- On your “onerous” tax increases of ‘93, except for the top corporate tax rate which remains the same to this day, they were all aimed at the higher tax brackets.
Don’t think I asserted otherwise. Nope… just checked. I didn’t.

- On timing, funny how Bill’s increase took years to take affect while the Reublican congresses bill was instantaneous. How does that work?
It’s not funny at all, actually. On the contrary, it’s pretty simple. Simple, that is, if you know how investment works.

Say you have liquid cash you want to invest. You look at the market and decide whether things are looking good or bad 3, 5 or 10 years down the road, depending. Based on your assessment you either buy CDs or invest in stocks. Same deal if you’re an entrepreneur or a venture capitalist – you either sit on your dough or you invest in a business (or several – and these are the people we’re mostly really talking about in this scenario). Once you’ve rolled the dice though, you’re committed, and you’re going to do whatever you can – for as long as you can justify it – to get your investment to pay off.

Now let’s marry that up with tax law changes.

When tax relief bills are passed, the general rule is that the government isn’t going to turn right around and raise taxes again. In a case like ‘97, where the cap. gains tax was significantly reduced, you see a rush of investment almost immediately because (a) it’s a safe bet there’ll be economic growth (rising stocks, flourishing business) and (b) more importantly, you won’t get quite so raped by the IRS if/when you make your profit. This in turn stimulates the economy almost immediately – not unlike what we just saw with the very modest economic stimulus plan. No one wants their money just sitting in a savings account when they could be buying Microsoft stock that’s likely to soar at any moment. The effects of certain tax relief are thus almost immediate.

On the other side, when taxes are increased and the economy slowly takes a nose-dive, you can’t always just take your investment and go home, especially if it’s funding a business with 30 employees who are depending on your good judgment to keep them employed. If we’re talking stock investments, most investors are loathe to change their long-term strategy unless it’s obvious things need to change. So in the tax-increase/foundering-economy case you see people typically sticking with the commitment they’ve made until it’s clearly no longer feasible to do so. There are varying points along the spectrum that signal “time’s up”, and it’s different for every investor. So when taxes are increased, slowly killing the economy, reaction times are much longer.

You can see exactly how this worked in 2000, where – as investors looked at the ominous trend of the previous year – investments in tech stocks (erroneously referred to as the “tech bubble” because of a few Internet equivalents of boiler room operations) petered out first, as these were naturally the most risky. Unhappily, I had a direct, personal taste of this, experiencing my one and only layoff ever that year (I immediately went back to contracting). Other markets soon followed in a snowball effect, leading to the very real recession in mid-’01. If not for 9/11 and Enron, the trough would certainly not have been nearly so deep, but luckily we were back on track by early 2002, and we’ve had positive economic growth in every single quarter since.

… despite your out of context cherry picked quote, Clark has been clear about the much more serious attention played [payed?] by Bill to the threat …
It was neither out-of-context, nor cherry-picked. And if you were actually familiar with the full statement from which it was taken, you would know that Clarke himself stated that this sentence was “the overall point” of what he had to say that day. That’s the antithesis of “cherry-picking”. Again, I quote:

“I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”

Clarke goes on to further contradict your new assertion with the following:

“… the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent. … The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

Clearly in Clarke’s view, the Bush admin. vigorously pursued the issue every bit as diligently as Clinton’s had – more so, since he also states that the Bush admin. worked to resolve issues that Clinton had left up in the air for years.

In sum, even Clarke never claims what you say he claims. He may have changed this tune later, but then of course that is why I tend to look at his overall credibility as less than rock-solid. Your observation that he was present throughout provides every reason for him to say whatever is necessary to avoid any real personal accountability.

- … I am rather shocked that a republican would be arguing that budgets and debt don’t matter.
Huh? Did I label myself a “Republican” somewhere? I support full and equal rights for the full spectrum of gender variants and expressions: LGBTTSQI, etc. I have no real qualms about abortion – but of course “choice” works both ways, which is why they call it “choice”. What’s more, if you choose it, you bought it: don’t expect me or my taxes to pay for it. I think the ERA is just as stupid as the DMA. I don’t think the death penalty has any effect on crime, and neither does so-called “hate crime” legislation. I think both political parties are guilty of gross misfeasance and malfeasance these past twenty years or so. In short, I don’t think I hold the identity politics you’re projecting.

And I’m sorry to further disappoint you, but this claim is your straw man. Budgets and debts indeed matter (I never asserted otherwise), but productivity and a growing economy matter much, much more. My assertion is that we are not headed for “Debt Doomsday” or any other disastrous situation related to the debt, as our media, 99% of economics “pundits”, and most politicians / critics of economic growth would have us believe when they use scare tactics like “our debt has never been higher!!!”. Duh. Our economy has never been larger, nor has our population. Without a context it’s just a number.

So it’s utterly disingenuous of anyone to use fear-mongering tactics about the “size” of the deficit or the debt without providing some context – as politicians and the media do constantly. The GDP is the best context available.

And speaking of relative measures, the average debt-to-GDP ratios during comparable years of their administrations (i.e., the first seven) were much lower in ‘01 through ‘07 than in ‘94 through ‘00 (inclusive). So far we have yet to hit Clinton’s gross debt-to-GDP peak of 67.3% (in 1996) under the Bush admin. And we’ve never even come close to Clinton’s publicly-held debt-to-GDP peak of 49.3%. Although the current (you-know-who-controlled) Congress is working hard on out-spending both those numbers.

- With a lot of the world doing better on education than us …
With people like 60s-fixated Marxist Bill Ayers running curriculum development, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Constructivist (i.e., collectivist) education theory has been slowly destroying public – and now private – education for decades. Increased “funding” is not the answer. Only two things will fix the broken education system: student discipline and teacher/administrator accountability (which of course includes going back to actually teaching). Presently, the NEA and the teachers’ unions studiously avoid both of these. And their “justification” is found in the “outcome-based” ed. theory going all the way back to John Dewey. The Chinese and Russians tried and then abandoned this approach to education which is a big part of why their systems, as well as their graduates, are generally far superior.

– Your discussion of oil futures is based on interpreting the minds of thousands of investors all over the world.
That’s why they call it a global market – something that was obviously way over the heads of Pelosi & Reid when they proposed (U.S.-only) legislation aimed at the nasty speculators (after Bush’s action had already reversed the price trend, of course). This was almost as stupid as when Obama demonstrated his keen grasp of foreign policy issues by suggesting a UNSC resolution against Russia (which has veto power over any UNSC resolution). Both cases clearly illustrate the utterly naïve and completely delusional “true masters of the universe” self-image held by the far-left Dems.

- The amount of future reserves to be found off-shore US in no way relate realistically to the price decreases you site.
Not sure where you’re getting this. The only price decrease I cited was the recent 20%+ decrease that started the very day President Bush – a former oil man who, if anyone, should thoroughly understand how commodity oil speculation works – repealed the executive ban and told Congress they should do the same. Maybe the part you’re missing is that the total of the estimated reserves offshore AND in ANWR doesn’t matter. What matters is the availability of a new supply, which will flow as long as those reserves last and affect the price for that same time period. That directly affects speculation, as we’ve already just seen and which is what I was discussing.

- I’m in favor of nuclear plants but I don’t have the faith you exhibit in a star wars future …
None of the technology I referred to is “star wars”. Nuclear reactors are being built all over the world – except in the U.S. where we need them most, of course thanks, again, to you-know-who. Shale oil extraction is 100-year-old technology, you just need a cheap, emissions-free way to generate the heat required, which up until recently made that prospect not economically or environmentally feasible.

- Glad to here about your dependents and you skating over the national debt.
You won’t be paying any of it either. Neither will your dependents. Tax cuts produced the highest federal tax revenues the U.S. Treasury has ever seen. If you’re concerned about the debt, then cut taxes even more and get Congress to stop spending money like drunken sailors on a weekend bender in Saigon. That’d be a start. Alternatively, you could get all the people together who seem to think it’s a problem and start a fund drive to pay it down. Either way, just stop lying about it (or listening to cranks like the Concord Coalition, who do).

– I’m sure those credit card payments and payments to “the man” will keep coming as well.
Nope. I don’t keep a CC balance, so I don’t make CC payments. I use Amex instead of cash because I get a discount off of everything I purchase with it (including, especially, gas) in the form of an annual rebate. Never pay an annual fee. Never pay a service charge. Never pay interest.

Speaking of which… it’s time to go enjoy the weekend. The sun’s finally out.

Have a great (long) weekend JF, if you’re so inclined.

On your “onerous” tax increases of ‘93, except for the top corporate tax rate which remains the same to this day, they were all aimed at the higher tax brackets. The top bracket at which the “onerous” top rate applied was redefined from $86,500 during GHWB’s last year up to $250,000. For almost all of the “golden years” of Reagan, the top rate was 50% for income over anywhere from $85,000 to $175,000. For added perspective, during Kennedy and Eisenhower, the top rate was 91% for income over $400,000, admittedly a much wealthier individual in those days.

On timing, funny how Bill’s increase took years to take affect while the Reublican congresses bill was instantaneous. How does that work?

On 9/11, we agree that AQ did not recieve adequate attention from either Clinton or Bush. However, despite your out of context cherry picked quote, Clark has been clear about the much more serious attention played by Bill to the threat and Bush and Rice’s total disengagement from that threat until after 9/11. He worked for both of them, as well as GHWB.

On measuring the debt and deficits against some other benchmark, I sited the ratio of debt to GDP and it’s gone up dramatically under Bush. Your rosy scenarios assumes upward growth steadily and indefinitely – a hoped for but not assured condition – and I am rather shocked that a republican would be arguing that budgets and debt don’t matter. Our competitive position in the world is not what it was and the trends are not good. We can steady or reverse them, but sticking our heads in the sand is not the best formula for success. With a lot of the world doing better on education than us – see articles on Chinese and other scholars staying at home universities – and beginning to catch-up on technology, our advantages in productivity (which one of your links rightly highlighted) may not hold. In an earlier exchange you put the blame for our educational system on liberals. OK, plenty of blame to go around and situational standards are part of that. You may want to consider some other factors:

1. State legislatures cutting Univ. funding because of tax cut agendas.
2. Anti-intellectual attitudes on the right, from W to Rush. Where else in the world does a guy with no family money get mocked for graduating Magna Cum laude form Harvard Law?
3. Situational science – uncomfortable with facts? Teach creationism as an alternative reality.

I’ll own touch-feely teaching, republicans need to own those.

Your discussion of oil futures is based on interpreting the minds of thousands of investors all over the world. The amount of future reserves to be found off-shore US in no way relate realistically to the price decreases you site. You do correctly note however, that the speculative prices are fickle. Short term they are ususally meaningless.

I could care less about ANWR as a vacation spot, amd if it was of strategic importance to get that oil now, I’d be sending the bull dozers. It isn’t of strategic importance now, but it probably will be in the future – leave it until then, it’s money in the bank for our heirs, who will need it. I’m in favor of nuclear plants but I don’t have the faith you exhibit in a star wars future where we will be selling oil to the Chinese (they may already own Russia by then). Nice to think about such things of course and maybe it will happen – maybe a lot of things will.

PS Glad to here about your dependents and you skating over the national debt. I’m sure those credit card payments and payments to “the man” will keep coming as well. No point dying with any money in the bank, right?

JF, if you please…

- You’ve successfully rewritten history to your liking …
Not at all. The facts are out there for anyone who has a connection to the Internet.

- I don’t feel compelled to counter in detail every bit of nonsense …
Translation: “I can’t hope to successfully argue all of my original position, so I’ll pretend that my fallacies of ridicule and composition will suffice… as long as no one notices”.

- You claim it took 7 (6 3/4?) years for investors and the economy to sour…
No. That was your ill-informed straw man. Mid-’94 to late ‘99 is about 5-1/2 years – less depending which of the changes you’re referring to, since the implementation was phased and things changed slightly in 1997. And on that point, you’re not quite clear on the nature of the tax increase we’re discussing here. It wasn’t just “a rise in the marginal tax rate”, as you claimed. The 1993 bill included the following onerous tax changes:

* An individual income tax rate increase to 36 percent
* A 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.
* Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes.
* A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in fuel taxes.
* An increase in the Social Security benefits tax.
* A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.
* An increase in the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.

Talk about an economy killer.

This situation didn’t last long, however. The economy was already recovering from the ‘90-’91 recession, so high growth was to be expected no matter what. But Clinton’s tax increase (actually Gore’s, if you want to be picky) slowed that recovery to a painful crawl, and real income increased only about .8% during the years ‘93-’97, so the Congress decided to take action.

What created the “boom” in the economy that Clinton hypocritically takes credit for was actually the effect on the post-recession economy of the tax relief act that was pushed through over Clinton’s objections by the Republicans in Congress in 1997. After the passage of that relief bill – until 2000 or so – real income grew by 6.5% (about 8x higher than the preceding comparable period) and the market cap of the S&P 500 increased by an amazing 95%. This was largely due to the significant decrease in the capital gains tax.

Unfortunately, that bill was too little, too late, too slowly (only about .11% of GDP in Year One) and its only effect was to stave off the damage done by the 1993 changes for a few years, leading to the recessional trend that began in late 1999. Pretty much the only net effect, historically, was to give Clinton one more lie to tell.

- As to 9/11 being Clinton’s fault, read some Richard Clark [sic] – he was there.
So were many others. 9/11 wasn’t Clinton’s fault, it was the Islamist Terrorists’ fault. The fact that it was allowed to happen, however, was a gift from his policies. There’s a difference. And I’ve read Clarke’s, as well as others’ accounts of the events leading up to the attack. My favorite Clarke quote is the following:

“…there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”

To this day one can only wonder why, since the 9/11 terrorists spent most of Clinton’s second term planning their attack.

- Yeah, I’ve heard the national debt to gdp argumant from you liberal Keynesian economists before. It’s all meaningless I guess and the interest payments aren’t really due or growing. Lunch is free all the time and it’s a beautiful world.
Uhm… you forgot the part where you offer an argument that actually disputes – in any way whatsoever – the rationale of measuring debt and deficit in relation to SOME other benchmark, the most reasonable being the one indicator that determines the base upon which the government can draw funds: the GDP.

– Oil – I guess that’s all mental too, since the psychology of drilling off-shore alone saved so much money.
No. The economics are much, much simpler. There’s supply. There’s demand. When demand increases, price increases unless there’s also an increase in supply. When there’s no increase in supply in sight as far as the eye can see, then speculation says that oil FUTURES (i.e., prices) are going to be high. As soon as the promise of ANY new supply emerges – as it did when Bush repealed the executive ban on domestic drilling – that speculation subsides and the price goes back to the supply/demand equilibrium. Currently, speculators are apparently waiting to see who’s going to be in charge after 1/20/09, as the outcome of the election will likely determine whether this promise holds true.

– Here’s some analysis of the “benefits” of drilling in Anwar: …
Thanks. I’ve read it, actually. Not only is it an assessment of the supply/demand-in-equilibrium scenario (so it’s irrelevant in the context Pelosi, et al., originally cited it, i.e., when speculation pushed the price above equilibrium levels), but its conclusions have also been somewhat disproved over the last two months, as oil prices have dropped significantly more than one would have expected.

Ever been to ANWR, by the way? I have. It’s a barren wasteland. We should have drilled there immediately following Prudhoe Bay. But I’ve been reading a proposal that would enable us to get past this whole energy shortage thing without “drilling”, and create a permanent US trade surplus by turning us into permanent net exporters of gasoline. It’s a very simple solution that doesn’t have to wait for unproven “alternate” energy or “conservation” to yield any benefits. Wanna hear it? Sure you do:

Build three or four new nuclear power generators to replace several existing coal-fired plants which are due for retirement anyway. Be sure to position these plants in proximity to the trillions (yes, that’s trillions, multiple, conservatively) of barrels of oil shale out west that’s just waiting for an economical technology to extract it. Oh, wait! Oil is currently about $110/bbl, so it’s ALREADY economical!

Instead of wasting the reactors’ heat and dumping it into the atmosphere, use it to heat the shale (which is how you get the oil) and then refine the oil using power generated by the excess reactor capacity as well as the hydrogen that’s released from the extraction process. Run the refinery off of the same power and you do this all with ZERO EMISSIONS. With the income from the gasoline sold around the world to countries like China and India, you build more nuclear plants and slowly replace all the fossil fuel power generation while also slowly converting transportation to electricity-based motors (e.g., Tesla Roadster and descendants or Chevy Volt).

But here’s the catch: you’d have to get over the brain-dead Congress’ objections to (1) new nuclear power plants and (2) new oil refineries. We haven’t built a new one of either in decades. Again, this is just more evidence that the government, independent of party, wants to keep us addicted to a product that provides them with pure windfall profits in the hundreds of billion$, year after year.

- On that “harmless” debt (your part of it is about $31,000.00 x you plus dependents):
Sorry, sarcasm and irrelevant comparisons won’t help you here. Neither I nor my dependents will ever have to “pay” any of the “debt” – the structure and mechanics of which you obviously don’t understand. And this will remain so – forever, basically – as long as the government does its job and keeps the economy growing as it has been. Go read the stuff at the link I posted (which you obviously haven’t, or you’d be trying to figure out a counter-argument, which you didn’t present).

You’ve successfully rewritten history to your liking – congratulations! Like the works of Nostrodamus, I don’t feel compelled to counter in detail every bit of nonsense thrown out there. A few will do:

1. You claim it took 7 (6 3/4?) years for investors and the economy to sour after Clinton’s tax increase (again back to rates lower than Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon years) and the resultant budget surpluses and investment and employment booms of the 90’s. Sorry, Dude, but the statue of limitations ran out on that one. As to 9/11 being Clinton’s fault, read some Richard Clark – he was there.

2. Yeah, I’ve heard the national debt to gdp argumant from you liberal Keynesian economists before. It’s all meaningless I guess and the interest payments aren’t really due or growing. Lunch is free all the time and it’s a beautiful world.

3. Oil – I guess that’s all mental too, since the psychology of drilling off-shore alone saved so much money. Speculators affect short term prices but there are rocks (peak oil production) and hard places (China and India) out there as well. I don’t believe we can replace oil with anything on the horizon and that’s why conservation (the idea that there are no free lunches and we better take care of what we got) is our best bet. Of course demand is shrinking because gas is between $3.50 and 4.00 a gallon and geez, how could Ford and GM have seen this coming. Good thing those Michiganders all have family money. We didn’t need stricter cafe standards because this boom and shrink economy based on short term corporate thinking makes life more exciting. I don’t remember demonizing oil companies in my post so I don’t need to respond to that argument. Oil companies are like all corporations – single minded and amoral. Here’s some analysis of the “benefits” of drilling in Anwar:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/introduction.html

4. On that “harmless” debt (your part of it is about $31,000.00 x you plus dependents):

A. Not counting WWII, Republican administrations have increased the national debt (ND) by a ratio of 3 to 1 compared to Democrats.
B. The ratio of ND to GDP went up 10% during the Bush years (approx 60% to 70%). During Clinton that ratio declined.
C. As of 2002, the “debt tax” (amount of each dollar raised that goes to interest on the debt) was $.18 and is now $.20.
D. Foreignors hold a greater amount of our debt obligations than at anytime in history (about 1/3).
E. The Concord Coalition predicts deficits in the 6 trillion dollar range by 2015 if Bush’s tax cuts are extended.
E. The productivity touted in your link has outpaced real wages, meaning less people to pay those interest bils.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/debt-facts

Umm, the economy under Bill Clinton, by any measure — and this is well documented by economists — did better than under any other President…. — BC

Maybe we need more AD Economics, as in Anno Domini. Obviously the BC form is so archaic that it can’t identify exactly WHEN in the Clinton administration the upturn occurred.

For those of US with better recollection and/or better understanding of economics, it started after the Republicans took over control of BOTH houses of Congress in the 1994 election, i.e., after they were sworn in in January 1995.

But a BC Economist wouldn’t tell you THAT, too revealing of their methods and practices; which are ANYTHING BUT Generally Accepted Accounting Practices.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[What they are telling you can be important. What they are NOT telling you can be vital. -- CBPelto]

P.S. I prefer MY BC to have more Hart…..at least the laughter is not at gross stupidity.

The recession officially began under Bush’s watch, although it did get its start with a bubble pop of the late 90’s dot com businesses. This should have been a minor correction, though — the economy was sterling and with a strong dollar (it was actually worth more than a euro then, now it takes almost a $1.50 to get a euro) — but Bush and his people played Three Stooges with the economy, including that massive, bloody clusterf*ck “preemptive” invasion of Iraq, and well, we are where we are. Also Clinton had the respect of world leaders, whereas Bush only made them wonder about how stupid the American public is and how weak the US military.

The actual crash of 2001 was precipitated by 9/11 and Enron. 9/11 was a gift from Clinton’s national security “policies” of blinkered intelligence, false military bravado and treating global terrorism as tantamount to a hate crime. The Enron fiasco was a fraud that went on unabated throughout Clinton’s administration and which was finally halted and prosecuted under Bush’s.

Aside from that, congratulations: you can read.

- … that ended the deficits and put us into surpluses that went to paying down the debt …
Oh, do give it a rest. BOTH the average gross- and publicly-held debt-to-GDP ratios were higher while Clinton was supposedly “paying down the debt” with the surplus he faked than they have been over the past 7 years.

- … and also reassured investors, among other things, …
Right – things like, oh, the tech stock bust, which occurred when “reassured” investors saw the effects Clinton’s tax policies had on the economy and decided it wasn’t wise to invest in businesses that might fail under the load.

- I’m speechless.
All evidence to the contrary.

- ”You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you the illusion of prosperity too.”
Hmmm… sounds vaguely similar to, “You know, if you let me raise taxes high enough, for long enough, I could give you the illusion of a surplus too.”

Either way, we of course don’t have the “illusion of prosperity” today, do we Zippy? Instead, we have a wholly fantastical alternate reality, cooked up by the fear-mongering, leg-tingling Obamaedia – “Financial crisis, greatest since the Depression” – when in truth the ONLY really negative aspect of the economy right now outside the suicidal behavior of the credit banking sector is the inflation being cause by Congress’ utterly moronic energy (non-)policies.

Those policies are propping up inflated energy prices by preventing new refineries, blocking attempts to move from oil to perfectly viable, already proven nuclear energy, telling the rest of the world that there will be NO new supply of oil any time soon and telling Americans that we’ll just have to hoof it and adjust our thermostats until someone figures out how to generate even a tiny fraction of our energy requirements from pie-in-the-sky “alternative” energy technologies. Brilliant.

– blah, blah, blah… Bush [singlehandedly, of course. -ed.] will have almost doubled the national debt…
…and successfully implemented policies that have wildly improved American productivity, since the average debt-to-GDP ratio of the last seven years is SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than that of comparable years under the so-called “leadership” of his predecessor. We can add to that the trend toward a balanced budget that was reversed soon after the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and turned it into their private Anti-Bush Forum.

– The dollar will soon have as much prestige as the Uryguan peso, …
Your hyperbole. Not supported by reality.

- …and our dependence on oil (geez, who could have seen that coming?) has skyrocketed and promises to put is an even weaker position.
Uhm, no. You’re living in 1995. Our demand for oil is currently on the decline, not “skyrocketing” – especially as compared to certain other countries.

But let’s think for a minute… Whenever the oil companies search for, locate, drill, maintain, pump, transport, store, refine, market, distribute and sell gasoline for “obscene” profits of nine cents per gallon – gainfully employing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the process and, collectively, earning say $250B solely due to CONSUMER DEMAND – the State and federal governments rake in OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS in taxes – FOR DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why Congress has NO interest in killing that pure windfall profit. Although it certainly requires a smarter person than I to understand how they can then justify demanding accountability from the oil companies after that trillion dollars simply disappears into the pork these idiots use to purchase their votes.

- The president’s response? Drill in 2 places that combined will, in ten years, lower the price of a gallon of gas by 7 cents. Good plan!
You haven’t been paying attention. You’re confusing Pelosi’s and Reid’s ignorance with the President’s response. His response – the only thing he had direct control over – was to reverse the executive ban on domestic drilling. Starting the very next day, oil prices promptly dropped OVER 20% and today oil is still some $30 less per bbl than the day he took that action. And gas has dropped by a lot more than a mere 7 cents – without drilling a single new well. So much for the “conventional wisdom” you’re applying to commodity economics.

- …since we’re leaving our grandkids with the check for the last 8 years…
Oh please, that “argument” no longer fools anyone who’s paying attention. Do grow up and study a little more. Here’s a very good place to start. Just like your ability to afford a nicer car or a bigger home, the size of the deficit and the debt are only meaningful relative to the nation’s ability to support them. Fear-mongering over the “size” of the debt – when it’s a meaningless number unless taken in context with the size of the economy on which it sits – is the disingenuous argument of someone who thinks they’re addressing an innumerate, illiterate audience. This is – thanks to the utter failure of public education over the last 30 years (led by “reformers” like Marxist Bill Ayers) – why it works so well in America.

High school debate coach HA! — Fi you out

These people can’t even read English.

This one apparently came out of high school, either graduation or drop-out, in the last five years, based on his skills with English and comprehension.

That they can even type is interesting. And I’ll attribute THAT to playing more advanced computer games, i.e., something that requires a tad more than a joystick.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It's too bad stupidity isn't painful.]

High school debate coach HA! why not say Golf club pro or semi pro ballplayer. You get no points. You can blame Bill for the sun setting if you choose. But the bottom line is the country and world was better off.

Debate this Chucko
http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmid=184&id=1066&wh=1000×720