America - Where’s Your Empire?

Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.    I guess the colapse of the Soviet econmy due to the fact they produced nothing and spent most everything else on their military had nothing to do with it.

Clinton was hardly a bleeding heart liberal especially economically. Well quite honestly I think the collapse of the Tech industry specifically in Silicon Valley, Ca and the resulting energy scandals ie. Enron had more to do with the turn around from Clinton to Bush than any tax cut. Hundreds of thousands lost work and when reemployed at substantially lower rates of pay that previous jobs paid had more to do with less tax money than anything done in Washington DC. Not to mention the lower value of stocks on Wall Street and the loss of business taxes The original tax cuts were proposed because we had a surplus not in spite of it.  You give either man too much credit or blame.

Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.

Ohh... it would be nice to have Clinton back as president... I'd even volunteer as an intern myself...

Garion81 wrote: Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.    I guess the colapse of the Soviet econmy due to the fact they produced nothing and spent most everything else on their military had nothing to do with it.  Fair comment, but it reinforces my point that the changes in the Soviet Union were more influenced by internal events and policies than any pressures from the West (which did play a part, but were probably not decisive). Incidentally, there are 2 l's in 'collapse'. Clinton was hardly a bleeding heart liberal especially economically. Well quite honestly I think the collapse of the Tech industry specifically in Silicon Valley, Ca and the resulting energy scandals ie. Enron had more to do with the turn around from Clinton to Bush than any tax cut. Hundreds of thousands lost work and when reemployed at substantially lower rates of pay that previous jobs paid had more to do with less tax money than anything done in Washington DC. Not to mention the lower value of stocks on Wall Street and the loss of business taxes The original tax cuts were proposed because we had a surplus not in spite of it.  You give either man too much credit or blame.

So - according to one of your previous posts, the 90s boom was due to Reagan's 80s economic policy, and the current slump is all Clinton's fault. Deeply flawed as he was, from this side of the pond it looks like Clinton got some things right - even Dubya admitted he was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency. Enron had sod all to do with tax cuts, but everything to do with free market ideology - no matter how much spin the Adam Smith institute put on it, it's as flawed an idea as communism ever was and will doubtless go the same way in a couple of decades. It's screwed up utilities and transport here in the UK, and the way Blair is going the relentless drive for profit will ruin education and the postal system next.

 

Syzygy wrote: Garion81 wrote: Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.    I guess the colapse of the Soviet econmy due to the fact they produced nothing and spent most everything else on their military had nothing to do with it.  Fair comment, but it reinforces my point that the changes in the Soviet Union were more influenced by internal events and policies than any pressures from the West (which did play a part, but were probably not decisive). Incidentally, there are 2 l's in 'collapse'. Clinton was hardly a bleeding heart liberal especially economically. Well quite honestly I think the collapse of the Tech industry specifically in Silicon Valley, Ca and the resulting energy scandals ie. Enron had more to do with the turn around from Clinton to Bush than any tax cut. Hundreds of thousands lost work and when reemployed at substantially lower rates of pay that previous jobs paid had more to do with less tax money than anything done in Washington DC. Not to mention the lower value of stocks on Wall Street and the loss of business taxes The original tax cuts were proposed because we had a surplus not in spite of it.  You give either man too much credit or blame.   Where So - according to one of your previous posts, the 90s boom was due to Reagan's 80s economic policy, and the current slump is all Clinton's fault. Deeply flawed as he was, from this side of the pond it looks like Clinton got some things right - even Dubya admitted he was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency. Enron had sod all to do with tax cuts, but everything to do with free market ideology - no matter how much spin the Adam Smith institute put on it, it's as flawed an idea as communism ever was and will doubtless go the same way in a couple of decades. It's screwed up utilities and transport here in the UK, and the way Blair is going the relentless drive for profit will ruin education and the postal system next.

Where do you draw that conclusion from what I said?  I stated factually the last time we had record deficits was from Reagan's tax cuts in relation to the fact that our deficit spending is irrelevant period since we have only had 6 balanced budgets since before WW2.  There are a fair number of Republican and Democratic controls of government there. They all had cracks at it yet the only two presidents that achieved this task of a balanced budget were Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.  

I didn't blame Clinton for anything nor praise Reagan for what he did except for lowering  capital gains taxes which made new investments from the sale of old capitol less costly. That did help the fakes prosperity of the nineties with research money in tech companies increasing.  Please reread my posts because I never said Enron had anything to do with tax cuts.  I said Enron and other tech companies collapses had more to due with deficits in the budget than tax cuts.  Why?  Again because when the rise of the tech companies in 90’s brought about prosperity for a time including a record high for the Dow Jones over 12,000.  Their crash, when people realized it was paper prosperity only due to the fact that these companies never made a profit yet their shares of stock were well over $100 each. Many employees were given stock options as part of their compensation.  Suddenly their net worth went from hundreds of thousands of dollars to virtually nothing overnight. When these people received new jobs (for some that took years) they were paid substantially less than previously.  Hence, the government received less tax money because people made less money to tax.  On top of that they were receiving aid from the government in unemployment benefits and welfare which put a bigger drain on government money.

 How do I know this?  I was one of them, one of hundreds of thousands.   Enron and other energy companies that went out of business were the exact same price on taxes collected.  They single handedly took California's budget from the black to the red that we will be paying for years. What they did was illegal and it hurt not just their customers but their stockholders and of course all employees.  They desreve the highest punishment they can hand out for that. The Dow Jones dropped below 9000. All people for the most part suffered.  Was this because of tax cuts? No.   Politicians receive way too much credit and blame for events they really have no control over.

 

Edited by Garion81

That'll be three stars for me then!

Same to you,Sigod.

However, thats not your flag.....

emdiar wrote: Same colours though! (Hi 3', x.)

Happy New Year, Emdiar, where you been hiding?

sigod wrote: Three to those that wanted to stay quiet but couldn't help themselves (that'll be me then )

 

I resemble that remark.

Yeh, but the picture on the front of the NY Times yesterday showed vacationers on the islands of Thailand sunning out on the beach while workers were cleaning up debris all around them.  I guess if an occasional corpse went floating by... it was just more pictures for the vacation album...