Discussion in 'Politics' started by blu, Apr 9, 2011.
I really don't see anything positive that came from it
People keeping more of what's yours to begin with isn't positive?
BTW, only spending money you don't have adds debt.
Assured that wages would become stagnant, among other things. I find cons walk away from a thread whenever I post this analysis, based on 2008 IRS tables.
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
So, now people have to prove that keeping what's theirs in the first place benefits you.
Is there no end to the entitlement mentality?
I look at it like this. You'll know DC is serious about the deficit and debt when you see Republicans talking about tax raises and Democrats talking about hurtful cuts to social programs.
It's going to be interesting to see how Obama plays-off to his base why he extended the Bush rates. That's in the same column as Gitmo.
I have a great idea! How about you name this thread "Bush was the only, only President of the United States, and he's responsible for every single itsy-bitsy financial ill that we ever have been or will be faced with!!! And, and and I really really hate Bush!"
1. But funny, as this current President is far more financially irresponsible....don't you agree?
2. But if you really want to pin the tail on the donkey...try this guy: paragon of the Dependency Party....(drum roll) LBJ!
a. LBJ fit the progressive mold perfectly, and he wanted to continue FDRs advances toward a cradle-to-grave European style government. The theater of endeavor was not as much economic equality, but racial, but still aimed at undoing the attempts of Truman and Eisenhower to return America to its tradition of fiscal responsibility (between 1946 and 1960, the national debt had fallen from 122% of GDP to less than 56% of GDP; over that period, Americas total deficit was some $740 million versus FDRs deficit of $15.6 billion in 1946 alone. Historical Tables | The White House
b. A cautionary tale from LBJs Great Society discredits the progressive principle of more services via ever-expanding government. And, in fact, unemployment and inflation did occur simultaneously. Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it
c. LBJ accomplished the expansion of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). Under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and needed help to support the children. To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock
today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying. See Charles A. Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.
So, my biased friend, if you would like to go after Bush for spending, do so by all means....but remember Democrat LBJ was worse by several measures, including the fiscal timebombs of Medicare and Medicaid...
President Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ. From 2001 to 2006, Republicans controlled the presidency and House, and, with the exceptions of 01 and 02, the Senate. This was the 'conservative' Progressive Era. . Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest):
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House
I know you're and honest man, so I breathlessly await your thread on Obama and LBJ.
Logic, what kind of lame political trick is that?
They were only extended for two years. It's called wiggle room.
Uh,you mean BOOOOOSH/Obomba Cuts. Your Hopey Changey passed the same cuts. So why aren't you asking him this question? Why is it only BOOOOOOOOSH? Bush isn't the President,your Hopey Changey is. Why don't you write him an angry letter or see if he'll schedule a meeting with you. Hey,good luck with that.
Since I don't read your history lessons anymore, I'll only say that there is no denying that Obama didn't create an economic mess all by himself, ergo the reason the policies of the Bush Administration are so frequently made a part of the discussion. Obama inherited much of it from Bush, then had to deal with his own set of economic nightmares. Let's just stick with those two, shall we?
Separate names with a comma.