If republicans would actually deregulate anything or reduce spending on government payroll I would respect them. The pay is meaningless to most of these politicians, i wish these less government scarecrows would be every tea-partiers wet fantasy and deny pay. C'mon i dare you,
If republicans would actually deregulate anything or reduce spending on government payroll I would respect them. The pay is meaningless to most of these politicians, i wish these less government scarecrows would be every tea-partiers wet fantasy and deny pay. C'mon i dare you,
As soon as all the tax-the-rich progressives start writing checks to the IRS.
You're missing the point. If the economy is as bad as it is now come November, the public will blame Obama.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
Obama wants to raise your taxes during a recession. He's then going to turn around and spend all that money on an already huge deficit that your children will have to pay for. Are you better off now than when Obama was elected?
Those are basic Republican arguments. Every single candidate is likely to bring these up if they win the nomination. Do you really think people are feeling that the economy is going well? Who are they going to blame for that? Historically it's been the president.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
Yeah. Congressional obstruction: what a lame "excuse".
Majority of the public don't see it your way. Sorry.
So you think lying/distorting a position are better arguments than the truth?
In electoral politics? Sure, why not? When it comes to getting elected, what's true doesn't matter nearly as much as what people believe. Republicans are much, much better at leveraging that than Democrats are--see "truthiness."
Yeah. Congressional obstruction: what a lame "excuse".
Majority of the public don't see it your way. Sorry.
You play with the hand you're dealt. Do you think he is the first president to face a hostile Congress. Reagan and Clinton both served the majority of their terms with at least one house of Congress controlled by the opposition. In fact, every president since Roosevelt except two years of Bush's first term, did. But they were all still able to get legislation passed because they knew how to compromise, pick their battles and work within the system. But as long as he keeps trying to push a big government, tax-and-spend agenda, in this climate, don't expect anything to get done.
Yeah. Congressional obstruction: what a lame "excuse".
Majority of the public don't see it your way. Sorry.
You play with the hand you're dealt. Do you think he is the first president to face a hostile Congress. Reagan and Clinton both served the majority of their terms with at least one house of Congress controlled by the opposition. In fact, every president since Roosevelt except two years of Bush's first term, did. But they were all still able to get legislation passed because they knew how to compromise, pick their battles and work within the system. But as long as he keeps trying to push a big government, tax-and-spend agenda, in this climate, don't expect anything to get done.
But we are still dealing with the effects of globalization (i.e,, nothing gets made in america anymore), a recession, and a housing bust, which are still killing jobs at a fast pace.
The private sector is not going to create more jobs (via tax cuts to "the job creators") then the government can by simply allocating money for public works projects.
If the Dems had control over congress (and therefore control over spending), unemployment would be remarkably lower right now and for the immediate future based on public works projects, alone.
So they funneled 300,000 jobs worth of taxpayer money back into the education industry; the Democratic Party's biggest campaign contributor.
But we are still dealing with the effects of globalization (i.e,, nothing gets made in america anymore), a recession, and a housing bust, which are still killing jobs at a fast pace.
What do you think causes jobs to leave the country KVH. High minimum wages, over-regulation, "bad luck"?
The private sector is not going to create more jobs (via tax cuts to "the job creators")
Conclusory
then the government can by simply allocating money for public works projects.
Read: giving money away to their constituents and campaign donors.
If the Dems had control over congress (and therefore control over spending), unemployment would be remarkably lower right now and for the immediate future based on public works projects, alone.
They had control for two years.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Public works projects don't add any new money to the economy.
But we are still dealing with the effects of globalization (i.e,, nothing gets made in america anymore), a recession, and a housing bust, which are still killing jobs at a fast pace.
The private sector is not going to create more jobs (via tax cuts to "the job creators") then the government can by simply allocating money for public works projects.
If the Dems had control over congress (and therefore control over spending), unemployment would be remarkably lower right now and for the immediate future based on public works projects, alone.
Here's a question for those with too much time on their hands.
If we killed the top 10% wealthiest people in the country and took every penny they had and put it towards paying off the National Debt, how much money would be left over?
Here's a question for those with too much time on their hands.
If we killed the top 10% wealthiest people in the country and took every penny they had and put it towards paying off the National Debt, how much money would be left over?
This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States wikipedia article says that 25% of US households own 87% of the wealth in the United States, which was $54.2 trillion in 2009. That means that total wealth is approximately 60 trillion.
Yeah. Congressional obstruction: what a lame "excuse".
Majority of the public don't see it your way. Sorry.
You play with the hand you're dealt. Do you think he is the first president to face a hostile Congress. Reagan and Clinton both served the majority of their terms with at least one house of Congress controlled by the opposition. In fact, every president since Roosevelt except two years of Bush's first term, did. But they were all still able to get legislation passed because they knew how to compromise, pick their battles and work within the system. But as long as he keeps trying to push a big government, tax-and-spend agenda, in this climate, don't expect anything to get done.
Yes, if only he'd compromise a little! WOW
Exactly what I was thinking.
I would add that the "tax and spend" claim on Obama is more tired GOP nonesense ala "we're the party of fiscal responsibilty". Obama has kept taxes at a near all time low, including his lowering the payroll tax, which he advocates staying low. Did you miss that?
Obama has actually tax (a little) and cut spending agenda. It's well documented. The GOP, OTOH, have been borrow and spend for the past decade, which made the debt ballon and put the fear of a Chinese takeover in their bases minds. Great job!
Obama wants change (on the economy), the GOP wants the status quo. So long as that the GOP is intransigent, I don't expect anything to get done
[quote author="sabadabada" date="1313628145"
The private sector is not going to create more jobs (via tax cuts to the job creators)
Conclusory
[/color]
A better statement is that the private is not creating more jobs, presently, with already low taxes and coffers stuffed to the ceiling ala Scrooge McDuck.
Cost of "W" Bush Tax cuts including interest to date is (conservatively via Bruce Bartlett, NY Times) 3.2 trillion dollars, cost of Bush bailouts (conservatively via Reuters) 1.8 trillion, cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars (conservatively via Huffington Post through CBO) 3.7 trillion. Blaming the democrats for the deficit, priceless.
Cost of "W" Bush Tax cuts including interest to date is (conservatively via Bruce Bartlett, NY Times) 3.2 trillion dollars, cost of Bush bailouts (conservatively via Reuters) 1.8 trillion, cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars (conservatively via Huffington Post through CBO) 3.7 trillion. Blaming the democrats for the deficit, priceless.
In the first place, using the word "conservatively" in the same breath as "Bruce Bartlet," "New York Times," "Reuters" or "Huffington Post" is just obscene.
As for the canard that "if we only had the money lost by the 'Bush Tax Cuts' there would be no debt." One can't calculate imaginary lost taxes on earnings that wouldn't have acrued had you left the tax rate that would have taxed them in place. It's like Vera and Cornelius going back in time in Taylor's ship and having the baby that would lead to the ape revolution that would lead to Taylor taking his ship into the future in the first place. It's not economics. It's science fiction.
As for the canard that "if we only had the money lost by the 'Bush Tax Cuts' there would be no debt." One can't calculate imaginary lost taxes on earnings that wouldn't have acrued had you left the tax rate that would have taxed them in place. It's like Vera and Cornelius going back in time in Taylor's ship and having the baby that would lead to the ape revolution that would lead to Taylor taking his ship into the future in the first place. It's not economics. It's science fiction.
Comments
That worked great last decade, let's see how nice we can make it for the very rich. They deserve more.
If republicans would actually deregulate anything or reduce spending on government payroll I would respect them. The pay is meaningless to most of these politicians, i wish these less government scarecrows would be every tea-partiers wet fantasy and deny pay. C'mon i dare you,
As soon as all the tax-the-rich progressives start writing checks to the IRS.
So you think lying/distorting a position are better arguments than the truth? I don't. You make a strange assumption that the public will blame Obama re: the economy, particularly since poll numbers tell a different story: http://patdollard.com/2011/08/mcclatchy-poll-majority-of-americans-dont-blame-obama-for-economy/
Yeah. Congressional obstruction: what a lame "excuse".
Majority of the public don't see it your way. Sorry.
In electoral politics? Sure, why not? When it comes to getting elected, what's true doesn't matter nearly as much as what people believe. Republicans are much, much better at leveraging that than Democrats are--see "truthiness."
You play with the hand you're dealt. Do you think he is the first president to face a hostile Congress. Reagan and Clinton both served the majority of their terms with at least one house of Congress controlled by the opposition. In fact, every president since Roosevelt except two years of Bush's first term, did. But they were all still able to get legislation passed because they knew how to compromise, pick their battles and work within the system. But as long as he keeps trying to push a big government, tax-and-spend agenda, in this climate, don't expect anything to get done.
Yes, if only he'd compromise a little! WOW
The link is not working but it's a moot point.....here's a common sense scenario that the average person will understand on the most basic level..
D - The R's are stonewalling and won't give us the money we need to create jobs and turn the economy around.
R - We gave you $275 Billion to create jobs and you didn't do it.
D - But we didn't spend all that money yet!
R - Then why are you asking for more?
D - Because we need more money to create more jobs.
R - Why don't you spend the money we already allocated and let us see how many jobs you create with it before we give you more.
The money has created jobs. There were over half a million people working on recovery related jobs last month, as reported by recipients of funding. See http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/JobSummary.aspx
But we are still dealing with the effects of globalization (i.e,, nothing gets made in america anymore), a recession, and a housing bust, which are still killing jobs at a fast pace.
The private sector is not going to create more jobs (via tax cuts to "the job creators") then the government can by simply allocating money for public works projects.
If the Dems had control over congress (and therefore control over spending), unemployment would be remarkably lower right now and for the immediate future based on public works projects, alone.
So they funneled 300,000 jobs worth of taxpayer money back into the education industry; the Democratic Party's biggest campaign contributor.
But we are still dealing with the effects of globalization (i.e,, nothing gets made in america anymore), a recession, and a housing bust, which are still killing jobs at a fast pace.
What do you think causes jobs to leave the country KVH. High minimum wages, over-regulation, "bad luck"?
The private sector is not going to create more jobs (via tax cuts to "the job creators")
Conclusory
then the government can by simply allocating money for public works projects.
Read: giving money away to their constituents and campaign donors.
If the Dems had control over congress (and therefore control over spending), unemployment would be remarkably lower right now and for the immediate future based on public works projects, alone.
They had control for two years.
Oh, in that case Obama is a lock for 2012
If we killed the top 10% wealthiest people in the country and took every penny they had and put it towards paying off the National Debt, how much money would be left over?
26.9 Trillion
This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States wikipedia article says that 25% of US households own 87% of the wealth in the United States, which was $54.2 trillion in 2009. That means that total wealth is approximately 60 trillion.
This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth wikipediaa article says 10% of the US population owned 71% of the wealth. That works out to about $42 Trillion
Debt is approximately $14.5 Trillion http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Exactly what I was thinking.
I would add that the "tax and spend" claim on Obama is more tired GOP nonesense ala "we're the party of fiscal responsibilty". Obama has kept taxes at a near all time low, including his lowering the payroll tax, which he advocates staying low. Did you miss that?
Obama has actually tax (a little) and cut spending agenda. It's well documented. The GOP, OTOH, have been borrow and spend for the past decade, which made the debt ballon and put the fear of a Chinese takeover in their bases minds. Great job!
Obama wants change (on the economy), the GOP wants the status quo. So long as that the GOP is intransigent, I don't expect anything to get done
The private sector is not going to create more jobs (via tax cuts to the job creators)
Conclusory
[/color]
A better statement is that the private is not creating more jobs, presently, with already low taxes and coffers stuffed to the ceiling ala Scrooge McDuck.
In the first place, using the word "conservatively" in the same breath as "Bruce Bartlet," "New York Times," "Reuters" or "Huffington Post" is just obscene.
As for the canard that "if we only had the money lost by the 'Bush Tax Cuts' there would be no debt." One can't calculate imaginary lost taxes on earnings that wouldn't have acrued had you left the tax rate that would have taxed them in place. It's like Vera and Cornelius going back in time in Taylor's ship and having the baby that would lead to the ape revolution that would lead to Taylor taking his ship into the future in the first place. It's not economics. It's science fiction.
I think HL's point is valid, since he wasn't addressing a Koch Bro.
Koch Bros are so last week.
Sure you can.
porn for lmj
I could see that being a popular picture disc record for sale... RAER
This is what the internet was built for. Genius.