North American Union to Replace USA
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, July 8, 2006 03:31
VIEWED: 10071
PAGE 6 of 7
Fletch2,
It seriously irks me when people re-write history (and spew lies in the process). You said
Quote:1) Not quite: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N15/house.15w.html 1993) The House Thursday nightapproved 243-183 the broad outlines of President Clinton's five-year economic plan, a new Democratic vision for reinvigorating the economy and reducing the deficit by $510 billion that would require a huge tax increase, bruising cuts in defense and major "investment" spending.
During Clintons era three things happened.
1) Government spending stagnated ...
2) The government got a cut of the increased market activity associated with the internet bubble ...
3) There was really no international competition for the US.
To help finance Clinton's domestic spending initiatives and to reduce the deficit, the budget resolution also would net about $249 billion in new revenue, one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history.
The Democrat-controlled House also moved toward approval of a $16.2 billion economic stimulus package.
It was supposed to be an economic disaster - foes said the tax hike would melt down the entire US economy, and government spending would drive inflation. Instead, it did the opposite.
2) The internet IPO bubble lasted from 1998-2000. During the entire Clinton administration, the stock market climbed steadily. http://www.signaltrend.com/DJIA.html?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=ppc&
utm_term=Dow+Chart&utm_campaign=Google+ads&gclid=CIXBq_mynIUCFRC-IgodzUlQHA
And the supposed IPO-driven surplus? You will also find that under Clinton, the Federal deficit narrowed STEADILY during the entire administraive period, until it achieved a positive balance.
The first number is federal income, the next is spending, the last is the balance -
1989 GeorgeHW Bush - 991.2 1,143.8 $-152.6
1990 GeorgeHW Bush - *1,032.1 *1,253.1 *-221.0
1991 GeorgeHW Bush - *1,055.1 *1,324.3 *-269.2
1992 GeorgeHW Bush - *1,091.3 *1,381.6 *-290.3
----------------------------------------------------------------
1993 William J. Clinton - *1,154.5 *1,409.5 *-255.1
1994 William J. Clinton - *1,258.7 *1,461.9 *-203.2
1995 William J. Clinton - *1,351.9 *1,515.9 *-164.0
1996 William J. Clinton - *1,453.2 *1,560.6 *-107.4
1997 William J. Clinton - *1,579.4 *1,601.3 *-21.9
1998 William J. Clinton - 1,722.0 1,652.7 *69.3
1999 William J. Clinton - 1,827.6 1,702.0 *125.6
2000 William J. Clinton - 2,025.5 1,789.2 *236.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 George "W" Bush - *1,991.4 *1,863.2 *128.2
2002 George "W" Bush - *1,853.4 *2,011.2 *-157.8
2003 George "W" Bush - *1,782.5 *2,160.1 *-377.6
2004 George "W" Bush - *1,880.3 *2,293.0 *-412.7
2005 George "W" Bush - *2,153.9 *2,472.2 *-318.3
2006 George "W" Bush - *2,285.5 *2,708.7 *-423.2
As to claim #3, you may remember that various economies fell, entire regional stock markets crumbled during Clinton's administration, countrys' economies collapsed (Argentina) as did the entire Asian stock market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_financial_crisis "The East Asian financial crisis was a financial crisis that started in July 1997 in Thailand and affected currencies, stock markets, and other asset prices in several Asian countries, many considered East Asian Tigers. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the countries most affected by the crisis. Hong Kong, Malaysia, Laos and the Philippines were also hit by the slump."
Investors who HAD been in other markets fled to the US because of its stability.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know that any westerner irrespective of his political outlook would survive if dumped in the Amazon.
Life has consequences, decisions made good or bad have impact on others and on yourself. The interesting thing to my mind is that this pseudo social Darwinism only works because the underlying society is stable. We have created institutions laws and conventions that produce a specific social environment, one in which some people are successfull and some are not. The ones that succeed do so because they have worked out strategies that work best in that environment. Those same strategies are probably not so usefull in other settings. For example Bill Gates is a giant in high tech business but he probably wouldnt do so well in a knife fight. Of course Bill's money probably protects him from ever needing to find that out.
Now here's my thought one I know you won't agree with. Society is a dirty deal between individuals. In essence it says that if you follow the groups laws and customs those laws will also protect you. It says that you will benefit more from being with the group then being against it. It is a stroke of human genius because it allowed groups to form and cooperate that were bigger than just close kin. That was important because physically we aren't really great and needed the safety of numbers.
Now inequality has always existed. There has always been those that do better than others. There has always been the industrous and the lazy. There has been the smart and the greedy but societies have always hung together as long as the system didn't leave a significant part of the population to starve. Like teh American founders said people will endure an awfull lot before they overthrow a system that has been long established. Everyone is conservative when you get down to it.
Now if real life social Darwinism resulted in poor people starving to death that society would fail. That's what happened in revolutionary France, in Russia and in Germany. One poor person might starve in a gutter, but 1000 will riot.
Now for the part you will disagree with. As you know the primative capitalism of the industrial revolution wasn't even slightly fair, there was a huge gap between rich and poor and folks did riot and there was bloodshed. Now interestingly this didn't bring about any major changes, I would argue because the rioting was largely unsuccessfull. By the early 1900's things had started to change and by the 1930's we had communists and fascists everywhere. Now it was at this time that the western societies came up with the concept of welfare, not in the 1850's when things were if anything worse but in the 1930's. Why? Because the people that ran those societies looked at Russia and Germany and understood that a poor starving underclass were foot soldiers for extremists. Welfare is anti-revolution insurance. It is a way to keep the poor dependent on a system that doesnt work for them in order to ensure their loyalty to it. It's like Rome buying off the barbarians so as to keep doing business as usual.
So folks can pursue social darwinism by all means but remember that a significant change in the "social environment" may follow that brings unexpected results.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1) What you said doesn't counter what I said. Income went up spending flattened out. Therefore the goverment collected more then it spent, that equals surplus.
2) I had folks trying to sell me on various lame ass technology "investments" as early as 1996 so I don't know why you limit things to 98-2000.
3) You don't deal with 3 because that's a no brainer.
No government creates a good economy, this one didn't Clinton didn't, all they can do is try to set up favorable conditions. If things work out, if events work in your favour then you get a good economy with no need for "voodoo" of any kind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch:
Where the F*ck did you think I was an advocate of social Darwinism? That's about as far from what I think as is physically or mentally possible. I think I clearly stated that humans operate best where we circumnavigate survival of the fittest (i.e. Darwinism) as possible.
The strong should help and protect the weak, as a matter of history that is what has allowed our species to survive. Working against our only strength ensures our downfall.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dont
The piece I thought you'd disagree with is welfare as anti revolution insurance.
I reread and I appologise. I will edit for clarity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ahh.
Perhaps, but then home ownership for all is also a way of keeping us all working, if you've got bills to pay, and a mortgage to satisfy who has time to devote to politics.
Who cares what happens in Iraq, I've got bills to pay...
Welfare is better than none, whatever the compulsion behind the instigation.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, finally understand why Mrs T sold off all those council houses eh? That house is equity and when you bought it you became personally involved with protecting that equity. Now issues that would impact your morgage rate are more important to you than they were if you were just renting. You just became a proto-capitalist 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No I know why she did...
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Ah, finally understand why Mrs T sold off all those council houses eh?
Just like I know why she didn't stop the Falklands war before it started
+More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch2,
Shall I come up with a nice little name for you, too?
You say
1) Income went up spending flattened out. Do you mean to say spending didn't keep up with inflation? Here are real figures for US government spending and inflation, (inflation courtesy of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
http://www.bls.gov/home.htm
1992 1,381.60
1993 1,409.50 (spending) 2.02% (inflation) 2.99%
1994 1,461.90 (spending) 3.72% (inflation) 2.56%
1995 1,515.90 (spending) 3.69% (inflation) 2.83%
1996 1,560.60 (spending) 2.95% (inflation) 2.95%
1997 1,601.30 (spending) 2.61% (inflation) 2.29%
1998 1,652.70 (spending) 3.21% (inflation) 1.56%
1999 1,702.00 (spending) 2.98% (inflation) 2.21%
2000 1,789.20 (spending) 5.12% (inflation) 3.36%
So I compounded spending and inflation each. Gosh, I hope you know what compounding means. Compounded, spending went up 25.0% while inflation went up 18.2% And yet, despite government spending outstripping inflation by 33%, the economy roared on. Hmmmm .... how do you account for that??
As for income ... yes, it did go up, but not due to the internet bubble AS YOU CLAIM, but because of the tax increases ON INVESTMENT EARNINGS passed in 1993. That BIG tax increase the WashPost was so lathered about.
2) Just because there were worthless invetsments in 1996, 1995, 1994 1993 ... doesn't mean it was part of the bubble, lame-brain. Wothless computer/communications/internet related stocks whave been available at any time since their offer. The BUBBLE was IPO speculation fever. The broadest timeline for the bubble comes from Wikipedia 1997 - 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_bubble#Lead_up_to_the_bubble. That still leaves 1993 - 1997 for you to explain. How DID the US government increase its income without the internet bubble?
3) No, YOU don't deal with 3. You state lies, not backed up by any information. Prove yourself, or be known as a liar. As a bonus, if you don't answer my post with INFORMATION, you'll get a pet nick-name from me.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My word, someone is upset.
well let me see.
You say that the government made money on capital gains, which is what I said. So where is the disagreement? Tech stocks and IPO's rose during that timeframe. There was increased trading the government got a cut of. Hence more revenue. That you decide to set that bubble to 1998-2000 is your arbitary decision.
Government spending was limited, as can be seen from your own figures. How do you think you get a surplus? You raise more through taxes than you spend. Which is what happened here.
Three is self evident.
I don't lie, I may get figures wrong because I remember them wrong but the thrust of the argument is correct and honest from my knowledge.
A lie is information intended to deceive and since that was not my intention the worse you can say about me is that I am mistaken.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME