cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Advisor

I thought sure

I thought I would hear a resounding roar coming forth outside today.  But I am hearing nothing.  Are you repubs just so happy that you are all choked up and can't make a sound today??  You won a huge victory today. 

13 Replies
Senior Contributor

Re: I thought sure

They sure did win! The FISICAL CONSERVATIVES just added $858 billion to the deficit! One pleasing thought, Brian, they did it to their kids as well as ours! It's a PROUD DAY!

Senior Contributor

Re: I thought sure

Who has the majority in Congress?

Veteran Advisor

Re: I thought sure

Technically the GOP..but in reality the GOP an the Democrats each have a minority. The big majority is a substantial  comfortable middle, resting there in service to a permanent governing class.

 

If it's ever been more evident than yesterday I'm not aware of it. Maybe at the repeal of Glass-Stegal. I'll have to look up  the vote and see who voted how.

Senior Contributor

Re: I thought sure

Now I can see GTO how you always see the Repubs solely responsible for all our problems such the economy and our recent financial meltdown.  In case you are interested in the facts....

 

The Senate voted in favor by a vote of 81 to 19 with 45 Dems voting in favor.  The House voted in favor by a vote of 277 to 148 with 112 Dems voting favor.

 

Your Democratic president as well as your hero ex-president has promoted and continue to promote this tax cut extension.

 

I'm betting very time you have had a personal failure or problem in your life it is always the fault of Repubs.

 

If you are so unhappy maybe you should start a Tea Party in the Dem party to stand up to increased spending.

Senior Contributor

Re: I thought sure

Say what you wish but, the numbers don't lie. Pelosi is still the speaker in the house. Reid is still majority leader in senate. They run the show till the 112th Congress is sworn in.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/

Veteran Advisor

Re: I thought sure

Veteran Advisor

Re: I thought sure

The "show" isn't "run" by anyone anywhere near the part of town that they work in. Boehner won't be running anything either,

Senior Contributor

Re: I thought sure

Well, my dear dagwud. Had I had my say, I would have told the SFB Republicans to go suck and egg. How's that! I have seen enough of that greedy, heartless bunch of creeps in the last 10 years, to know they aren't worthy of being in a Democratic government. They are only looking out for themselves and the Fat Cat money people that they hope they can bilk money out of to pad their own pockets. They have not nor will they ever put the American people first. As disappointed as I am about how the Democrats have handled this fiasco, I am still smart enough to know that if it's left up to a Republican it will always get worse. This article is proof.

A Simple Fact: Republicans Can't Manage the Economy

Contrary to the mythology the party has created, GOP presidents are terrible for business.
At last week's news conference, President Bush again said that he's reduced the deficit to $239 billion, created 8 million jobs and generated unemployment at a low 4.5%. He said the economy is strong, largely due to his tax cut policies. On the other side, Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), House Appropriations Committee chairman, has complained of our limited resources now because of Bush's "gargantuan deficits he created with that stupid war and those stupid tax cuts paid for with our money."
There is a widely held belief that Republicans are better for business than are Democrats. Let's look at the facts. The wild stock market ride of recent weeks does not compare to the two worst stock events, the crash of 1929 and the 1987 free fall, which also occurred under Republican administrations. Since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3% annual return on the S&P 500, Republicans only 8%. Gross Domestic Product growth since 1930 is 5.4% for Democratic presidents and 1.6% for Republican presidents.
Bush inherited from President Clinton an annual federal budget surplus of $236 billion, the largest in American history. Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. Budget surpluses were expected to total $5.6 trillion between fiscal year 2002 and 2011.
Despite this, Bush transformed the surpluses into a $1.1 trillion annual deficit in just three years because of the Iraq war and his relentless push for permanent tax cuts for wealthy Americans, a new iteration of Herbert Hoover's equally catastrophic "trickle-down" theory. Bragging about a $239 billion deficit sets such a low standard that Bush can claim horrific failure as a good thing for the country. The Bush administration's annual loss of three-quarters of a trillion dollars is unprecedented. Bush presided over the loss of 2 million American jobs in his first 2 1/2 years and has net gained 5.6 million in six years, the worst since Hoover. Clinton created 23 million jobs.
It's not rocket science to figure out the difference. Clinton: tax breaks for the middle and lower incomes who actually spend the money, no Iraq war. Bush: disproportionate tax breaks for the wealthy (50% to the wealthiest 1% by 2010), $750 billion for a war monetarily benefiting only a few military contractors and a financial sieve for the country. Democratic presidents spread the wealth through spending on needed social programs and targeting tax cuts to lower- and middle-income Americans, stimulating the economy more broadly. Republicans pump into defense contractors and high-income Americans, creating a significant detriment to the whole economy with larger deficits and higher interest rates.
Economist John Maynard Keynes was right in 1936: When you "prime the pump" into people programs (like jobs or lower income tax cuts to help Americans buy what they need), you get people results. On the other hand, when you move money from the economy into tax cuts for the rich and a military vacuum, you don't prime the economic pump; you deplete it.
Contrary to opinion, we do not have record high stocks. It would take 14,300 for the Dow Jones industrial average just to match for inflation the 11,750 under Clinton in 2000. We're now around 13,000, meaning, in real terms, a stagnant market with a loss for the past six years. Democrats empower the buyers, Republicans the sellers. Misdirected tax cuts, plus the Iraq war, have taken the money not just from America's working class but from America's businesses as well.
Economic Indicators: Democratic Versus Republican Presidents
In six major criteria - GDP growth, per capita income growth, job creation, unemployment reduction, inflation reduction, and federal deficit reduction - for the ten post-World War II presidencies until Bush, there is a record to track the reality of Democratic versus Republican economic success.
Democrats
  • Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" created robust economic expansion, first in both GDP and personal income growth. He also reduced unemployment from 5.3% to 3.4%. Economic growth remained robust through most of LBJ's presidency.
  • John F. Kennedy campaigned on the idea of getting America moving again, and he did. Under Kennedy, America entered its largest sustained expansion since WWII. GDP and personal income growth were second only to Johnson, all with minimal inflation. Contrary to Republican attempts to say Kennedy's tax cuts are like Bush's, Kennedy's were targeted at middle and lower incomes.
  • The economy added 10 million jobs under Jimmy Carter despite high inflation; Carter ranks first in job creation next to Clinton during just four years in office. Carter also reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP.
  • Harry Truman's second term saw the fastest GDP growth and the sharpest reduction in unemployment of any president surveyed (of course, FDR's post Hoover-depression New Deal jobs are first).
  • Republicans
  • Ronald Reagan focused on reducing the cost of capital through cutting tax bracket highs for the rich and reducing the size and scope of government. But, instead of lowering spending, Reagan shifted money to the military (i.e. Star Wars) and the deficit tripled with the tax cuts and military spending - as under Bush II.
  • Under Gerald Ford, the deficit soared and the unemployment rate grew from 5.3 - 8.3% in just 2 years. His "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) buttons were no match for economic inactivity.
  • It was under Richard Nixon that inflation started to spiral out of control, from 4.4% to 8.6%, and the deficit shot up from $2.8 billion to $73.7 billion.
  • The Eisenhower years were characterized by slow growth (2.27% annualized GDP growth) and relatively high unemployment (7.7% at end of term).
  • George H. W. Bush had the poorest record for both GDP and income growth. During his single term, the deficit ballooned (from $152 billion to $255 billion) more than under every president but his son and Ford.
  • (Sources: White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and White House Council of Economic Advisors)

     

    Senior Contributor

    Re: I thought sure

    I don't see the big deal, tax rates stay the same. The unemployed get paid to stay unemployed for yet another year. I'm glad the dems see the light, raising taxes destroys economies, but they should be made permanent. The real win for the country was killing porkulus 2.