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.
Speaking of the Democratic Underground (from the OP), has anyone checked out that site tonight? I dropped in, I think a whole bunch of moonbats collectively crapped their pants as the election results came in. Good entertainment value if you're looking for it.
Hey, there's a thought. What fun it would be to go over there and poke the nest a little.
52% of Brown's 1.168.107 said it was primary based on health care. That means 607.415 voted for him based on health care.
63% of Coakley's 1.058.682 votes were also primarily based on health care. That means 666.969 voted for her based on health care.
If we go by those 1.274.384 health care-only votes, Brown would have had 47% and Coakley would have had 52% of the vote. Now, people voted for more than just healthcare.
Shocking, a Democrat blaming Republicans for their woes.
Yup. These nitwits had a supermajority for a year, shut Republicans out in the cold, and all they could manage was to drive this country deeper in debt. And then blame Republicans for their failures.
You Democrats need to stop blaming the GOP for your failures and get some adults in your party.
I know some Republicans who will accept that the economic downturn in this country, that one of the two wars we are fighting was needless and caused by their party, and that the same leaders they have now who are calling for fiscal responsiblity and government transperency, are the exact same leaders who doubled our national debt, held most congressional meetings behind closed doors, and dolled out "no bid" contracts to businesses that were closely alligned with their own interests.
However, you seem to not blame the Republican party at all. Democrats have a point. When Clinton left office, the economy wasn't great, but it sure as hell wasn't in the mess as when the present administration took office.
Read this closesly.
No President in history has ever lowered taxes during a time of war, save one, President George W. Bush.
That includes several other Republican Presidents.
Now the Dems aren't blameless. They went right along with the war in Iraq, and a lot of other stupid things they signed off on. The current congress and President aren't saints either, signing secret deals to try and get a healthcare bill passed, bailing out automakers who needed to declare bankruptcy, and several other things.
However, I will say that a lot of what they are doing, and spending, is here at home. Not to some over seas conglomerate of war profiteers.
So before you start the "typical Dems blaming Repubs" for everything, look at your party real hard in the mirror. The same idiots who are leading you down the primrose path now, are the same idiots who allowed it to happen for the last 8 years to.
When we all take a moment, to step back, and look at whats best for our country, then things will get better. When we cooperate, things get better. When we learn from the past, things get better. But the man behind the elephant curtain, is still the same bunch of morons there were before. Maybe its time for a New Republican party. One thats truly conservative, and who chooses to work with the current President. Instead of being the party of "no"
First of all the Dems have such large majorities in both House and Senate they don't need the Republicans. And Obama made that clear early on in his administration when he invited leaders of both parties to the White House and when the Republicans voiced concern about some of the agenda he was laying out his response was "Well, we won." In other words, you either get on board or shut up. So much for bipartisanship. Secondly, why should Republicans cooperate with a president determined to re-make America into a socialist republic? Obama is not Clinton. Remember, Clinton was a charter member of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). It was the aim of that organization to move the Democrat Party back toward the center of the ideological spectrum and out from the grip of the McGovernites who had ensured the Republican ascendancy since 1972. By contrast Obama is firmly committed to the socialist ideals that McGovern and his supporters (many of whom are currently in positions of power in the Democrat Party today) espoused in the early 70's. Obama was elected only by downplaying the radicalism of his agenda. Republicans could work with Clinton in a way they can't with Obama because of the wider gulf that exists between their competing political philosophies. So if the Republicans (and, increasingly, independents) are the party of 'No!' there's a good reason for it.
By contrast Obama is firmly committed to the socialist ideals that McGovern and his supporters (many of whom are currently in positions of power in the Democrat Party today) espoused in the early 70's. Obama was elected only by downplaying the radicalism of his agenda. Republicans could work with Clinton in a way they can't with Obama because of the wider gulf that exists between their competing political philosophies. So if the Republicans (and, increasingly, independents) are the party of 'No!' there's a good reason for it.
Well said. Obama needs a Dick Morris type to help him out of the woods. But I've heard Morris say the difference between Obama and Clinton was Clinton was always a moderate, whereas Obama is hard core left. I don't know if Obama wants to come out of the socialist forest.
Did you notice that revenues to the Treasury were UP due to those tax cuts, which brought the deficit DOWN?
You also have to remember that the Bush tax cuts were across the board, and not only for the rich. Lower income tax payers got a far bigger percentage reduction (both reduction in rate, and an increase in the amount earned before taxes were due) than the wealthy did. But the fact that the wealthy benefitted, even though it increased tax receipts, makes these cuts evil in the eyes of the left.
Buddy, where have you been for the last 2 or 3 years?
Remember which President was at the helm when the Poo hit the fan? It wasn't the guy who is in there now.
The last President said it was patriotic to "shop". Usually when we are at war, Americans are asked to buckle down, pay for the war up front, instead of putting it on the Chinese credit card.
It's true, whether you want to believe it or not. I would say that 52 consecutive months and an unemployment rate as low as 4.5% and a strong GDP growth meant that the economy was helped due to the tax cuts. As for who was at the helm, the mortgage mess was the main cause of the falling economy... read up about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for that.
Quote:
increased government revenue my butt.
Again, you may not want to accept it (and it appears you don't) but government revenue did increase after the Bush tax cuts, just like it did after the Reagan tax cuts.
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.
