- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That's the problem, washington DOING something.
No, the problem is Washington is doing NOTHING.
That's the problem, washington DOING something.
Folks on both sides are more interested in winning elections and blaming/attacking the other side than actually doing anything. When folks wonder what is the biggest problem facing American, today, or wonder what is the number one thing that prevents solutions, all folks need to do is look at the idiotic partisanship on both sides. Then they can stop wondering.
What we need is a president like Reagan. One who cuts taxes(PolitiFact | Tax cut for 95 percent? The stimulus made it so), and raises spending to previously unimagined levels(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Oh wait....
What we need is a president like Reagan. One who cuts taxes(PolitiFact | Tax cut for 95 percent? The stimulus made it so), and raises spending to previously unimagined levels(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Oh wait....
Yes, I have no clue at all.
I didn't lay out in EXACT detail and minute point by point explanation why their actions were bad.
Besides, no matter what I post you'll claim that I'm wrong, that your superior knowledge of the subject is superior and that I don't understand it.
I do have better things to do then try to satisfy your level of "explanation"
Has anyone else noticed that when OC demands you explain something, if it's not hyper-explained he ****s on your post as if you are a stupid idiot, yet when forced to explain anything he just runs away?
Solution = Scrapping the Two Party System + Introducing proportional Representation so it forces Co-operation.
You're not going to get any of the "Reagan is God" folks to recognize that his economic positions were absurd and damaging any more than you can get an "Obama is God" person to see that he was way under-qualified to be President.
You're not going to get any of the "Reagan is God" folks to recognize that his economic positions were absurd and damaging any more than you can get an "Obama is God" person to see that he was way under-qualified to be President.
No, the problem is Washington is doing NOTHING.
Actually, Reagan's policies where not that damaging, and in some ways did help pull us out of the economic bad times. Tex cuts do work. Spending does work. The problem was that it was not followed up with a serious attempt to reduce the deficit once times had improved.
From an overall standpoint, though, Reagan's concept of "trickle down" economics is absurd. It does not take into account the psychology of human greed. If you help those on top, the assumption that they will help those beneath them is ridiculous. They will just keep more for themselves. From my recollection, we say a huge widening of upper and other classes, economically, during the Reagan years. I had a lot of respect for some of Reagan's policies... his foreign policies, especially, but he really missed the boat, economically.
Not really. The problem is the recession was financial/liquidity based.
As history shows, there are no good responses that work. I've asked the hacks here to come up with plans, but they don't seem to understand the difference between a regular recession and one that started in the financial sector.
If we look at actual data (shocking I know), historically financial based recessions take significently longer to heal independent of who is in office.
Oh granted. Trickle down was no a good policy.
Your faulty assumption is there are jobs.
If that were the case, Obama wouldn't have had to spend a trillion+ dollars to create jobs.
Is reading fundamental? Did I say there were jobs?
It sounded like you said there were jobs. Maybe you should focus on learning how to write in a manner that accurately conveys your point? Bring on more personal attacks, 'cuz I know it's all you really have.
Gotta love political grandstanding with things like unemployment benefits in a time with close to 10 % unemployment. What makes it hilarious is these same republicans who voted against this because of the debt had no problem squandering the near balanced budget Clinton left them.
Oh granted. Trickle down was no a good policy.
No it didn't. How was I pointing out that his faulty assumption underlying his argument is that there are jobs equates to me thinking there jobs? Did you fail to recognize the word "FAULTY?"
Seriously, comprehension of the written English language eludes you.
Learn to express yourself properly and you won't have to worry about my opinion of your posts.
I'm going to have disagree with that. As Reagan showed, corporate trickle down works. And as Bush showed, bonus depreciation caused a glut of corporate spending. When Reagan blew the bank on military spending, defense contractors geared up production, hiring new workers and increasing demand on suppliers. I don't need to explain the rest to you as I'm 100% you get it.
But individual trickle down doesn't work because it ignores the marginal propensity to save/consume.
Moderator's Warning: |
This is just a warning. Things are getting a tad heated for a couple people. Be careful you do not cross the line into personal insults. Thank you |
I didn't say that the GOP members were any better at reducing the national debt. They are equally guilty of adding to the national debt.
Me believe everything that Republicans say? No way.I would agree to equal guilt. Do you hold equal distian? Will you believe anything republicans say?
subsidizing people staying unemployed means more people will stay unemployed.