Bush’s Nominee For Treasury Secretary: ‘I Don’t Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves’
Bush’s Nominee For Treasury Secretary: ‘I Don’t Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves’
During speeches about the economy, President Bush has said, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” Bush delivered a slight variation of this claim today:
One of the benefits of keeping taxes low and growing your economy is that you end up with more tax revenues in the federal treasury. I know that seems counterintuitive to some people.
Henry Paulson, Bush’s nominee to be Treasury Secretary, disagrees. Paulson told the Senate Finance Committee today, “As a general rule, I don’t believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.†(Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also argued recently that “under normal conditions, tax cuts do not wholly pay for themselves.â€)
Bush is getting better advice. Now all he needs is a better economic policy.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
OK, place your bets. How soon before Paulson is declared to be “doing a heck of a job” and how soon before he’s resigning to spend more time with his family? He keeps making these comments and I give him until the end of the year at most. Bush has had plenty of good advice, he just doesn’t take it.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:47 pmIs it too soon to call for a Caption Contest?
June 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pmHe might last 6 months. Anyone against the grain of GWB has historically gotten the boot, and it will be no different here.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:54 pmLook George, a strawman!
June 27th, 2006 at 2:59 pm#2 Zookeeper
June 27th, 2006 at 3:00 pmOh, goody. I didn’t even look at the picture! There should be a thought bubble above Bush (I know, I know, but he really does have thoughts, immature and unreasonable, but nonetheless thoughts). In the thought bubble I see the words “What are you saying Pauly? I don’t understand. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? You’re taller than me. Can you squish down, heh,heh,heh?”
Bush watches Paulson funny. Maybe he was thinking on firing him in this picture already.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:01 pmLol…this is no different from when they made Tony Snow the new Press person and then said he was fair and balanced because he once criticized Bush. I fail to see how this guy saying that “tax cuts don’t wholly pay for themselves” is the same thing as him standing up to Bush’s failed tax policies.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:01 pm[…] Henry Paulson says that ‘tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.” Think Progress has more on this Bush contradiction. […]
June 27th, 2006 at 3:05 pmhttp://www.doublespeakshow.com/ 2006/ 06/ 27/ us-treasury-secretary-nominee/
June 27th, 2006 at 3:06 pmSo this guy is a short timer. Or he will change his story in some legalistic byzantine way to line up with the Bush story.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:06 pmSage Payson concludes with, “Bush is getting better advice. Now all he needs is a better economic policy.”
****translation**** You hard working American people don’t pay enough taxes - NOW we just need BUSH to sign a tax increase.
P.S. Payson - I think Phil Angelides took a page from your DNC points. Congrats..
June 27th, 2006 at 3:06 pmGetting good advice and actually lsitening are two different things.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:07 pmI hope some of those who have (incorrectly) claimed that cutting taxes produces more revenue see this…
it’s not just counterintuitive–it’s flat out wrong. Mr. plain spoken President either doesn’t know the basic facts or is lying.
Here are the facts: receipts from both individual and corporate income tax have declined since 2000. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/ TaxFacts/ TFDB/ TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203 The source is the US govt, Office of Management and Budget, reproduced by the Tax Policy Center
As Stephen Colbert has observed, those damn facts really do have a liberal bias
June 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pmCome on W - cut income taxes to .00001% and the Federal Government will have nearly infinite income! You might actually be able to pay for all the waste under your incompetent management and lack of oversight by the GOP Congress.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pm“One of the benefits of keeping taxes low and growing your economy is that you end up with more tax revenues in the federal treasury. I know that seems counterintuitive to some people.”
It is not counterintuitive - It is just another Bush dishonesty. No amount of “advice” will help this pathological liar dedicated to the destruction of America.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:11 pmTranslation from Mighty babble:
S/he pretends to be in the side of the small guys, advocating for less taxes, but ask her for an increase in minimum wages or to decrease the deficit, who is, at all, a debt of each and every american. S/he will jump to your throat in a second.
Mighty Hypocrite, I say.
No, let her with Mighty Aphrodite. After all, she has what is needed to be an Aphrodite’s follower…
June 27th, 2006 at 3:11 pmMighty Aphrodite. taxes are not evil. If you’re going to balance the budget, you either raise taxes or you cut spending. cutting taxes does not magically produce more revenue, as the chart I linked to shows.
Maybe you don’t think it’s necessary to balance the budget…ok, that is a fair position at least. But if you think we should be fiscally responsible and only spend what we have rather than passing on debt to future generations, then we either raise taxes or we cut spending (or both).
there are also various choices that can be made in terms of the tax burden. You can tax “hard working Americans” as you refer to. You can tax higher earning Americans (class warfare! Marxism! Leninism! aaahhh!). You can tax income earned from work, you can tax income earned from investments (I don’t buy the assertion that taxing investment income necessarily reduces investment–what else are people going to do with their money? will they stick it under their pillow?)
June 27th, 2006 at 3:17 pmAwwwww. Can’t Think Progress bring themselves to admit that tax revenues have in fact gone up? Last year tax revenue was $1.545 trillion for fiscal 2006, while it was $1.369 in 2005. I can’t seem to find the figures for 2002-2004.
It appears Think Progress isn’t all that interested in the truth, once again. Here is the “full” quote from the man:
Gosh, did Think Progress purposefully distort and take this man’s words out of context?
Never!
LOL
June 27th, 2006 at 3:18 pmCaption contest for George, thinking: “How long until we get rid of this guy”.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI meant “maybe you believe it’s NOT necessary to balance the budget”…
June 27th, 2006 at 3:21 pmHere’s a question I have for any liberal out there: When’s the last time a poor person hired you? I mean come on. What your side fails to realize is that the wealthiest people in this country pay the most taxes and also hire the poor. When you overburden them with taxes, they will hire fewer people and the economy will recess and the bad guy will not be you. All your side is concerned with is getting votes and staying in power.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:21 pmwow, I’m tired. disregard 21. sorry
June 27th, 2006 at 3:22 pmIf the federal government has more revenue why do we have a deficit and HUGE debt to other countries that threaten our financial stability? I don’t think “hard working Americans” need to pay more taxes. I think people who don’t have to work as hard because others are working for them, those whose money makes money, and those who have higher disposable incomes should be paying more tax. If I had my way, anyone who supports the Iraq War would be paying a surcharge earmarked to pay all the costs, not just the fighting, but the mental and physical health costs to our battered soldiers and death benefits to families of the fallen.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm“Awwwww. Can’t Think Progress bring themselves to admit that tax revenues have in fact gone up? Last year tax revenue was $1.545 trillion for fiscal 2006, while it was $1.369 in 2005. I can’t seem to find the figures for 2002-2004.”
I don’t know where these numbers come from Seixon. How could we possibly know what tax revnues are for 06 already though?? I did provide a link showing tax revenues through 2004. They went down from 2000-04, when the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy should have been flooding the federal bank vaults with lucre
June 27th, 2006 at 3:24 pmRandy, and what happens when you give the rich guys tax cuts and they fire the USA workers and use the money of the tax cuts to build factories in China, India and Latin America? Maybe are you financing the new factory with USA taxpayer’s money to benefit only the rich guy?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pmPLC,
We have a deficit because of out-of-control spending, although the deficit is starting to shrink now due to the increasing tax revenues. Now if only we whip Congress into shape, then maybe we can balance the budget again. Although, as long as we are in Iraq, there will be a big cost to pay in that regard. Hopefully we can be out of there within a few years with most of our troops.
If we get Congress to stop wasting on pork, I bet we can push that deficit lots further down.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pmSeixon,
Everyone here is still planning on going to Norway to live with you. Keep an eye out for visiters with sleeping bags, (I will have my humidifyer).
June 27th, 2006 at 3:27 pmeblair,
I don’t know where these numbers come from Seixon. How could we possibly know what tax revnues are for 06 already though?? I did provide a link showing tax revenues through 2004. They went down from 2000-04, when the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy should have been flooding the federal bank vaults with lucre
Do you know what fiscal means?
Bush wasn’t president in 2000, so why does 2000 matter? Shouldn’t we be measuring from the time Congress and Bush passed the tax cuts?
The first tax cut was June 2001.
The second tax cut legislation was May 2003.
Another tax cut bill was passed October 2004.
So what does 2000 have to do with it? Oh, nothing.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:33 pm#27 Seixon
June 27th, 2006 at 3:35 pmYou mean “out of control spending” is the only factor? And who is authorizing all that spending? What spending would you support decreasing? And how about the unfunded federal mandates going to the states and local governments, bankrupting budgets at that level? For what, to support corporate welfare and to protect the wealth accumulation of the super-rich?
Who cares if tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Tax’s are simply a redistribution of wealth anyways. Government spending is out of control. Cut our taxes another 20%-40%, cut federal spending on all programs by 50%. We need less government no matter how you shake it.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pmGeorge Gooding (aka Seixon) of course doesn’t post links to his numbers and completely ignores eblair’s link to tax info from the US Governments, Office of Management and Budget, which shows the tax revenues going down.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:38 pmIf we get Congress to stop wasting on pork, I bet we can push that deficit lots further down.
-Sexon
While pork spending is an issue, it’s such a small slice of the pie that makes up Gov’t. spending that it’s not even worth debating when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy. Not rich…rich come and go..I’m talking about WEALTH. The kind of money that 99% of us will never experience, and can hardly even fathom.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:38 pmDolly, everybody can spew random numbers. Sheep.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pmSo, then you must hate how George W. Bush has increased the size of our government by 35%?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:40 pmOh, come on now - taxing the rich would just be double taxation, since the biggest source of cash to the ultra-rich is no-bid government contracts, which are paid for out of the income tax pool - wouldn’t that be unfair to tax that money twice? Piling on taxes on top of taxes - corporate jet and luxury yacht sales are also sure to suffer if tax cuts for the billionaires aren’t immediately inacted. All these benevolent billionaires out there really just want to take care of us, you know….What if they built a lot of plantations and gave us all free housing on them? We’d have to wear shackles so we wouldn’t run off, but we’d have vigorous exercise to keep us busy. Was slavery really so bad, after all? Free food, housing, healthy living, moral rectitude - sounds good to me!
June 27th, 2006 at 3:40 pmLOL when the anology stinks, the logic can’t be that straightforward.
Please keep it up sam I look forward to your posts being deleted for sheer stupidity. Or did you not learn you lesson the other night?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:46 pmtaxing the rich would just be double taxation, since the biggest source of cash to the ultra-rich is no-bid government contracts, which are paid for out of the income tax pool - thoughtcriminal
Nonsense. What makes you think that the money to pay the no-bid contracts comes from the same guys contracted to do the work? In the case of a company who works only doing no-bid contracts, your policy would make they pay ZERO.
Companies must pay based in the company income, not from where comes the money. If the money comes from taxes, as soon as it is payed to a company, the company has an income and has to pay its share of the NEXT YEAR TAXES.
Or else you’ll have companies dedicated to get no-bid contracts exclusively and with full tax relief. Not very fair. Specially when those companies are stocked with lawmakers. Look at Halliburton or the Carlyle Group.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:53 pm42 Sam
June 27th, 2006 at 3:53 pmAn Ohio-based political consulting firm! LOL until I cry! I live in Ohio, home of the convicted Governor Bob Taft, coin gate, Bob Ney. Oh, I can’t go on, I might really cry.
#18 - “Mighty Aphrodite. taxes are not evil. If you’re going to balance the budget, you either raise taxes or you cut spending. cutting taxes does not magically produce more revenue, as the chart I linked to shows.” comment by eblair
******Taxes per se are not evil. They are a necessary cost for the privelege of living in a wonderful country and paying for the protection the government offers. BUT - - the unconscienable WASTE, pilfering, and continuation of useless, pandering programs is EVIL. The stranglehold of entitlement programs which become a WAY of LIFE for a segment of our society is CRUEL and UNFAIR. These programs which help many with occasional or unexpected assistance are fine - but when the government subsidizes the maintainence of “indentured servants” - and the Party of “phony-compassion” makes the rounds every 2 and 4 years and expects their votes - this is CRUEL. Hint: If these programs WERE effective, the TRILLIONS of $$$ spent would have alleviated poverty a long time ago.
Make no mistake - I despise earmarks and PORK. Hopefully with a new direction in our Supreme Court, the line-item veto will be deemed Constitutional.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:55 pmP.S. There is NO law prohibiting progressives who wish to pay higher taxes from doing so…go right ahead…..
Bravo Sam!!!!
Nice info and nicely put!
June 27th, 2006 at 3:58 pmWhy is 41’s post so long? This one post is longer that the entire 40 that preceded it, combined. I read here last week that Wayne Schneider’s posts were being deleted for length. Shouldn’t this dumbass follow the same rules?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:59 pmYes, let’s make sure the Paris Hilton entitlement program is stopped. Keep the estate tax.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:00 pmHint: If these programs WERE effective, the TRILLIONS of $$$ spent would have alleviated poverty a long time ago. - MA-
Hint: the programs alleviated poverty, in fact. Count the USA graduates who have benefited from fair credits, and now work for the benefit of USA. Better than burguer-flippers to make weapons, to wage wars for the Republicans, uh?
HintHint: maybe they’re not 100% effective because republicans like to cut them and use the money to wage illegal wars, and have fancy warplanes, and give tax cuts to those who don’t need them.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pmPayson,
Wayne A. Schneider gets his longish comments deleted, but #41 on this thread is still here? That’s not right…
June 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pmGreat captions, one and all!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:03 pmHere’s mine:
This is good gum. I like gum.
As usual, it takes the slow learners forever to learn their lessons. Trickle down doesn’t work. Tax cuts for the rich don’t help anyone except the rich.
George the dunce, Decider, macho boy Bush
June 27th, 2006 at 4:07 pmCaption contest:
Bush; say this feller reminds of that Jeff Gannon Guy, wonder what happened to him? I sure miss him at night.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:11 pmIf we get Congress to stop wasting on pork, I bet we can push that deficit lots further down.
Comment by Seixon — June 27, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
And this is exactly why pie-in-the-sky “trickle-down” policy was such a horrendous failure: it posited a world where politicians wouldn’t look out for their own best interests. It disregarded human nature, and asserted that “starving the beast” was the only path to fiscal sanity - when its proponents really only wanted to starve those parts of the beast controlled by their ideological adversaries. Republicans were just fine with funding a military larger that all others combined (and reaping the donational rewards), and business incentives to their corpro-cronies ( republicans were crying for a GM bailout in the 80’s, saying, much as they do today in Iraq, that “its too big to fail”), and using SSI resources to do it, while lamenting “tax and spend” liberals. It’s pretty clear they are neither supportive of the troops, nor big disciples of fiscal restraint, as demonstrated by their previous actions in the past six years. And Terry Schiavo showed how little they really care about the “sanctity of marriage”. It just makes me wonder: after six years of conservatives consistently trashing them for political gain, what “conservative principles” are left?
June 27th, 2006 at 4:13 pmWAY TO GO SAM!!
You are the greatest copy and paster I have ever seen!!!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:13 pm#55 - That prattle is on every frickin’ thread.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pmYeah, Sam, three or four articles in a row to simulate intelligence, and even so, you fail miserably, and clog the thread with nonsense….
June 27th, 2006 at 4:16 pmRandy I would like to know how much you make an hour? No one can live on $5.15 an hour.
I think the people making $10,000 to about $50,000 a year should not pay taxes at all.
We give welfare tax cut to the corporation all the time like the energy, insurance companies, drug companies and so on.
All the companies that cann’t balance their books and expect the employees to sacrifice their pay so these companies can stay in business. I think all of them that declare bankruptcy should go out of business.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#46 Mighty Aphrodite
June 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pmI agree, pork is problematic. The problem is, your pork may be my next meal. Some (not all - almost nothing is absolute) pork barrell projects bring jobs into very poor communities and make life better for underpriveleged in other ways. Welfare programs, while not perfect (again, avoiding absolute statements), do help people who really need it. Think about a woman with no work skills because she has been a homemaker, with two school age kids, and an alcoholic husband who put them in financial straights then left the family. Isn’t welfare a good idea for this family to assist them in getting back on their feet? Wouldn’t that be good for us as a society? And shouldn’t we have close monitoring of this family to insure that they do what they need to? This takes money in this capitalistic society - volunteers can’t do everything. The problem with past welfare was it was just money in the form of monthly benefits to the family. But more is needed to move from welfare back into the work world - training, child care, health insurance, subsidized wages as the person transitions. This takes more money. It’s an investment. Yes, it also needs to be monitored for success (more cost). And I haven’t even touched on the issues of severe mental illness, autism, severe birth defects. The kind of society we are depends on how well we treat those who CAN’T make their own way.
Bush is completely in his own bubble of deceptions now! He believes that tax cuts for the rich are the best thing since white bread > lol. Bush needs to resign ASAP and return to Texas for the rest of his damn dumb life!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pmgreat s/b Shakespeare
June 27th, 2006 at 4:33 pmTechnically the president is correct. In a growing economy tax revenues rise even after a tax cut. The question is: Are tax revenues higher than they would be if there was no tax cut. The answer is: Of course not.
The supply side economics idea that cutting taxes leading to increased revenues and balanced budgets is thoroughly discredited by the experience of the Reagan tax cuts in the ’80’s and the Bush tax cuts of the 2000’s. This is true regardless of how many misleading articles one posts on the blog.
The real purpose of all rounds of Republican tax cuts is detailed in a great article, “The Tax Cut Con” by Dr. Paul Krugman of Princeton University and a columnist fo the New York Times.
http://www.noblit.com/docs/The-Tax-Cut-Con.pdf
June 27th, 2006 at 4:37 pmIf Bush used “counterintuitive” without reading it from a cue card I will kiss your foot.
Bash on Bush–Click on Clyde!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:41 pmIt doesn’t make any difference what these new folks say! Remember, the dim-wit himself is the DECIDER!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:43 pmLower taxes promote consumer and corporate spending, leading to more tax receipts. Higher taxes stagnate consumer and corporate spending, but the higher taxes will give you good tax receipts.
The key is finding a balance that works well, not taxing off the charts, or cutting taxes off the charts.
I’d love to see a single person here argue that Bush’s 10% tax bracket hurt anyone in America. Tax cuts for the rich? Sure, as well as everyone else in the USA. Saying it is only for the rich is only telling half the story, which is to be expected of rabid partisans.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:43 pmGood analysis Sexion. That would explain why there was no growth in the US economy after WWII when tax rates were off the charts.
Paulson’s statement would get him banned from redstate.org
June 27th, 2006 at 4:49 pmWhy would anyone defend all rounds of tax cuts to date when that person’s ultimate position is “find a balance that works?” The issues is whether tax cuts pay for themselves. Without one doubt the data support the conclusion they do not.
End of discussion.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:52 pmthe all knowing Seixon
“Do you know what fiscal means?”
The US fiscal yeqr runs from Oct 1 to Sept 30. even my wacky liberal calendar says it’s still June
“Bush wasn’t president in 2000, so why does 2000 matter? Shouldn’t we be measuring from the time Congress and Bush passed the tax cuts?” fine start with 01. here are the numbers: individual tax revenue for 01 was 994 B, for 02 it was 858 B, for 03 it was 793 B, for 04 it was 808 B.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:56 pmHannity and Limp-Baugh believe tax cuts pay for themselves.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:02 pmWhere’s the cost of the war in all of this? Has this administration come close to explaining the cost and how we all plan to repay this? Keep the cross talk coming, it’s a good read
June 27th, 2006 at 5:03 pmMore on fiscal year:
:Fiscal Year 2007 Budget (FY07)
Transmitted to Congress on February 6, 2006. Covers the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2006.” (Seixon–note where it says fiscal year beginning 10/1/06)
http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
so how exactly would you have tax revenue numbers for FY 2006? I don’t think you ever provided any cite for your claim. I did provide a cite, which clearly showed you are wrong to claim that the Bush tax cuts produced increased revenues
June 27th, 2006 at 5:12 pmWell Seixon since someone else outed you on here, I did check google on you > Your real name is George Gooding, age 24, you live in Bergen - Norway at present, and you are a student! You design websites on the side and you wrote an article on Katrina for Dagbladet in March of this year > the article is posted in Norwegian! There is a pic of you posted with the article and you have short black hair > side view! Now would you like to tell us WHY you defend members of the Bush Regime on here?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:12 pmWhy, in a time of war, should tax cuts even be considered. If this administration would really want to throw some weight behind it’s rhetoric, we would have a substantial tax increase and create the multi layered military and humanitarian force to combat TERROR. They are playing a political shell game with our future at stake. Quick numbers. Today’s debt at 8.4 trillion. Cost of War will reach 500 billion by early next year. Amount added onto the debt from this war $0.00. Tough talk should be followed by tough actions. Ration oil (or nationalize it like the automotive industry during WWII). Increase taxes. Start the draft. Have a shared and collective sacrifice in this country for a common goal. If they can’t stand behind their words how can anyone else believe them.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:14 pmCutting taxes for the ultra-rich corporate world in a time of mind blowing record debt and junior’s invasion is just another perfect example of how these son-of-a-bitches couldn’t care less about the people of this country.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pmThese slobs are not about government.
They never have been.
They are basically about rape pillage and burn, as far as the eye can see.
And oh, by the way, they’ll let someone else deal with the shit-storm they create.
They are an Externalizing Machine born as a bastard child conceived from their Mob Mother and their Oil Corporation Daddy.
“Individual tax revenue? I thought we were talking total tax revenue? In any case, even these numbers show that the tax revenue has been rising ever since fiscal 2003. One tax cut bill came in mid-2001. One came at the tail end of fiscal 2003. The other was in 2004. In other words, two of the tax cut bills came at or after fiscal 2003, and since then, tax revenues have been going up.”
I wasn’t being cute–I just didn’t want to type every figure: here are numbers for corporate tax revenue: 01–151B, 02 148B, 03 131 B, 04 189B.
Revenues went up for one out of three years in which taxes were cut. A .333 average is good in baseball but not in most places. Even in 04, revenues were less than in the last year of the hated Clinton admin when they stood at 207B.
what is your point? if you think tax cuts cause increase revenues, the numbers don’t bear that out. I can’t find any link that shows what revenues were for 05 and I don’t think there’s a way to know what they are yet for 06 since we’re still in 06, both as a calendar and a fiscal year
June 27th, 2006 at 5:19 pmJay,
June 27th, 2006 at 5:19 pmI’ve been to Bergen. Halden and Oslo. In general, they wholly embrace U.S. culture and it’s trappings. It’s a BEAUTIFUL land, but they’re mostly conservative, and look up to the MIGHTY UNITED STATES.
If you are going to cut taxes, then you have to limit spending increases. However, it’s next to impossible to slow down spending when you’re trying to run a war. War is expensive!!!!
June 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pmPost 91 I have never visited Norway, but the scenery appears beautiful from the pics and film I have seen of that nation! So you believe an American like Seixon/Gooding would fit in well in Norway?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:25 pmJust google “George Gooding Seixon†and you will find this link to the American Spectator site that identifies Seixon as George Gooding:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8228
You will also find a few other links to his rubbish.
George has repeatedly denied being conservative, but George is also a prolific liar who even lies about lying (an old Ollie North trick). George is just another pathological lying young Republican creep.
Comment by RealScientist — June 27, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 5:26 pm“Tax cuts for the rich? Sure, as well as everyone else in the USA. Saying it is only for the rich is only telling half the story, which is to be expected of rabid partisans.”
The Bush tax cuts have overwhelmingly favored the affluent. People making under $73k a year received tax cuts on average of $350 a year. The wealthiest one per cent received tax cuts $34,000 a year. See http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
by the way, I have not read all the back and forth, but it looks like someone outed you–maybe in retaliation for another outing, I don’t know. was sorry to see that–for whomever was outed–even if done in retaliation
June 27th, 2006 at 5:26 pmI haven’t put the blame entirely on anything, another lie. You just put words in my mouth all day long, no wonder you think I’m a liar.
Well, you are. Didn’t you claim on another thread that I said “moving the troops to Kuwait will make them safe” - and when I called you on it you convieniently disappeared. You put words in others’ mouths and then complain when others do it to you? Hilarious.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:29 pmI have never visited Norway, but the scenery appears beautiful from the pics and film I have seen of that nation! So you believe an American like Seixon/Gooding would fit in well in Norway?
Comment by Jay Randal — June 27, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
I was in Norway in 1998. It is pristine, astonishingly beautiful, safe, full of culture and diversity, and very liberal.
If you like to travel, you should definitely visit. The train ride from Oslo to Bergen in late summer was one of the most beautiful perspectives I have ever seen (and I’ve been all over the world).
George is probably tolerated there, because they are so liberal - but I bet his only friends are other obnoxious Americans…
June 27th, 2006 at 5:32 pmI knew you were a student Seixon, but I do NOT intend to make a big deal out of it on here! Your pic on Dagbladet is very flattering of your looks > you are not a fat guy or a pimple faced cyber nerd either > you look Norwegian and I am sure that you are very intelligent too!
Do you read and write in Norwegian, or was that article translated for you? I only can read and write in German, so unable to read your piece on Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, but the article appears interesting!
Most on here would really like to understand WHY you defend Bush Regime members on TP threads? Is it a hobby? Boredom? Or do you get compensated by the GOP or by Karl Rove?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:36 pmWOW,
For those that talk alot about free speech, SAM sure doesn’t get included. Deleting his post is nice though. Just proves you don’t care about other opinions and evidences. Sam, thanks for the post and it is hilarious that your voice was muted by no other then the “free speech fighters” themselves.
BRAVO Think Progressive!!
June 27th, 2006 at 5:39 pmBRAVO Think Progressive!!
Comment by Dolly — June 27, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
he got deleted for violating site rules. Stop turning everything into some meloframatic witch hunt.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:43 pmPost 101 unbelievable > your description of Norway sounds beautiful > I plan on visiting Denmark and Sweden in the near future, so I will take a side trip to Norway on the route you suggested!
June 27th, 2006 at 5:46 pm“Tax revenues are running $176 billion, or 12.9%, over last year, the Treasury Department said Monday. The Congressional Budget Office said receipts have risen faster over the first eight months of fiscal ‘06 than in any other such period over the pst 25 years — except for last year’s 15.5% jump.”
sorry–didn’t see this. your cite shows revenue of $687 B for the first 8 months of FY 2006. That projects to just to 1.03 trillion over a full year. That would indeed be a substantial increase over last year’s individual tax receipts. But tax receipts for 2001 were 994B–just 9 billion less than what is projected for this year. So cutting taxes over the past 4 years (assuming the year finishes as projected in your chart) would have produced 2 years in a row of declining revenue, one year with a slight increase, one with a more significant increase, and an overall increase of less than 1%.
since tax cuts resulted in reduced revenues for two years, and only slightly increased revenue for the third year, how do we know the (projected) increase for this year was caused by the tax cut? If tax cuts cause increase tax revenue, wouldn’t they do this every year??
June 27th, 2006 at 5:46 pmeblair,
Tax revenues have gone up after both the 2003 and 2004 tax cuts were implemented. The recession was going on during the first tax cut in 2001.
was there a recession in 2003? I don’t think so–but tax revenues were down significantly (853B to 793B) from 2002 to 2003
June 27th, 2006 at 5:48 pmJay,
You’ll love it. It’s really gorgeous. Scandinavia in general is very pristine and beautiful. Hope you enjoy it!
June 27th, 2006 at 5:57 pmCaption contest-” Damn, I foregot this fellas name”. :)
June 27th, 2006 at 6:11 pm#71
“Tax cuts for the rich? Sure, as well as everyone else in the USA.”
Comment by Seixon.
I will call you a liar as you have lied in the quote above.
My wife and I received NOT ONE CENT in tax relief or any tax cut.. So your everyone is less at least two.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:16 pm“Bush is getting better advice. Now all he needs is a better economic policy.”
all bush ever needed is a better brain, the nerve to try honesty (at least once), and a soul.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:16 pm.
Thank you all for violating Think Progress’ Terms of Use. I have reported it and hopefully they will do something about it. For those not familiar with the Terms of Use:
the doc, RealScientist, Spudge_Boy, Jay Randal have all violated this policy, with unbelievable also taking part in disseminating it.
All of you have just revealed yourself as people who don’t give one rip about the privacy of others and all sought to intimidate me by publishing personal details.
This is a sign that all of you are so threatened by the things I say that you are willing to violate Think Progress rules and my privacy in order to silence me.
Dispicable actions by every single one of you. I have never consented to anyone naming me or publishing other details about me. The only thing I have consented to was revealing that I live in Norway. You are all a bunch of hypocrites.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pmPost 112 > Seixon that is outrageous and you know it! Grow up on here and stop acting like a child > you are intelligent, so act that way on here! WE all want to know WHY you defend the Bush Regime on here? Tell us why please!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:25 pmJay,
Outrageous? You have all published personal details about me without my consent, which is strictly forbidden under Think Progress Terms of Use. Think Progress is dealing with this right now.
As for your question about my Norwegian writing, yes I do write in Norwegian because I am bilingual and fluent in Norwegian. If you know German, you should be able to understand at least some of it… ;)
Do you really believe that Karl Rove pays me to comment at Think Progress?
eblair,
since tax cuts resulted in reduced revenues for two years, and only slightly increased revenue for the third year, how do we know the (projected) increase for this year was caused by the tax cut? If tax cuts cause increase tax revenue, wouldn’t they do this every year??
Recessions take longer to recover from than 6 months. The recession was for most of 2001, with fiscal 2001 ending in September 2001. The first tax cut came in the middle of the recession. We didn’t start recovering fully from the recession until 2003. The tax cut in 2003 came at the tail end of fiscal 2003, so obviously the effects of the tax cut would not show for fiscal 2003. They showed up in fiscal 2004, where the revenue increased, and another tax cut in fiscal 2005 (October 2004) came while tax revenues went up for fiscal 2005. Now revenues are up again for fiscal 2006.
was there a recession in 2003? I don’t think so–but tax revenues were down significantly (853B to 793B) from 2002 to 2003
That’s fiscal 2002, which was from Oct. 2001 (right after 9/11) to Sep. 2002. The recovery from the recession didn’t really start until late 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. A recession doesn’t dissipate immediately.
The effect of the 2001 tax cuts would easily have been drowned out by the recession, 9/11, and the corporate scandals that rocked Wall Street the same year.
Clyde,
My wife and I received NOT ONE CENT in tax relief or any tax cut.. So your everyone is less at least two.
Yes, you did. Your tax rate was reduced, sir. Whether that translated into an actual tax relief for you depends entirely on how much you made from year to year, and a whole lot of other circumstances.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:51 pmSeixon > You challenged everybody on here to find out about you, so somebody did so, and others double checked google on it! Public writing/blogging on the Internet is NOT divulging facts about someone > you should have told Dagbladet to not post your pic and bio on you!
As for reading your article > Norwegian is more like Swedish than German, but I could translate some parts of your article! Under your bio it says Jobb: Student, so some words are basically the same as English!
Everybody is curious why you defend Bush on here, because most on here dislike the man and everything he does! He is a massive proven liar, so strange for you to defend his lies!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:20 pmDo you get paid by the GOP to post on here? Most on here think so, because Mighty Aphrodite has admitted being paid to post on TP threads!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:23 pm114–My wife and I received NOT ONE CENT in tax relief or any tax cut.. So your everyone is less at least two.
Yes, you did. Your tax rate was reduced, sir. Whether that translated into an actual tax relief for you depends entirely on how much you made from year to year, and a whole lot of other circumstances.
well, Seixon not so sure you can be so sweeping. I believe (although I did not look it up and I certainly could be wrong) that all income tax rates were reduced. But some people don’t pay income tax e.g. those who qualify for EITC. They still pay FICA (as well as applicable state taxes). These non income tax payers may well have received no cut
Plus, as I pointed out above, the cuts were heavily skewed toward the affluent. some who gets a couple of hundred bucks back did not get very much–especially compared to top 1% earners who received tens of thousands in tax savings
June 27th, 2006 at 7:24 pm114–Seixon–you’re slicing the bologna a little thin as an old professor of mine might have said. The 2001 recession lasted 8 months, done in 11/01. (see below) Fiscal 2002 would hav caught just one month of the recession.
Either tax cuts produce higher revenues in the real world or they don’t. They didn’t from 2002-4. It’s possible there were other factors, as you mention. But it’s possible other factors (besides tax cuts) contributed to higher revenues in 2005 and so far in 2006. You can’t have it both ways–when revenues are up, it must be because of tax cuts, but when they’re down, it was some other reason.
cite re: length of 2001 recession:
“The committee that puts official dates on U.S. economic expansions and contractions said Thursday that the economy pulled out of recession in November 2001 and since then has been in a recovery phase…The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today’s announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.”
http://www.usatoday.com/ money/ economy/ 2003-07-17-recession_x.htm
June 27th, 2006 at 7:35 pmJay,
Read the Terms of Use again. Harvesting, gathering and posting information about people is strictly not allowed. It doesn’t matter whether you can find it on Google, it is still against the rules to post it without the person’s consent. I’m sure you realize why Think Progress has rules against this: precisely to prevent attack dogs like the ones here from going after someone like me in order to try and intimidate them out of the discussion.
Norwegian is very similar to Swedish, in fact, I can probably understand about 75% of Swedish. I am no longer a student, so I will have to update that on my Norwegian blog.
No I do not get paid to post here at Think Progress, now will you stop asking that? It has no relevance to anything being discussed and detracts from the debate.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:43 pm#114 Siexon
You are still a liar. The tax rate applicable to my wife and I has not changed since 1991. We have recieved no, repeat no, tax relief from Bush irrespective of income or circumstances. Keep spouting BS just like the other trolls but I will give you a bit of truthful advice: No gereralization is worth a damn, including this one. For sure, when you use an absolute you will be wrong.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:43 pmSeixon - Keep up the good work - I appreciate the information and perspective you bring to the playground.
PLC - You mentioned (excuse my paraphrasing) “even if certain entitlement programs failed miserably at least someone tried.” THAT is one of my pet -peeves with the progressive mindset: self-satisfaction due to motivation rather than outcome. Which do you think a hungry person appreciates more - a meal, or someones’ guilt while they are eating? If Darryl Hannah was so concerned about the LA urban garden, why didn’t she do something about it monetarily? Because she didn’t care THAT much. (But her prog reputation was enhanced.)
The Progressive movement is dependent on mediocrity in every aspect of life and culture. Radical Progs wish to wipe an aspect of human nature out completely - that of competitivness - and rely almost exclusively on co-operation. (This sounds gentle, and loving…it’s supposed to tug at your heart strings.) Extreme Conservs have the opposite view. Co=operation is a necessary element in families, communities, and countries - and competition helps us strive to be the best we can be with the gifts we have.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:40 pmSeixon “Of course someone who doesn’t pay taxes did not get a tax cut. That’s elementary, dear Watson.”
someone who didn’t pay income taxes still pays FICA, as well as state taxes, as I mentioned. A president concerned about cutting taxes for everyone would have cut FICA taxes for those not paying income taxes. but I’m sure you realize that already
June 27th, 2006 at 8:50 pmSeixon “Also elementary is that the rich will get a bigger cut in dollars than those who are poor. If you are making $1M dollars, of course a tax cut of 3% is going to give you more dollars in a cut that those who make $50,000.”
right–someone who cared about targeting a tax cut toward the less affluent (which Bush claimed) would have given a larger % break to lower income brackets. Nothing says you have to give an across the board tax cut at the same % rate–but you know that already too
June 27th, 2006 at 8:52 pm#112 -”the doc, RealScientist, Spudge_Boy, Jay Randal have all violated this policy, with unbelievable also taking part in disseminating it.
All of you have just revealed yourself as people who don’t give one rip about the privacy of others and all sought to intimidate me by publishing personal details….”
portion of Seixon Comment
Seixon - You understand when progs are over the top when they justify violating others’ privacy and defend terrorist organizations right to “bank with ease”. I enjoy your perspective and tenacity.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:55 pmSeixon “Of course, all of this is getting away from the topic here, that Think Progress took Paulson’s statement out of context to give the impression that he was against Bush’s tax cuts, when he clearly thinks they provided confidence for the consumers and the rest of the economy.”
I don’t think that’s the point. I think the point is that Bush said, in plain dogmatic terms “you cut taxes and revenues increase”. The supply side mantra his father once rejected as voo doo economics. Paulson does not agree with that statement. He may well favor the Bush tax cuts for different reasons, but it is interesting to say the least that he does not accept Bush’s view that cutting taxes automatically increases revenue
June 27th, 2006 at 8:55 pmmighty aphrodite–we don’t live in a country that worships competition, and conservatives are hardly up in arms about this. Our govt provides large subsidies (e.g. to sugar, cotton) and places tariffs and quotas on imported goods. We have greatly reduced media competition, also based on government decisions e.g. giving away broadcast spectrum (there are also probably problems with barriers to entry). Conservatives don’t complain about this—the current government has continued these practices, and I don’t hear anyone on the right wing (not too many on the left either, but some) complaining.
You’ve probably heard of no-bid contracts, for example the ones awarded to Halliburton in Iraq, or the ones awarded after Katrina. Competition has nothing to do with the millions parceled out in these contexts. And the government doing the parceling out is led by Republicans — do conservatives reject these practices?
Look at our president. An admitted C student in college got into one of the most prestigious business schools in our country. How many C students do you think Harvard takes? if your name is Bush–or Kennedy, sure–you have a shot. otherwise, forget it. Is that competition? do conservatives question Bush’s credentials and these admission practices? In many instances in this nation, it is about who you know and who your parents are–from getting into college to getting a job to getting a promotion. That is not always bad, but it is certainly not the competition you dream of.
A child who has the poor judgment to be born into poverty begins life at a competitive disadvantage–he or she will almost certainly go to underfunded schools that are , he or she may not get enough to eat. wah, wah, I know. But how can it be fair competition for one child to be born to parents who have $ to give him or her everything while another does not get basic necessities and does not receive a first class education. what to do about this is another question–what I am saying here is that this undermines your theory that the US is a place where fair competition thrives. The child who stupidly chooses to be born to poverty will not get the same shot to be “the best he or she can be” as a child born to affluent parents.
This is part of the reason why we nutty liberals think people deserve a hand. We think every child deserves a fair chance to really be all he or she can be. We think it’s wrong to penalize children for their birth. This is not abour mediocrity or communism — it’s about basic decency and believing in a fair fight–some children shouldn’t start life with one hand tied behind their back. And corporations (and wealthy people) shouldn’t get additional benefits (e.g. the subsidies I mentioned) lavished upon them. That’s not competition. But I don’t hear conservatives complaining (whatever “conservative” means naymore…)
http://www.townhall.com/ opinion/ columns/ dougbandow/ 2005/ 02/ 07/ 14460.html (discussing subsidies and quotas for sugar)
http://www.pbs.org/ newshour/ bb/ international/ july-dec03/ farmers_9-09.html (US cotton subsidies)
http://www.foodfirst.org/backgrounders/subsidies (discussing e.g. discriminatory effect of subsidies on small farmers)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0325-11.htm (Halliburton no bid contract)
http://www.usatoday.com/ news/ nation/ 2005-09-26-nobid-contracts_x.htm (no bid contracts after Katrina)
June 27th, 2006 at 9:26 pmSeixon “Sure, we could just eliminate the tax for people under $20,000 or whatever. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that people keep claiming that the tax cuts only were for the rich, but they weren’t. Tax rates for everyone are lower now than they were under Clinton.”
again, the fact that lower income people were thrown a few crumbs is not super meaningful. the average tax cut for people making under $73 k was $350. People in the top 1% got $34,000. It is disingenuous to say “hey everybody got something”. I’ve said this a bunch of times. getting exhausting
My complaint is not that Bush should lower tax rates even more for lower income people. My complaint is that he gave huge rebates to the wealthiest. he claimed he was just giving people back what was already theirs–there was a surplus, so they should get a refund. But the surplus was exhausted, and tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthy continues–except now they’re funded with borrowing, which means I will owe $ on a loan being used to give millionaires more money. And all this while we are at war.
I don’t like this reverse Robin Hood policy. and by the way, the meager tax cut lower bracket people get is almost certainly wiped out by their increased share of the national debt, which currently stands at about $27,000 per American
I don’r want a bigger tax cut. I am glad to pay my share. I don’t think it makes sense, or is right, to give tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthy under the present circumstances.
I don’t think TP is dodging anything–they’r pointing out a clear disagreement btw the President and his Treasury Secy on the question of supply side theory
June 27th, 2006 at 9:35 pmsorry for recent super long posts by the way–didn;t realize they were so long until I saw them
June 27th, 2006 at 9:40 pmlater–I off to put the last stage of the communist conspiracy to defeat competition into effect (kidding, completely non-serious in all ways. I am a peace-loving, nonviolent proud American. seriously)
June 27th, 2006 at 9:46 pmSeixon habitually violates the following TP rules:
You agree to:
• Respect other Bloggers — please do not threaten, insult, abuse, intimidate or harass other Blog users.
• Use the Blog for your personal use only. Posting entries solely to promote your own projects are not allowed.
• Post any content to the Blog that is unlawful, racist, hateful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, or that intentionally discriminates against or harasses particular individuals or groups.
• Use the Blog for advertisements, chain letters, “spamming,†survey solicitations, junk mail or solicitations.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:18 pm#142 - “Says the troll that admits to lying to protect her privacy.” another lie by bLIAR
******I don’t lie to protect my privacy - I omit information which could compromise my families privacy and security. I won’t mention a county or state while in trial. You really should pull out that dictionary you keep recommending to others….
June 27th, 2006 at 11:22 pmGood night Ryan’s sister…..
#148 - ****** Unbelievable habitually violates the following TP rules:
You agree not to: Post any content to the Blog that is racist, hateful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, or that intentionally discriminates against or harasses particular individuals or groups.
Verdict: Hypocrite!
June 27th, 2006 at 11:28 pmeblair - I don’t disagree with you about agricultural subsidies - which started during the greatly revered New Deal. I’m sure if agribusiness lost these subsidies today the increase in food prices would be noticeable, but not prohibitive, as the business is greatly streamlined. But your take on Halliburton no-bid contracts is a bit misinformed. How many firms have the global and infrastructure capacity of Halliburton? Fluor? No. Bechtol? No. Parsons? No. Yeagher? Keep trying. Only one firm was determined at the time to have the capacity of Halliburton - and it was a French firm. Unfortunately, politics being what it was, that company wasn’t even in the running.
Save your talking points for others, I’ve heard ‘em all before….
Good night….
June 27th, 2006 at 11:36 pmSeixon > one last question about your article on Dagbladet: the article was posted on that site this past March of 2006, and it says under job you are a student, but now you claim that is no longer valid, so you just graduated from college in Norway? Clear that up if you want I guess?!
Just a word of advice: Mighty Aphrodite is now defending you on here, and its a paid Karl Rove troll, so if you are not the same, then best to end that association on here!
June 28th, 2006 at 1:27 amSeixon > You mentioned in one of your posts that you outed Gallaway of the UK as a liar > how do you know he is a liar? PM Tony Blair is a massive proven liar, so do you defend him or call him a liar like Gallaway? Do you think Bush is a liar or he is flawless? And you wrote a piece for the American Spectator magazine? That is owned by a right wing organization, so explain your association to it please?
June 28th, 2006 at 2:11 amVerdict: Hypocrite!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — June 27, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
Yes, you are! You’re the one who calls names, ad homenem attacks when you can’t answer simple questions and lies to either gain attention or advantage - which is very transparent and easily debunked.
I don’t post anything hateful. It’s called FACTS. Just because you can’t handle the truth doesn’t make those facts hateful.
You’re the ones who post in CAPS and use !!!!! That’s anger. I use (.) It means a calm and normal tone. Shouldn’t you know this by now?
June 28th, 2006 at 8:23 amMA: “your take on Halliburton no-bid contracts is a bit misinformed. How many firms have the global and infrastructure capacity of Halliburton? Fluor? No. Bechtol? No. Parsons? No. Yeagher? Keep trying. Only one firm was determined at the time to have the capacity of Halliburton - and it was a French firm.”
I offered no “take” on Halliburton–I merely observed that they were awarded no-bid contracts. That is by definition not a competitive process. I also referred to the many no-bid contracts awarded after Katrina–not just to Halliburton. These were also non-competitively awarded. that is my point–that the US is not always about competition.
dismissing other specific arguments as talking points is not exactly a winning debate tactic.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:05 am# 149-Mighty Aphrodite:
The judge accepts your verdict.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:22 amLaywers don’t make verdicts - juries do. You should learn something about the processes of our legal system, and then teach it to MA. Neither one of you knows what you’re talking about. Ever.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:40 am# 157:
M.A. Seixon and myself are the jury in this case,Dipshit.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pmIt takes twelve to make a jury. Did you sleep through high school civics as well? Figures.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:26 pm# 159-unbelievable:
GUILTY.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:44 pmToo bad for you it carries no valid weigh or consequences. Just the immature opinions of three regularly debunked psychopaths who only have emotional opinion and third grade quality insults.
To me, that is positive. If you liked what I have to say, it would make me just as kooky and invalid as the three of your stooges. Keep on hating me. It means that not only have I hit a nerve with teh truth, but I’m still sane.
The day you agree with me is that day I go get on some heavy medication.
Keep up the poruring and psycho-babble!
June 28th, 2006 at 1:55 pmEh… Uh… Ehrm, Im the Prez, and I do a signing statement declaring Unbelievable not guilty. No need of jury. And I issue my royal pardon to her too. Nucular *giggle*
June 28th, 2006 at 2:29 pmDoesn’t matter if Bush is getting better advice.
Paul O’Neill (Bush’s first treasury secretary) thought Bush’s tax cuts were nuts too.
So they just pushed him out and kept cutting.
Bush is such an idiot.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:09 pmunbelievable,
Just the immature opinions of three regularly debunked psychopaths who only have emotional opinion and third grade quality insults.
Ah, so that’s why you guys went digging up personal information on me. Because I’m the psychopath. Riiiight.
Keep on hating me. It means that not only have I hit a nerve with teh truth, but I’m still sane.
Says the person who called me an “enemy” and rationalized publishing personal details about me because of fighting a “war” against me. The only hater here is you, I’m afraid.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:36 pm# 164-Seixon:
You are correct,my man.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:50 pmSeixon,
I can see you’re whining, but I’m not reading. You just say the same shit over and over so I don’t have to. Double standard bullshit and lies. Get some new schtick, would ya?
And really, the only people who agree with your are adults in diapers. Clearly that makes ALL of us wrong and you and your incontinent posse right? That’s beyond pathetic.
Go suck your thumb now..
June 28th, 2006 at 9:14 pmSeixon:
She just prooved that she reads everything you write.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:10 amJust like she reads everything I write.
Now she is lying about her own lies.
”prooved” should spell ”proved”.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:37 amGet a life Sybil-Denny-etc. You’re being paranoid and juvenile by making up conspiracy theories you cannot prove (because they are lies). No one takes you seriously except those who are as equally demeneted as you. Grow up. Get a life.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:20 amSee,I told you.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:27 pmI find disturbing the fact that Florida- under Jeb Bush- has a major budget surplus when SO many other states are in the red! Makes me wonder…
June 29th, 2006 at 6:53 pmcorporate tax
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:15 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 pmNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 8:52 amLudovic
What other topics are you keen on?
March 29th, 2008 at 10:17 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:55 pmCash Advance Loans
Instant cash advance can be a nice and convenient choice to cash flow advocate on the internet.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:31 amHealth Insurance Gulf Breeze Insurance Flood Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pmBianca
Apply yourself. Get all the education you can, but then, by God, do something. Don?t just stand there, make it happen
April 11th, 2008 at 10:21 amKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:16 pm