Making Baby Jesus Cry

[nononono]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Coyness? when you reach a level of popularity that your personal life becomes the source of grist for this mill, and the mob just won't let you live your life? Truly, he has little choice to respond on some level. And enlisting a well-liked veteran poster to handle press, and manage the twists and turns he encounters? that's not coy that's cagey.

You undermine his canniness by explicating it.

Who is the well-liked veteran poster handling the press?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
How are you using "innocently"?

I'm using it...innocently. I'm all about that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by nononono
You undermine his canniness by explicating it.

Who is the well-liked veteran poster handling the press?

Double Tsunami!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In a word, yes. If you pay attention to the numbers, it's pretty clear that the administration has been issuing inflated projections so that they can claim that the massive deficits are actually good news because they're better than was projected. This has been going on for a few years.

The point of that comment was that no matter what Bush does (or for that matter doesn' do) the liberals will find some nefarious purpose in it. It did not actually occur to me that you would support my argument. The Bush administration, during the recession consistently underestimated the deficit. Now in the recoevery it has underestimated the recovery. Pretty much, as Slave pointed out, has been going on for the last forty years. But you are saying Bush hid the budget numbers from the war so that the budget estimates would not look so terrible but at the same time overestimated the deficit so the number would look better when the true numnbers came out. Is it just me or wouldn't these two nefarious plans cancel eachother out.

That is like saying that when I sell you this car I won't quote the price with the tax so it looks cheaper but at the same time I am going to quote a much higher price than the true price so when you find out the real price you will be pleasently surpried.

But of course Bush has only been doing this amazing double deception during the recovery. Before, when he underestimated the deficit, he was doing that to deceive also.

For a guy that you don't think is so intelligent he sure can predict the future well and use those prediction to his political advantage.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point of that comment was that no matter what Bush does (or for that matter doesn' do) the liberals will find some nefarious purpose in it. It did not actually occur to me that you would support my argument. The Bush administration, during the recession consistently underestimated the deficit. Now in the recoevery it has underestimated the recovery. Pretty much, as Slave pointed out, has been going on for the last forty years. But you are saying Bush hid the budget numbers from the war so that the budget estimates would not look so terrible but at the same time overestimated the deficit so the number would look better when the true numnbers came out. Is it just me or wouldn't these two nefarious plans cancel eachother out.

That is like saying that when I sell you this car I won't quote the price with the tax so it looks cheaper but at the same time I am going to quote a much higher price than the true price so when you find out the real price you will be pleasently surpried.

But of course Bush has only been doing this amazing double deception during the recovery. Before, when he underestimated the deficit, he was doing that to deceive also.

For a guy that you don't think is so intelligent he sure can predict the future well and use those prediction to his political advantage.

plus, if you start a war for oil profits, shouldn't you be straight about it, and let peple know that you will otherwise tank the economy? that way people will invest in oil stock.
cha-CHING$$$$$

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


For a guy that you don't think is so intelligent he sure can predict the future well and use those prediction to his political advantage.

Maybe if Ty stopped reading all of those shite-filled liberal blogs and picked up a good book:



He would understand this:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't misunderstand anything, except for the fact that you refer to budget issues when you have no clue to what you are talking about.

This isn't just a one year adjustment. The whole deficit forcast has been changed for the future. When you have a growing economy - and revenues go up- they permanently go up year after year.

Under Clinton, and a Democrat congress Clinton raised taxes and the deficit actually increased. When the Republicans came in Clinton constantly hampered congresses ability to cut spending. He even shut down the government to avoid budget cuts. But the growing economy pulled us out of the deficit anyway. Of course alot of the growth was attributed to the fact that long term interest rates were dropped. Why were they dropped? Because the people that set those numbers knew now that the Republicans ran congress that the budget was eventually going to get balanced. Fiscal discipline was restored. How do we know this? That is the reason the people that set these numbers gave (by the way this is the part of interest rates Greenspan does not directly control). They said that they knew that all Clinton could do was delay when the budget was balanced but it eventually would so they could reduce long term interest rates.

So a Republican congress comes in, insists on balancing the budget, Clinton fights it every step of the way, yet Clinton takes credit for when the budget is balanced.

Bush inherits a recession from Clinton, and does exactly what anyone would do in a recession. Cuts taxes and raises spending. Standard Keynsian policy. Yet the Democrats scream bloody murder because - heaven forbid - Bush is creating a deficit. Bush is ruining Clinton's surplus - of course ignoring the fact that Clintons last budget was not balanced, Clinton fought fiscal sanity every step of the way, and it was Congresses policies that gave us the balanced budget. When you go into recession you get deficits.

Now that the economy is growing and the deficts are now diminishing and will continue to diminish if the economy stays the course, Bush gets no credit for that. Even though that is what Keynes said would happen.

So excuse me when I get a little annoyed when Democrats talk about fiscal discipline. Actually I don't get annoyed when Democrat politicians scream about this stuff because they say this stuff to get reelected. It is when their followers, who pretend to know something about budgets, repeat this propaganda, that any one with one economics or accounting class should see through, as if it were the truth instead of just political hyperbole.

The dynamic you describe could be attributed to political fighting over spending priorities -- there is a natural tendency of the two parties to check each other's most profligate urges when they share power. So the better comparison between Democrats and Republicans is between Clinton's first term, when he had a Democratic Congress, and Bush's tenure with a GOP Congress. Of course, we all know that under Clinton and the Democrats, the government's fiscal discipline improved -- over GOP opposition -- while under GOP control, the government lately has bled money like an anemic in the shower with a bunch of cats strapped to him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ty, the two hour rule is in effect. that post was no longer respondable. PLease edit accordingly.

Merde! The two-hour rule! Quel horreur! I would ask what this rule is, but you probably won't read this post either. This is completely unfair for those of us who actually have to work. I demand a government subsidy.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The dynamic you describe could be attributed to political fighting over spending priorities -- there is a natural tendency of the two parties to check each other's most profligate urges when they share power.

In a relativistic world where both parties are the same and we didn't have the record, that might be the case. But both partys are different - are they not? Clinton said that Gingrich was cutting to much. Gingrich said he was not. That is not in question (except in your mind). Actually Gingrich was just trying to slow the growth in medicare and other such programs. Clinton called them cuts. Whatever the case was, Gingrich was trying to reduce the deficit. Clinton was not. That is just a cold hard fact that you are going to have to live with.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop So the better comparison between Democrats and Republicans is between Clinton's first term, when he had a Democratic Congress, and Bush's tenure with a GOP Congress. Of course, we all know that under Clinton and the Democrats, the government's fiscal discipline improved -- over GOP opposition -- while under GOP control, the government lately has bled money like an anemic in the shower with a bunch of cats strapped to him.

Under Clinton and the Democratic congress fiscal discipline improved - no we all don't know that. That just exist in you wishful thinking mind. The economy was growing. Clinton increased taxes and still the deficit grew. And Clinton didn't even increase spending as much as most of the members of his party wanted him to. And the health care proposal didn't pass either which would have increased spending even more. So Clinton inherits a strong economy, raised taxes and still increases the deficit.

Bush, on the other hand, inherits a contracting economy, a war and cuts taxes and you are going to tell me this is a fair comparison? In order to smooth out the business cycle you are supposed to grow the deficits and in a contracting economy and you are supposed to reduce the deficits in an expanding economy.

So lets review. In a growing economy, Clinton and a Democrat congress raise taxes and still increase the deficit. In this same growing economy the Republicans take control of Congress and the budget gets balanced. However, Clinton does everything in his power to prevent such a balance from occurruing. Bush inherits a recession, so he and the Congress cut taxes, increase spending, and now we are out of the recession.

Alan Greespan critised Clinton and the Democrats spending plan, after the Republicans take over critisizes Clinton for his obstructionism and praises the Republicans for their discipline. And what does Clinton do to this man who so clearly doesn't understand what is really happening; he renomoniates him for the most powerful economic post in the world.

I think that pretty much sums up the reality of the situaton.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
You undermine his canniness by explicating it.

Who is the well-liked veteran poster handling the press?

Ty. He lost a bet with Mephistoles.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Ty. He lost a bet with Mephistoles.

Hey, don't take away from my nice burn of Hank.

I say this, of course, innocently.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not That Innocent
Hey, don't take away from my nice burn of Hank.

I say this, of course, innocently.

Oh, pardon me. Carry on, then.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Oh, pardon me. Carry on, then.

Quite all right. I'm done for the moment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's amazing that the Dems would even invoke God's name as they seek so diligently to wipe any reference to him out of our society.

Your never-ending ability to dismiss facts you don't like by trashing the motives of those who report them never ceases to amaze me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Hank has fully discredited Ty's approach in this regard.

Anyone Penske or Hank cites is a yutz.

Through Hank's method, sheer dint of repetition of this phrase will discredit anything you guys say. Woo hoo!