Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/7/05 10:15 PM, Tal-con wrote:

Look at my link, which has an indepth analysis of everything, including graphs. It also shows the growth/decline of the GDP more indepth.

But your link is OBVIOUSLY conservatively biased. It doesn't even deserve to be clicked on.

Not boycottliberalism, dummy. The one before that which used CEA as a source.

Says the man who expected me to take a site called www.boycottliberalism.com seriously.

Why not? You could learn a thing or two from my ideology. Besides, I get my online headlines from two conservatives blogs, drudgereport, and Michael Moore (just to make sure I'm reading all the doom and gloom as well). A little diversity in intellect never hurt anyone.

Back to the topic:

I don't think we're getting the whole picture here. "More jobs" doesn't necessarily mean American families are doing better.

Maybe more people in the household have to work due to healthcare costs, or that a single person needs more than one job to support his/her family.

At 1/7/05 10:45 PM, NotYouZ wrote: Back to the topic:

I don't think we're getting the whole picture here. "More jobs" doesn't necessarily mean American families are doing better.

Maybe more people in the household have to work due to healthcare costs, or that a single person needs more than one job to support his/her family.

Yeah, or maybe that's a bunch of bullshit. :) You're providing us with a bunch of anecdotal "maybes." I'm sure that's happening in some parts of the country, but it's hard to contest that the tax cuts afford middle class families with an extraordinary amount of relief. You know that an average family of four making 40,000 a year gets 1900 back? That's pretty good.

At 1/7/05 11:01 PM, Rooster349 wrote: You're providing us with a bunch of anecdotal "maybes."

I was just pointing out that increased job growth doesn't directly translate to the middle class being better off.

And I'm no critic of tax cuts on the middle class. I just see no reason we should lighten taxes on the rich. Yeah, they pay more than the middle class, but that's because THEY'RE FUCKING RICH. I don't give a damn if they aren't quite as rich as they'd like to be.

Dude, I'm a liberal and I'm saying a lot of websites like that are bullshit. Anyone can host a website like that. Because he did not put his name on any of his articles, I'm saying that he doesn't want his name to be put aside that kind of stuff. Why wouldn't he want to take credit for it? My question is, why can't everyone subject this recession due to the natural occurences of the economy? If you look at the pattern of the past 40-50 years, this recession fits very well with what has been occuring. Go to bls.com and look through the unemployment charts, since they have less fluctuations and show market situations in long term.

At 1/7/05 11:11 PM, NotYouZ wrote: And I'm no critic of tax cuts on the middle class. I just see no reason we should lighten taxes on the rich. Yeah, they pay more than the middle class, but that's because THEY'RE FUCKING RICH.

So wouldn't it make sense to give tax cuts to those that acctually pay taxes? :S

~Z~

Ahh should've put a paragraph break somewhere in there so that it didn't sound like mindless rambling....

At 1/7/05 11:24 PM, Z17 wrote:

At 1/7/05 11:11 PM, NotYouZ wrote: And I'm no critic of tax cuts on the middle class. I just see no reason we should lighten taxes on the rich. Yeah, they pay more than the middle class, but that's because THEY'RE FUCKING RICH.

So wouldn't it make sense to give tax cuts to those that acctually pay taxes? :S

~Z~

But you do agree that we should tax the richest people the most? And considering that they should still have a high quality of living, it's not like they are in desperate need of a tax cut. For the poor and middle-class, the tax cuts are more of a necessity to them than for the rich.

At 1/7/05 11:55 PM, Hermannator wrote: But you do agree that we should tax the richest people the most? And considering that they should still have a high quality of living, it's not like they are in desperate need of a tax cut. For the poor and middle-class, the tax cuts are more of a necessity to them than for the rich.

Well yeah, that's common sense. Since they have a higher income, they're taxed more since taxes are based on the amount of income that an individual gets, it can't really be any other way.

~Z~

It's all here baby...

BlogsforBush notes that the Bush Administration has ended his four years as president with NO JOB DEFICIT, creating a net total of 114,000 payroll jobs.

The website you actually gave us said nothing of the sort - it was marking employment statistics over the month of december and with analysis going back (at the very most) to Jan 2003. Your source, therefore, of the claim is "BlogsforBush" - not exactly a objective measure.

The one thing I find interesting is that the conservatives are celebrating positive job creation 12 days before inaugaration, instead of being able to brag about positive job growth throughout the last 4 years.

I am happy to see it, but we must consider that many (75% or more) of these jobs are minimum wage jobs flipping burgers at McDonalds, or temporary service jobs that give people unreliable amounts of work, and something quite less than a stable income.

At 1/8/05 11:41 AM, Tal-con wrote:

Besides, I get my online headlines from two conservatives blogs, drudgereport, and Michael Moore (just to make sure I'm reading all the doom and gloom as well). A little diversity in intellect never hurt anyone.

Note: I highly doubt Micheal Moore's blogs are conservative, but i got the point you were trying to get across.

Tal-con;

The person who said the first bit there was saying that he got his headlines from 4 places altogether: 2 conservative blogs, and drudgereport and moore's blog