Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3821
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:16:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
>goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
>record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>
>Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
>deficit under control.
The dot.com bubble did *FAR* more to reduce the deficit.
Don't you remember that?
The investors were all in the dot.com bubble, and don't give a damn
about the deficit.
>
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
>goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
>record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>
>Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
>deficit under control.
The dot.com bubble did *FAR* more to reduce the deficit.
Don't you remember that?
The investors were all in the dot.com bubble, and don't give a damn
about the deficit.
>
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3822
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:16:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
>goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
>record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>
>Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
>deficit under control.
The dot.com bubble did *FAR* more to reduce the deficit.
Don't you remember that?
The investors were all in the dot.com bubble, and don't give a damn
about the deficit.
>
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
>goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
>record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>
>Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
>deficit under control.
The dot.com bubble did *FAR* more to reduce the deficit.
Don't you remember that?
The investors were all in the dot.com bubble, and don't give a damn
about the deficit.
>
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3823
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:16:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
>goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
>record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>
>Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
>deficit under control.
The dot.com bubble did *FAR* more to reduce the deficit.
Don't you remember that?
The investors were all in the dot.com bubble, and don't give a damn
about the deficit.
>
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
>goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
>record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>
>Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
>deficit under control.
The dot.com bubble did *FAR* more to reduce the deficit.
Don't you remember that?
The investors were all in the dot.com bubble, and don't give a damn
about the deficit.
>
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3824
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:47:32 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>
>You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
>put them in the bank.
Rebates?
We're discussing tax increases, not rebates.
>
>Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
>people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
>entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
>revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
>a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
>decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
>that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
>good for the economy.
>
>Any questions?
Oh, yes, it's clear now. :-)
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>
>You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
>put them in the bank.
Rebates?
We're discussing tax increases, not rebates.
>
>Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
>people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
>entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
>revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
>a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
>decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
>that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
>good for the economy.
>
>Any questions?
Oh, yes, it's clear now. :-)
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3825
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:47:32 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>
>You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
>put them in the bank.
Rebates?
We're discussing tax increases, not rebates.
>
>Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
>people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
>entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
>revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
>a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
>decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
>that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
>good for the economy.
>
>Any questions?
Oh, yes, it's clear now. :-)
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>
>You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
>put them in the bank.
Rebates?
We're discussing tax increases, not rebates.
>
>Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
>people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
>entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
>revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
>a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
>decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
>that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
>good for the economy.
>
>Any questions?
Oh, yes, it's clear now. :-)
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3826
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:47:32 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>
>You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
>put them in the bank.
Rebates?
We're discussing tax increases, not rebates.
>
>Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
>people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
>entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
>revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
>a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
>decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
>that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
>good for the economy.
>
>Any questions?
Oh, yes, it's clear now. :-)
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>>>
>>>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>>>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>>>lows, gotta be in a recession!
>>
>>But you didn't answer the question:
>>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>
>You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
>put them in the bank.
Rebates?
We're discussing tax increases, not rebates.
>
>Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
>people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
>entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
>revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
>a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
>decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
>that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
>good for the economy.
>
>Any questions?
Oh, yes, it's clear now. :-)
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3827
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:17:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <skblqvora0ntmqsnnhinefmo3j7t5o6o88@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>>>steps to get it under control.
>>>>
>>>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>>
>>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>>No, Clinton's was higher.
>>
>>>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>
>No proof.
It's called REALITY, LLoyd. Try it sometime.
>
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
>increase, right?
You haven't got the foggiest idea of what happened to the economy,
have you?
Ever hear of the dot.com bubble?
>
>>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
>
>To say that it was defies history.
No, it doesn't.
History does not say that the tax increase helped the economy, only
that the increase happened after the economy started to expand.
That does not even suggest a connection between the two.
>
>>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
>
>Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
The economy started its expansion under Bush 1, and started its
collapse under Clinton.
>
>>
>>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>>out of it?
>Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
You seem to think so.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <skblqvora0ntmqsnnhinefmo3j7t5o6o88@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>>>steps to get it under control.
>>>>
>>>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>>
>>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>>No, Clinton's was higher.
>>
>>>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>
>No proof.
It's called REALITY, LLoyd. Try it sometime.
>
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
>increase, right?
You haven't got the foggiest idea of what happened to the economy,
have you?
Ever hear of the dot.com bubble?
>
>>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
>
>To say that it was defies history.
No, it doesn't.
History does not say that the tax increase helped the economy, only
that the increase happened after the economy started to expand.
That does not even suggest a connection between the two.
>
>>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
>
>Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
The economy started its expansion under Bush 1, and started its
collapse under Clinton.
>
>>
>>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>>out of it?
>Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
You seem to think so.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3828
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:17:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <skblqvora0ntmqsnnhinefmo3j7t5o6o88@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>>>steps to get it under control.
>>>>
>>>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>>
>>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>>No, Clinton's was higher.
>>
>>>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>
>No proof.
It's called REALITY, LLoyd. Try it sometime.
>
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
>increase, right?
You haven't got the foggiest idea of what happened to the economy,
have you?
Ever hear of the dot.com bubble?
>
>>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
>
>To say that it was defies history.
No, it doesn't.
History does not say that the tax increase helped the economy, only
that the increase happened after the economy started to expand.
That does not even suggest a connection between the two.
>
>>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
>
>Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
The economy started its expansion under Bush 1, and started its
collapse under Clinton.
>
>>
>>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>>out of it?
>Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
You seem to think so.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <skblqvora0ntmqsnnhinefmo3j7t5o6o88@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>>>steps to get it under control.
>>>>
>>>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>>
>>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>>No, Clinton's was higher.
>>
>>>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>
>No proof.
It's called REALITY, LLoyd. Try it sometime.
>
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
>increase, right?
You haven't got the foggiest idea of what happened to the economy,
have you?
Ever hear of the dot.com bubble?
>
>>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
>
>To say that it was defies history.
No, it doesn't.
History does not say that the tax increase helped the economy, only
that the increase happened after the economy started to expand.
That does not even suggest a connection between the two.
>
>>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
>
>Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
The economy started its expansion under Bush 1, and started its
collapse under Clinton.
>
>>
>>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>>out of it?
>Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
You seem to think so.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3829
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:17:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <skblqvora0ntmqsnnhinefmo3j7t5o6o88@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>>>steps to get it under control.
>>>>
>>>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>>
>>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>>No, Clinton's was higher.
>>
>>>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>
>No proof.
It's called REALITY, LLoyd. Try it sometime.
>
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
>increase, right?
You haven't got the foggiest idea of what happened to the economy,
have you?
Ever hear of the dot.com bubble?
>
>>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
>
>To say that it was defies history.
No, it doesn't.
History does not say that the tax increase helped the economy, only
that the increase happened after the economy started to expand.
That does not even suggest a connection between the two.
>
>>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
>
>Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
The economy started its expansion under Bush 1, and started its
collapse under Clinton.
>
>>
>>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>>out of it?
>Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
You seem to think so.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <skblqvora0ntmqsnnhinefmo3j7t5o6o88@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>>>steps to get it under control.
>>>>
>>>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>>
>>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>>No, Clinton's was higher.
>>
>>>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>
>No proof.
It's called REALITY, LLoyd. Try it sometime.
>
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
>increase, right?
You haven't got the foggiest idea of what happened to the economy,
have you?
Ever hear of the dot.com bubble?
>
>>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
>
>To say that it was defies history.
No, it doesn't.
History does not say that the tax increase helped the economy, only
that the increase happened after the economy started to expand.
That does not even suggest a connection between the two.
>
>>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
>
>Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
The economy started its expansion under Bush 1, and started its
collapse under Clinton.
>
>>
>>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>>out of it?
>Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
You seem to think so.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3830
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:43:53 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
observation.
That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
observation.
That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"