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.
Doesn't the GOP Congress, that passed the bills to make those tax-cuts permanent, at least share in the blame?
Personally I blame Obama because he signed the law. I feel Obama did it to work with republicans, not get blamed for raising taxes, and to give regular Americans more money. But were those things worth adding $2.7 trillion dollars to our debt? I say hell no.
Clearly Obama took major steps to reverse income inequality, from raising billionaires tax rates, bringing high paying jobs back to America, and giving more money to regular Americans (but the republicans stopped him.)
Both the republicans and democrats were critical of Bush for his deficit spending, especially during his second term, which was when the democrats took over control of the purse strings. You can find quotes from both Sen. McCain and Rep. Pelosi trashing Bush for spending like a drunken sailor.
Sen. McCain is the only republican I ever heard complain about deficits, the rest of the republicans were saying "deficits don't matter."
Personally I blame Obama because he signed the law. I feel Obama did it to work with republicans, not get blamed for raising taxes, and to give regular Americans more money. But were those things worth adding $2.7 trillion dollars to our debt? I say hell no.
The ramifications of not signing the bill would have been millions of unemployed losing benefits during the severe economic downturn and during economic declines increasing debt isn't that important compared to getting the economy back to normal.
It sucks too many of our citizens are in debt and couldn't take advantage of the easy money to purchase a new car, refinance their mortgages, make new purchases, or start a business.
People forget there is monetary policy (the Fed) and fiscal policy (controlled by Congress's purse strings). We had the monetary policy of QE (aka cheap money), but didn't have a sufficient fiscal policy (stimulus) that would stimulate demand.... which would cause people to buy things...which would cause companies to expand. The stimulus saved a bunch of jobs by plugging states' debt, but it wasn't large enough to create much employment.
Do people not know about fiscal and monetary policy and how they work together?
It wasn't about the economy. It was about re establishing the lost riches of the upper crust. If it had been about the economy, as you note, things would have been done far differently.
Clearly Obama took major steps to reverse income inequality, from raising billionaires tax rates, bringing high paying jobs back to America, and giving more money to regular Americans (but the republicans stopped him.)
Great post! Unfortunately, it will be ignored by conservatives on this board. When, like conservatives, your goal is to obstruct government like an angry child because he wasn't picked for the varsity team, it makes things difficult. Despite this opposition, Obama was able to pass legislation regardless. I bet it pisses them off that their entire goal was to see him fail, but he still won the second election handily.
Great post! Unfortunately, it will be ignored by conservatives on this board. When, like conservatives, your goal is to obstruct government like an angry child because he wasn't picked for the varsity team, it makes things difficult. Despite this opposition, Obama was able to pass legislation regardless. I bet it pisses them off that their entire goal was to see him fail, but he still won the second election handily.
You have examples of Sanders trying to do something......Sanders who I plan on voting for and Sanders who voted against Bernanke after Obama renominated him and examples when nothing was being done.
For a proposal to extend all expiring tax cuts on individuals with incomes of less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000, the vote was 53-36.
This was just after the (D) had been trashed in the mid terms and as it shows, many weren't even showing up for the votes. The (R)'s had 41 Senators when this vote was taken.
The ramifications of not signing the bill would have been millions of unemployed losing benefits during the severe economic downturn and during economic declines increasing debt isn't that important compared to getting the economy back to normal.
High national debt is a MAJOR factor that causes the US dollar to lose value. After the Bush tax cuts lost revenues, Iraq/Afghanistan wars, ex.ex. the US dollar lost a lot of value.
And considering a weakened US dollar and things like loss of federal funding to states, the Bush tax cuts do nothing to help the economy. The Bush tax cuts are "supply side" tax cuts (the richest 1% of Americans received 52% of the Bush tax cuts, and the 20% of Americans making $36,000-$59,000 received 10% of the Bush tax cuts.)
But the tax cuts reduced federal revenues and cut federal funding to states. These federal cuts to states caused increased state taxes, higher state deficits, and a decline in the states financial stability. And when states lose federal funding schools decline, roads don't get repaired, government services decline, ex.ex. Impact of Bush Plan on State Revenues: CTJ Analysis
Is $540 a year worth our debt increasing by trillions of dollars, the US dollar loosing value, other countries abandoning the US dollar, states deficits increasing, higher state taxes, poorly funded schools, un-repaired roads, and the loss of state government services?
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.