Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree this is bigger then party and that the "Occupy / 99% percent" movement is growing - pretty quickly. You can see a thread like this in many many forums across CD now. I don't doubt that this movement will overtake the Baggers before Nov 2012 in raw numbers.
But sadly, it's not the "99% vs the casino" - yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yzette
Point taken.
Not for nothing, for what it's worth, not that my opinion matters, etc., but I do like the way 99% of the people here are discussing things, no pun intended. Some very well thought-out posts here. 'Tis a good read.
Walter can only snap back with one liners and the occasional random useless statistic attacking Obama. You see the last few pages are arguing about which POTUS "created more debt". To me that is missing the forest for the trees. Arguing which POTUS is more to blame is like standing over a car wreck doing CSI work while people lay hurt all around you. Assigning blame becomes more important then helping?! Seriously?
Latest news from the GOP... Tea Party Express still hasn't selected a candidate to support, BUT they have decided to use funds to work against Romney. Brilliant!
First, I appreciate your points and AM somewhat dismayed at what the tea party has become relative to libertarian, republican, etc. ideals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverChessies
I already said: ".....neither party was spending responsibly. But, when it comes time to vote which of the two parties comes closer to the potential of spending less and smaller government: Republican party." We are talking about a "better chance" of meeting the goal of less spending and smaller government. Since Republican party values are 'conservative' by nature, socially and financially, and Democratic party values are 'liberal' by nature, socially and financially, then which would you vote for if you felt the best thing for the country was to reduce spending and size of government? The conservatives.
If you can't see that the Republican party offers Tea Party members a better chance at less spending and smaller government then here I will provide you with what you ask for when you say in your post: "yet I asked for proof of WHEN in the last 40 years they have done that."
Here is your proof in concrete numbers: Let's look at the National Debt!
When Bush entered office the National Debt was approximately 6 Trillion. When he left, it was approximately 10 Trillion. The Republicans overspent to the tune of 4 Trillion in 8 years. (yes that sounds pretty bad, but just wait to see what's coming.......)
When Obama came into office the National Debt was approximately 10 Trillion. It is now over 14 Trillion. The Democrats overspent to the tune of 4 Trillion in 2 ½ years!
See the difference, Republicans overspent an average of ½ Trillion per year. The Democrats overspent an average of 2 Trillion a year.
You asked for an example of the Republican party spending less, there it is.
This is why Tea Party members tend to vote Republican: Better chance to meet the goal of less spending and smaller government.
I see your point but it completely assumes the financial meltdown of 2008-2009 did not happen. Obama was somewhat pressured (and Bush already had the ball rolling) to get us out of a NEGATIVE 3.8% growth spiral. Depression numbers. We spent our way out of a depression. I don't agree with it. it certainly doesn't speak well of the Repubs fiscal management or fiscal "conservatism." It doesn't defend the point. My point is that the repubs TALK a good game and seem to have everyone believing that they are the fiscal conservatives, but recent administrations have proven otherwise. Lowering taxes in and of itself does not drive the economy and when it does debt spirals. Back to the Reagan "prosperity" points of earlier posts. The truth is NEITHER of the two parties are fiscally prudent. They both explode govt and spend like drunken sailors. They just spend on different things. Many tea partiers would be displeased at some of those details. That is why I don't like the knee jerk "Repubs are closer in ideals". Who's to say what Republican or Dem ideals are anymore except to battle for power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverChessies
Not sure if I would agree with your assessment that Tea Party members started as Libertarians. Yes, one can make the argument that the party developed around Ron Paul but Ron Paul is a Republican. Yes, his ideas are very Libertarian and he was a Libertarian for maybe a decade of his career, but even he realized that he had to go back to the Republican ticket to get anywhere because Libertarian ideals were as you said “not palatable to the populous”.
Seems like you are a Libertarian who is just angry that Tea Party members are associating more with the Republican party instead of the Libertarian party. However, when you look at it objectively then it makes sense because Libertarian ideals aim for almost no regulation, spending, government etc, all of which is generally too extreme for most people. The Republican party ideals are less extreme, it’s that simple and really nothing worth getting upset about.
Ron Paul became a chump for not running as an independent. He TOOK MONEY from people as an INDIE/Libertarian then jumped in the ring as a Repub most likely to protect his congressional seat. Why he's doing it this time is because that's where the money is and with Rand and the like getting in as republicans it seems a plausible time. He has become the Ralph Nader of libertarian/conservative politics.
I would simply like to see a valid 3rd party. If it's the Tea Party, fantastic. However, that potential was usurped by BIG MONEY REPUBLICANS and the movement was stolen. The Tea Party didn't "associate" with republicans. It was BOUGHT. Do you really feel the current "tea party" leadership represents a significant piece of the electorate? I wish it did. It has been stolen. I'm not upset about it EXCEPT I think it's another ploy by one of the big 2 to squash a 3rd party. It worked. Dems do the same. The fringe gets a voice thanks to the Roves, Kochs, and Soros' while the moderates hold BBQ's to scrape together a few bucks. In this case, I think Rove and Boehner are not thrilled with their purchase. It created a bit of a monster.
Was that because of Clinton or because of a Republican Congress?
It was because Clinton and Newt could work together in the country's best interest which included raising some taxes and lowering others. A common sense principle lost on the current congress.
people should realize that all politicians pretty much stink at this free market economy business. Focus on the next election, forget party, and get a good solid businessman in office, accompanied by a great foreign affairs VP!
You make some good points here especially with lowering payroll taxes...On both ends for employers & employees. Obama finally figured out to do this with his proposed 3% cut in Social Security taxes (6% total) for next year. No question, republicans are against this because it does not benefit the rich. This will definitely give a boost to the economy.
Food stamps: $1.73
Extend unemployment benefits: $1.64
Infrastructure spending: $1.59
Aid to states: $1.36
In contrast:
Make dividend and capital
gains tax cuts permanent: $0.37
Corporate tax cuts: $0.30
Make Bush tax cuts permanent: $0.29
Turns out, the closer you get to direct handouts to the poor, the more stimulative effect it has. The reason for this is logical - poor people turn around and spend that money, infusing it directly into the economy, while wealthy people save it, or invest it, which is not as stimulative (especially now, when we do not have liquidity crisis - the rich and corporations have money, they're just not spending it).
Quote:
On your second paragraph, why is it a bad thing to increase worker productivity? This is the type of thinking that got the USPS in trouble. You have to constantly adapt to new technology or someone else will, even on the other side of the world -- and they'll out-produce you into bankruptcy (think GM, Kodak). Besides, these capital investments always create new jobs and require new fields to produce these technologies. Sheesh, in your world advancements like the telephone would have been looked down upon and we'd still be using Pony Express!
It's not inherently bad, except of course when companies cut more and more employees, dumping their work on the fewer that are left and not compensating them for the extra work. In labor terms this is called a speedup, and unions traditionally were a safeguard against management taking advantage of workers in this way.
The USPS "got in trouble" because Congress forced them to sock away tens of billions to fully fund their pension obligations. No other government agency, or indeed private company, has such an obligation. There are some who would say this was done specifically to screw the USPS in favor of private carriers who make nice campaign donations. YMMV on that particular conspiracy theory.
See, much of the misunderstanding about economics comes from three decades of buying into supply-side nonsense (what George HW Bush called "voodoo economics"). The reason supply-side doesn't work is because what drives companies to expand is more demand for their services, not cutting their taxes. If you cut a company's taxes, they don't just go hire new workers with the savings, they either pocket it or pay it out to executives/stockholders. For example, if XYZ Widgets is selling 100 widgets a year, they will only employ enough workers to produce 100 widgets. Giving the company money (in the form of tax breaks etc.) won't cause them to hire more workers, since they'd still be selling the same amount of widgets.
Companies hire new workers when they need to produce more in reponse to demand. If you stimulate the economy generally, EG by lowering taxes on the poor and/or giving them money, they turn around and spend that money on goods and services, which results in companies hiring more workers to produce more goods and services.
Quote:
When it comes down to it, people don't really want jobs. I mean, who wants to work? I could see a future where 75% of the jobs today are handled by computers or machines. You just have to adapt.
We see eye-to-eye on the demand vs supply side issue. At this point a lot of the tax cuts meant to stimulate our economy are being invested in gold and even international companies. We have plenty of liquidity when it comes to investment capital. Case closed on that.
I wonder though why that accuracy report did not crunch the numbers on a Social Security/MCare tax cut? I bet it would fall right in between "state aid" and Infrastructure spending.
USPS does have the pre-funding issue and I'd buy the conspiracy that competitors want them disabled. But remember they have a monopoly on mail boxes and revenue has still slid dramatically the last 5 years; and they can't find new ways to make money without raising prices.
This should be read over and over today by the losers down at Sewer Park
"Born out of wedlock, put up for adoption, dropped out of college after several months, then changed the world -- What's your excuse?"
Jobs was a product of the California Haight Asbury Hippie unwashed crowd - you know, the exact label you like to throw in one direction when it fits your argument and now try to use it the other way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
