Agreed. What I want is for republicans to be consistent in their message. When they say "Cut off welfare programs for the poor, and the poor will decide to stand on their own two feet", they don't seem to understand that the same theory applies even better to the rich. Cut off the artificial incentives to become rich; they're not needed.
I agree, it seems that neither party has a solution. We are paying almost a billion dollars per day in interest on the debt while the politicians scrap over who is worse at not providing a solution.
...........And if you want to talk about the biggest welfare program ever, how about cutting the military loose off the nanny state? If someone would just have the balls to do that, we'd have enough money to take care of our elderly, unemployed and handicapped, like other more caring countries do such as France for instance. Yup! Mitt will be real good for the wealthy! After all, they desrve yet another break.
There is, obviously, a need for a military, but I agree - it shouldn't comprise as large a share of our budget as it does.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I agree, it seems that neither party has a solution. We are paying almost a billion dollars per day in interest on the debt while the politicians scrap over who is worse at not providing a solution.
AGAIN, the democrats had a plan in progress under clinton, the republicans claimed a debt was GOOD for the country gave the huge tax cuts to the rich (that they also claimed would be self funding through increased revenue)
I will go by the track record and what the republicans left obama with was a disaster
AGAIN, the democrats had a plan in progress under clinton, the republicans claimed a debt was GOOD for the country gave the huge tax cuts to the rich (that they also claimed would be self funding through increased revenue)
I will go by the track record and what the republicans left obama with was a disaster
And Obama made it worse. However, the debt is due to spending rather than tax cuts.
And Obama made it worse. However, the debt is due to spending rather than tax cuts.
there is no getting through to you is there? as both statements you made do not reflect any historical accuracy. the projections had us severely reducing the debt pre bush tax cut and obama has reigned in a lot of spending, it has grown slower than under any of the republican presidents over the last few decades..... yes the numbers are higher as there is such a thing as inflation..........
there is no getting through to you is there? as both statements you made do not reflect any historical accuracy. the projections had us severely reducing the debt pre bush tax cut and obama has reigned in a lot of spending, it has grown slower than under any of the republican presidents over the last few decades..... yes the numbers are higher as there is such a thing as inflation..........
Eddie has been given plenty of opportunity to learn the realities of debts and deficits, and demonstrated no intentions of ever coming to the table to actually discussing them. He's never offered any sort of suggestion on how to "fix" the "problems" he thinks he sees, he's only interested in repeating the mantras "Debt = Bad".
I've tried to engage Eddie on these issues for months; he's demonstrated time and time again that he's completely unwilling to discuss the issue beyond "Debt = Bad".
He doesn't acknowledge *any* of the positive aspects of debt and deficit spending, and has demonstrated ad nauseum that he has no interest in learning them.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition of insanity. Rather than continue to try to convince everyone I'm crazy by continuing to engage Eddie on debt issues, I've decided to completely ignore his "Debt Trolling" and I urge you and everyone else to do the same. I urge you to stick to the thread topic, and completely ignore any "Debt Trolling" that Eddie puts forth.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I admit that RA has been trying to convince me that debt is not a problem for months. Maybe RA should try to convince Spain and Greece that debt is not a problem, I just don't buy it. The problem is that neither political party has a solution to the debt problem. Obama suggests taxing the rich (but avoids the math). Obama has made it worse though in 2008 he said, "We can?t mortgage our children?s future on a mountain of debt." Maybe Obama and RA should sit down and discuss the issue!
The article in the original post is focused on the economy. The claim is that Obama's attempts at repairing the economy were worse than simply doing nothing, letting it collapse entirely and then rebuild itself.
Some people hold the strange belief that periodic business cycles of massive boom and complete bust are normal and efficient. There is a strange belief that periodically destroying the entire economy simultaneously is somehow good for America and Americans. That somehow, having massive numbers of layoffs, businesses collapsing, increased demand on government welfare programs is preferable to the government moving up its timetable to rebuild a bridge and keeping a construction crew working when the private sector says they should be applying for food stamps and section-8 housing.
Quote:
Republicans can argue that regulatory uncertainty and fear over the rising national debt—debt that Obama’s Recovery Act helped intensify—have chilled American business.
That's the claim: "regulatory uncertainty chilled American business" Really? And what effect did "Things are so ****ty, I have no idea if anyone will ever be able to buy my products" have on the economy?
The republican plan is "Let it get so bad for so long that everyone forgets how good we once had it and comes to adopt 'complete ****' as the new normal. Then when we rise from 'complete ****' to 'generally ****ty', it seems like a massive improvement"
We had gotten used to eating cake, pie and ice cream. Now that we're on bread-and-water diets, the republicans say we shouldn't have invested in wheat farms; we should have let things get so bad that we were looking for food in cow dung. That way, when we find a rotten log filled with insect larvae, we will be ecstatic about not having to eat feces, rather than sad that we were eating only bread instead of cake.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The article in the original post is focused on the economy. The claim is that Obama's attempts at repairing the economy were worse than simply doing nothing, letting it collapse entirely and then rebuild itself.
Some people hold the strange belief that periodic business cycles of massive boom and complete bust are normal and efficient. There is a strange belief that periodically destroying the entire economy simultaneously is somehow good for America and Americans. That somehow, having massive numbers of layoffs, businesses collapsing, increased demand on government welfare programs is preferable to the government moving up its timetable to rebuild a bridge and keeping a construction crew working when the private sector says they should be applying for food stamps and section-8 housing.
That's the claim: "regulatory uncertainty chilled American business" Really? And what effect did "Things are so ****ty, I have no idea if anyone will ever be able to buy my products" have on the economy?
The republican plan is "Let it get so bad for so long that everyone forgets how good we once had it and comes to adopt 'complete ****' as the new normal. Then when we rise from 'complete ****' to 'generally ****ty', it seems like a massive improvement"
We had gotten used to eating cake, pie and ice cream. Now that we're on bread-and-water diets, the republicans say we shouldn't have invested in wheat farms; we should have let things get so bad that we were looking for food in cow dung. That way, when we find a rotten log filled with insect larvae, we will be ecstatic about not having to eat feces, rather than sad that we were eating only bread instead of cake.
So it seems the government let too many wild pigs into the enclosure before it started closing the gate.
So it seems the government let too many wild pigs into the enclosure before it started closing the gate.
You are correct: Too many people were allowed to play fast and loose with the mortgage market, and by the time the government started doing what it should have been doing all along, the bubble popped and everyone got screwed. A year later, Obama took office with a plan to kill anything that looked or acted like a pig, and clean up the mess. The Teapublicans said "You can't kill everything that looks or acts like a pig; We were elected by those pigs! But we have a plan. If we wait until they destroy absolutely everything, we'll have nothing to lose by rebuilding!
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
