Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 40341 - 40360 of total 52606 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Mimi

climber
Dec 30, 2012 - 09:13pm PT
Okay, now you're starting to really bug me Ricky. Who the hell are you anyway?

Chalabi, what a chubby. He sucked really bad didn't he.

Here's an analysis of the above study. I know some of you will struggle with it.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3860
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Dec 30, 2012 - 09:18pm PT
[ ] and I fully believe that several of you guys are as deluded as you think I am.

At least you have a glimpse into your diseased state.

And, Mimi, we've met. Interestingly, most people are less impressive on the Internet than in person. However, you defy that theroy.
Mimi

climber
Dec 30, 2012 - 09:22pm PT
Sorry, Ricky, must've lost that number. Thanks in advance for not re-introducing yourself in the future. Would be very wise.
bit'er ol' guy

climber
the past
Dec 30, 2012 - 09:37pm PT

LAME.

WEAK.
The Warbler

climber
the edge of America
Dec 30, 2012 - 09:39pm PT
Hey how was your Xmas BOG?
Nohea

Trad climber
Living Outside the Statist Quo
Dec 30, 2012 - 11:33pm PT
Hilarious , nurse f lies. The OP does not tell full truth that "the party" is a failure

Wow so i give it a little attention and prove the op of this huge thread is....
















Wrong!


All party members are Wrong!
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 08:44am PT
Prickle, our newest Right Winger to join the fray
Here is a rebuttal to your post about Dems voting for the 2001 Bush Tax cuts

Not one Dem voted for the more egregious 2003 Bush Tax cuts, and Cheney had to cast the 51th vote to give the Repubs the majority

51-50 was all it took before the Republican Mafia started to demand 60 votes for any Democratic legislation. JE, take note.

Dick Cheney Brags That The Bush Tax Cuts ‘Passed By A Single Vote — My Vote’

By Pat Garofalo on Nov 29, 2010 at 2:01 pm


Unless Congress acts by the end of next month, the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are set to expire, with the tax code essentially reverting to where it was under President Bill Clinton. While Democrats and President Obama have said that they want to preserve the tax cuts for the middle-class — saving $830 billion over ten years by allowing the cuts to expire for the richest two percent of Americans — Republicans have steadfastly refused to consider anything but an across-the-board extension.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts was put into law to mask their long-term cost, and so that they could pass under budget reconciliation rules (and thus not be subjected to a filibuster). Even so, the second round of tax cuts — the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 — barely scraped by in the Senate.

After a tied 50-50 vote, Vice-President Dick Cheney cast the deciding aye to move the Bush tax cuts forward. And in a segment of Brit Hume’s six-hour documentary, The Right, All Along: The Rise, Fall & Future of Conservatism, which aired on Fox News this weekend, Cheney brags about how his vote was the culmination of a 30 year push to put supply-side economic theory into practice:


I became a believer. If you fast-forward, in 2003, where we cut the capital gains rate, the rate on interest, did the across-the-board cuts in the income tax, and passed by a single vote. My vote.

Watch it:




Since Hume’s documentary is basically a love letter to Arthur Laffer and supply-side economics, the Bush tax cuts are portrayed as a glorious moment in economic history. But looking at the facts distorts that pretty picture. First, following the Bush tax cuts, the country “registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period”:


Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty.

Under President Clinton, job creation, GDP growth, wage growth, and business investment were all stronger than they were under Bush. In fact, the only economic indicators that went up under Bush were deficits and the poverty rate. But Cheney is still crowing, as the country tries to crawl out from the economic catastrophe that occurred on his watch.

Yesterday, David Stockman, budget director under President Reagan, blasted the Republican party for creating a “theology” regarding tax cuts. “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort,” Stockman said. Indeed, it was Cheney himself who allegedly claimed that “deficits don’t matter.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/29/132382/cheney-my-vote/?mobile=nc


Before 911, the Dems had no idea what Bush was capable of, and so thought he was acting in good faith for the Coutnry. They were wrong.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Dec 31, 2012 - 08:59am PT
There is this ongoing debate about whether the best way forward economically should be a balanced approach, as advocated by the democrats, or a slash and burn spending cut approach, as advocated by the Repugs.

But we don't have to guess. We have Europe.

Europe chose the Repug route, what they call "austerity". What they have experienced is repeated recessions, with some catastrophes in some areas. They are now looking at engaging in some of the same monitary policies that the US has followed, designed to stimulate the economy.

They thought they had a spending problem, like the Repugs think.

What they now understand is that they have a jobs problem, and a growth problem....and until those are solved, they will not be able to solve the spending issues.

So we can cut brutally, then watch as unemployment hits 30%, like in Greece...because brutal cuts means kicking people out of jobs, and shutting down industries, abruptly, with no ability to adjust.
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 09:03am PT
Well said Ken
Spending cuts are jobs being lost, which just takes us further over the cliff

Spend now, create jobs, boost the economy, then after the unemployment is less than 5%, we can make cuts and pay back the Republican debt.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Dec 31, 2012 - 09:04am PT
Well said Ken.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Dec 31, 2012 - 09:06am PT
Prickle seems to come across as knowledgble , but like Fattrad , always wrong...Were you ever on donut patrol....?
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Dec 31, 2012 - 10:10am PT
In a Wa Post column about the Cliff, and the effect on the military, is posted the following comment:

TechConsultant wrote:
9:54 AM PST

I hate to bite the hand that feeds me, but it is time to speak the truth. I am a contractor to the U.S. military, and my job is completely absurd. I could be wiped clean off the map and no one would miss me. And there are hundreds of thousands of others like me. I would estimate that at least five percent of the Defense budget is "soft civilian" funding like mine that could be completely eliminated. It is actually a kind of extended unemployment benefit pretending to be a job. In some respects its actually easier than looking for work. It is a method for extracting cash from the federal government and circulating it locally. This is the real reason why Virginia (and Maryland) are wetting their knickers. It doesn't have anything to do with military readiness, we all know that is a sham. It has everything to do with disposable income or lack thereof.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 31, 2012 - 10:11am PT
Obama spending binge never happened: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Wrong conclusions, Dr. F. That article talks about the rate of growth in spending, not the level of spending. If I start spending $1,000 a month more than I take in, and keep spending at that amount, my spending growth is zero, but I am still very much on a spending spree.

And Ken,, you forget the other half of European economic history. The "austerity" in Europe came about because of decades of social spending that the Democrats would like to emulate here. If we follow the Republican approach now, the northern Mediterranean austerity would be unnecessary.

Also, to follow up on your excellent observation in your immunization trend, the European welfare state can pay for itself only with a constantly increasing population of workers. The Democrats' "solution" is unsustainable.

Frankly, the Democrats should be driving us over the "fiscal cliff," since that's where they've always said we should go. The "cliff" comes almost entirely from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (ca. $500B). Of the sequestrations (ca. $100B), 50% are for the defense budget, and most of the rest are for discretionary spending that, Democrats claim, disproportionately benefits the rich.

And they're not even spending cuts on a year-to-year basis; they're merely cuts from what we budgeted to spend this year. What could be better for a Democrat? $5 in tax increases for every $1 in sequestrations, and half of those are for the military!

John
jstan

climber
Dec 31, 2012 - 10:17am PT
52 seconds ago.

Biden, McConnell close to a deal on tax hikes but hung up on spending cuts

Credit: jstan
After saying he was "gratified" Republicans dropped a proposal to slash Social Security benefits as part of a "fiscal cliff" deal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said there was still "significant distance" between the two parties, and adjourned debate for the evening on Sunday, saying the Senate will return at 11 a.m. EST tomorrow to continue negotiations.

By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane, Updated: Monday, December 31, 10:07 AM

Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were close to a deal Monday to cancel historic tax hikes for most Americans. But they were still hung up on spending, with Democrats resisting a Republican proposal to delay automatic spending cuts for just three months.

As President Obama prepared to deliver remarks about the “fiscal cliff” at 1:30 p.m. at the White House, negotiators for the administration and McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared to have nailed down many of the most critical tax issues, including a plan to let taxes rise on income over $450,000 a year for couples and $400,000 a year for individuals, according to people in both parties familiar with the talks.

Households earning less than that would largely escape higher income tax bills, though couples earning more than $250,000 a year and individuals earning more than $200,000 would lose part of the value of their exemptions and itemized deductions, under the terms of the emerging agreement.

Low-income households would also benefit from an extension of credits for college tuition and the working poor first enacted as part of Obama’s stimulus package in 2009. And businesses would see a variety of popular tax breaks extended, including a credit for research and development.

The tax on inherited estates would rise from 35 percent to 40 percent, though Democrats agreed to keep in place the current exemption for estates worth up to $5 million.

The two sides also appeared to have reached consensus on unemployment benefits, with Republicans acceding to Democratic demands to keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed for another year. The cost would not be offset with other spending cuts.

However, negotiators were still at odds over how to handle the automatic spending cuts, known as the “sequester,” which are set to decimate budgets at the Pentagon and other federal agencies in the New Year. Democrats initially demanded that the cuts be delayed until 2015, but Republicans balked, arguing that the cost of any delay should be covered through additional spending cuts.

Instead of delaying the cuts for two years, at a cost of more than $200 billion, Republicans suggested delaying the sequester for three months — at a cost of $33 billion, according to people close to the talks. It was unclear Monday whether the hang-up was the brevity of the extension or the need to identify offsetting spending cuts.

With a New Year’s Eve deadline hours away, Democrats abandoned their earlier demand to raise tax rates on household income over $250,000 a year. Obama had vowed repeatedly during his reelection campaign to allow tax cuts to expire for incomes over that level.

“There are a number of issues on which the two sides are still apart, but negotiations are continuing as I speak,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a floor speech shortly after the body convened at 11 a.m. Monday. “But we really are running out of time,” he added.

Reid said there were “still some issues that need to be resolved before we can bring legislation to the floor.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fiscal-cliff/biden-mcconnell-continue-cliff-talks-as-clock-winds-down/2012/12/31/66c044e2-534d-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html

jstan

climber
Dec 31, 2012 - 10:27am PT
And they're not even spending cuts on a year-to-year basis; they're merely cuts from what we budgeted to spend this year. What could be better for a Democrat? $5 in tax increases for every $1 in sequestrations, and half of those are for the military!

John:

In the above you draw a very clear picture. Clear pictures can cause clear consequences.

Let's suppose the "Democrats do not drive us over the cliff".

In that case will you grant that the administration is not solely interested in benefitting itself?
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 10:38am PT
John-
Wrong
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Dec 31, 2012 - 10:48am PT
And Ken,, you forget the other half of European economic history. The "austerity" in Europe came about because of decades of social spending that the Democrats would like to emulate here. If we follow the Republican approach now, the northern Mediterranean austerity would be unnecessary.

The problem is, that the Republican approach now is identical wih the northern med austerity, with the resulting recession and misery for the average person. However, their rich people are doing just fine, just as our rich people would do.....as Repugs know.

Also, to follow up on your excellent observation in your immunization trend, the European welfare state can pay for itself only with a constantly increasing population of workers. The Democrats' "solution" is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, most western democratic systems, both democratic and republican in nature, are based upon this "constant growth" premise. It is not unique to democrat structures. The entire real estate and building industries are based upon it....and that is private enterprise.





Mimi

climber
Dec 31, 2012 - 10:56am PT
One result of cutting government, aka, cutting spending, there would be a lag before the private sector really got going again to absorb these newly unemployed people. And then you have the issue of dealing with government employees at all as they aren't always keen on working in a much more competitive and demanding private sector which is why many of them took a government job in the first place. I know all government employees don't fit this stereotype, but many do as I have seen firsthand.

Plug in three countries and see the differences among the different categories. Very interesting.

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Dec 31, 2012 - 11:04am PT
Those pesky regulations like the minimum wage law...Where's Anne Coulter when we need some clear thinking...?
Mimi

climber
Dec 31, 2012 - 11:06am PT
Very pesky.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/post-election-obama-hhs-unloads-13000-pages-of-new-regulations-many-approved-since-may/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/09/Tsunami-Of-Regulations-Expected-After-Obama-Reelect

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122412-638250-obama-claims-on-the-husting-prove-to-be-false.htm?p=full

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122112-638095-obama-regulatory-federal-fiscal-cliff-boehner.htm?p=full

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/obama-administration-remains-busy-after-election-adding-68-regulations-per-day-22663/
Messages 40341 - 40360 of total 52606 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews