untrue.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That's a cleverly deceptive chart for a few reasons:
> 
> The total federal tax burden of the wealthy went down during the 80's. By your own admission.
> 
> ...


 
Wow. You have to really hate conservatives to even find fault in the rich paying more tax. That is very shakey ground. That is kinda of like me saying the economy under Clinton sucked. It just would make me look silly.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Oh, let us not forget a small accomplishment like winning the cold war.



I don't see how it's possible that the Bush Administration could have spent, in relative dollars, more than Roosevelt Administration.  Roosevelt had to fund turning the entire country into a war machine and fielding the largest US army ever sent into war.  You can delve into charts all you want, but the basic logic just isn't there.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I don't see how it's possible that the Bush Administration could have spent, in relative dollars, more than Roosevelt Administration. Roosevelt had to fund turning the entire country into a war machine and fielding the largest US army ever sent into war. You can delve into charts all you want, but the basic logic just isn't there.


 
I think you hit reply to the wrong person, but I agree with you.

I'd find a source to prove that, but Decker would just say it's "misleading."


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Here is spending per household in constant dollars:


> Biggest spending years
> Federal spending is now at a level surpassed only during World War II, after running about $18,000 per year in the 1990s.
> *Spending per household*
> 1944 $26,445
> ...


 
I think source is the Heritage Foundation.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Oh, let us not forget a small accomplishment like winning the cold war.


My cousin is a fellow for the heritage foundation. Their scholarship is not highly credible because they put out the sort of charts that you are using as proof that tax cuts increase tax revenue. 

Notice how the 'increases' included 1980 BEFORE Reagan's tax policies were implemented. Also notice how they include the year 1989. One year after Reagan's departure. Why do these things? In '89 the Democrats had control of the house and slashed spending.  Such little tricks skew results.

It's little tricks like that which render your Heritage Foundation proof BULLSHIT. HF's statistical juggling is legendary.

Reagan did not win the cold war. Tell me how he did it.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Say what you want about the chart or the HF, but two things are true and I will keep posting stats until you admit it:
1. Tax revenue went up under Reagan
2. The percentage paid by the wealthy went up.

Spin all you want, these things are true.

1989 is included b/c the taxes imposed in 1988 were largely collected in 1989. You know, April 15th and all.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I think you hit reply to the wrong person, but I agree with you.
> 
> I'd find a source to prove that, but Decker would just say it's "misleading."



I replied to you because your Cold War reference got me thinking about past wars.

But again, the logic is so basic that, I feel, it's beyond reproach.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Wow. You have to really hate conservatives to even find fault in the rich paying more tax. That is very shakey ground. That is kinda of like me saying the economy under Clinton sucked. It just would make me look silly.


Please explain how Reagan left office w/ $300 billion dollar deficits and a trillion dollar debt if Tax Revenues were flowing in like water?


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Please explain how Reagan left office w/ $300 billion dollar deficits and a trillion dollar debt if Tax Revenues were flowing in like water?


 
Easy. Spending.

You can slam him for spending if you want. 

You may not slam him on revenue. I have you on that one.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Easy. Spending.
> 
> You can slam him for spending if you want.
> 
> You may not slam him on revenue. I have you on that one.


 
You can also argue that the spending increased the econmy and thus the revenues. I may argue you on that, but you'd have a point.

What you DON'T have a point on is over-all revenue and % paid by the wealthy.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Bush is not qualified to hold Reagan's jock.

EDIT: I am going home. I'll check in later with more misleading charts


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I replied to you because your Cold War reference got me thinking about past wars.
> 
> But again, the logic is so basic that, I feel, it's beyond reproach.


You got me there sir.  If I said 'spending' then I did mispeak.  It's not the spending, it's the borrowing.  The 1.05 trillion that he's borrowed in the last 5 years is more than all other administrations combined.  I'll look into the spending numbers tonight b/c it's going on 4:30 and I have to go home.  But it would not surprise me if Bush was at the top of that list too.  Thanks for catching that.


----------



## Decker (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Easy. Spending.
> 
> You can slam him for spending if you want.
> 
> You may not slam him on revenue. I have you on that one.


Not according to my numbers.  Your heritage numbers are not credible.

Have a great night Pepper.  I'll look over my records too.  And we'll continue.


----------



## kbm8795 (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Actually, I like Decker a lot. He's very intelligent and is fun to debate with.  Hell, he's even changed my mind on a few things.
> 
> KBM, however, plays the usual games of simply ignoring facts that he doesn't like and blaming everything bad on someone else.



Uh....I think we've seen samples of your idea of "facts". . .but as for the "usual games". .. I'd expect someone who has difficulty identifying simple news bias to project his own deficiencies on others. . .


----------



## kbm8795 (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Decker is civil. KBM is the one who you really have to watch.




I take that as a compliment. . .especially from someone who gets rattled if there is any contradiction to the official mantra.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Uh....I think we've seen samples of your idea of "facts". . .but as for the "usual games". .. I'd expect someone who has difficulty identifying simple news bias to project his own deficiencies on others. . .



I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.

As for the new bias, I simply said that all major news sources are biased, at least to the almighty buck.


----------



## kbm8795 (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the new bias, I simply said that all major news sources are biased, at least to the almighty buck.




   . . . why yes. . .we reviewed the example.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

You're not quite the word smith that you using are, something wrong?


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> I take that as a compliment. . .especially from someone who gets rattled if there is any contradiction to the official mantra.


 
Actually, you have me figured completely wrong. I love debating. I just prefer to debate with people who are actually thinking these things through, even if their opinion differs from mine. It is sad and ironic that you are accusing me of having an official mantra.

I'd bet my house I deviate from the conservative party line twice as much as you deviate from the liberal party line.


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

What about CATO? http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html


> _Income Tax Receipts_. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted. [20]


 
and before you point it out: 


> _Budget Deficit_. The budget deficit exploded in the 1980s


 
and


> _Federal Spending_. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22 percent larger in real terms. As a share of GDP, federal outlays declined by less than 1 percentage point. [21]


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Chart:


----------



## GFR (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Chart:


Yes and this shows the huge growth in the top 5% and that they are even richer now...


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yes and this shows the huge growth in the top 5% and that they are even richer now....I don't think that was your point but thank you


 
We can't have wealth creation in America, dammit.

Actually the CHART itself does not say ANYTHING about wealth creation but we never doubted your abilities to add to my posts.


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> We can't have wealth creation in America, dammit.
> 
> Actually the CHART itself does not say ANYTHING about wealth creation but we never doubted your abilities to add to my posts.



I never knew that being poor was cool.


----------



## GFR (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> We can't have wealth creation in America, dammit.


I have no problem with wealth creation....but creating more wealth for the rich only is not wealth creation, it is just coruption


----------



## Pepper (May 3, 2006)

Decker, I have been looking for something that would consider the impact of the FICA tax increase but can't find it. I am not sure a FICA tax increase can be blamed on the republicans as this is a democratic beast from the get-go..but I digress.


----------



## kbm8795 (May 3, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You're not quite the word smith that you using are, something wrong?



Don't ask me to correct this sentence.


----------



## kbm8795 (May 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Actually, you have me figured completely wrong. I love debating. I just prefer to debate with people who are actually thinking these things through, even if their opinion differs from mine.
> 
> *You know, this thread is the most I have ever read anything that purports to appearing as if you are thinking things through - usually you repeat cliches and then get angry when I throw some cliches back . . .*
> 
> ...



What exactly is the "liberal" party line?


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Don't ask me to correct this sentence.



Such short sentences.  Someone need a hug?


----------



## Pepper (May 4, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *Nothing sad about it. Try checking out the background of the Heritage Foundation for starters. *


 
Huh? What does the HF have to do with whether I stick to the conservative "mantra?" Try to pay attention.


----------



## kbm8795 (May 4, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Such short sentences.  Someone need a hug?



  If I had written the sentence you posted, I'd need one. . .


----------



## kbm8795 (May 4, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Huh? What does the HF have to do with whether I stick to the conservative "mantra?" Try to pay attention.



If you don't know the foundation of your own sources, how the hell are you capable of determining if something is "conservative" or "liberal" in the first place?


----------



## Decker (May 4, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> What about CATO? http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
> and before you point it out:
> and


CATO is generally as bad as the Heritage Foundation although once in a while a true libertarian pops his head out.

I think we got nowhere comparing charts so I???m taking a different tact. We were both right: Decker???tax revenues decreased b/c of Reagan???s tax cuts; Pepper---tax revenues increased b/c of the cuts. But ultimately I am correct and here???s why.


In 1981, Reagan slashed marginal rates. Tax revenues decreased significantly until 1984 where they reach their Pre-tax cut level:

Total Federal Tax Collections (billions) 
*Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)*
---------------------------------------
1980 $517.1 ......$728.1
1981 599.3 ........766.6 < tax cut passed
1982 617.8 ........738.2 < *drop *(tax hikes)
1983 600.6 ........684.3 < *drop *(tax hike)
1984 666.6 ........730.4 (tax hike)
1985 734.1 ........776.6 < (tax hike)
1986 769.1 ........790.0 (tax hike)
1987 854.1 ........854.1 (tax hike)
1988 909.0 ........877.3
1989 990.7 ........916.2
1990 1031.3 ......914.1
1991 1054.3 ......894.7
1992 1090.5 ......895.1
Source IRS

Why did the Tax revenues go up? 
Reagan raised taxes 2 TIMES in 1982: TEFRA (37.5 billion per year) and the Highway Revenue act (3.3 billion per year). The TEFRA increase is the largest peace time tax increase in history increasing revenue by about 1% of GDP.

Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 by raising the payroll tax rate.

Reagan raised taxes again in 1984???The Deficit Reduction Act???which raised taxes $18 billion per year or .4% of GDP

Reagan raised taxes again in 1985 under the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985.

Reagan raised taxes again in 1986 under the Tax Reform Act.

Reagan raised taxes again in 1987 under Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1987.Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

See Pepper, tax cuts have never paid for themselves. You are correct saying that tax revenue increased but it was due to tax increases and not tax cuts. I was correct to say that tax revenues went down in the 1980s b/c they did until the tax hikes were implemented.Even with the tax hikes, the rate of tax revenue growth during the 1980s was almost nil and about 3 times less than the growth of other decades. Let us not forget the excessive borrowing and deficits of the Reagan era either. Tax cuts do generally stimulate the economy but they have never paid for themselves i.e., increased tax revenue.


----------



## BigDyl (May 4, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> If I had written the sentence you posted, I'd need one. . .


----------



## Decker (May 4, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Decker, I have been looking for something that would consider the impact of the FICA tax increase but can't find it. I am not sure a FICA tax increase can be blamed on the republicans as this is a democratic beast from the get-go..but I digress.


I see what you mean.  This will undercut me but I think Reagan got it right pre-funding the possible SS shortfall w/ the tax hike.  He was right but for the wrong reason.  He knew that, under a unified budget, those payroll tax dollars would fund other programs deprived of money by his excessive tax cuts.


----------

