Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    What is truly humorous is the excuse that Republicans were voted out of power due to spending issues in Nov 2006. Months before Bush provided the bulk of TARP bailouts. Economics were but one narrow shard against Bush and congressional Republicans at that time. What extremely limited, and convenient, memories.

    Funny that I don't see conservatives complaining about the $5.5B/Month currently being spent on Afghanistan here. In fact, all I've seen here is exactly the opposite (though without giving any real props to Obama). Not a peep otherwise.



    The pathetic position that conservatives generally practice here is that all politicians are bad; both parties are bad -- just that Democrats are the worst and most dangerous to their country. Such a truly disturbed view.
    re the wars, 5.5 billion per month on Afghanistan alone.. hmmmm what about Iraq,, what is that lil fiasco costing per month? Bet its close or more. How long have these two little wars been going on now? About, 8 years.. hmm lemme see, 528 billion or there abouts.. Afghanistan hmmm about 594 billion..or there abouts,, that does not include the actual invasion costs, those costs would have been far higher per month, but hey, just take those numbers.. So in 9 or so years, two lil wars, have cost you all over 1 trillion. What is your present deficit.... in 2009 it was 11,040,807,027,558.10 to the penny as the site said.. hmmm quite a chunk.. but cutting taxes, starting wars, is ok,, and as several right leaning individuals have said or implied, Govt lies, and lies, you can not believe anything they say.. so.. if this is true, and i have to believe it is as it comes from people like ... who say it is so, then how can i believe that the wars are only costing that amount, hmmm .. if the reporting of other programs costs are wrong, then why are the amounts of two lil republican sponsored wars right? If by way of some neat lil math, medi care and such are actually costing wayyyyy more then i have to believe with that same logic, that the cost of prosecuting these two lil wars is far higher.
    ps not aimed at the quoted,, just wanted a reference point sorry..
    now that is my two canadian cents worth...
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    What is truly humorous is the excuse that Republicans were voted out of power due to spending issues in Nov 2006. Months before Bush provided the bulk of TARP bailouts. Economics were but one narrow shard against Bush and congressional Republicans at that time. What extremely limited, and convenient, memories.
    TARP was in 2008. Try to have an accurate memory.


    The pathetic position that conservatives generally practice here is that all politicians are bad; both parties are bad -- just that Democrats are the worst and most dangerous to their country. Such a truly disturbed view.
    Perhaps this is due to the appearance/desire since the 1970s of many Democrats to cut the DoD and other national security related items at the first chance they get? Sure, not all, but guys like Sam Nunn were the exception.
  3. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    What is truly humorous is the excuse that Republicans were voted out of power due to spending issues in Nov 2006. Months before Bush provided the bulk of TARP bailouts. Economics were but one narrow shard against Bush and congressional Republicans at that time. What extremely limited, and convenient, memories.

    Funny that I don't see conservatives complaining about the $5.5B/Month currently being spent on Afghanistan here. In fact, all I've seen here is exactly the opposite (though without giving any real props to Obama). Not a peep otherwise.



    The pathetic position that conservatives generally practice here is that all politicians are bad; both parties are bad -- just that Democrats are the worst and most dangerous to their country. Such a truly disturbed view.
    First I did mention there were other reasons - my point was that over spending was one of them and that it is is today also. To include the other issues would have led way off point - evidenced by the fact that your reply spun into a war thing and a "disturbed thing" instead of the spending thing I was discussing.

    Second, I was not saying that the Democrats are dangerous. My issue with the Democratic party is with their spending policies and priorities. I think the current Administration's leadership qualities in this regard pale in comparison to the Clinton Administration which was actually effective and quite reasonable in their spending policies, but I would hardly call them dangerous. I'm actually not against a lot of the traditional Democrat issues - education, healthcare, social equality etc..., just, to some extent, the way in which the issues are arranged on the "importance scale", and to a much bigger extent the manner in which the Democrat leadership wants to pays for it.

    I would also add that its one thing to disagree with Republican policies but to argue that the Democrats don't play the exact same political games to push their agenda is completely disingenuous. I think a lot of people would be willing to listen to your positions a little more seriously if you stopped calling every Conservative "disturbed" and actually focused on the issues being discussed. Ironic that that is the exact same problem I have with the Republican Party right now - name calling, questionable use of information, instead of actually coming up with a comprehensive alternative for why they should be in office rather than the Democrats (ala the 1992 Contract with America).
    Last edited by solarus; 07/14/2010 at 03:31 PM.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by hrminer92 View Post
    TARP was in 2008. Try to have an accurate memory.



    Perhaps this is due to the appearance/desire since the 1970s of many Democrats to cut the DoD and other national security related items at the first chance they get? Sure, not all, but guys like Sam Nunn were the exception.
    ummm isnt it the ultra right libertarian Paul screaming for military cutbacks.. as in massive.. but that has problems of its own, as in, massive layoffs of americans that would make GM,Chrysler, Ford collapses, seem like a tiny pebble in the middle the Pacific.. but hey, thats just my look on things.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  5. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    'Budget' is a broad topic which covers a lot of ground, so if you don't mind terribly, I'll take the direction I so choose where it is in play. Thanks. Unless, of course, you're taking issue with the fact that the Bush tax cuts were not paid for. Or that Poppy's $1-2Trillion wars were not paid for. All of which only received nothing but vocal, enthusiastic support from conservatives.
    Yes damn it do mind j/k. The tax cuts would have just fine if it wasn't for the fact that...oopsie we had some wars come up and then spent all that money that was just surplus. Even we hadn't gone to wars, here's a novel idea - use the surplus to pay down our national debt!!!


    Thanks for the advice, but I haven't been referring to any person as disturbed. When a cheap political ploy is brought on by partisan hacks who lack the integrity to speak with a single degree of balance, "disturbed" is only one of numerous adjectives which appropriately apply.
    Yes but when you stereotype the entire Party, its not exactly conductive to open and reasonable discussion.



    The 1994 Contract On America was only about Next Gingrich's Republicans gaining seats in the midterm elections.
    My bad on the date Not my bad on the title although I get the joke there. Whatever the reason for it, the Contract was at the very least a comprehensive view of what they wanted to accomplish - even if you disagree with it its content, its still far more of a plan of action than the garbled, disjointed, and sometimes cheap & sleazy campaigns the Republicans are running this year.
  6. #26  
    I find it fascinating that the republicans don't want to provide unemployment benefits to those who actually paid into it, because it won't be "paid for", yet they're bound and determined to keep Bush's tax cuts for the highest income levels in place when they failed miserably....and they won't be paid for.

    "That's been the majority Republican view for some time," McConnell told TPMDC. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."


    McConnell's argument is that even though the government would be forgoing hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue by extending the tax cuts on relatively wealthy Americans, that loss will be more than offset by the growth spurred by keeping the money in taxpayers' pockets. (The Obama administration wants to extend the cuts for Americans making less than $200,000 or $250,000 but let them lapse for those making more than that.)


    Yet as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein and others are pointing out, McConnell's position is largely not supported by budget experts, including President Bush's own Congressional Budget Office.
    GOP Argues Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

    For a graphic demonstration of how over half the deficit came from the tax cuts, and how little came from discretionary spending, here is the CBO report:

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966
    Last edited by davidra; 07/14/2010 at 07:24 PM.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    My memory happens to jive with with record, but thanks for the reminder. TARP was passed in 2008. Introduced in 3/2007.


    Nope. The original bill that was introduced in 3/2007 was the "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008" aka "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008". It was co-opted in order to quickly pass a bailout that Paulson and Bernanke initially proposed on Sept 18, 2008.

    Leave it to kneejerk litmus tests to define irrational partisanship. Pay no attention to how many cosponsors are acquired to defund Poppy's wars. And by the way, Sam Nunn couldn't get elected - as a Republican - in GA these days.
    Of course not. His views on abortion, gun control, etc are out of step with those voters.


    FWIW, there are a few things I would agree on with Ron Paul. National defense is one of the many that I don't.
  8. #28  
    Bush's tax cuts caused a 500 billion dollar deficit in one year, 2005. But hey, that doesn't really count, according the republican leadership. They play just as fast and loose with reality.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Bush's tax cuts caused a 500 billion dollar deficit in one year, 2005. But hey, that doesn't really count, according the republican leadership. They play just as fast and loose with reality.
    Pay no attention to republican leadership, its in shambles.

    Do you see a difference in tax cuts that allow Americans and American businesses across the board to keep more of their money versus bailouts that give billions to failing companies?
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Pay no attention to republican leadership, its in shambles.

    Do you see a difference in tax cuts that allow Americans and American businesses across the board to keep more of their money versus bailouts that give billions to failing companies?
    While I agree that the republicans are in shambles, their rhetoric is a shallow conspiracy to block all progress with the economy until after the elections....and that will likely work. Another example of putting political expediency above the good of the country.

    I have said on a number of occasions that I do not nearly have the knowledge base to argue with the economic experts in the Bush and Obama administrations that favored the bailouts. On the face of things, I would probably be totally opposed to bailing out large banks, since they have various ways of reorganization and don't provide direct services, but have become large casinos with the house always guaranteed to win, at the expense of the customers. I feel differently about the automakers. The number of jobs in companies that rely on automakers is massive. And those were loans, and are being paid back ahead of schedule. The government is not running GM. I think bailing out major industries to save jobs is at least something to consider. It's the difference between losing some whitecollar jobs versus many working-class jobs. I like that concept. But that's just a gut response. I am far from being an economist. I can argue much more coherently about health care.
  11. #31  
    My god we pay so little in taxes and people (mostly out of touch conservatives) complain about it like it was under Truman. We paid more in the grand old days of Reagan. The only increase Obama has mentioned is 3%.

    I understand the concerns about spending but I would like to say that somethings got to give. Consumers aren't spending with very low tax rates and banks aren't loaning even with insanely low interest rates.

    While the WSJ piece might say what some people want to hear, there is a reason it appears in the Opinion column and is not in the news section.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    While I agree that the republicans are in shambles, their rhetoric is a shallow conspiracy to block all progress with the economy until after the elections....and that will likely work. Another example of putting political expediency above the good of the country.
    When your party is in trouble, you can work hard at understanding where you went wrong or work hard at dragging your opposition down with you. I see it on both sides; right now its the republicans because they went from controlling everything to nothing in fairly short order. I don't see a lot of solutions coming from their leadership...mostly complaints.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I have said on a number of occasions that I do not nearly have the knowledge base to argue with the economic experts in the Bush and Obama administrations that favored the bailouts. On the face of things, I would probably be totally opposed to bailing out large banks, since they have various ways of reorganization and don't provide direct services, but have become large casinos with the house always guaranteed to win, at the expense of the customers. I feel differently about the automakers. The number of jobs in companies that rely on automakers is massive. And those were loans, and are being paid back ahead of schedule. The government is not running GM. I think bailing out major industries to save jobs is at least something to consider. It's the difference between losing some whitecollar jobs versus many working-class jobs. I like that concept. But that's just a gut response. I am far from being an economist. I can argue much more coherently about health care.
    Looks like we agree on two things here: I also support rescuing companies that employ tens of thousands of hard working Americans that individually did not contribute to their companies problems (GM, AA, etc.) but not the banks and certainly not wallstreet...and...neither one of us seems to be an economist.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions