From: Vince Z

 Subject: The economy

 You sure do a lot of ranting and raving about the economy.
 Since you are so well-versed in it, please answer a few questions:

 I'd be more than happy to straighten you out.
 

 1)  Why do you consider the 80s economy to be lies, or evil, or etc.,
 yet the 90's economy is this great boom to society?
 
 First, an observation: You must be young (not a crime) because if you
 had lived with the Reagan economy I don't think you'd ask the question.

 The 80s and are current sad situation are both built on "trickle down,
 supply-side" economics, which means if you give the super-rich more money
 they might purchase another sailboat or a fourth house near Aspen.
 This does nothing but make the super-rich richer.

 If you don't give taxpayer money to the super rich, then hundreds of millions
 pf people share the boom. That means they're buying washer/dryers, computers,
 furniture, carpeting, lawnmowers and maybe a family vacation - all of which
 pumps money into the economy and BOOM!, you have a boom.
 
 Clinton made the super-rich pay their fair share, and look at the results.

 
 The orange is debt the Republicans charged to every American.
 The green is the surplus Clinton gave to every American.
 
 It seems to me you have some choices here:
You can say that chart (and me) are lying, but you'd lose that bet.
You can claim it's a coincidence and "Clinton got lucky," but since Clinton
    did the opposite of what the other three did, you'd lose that bet, too.
You can say, "Deficits don't matter," and if that's so, why not give me $10,000
    because after all, adding massive debt to your portfolio doesn't matter, right?
 

 According to liberals, the 80s economy was built on lies, false stock inflation and
 over-investing in companies that didn't produce anything.
 How does this differ than the 90s tech boom?

 Again, you had to be there. The 80s were "the decade of greed," where these
 super rich vultures would buy a huge corporation, lay everyone off, and then sell
 the pieces of the corporation to make lots of money. All that's legal, but several
 thousand people just lost their jobs - but the rich got richer.
 
 The tech boom was about people buying "blue sky," which is hard to price accurately.
 

 Both periods saw increases in jobs, over inflated stock prices built on
 pipe dreams and companies that over invested and spent money on things
 that were foolish and stupid.  Was it because a Democrat was in office in the 90s?

 Who said Reagan created jobs?
 I don't have info that old at my fingertips, but look at recent history:

 
 Both Bushes were terrible on jobs, and W is still in the negatives.
 This is what happens when you make the super-rich richer.

 Please try to answer the question without any president blame or credit, please.

 OK, but I can blame the false theories, right?
 You wanted an answer, didn't you?

 2)  Why all this false information about a "surplus"?

 You came to the wrong place to run that bluff.

..
 The orange is the GOP pushing America farther into debt.
 The green is Bill Clinton cleaning up the mess the GOP made.
 Clinton got us closer to being debt-free, but the GOP screams
"Screw tomorrow - let's party today!" when we can't afford to party.

 I guess you don't count the money you owed last year when you do your bills for this year.
 We have been running in the red for years.  Clinton's surplus was nothing but an increase in
 government income for x year based on the spending projected for x year.  We still had a deficit.
 
 Son, it's about the direction we're going.
 If you're low on gas, do you drive away from the gas station?
 The GOP thinks so, but the Democrats drive towards the gas station.

 Bush could run a 10 billion dollar "surplus" for the next year and we are still in a deficit.

 Every month you make a mortage payment, but you still owe the bank.
 But one day, using the Democratic method, that house will be paid for.
 Meanwhile the GOP isn't even making interest payments, much less paying down the principle.
 

 Also, wouldn’t a “surplus” mean that the government took more money than it needed to for the year?
 Shouldn’t taxpayers get that money back?

 Not when we're in debt.
 Let's say I win $1000 from a radio station giveaway.
 The smart move would be to pay off some credit cards, which is what Clinton did.
 The GOP screams, "Party in Vegas," where we end up spending $1,500 so we're $500 deeper in debt.

 Lastly, odd are you're not in the top 1 percent of the super-wealthy, so why are YOU
 arguing for the super rich to get more taxpayer money?  What could motivate you to
 mow Bill Gates's lawn for free when he's super rich and you could use the money?

 Obviously, especially to those of us that can add and subtract, when the super rich pay less
 that means you and I pay more OR the government, federal and local, runs low on money
 which means fewer cops, fewer fire engines, fewer screeners at airports, fewer highway
 and bridge repairs - and why would you want to do that to yourself?

 What if you or a loved one was in a wreck at night in the rain because your city can't
 afford new paint and the winding roads are hard to navigate with faded, 10 year-old paint?

 ...and you have poorly marked roads, fewer fire enghines and fewer Mad Cow inspectors
 that just so Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen and Ted Kennedy can get even richer?

 Are you crazy?

  return to  bartcop.com