View Poll Results: Is this a turning point for Democrats?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 30.00%
  • No

    8 40.00%
  • Dunno

    6 30.00%
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 119

Thread: A Turning Point For Democrats?

  1. #61
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    FilmFestGuy;1058891272]I don't believe anyone is paying less in taxes now than they were under Bush, Federal Taxes that is. I know of no bill the Republicans are blocking as the Democrats can pass anything they want in the House so show me that bill.



    Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

    I wasn't the only one (obviously) - the vast majority of Americans paid less in 2009 than they did in 2008 or any other years recently. And that's gauges as a percentage of their income - not a reduction as a whole due to the recession.

    So, if you didn't pay equal or less, then you either have a bad accountant, make a LOT of money (a lot more than the average American) or you're lying about your own taxes.
    Did you read the article you linked, Let me help you

    Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

    All taxes, not Federal Income taxes and that is what Bush cut. What happened in 2009 is Obama gave everyone a REBATE check on top of the Bush taxes. That rebate check cut tax liability but is gone noe. Bush lowered tax rates as did Reagan, Obama did no such thing.

    You are aware that GDP has grown now for three consecutive quarters, right? That's called a recovery.
    Yep but like all liberals apparently it doesn't matter how. Suggest you go to BEA.gov and click on GDP to find the four components of GDP. You did note that the last qtr GDP was revised downward to the lowest in a year. Cash for Clunkers, First Time Home Credits, then the stimulus and wouldn't you expect economic growth? Stores offer sales to entice people to spend money but if all the people bought was the sale item the numbers would look good for a period of time but then once gone the revenue would drop again as would the profits.

    And while jobs were lost in 2009, they are improving in 2010. Yes stimulus is responsible for some it, but it wouldn't have happened without it (as I've already pointed out).
    Look at unemployment and discouraged worker data, 16 million, never in history has that happened and especially after spending trillions. There is no improvement when you take 1.2 million discouraged out of the labor force and reduce the base the percentage is going to drop but so has the labor force and the number employed.

    And I didn't lie. I got the numbers for non-farm jobs directly from here at the BLS website, and the numbers I used are also used here:

    Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    then you missed the employment number which is the link I posted. Click on employment, put in the dates you want and you will get the spread sheet I posted. Use bls.gov, not wikipedia. Labor force has dropped, employment numbers have dropped, unemployment numbers plus discouraged workers has increased.

    And here's the bill that Republicans are filibustering in the Senate that would aid small business owners:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us...cs/30cong.html

    Despite, by the way, that it's supported by US Chamber of Commerce among other pro-business organizations.

    McConnell claims its because Democrats are restricting the amendment period - but it's simple (considering several Republicans were in on the writing of the bill). They simply don't want to let Democrats pass a good bill for the people (I'm sure there are flaws, but every bill is flawed - every one that's ever been passed) for political expedience.

    The worse we do, the better it is for Republicans. Republicans want the country to continue to fail so they can gain power. It's all they want.

    But simply put, you have an agenda to make things worse than they are now.
    Again, did you read why the Republicans were against that bill? Seems you only read the headlines and not the content of the article. Read the reasons for not supporting the bill and it has nothing to do with the GOP Support or lack of support for private business. The Chamber of Commerce is against the Obama healthcare initiative, cap and trade, and private business practices but that seems to have escaped you.


    I've used GPD numbers, job creation numbers from the BLS, etc. I have not once argued that things are hunky-dorey. They're not. There's still work to do. But GM, Chrylser, and Ford all reported profits. And yes, Ford didn't take the bailout - but how well would they have done if their suppliers had gone under because those suppliers also worked for GM and Chrysler? Ford didn't take money, but they benefited through indirect ways from the bailout. Do you think all the suppliers would have stayed afloat with 2/3 of their customers gone?
    You continue to miss the point, GM and Chrysler are owned by the U.S. Taxpayer and the profits they are making aren't enough to pay back the loans from the taxpayers except by paying them back with new loans. The govt. has no business bailing out private business. By the way I was against Bush bailing out the banks as well.

    I don't like a lot of things that have gone on. I'm just sick of the hyperbole and the sudden love for the party whose policies drove the nation to its knees in the first place.
    And what policies were those? Stop buying what you are being told and actually get the facts. Think before speaking. The financial crisis was due to the subprime loans that came out of the Community Reinvestment Act of Jimmy Carter, promoted by Bill Clinton and then defended by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in 2006 when Bush tried to regulate them more. It was the foreclosures due to those subprime loans that created this recession and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are right in the middle of it

    Again, the Tea Party (and what bothers me about it, is they weren't complaining about spending until now - instead of complaining about it when Republicans were driving the deficit u pat extraordinary rates) is like an abused wife returning home to the abuser because because they're unhappy with the social worker.

    I'm sorry, but Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul are NOT the answer to this nation's woes.
    The Tea Party is against all spending and is against both parties in that area. They are however closer to the Republican Party today because of the massive debt Obama has created in 2 years and that doesn't include the cost of healthcare, cap and trade, and all the stimulous spending.

    The answers lie in getting people together to discuss ideas, test some things out, restructure the entire nature of our system, both politically and economically. Rand Paul might have some ideas. Michelle Bachmann just wants to issue subpoenas. She's said as much.
    Democrats do not want to compromise, never have and never will. Reagan tried to compromise with liberals on immigration reform and cutting spending, kept his promise and the Democrats reneged. Read My Lips GHW Bush raised taxes with the promise that we would get 3 dollars in cuts for every dollar in tax increases, we got the tax increases but no spending cuts. The idea of compromise to a liberal is giving into a liberal on everything they want and the results are there for all to see. The problem is now we have a new group of liberals who said the previous group of liberals didn't spend the money right or enough of it.

    It really is frustrating to have to explain to people like you the benefits of the private sector and even you keeping more of your money. Greed apparently is ok when it comes from the Federal Govt. Today we have a 3.8 trillion dollar budget and growing all because we have a radical leftwing President who seems to have brainwashed good people like you. His poll numbers are dropping for a reason and that reason is people are waking up to his agenda and his record.

  2. #62
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    All I'm going to say is that the 1950's with 91% top marginal rates saw incredible growth.

    The 1990's with Clinton's tax raise also saw growth AND reduced the deficit. It was Republicans who began the huge deficits during the 2000's. The first stimulus was under Bush (yes, Democrats voted for it - so did many Republicans).

    Compromise will only occur when we stop sending the most extreme members of each party to Congress - Republicans are going to send even more extreme representatives than they did in the 2000's. Perhaps, if they can get the House they will craft bills that can be passed by a Democratic Senate and we can actually get something done.

    If I've learned a lesson recently, handing complete power to either one of the parties is not good for the country. I'm not against a split in power.

    What I'm against is pretending that one party has all the answers and pretending that there is only one answer to any given problem.

    Obstruction, insult, and incivility don't fix anything.

    And as I pointed out earlier - Conservatives in England are at least smart enough to recognize that tax increase are going to HAVE to be part of the solution to the deficit. It's a matter of when you begin them.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    All I'm going to say is that the 1950's with 91% top marginal rates saw incredible growth.

    The 1990's with Clinton's tax raise also saw growth AND reduced the deficit. It was Republicans who began the huge deficits during the 2000's. The first stimulus was under Bush (yes, Democrats voted for it - so did many Republicans).

    Compromise will only occur when we stop sending the most extreme members of each party to Congress - Republicans are going to send even more extreme representatives than they did in the 2000's. Perhaps, if they can get the House they will craft bills that can be passed by a Democratic Senate and we can actually get something done.

    If I've learned a lesson recently, handing complete power to either one of the parties is not good for the country. I'm not against a split in power.

    What I'm against is pretending that one party has all the answers and pretending that there is only one answer to any given problem.

    Obstruction, insult, and incivility don't fix anything.

    And as I pointed out earlier - Conservatives in England are at least smart enough to recognize that tax increase are going to HAVE to be part of the solution to the deficit. It's a matter of when you begin them.
    As I pointed out earlier it really is a shame that I or anyone else has to waste time convincing people that keeping more of their own money means less dependence on the Federal Govt. and that the individual can spend it better and more effeciently than the govt. Liberals see it differently, they need dependence and that is why they attack capitalism. Capitalism creates individual wealth, liberalism promotes dependence and that is where liberals get their power.

    I spent a lot of my adult life in the Democrat Party and I assure you that today's Democrat Party is nowhere near the party I used to belong to. I have always been a conservative but there is no place in today's Democrat Party for any conservative. Film, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. that defines liberals to a tee.

    I really suggest a better focus on civics, history, and economics because you ignore all three. The 1990's is being re-written every day and the further we get from the Clinton Administration the more distorted his record becomes. Clinton benefited from the Reagan peace dividend and a GOP Congress. Simple question for you, did Bill Clinton veto GOP legislation because that legislation increased his request or reduced it?

    Another issue that most ignore because most pay no attention to the U.S. Treasury website. SS is on budget and thus the revenue and expenses are included in calculating the deficit for the year. When Clinton had that surplus it was becase SS revenue exceeded expenses by over 200 billion dollars and yet we only had a 78billion surplus. The problem was that 200 SS surplus should have gone back into the SS fund to replace the IOU's that had been stolen by Clinton and previous Administrations. Instead Clinton took credit for a surplus that didn't really exist. Clinton added 1.2 trillion to the debt during his 8 years.

  4. #64
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    As I pointed out earlier it really is a shame that I or anyone else has to waste time convincing people that keeping more of their own money means less dependence on the Federal Govt. and that the individual can spend it better and more effeciently than the govt. Liberals see it differently, they need dependence and that is why they attack capitalism. Capitalism creates individual wealth, liberalism promotes dependence and that is where liberals get their power.

    I spent a lot of my adult life in the Democrat Party and I assure you that today's Democrat Party is nowhere near the party I used to belong to. I have always been a conservative but there is no place in today's Democrat Party for any conservative. Film, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. that defines liberals to a tee.

    I really suggest a better focus on civics, history, and economics because you ignore all three. The 1990's is being re-written every day and the further we get from the Clinton Administration the more distorted his record becomes. Clinton benefited from the Reagan peace dividend and a GOP Congress. Simple question for you, did Bill Clinton veto GOP legislation because that legislation increased his request or reduced it?

    Another issue that most ignore because most pay no attention to the U.S. Treasury website. SS is on budget and thus the revenue and expenses are included in calculating the deficit for the year. When Clinton had that surplus it was becase SS revenue exceeded expenses by over 200 billion dollars and yet we only had a 78billion surplus. The problem was that 200 SS surplus should have gone back into the SS fund to replace the IOU's that had been stolen by Clinton and previous Administrations. Instead Clinton took credit for a surplus that didn't really exist. Clinton added 1.2 trillion to the debt during his 8 years.
    And you ignore the fact that I said that I think split power is best for the country. You're so partisan you can't even see when I'm trying to say that two parties working together is probably better for the country than one party having total control.

    But, I also ask you - how do you ignore that even when the top tax rate was 91% on highest levels of income, we still had remarkable growth? Yes, the debt grew under Clinton - but it grew at a slower rate than under either Reagan or Bush, which is at least a positive step. And yes, it was with Republicans. But Clinton also showed how to lead when dealing with the opposition, play tough when needed, compromise when needed.

  5. #65
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    And you ignore the fact that I said that I think split power is best for the country. You're so partisan you can't even see when I'm trying to say that two parties working together is probably better for the country than one party having total control.

    But, I also ask you - how do you ignore that even when the top tax rate was 91% on highest levels of income, we still had remarkable growth? Yes, the debt grew under Clinton - but it grew at a slower rate than under either Reagan or Bush, which is at least a positive step. And yes, it was with Republicans. But Clinton also showed how to lead when dealing with the opposition, play tough when needed, compromise when needed.
    I am indeed partisan as I have zero respect for liberals in Congress. They have made fools of their constituents and keep getting reelected by the brain dead. I have no use for shared power with Pelosi and Reid and Obama. All three have to go. Obama had no business getting elected in the first place as far too many ignored his resume and voted simply on his rhetoric. There is no such thing as compromise with a liberal and Obama is showing that, i.e. healthcare reform, stimulus plan, GM/Chrysler buyout.

    Slow growth cannot sustain and grow enough jobs for 310 million people. In the 1950's we were still paying for WWII and the Korean War plust had about half the people we have now. We also didn't have the income levels today, cost of living today. I hope you aren't suggesting going back to a 91% tax rate although my bet is Obama would support it.

    I asked you if Clinton signed budgets that were lower or higher than he submitted and why? You give him way too much credit and ignore the peace dividend he had. The question is without a war, without 9/11, without a major economic downturn why did he have any debt at all?

    Reagan took over from Carter and inherited a misery index of over 20. He also destroyed the Soviet Union with his military build up yet doubled economic growth, govt. revenue, and created 20 million jobs. Bush had 9/11 which cost over a trillion dollars according to GAO and had the worst hurricane in decades in Katrina which destroyed New Orleans. He also prosectued two wars costing over 600 billion dollars during his term. Different times and different circumstances. Clinton wasn't who you have been led to believe and neither was GW Bush. Bush took a 9.9 trillion dollar economy and grew it to 14.4. He inherited a recession and left us one. GDP Growth was low in 2001 and 2008 and yet his GDP growth of 4.5 trillion dollars is the highest GDP growth in U.S. history.

  6. #66
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I am indeed partisan as I have zero respect for liberals in Congress. They have made fools of their constituents and keep getting reelected by the brain dead. I have no use for shared power with Pelosi and Reid and Obama. All three have to go. Obama had no business getting elected in the first place as far too many ignored his resume and voted simply on his rhetoric. There is no such thing as compromise with a liberal and Obama is showing that, i.e. healthcare reform, stimulus plan, GM/Chrysler buyout.

    Slow growth cannot sustain and grow enough jobs for 310 million people. In the 1950's we were still paying for WWII and the Korean War plust had about half the people we have now. We also didn't have the income levels today, cost of living today. I hope you aren't suggesting going back to a 91% tax rate although my bet is Obama would support it.

    I asked you if Clinton signed budgets that were lower or higher than he submitted and why? You give him way too much credit and ignore the peace dividend he had. The question is without a war, without 9/11, without a major economic downturn why did he have any debt at all?

    Reagan took over from Carter and inherited a misery index of over 20. He also destroyed the Soviet Union with his military build up yet doubled economic growth, govt. revenue, and created 20 million jobs. Bush had 9/11 which cost over a trillion dollars according to GAO and had the worst hurricane in decades in Katrina which destroyed New Orleans. He also prosectued two wars costing over 600 billion dollars during his term. Different times and different circumstances. Clinton wasn't who you have been led to believe and neither was GW Bush. Bush took a 9.9 trillion dollar economy and grew it to 14.4. He inherited a recession and left us one. GDP Growth was low in 2001 and 2008 and yet his GDP growth of 4.5 trillion dollars is the highest GDP growth in U.S. history.
    And yet - with having to spend all this money, he cut taxes that were extraordinarily geared toward the wealthy - THUS creating the greatest deficits in US history AND overseeing the worst economy since the Depression. If his policies were so good, how did the recession even happen? Why was it so bad? How come he didn't fix it before he left? If it's so easy to fix, then why couldn't he do it? Why didn't Reagan fix the recession he inherited overnight? Why did it take him two years to begin the turnaround and why did his unemployment rate increase at a rate even higher than it has under Obama - who inherited a MUCH worse economy than Reagan did?

    You can even say that Obama sucks and I'll let you. What the hell ever. Don't care.

    But you're so clearly stuck in one party's propaganda that continuing this debate is worthless. I don't argue for a partisan takeover. I argue that both parties are flawed and that through compromise do we get our best solutions.

    You argue that somehow the 2000s were magnificent (despite causing the issues we're stuck in) and ignore that great growth even occurred when tax rates were three times higher on the most wealthy (which, by the way, I'm not arguing - I'm arguing that letting the Bush cuts expire will NOT destroy the economy).

    There is growing proof that policies that concentrate wealth destroy the nation. Republican policies of the 1920's and 2000's led to great wealth concentration, which was immediately followed by the two worst economic setbacks we've ever experienced. When we had a split government in the 1990's we had pretty damn good growth that supported multiple classes - not JUST the wealthy.

    The foolish thing is there hasn't been one single economic era of growth where working and middle class individuals did well and the wealthy suffered. Because when the working and middle classes do well, so do the wealthy. That's why even with high tax rates that adjust income lower through things like the GI Bill still allowed the rich to get richer. Because when working and middle class individuals and families have more money they spend it - sending it to the rich people who own the companies. When you cut their taxes too much, they just hoard it. We've seen it happen. When you set tax levels at a degree that it rewards them investing their funds in employees, infrastructure, and research - it improves the economy. I'm not saying raise taxes like crazy; what I'm saying is find the levels best for growth. They're not 0% for everyone and they're certainly not at levels that send all wealth upwards to the top 10%.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    FilmFestGuy;1058891569]And yet - with having to spend all this money, he cut taxes that were extraordinarily geared toward the wealthy - THUS creating the greatest deficits in US history AND overseeing the worst economy since the Depression. If his policies were so good, how did the recession even happen? Why was it so bad? How come he didn't fix it before he left? If it's so easy to fix, then why couldn't he do it? Why didn't Reagan fix the recession he inherited overnight? Why did it take him two years to begin the turnaround and why did his unemployment rate increase at a rate even higher than it has under Obama - who inherited a MUCH worse economy than Reagan did?
    Where do you get your information? You never answer direct questions. Why do you care what the rich get to keep of their money? You do realize it is theirs first, right? Too bad you don't have the same concern over how Congress spends ours.

    then you make wild claims that make no sense and defy history. How can you say Obama inherited a worse economy than Reagan, that simply isn't backed by the facts and of course the misery index. Inflation was terrible, unemployment was rising, malaise was terrible and economic growth meager at best.

    Reagan took office and had to fight a Democrat Congress, he passes a 10-10-5 tax cut that didn't get passed until August 1981, the effects didn't start until 1982 and that is when the economy started turning around.

    You can even say that Obama sucks and I'll let you. What the hell ever. Don't care.
    Good because Obama policies do suck, he is destroying the very foundation upon which our economy was built. Everyone is a victim and there are no consequences for poor choices in his world. That isn't the real world and never was.

    But you're so clearly stuck in one party's propaganda that continuing this debate is worthless. I don't argue for a partisan takeover. I argue that both parties are flawed and that through compromise do we get our best solutions.
    Wrong, the one thing I learned was trust but verify and I prefer bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury websites for non partisan data. Suggest you try it. It is you that ignores facts to buy opinions.

    You argue that somehow the 2000s were magnificent (despite causing the issues we're stuck in) and ignore that great growth even occurred when tax rates were three times higher on the most wealthy (which, by the way, I'm not arguing - I'm arguing that letting the Bush cuts expire will NOT destroy the economy).
    I never claimed that the 2000's were magnificant but they weren't the disaster the media claims and the facts from the sites I gave you verify it. I don't know how increasing taxes and giving the govt.more of taxpayer money to waste is good for the economy. Why don't you and all those other bright liberals who believe that the govt. needs more taxes just write a check over and above what you pay if indeed you pay any taxes. 53% of the people in this country pay taxes, 47% then don't care how much those 53% pay and that is liberalism.


    There is growing proof that policies that concentrate wealth destroy the nation. Republican policies of the 1920's and 2000's led to great wealth concentration, which was immediately followed by the two worst economic setbacks we've ever experienced. When we had a split government in the 1990's we had pretty damn good growth that supported multiple classes - not JUST the wealthy.
    There is growing proof that people are getting dumber each day as evidenced by many here that continue to defend Obama, greater growth in govt. What a bunch of crap! No concern over the 3.8 trillion govt. budget, the 13 trillion dollar debt, the 16 million unemployed. You and others have been brainwashed. There is nothing preventing you from sending more in for taxes but libeals don't do that, they want to spread their misery equally to everyone else.

    I have no problem with a split govt. and that is about to happen in November. That could be the best thing to happen to this country especially with the unqualified occupant in the WH. Still waiting for an answer to my question about the Clinton budgets?

    The foolish thing is there hasn't been one single economic era of growth where working and middle class individuals did well and the wealthy suffered. Because when the working and middle classes do well, so do the wealthy. That's why even with high tax rates that adjust income lower through things like the GI Bill still allowed the rich to get richer. Because when working and middle class individuals and families have more money they spend it - sending it to the rich people who own the companies. When you cut their taxes too much, they just hoard it. We've seen it happen. When you set tax levels at a degree that it rewards them investing their funds in employees, infrastructure, and research - it improves the economy. I'm not saying raise taxes like crazy; what I'm saying is find the levels best for growth. They're not 0% for everyone and they're certainly not at levels that send all wealth upwards to the top 10%.
    Growing up did you have any goals in life? I imagine that most of those people who now seem to promote class envy wanted badly to become the people that they now hate. Instead of promoting higher taxes why aren't you promoting better use of the tax dollars the govt. is getting. What is the role of govt. in your world? Are there ever any consequences for failure? You and others just don't get it. The govt. needs money but the taxpayers need it more. the more money the individual keeps the less that individual needs from the Federal govt. and that destroys liberals. It is amazing how much money the rich give to charities and other community service issues when they get to keep more of what they earn but for some reason you would rather send it to the govt. The question is why? Apparently waste, fraud, and abuse of our taxdollars doesn't bother you. And yes, by both parties. It just is the liberal solution is to take more of it and thus have more to waste, problem is higher taxes doesn't mean more money for the govt. unless of course you and everyone else spends more when their take home pay is less due to higher taxes.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    The Democrats will lose the House, maybe the Senate.

    The Democrats will lie about why they lost.

    The second-rate media outlets will repeat the lie as if it were truth, and will repeat it consistently for decades, if necessary. The robots and stooges for the Democrats will echo the lie and embellish it ad nauseam on the blogs and the political message boards.

    They will continue the lie, they will eventually, in the natural course of events regardless of what they do, again recover the House and Senate, and they will say they regained control because their lies weren't lies, and the media and the idiots will follow along.

    So, the only turning point I see is that the Messiah won't get any new legislation passed and he will continue his permanent "It's all Bush's Fault" campaign, becuase he's a little boy that has never made a mistake.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    All I'm going to say is that the 1950's with 91% top marginal rates saw incredible growth.
    Yeah, you should probably stop there and ask WHY?

    Let's see....EVERY OTHER industrialized nation in the whole world, except for Canada, had been bombed to the 17th Century.

    The Cold War was starting to roll, so the defense industries weren't dying down to their pre-war levels.

    There was tremendous pent up demand from long before the war because of FDR's continued persistent deliberate mismanagement of the economy, demand that was being met, finally, after he croaked.

    The United States was the sole exporter in a world with growing demands.

    Ya, is it any wonder the US economy was going balls to the wall in 1951?

    The 1990's with Clinton's tax raise also saw growth AND reduced the deficit.
    And what really reduced the deficit, of course, was Reagan's victory over the Soviet Union, ending the Cold War despite Democrat efforts to the contrary, and the settlement of the S&L Bailout, again a result of mainly Democrat criminal manipulations in the banking regulations (Keating Five). That, coupled with the continued progress of supply side economics to grow the economy and the explosive growth typical of any new widespread technology (the PC and the Internet) led to an economic boom that had nothing to do with a philandering president who was doing everything wrong but had the luck of historical trends on his side. Not to forget mentioning that the GOP congress sent the Welfare Reform Act to the White House three times before it was signed.

    And, no, contrary to popular left wing myth, the federal budget was never balanced under Clinton. Anyone in the civillian world that pulled what Congress pulled to call the budget balanced would have been thrust in jail, and quickly.

    It was Republicans who began the huge deficits during the 2000's. The first stimulus was under Bush (yes, Democrats voted for it - so did many Republicans).
    Yes, then again, if 300 billion is "huge", what word in the English language describes the Messiah's 1,470 billion dollar deficit?

    Hmmm?

    Blame It On Bush isn't a valid argument.

    Nor is "they did it too".

    Compromise will only occur when we stop sending the most extreme members of each party to Congress
    Who wants compromise?

    I want the Constitution obeyed.

    - Republicans are going to send even more extreme representatives than they did in the 2000's. Perhaps, if they can get the House they will craft bills that can be passed by a Democratic Senate and we can actually get something done.
    If the alternative to raising taxes is doing nothing, I'm perfectly willing to watch Congress polish chair seats with their fat behinds.

    If the alternative to increased spending is Congressional hemorrhoids, I'm not the one getting the itchy butt.

    The word "Enough" applies only as the limit.

    The words "Constitutional Restoration" are the goal. No longer is compromise of my freedom and my income the acceptable answer to the government's inability to stop spending my children's money.

    If I've learned a lesson recently, handing complete power to either one of the parties is not good for the country.
    I knew that when Bush was elected. Clearly socialist control of the United States government is bad.

    We haven't tried control of the all branches of the United States government by Americans, not in my lifetime.

    Let's try that one before jumping to the conclusion that just because the socialists can't do anything useful that Americans can't do it either.

    I mean, what we're seeing now is what happens when a crybaby insists on trying to do a man's job. The crybabies have failed. People should stop listening to them.

    What I'm against is pretending that one party has all the answers and pretending that there is only one answer to any given problem.
    Well, that makes sense.

    Your party doesn't have any answers, so that explains why you feel no ideology has them.


    However, libertarians DO have the answers, so fear of failure isn't one of our concerns.

    And as I pointed out earlier - Conservatives in England are at least smart enough to recognize that tax increase are going to HAVE to be part of the solution to the deficit. It's a matter of when you begin them.
    That's good for them.

    Do they have a written Constitution defining what is lawful for the government to do, and is England following that Constitution?

    No, and no.

    The United States has a Constitution, and when the government is forced to abide by it, the spending problems go away.

    It's that simple.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,490

    Re: A Turning Point For Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Where do you get your information? You never answer direct questions. Why do you care what the rich get to keep of their money? You do realize it is theirs first, right? Too bad you don't have the same concern over how Congress spends ours.

    then you make wild claims that make no sense and defy history. How can you say Obama inherited a worse economy than Reagan, that simply isn't backed by the facts and of course the misery index. Inflation was terrible, unemployment was rising, malaise was terrible and economic growth meager at best.

    Reagan took office and had to fight a Democrat Congress, he passes a 10-10-5 tax cut that didn't get passed until August 1981, the effects didn't start until 1982 and that is when the economy started turning around.



    Good because Obama policies do suck, he is destroying the very foundation upon which our economy was built. Everyone is a victim and there are no consequences for poor choices in his world. That isn't the real world and never was.



    Wrong, the one thing I learned was trust but verify and I prefer bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury websites for non partisan data. Suggest you try it. It is you that ignores facts to buy opinions.



    I never claimed that the 2000's were magnificant but they weren't the disaster the media claims and the facts from the sites I gave you verify it. I don't know how increasing taxes and giving the govt.more of taxpayer money to waste is good for the economy. Why don't you and all those other bright liberals who believe that the govt. needs more taxes just write a check over and above what you pay if indeed you pay any taxes. 53% of the people in this country pay taxes, 47% then don't care how much those 53% pay and that is liberalism.




    There is growing proof that people are getting dumber each day as evidenced by many here that continue to defend Obama, greater growth in govt. What a bunch of crap! No concern over the 3.8 trillion govt. budget, the 13 trillion dollar debt, the 16 million unemployed. You and others have been brainwashed. There is nothing preventing you from sending more in for taxes but libeals don't do that, they want to spread their misery equally to everyone else.

    I have no problem with a split govt. and that is about to happen in November. That could be the best thing to happen to this country especially with the unqualified occupant in the WH. Still waiting for an answer to my question about the Clinton budgets?



    Growing up did you have any goals in life? I imagine that most of those people who now seem to promote class envy wanted badly to become the people that they now hate. Instead of promoting higher taxes why aren't you promoting better use of the tax dollars the govt. is getting. What is the role of govt. in your world? Are there ever any consequences for failure? You and others just don't get it. The govt. needs money but the taxpayers need it more. the more money the individual keeps the less that individual needs from the Federal govt. and that destroys liberals. It is amazing how much money the rich give to charities and other community service issues when they get to keep more of what they earn but for some reason you would rather send it to the govt. The question is why? Apparently waste, fraud, and abuse of our taxdollars doesn't bother you. And yes, by both parties. It just is the liberal solution is to take more of it and thus have more to waste, problem is higher taxes doesn't mean more money for the govt. unless of course you and everyone else spends more when their take home pay is less due to higher taxes.
    have you ever considered the possibility, that maybe it is you that has been 'brainwashed'?

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •