I thought it was perverse that both parties are Keynesian over tax cuts, but no amount of insane irony will soothe the slash and burn tactics for our future prosperity.
but of course. The Repubs/conservatives/libertarians will be frothing at the mouth to end social security as we are having a deficit. Screwing up government finances has long been a goal of theirs. Stockman, Reagan's old budget director has admitted this over and over as he regrets it. Others like Grover Norquist glory in it. Most are just ditto heads repeating stuff they have been fed and believe..
What about some of the BS social security disability claims? Do you have any appetite for reform there?
Some of us just disagree, and find the justification for this outrage to be lacking. For me, as a supporter of Obama, I need some sort of evidence that something better would have happened if he had acted differently before I consider being upset by his actions. (The same is actually true of anybody whether I'm a "supporter" or not.) But I see a lot more outrage and anger at the outcome than I see evidence that it could have been different or better.
His party got slaughtered in the mid terms. The taste of progressive betrayal already ran deep before that and helped deepen the bloodbath. Like the re-election of Dub****, we're getting what we voted for. Jaded....or realistic? I wonder if I'll ever equate the Republican Party with honor or dignity in my lifetime. Since this is America, I'm guessing for that to happen Democrats will lower their bar before the Republicans raise theirs.
Doubtful... any difference the stimulus part of the deal makes regarding jobs and the economy, the GOP will claim it happened only because of the tax cuts. Meanwhile, they will continue to campaign on Obama increasing the budget deficit.
It's OK to disagree. I don't enjoy being disgusted by a Democratic President and I'm sure that eventually, given time and various things to deaden my brain, I'll come to view this entire escapade as simply groovy. Then we can sing kumbaya and all hold hands, dancing in circles around the pole shoved up the country's collective arse, while the Republican Party finishes its job of making the United States an oligarchic playground for the rich and irrelevant on the world stage.
That's fair... you're entitled to your opinion and your outrage. I guess my point is that I don't see enough reasoning being expressed to back it up, so I would hope that even if it disgusts you, it doesn't surprise you that some people provide an "ardent defense". It's easy to get emotional about these kinds of things and I don't want to deny you your anger, but for my own personal enlightenment I would like to see more in the way of rational arguments at some point if and when that anger subsides. (And I use "more" on purpose as I know that there have been some already provided.) Otherwise I don't see a good reason not to consider it to be misplaced.
Honestly, from a political perspective this is my biggest worry, but at the same time any greater improvement in the economy is bound to be a positive for the incumbent, so I think it's worth the risk.
pic posted in a different context by Got_em_Coach in the hangout... Obama, in the red shorts, at the negotiating table with the GOP. Spoiler .
I waited for Obama red shorts to catch on after the fifth time, but I had to close the window in disgust.
Heard Obama's "momentous" postmortem speech and yet again the man continues to shovel his usual class warfare rhetoric. Businesses and individuals making over $250,000 equate to millionaires and billionaires, his words not mine. Since when has providing tax relief to ALL Americans become so passé? Oh was he upset and angry over letting "millionaires" keep more of their money. Then you have the "compromise" or shall we say 13 more months of unemployment compensation until Obama figures out Plan Y and Z on how to revive the economy. By the what, at what points does unemployment compensation become a welfare check? 26 weeks? 90 weeks? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? Pathetic. Half of the states unemployment funds are out of money. How long before the next round of unemployment bailouts? Wait no actually they'll just increase employer contributions to the fund to make up for it, thereby effectively killing jobs and creating more unemployments. See how pretty the round-and-round cycle goes? Meanwhile, Obama will sing the class warfare lullaby to sooth away all the economic pain in the country.
repped. Major-league post right there, folks When ya living on the government dole, no need for a job. AND, don't forget, it's the democrats' GOD GIVEN RIGHT to tax rich people at crazy high rates. It's their RIGHT, DAMMIT!!!!
Not really, not voting for a bill that has odious unrelated riders attached to it is distinguishable for voting down a provision that, standing alone, you are for. If you're specificaly referring to the John Kerry example from 2004, It's basically the opposite of what you are saying here. In that situation, had the Republicans tried to bring the legislation piecemeal, the exact opposite woudl have happened, they would have voted for it. Further, in that version, even Kerry himself acknowledged that he had voted against it, with his inelegant, oft-quoted line. In your parlance, it would be a "lie" to say he even voted nay. It's not a lie to say that.
I think you got that backwards. Those were very specifically your words, not his. Probably when the budget deficit became important. Or are you back to no longer caring about that now that the GOP won some elections? If you think this extends unemployment benefits further than they were, you clearly don't understand what the bill does or who it benefits. Not surprising - you, like Michelle Bachmann and others, are just ranting and raving without actually knowing what you're talking about. What on earth does this have to do with this compromise or anything else? None of these extended benefits are paid for by state unemployment pools. Or, you can cease the benefits, reduce consumption and create more unemployment.
I think they more just want to balance the budget and really the only way to do that was to return to the structure that was in place the last time the budget was balanced - i.e. - higher marginal tax rates on higher income brackets. makes your question seem kinda strange. i mean, usually it's republicans who want to balance the budget right?
So you're telling me that the only reason the budget was balanced was because tax rates on the higher income brackets were higher. That's rich (pardon the pun). You liberals are being passive agressive.....you are insanely jealous of the rich, and are revenge-minded in wanting to "stick it to them", then you rationalize it with such stellar logic as Sweet Lou 4 2 just employed. Think, people, think. There are OTHER ways to balance the budget. Look for them -- it's going to take thinking more broadly than your knee-jerk class warfare BS. Expand your minds, folks.
And it's the Republicans to ensure that it all goes to the rich. Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908 But it all trickles down right? President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office. His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office. Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ Oh so the rich took the money and sat on it and now I should feel upset that they give some of it back by reverting to the tax rates under which he had great job creation and a budget surplus??!! FCK THAT!
