Democrats don't understand the economy and hence 9% unemployment. (Pelosi, polls, soldiers)
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.
Our economy isn't in the tank because of the keystone pipeline or EPA regulations.
Our economy is out of whack because we've been in perpetual war since 1941, either in a cold war or a military action approved by the UN, or by ourselves.
To pay for our perpetual war, and the explosion of the military industrial complex, we've gone into debt.
The percentage of those paying into social security vs. that of who was drawing it was almost 10 to 1. Now its down to about 3 to 1 and soon it'll be 2 to 1. Same thing with medicare. It was fine when more people were paying in then were drawing.
But our military spending has increased all of that time, for no real reason. I will excuse the spending from 1941 to 1986 or so.
But the Military budget has more then doubled from 2001 until today. We are fighting idiots in the desert that blow themselves up to kill you, and we doubled what was already the worlds largest military and over twice as big as its nearest possible competitor.
Thats why our debts out of country, military out of control spending, and both parties are to blame, so this isn't a partisan post.
But Democrats are saying they'll protect social security and medicare, something that 70% of Americans want, and its fiscally possible to do that, no problem. We can cover everyones healthcare if we really wanted to, and we could handle the financial hit. We can assure that Americans over the age of 70 are going to have money in their retirement years, at least enough to keep the lights on and food in their belly.
Those things we can do, but the Democrats problem is that they want to do that, while increasing military spending. Even Obamas "cuts" are just cuts in increases, the military budget is still going to grow from year to year.
Most of the Republicans are off their rockers because they not only want to end social security and medicare, but they want to keep increasing the military spending.
Neither party represents what Americans really want.
You can blame military spending but your Obama and Pelosi have not created jobs for those in the military if military cuts are to be made.
Or what would you have done with all those military families when they're tossed out and have no hope to get a job?
Keep in mind, Obama's unemployment rates would be much worse if all those people in their twenties weren't still going to college and those who joined the military were looking for civilian jobs instead.
Since when do Republicans want to grow the private sector. They had 12 years to do it with Bush in charge, they have had the last 2years to do it with Obama in Charge. they haven't passed or even helped pass a single solitary solutution to the unemployment issue. But they have obstructed many opportunities.
where do you get your number from? bush was in office for 8 years, and during that time the unemployment rate was around 5%. as for the last two years, again where are you getting your information from? the house was taken back in the 2010 elections. that doesnt mean that the republicans took power right then since the new congress was not installed until jan 6 2011, which means that the republicans have controlled the house for ONE year. during that time they have produced several bills that are languishing in the senate because harry reid refuses to bring them to the senate floor for debate and a vote.
in the end however government DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. the private sector does. and until we get government regulation under control, the private sector is not going hire people if they can avoid it. we need some certainty in the regulations and taxes that businesses face before they start to hire people in earnest.
You can blame military spending but your Obama and Pelosi have not created jobs for those in the military if military cuts are to be made.
Or what would you have done with all those military families when they're tossed out and have no hope to get a job?
Keep in mind, Obama's unemployment rates would be much worse if all those people in their twenties weren't still going to college and those who joined the military were looking for civilian jobs instead.
Would it be ok with you to keep them in the military as a career choice? Do you mind that much government paydays. Perhaps move them into a civil service job? Of course if you are left leaning, that would work for you. If you are right leaning than you will be against it cause it would be "welfare". I have no problem keeping a strong military with career folks ready and waiting and collecting their military paychecks and getting their military perks. We couldn't keep as many, but we could still stay strong and ready. The rest should have benefits until they transition.
where do you get your number from? bush was in office for 8 years, and during that time the unemployment rate was around 5%. as for the last two years, again where are you getting your information from? the house was taken back in the 2010 elections. that doesnt mean that the republicans took power right then since the new congress was not installed until jan 6 2011, which means that the republicans have controlled the house for ONE year. during that time they have produced several bills that are languishing in the senate because harry reid refuses to bring them to the senate floor for debate and a vote.
in the end however government DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. the private sector does. and until we get government regulation under control, the private sector is not going hire people if they can avoid it. we need some certainty in the regulations and taxes that businesses face before they start to hire people in earnest.
Bush was in office for 8 but Republicans held congress for 12. Republicans took power through obstructionism prior to them actually taking control and they have obstructed EVERYTHING since then. The reason Harry won't bring something to the floor for debate/vote is due to the unnecessary riders put on very simple bills. He should stop them.
Our economy isn't in the tank because of the keystone pipeline or EPA regulations.
Our economy is out of whack because we've been in perpetual war since 1941, either in a cold war or a military action approved by the UN, or by ourselves.
To pay for our perpetual war, and the explosion of the military industrial complex, we've gone into debt.
The percentage of those paying into social security vs. that of who was drawing it was almost 10 to 1. Now its down to about 3 to 1 and soon it'll be 2 to 1. Same thing with medicare. It was fine when more people were paying in then were drawing.
But our military spending has increased all of that time, for no real reason. I will excuse the spending from 1941 to 1986 or so.
But the Military budget has more then doubled from 2001 until today. We are fighting idiots in the desert that blow themselves up to kill you, and we doubled what was already the worlds largest military and over twice as big as its nearest possible competitor.
Thats why our debts out of country, military out of control spending, and both parties are to blame, so this isn't a partisan post.
But Democrats are saying they'll protect social security and medicare, something that 70% of Americans want, and its fiscally possible to do that, no problem. We can cover everyones healthcare if we really wanted to, and we could handle the financial hit. We can assure that Americans over the age of 70 are going to have money in their retirement years, at least enough to keep the lights on and food in their belly.
Those things we can do, but the Democrats problem is that they want to do that, while increasing military spending. Even Obamas "cuts" are just cuts in increases, the military budget is still going to grow from year to year.
Most of the Republicans are off their rockers because they not only want to end social security and medicare, but they want to keep increasing the military spending.
Neither party represents what Americans really want.
Republicans grow things for rent seeking like grabbing minerals, water rights, monopolistic consolidation, real estate and financial and legal services which has nothing to do with the productive goods and services economy. Complex tax codes to avoid paying taxes on do nothing speculative, asset inflating ponzi investments adding pen ready, social welfare projects for tax accountants and lawyers.
Hypocritical, anti-business Republicans are nothing but the old Royalists.
That is why we have become a Republican rentier state and democratic welfare state. As usual every Republican and Democrat have been working hard together to destroy our country in their respective efforts of do nothing economics.
Being you claim to know so much, how about sharing with us the data on how many new tax laws have been passed in say the past 50 years? Who submitted them. Who voted for them. And tell us exactly what the tax code applies to and why YOU don't like it.
Since when do Republicans want to grow the private sector. They had 12 years to do it with Bush in charge, they have had the last 2years to do it with Obama in Charge. they haven't passed or even helped pass a single solitary solutution to the unemployment issue. But they have obstructed many opportunities.
I know I am not too smart so please explain your numbers.
Bush was only in office for 8 years, so how could he have been in charge for 12?
The repubs did NOT have control for all of Bush's 8 years.
"they have had the last 2years to do it with Obama in Charge."
The last I checked the dems had control for the first 2 years when Obama was elected. In 2010 they took control of the House with the Senate and the White House under control of the dems. With only 1/3 of the equation, how do they have "control"?
How is this a Democratic issue? Did you read the article? Let me copy and paste the relevant information for you.
"Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas."
I'd be curious what the environmental costs of NOT reducing the sulfur content are. Is that less then the cost of reducing it at the front end?
The dems have to make it an issue dem issue because they control the Senate. They decide what they work on and don't work on, like the 290 bills the HOUSE HAS PASSED AND REFUSE TO ACT ON AT ALL.
If Ole Harry doesn't want to take action, nothing will happen.
And notice he starts with Bush's high but, doesn't mention Bush's low. And he somehow forgot Obama's highs.
Like trying to compare apples and oranges.
The question is now, how bad do you have to screw up to keep unemployment above 8% for three years?
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.
