If 'trickle down' economics worked when Regan was in office... why did we George W. Bush need to sign the first bailouts?
If the Bush tax cuts worked...? why do some blame Obama for the
unemployment? Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans was a
idea. And we tried it. The result was... **'The $2.5 Trillion
tragedy: What America has given up for 10 years of Bush tax cuts' - By Zaid Jilani – Think Progress – 07/07/11 'While
doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither.The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as
estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion through 2010.'
Which GOP response am I suppose to adhere too?
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, ..... said both parties had failed voters by driving up
trillion-dollar deficits. "Washington acts in a way that your family never
could — they spend money they do not have, they borrow from future
generations, and then they blame each other for never fixing the problem,"
Exactly right Mr Paul (and you are often wrong). I am really sick
of hearing people point across the political isle and blame only the other
side.Blaming Obama for the deficit is disingenuous. And if you take
an honest look, you might find that your party shoulders a good part of the
blame.Clean up your own side before looking elsewhere.
What is "fair" share? Why should I pay more because I make more? If a
man who makes 10 mil a year pays 20%, he just paid 2 mil in taxes. You
don't think that's enough? All you see is he has 8 mil left in the
bank, not what he already gave.If the Hollywood stars and people like
Buffet, Pelosi, Obama and others feel they "should" pay more,
what's stopping them? Everyone has the address to the IRS. Write a check
and send it. The fact is that they don't want to pay more, they just want
the appearance. The government neeeds to stop spending. We do have
a problem, despite what Pelosi says. That's it. There is enough coming in.
Stop shoving it all out.
"Republicans warned Tuesday that President Barack Obama's second-term
agenda would bring more tax increases and escalate deficit spending,"And then an eighth grade kid pointed out that congress controls spending
and that no tax increase can be passed without the approval of congress. "Republicans responded to Obama's State of the Union address
with fresh appeals to voters on the economy, promises to rein in federal
spending and address the future of entitlement programs like Medicare."So they blame Obama for the spending, then say they will rein in
spending. Also, republicans have fought against Medicare since before its
implementation and every day since. Their latest attempt to privatize medicare
is just another way to kill one of the many New Deal programs that they have
4 years ago barack said"I will cut the deficit in half during my
first term"It wasn't cut in halfIt wasn't
cut by 25% It wasn't cut by 1%It increasedBarack also said if allowed hisFIRSTof many
spendathons of 787 billion that unemployment wouldnt reach 8%It
reached 8%It reached 9%It reached 10%It
reached 11%Several trillion dollars later, barack still couldnt do
as he promisedYou will have to forgive me for using this guys actual
history as indication of how the next 4 years will be.As opposed to
his nonsense talk that 50% of the country buys into.I look at
results.And barack,You failed.
Does the President know anything about double-entry bookkeeping? Does he even
know how to use a "spreadsheet"? Does he know anything about
"budgeting"? Nothing that he has proposed shows that he would even know
how to operate a newspaper route, much less the United States of America.He demanded (and got) taxes increases on the wealthy, which will pay for
less than ten days of his spending. Who is going to pay for the other 355 days?
He will have to taxes every family in America at 50% or more to pay for his
programs. He has already raised the taxes on every American family by $1,200
just this year. In addition, our health costs have raised by $2,500 per year.
That's money that you and I have to pay, money that neither you nor I have
to spend. If Congress allows him to spend one more dime, it will be
derelict in its duty.
Under barack's "leadership" we have seen percentage of citizens on
food stamps increaes to all time highs in the history or our country.And barack claims this is a "success"What is failure then
barack - everyone doing well?
Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend. The tune changes, but the song
remains the same.
Nice painting on the wall.
"Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend. The tune changes, but the
song remains the same."Yup, R or D it does not matter. Spend
Spend Spend.I am quite confident that the Dems were happy with No
Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D,but don't forget. They also
received a "YES" vote from Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor
and even Paul Ryan. (along with TARP, and the Bank Bailouts)Yes,
those of you who only blame Obama and the Dems would best be served by taking a
closer look.I would be happy to vote for a Fiscally Responsible
party. I just cant find one.And if the only choice is to EITHER
spend money on defense and "liberating the Iraqi people" OR helping
Americans, I vote to keep the money here.
Nice to know the republicans have the folks on this message board fooled. Who
spends the money? Congress. Blaming the President shows a lack of
understanding of the constitution. How about we put the blame where
it belongs, the congress, both republicans and democrats. The President has an
obligation to provide a budget which is his SUGGESTION. The congress has an
obligation to pass a budget, meaning they control spending. The House and
Senate refuse to work together, that is the problem. Again both sides are
equally guilty. The House proposes a budget that has no chance of
passing in the senate so the senate ignores it and doesn't pass a budget.
Both are playing political games with the lives of the American people. If
anyone thinks that either party gives a hoot about you and me think again. Both
parties are only concerned with what they need to do to maintain/gain power and
keep getting elected.
Rubio is a common sense guy. Common sense however isn't part of
Obama's collective thinking.. never has been. People listen to Rubio and
they say "yes that makes sense". People listen to Obama and they say
" that makes zero sense and I have zero confidence it will ever happen"
..but I will vote for him anyway. What sense does that make?? America is in
We have to have taxes to improve our country and all aspects. I think the GOP is
way behind schedule. They are operating from the 16th century. Last nights State
of the Union was forceful and makes me proud to be a USA citizen.I
think Obama is so strong and so powerful and will go down in history as one of
the most influencial president. Buba
Washington acts in a way that your family never could — they spend money
they do not have, they borrow from future generations, and then they blame each
other for never fixing the problem.
re:JoeBlow2 facts you need to come to grip with Joe ....Fact # 1 Obama has added 6 trillion to the national debt since taking office.
The deficit went from 10 trillion to 16 trillion under Barack. Bush added 4
trillion in 8 years which was BAD but no where near Obama. Obama is on course to
add 10 trillion of NEW debt based on his projected borrowing and spending upto
2016. This is a disaster for the US and worst of all for each of us who will
most likely see our financial future doomed due to debt. Fact #2 The
Senate under Harry Reid has not passed a budget in 4 years. Yes 4 years. The
senate is controlled by the Dem's. I understand your
frustration with both parties but let's keep the ratio's correct here.
I would honestly say this spending and debt problem is out of control under
Obama and his senate dem's and you here NOTHING from the democrat's to
address it - only from Republicans. This has been the case for 4 years now. Paul
Ryan's budget last year would have been a GREAT solution but it died in the
Patriot - You left out the fact that GW Bush ran two wars "off
budget" - meaning that all of the military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan
were not included in his numbers.If I run anything "off
budget" I get bill collectors calling me and my stuff reposessed. It is not
one party that is responsible for the fiscal mess we have - it is both parties.
Blame will never fix it. Honesty and compromise will.....
Before the Bush tax cuts we were running a surplus, ever since we have been
running a deficit. What we need to do does not seem very complicated to me.
Patriot:Can I add Fact #3?The Democrats controlled the Senate
and the House of Representatives the first two years under Obama. So, the Democrats were in 100% control the first two years, and 50% control
the last two years. That sounds like 75% control of Congress over the past four
America didn't elect a businessman with business experience.They elected a rock-star community organizer who attracted voters drawn to
"free stuff".Since Obama can't find enough
"millionaires" to fund his "free stuff", he's now forced to
ask all the rest of us to pony up the money.Finally, the middle
class are finding out THEY will eventually be footing the "free stuff"
so they're not liking it much.
"The senate is controlled by the Dem's. "You want
facts?Well, yes, the senate is controlled by the Dems, but not with
enough numbers to pass anything they want. So, any budget that the dems would
like would be shot down by the GOP.The house, on the other hand, is
controlled by the GOP. And they can pass whatever budget they want. And they
have, with ZERO Dem votes.So, basically, the house passes a partisan
budget that has no chance of passing in the senate, and they know it.Until EITHER, the house proposes a bi-partisan budget, OR the Senate gets
enough numbers to stop any GOP filibuster, you will get the same thing.At least acknowledge what is happening.
I am dismayed at the President's speech, because the rhetoric was not in a
compromising spirit. Too combative to achieve unity in the country. Obviously
he believes that his election generated significant capital, which he intends
unwisely to spend in this heightened bellicose style. Why not bring the country
together by giving a little here and taking a little there? Rubio appeared
nervous and too young when held up against Obama. McCain would have appeared
too old, but the Republicans should have brought forward an articulate, credible
woman, latino or black of middle-age to project wisdom, common sense and a
respect for the danger our country is in. We Americans can usually sense when
rhetoric is soaring in the wrong direction with pretense, bluffing,
saber-rattling, over-blown ideology and a pseudo toughness saturating the air of
Washington. Enough already!
@patriot"Paul Ryan's budget last year would have been a GREAT
solution but it died in the senate."Paul Ryan's budget is a
great solution if the question was "how should we drive this economy into
the ditch we just barely pulled out of?".
JoeBlow: So you are saying it is okay for the Senate Democrats to
not pass a budget because they can’t pass 100% of what they want without
some compromise with Senate Republicans? But, the House Republicans
are bad because they can pass the budget they want without any Democrat
support?Sorry, elections have consequences-even the only election
the Democrats lost-control of the House. Are the Republicans
supposed to negotiate with themselves? The Senate Democrats will have to
compromise at some point, if they want to be serious about a budget. What do you
expect the Republicans to do while Reid sits there and pouts about not getting
his way? Just roll over? Republicans did their job and Reid hasn't.All this still doesn’t take into account the time the Democrats
completely controlled Congresss. That actually goes back to the 2006 elections.
So, out of the last six years, Democrats have controlled 83.3% of Congress and
the purse-strings. Like Fred44 said, “Who spends the money? Congress.
Blaming the President shows a lack of understanding of the
constitution.”-yes, even back in 2006.
The truth:Both parties have acted irresponsibly with our money by
promising and spending too much.Under Bush both parties responded to
9-11 by voting to go to war with Afganistan, and then Iraq...both parties! You
can't say that Bush is responsible for those wars when Hillary, John Kerry,
Nancy Pelosi, etc voted to go to war.Under Clinton federal spending
improved due to over speculation with the technology sectors. The tech bubble
raised $billions more tax revenue than anticipated. When the bubble burst
treasury revenues disappeared...before Bush took office!The 2008
recession was partially a result of a housing bubble, which was directly
attributable to 1990's democrat policy and market manipulation. They put
the squeeze on banks to extend loans to people that never would have qualified.
That was Democrats, folks. Then Democrats blame the banks when it all went
belly up in 2008. The Senate hasn't produced a budget because
they didn't want to.Back to my first point: both parties have
spent recklessly. But who is talking now about correcting the spending? I only
hear Republicans talking and making effort to fix the problem. Obama wants to
increase spending and raise taxes.
Lossing Bush tax cuts was called fiscal cliff by the commander.Please Mr. Obama! Keep your hands of off our money, businesses, schools, and
Some posts hear state that is is Congress' responsibility to pass a budget.
That is correct. But the president signs it into law. When the president
threatens to veto the bill, it kills the effort.The Republican House
has produced budgets to address the spending problem our country has. The
President vows to veto the bill, the Senate refuses to take up the bill, so it
dies. So when liberals complain that the Congress has failed to correct the
spending problem, you must look to President Obama as the source of this
problem. He could help move things along if he would compromise and work with
Congress. The House has said no more taxes its time to reduce spending, which
the honest will admit is too high. Obama insists on more taxes and more
spending, which the honest will admit is the wrong path.
The picture with the article shows a very junior senator who has done nothing
while warming a senate seat.The same junior senator delivered the
same tired republicon talking points.Until the sweating rubio and
those of his ilk have the guts to abandon their obsession with tired republicon
talking points republicons will continue to lose prospective voters.
"What now" I'm discouraged that you choose to use derogatory names
for the political party you don't agree with.You do realize (I
hope)that there are several equally deregatory names for YOUR political
party?BTW - strictly speaking; there's no such thing as a
"very" junior senator. Each state only gets 2 Senators, never elected
at the same time, therfore one Senator MUST be the junior senator and other must
be the senior senator.If you gauge the response from most media,
including your lamestream media, you'll find that most Americans enjoyed
his rebuttal even if they didn't agree with it.Comments like
yours probably encourage (reasonable) demos. to consider the Republican party as
their party of choice.
David,So you are saying by relaxing the rules related to loans, the
congress FORCED banks to loan money to people that could not pay it back? I
believe that would be a misrepresentation of what happened. Did they open the
door for unscrupulous loan officers to write loans collect their commission or
bonus and then bundle the loans and sell them? The answer is an emphatic YES!
So I am confused don't republicans want to do away with
government regulations? Wasn't this an elimination of government
regulations in regard to loaning money.Oh and by the way compromise
is not I will tell you what the truth is and what is the right way to do things
and you need to do it may way and if you don't I will criticize you for not
compromising. You are right the House has passed budgets the last two years.
Budgets they knew had no chance of passing in the Senate. So what exactly did
that accomplish besides political grandstanding for the tea party? Both parties are a joke and could care less about the American people.
I have noticed something recently, many Dems. are fond of saying the wealthy
need to pay their fair share yet when asked to define that the only answer they
can give is more. So here is a clear question to all who say the wealthy are not
paying their fair share, what percentage total (fed., state, local) should any
person pay of their income? 10%, 20%,30%,40%, 50%, 60%, 70% 80%? what percentage
is their fair share? Not more simple percentage.
Democrats control the Senate? Show me the evidence...
‘When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm
elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 (From Dems) to a record
139 in 2007-2008.' (From Republicans) **'The Rise Of
Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate' - Ben Frumin
and Jason Reif - Talking Points Memo – 01/27/10 Double the
Filibusters from the Republican Senate. Over 400 Filibusters to date. Less than 3% of any legislation passed by the Republican dominated House. Blame Obama for the budget? Congress passes a budget. And... **'Republicans BAIL on budget talks, blame Democrats' - By David
Espo - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/23/11 Regan tripled the
national debt. W. Bush, doubled the debt. Obama? Has
done neither. And Senator Orrin Hatch? Voted to raise the debt
ceiling... x16 times.
KC "I have noticed something recently, many Dems. are fond of
saying the wealthy need to pay their fair share yet when asked to define that
the only answer they can give is more."Hmmm. Sounds familiar.
And when I tell people that our income tax rates are the lowest in 60 years,
those on the right say they must go down. When asked to define what the tax
rates should be, the only answer they give is LESS.I often hear how
Reagan lowered tax rates and created jobs and a great economy. However, those
tax rates that Reagan oversaw were much higher than they are today.How could that be. How could a 50% top tax rate be great under Reagen but a
40% rate is a job killer under Obama?
Fred44,My understanding is that banks were pressured and threatened
if they did not extend loans to people who historically would not qualify.
Banks then came up with a way to minimize their risk and to make profit on the
risk.The whole deal was a bad deal instigated by Democrats in the
90's.I completely agree with you that both parties are corrupt,
selfish, and failing to represent the people and the country. The time may be
approaching when a 3rd party candidate could do very well if it was the right
JoeBlowWhile you not answer my question I will still answer yours. Here is
the problem with the claim that they are lower. While Federal taxes have gone
down many state and local taxes have gone up. Take New York City for example, if
you live there and you are wealthy you have a combined tax rate of over 60%. So
for every $1.00 you make that is $.60 in taxes not as you try to claim $.40.
That is what is wrong. You MUST take into consideration the state and local
taxes as well not just the Federal.
To "JoeBlow" I hate to tell you this, but Reagan's tax cuts worked.
To get the economy going again, and going strong you need 3 things. You need
lower rates, the lower on capital gains the better. You also need to cut
government spending. All of that needs to be followed up with a cut in
regulations.The rates are only part of the story.See
"The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform" at Rutgers University.
Also read "The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth" by Michael
Griffith.To "Fred44" yes, the feds did force banks to make
loans, they did it with threats that would put the banks out of business. Read
"The True Origins of This Financial Crisis" in the American Spectator.
David,Actually Representative James Leach a Republican from Iowa led
the charge to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act from the 1930's, which opened
the door to the deregulation of Wall Street and the banks. Newt Gingrich was
the Speaker of the House at the time, meaning the House was controlled by
Republicans. He even admitted in the Presidential Debates that repealing
Glass-Steagall was a bad idea. The act to repeal Glass-Steagall was
known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named after their sponsors, all three
republicans. In the Senate the vote was 54 in favor 44 against (every
republican voted in favor all but one democrat voted against. In the House the
vote was 360 in favor (208 republicans 152 democrats). Again I
don't hold democrats blameless, but I think republicans need to be truthful
and accept their share of the responsibility, which in this case is the lions
re:RedWingsYou honestly think Obama would compromise on anything??
Name one thing the man has compromised on in 4 year. Obama is a hard core
leftist and there is ZERO compromise on ANYTHING. The GOP has proposed 4 budgets
from the House but Obama and the Senate Dems won't even talk... ever! You
tell me who the compromise party is and who the do-nothing party is. Not even
Fred44, A simple on line search reveals a NY Times article that
states both parties were to fault, but a key turning point occurred during
Clinton's last year in office. I still say, both parties are at fault, but
Democrats led the charge.
@Pagan:Evidence:“Democrats Win Control of
Congress” Washington Post 11/9/06 "Obama, Dems Win Historic
Blowout Victory" UPI 11/5/08"GOP Seizes House; Democrats Keep
Senate" NPR 11/3/10Democrats won the elections and have had
83.3% control the past 6 years. Take some responsibility. Your
statistics about the filibuster are counter-productive to your argument. The
point being debated here is which side is/isn't compromising. With all of
those filibusters, and the number of RINOS in the Senate 2007-2010, the
Democrats could have probably passed their legislation without giving up much.
So your guys did what you wanted-no compromise. "National Debt
Has Increased More Under Obama Than Under Bush" CBS News, 3/19/12. From the last paragraph: "If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget
projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the
final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent,
or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms."Funniest are the Obama
budgets, which have been voted down the last few years without any Democrat
votes in favor of them.