OT: Liberal or Conservative

[Slinky]

So - is the Washington Post a liberal or a conservative newspaper??

INTERESTING article and figures: From Surplus To Debt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... aphic.html

[John M. Browning]

The Washington Compost is a rag that would make Saul Alinsky proud.

IMHO, it DEFINITELY has Socialistic bias.

[snuginarug]

I am curious, do you feel they have a Socialist bent just as a general opinion drawn form past knowledge of the paper, or due to the particular article cited by Slinky?

I know nothing about this newspaper at all. However, the facts in this particular article seem pretty much just facts. The choice to publish the article does seem to have a liberal bias, as it does no credit to the GOP. However, I see nothing particularly Socialist about this.

I am novice though. Maybe others could explain things to me if I am off?

[April]

What the heck does this have to do with CPAP???

The operative part of the subject line being "OT" ...or more accurately, "Posted Here In Error".

I thought this was a forum for CPAP discussions. If it is going to degenerate into the all-too prevalent political name-calling and other garbage that goes on in the U.S. these days, then obviously I signed up by mistake and will be all-to-happy to leave you to your whining and find a more sensible and relevant forum.

[beckah]

What the heck does this have to do with CPAP???

The operative part of the subject line being "OT" ...or more accurately, "Posted Here In Error".

I thought this was a forum for CPAP discussions. If it is going to degenerate into the all-too prevalent political name-calling and other garbage that goes on in the U.S. these days, then obviously I signed up by mistake and will be all-to-happy to leave you to your whining and find a more sensible and relevant forum.

While it is true this is a Xpap forum, it is also a social forum. That is why the "OT" was used in the title. If you come here for Xpap related posts only, don't open any title that has "OT" in it.
People interact on this board just like we all do in real life. They talk about various subjects during the day, not just one. The board not only offers support for Xpap treatment, but friendly (and sometimes, not all that friendly) discussions about various topics. It's a great board and I hope you hang around.

[Bodhi]

I've got to agree with April, and I certainly cannot dispute beckah's thoughts either.
But this is the kind of thread/topic that ends up pretty quickly with otherwise decent folks calling each other socialists and nazis. We've already had the socialism meme; can nazi be far behind?

[Julie]

I don't think they have many tea parties... does that help?

[John M. Browning]

I am curious, do you feel they have a Socialist bent just as a general opinion drawn form past knowledge of the paper, or due to the particular article cited by Slinky?

I know nothing about this newspaper at all. However, the facts in this particular article seem pretty much just facts. The choice to publish the article does seem to have a liberal bias, as it does no credit to the GOP. However, I see nothing particularly Socialist about this.

I am novice though. Maybe others could explain things to me if I am off?

My opinion is based on past actions and publications by the editorial board. I did not read the article referenced in the OP, and probably should have in re-reading the OP. Also, my reflexive condemnation of the paper was perhaps a little too hasty, because on occasion it has surprised me, but that is rare.

[Slinky]

I was just curious about how much weight I should put on the figures presented. There is absolutely no need for anyone to get "nasty" in their responses.

So the Washington Post tends to be a rather liberal newspaper. Thank you. That helps me evaluate how much weight to give the "facts" and figures presented.

[SRSDDS]

I would certainly take the figures with a large grain of salt. For instance, they claim that the tax cuts of 2001, 2003, and 2010 created a loss of revenue of $3.6 trillion. How they arrived at that I do not know, but tax cuts are historically responsible for increased revenue due to their positive effect on the economy. It is highly likely that if the tax cuts mentioned had not been made, then the economy would have suffered and tax revenue would have decreased by far more than $3.6 trillion.
This is a very typical argument between liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans. I think that the way the article presents the facts is clearly indicative of a liberal slant.

Stephen

[purple]

Uh, I think the claim is that the investment from the tax cut went towards companies which were overseas from US.

Just like the $250.00 stimulus given to all adults several years ago, the money stimulated the Asian (largely Chinese) economies, and the big oil companies. Very little of that money recirculated in US.

What we need is a way to recirculate the money we spend in US, or is to become a larger exporter of manufactured goods, as exporting food will be headed down with the increase in the cost of transport (oil). No I do not have a suggestion about how to do those things.

And where are Sleep Apnea machines manufactured?

What say you doc, is the US, without Obamacare, the best health care system in the world?

[idamtnboy]

For instance, they claim that the tax cuts of 2001, 2003, and 2010 created a loss of revenue of $3.6 trillion. How they arrived at that I do not know, but tax cuts are historically responsible for increased revenue due to their positive effect on the economy. It is highly likely that if the tax cuts mentioned had not been made, then the economy would have suffered and tax revenue would have decreased by far more than $3.6 trillion.

What I keep wondering about lately with regard to lower taxes helping the economy is this. Why were the 1950s a period of some of the strongest growth in industrial and personal economic conditions this country has ever seen? Why? Especially when you consider that during the 1950s income tax rates were as high as 90%? And why was the Federal Government budget in such good shape at the end of the Clinton administration, the period before the Bush tax cuts, compared to the start of 2009? Tax cuts helping to grow the economy is a red herring propagated by the super rich.

[April]

While it is true this is a Xpap forum, it is also a social forum. That is why the "OT" was used in the title. If you come here for Xpap related posts only, don't open any title that has "OT" in it.
People interact on this board just like we all do in real life. They talk about various subjects during the day, not just one. The board not only offers support for Xpap treatment, but friendly (and sometimes, not all that friendly) discussions about various topics. It's a great board and I hope you hang around.

OK. I can go along with that.
At least there are not 1,000+ postings about "the wedding".

[purple]

. . . why was the Federal Government budget in such good shape at the end of the Clinton administration, the period before the Bush tax cuts, compared to the start of 2009? Tax cuts helping to grow the economy is a red herring propagated by the super rich.

I think the years of the Clinton era were helped by the working mans tax cut, and the fact much of those years the baby boomers were at the height of their earning capability.

Tax cuts usually result in added investment, and investment usually helps grow an economy. Not true in the George W. years, because the fact many of our products were brought in from overseas. The investment was made in China and Asia. Another time added investment did not help was the stagflation during the Carter years. It was estimated that manufacturing was averaging 80 percent and added investment did result in more sales, or cheaper prices, if anyone wanted to invest their money that way.

The argument put forward today is if Tax Cuts for the rich resulted in more investment, thereby lower prices, as well as more jobs, then why did it not work during the George W. years?

IMO, Right observation, wrong reason. Seems like every few years repudiates all known economic theory. Then the application of economic theory by the Obama government does not seem to conform to any solid economic system.

[kempo]

The problem is the people in Washington spend way too much money. I promise you if each and every person in this country paid 90% of their income in taxes the politicians and bureaucrats would spend every penny of it and would be asking for more. Money is power and the people in Washington are addicted to power. Growing government is not the answer.

Cutting taxes does increase revenue but if you bring in twice as much revenue and spend three times as much, it ain't going to work.

JFK knew this. Ronald Reagan knew this. Both cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Raising taxes on people who create jobs is the worst thing you could do when trying to recover from a deep recession.

Private enterprise creates prosperity.

Just my 2 cents.