| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/27 |
| 2002/12/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:26823 Activity:insanely high |
12/15 Gore: say what you will about him, at least he has made a smart
decision this time.
\_ Yeah, well, since he already won the election once, why should
he have to do it again?
\_#1: It is considered polite to append to the end of the motd.
#2: Name one recount he won.
\_ Yeah, he was pretty damn funny last night as Trent Lott.
\_ Except he was just reading someone else's lines.
\_ I heard that most actors and actresses read other ppl's
lines, too.
\_ Yeah it'd look really stupid to go again and get crushed or worse
not even get the nomination. Then history would say it was just as
well in 2000 and the country got what it wanted afterall.
\_ Damn, I like hm too... better than Lieberman. Last thing we want
is a Jewish president... it will only make things worse in the
middle east.
\_ Only a Jewish president could go to Palestine.
\_ Leiberman will never be president, the unwashed masses of this
nation will elect a african american before they elect a jew.
\_ Gore just lacks charisma. He doesn't have the right personality
to win people over. Too bad issues like being "stiff" or not
"looking" like a president are what most people seem to focus
on above all else.
\_ Leadership is all about personality and charisma, and yes,
to a degree, integrity. He lacks on all of these. And...
he lost the election. Deal with it. Majority doesn't
\_ Oh, fuck you.
matter. If it did, Bush would have campaigned in CA.
\_ Execpt he loses on those too. He's a inveterate liar
and too much of Clinton made its way into his character.
He's a big governement socialist, definitely a 'winner'
He's a big government socialist, definitely a 'winner'
on the issues eh?
\_ how does the "clinton == big government" myth live on?
\_ the fact that you said the words "big government" in
a discussion discredits anything you have to say.
nevermind the misspelling.
\_ Nothing meaningful to say so you talk out of
your ass. The size of the federal government
is primarily the result of socialist / democrat
policies the past 90 years. All of your liberal
heroes are statists.
\_ Which president grew the overall size of
government most out of all of them in the
last 40 years? Reagan! Who shrank it the
most? Clinton. The real statists are all
Republicans.
\_ Except Reagan submitted a balanced
budget every year. Guess who controlled
Congress. Reagan made a bargain - tax
cuts and defense increases for democrat
deficits. We are still enjoying the
dividends. Clinton shrank the government?
Now you are making things up? Democrats have
controlled Congress for virtually the
entire century.
http://www.cato.org/fiscal/2002/factsfigs.html
Guess who enacted SS? Who started the
War on Poverty and allowed SS into general
expenditures? Who then levied taxes on SS?
You're full of shit or ignoring the facts.
\_ Now you are just making things up. Who
controlled congress in 1984? Now look up
up the number of federal government
employees at the start of Clinton's term
and the at the end. Tell me what the
difference is. Now tell me what the
difference will be after 2 years of
Republican controlled government. I
am eagerly awaiting your reply.
\_ Ok so they downsized the military by
several hundred thousand and rehired
hundred thousand more federal employees.
I guess in your world this is 'shrinking'
government. So you, despite the claim
of every Democrat on the face of
the earth, that libs are for smaller govt?
Gore / Clinton in favor of nationalize/
socialized medical service and youre
telling me this equals smaller govt?
You're a fucking joke.
http://csua.org/u/6e6
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/govern/pd081899g.html
\_ No, I think both "sides" are in favor
of larger governments. The Dems want
more handouts and the Repubs want more
cops. I think they both suck.
PS Reducing the size of the military
counts as "reducing government" to
any sane person. Also, look at your
own Cato institute graphs, they show
a (slight) decrease in federal
expenditures as a percentage of GDP
over the 8 years Clinton was in office.
There are a lot of bad things that
you can lay on Clinton's door, but
increasing the size of the government is
not one of them.
\_ Contract with America. |
| 11/27 |
|
| www.cato.org/fiscal/2002/factsfigs.html From the 1930s through the 1970s, taxes rose rapidly to finance a huge expansion in federal spending programs. After some modest tax relief during the 1980s, government revenues have grown very quickly during the 1990s fueled by large tax increases in 1990 and 1993. Taxes peaked in 2000 at $7,668 per-capita, which was up 39 percent since 1990. This is the largest run-up in federal taxes since the 43 percent increase of the 1950s. Large tax rate increases in 1990 and 1993, a rise in capital gains realizations, and the effect of "real bracket creep" were the primary culprits. During years of strong economic growth, real bracket creep causes income taxes to rise faster than personal incomes because the steeply graduated federal tax rate structure automatically imposes higher average tax rates on millions of families every year. Households with incomes over $200,000 pay 27 percent of their income towards federal individual income, payroll, and excise taxes, on average. By comparison, middle-income households with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 pay 17 percent of their income towards these federal taxes. Households with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 pay 24 percent of these taxes. The highest-income 1 percent of households pay 36 percent of individual income taxes, and the top 5 percent of households pay 56 percent, based on the most recent IRS statistics. The share of all individual income taxes paid by the highest-income 1 percent of households has increased from 19 percent in 1980 to 36 percent in 1998. Government statistics do not bear out this suspicion: Over 99 percent of households with incomes over $75,000 pay income tax. By contrast, a growing share of lower-income households pay no federal income taxes. From the beginning, CCH Incorporated has published an annual collection of federal tax rules containing the tax code, tax regulations, and summaries of other federal tax pronouncements such as IRS letter rulings and technical advice memoranda. Another 88 years of growth at this rate, and a set of federal tax rules will cover 5 million pages. The average top individual income tax rate for 26 major contries in the OECD has been cut 20 percentage points since 1980. Today, non-defense spending is four and one-half times larger than federal spending on defense. Both defense and nondefense spending are up sharply in the last couple of years. The chart indicates that the cause of the slowdown was the dramatic drop in defense spending that occurred with the end of the Cold War. Mandatory (or entitlement) spending has grown strongly after a brief lull in the early 1990s. Mandatory spending will grow explosively when the baby boomers begin retiring in 2008. Nondefense discretionary spending has grown rapidly since a brief pause in the mid-1990s. Actual FY2003 outlays will be about $787 billion-that is a stunning $192 billion, or 32 percent, more than President Clintons $595 billion proposal for FY2003 in his FY1999 budget. There has been a pattern of constant upward revisions in out-year spending in both the defense and nondefense budget categories. New 88 Archives Daily Dispatch 89 European Union to Expand by 10 Members Tomorrow 1 1 1 1 90 Some Iraq Rebuilding Money Shifted to Other Expenses 1 1 1 1 91 Senate Approves Ban on Internet Access Taxes 1 1 1 1 92 Archives Cato in the Media Christopher Preble will discuss the latest events in Iraq on CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown on Friday at 10:20pm ET. |
| csua.org/u/6e6 -> story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040311/ts_nm/security_spain_qaeda_dc_2 Advanced Document Not Found The document you requested is not found. |
| www.ncpa.org/pd/govern/pd081899g.html The General Accounting Office now says that the Gore project double-counted savings, did not tally short-term costs involved in making long- term savings and did not retain enough documents to make a judgment possible on whether some savings were achieved. The GAO reviewed recommendations made by Gore's National Performance Review -- now called the National Partnership for Reinventing Government -- for cost-cutting changes at the Agriculture Department, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Energy Department. Gore currently estimates his plans will save about $137 billion. |