Republicans want to wreck the US economy

[Raider]

We will not default, our credit rating will not be lowered, we will come to an agreement on the debt. Those who say otherwise are wrong.

 

[Keanu]

We will not default, our credit rating will not be lowered, we will come to an agreement on the debt. Those who say otherwise are wrong.

Actually I do believe the credit rating reduction is very well possible

 

[Ping]

I do have a genuine question....if the USA does end up defaulting, who's the general public going to blame for the disaster?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I do have a genuine question....if the USA does end up defaulting, who's the general public going to blame for the disaster?

According to recent polls from Quinnipiac University and Pew Research Center, about 48% will blame the Republicans while only 34% will blame the Obama administration. Additionally, most Americans still blame George W. Bush for the current economy more than the Obama administration.

So to answer your question, the Republicans. They'd be right too.

 

[Random Hero]

I'll blame the entire legislative branch, regardless of party affiliation.

As for the president, he just seems like he has checked out and is more worried about reelection then leading the country through our numerous problems.

You cannot really blame him for this. I will blame him for the previous budget that he allowed the Democratic controlled Congress to bypass the deadline by months.

This time however, it was Congress that failed more then the president.

 

[Sovereign]

I'll blame the entire legislative branch, regardless of party affiliation.

then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

As for the president, he just seems like he has checked out and is more worried about reelection then leading the country through our numerous problems.

Are you kidding? Have you been watching this debate? Obama let Biden run the negotiations for awhile there, but when those weren't going anywhere he stepped in. Obama's been leading the efforts on this for weeks now.

I hate this charge that if Obama goes to a fundraiser, it means by default he's more worried about re-election and isn't paying attention to the country's problems. It's nonsense.

 

[Random Hero]

then you haven't been paying attention.

Yes I have, the entirety of Congress is a joke. It is the party before the country, Democrats and Republicans have proved that to me over the last few months.

Republicans refuse to talk about tax reform, which if done right would make raising the current tax rates unnecessary.

Democrats refuse to talk about reforming federal programs like SS and Medicare, which are going to cause far worse problems for the US by the end of this decade if left the way they are.

Unless both parties are seriously committed to big changes in government, then the people will start looking elsewhere for solutions.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Democrats refuse to talk about reforming federal programs like SS and Medicare, which are going to cause far worse problems for the US by the end of this decade if left the way they are.

Democrats are spineless. If Obama convinces the Republicans to accept his mega deal, enough Democrats will go along with it.

 

[Sovereign]

which if done right would make raising the current tax rates unnecessary.

Really? Please tell me how that could even be remotely possible.

Democrats refuse to talk about reforming federal programs like SS and Medicare, which are going to cause far worse problems for the US by the end of this decade if left the way they are.

The president proposed a 4 trillion plan most of which are cuts that target SS and medicare and also include a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. Like I said, you aren't paying attention.

 

[Travis]

Hmmm.

For six years, a Republican Congress under a Republican President steadily increased the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars a year while the economy was booming and revenue was somewhat flowing.

Finally angered enough by the spending, voters (including conservatives) turned on Republicans allowing Democrats to win control of Congress.

For two years, a Democratic Congress and the same Republican President did nothing to stop the spending, but rather increased it.

Again, conservatives and others lashed out at Republicans and Democrats won even more seats to get a super majority in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. Though, to be fair, Republicans deserved that lashing for far more than just the spending.

For two years, Democrats held super majorities in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, but failed to reign in any spending despite a massive recession/depression. Rather, they decided that it would not do to be outspent by the previous Republicans, so they decided to increase the deficit by trillions rather than just hundreds of billions each year.

In absolute outrage, voters punished the Democrats in one of the most decisive upset elections in American history.

The Republicans were forced to, with just one chamber of Congress and a hostile Presidency, deal with a mess that the Democrats had been building for four years. The Democrats, when they had not just a majority, but a super-majority (meaning the Republicans couldn't stop them even if every one of them voted against the Democrats), failed to pass a proper budget and sure as hell failed to stop the rampant spending (rather, they were the reason for it).

So now, after the Democrats under their current President spent more in two and a half years than the Republican President did in eight years, things are finally coming to head. The sins of the Republicans in big spending and yes, perhaps in overextending the country in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined with the even larger sins of the Democrats and their "spend out of a recession, tax the hell out of everyone while we are in it so we can punish those evil rich people and pay off our voting base" philosophy are coming back to bite everyone in the butt.

Republicans are at fault for starting the mass spending in the 2000's and the Democrats are at fault for ratcheting that up a couple dozen notches and spending more in the late 2000's and early '10's and doing paltry little to actually help the economy. Both sides have made terrible mistakes, both sides share the blame for the state things are in now.

As for the current situation, both sides are operating on philosophy. Democrats were giving a schilacking last November and lost a chunk of their power. Going off of that, just as the Democrats did after 2008, the Republicans are pushing forward with what they promised to do: cut the spending without raising a ton of taxes. The Democrats, realizing they got hit hard, are not quite as adamant about pushing their philosophy of high taxes on the "rich" and mass spending, are forced to move more toward the center. It is for that reason and that reason alone they appear to be more reasonable. After having just had their asses handed to them, the Democrats are not so eager to try to bully the opposition, especially since they can't.

One way or another, the spending needs to be cut majorly. The Democrats had years to pass a budget, they failed even when they had a super majority. They left that mess to Republicans and now they are paying for it. The Republicans are not strong enough to ramrod anything through, but then, neither are the Democrats. Both are fighting to appeal to their base, both are locked in a partisan battle.

Who to blame more? I don't know. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Not only that, but raising taxes in a recession is never a good idea. Surprisingly, the very President who is now pushing for tax hikes would agree with that, or at least, he did back in 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwoKOFgghxI

 

[Raider]

Hmmm.

For six years, a Republican Congress under a Republican President steadily increased the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars a year while the economy was booming and revenue was somewhat flowing.

Finally angered enough by the spending, voters (including conservatives) turned on Republicans allowing Democrats to win control of Congress.

For two years, a Democratic Congress and the same Republican President did nothing to stop the spending, but rather increased it.

Again, conservatives and others lashed out at Republicans and Democrats won even more seats to get a super majority in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. Though, to be fair, Republicans deserved that lashing for far more than just the spending.

For two years, Democrats held super majorities in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, but failed to reign in any spending despite a massive recession/depression. Rather, they decided that it would not do to be outspent by the previous Republicans, so they decided to increase the deficit by trillions rather than just hundreds of billions each year.

In absolute outrage, voters punished the Democrats in one of the most decisive upset elections in American history.

The Republicans were forced to, with just one chamber of Congress and a hostile Presidency, deal with a mess that the Democrats had been building for four years. The Democrats, when they had not just a majority, but a super-majority (meaning the Republicans couldn't stop them even if every one of them voted against the Democrats), failed to pass a proper budget and sure as hell failed to stop the rampant spending (rather, they were the reason for it).

So now, after the Democrats under their current President spent more in two and a half years than the Republican President did in eight years, things are finally coming to head. The sins of the Republicans in big spending and yes, perhaps in overextending the country in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined with the even larger sins of the Democrats and their "spend out of a recession, tax the hell out of everyone while we are in it so we can punish those evil rich people and pay off our voting base" philosophy are coming back to bite everyone in the butt.

Republicans are at fault for starting the mass spending in the 2000's and the Democrats are at fault for ratcheting that up a couple dozen notches and spending more in the late 2000's and early '10's and doing paltry little to actually help the economy. Both sides have made terrible mistakes, both sides share the blame for the state things are in now.

As for the current situation, both sides are operating on philosophy. Democrats were giving a schilacking last November and lost a chunk of their power. Going off of that, just as the Democrats did after 2008, the Republicans are pushing forward with what they promised to do: cut the spending without raising a ton of taxes. The Democrats, realizing they got hit hard, are not quite as adamant about pushing their philosophy of high taxes on the "rich" and mass spending, are forced to move more toward the center. It is for that reason and that reason alone they appear to be more reasonable. After having just had their asses handed to them, the Democrats are not so eager to try to bully the opposition, especially since they can't.

One way or another, the spending needs to be cut majorly. The Democrats had years to pass a budget, they failed even when they had a super majority. They left that mess to Republicans and now they are paying for it. The Republicans are not strong enough to ramrod anything through, but then, neither are the Democrats. Both are fighting to appeal to their base, both are locked in a partisan battle.

Who to blame more? I don't know. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Not only that, but raising taxes in a recession is never a good idea. Surprisingly, the very President who is now pushing for tax hikes would agree with that, or at least, he did back in 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwoKOFgghxI

Utter nonsense.

The debt and deficit had nothing to do with the election results of the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. The Democrats won in 2006 because of the mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War, and President Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security. The Great Recession was the cause for the super majority win by the Democrats in 2008 and the healthcare reform they pushed through along with the weak recovery is what handed Republicans a victory in 2010. The debt and the deficit was a none issue until the Republicans made it one.

 

[Keanu]

Utter nonsense.

The debt and deficit had nothing to do with the election results of the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. The Democrats won in 2006 because of the mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War, and President Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security. The Great Recession was the cause for the super majority win by the Democrats in 2008 and the healthcare reform they pushed through along with the weak recovery is what handed Republicans a victory in 2010. The debt and the deficit was a none issue until the Republicans made it one.

Agreed. Not only that but:

they decided that it would not do to be outspent by the previous Republicans, so they decided to increase the deficit by trillions rather than just hundreds of billions each year.

Do you know where the economy would be now if the democrats didnt spend and invest money into the economy?

Also bush spent roughly a trillion at the end of his term to battle the recession aswell.

The republicans are holding the democrats hostage to push their agenda (again)

 

[Malon]

The republicans are holding the democrats hostage to push their agenda (again)

And when the Democrats had the super majority, they rammed everything they could through, not giving a damn what the other side had to say, or what the country was saying either.

Point is, both sides are at falt; period. Both have a "my way or the high way" attitude, and always have.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Hmmm.

For six years, a Republican Congress under a Republican President steadily increased the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars a year while the economy was booming and revenue was somewhat flowing.

Finally angered enough by the spending, voters (including conservatives) turned on Republicans allowing Democrats to win control of Congress.

Voters didn't turn against the Republicans because of spending, they turned against the Republicans because of the War in Iraq. The economy and spending weren't that big of an issue in that election.

Additionally, the economy was booming based solely on speculation. There were no real innovations or any sort of industry. It was bubble after bubble. The lack of regulation caused what conveniently looked like a good economy to come crashing down all around us.

Revenue was also only somewhat flowing if you stretch the definition of "somewhat." We were in two wars and, as you pointed out, the Republicans were spending quite a lot of money, all while having given out two massive tax cuts that didn't need to be enacted.

Remember, unless you offset tax cuts with spending cuts, tax cuts are an additional expense. They're "tax spending" without an equal or greater spending cut.

For two years, Democrats held super majorities in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, but failed to reign in any spending despite a massive recession/depression. Rather, they decided that it would not do to be outspent by the previous Republicans, so they decided to increase the deficit by trillions rather than just hundreds of billions each year.

That's a myth. Yes they had to spend a lot of money up front with the stimulus, but a stimulus was necessary. It didn't work as well as intended, but only because over half of it went to tax cuts and state aid rather than things that would have actually created jobs instead of just stabilizing the fall. You can thank the Republicans for that.

Additionally, the idea that Obama increased the debt and deficit more than any other president is also a myth. Yes, if you just look at sheer numbers, you will see that after Obama takes office the amount of debt and deficit increases by quite a lot. This is not, however, due to his own spending. It's because during the Bush administration, major expenditures like Iraq, Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, and the two tax cuts were not really put onto the books. They were conveniently ignored until Obama stopped ignoring them, making it seem like he increased the debt more than any other president.

The Republicans were forced to, with just one chamber of Congress and a hostile Presidency, deal with a mess that the Democrats had been building for four years. The Democrats, when they had not just a majority, but a super-majority (meaning the Republicans couldn't stop them even if every one of them voted against the Democrats), failed to pass a proper budget and sure as hell failed to stop the rampant spending (rather, they were the reason for it).

A hostile presidency? Please. Obama constantly caves to the Republicans, even when he had a super majority in both chambers. He's often a right wing president, it's just the right wing has become so insanely right wing that anything right of them is suddenly socialist.

Additionally, this is still a Republican mess more than it is a Democratic mess, and the voters recognize that. As I said earlier in this thread, more voters believe the current economy is George Bush's disaster than it is Obama's. The Republicans are the ones on the wrong side of the people.

So now, after the Democrats under their current President spent more in two and a half years than the Republican President did in eight years, things are finally coming to head. The sins of the Republicans in big spending and yes, perhaps in overextending the country in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined with the even larger sins of the Democrats and their "spend out of a recession, tax the hell out of everyone while we are in it so we can punish those evil rich people and pay off our voting base" philosophy are coming back to bite everyone in the butt.

Any economist who knows anything will tell you that you spend in a recession. Additionally, this idea that Obama has raised your taxes is a blatant lie. 40% of the stimulus package was a tax cut, and he extended the Bush tax cuts for everybody.

Plus, 68% of people believe that taxes need to be raised on the rich. That's not class warfare. When people like you use phrases like "punish the rich," THAT is class warfare. The rich are not going to feel a 3% tax increase. They are not job creators, they pocket their tax cuts and don't use them to help the economy. Trickle down is a fraud and does not work.

Republicans are at fault for starting the mass spending in the 2000's and the Democrats are at fault for ratcheting that up a couple dozen notches and spending more in the late 2000's and early '10's and doing paltry little to actually help the economy. Both sides have made terrible mistakes, both sides share the blame for the state things are in now.

They really didn't ratchet it up a couple dozen notches. See above.

As for the current situation, both sides are operating on philosophy.

Obama has proposed archaic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, flying in the face of his philosophy. He's also proposed tax cuts.

The tea partiers in Congress are the ones refusing to budge. John Boehner would've taken Obama's mega deal were it not for them, and the Democrats will cave from their anti-spending cuts stance when Obama tells them to.

Democrats were giving a schilacking last November and lost a chunk of their power. Going off of that, just as the Democrats did after 2008, the Republicans are pushing forward with what they promised to do: cut the spending without raising a ton of taxes. The Democrats, realizing they got hit hard, are not quite as adamant about pushing their philosophy of high taxes on the "rich" and mass spending, are forced to move more toward the center. It is for that reason and that reason alone they appear to be more reasonable. After having just had their asses handed to them, the Democrats are not so eager to try to bully the opposition, especially since they can't.

All speculation.

One way or another, the spending needs to be cut majorly. The Democrats had years to pass a budget, they failed even when they had a super majority. They left that mess to Republicans and now they are paying for it. The Republicans are not strong enough to ramrod anything through, but then, neither are the Democrats. Both are fighting to appeal to their base, both are locked in a partisan battle.

Yes, there need to be spending cuts, but taxes need to be raised on the wealthiest Americans as well. To have massive spending cuts without tax raises is not only economically absurd, it's downright immoral. You're willing to make poor and middle class Americans sacrifice with deep cuts, but you draw the line in the sand at millionaires. It's unconscionable.

Who to blame more? I don't know. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Not only that, but raising taxes in a recession is never a good idea. Surprisingly, the very President who is now pushing for tax hikes would agree with that, or at least, he did back in 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwoKOFgghxI

Raising taxes on poor and middle class Americans is a bad idea. The wealthiest Americans, however, really won't feel it, as they typically pocket the tax breaks for themselves, as I said above.

And when the Democrats had the super majority, they rammed everything they could through, not giving a damn what the other side had to say, or what the country was saying either.

That is such crap. The stimulus was balanced towards Republicans, financial regulations didn't go nearly as far as they should have, and the health care reform bill was a Republican plan championed by Bob Dole in the 90s.

Obama has consistently caved to the Republicans because he wanted to be Mr. Nice Guy. The only reason that the Republicans think he's a socialist is because they've moved so far to the extreme right that anything left of them looks liberal, socialist, communist, etc.

 

[Keanu]

And when the Democrats had the super majority, they rammed everything they could through, not giving a damn what the other side had to say, or what the country was saying either.

Point is, both sides are at falt; period. Both have a "my way or the high way" attitude, and always have.

I guess thats why the US has affordable health care right? Wrong.

The health care bill the democrats wanted to enact were aimed at c utting prices. The current one only makes it so everyone has to get health care or get a tax penalty.

 

[Travis]

The debt and deficit had nothing to do with the election results of the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. . . . . . .The debt and the deficit was a none issue until the Republicans made it one.

Precisely. Yes, the things you listed were definite contributors to the Democrat rise, especially in 2006. However, starting mainly in 2008, a great deal of the Republican base were unmotivated to do anything due to how things were going about regarding the liberal tendencies in the Republican party, namely spending. They abandoned many of the Republican incumbents for that very thing and refused to contribute either time or money into those campaigns. Yes, the Republicans would have lost, but it wouldn't have been as bad if the base wasn't so angry. That is one of the largest reasons why the Tea Party movement rose: the conservatives were angry at the Republican "establishment" and demanded they stop behaving like liberal spenders.

Do you know where the economy would be now if the democrats didnt spend and invest money into the economy?

Probably not much worse or better than it is now, except we wouldn't be quite so deep in debt. I know, $850 billion isn't all that much these days, but it is still a huge amount. As Brandon Rhea noted, the stimulus was not directed as well as it could have been. While I would agree that some spending is needed, a good chunk of what was in that bill was waste and designed to stuff the pork into all the Democrat's supporters' pet projects.

Also bush spent roughly a trillion at the end of his term to battle the recession aswell.

And if you notice, I pointed that out. Still, Bush's deficits were small compared to his successor (no matter what Brandon Rhea would like to say).

The republicans are holding the democrats hostage to push their agenda (again)

Yes, because Democrats never did that when they were the minority party. . . .
That is politics and it is the way it is. Right now, Republicans have control of the body of our government that handles the finances. That gives them larger than normal power in budget issues, despite only controlling one of the three relevant parts of government.

Voters didn't turn against the Republicans because of spending, they turned against the Republicans because of the War in Iraq. The economy and spending weren't that big of an issue in that election.

That is more or less true in 2006, but the spending was definitely an issue in 2008 and extremely so in 2010. As I said above, in those first two, the biggest problem for Republicans was a lack of motivation among their base.

Additionally, the economy was booming based solely on speculation. There were no real innovations or any sort of industry. It was bubble after bubble. The lack of regulation caused what conveniently looked like a good economy to come crashing down all around us.

Sort of like what happened with the Stock Market Bubble that gave Clinton such a good name? Yes, they happen. That is how so many economies to both boom and crash. I am not against regulation to a degree. I am against it when it becomes so inhibiting that companies can no longer do business in America and go overseas or simply go out of business. Regarding the specific financial regulation of Fannie and Freddie, I will point out that it was Republicans including McCain who were concerned about the two years before things went bad and it was a small number of Republicans and a majority of Democrats including Barney Frank who defended the two institutions. If anything, neither side can claim innocence in the regulatory realm.

Remember, unless you offset tax cuts with spending cuts, tax cuts are an additional expense. They're "tax spending" without an equal or greater spending cut.

I agree. You will not find me defending Republican spending habits during the 2000's. It was not what should have been done and they paid dearly for it. However, what we are talking about is not tax cuts without spending cuts, but straight up spending cuts.

Yes they had to spend a lot of money up front with the stimulus, but a stimulus was necessary. It didn't work as well as intended, but only because over half of it went to tax cuts and state aid rather than things that would have actually created jobs instead of just stabilizing the fall. You can thank the Republicans for that.

I could possibly buy that, except for a few problems regarding numbers. I am finding a hard time figuring out how an $850 billion or so stimulus, some of which was supposedly paid back, would result in four or five trillion dollars of deficit. Yes, if the Democrats had just been in mass deficit mode for that one year, I would agree that the stimulus caused it. But it didn't. The Democrats have spent and spent and spent far above and beyond that single stimulus or the wars in Iraq or anything else that can be blamed on Republicans. Democrats spent because that is what Democrats do. Just as the Republican policy is often to throw out tax breaks, the Democrat policy is to spend like crazy. As for thanking the Republicans, why? The Democrats could have passed any bill they wanted without a single Republican vote. No, sir, the Democrats had to make concessions just to get their own members to vote for it because those very same members knew it was political suicide to do so (and many of them didn't survive the next election).

Additionally, the idea that Obama increased the debt and deficit more than any other president is also a myth. Yes, if you just look at sheer numbers, you will see that after Obama takes office the amount of debt and deficit increases by quite a lot.

Well, according to Democrat/Obama logic, whoever is in the Presidency is responsible for all bad things that happen during that time. Just as Bush was responsible for everything that happened from 2001-2008, so is Obama responsible for every bad thing that happens from 2009-2012. At least, that is all according to theory. Hell, if it is "Bush's Recession" then it is "Obama's Deficit."

In seriousness, just as Obama is reacting to what happened both before his term and from beyond his control, so did Bush. While some things are voluntary (possibly Iraq for Bush and ObamaCare for Obama), there are a lot of things that were not (9/11, bad economy). Obama himself has done plenty to encourage mass spending. Yes, Bush had his own bad bank bailout bill in 2008, but I will point out that it was Democrats in control of Congress at that time and he only signed off on it. Obama had his own way in Congress for two years and passed a lot of spending. Yes, he also passed a continuance of tax cuts, but I will point out that those cuts existed for Bush and he didn't have $1.6 trillion deficits.

A hostile presidency? Please. Obama constantly caves to the Republicans, even when he had a super majority in both chambers. He's often a right wing president, it's just the right wing has become so insanely right wing that anything right of them is suddenly socialist.

I don't get where you are coming from on that one at all. Obama, if anything, is bowing to the realization that good parts of his liberal agenda are not well received at this time due to cost concerns. He is far, far from a "right wing president" by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, of late, he is being forced to cave to Republicans due to both their control of the House and the political winds, but he is doing so no more than Bush was forced to during 2007-2008. So, unless you want to call Bush a "left wing president" then Obama is clearly not a right winger.

Any economist who knows anything will tell you that you spend in a recession. Additionally, this idea that Obama has raised your taxes is a blatant lie. 40% of the stimulus package was a tax cut, and he extended the Bush tax cuts for everybody.

No, not all of them. There are a few areas where you do spend, but you do NOT spend nearly as much as what is being spent. Japan tried that and they ended up with the "Lost Decade" and still haven't fully recovered. Plus, I will fire back that any economist who knows anything will tell you that you cut taxes and never raise them in a recession.

Obama has proposed archaic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, flying in the face of his philosophy.

No, he isn't proposing them, he is going with what Republicans demanded and trying to get them to agree to tax hikes. That is definitely part of his philosophy and he is willing to hold out to get it no matter what. As for his tax cuts, which are those? I have not been up to date on the last few days, so what exactly is he proposing to cut?

Yes, there need to be spending cuts, but taxes need to be raised on the wealthiest Americans as well. To have massive spending cuts without tax raises is not only economically absurd, it's downright immoral. You're willing to make poor and middle class Americans sacrifice with deep cuts, but you draw the line in the sand at millionaires. It's unconscionable.

No, what is unconscionable is that roughly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. You say these poor must sacrifice with cuts, but they are only taking from others. You are acting as though the rich and the poor are paying the same amount or even rate, but they aren't. The rich are the ones who pay for a bulk of the taxes, far far more than their proportionate amount. What Democrats want is for them to pay even more while their own voting base continues not to pay any federal income taxes. It doesn't matter if the rich can "take it" or not, it is nothing short of stealing from one person to hand it out to another who has often done nothing to deserve it and that is unconscionable. Perhaps if that half of America was paying at least something, I would feel differently, but when that same group who is paying nothing is demanding others pay more, I find it hard to sympathize.

To point out, I am not rich (I am poor working minimum wage jobs right now) and my family is not rich, they would at best be considered middle middle class. So I am not trying to just keep my own money or anything.

Plus, 68% of people believe that taxes need to be raised on the rich. That's not class warfare. When people like you use phrases like "punish the rich," THAT is class warfare.

So mass numbers do not mean class warfare is being used? Hmm, tell that to Russia circa 1917. Numbers do not have anything to do with class warfare. What is class warfare is the constant push by Democrats to demonize "big oil" or "the rich" or any other group that makes money and demand higher taxes or saying that they don't pay their fair share (when they pay far more than anyone else). I do not buy into the idea that a rich person took money from me that should be mine or that they need to pay more and more because they might be able to afford it. I do not believe that someone should be forced to pay higher percentages of their money simply because they have more. To constantly attack the rich as has been done in this topic is the expression of class warfare.

That is such crap. The stimulus was balanced towards Republicans, financial regulations didn't go nearly as far as they should have, and the health care reform bill was a Republican plan championed by Bob Dole in the 90s.

Well, if you are looking at things from a far left prospective as you appear to be, yes, I can see why you would see that. Someone standing from a right perspective would say the bills were far too Democrat leaning and went too far. No matter what you may want to say, the Democrats had complete control of all three of the necessary parts of government to pass whatever they wanted. If they passed something that was too "right wing" for you, then they can only blame themselves or the fact that the American public was so against it, they dared not go any farther to the left. You can point fingers all you wish, but it will not change the fact that Democrats were in control and failed to pass the left leaning bills you seem to desire. They can't blame Republicans at all in that because the Republicans had no power, not even filibusterer power.

It has been a long time since I had a good debate. It is quite fun. Since I am new here, I do want to say that I don't take things personally nor do I debate angry. I respect those I am debating if they show me respect and will love to stick around if this doesn't turn into a flame war. I don't think I have another mega post in me, though. We may have to agree to disagree on this, but it is still fun nonetheless.

Travis

 

[Keanu]

Yes, because Democrats never did that when they were the minority party. . . .
That is politics and it is the way it is. Right now, Republicans have control of the body of our government that handles the finances. That gives them larger than normal power in budget issues, despite only controlling one of the three relevant parts of government.

Where? Where have the democrats stopped bush or the government from working at all? In the last decade please since those are the times you seem to be pointing at.

I agree. You will not find me defending Republican spending habits during the 2000's. It was not what should have been done and they paid dearly for it. However, what we are talking about is not tax cuts without spending cuts, but straight up spending cuts.

And we are talking about spending cuts with tax increases

I could possibly buy that, except for a few problems regarding numbers. I am finding a hard time figuring out how an $850 billion or so stimulus, some of which was supposedly paid back, would result in four or five trillion dollars of deficit. Yes, if the Democrats had just been in mass deficit mode for that one year, I would agree that the stimulus caused it. But it didn't. The Democrats have spent and spent and spent far above and beyond that single stimulus or the wars in Iraq or anything else that can be blamed on Republicans. Democrats spent because that is what Democrats do. Just as the Republican policy is often to throw out tax breaks, the Democrat policy is to spend like crazy. As for thanking the Republicans, why? The Democrats could have passed any bill they wanted without a single Republican vote. No, sir, the Democrats had to make concessions just to get their own members to vote for it because those very same members knew it was political suicide to do so (and many of them didn't survive the next election).

If you dont know where the deficit came from then why are you debating about this? I can tell you that the bush tax cuts definatly added a few hundred billion dollars to the defecit. And the reason why taxes for the rich should go up and spending should go down is due to the fact that the rich hold the majority of the wealth in the US. Even then you dont increase taxes on the poor (and preferebly not on the middle class either) because any pressure on them will lead to more poverty and possibly more unemployment.

I don't get where you are coming from on that one at all. Obama, if anything, is bowing to the realization that good parts of his liberal agenda are not well received at this time due to cost concerns. He is far, far from a "right wing president" by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, of late, he is being forced to cave to Republicans due to both their control of the House and the political winds, but he is doing so no more than Bush was forced to during 2007-2008. So, unless you want to call Bush a "left wing president" then Obama is clearly not a right winger.

Lol. Obama and being a leftist. Sorry too funny. The far im willing to go is to call him a centrist

No, not all of them. There are a few areas where you do spend, but you do NOT spend nearly as much as what is being spent. Japan tried that and they ended up with the "Lost Decade" and still haven't fully recovered. Plus, I will fire back that any economist who knows anything will tell you that you cut taxes and never raise them in a recession.

You cut taxes on the poor and the middle class. You dont cut them for the rich because the crisis effect on them is basically none.

No, he isn't proposing them, he is going with what Republicans demanded and trying to get them to agree to tax hikes. That is definitely part of his philosophy and he is willing to hold out to get it no matter what. As for his tax cuts, which are those? I have not been up to date on the last few days, so what exactly is he proposing to cut?

He wants a 3% increase on the rich (which makes the income tax for them just 38% (in the netherlands it is 52% and it starts lower) Infact the majority of europe has rich taxes around 40 to 50%

Since the top 2-3% of the nation has more then 50% of its wealth its fair to tax them half of that amount. the 3% increase proposed by obama doesnt go far enough. But then again I am one of those dirty evil socialists who want to steal your money and give it to the poor (no not really I just want to set up a welfare state)

for comparison the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth
with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets

No, what is unconscionable is that roughly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. You say these poor must sacrifice with cuts, but they are only taking from others. You are acting as though the rich and the poor are paying the same amount or even rate, but they aren't. The rich are the ones who pay for a bulk of the taxes, far far more than their proportionate amount. What Democrats want is for them to pay even more while their own voting base continues not to pay any federal income taxes. It doesn't matter if the rich can "take it" or not, it is nothing short of stealing from one person to hand it out to another who has often done nothing to deserve it and that is unconscionable. Perhaps if that half of America was paying at least something, I would feel differently, but when that same group who is paying nothing is demanding others pay more, I find it hard to sympathize.

Everybody pays income tax unless you have no income (which is possible ofcourse. There are 14 million unemployed give or take a million or 2 because I dont have the recent statistics) There are mega corporations who pay little to no tax (under the rates the government set up)

To point out, I am not rich (I am poor working minimum wage jobs right now) and my family is not rich, they would at best be considered middle middle class. So I am not trying to just keep my own money or anything.

So mass numbers do not mean class warfare is being used? Hmm, tell that to Russia circa 1917. Numbers do not have anything to do with class warfare. What is class warfare is the constant push by Democrats to demonize "big oil" or "the rich" or any other group that makes money and demand higher taxes or saying that they don't pay their fair share (when they pay far more than anyone else). I do not buy into the idea that a rich person took money from me that should be mine or that they need to pay more and more because they might be able to afford it. I do not believe that someone should be forced to pay higher percentages of their money simply because they have more. To constantly attack the rich as has been done in this topic is the expression of class warfare.

big oil hasnt really been demonized. The only issue regarding them was health and safety (the spill) and the oil subsidy's which were pretty irrellevant at driving down oil prices. (see none at all)
The rich too never really been demonized and obama even extended the bush tax cuts (in hindsight I assume he rather he didn't now)

Well, if you are looking at things from a far left prospective as you appear to be, yes, I can see why you would see that. Someone standing from a right perspective would say the bills were far too Democrat leaning and went too far. No matter what you may want to say, the Democrats had complete control of all three of the necessary parts of government to pass whatever they wanted. If they passed something that was too "right wing" for you, then they can only blame themselves or the fact that the American public was so against it, they dared not go any farther to the left. You can point fingers all you wish, but it will not change the fact that Democrats were in control and failed to pass the left leaning bills you seem to desire. They can't blame Republicans at all in that because the Republicans had no power, not even filibusterer power.

Bac is a communist? :CGape What bac is talking about isnt even left. Maybe center left at best. Big whoop he wants to increase taxes on the rich. Reagan raised taxes 6 times under his terms (I believe. It might be more). Raising taxes isnt a left or right issue.

 

[Ping]

According to recent polls from Quinnipiac University and Pew Research Center, about 48% will blame the Republicans while only 34% will blame the Obama administration. Additionally, most Americans still blame George W. Bush for the current economy more than the Obama administration.

So to answer your question, the Republicans. They'd be right too.

Ah, okay. I felt the need to ask since it seems the general public can say or think some stupid things at various points in time.

 

[Dmitri]

Bac is a communist? :CGape What bac is talking about isnt even left. Maybe center left at best. Big whoop he wants to increase taxes on the rich. Reagan raised taxes 6 times under his terms (I believe. It might be more). Raising taxes isnt a left or right issue.

From what I've heard, Reagan did raise taxes a lot, but on the middle and lower classes. He almost cut the rich taxes in half.