The budet analysis has nothing to do w/ the economy, it's about the debt/defit of the US government down the round 35 years from now. What that has to do with consumer confidence rising in December of 2005 is beyond me...
Originally posted by: conjur
More of your inaccuracies.Originally posted by: ntdz
You have no idea do you...I don't ignore anti-Bush stuff at all, just because you say ****** like that doesn't mean it's true.Originally posted by: conjur
That's just it, you don't interpret the news. You ignore anything that isn't pro-Bush. If you don't ignore it, you slam it, smear it, deface it, piss on it, sh*t on it, and try and break it in half. That's interpreting?Originally posted by: ntdz
What, people aren't allowed to have different opinions than you? Everyone has to interpret every news event the in the exact same way? Come on, give me a break here...Originally posted by: conjur
Sure you don't. Although, I must imagine the news at the BBC and from whatever other sources via Google are most often ignored by you. Your posts prove that.
Besides, what do you think YOU do? You ignore anything positive going on in the country, which is evidenced by the countless economic threads you go into and try to discredit.
I don't try and discredit anything. I merely point out the reality of a situation whenever you and that fluffer, zendari, post the first bit of positive economic news. One report <> a robust economy.
And, that economic news is a prime example of how you ignore anything that doesn't put a positive spin on the economy. I've posted numerous articles from various publications (including that bi-partisan budget analysis) and you ignore them all and try to dismiss it by smearing me in the process.
But such haggling seems premature when both parties still deny the problem. "I don't think we're there yet," Walker said. "The American people have to understand where we are and where we're headed."
And where is that? "No republic in the history of the world lasted more than 300 years," Walker said. "Eventually, the crunch comes."
He wasn't talking about filibusters.
Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick. Of course it's beyond you as you don't make the effort to understand why the two are linked.
To quote the end of the article in discussion:But such haggling seems premature when both parties still deny the problem. "I don't think we're there yet," Walker said. "The American people have to understand where we are and where we're headed."
And where is that? "No republic in the history of the world lasted more than 300 years," Walker said. "Eventually, the crunch comes."
He wasn't talking about filibusters.
Originally posted by: conjur
Because you were trying to hail the new report as some indicator that the economy was soaring. That's far from the case and belies your short-sighted and apologist viewpoint.
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Again Krugman finds a way to hit the nail squarely on the head in a way that most people can understand.
Imagine if the FAUX News crowd (as evidenced by ntdz's empty-headed threadcrap) actually opened their minds to something other than administration propaganda how much better off this country would be.
I don't watch Foxnews, or read their website. My sources of news are news.bbc.co.uk, cnn.com, drudgereport.com, and news.google.com
Nice try at another generalization. Liberals here LOVE to make assumptions about people, don't they.
Ntdz what you obviously miss is the fact that all political commentators are hacks of one kind or another. So saying Paul Krugman is a political hack is as asinine as saying, 'Today is Friday' in response to the OP. Simply stating what you did indicates that you disagree with all his points without responding or giving counter arguments to any of them. All of which were anti-Bush, that makes you a supporter of Bush and his policies.Originally posted by: ntdz
You have no idea do you...I don't ignore anti-Bush stuff at all, just because you say ****** like that doesn't mean it's true.
Besides, what do you think YOU do? You ignore anything positive going on in the country, which is evidenced by the countless economic threads you go into and try to discredit.
Originally posted by: slyedog
more of the same from the bush haters. blah blah blah
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Ntdz what you obviously miss is the fact that all political commentators are hacks of one kind or another. So saying Paul Krugman is a political hack is as asinine as saying, 'Today is Friday' in response to the OP. Simply stating what you did indicates that you disagree with all his points without responding or giving counter arguments to any of them. All of which were anti-Bush, that makes you a supporter of Bush and his policies.Originally posted by: ntdz
You have no idea do you...I don't ignore anti-Bush stuff at all, just because you say ****** like that doesn't mean it's true.
Besides, what do you think YOU do? You ignore anything positive going on in the country, which is evidenced by the countless economic threads you go into and try to discredit.
Either give us reasons why Paul is wrong or you will continue to come across as a political hack yourself - of the pro-Bush kind.
Back to topic:
As far as Tax cuts are concerned no one is certain that they will die in 2010. There is still a chance that Congress will make them permanent. Don't underestimate what a majority in Congress can be capable of. Look at the recent budget cuts - mainly targeting the middle class and poor. I would prefer to see the tax cuts rolled back earlier if we can elect someone sensible to the next administration.