http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440443,00.html

“Terrorist Who Brought Nail Bombs to Irish Parliament Claims It Was ‘Performance Art’

“Convicted killer Michael Stone stormed the Irish Parliament with enough homemade bombs to kill dozens in a rain of fire and nails.

But it was all in the name of art, he says.”

“Security experts are chilled by the prospects of Stone’s acquittal on his artful dodge.”

No, you said that Clinton was given a “booming” economy, which is ridiculous on the face of it!

“The (paper) surplus he is so given credit for resulted from the Reagan tax model.”

You certainly have a knack “DJ” for reading a set of facts and then interpretting them completely & totally wrong…lol…it’s amazing! Then you try and say that you’re not speaking from a Right-wing perspective…give me a break…this is a pathetic display of the first-order.

BTW, I read your links last night, and I think the data contained within is pretty interesting, and again, I never said the economy under Clinton wasn’t good BEFORE he started messing with it. The (paper) surplus he is so given credit for resulted from the Reagan tax model.

I can’t understand where you come up “Right-wing partisan” I am conservative, leaning libertarian, hardly right wing, my economic positions are conservative, and if that means, “right wing partisan” to you, so be it, I’ll accept that, I don’t want to see your head explode, watching you copy paste your talking points is WAY too much fun.

Nope…learn to read…I said: “These are ALMOST all Right-wing sources that are obviously spinning the ‘facts’ here.”

“The 1996 JEC is right wing?”

Yea, when the GOP is in charge of Congress it is…duh!

“The economy you insist on giving Clinton credit for was BECASUE of the Reagan Tax model, the Laffer curve is not a complete joke”

Keep saying the same thing over & over again “DJ”…it will really become true someday, not!

“If you give an American back 50 dollars, he will spend 200″

…if he’s a fiscally irresponsible & unconservative American he will…lol! Your trickle down nonsense isn’t buying anything these days…you continue to be completely & totally ideologically blind, period.

“Using your logic, we should tax everybody at 98% that will grow federal revenue”

When did I say that?? Oh yea, it was never…I said that: “When looking at actual historical data on tax rates, GDP, and revenue, the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenues COULD be as high as 80%.”

NO ONE is advocating for tax rates this high! Just give it up “DJ”…you’re a pathetic Right-wing partisan…nothing more, nothing less…

If you give an American back 50 dollars, he will spend 200, that grows the economy, ergo tax cuts grow the economy. When you cut taxes on the rich, they invest more, this creates R and D money, which creates jobs, when you cut corporate taxes, the corporation has more money to invest in R and D which creates even more jobs. LEARN BASIC ECONOMICS

Using your logic, we should tax everybody at 98% that will grow federal revenue, the CBO has continuosly used a staic tax model (which has been proven to be a joke) wheras most “real” economists realize the tax model used should be dynamic. Everyone who is anyone knows a 98% tax will not grow the economy, but it will increase revenue. Get real, and LEARN something about economics

Again, try finding some facts to support your weak theories and this discussion can continue.

“Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.”

LOL…that’s because raising taxes on mostly rich folks ended up balancing the federal budget in the 1990s…not busting it like in the 1980s. Clinton’s tax increases yielded HUGE amounts of money into the federal coffers…Reagan’s tax cuts reduced revenue. Even the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the Laffer Curve is a complete joke.

I’ll ask again…you expect me to believe that Clinton’s own set of economic advisors would be embracing supply-side economics in 1994 *after* they had just finished sucessfully pushing the exact opposite through Congress (with no GOP votes) in 1993?? Do you have ANY ability for logic in that small head of yours???

Enjoy.

1) http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm (see the fourth paragraph please)

2) http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/10/31/whats-been-the-secret-of-americas-economic-success.html (see the last part of the 5th paragraph please)

3)http://www.victoriacapitalus.com/researchpapers/Origins%20of%20Supply-side%20Economics.pdf (see second subparagraph of paragraph 5 please)

Lastly, my apologies for using the word “link” vice “quote”, the FACT is CLINTONS COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS…