Economic Left/Right: 8.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.23

I'm a bit more authoritarian than Milton Friedman. I usually get around this area.

Rusty, your right. Their are a couple of tree huggin hippy communists.

You certainly don't qualify. You have way too much class and decency. \:D/

I will let you find out for yourself.

I will give you some hints:

White
Uncouth
Uneducated
Follows Hockey
Bathing once a month optional
Loves cheap beer
Watches a lot of Hee-Haw
CMT
Can't tell Ohio from Idaho
Behaves irrationally
mullet
Blames illegal aliens for their own failures
Loves their cousin :-#
Can't spell worth a shit
Can't speak proper English

Its Nascar, not hockey. Unless, your thinking of a Canadian redneck.

Ok. Nascar for southern Rednecks.

All americans cant speak proper english.

Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

Like Krem and BJ, I'm a sort of libertarian, but I am far more socially liberal than fiscally conservative.

British English, in most cases, is just as bad. It is inundated with just as much slang and shorthand.

Language is not so much about education as it is about culture.

I took the test some weeks ago and I was very centrist, but leaning towards libertarian and left.

hockey is a better sport then that pussy sport called cricket or soccer or whatever sport they play in europe.

There's absolutely no factual basis to attribute any specific period of economic growth to tax cuts. Periods of economic growth correspond just as often with tax increases as they do tax cuts.

There's no reason to assume that tax cuts grow the economy, other than your political ideals.

Uhhhhh..........


There are some, I'm guessing. :mrgreen:

Looks like there are a few theocratic neocon Taliban as well.

In case you didn't pick up on it, that was a joke. I believe the recession stopped even prior to the tax cuts coming into effect.

I definitely missed the joke. My apologies.

Glad to see you're not pushing that assertion anymore about tax cuts and economic growth then.

Well, my point was that attributing the economic growth/decline to one or two of administration's policies is silly. I mean, that could lead to arguing that shutting the Jews out of the public life in the 1930's did great things for the German economy.

Overall, though, it can be reasonably argued that tax cuts (although, as with anything in economics, can never be proven) can lead to greater economic growth. For instance, countries with lower overall tax burden tend to have higher growth rates than countries with higher burdens.

It can also be reasonably argued that tax increases can lead to greater economic growth, especially if the only evidence you're going on is a superficial relationship between taxes and growth.

In any case, there's a difference between presenting it as a "reasonably argued" point that "can never be proven" and presenting that point as absolute fact, which it clearly isn't, particularly when you've just reproached someone else for believing in a similar assumption based on political ideals.

What is silly is that you spouting that Reagan's policies created economic growth and Clinton's didn't. That is just as ludicrous as Reagan defeating communism singlehandedly. Given the hard facts, you have no idea how to expalin the economic growth of the 90's other than saying Clinton did not have any hand in it.

Bullshit myth quoted by conservatives has been disproven time and time again.



Clinton with higher Tax burden easily trumped Reagan/Bush's growth with four years to spare.
India with the highest tax burden on the wealthy has a very high economic growth second only to China in the world.

Facts that don't agree with your ideals are no good or what?

Like I said, it was a joke.

I'll accept Neocon, but i'm probably as religous as you.

People here should realize that Congress passes laws. Including tax laws. The President just signs and enforces the laws. A fair observer would also credit Congress for any success/failure economically attributed to tax cuts/hikes.

From another thread:



I really wish you'd make up your mind.

Does that statement make me religous? I see the Catholic Church as a force for good in the world and as a balance to the secular humanism that is emanating out of Europe.

While I consider myself agnostic, I beleive that it is unhealthy for large portions of the population to subscribe to such a belief.

You sound as religious as any other theocratic neocon in the American Taliban party waging their war against "secular humanism." And definitely the church is the answer, because we all know that organized religion has never resulted in any problems anywhere in the world.



So what's okay for you is not okay for the rest of the ignorant masses? Hypocrisy at it's finest, but at least you admit it.

Are you still trying to prove that Bill Clinton created the Internet? My point, if you're too thick to get it by now, is that presidents have very little to do with the economy, unless they're trying to single-handedly take over it, ala Roosevelt.

Are you AT ALL familiar with the concepts of "tendency" and "anecdotic evidence"?