“…you didn’t actually disagree, only offered excuses.[...]for whatever reasons, that the economy did better during the Clinton years than the Bush years.”

Sorry, lgm, you’re right. I did neglect the point of my disagreement, so I’ll try again.

My point is that I disagree with the comparison. The Clinton-Gingrich years were free of the type of economic stress factors, as mentioned in my previous post, that have prevented the middle class and economy as a whole from realizing the full benefits of the President’s tax cuts.

What’s more, if and when those tax cuts lapse, permanently, I assure you the middle class will be in even worse shape as unemployment – which has seen historic lows, thanks in part to the tax cuts – will undoubtedly rise as consumer prices and misery index levels increase exponentially.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the price of tea in China.

I could give a rats ass if it is secure or not. I care that illegals are the construction worker of choice in our country. And us American slobs can just suck it up, because that’s what our elites tell us to do.

On March 28th, 2008 at 3:36 am, Archon said:

Tennessee Dave, #51

This site is hardly “secure.” There are no Air Force Security Forces controling entry.

Unfortunately, this is the norm for the majority of bases in the US. Civillian contractors have taken over the jobs of gate guards

I hope you read all my comment. This base is under construction. We don’t occupy it yet. It is controlled by the contractors. There is no security at all.

lgm said:
emjem24 (#59) says I’m dumb. He/she says I’m dumb. Who is right? In answer to my: there are conservatives who want to ban evolution he writes:

Actually, I’m female. If you’re as brilliant as you claim to be, this wouldn’t have been an uncertainty. You could try asking? You yourself launched a profile linked off of your name… so your gender was easy to discover (unless that was lie). You still have no answers for me though. Generic stereotyping does not beget ANSWERS. Try answering questions… you may perhaps redeem yourself.

I respectfully point out that you didn’t actually disagree, only offered excuses. The fact is, for whatever reasons, that the economy did better during the Clinton years than the Bush years.

Please stop speaking for me. That is extremely condescending. I did not offer excuses. Clinton favored regulation of industry yet at the same time favored free trade agreements such as NAFTA. Care to explain, lgm? Did those jobs only start to leave when Pres. Bush took office? Or was the apparatus put into effect under Clinton?

When you cannot cite “specific” facts to me why the economy “flourished” under Clinton, I have trouble with your assertion that I’m making “excuses.” A tech bubble developed which Clinton, for all his brilliant economic advisors, couldn’t stamp out. Was it my imagination that 1,000′s of high tech jobs started disappearing after that?

I really cannot surmise what level of intelligence you show with lazy posts and the ever lazier technique of using another’s poster’s comments to refute my posts. All I can conclude from such behavior is that you feel either a)uncomfortable answering questions, or b)putting out yet another exercise in futility, troll style.

For all your “wisdom,” in academia, lgm, you show little insight into real life issues unless they fit your mold. You might be a “brilliant” mathematician, but it would appear you cannot construct answers to real questions. Why is that?

You never answered any of my questions. You never provided a source to back up your assertions. For me, your statements are liberal, generic hyperbole.

Which one is it, lgm, conservatives or “some” conservatives who support getting rid of evolution?

DBNinKY (#62) makes more sense

The economy did better in the high tax Clinton years than the low tax Bush years.

Again, I disagree. The Clinton-Gingrich years were the result of an economic upturn that began under the first President Bush, and continued because of the confidence Wall Street felt after a Republican take-over of both houses of congress and the innovation of the burgeoning tech sector. That the economy grew under the unnecessary restraints of Clinton’s tax increase is a testament to the American businessman’s determination to succeed.

I respectfully point out that you didn’t actually disagree, only offered excuses. The fact is, for whatever reasons, that the economy did better during the Clinton years than the Bush years.

“No. Just saying that if you’re a middle class or lower middle class, the Republicans are not working for you, even if you vote for them.”

I disagree. During President Bush’s two-terms, the rural area in which I live has experienced numerous improvements to its economic base (which was based solely on coal) and ability to offer greater job opportunities to its citizens. The two tax cuts have brought investment to our region that has lead to more jobs and income expansion in the service, manufacturing, medical and retail sectors of the local economy; for example in just the past eight years, Consol Coal (based in Pennsylvania)and other large energy concerns have greatly expanded their workforces in my county, several hospital chains have grown and expanded into this area, and manufacturers like Trus-Joist MacMillan and American Cabinets have also invested and expanded here.

Other than a new Taco-Bell restaurant, our county and region saw little to no growth under Clinton.

“The economy did better in the high tax Clinton years than the low tax Bush years.”

Again, I disagree. The Clinton-Gingrich years were the result of an economic upturn that began under the first President Bush, and continued because of the confidence Wall Street felt after a Republican take-over of both houses of congress and the innovation of the burgeoning tech sector. That the economy grew under the unnecessary restraints of Clinton’s tax increase is a testament to the American businessman’s determination to succeed.

“Median income (the income earned by that guy who has exactly as many people richer than him as poorer than him) has fallen (adjusted for inflation) under Bush.”

I don’t disagree with you on this point, but it must be recognized that the middle class decline began in the economic malaise of the Carter years, and only leveled off during the Clinton-Gingrich years. Furthermore, Clinton-Gingrich did not have the economic stressors of two wars on terrorism, a sinking dollar (btw, the strong dollar under Clinton-Gingrich made U.S. goods unaffordable on the world market and hurt the trade deficit), and a world economy in flux; on the plus side, the Clinton-Gingrich economy did have the unprecedented benefits of a growing tech and sub-prime bubble, the latter of which was the result of the Dems push for urban renewal and credit expanse. (And look where that ended!)

“If you make less than $100K/year, Bush and his tax cuts have done you more harm than good.”

As a public school teacher I will probably never rise to $100K, but I do not blame the President for my poor career choice; and in that same manner, I think it is unfair of you to blame the tax cuts that have kept this economy from sinking after 9/11, two bubble bursts, two wars, and a wavering dollar. Unless you have indisputable evidence correlating the plight of the middle class to the tax cuts, I do not see how you can credibly blame the President for their circumstances.

lgm said:

Thread review for emjem24 (#49):

This started when I wrote (#31)

Do you want a party whose main interests are keeping out Spanish speakers, banning abortion and evolution, persecuting homosexuals, and putting crosses on every corner?

When you have to recycle your own posts to make a point, that is not a refutation that is lazy repetition. As an academic, I would think you beyond such backward thought processes.

Admittedly a little provocative hyperbole on the last point. Anyway, terrig wrote (#41):

I don’t know anyone who is against teaching evolution, just teach intelligent design along with it.

The most underwhelming understatement of your troll blogging career here when you use the term “provocative hyperbole.”

I answered (#42) that the Kansas State Board of Ed had advocated removing evolution. Then you said they had a right to (#45). This is true, but only reinforces my claim that there are conservatives who want to ban evolution. I’m sorry to confuse you with Terrig. All you white people conservatives look alike to me.

You never answered any of my questions. You never provided a source to back up your assertions. For me, your statements are liberal, generic hyperbole.

Which one is it, lgm, conservatives or “some” conservatives who support getting rid of evolution? You seem to mix the two ideas in your posts.

Unfortunately, when you continue to banter around with stereotypes, lgm, you tend to reinforce that lack of tolerance that liberals have for those who disagree with them. Liberals can be diverse but conservatives are all white and meshed into the same stereotype. What a charming assertion from a “typical white, elitist liberal” like yourself.

I never claimed this. I did say that the economic lot of the median income person improved more under Clinton than under Bush. I didn’t give links because I assumed that anyone in this thread would know it.

Actually, in your wonderful link, there are claims that illegal immigration has factored into wages not keeping pace with inflation. There was no “blame” assigned to Pres. Bush, nor a judgement that Clinton had the better economy. Both presidents have signed trade deals that have outsourced/offshored American jobs so both should get the blame.

You would like to apportion blame to one specific president when under Pres. Clinton… a recesion clearly had developed when the tech bubble burst. Will you deny this? Or will you continue to trumpet that it’s Pres. Bush’s fault for lack of wage competitiveness because of your liberal grudge fest?

I question your intelligence because (1) you and several others insult me all the time, and (2) you constantly get my arguments garbled, as above.

1. When you continue to bait Michelle’s blog community with “provocative hyperbole,” you will get equal treatment (a principle you liberals favor). You seemed to have missed the boat regarding “mutual respect,” a thing rare in liberals I’ve met over the years.

2. Did you make any substantive arguments that didn’t factor in abortion? When you liken attacks on recruitment stations to attacks on abortion clinics, do you think that is a substantive argument? Or are you making such comments to stir the pot and turn even new blog contributors (like myself) against you.

You live in a naive, insulated universe, lgm, if you think you can come on to blogs like this, insult conservatives who don’t agree with you, and expect it to be ignored. Get a clue, get with the program, or go back to your Daily K, liberal echo chamber. Perhaps with a little less “self-love” and a little bit more “self-awareness,” you’ll stop pleading the vicim. However, I think I and many others on this blog think you know what you’re doing is deliberate. You’re no innocent. That’s why you’re regarded as a TROLL.

This site is hardly “secure.” There are no Air Force Security Forces controling entry.

Unfortunately, this is the norm for the majority of bases in the US. Civillian contractors have taken over the jobs of gate guards and in some cases, base police. Most of them are young and inexperienced, without an inkling as to how the military operates. With that in mind, you can well imagine my suprise a few weeks ago in Virginia when I was greeted at a gate, not only by guards in uniform, but by ARMED (and not just with a Glock and a rusty 870 in the corner of the shack, but truly armed, pistols and rifles) guards in uniform who, upon thorough inspection of my ID, even went so far as to greet me by my rank….it boggles the mind what can sometimes occur.

Both the above blocs are well insulated from the consequences of their support for the Mestizoisation of the USA.
In their gated communities they don’t have to worry about their cars being stolen or their wives and daughters raped; their kids don’t have to compete for entry jobs with these invaders.

“They are so hard working” … but all too many of them will steal whatever they can knowing they can just use yet another alias and get another sub-job somewhere else after they get out of the county clink.

Sadly I see no hope of improvement. not a single candidate with a snowballs chance of being elected President is inclined to do what is needed to be done to take care of this problem.

The precedent of the current inhabitant of the White House shows the President can treat Congress as an advisory committee rather than a lawmaking one.
And with a likely D majority in the next Congress the best we can hope for is classic R obstruction tactics to prevent a “Shamnesty”.

LOL!