Mumia W wrote:
> The Right Wing *is* class and race warface. That's what drives them, and
> that's what gives them political success.
Uh, no. Try again. Some of the worst offenders when it comes to
class and race warfare are staunchly leftist.
> The biggest wealth redistribution in planetary history is occurring
> right now as the ultra-wealthy squeeze the middle-class into oblivion by
> outsourcing their jobs to China and India while abolishing usury laws so
> as to subject Americans to lifelong debt slavery.
Uh-wha-huh? Wealth redistribution means taking from one person and giving
it to another through the coercive power of the state. Outsourcing just means
our system is so whacked it makes good sense to send the jobs elsewhere.
> Reagonomics:
> http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001746.shtml
Bwahahaha... oh man, that's what you've got? That's it? Uh oh, here's
this huge deficit! Again you're leaving out half the equation! Sowell
addresses this nicely. Say you have a yearly income of $20,000 and a debt
load of $2,000, you have a debt of 10% your yearly income. Now, you take out
a loan for $2,000 but in doing so are able to increase your yearly income by
$40,000. Your debt has increased, yes. But as a percentage of your income it
is now 6.7% instead of 10%. Your debt ratio went down and you're also in a
position easier pay off that debt.
Deficit = national debt. Gross National Product (GDP) = the nation's
yearly income. So tell me, have you honestly looked at the GDP for the same
time frame? In fact have you looked at the deficit to GDP ratio under Bush
II? I doubt it. In both cases the ratio shrank. That means we were better
off because our overall productivity increased immensely and we're better able
to handle the debt load.
> Racism:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/barrybar/41431871
> "White people find; black people loot."
Racism:
"New Orleans will be a Chocolate City again."
Whoops, sorry, you were saying?
>> And you say it isn't a Ponzi. Wasn't one of the points of a Ponzi
>> scan was that they got people to reinvest into the scam.
> No, one of the points of a Ponzi scheme is that people are *tricked*
> into giving money into it.
*sigh* You really are that dense, aren't you? From the very page you
said I didn't read in the "What is not a Ponzi Scheme (and vice versa)" section:
"A pyramid scheme is bound to collapse a lot faster, simply because of the
demand for exponential increases in participants to sustain it (Ponzi schemes
can survive simply by getting most participants to "reinvest" their money,
with a relatively small number of new participants)."
As for the trick we've covered that. The trick is that people like you
believe it's a valid system! The trick is that you defend it even as experts
completely agree it will FAIL inside approximately 20 years! Most young
people believe they're better off putting their money into Social Security
than into a savings account or a mutual fund when the exact opposite is true
and has been proven to be true by the returns of each over the past several
decades! That's tricked!
> The tax increases helped the government pay its bills without dipping
> into the bond market, and that helped keep interest rates down.
> Increasing taxes *does* help the economy when you use the taxes to
> balance the budget.
No, taxes but the breaks on the economy because it removes that revenue
from being reinvested into the economy.
>> He also got to
>> come off the economic policies set in motion by Reagan/Bush I.
>> Clinton's economic legacy is evident in the downturn that started
>> prior
> That's the dot-com bust--not Clinton's fault.
Uh, if we're going to give credit for the upswings we'll blame him for the
same. The dot.com's busted on Clinton's watch, late 99, early 2k. Bush II
took office 2001. So blaming Bush for something that was happening before he
took office is disingenuous at best yet most people blame him for it time and
time again.
> Nearly every one of the perpetrators of terrorists acts against America
> were pursued, caught, tried and punished during the Clinton
> administration. What Clinton didn't to was to go to war with entire
> countries just because of a few nuts.
Yeeeahhh, that's why he refused when Bin Laden was pretty much handed up
on a silver platter, did absolutely nothing in retaliation for the USS Cole,
bombed the wrong target because he was schtooping an intern.
> Clinton didn't have to do anything about Social Security. Our nation was
> set to grow itself out of the problem. Some portion of that $5 trillion
> surplus would've helped.
*sigh* No, it wasn't. Go read the sites I cited.
> It looks like I have the facts on my side.
Yeah, sure you do. Keep convincing yourself of that.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature