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.
Ah, the invisible confidence fairy. In the real world, investors voice nervousness about the future by demanding higher rates, which is not happening.
No, Republicans are interested in spending cuts because they were against the social safety net from the beginning (remember Bush wanted to privatize Social Security as soon as he won re-elected?) and this is a convenient excuse to inflict cuts. If they were so interested in the budget they wouldn't insist that tax increases are off the table. A problem can't be so dire that it requires pain for the middle class programs but not so dire that we can't ask the well to do to chip in. it's just phony.
You still haven't figured out that if you get your way you take money out of the economy, you drop GDP and you make every program funded by taxes that much more insolvent.
Just yesterday you were calling me crazy for my thought process unwilling to even debate. Now you're forced to at least pay some attention because your federal government is repeating ad nauseum the same exact thing as I am and they've been doing it for decades on end.
LOl, you do have a vivid imagination. The republicans controlled the all the levers of government for 6 years, so what did they do? The expanded Medicare a program you suggest they hate. Kinda demolishes your argument.
The Bush deficits were kid stuff compared to the enormous deficits Obama has saddled us with.
Kid stuff? The last year Bush was in office, the deficit was $1.42 trillion dollars. In total, Bush's contribution to the debt was between $5 trillion and $6 trillion. That's not kid stuff.
While Republicans did pass Medicare Part D, that program helped corporations as much as seniors. That's the law that prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug costs.
But your main argument is that Republicans don't want to undo New Deal programs. That's just not true. Let's review history: Social Security: Passed the House 372-33, with 81 Republicans voting in support. The bill was passed in the Senate 77-6, with 16 Republicans in support.
Medicare: Passed the House 307-116, with 70 Republicans voting in support. The bill was passed in the Senate 70-24, with 13 Republicans in support.
The Republican-controlled Congress shutdown the government in 1995 over funding for Medicare, education, the environment and public health.
After his 2004 re-election, President George W. Bush called for a transition to a privatized system.
The Ryan Plan calls for cutting upper-income tax-rates from 35% to 25% and then replaces Medicare with a voucher system that is too stingy to pay for health insurance.
There is ample historical evidence of Republican hostility to New Deal and Great Society programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
1) Obama gave the corporate jet discount and he also extended the bush tax cuts. there is hypocrisy on both sides.
2) i think you might agree that there are government programs that do need to be dismantled as they are either duplicate programs or wasteful programs.
3) i also think that government workers should NOT be allowed to retire after 20 years because they suck even more money out of the system faster, and can get another job and double dip. (which should be outlawed when we have a job shortage-talk about greedy!)
1) What Obama did was capitulate to Republicans. If you can remember back to December, Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits and Republicans held that measure hostage, which in the past has always passed with bipartisan support, in order to get the upper-income tax-cuts extended.
2) We're not talking about some obscure program, I'm talking about major popular programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. There really isn't any sizable wasteful programs that would make meaningful reductions to the deficit.
3) Federal workers have a retirement plan similar to other plans. One must work for a number of years to be vested and also attain a certain age. I don't know the details but I'm sure a worker who started at 20 can't retire when they are 40. Usually, the minimum retirement age is 62. I don't see an issue with a 62 year old retiree accepting another job. People in the private sector do that all the time.
I have a colleague who formerly worked for IBM and receives a pension (he's over 65) and still is allowed to work and collect.
I don't think we should require people who can contribute positively to the economy, to be idle.
You still haven't figured out that if you get your way you take money out of the economy, you drop GDP and you make every program funded by taxes that much more insolvent.
Just yesterday you were calling me crazy for my thought process unwilling to even debate. Now you're forced to at least pay some attention because your federal government is repeating ad nauseum the same exact thing as I am and they've been doing it for decades on end.
Taxing high income earners, who have mainly saved under the previous Admin., in a time when borrowing is at historical lows, doesn't hurt the economy (e.g. drop GDP) either at all or not as much as cutting spending.
Trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn't put the economy on sounder footing. It would reduce growth and raise unemployment.
Kid stuff? The last year Bush was in office, the deficit was $1.42 trillion dollars. In total, Bush's contribution to the debt was between $5 trillion and $6 trillion. That's not kid stuff.
While Republicans did pass Medicare Part D, that program helped corporations as much as seniors. That's the law that prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug costs.
But your main argument is that Republicans don't want to undo New Deal programs. That's just not true. Let's review history: Social Security: Passed the House 372-33, with 81 Republicans voting in support. The bill was passed in the Senate 77-6, with 16 Republicans in support.
Medicare: Passed the House 307-116, with 70 Republicans voting in support. The bill was passed in the Senate 70-24, with 13 Republicans in support.
The Republican-controlled Congress shutdown the government in 1995 over funding for Medicare, education, the environment and public health.
After his 2004 re-election, President George W. Bush called for a transition to a privatized system.
The Ryan Plan calls for cutting upper-income tax-rates from 35% to 25% and then replaces Medicare with a voucher system that is too stingy to pay for health insurance.
There is ample historical evidence of Republican hostility to New Deal and Great Society programs.
1) What Obama did was capitulate to Republicans. If you can remember back to December, Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits and Republicans held that measure hostage, which in the past has always passed with bipartisan support, in order to get the upper-income tax-cuts extended.
2) We're not talking about some obscure program, I'm talking about major popular programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. There really isn't any sizable wasteful programs that would make meaningful reductions to the deficit.
3) Federal workers have a retirement plan similar to other plans. One must work for a number of years to be vested and also attain a certain age. I don't know the details but I'm sure a worker who started at 20 can't retire when they are 40. Usually, the minimum retirement age is 62. I don't see an issue with a 62 year old retiree accepting another job. People in the private sector do that all the time.
I have a colleague who formerly worked for IBM and receives a pension (he's over 65) and still is allowed to work and collect.
I don't think we should require people who can contribute positively to the economy, to be idle.
Very well thought out and researched posting, thanks....for those of us who are stuck with just average intelligence and education and just count on our interest and good common sense to respond. Love you smarti-pants.
You need to educate yourself a little better about the Roosevelt administration and the economic affects which happened due to his policies. Like a DECADE of 10%+ unemployment rates.. You are impressed by 10%+ unemployment? I'm not.
The idea that a government/private sector partnership would only be a win-win proposal if we kept politics out of the equation. Politics have ruined our country. We are not playing a football game. We can't just continue to pick a side and try and kill each other over every play we make! We can argue which admin had this and that economic situation and the other side can always give a dozen reasons why that happened and how it wouldn't have happened in "their" watch. Our country is being murdered and polarized politics is the murder weapon....it has to stop.
But, back to the point. Don't you think that the grand affect of all those WPA style programs were: that wonderful dams, bridges, hwys, parks etc. got built and people went back to work. Overnight, I doubt it...but it happened, and we got a world class infrastructure out of the deal.
I thought this idea (although, I didn't explain it like the author did-I cannot remember his name for the life of me...but he is a world commentator/journalist on tv of middle east descent...I think its Farouk something but could be wrong) would seem a perfect way to bring jobs to the country quickly. As soon as someone has a job (in the working classes) the money goes immediatly out into the economy. Unlike when the wealthy get more wealth they simply save it. Anyway, just an opinion, I thought was very interesting.
Very well thought out and researched posting, thanks....for those of us who are stuck with just average intelligence and education and just count on our interest and good common sense to respond. Love you smarti-pants.
I rarely get thanks and want you to know that it's appreciated.
I strive to base my opinions upon facts and evidence. Saying that, do not denigrate your abilities. While I've got better-than-most education, intelligence is a subjective trait. My dad was far more intelligent than I and he never graduated HS.
Most of what is lacking today in many is the inability to 'crap detect' -- the inability to hear a position and distinguish facts from opinion. With the Internet, it's now easy to take a statement and compare it to recent statements or fact-check the statement.
Last year, Mitt Romney said that Obama's policies made the economy worse. Now, he denies he said it, even though we have the video footage.
I rarely get thanks and want you to know that it's appreciated.
I strive to base my opinions upon facts and evidence. Saying that, do not denigrate your abilities. While I've got better-than-most education, intelligence is a subjective trait. My dad was far more intelligent than I and he never graduated HS.
Most of what is lacking today in many is the inability to 'crap detect' -- the inability to hear a position and distinguish facts from opinion. With the Internet, it's now easy to take a statement and compare it to recent statements or fact-check the statement.
Last year, Mitt Romney said that Obama's policies made the economy worse. Now, he denies he said it, even though we have the video footage.
thanks,I'll keep learning from you and those all those other smarti-pants on these posts. But I do have to say some things just don't pass the old "smell test". But there are some brilliant posters on this thread and others (of both sides of the aisle-even when I don't agree)
The inability of anyone to force China to let their currency float is the bigger problem. Other than that, it is just a matter of time to let the economy fix itself. The real estate market, for instance, will take time to stabilize while the glut of foreclosures sorts itself out.
You need to educate yourself a little better about the Roosevelt administration and the economic affects which happened due to his policies. Like a DECADE of 10%+ unemployment rates. You are impressed by 10%+ unemployment? I'm not.
You've got to be joking. Unemployment went from ~3% to 25% and GDP fell 40% within four years, after the crash and you fault FDR for not fixing it overnight.
I find it unimaginable how the revisionists can so easily deny the economic accomplishments of FDR. He came into office at a time when; the GDP had been cut in half during the Hoover Administration; unemployment had reached 25%; banks were failing because people couldn't pay their loan; there was deflation, etc. Immediately, the new President declared a bank holiday and calmed the markets. FDR called Congress into special session on March 9, 1933, determined to put his economic plan into action. What ensued was called "The Hundred Days," a flurry of legislative accomplishment unprecedented in American history, including bank regulations that would prevent similar catastrophe in the future. The Congress passed his legislation in 38 minutes (unlike the threats of filibuster that Obama faced.)
As a result, unemployment decreased and GDP rose up until the Republicans convinced him to reverse course, in 1937. The next year, he resumed the original course and the economy improved again.
The evidence couldn't be clearer that FDR's performance was stellar (and Keynesian economics was proven) but the blind partisans cannot accept that, because it would undermine their ideology that believes that the government can do no good. So, faced with the choice between changing their ideology in view of facts and evidence or keeping their ideology, they choose to dismiss overwhelming evidence and maintain their ideology.
Kid stuff? The last year Bush was in office, the deficit was $1.42 trillion dollars. In total, Bush's contribution to the debt was between $5 trillion and $6 trillion. That's not kid stuff.
You're kidding right? Compared to Obama it sure is kid stuff.
"As for the deficit, CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history"
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
While Republicans did pass Medicare Part D, that program helped corporations as much as seniors. That's the law that prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug costs.
Pointing out what you perceive to be a flaw in the largest expansion of an entitlement program in history kinda under cuts your argument that Republicans hate Medicare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
But your main argument is that Republicans don't want to undo New Deal programs. That's just not true. Let's review history: Social Security: Passed the House 372-33, with 81 Republicans voting in support. The bill was passed in the Senate 77-6, with 16 Republicans in support.
Medicare: Passed the House 307-116, with 70 Republicans voting in support. The bill was passed in the Senate 70-24, with 13 Republicans in support.
The Republican-controlled Congress shutdown the government in 1995 over funding for Medicare, education, the environment and public health.
After his 2004 re-election, President George W. Bush called for a transition to a privatized system.
The Ryan Plan calls for cutting upper-income tax-rates from 35% to 25% and then replaces Medicare with a voucher system that is too stingy to pay for health insurance.
There is ample historical evidence of Republican hostility to New Deal and Great Society programs.
The Left is turning into the new reactionaries. Any deviation from the status quo will be met with hysteria. Of course our current entitlement programs are unsustainable and will require radical change. If the Dems do not wish to hop on board and help shape the future, they will get run over by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
What Obama did was capitulate to Republicans. If you can remember back to December, Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits and Republicans held that measure hostage, which in the past has always passed with bipartisan support, in order to get the upper-income tax-cuts extended.
2) We're not talking about some obscure program, I'm talking about major popular programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. There really isn't any sizable wasteful programs that would make meaningful reductions to the deficit.
3) Federal workers have a retirement plan similar to other plans. One must work for a number of years to be vested and also attain a certain age. I don't know the details but I'm sure a worker who started at 20 can't retire when they are 40. Usually, the minimum retirement age is 62. I don't see an issue with a 62 year old retiree accepting another job. People in the private sector do that all the time.
I have a colleague who formerly worked for IBM and receives a pension (he's over 65) and still is allowed to work and collect.
I don't think we should require people who can contribute positively to the economy, to be idle.
And I have no idea what this ramble is in response to.
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.
wow,
