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.
Really a blog? and this And if government spending had been allowed to grow as it had under Reagan, we would likely have returned to full employment by 2011. LMAO
So government spending is responsible for reducing employment. Lets see when has it done that? Not in the early 1920's when spending and taxes were reduced by 40 percent over 2 years time and unemployment went from 12 to under 4
Obama has spent more than any other president. (At least it's leveled off) Bush and Reagan were not conservatives. Plus the plan pushed by republicans wasn't any better. Just the hand picked winners changed.
"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."
I'm waiting for you to tell me how Clinton "balanced" the budget and grew revenues by giving out tax cuts like the capital gains falling from 28% to 20%..
You said its impossible..
I'm not having a discussion with "economists", I'm having one with YOU..
Obama is using and supports Trickle Down economics.
After Obama was elected in 2008, Bernanke announced that he would start QE trickle down economics...Obama then nominated Bernanke to another term who pledged to do more aggressive QE trickle down economics at his hearing. Obama has since nominated Yellen, a lady who believes in strong QE trickle down economics.
Obama may use words against trickle down economics, but Obama as per usual is highly disingenuous. Obama's actions support trickle down.
Say what you want but they did not openly say it BEFORE he even sat in the white House!
Not true, Democrats openly said that Bush would have to give in more, would be opposed, and etc BEFORE he was sworn in. It wasn't news because this behavior is normal and even more so after a controversial election. Obama is different in that he is treated with kid gloves. His lies and flip flops always have an excuse...like his shortcomings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
An obtuse quibble.
The clotures counted here are all instances where Republicans had indicated their intention to filibuster.
No. They count clotures. Anytime you ask for proof of record filibusters they show all clotures. Clotures are on the rise in large point because people want to get their sound byte in. The GOP has filibustered, but this is widely exaggerated.
I remember during the government shut down when the Senate voted to end it, there was overwhelming support in both parties - senators were talking too much to get their sound bytes in for the TV, internet, and etc...and they used cloture - I pointed it out at the time that it would be used as evidence of Obama filibusters, which count clotures and not flilibusters.
You are trying to compare apples to cars. Reagen was able to get the coperation from both parties in both Houses and they were at least cordial towards one another. This abomination to sanity that we have now were plotting to unsurp him BEFORE he even got into the Oval office and have been fighting against EVERYTHING that he has done ever since, even if it would help the country or not!
Which simply shows either that Regan was a better leader or better at selling his ideas, which worked so I'll assume they were good ideas. Perhaps the problem is that obummers ideas aren't good ideas. A "leader" who cannot get the cooperation of those he leads is not much of a leader and not much good to those he leads.
Even if the problem was everyone was out to get obummer as the libs like to insinuate, the problem is he's ineffective because he is unable to overcome the obstacles in front of him and that means he is not the man for the job. This job belonged to someone who could have gotten the cooperation of both parties not someone who couldn't. Unfortunately, it was given to obummer who lacked the clout, experience and ability to do the job at hand.
I don't know if Ron Paul advised Trickle Down policies, but it is possible to support some, but not all trickle down policies.
Obama generically criticizes all trickle down policies while enacting the largest trickle down policy ever - and his sheep applaud both.
Ron Paul for sure didn't and I don't think Reagan did. Trickle down is media driven. The idea was less taxes = less government involvement in the free market. Less crony capitalism.
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.
