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.
The jury is still out for the {R}s IMO,under Clinton they had some success with the contract with America and budget surplus.They also had some failures to bending to Clinton's wishes and spending more then they wanted to.They never should have blinked during the gvt shut down but they worried about the peoples perception would be and protected their seats.
Then during Bush there was absolutely nothing conservative about Bush/Cheney or the {R}s except of course your counting war.It did not hurt my feeling one bit that they were tossed.Now it is easy to be the minority and act all conservative again knowing dam well that nothing you try to do will see the light of day.
It will be interesting to see if the {R}s regain the House where the spending bills are written just how consecrative they will be.There bills and actions will see the light of day,lets take EU beni's the {R}s are standing firm but if they were the majority would they still stand firm.Wonder if their is a WSJ/ABC poll that 62% of the people want UE beni's to be extended up to 122 weeks?
Well history has a way of repeating itself,will they blink for Obama like they did for Clinton?Yep it is way to easy for the {R}s and there followers to talk big time conservative BS when it does not matter lets see what takes place when they are the majority.
^ This guy said pretty much everything I've wanted to say only better than I could say it.
When it was GOP pet projects that benefited the wealthy, it was spend ahoy! Now that we need to spend to help get Americans back to work, it's cut the deficit. Insane!
Unemployment benefits do not help Americans get back to work....it helps them pay their bills while they're out of work....it doesn't create jobs nor does it give an incentive to consider what would normally be a lower paying job that would no longer allow you to be elligible to receive unemployment benefits.
If spending worked. we wouldnt need to worry about deficits.because all we would have to do is spend ourselves out of a recession. how stupid that sounds.the government can not spend us out of a recession, only the people can do this, because when they spend wealth is created.when government spends wealth is destroy
Tell that to Ronald Reagan. Or maybe you weren't around in the '80s. Here's what happened. . .
"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery. From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984. Nearly two million people left the unemployment rolls. Inflation fell from 10.3% in 1981 to 3.2% in 1983. Corporate earnings rose by 29% in the July-September quarter of 1983, compared with the same period in 1982. Some of the most dramatic improvements came in industries hardest hit by the recession, such as paper and forest products, rubber, airlines, and the auto industry.
By November 1984, voter anger at the recession evaporated and Reagan's re-election was not in doubt. Reagan was subsequently re-elected by a landslide electoral and popular vote margin in the 1984 presidential election."
The tax cuts, for example eliminating the estate tax for people like Paris Hilton, were specifically designed so that the wealthy would have more money and that it would trickle down. I don't wanna start a debate of trickle down theory but that was the idea.
And rich people absolutely made a lot of money off of the wars through government contracts.
one thing you seem to forget is that it is the rich that create the jobs, and drive the economic engine. tax the rich too heavily and they put their money where to government cant get to it. when was the last time you got a job from a poor person? as for the estate taxes, these are essentially a double tax on money already taxed. remember that estates are taxed before they are divided up and given to the heirs. i agree though that the heirs should pay taxes on what they receive from an estate, but that should be done after the estate has been divided up, and they should be treated as a capital gains tax.
as for rich people making money from government contracts, well duh!! it happens regardless of who is in power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
You're not perplexed at all, so stop feigning innocence. There are times and circumstances where deficit spending is necessary, and even beneficial. This would be one of those times and circumstances.
this is not the time for deficit spending, especially at the level the current administration is at. the problem for us is that in the 1930's we were a creditor nation, and we built a vast infrastructure in the country. today we are a debtor nation, and the spending that is being done is wasteful at best, and is not being spent to improve the infrastructure but rather for all the liberal dream programs.
Quote:
Lying about the actual costs of an entitlement program in an attempt to win political points is decidedly not an appropriate time to engage in deficit spending. It serves no benefit to the country or its populace. It doesn't protect us from enemies from abroad. It doesn't stave off a recession or depression, and it certainly doesn't dig us out of one so deep that huge financial institutions and major manufacturers have literally gone bankrupt.
Priorities.
you mean lying about the actual cost of the health care law that was recently passed? the one where the democrats said it would cost less than $1 trillion over ten years, and be deficit neutral, but the reality is that it will cost more than $1 trillion, and it will add to the deficit? did you forget that the democrats pulled the so called doctor fix out of the health care bill? that fix is going to add $250 billion to the deficit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter
Not really, only 3 million jobs were created under the Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration created over 20 million.
And I wasn't saying they didn't create jobs. I am saying they substantially increased the deficit. We can't be choosy about when it's ok and when it's not ok to increase the deficit.
the deficits that the bush administration ran were not much higher than what the clinton administration ran. yes the bush administration doubled the debt in 8 years, so did the clinton administration. the problem is though that the obama administration has added $3 trillion to the debt in 1 1/2 years. and yet you complain that the bush administration was fiscally irresponsible? the clinton administration had the benefit of having interest rates cut for 24 straight months, and the assets from the savings and loan collapse bought during the reagan administration were paying off under the clinton administration. and then there was the tech bubble that also created revenue to the government. once that tech bubble burst, the economy started downhill again, and then the 9/11 attacks happened. had bush not acted like he did, that recession would have been far worse.
and dont forget that the bush administration tried to fix fannie and freddie to prevent the collapse of the housing bubble, but i was blocked by those evil republicans barney frank and chris dodd and barack obama, oh wait they were DEMOCRATS. and if the oil market had not been manipulated like it was in 2008, the housing bubble would have collapsed when obama was president, not bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter
The 1990s economy wasn't really about a bubble. It was about consistent combined low unemployment, low inflation, and a government surplus due to fiscal responsibility. Bush inherited a better economy than Clinton himself did.
actually the economy that bush inherited was about the same as the economy that clinton inherited. as for the unemployment numbers, they were lower under bush than under clinton, until 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reid_g
The jury is still out for the {R}s IMO,under Clinton they had some success with the contract with America and budget surplus.They also had some failures to bending to Clinton's wishes and spending more then they wanted to.They never should have blinked during the gvt shut down but they worried about the peoples perception would be and protected their seats.
Then during Bush there was absolutely nothing conservative about Bush/Cheney or the {R}s except of course your counting war.It did not hurt my feeling one bit that they were tossed.Now it is easy to be the minority and act all conservative again knowing dam well that nothing you try to do will see the light of day.
It will be interesting to see if the {R}s regain the House where the spending bills are written just how consecrative they will be.There bills and actions will see the light of day,lets take EU beni's the {R}s are standing firm but if they were the majority would they still stand firm.Wonder if their is a WSJ/ABC poll that 62% of the people want UE beni's to be extended up to 122 weeks?
Well history has a way of repeating itself,will they blink for Obama like they did for Clinton?Yep it is way to easy for the {R}s and there followers to talk big time conservative BS when it does not matter lets see what takes place when they are the majority.
well said. i too have reservations with putting republicans back in power in congress, but i think that congress will have a far more conservative look after the 2010 elections than it has had in many decades. i also think that regardless of who gets control of congress, there will be far more bipartisanship than there has been for decades as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
Tell that to Ronald Reagan. Or maybe you weren't around in the '80s. Here's what happened. . .
"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery. From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984. Nearly two million people left the unemployment rolls. Inflation fell from 10.3% in 1981 to 3.2% in 1983. Corporate earnings rose by 29% in the July-September quarter of 1983, compared with the same period in 1982. Some of the most dramatic improvements came in industries hardest hit by the recession, such as paper and forest products, rubber, airlines, and the auto industry.
By November 1984, voter anger at the recession evaporated and Reagan's re-election was not in doubt. Reagan was subsequently re-elected by a landslide electoral and popular vote margin in the 1984 presidential election."
dont forget that reagan also got taxes cut substantially as well. but the original deal he had with congress was to also cut government spending substantially, and on that part of the deal congress reneged.
the credit rating of the US is in question right now, and we are fast approaching the same borrowing wall that the european countries are now hitting, which is why they are cutting spending.
had obama made the right moves after he got into office, cutting spending, cutting taxes, cutting excessive regulations, this country would have bounced back from the financial meltdown we experienced in 2008, and the job market would be roaring back now. all you need do is look back in history to the forgotten depression to see what was done to make the 20's the roaring 20's. after WW l ended, this country fell into a depression that was actually worse than the great depression. when harding took over from wilson, he cut taxes substantially, and with in 18 months the economy was roaring back. the reason it collapsed in 1929 was the same reason it collapsed in 2008, excessively low interest rates, and easy credit, coupled with an overheating stock market, in 2008 an overheated oil commodities market. it was a perfect storm economically, and had hoover not done the things he did, the economy would also have come back in about 18-24 months, and his legacy would have been much different. the great depression wasnt world wide for as long as it lasted in this country.
we did it to ourselves, raising tariffs under hoover(bad idea), the raising taxes under FDR(again bad idea), and increasing regulations willy nilly.
^ This guy said pretty much everything I've wanted to say only better than I could say it.
When it was GOP pet projects that benefited the wealthy, it was spend ahoy! Now that we need to spend to help get Americans back to work, it's cut the deficit. Insane!
Enough is enough. People need their jobs back, not unemployment. We cannot keep paying for them. The GOP is not being mean, they are being truthful. BTW, I am unemployed, so I know what it is like, but I have to agree, with not extending the benefits.
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.
