Make your mark...spending problem or revenue problem

[Brutus]

The Republican Party wasn't founded until the 1850s.

so then why be so afraid to tell us what party Jefferson founded in 1792??

The Democratic-Republican Party, which dissolved after the 1824 election.

show me an original source: newspaper, ballot, speech, congressional record from the 1790's that says Democratic Republican rather than Republican and I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History

5th Congress (1797-1799)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."-Susan Dunn,Jefferson's Second Revolution.


-During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)
We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans,—we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
- When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)

-That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
"The

 

[Polk]

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SKEPTICISM]

We need incentives that are results driven.

thats idiotic, did someone say they wanted incentives that are not results driven???


Why not share with us the biggest most important incentive you can think of.

This country needs to see a return of Capitalism of which is about financing new industies and creating new jobs which in turn create a strong middle class.

Free market capitalism has been a myth for a long time and has proven to be unsustainable in the long run, especially over the last 30 years. Free markets are code words that allows the weatlhy to pocket as much wealth as possible...but socialize it loses on the backs of the poor, working poor and the midle class.

Since the industrial revolution you had the European bankers backed a few robber barons in the US who controlled the largest industries and energy. JP Morgan, JD and William Rockefeller, Carnegie who sold out to JP, EH Harriman, James J. Hill, Schiff, Warburg-maybe seven people at the top. They controlled railroads, steel, banking, and best of all oil. Since 1913 the wealthy have foisted the private Fed/IRS scam on us and all Federal Taxes go into their private banks or offshore tax heaven.

The Free Market has allowed the wealthy elite to control the markets for their own greed and obscene profits. Hence, so even after the Free Market and deregulation caused the Financial Crisis in 08. In 2011, the Corporations, banks, and wall street are yelling.....let the Free market sort it all out. They control the Free Markets. They control the media, education, banking, corporations, big oil, and best of all credit, money supply, interest rates-therefore EVERYTHING.

 

[MaggieMae]

And in the 'you can't make this stuff up' category:



I guess she and President Obama were most complimentary of President Bush when they both voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. And no doubt because he was white.

Obama said of that 2006 vote:



Robert Gibbs subsequently defended him by saying that 'he only voted against it because he knew it would pass."

I kid you not. You can't make this stuff up.

Without intending to derail this entire thread, surely you realize there are great numbers of people who actually DO hate Obama because he's black. I think Sheila Jackson's major point in saying that is that he does NOT have the respect of THE POSITION by many people, some of whom are elected officials.

And I think there is zero evidence for her statement and her suggestion that the reason he is declining in approval and respect because he is black is a blatantly racist suggestion and flies in the face of rational thought from people of all races.

I wasn't referring to his declining approval rate (which actually it isn't, at least not dramatically), and I don't think Rep. Jackson was either. She's specifically talking about a certain segment of, yes, racist society, who did not approve of Obama from the get-go. To pretend that doesn't exist is burying your head in the sand. Maybe you should check out a few other sites, although I can't name them here (a rule), but be prepared to be shocked at some of the comments by fellow Americans who were born into racism and will be racists all their lives.

 

[MaggieMae]

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

It would be difficult, for sure. There's bound to be a conflict with the USSC ruling outlawing line item veto. How else does a government balance a budget?

If members of Congress wanted a balanced budget, they could raise taxes or cut spending in the amounts needed at any time. That's the how. The more important question to me is the why. I don't think we should have a balanced budget. At least not in the sense most people talk about. I don't think we should have a balanced ledger from year to year. I think the government should shoot for surpluses during the good times, and use that money to finance deficit spending during the bad.

What a novel idea!!

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree, the stimulus should have been doubled!

FDR prolonged Depression for 10 years using a liberal stimulus. It was worst economic performance in American history, which explains why FDR is greatest hero to liberals.

A stimulus does stimulate, but the taxes necessary to pay for it de stimulate so no net economic gain is possible.

Further, when the stimulus is exhausted or the bubble bursts you are in worse shape because resources have been allocated to the wrong places. The recession continues until workers are retrained and resources are put back in sustainable places by the free market.

A recession is simply the time period when the free market corrects the mistakes liberals have made by misallocating resources to non sustainable places.


The concept is way over a liberals
head but one has to try.

That's nice. So how long are those unemployed workers who need retraining because their old jobs aren't coming back have to wait for the "free market" to step up? It's going on 3 years now and the free market is just now peaking from beneath the covers.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Republican Party wasn't founded until the 1850s.

so then why be so afraid to tell us what party Jefferson founded in 1792??

Jefferson wouldn't even recognize the GOP these days. Are you kidding?

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate objective of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, March 31, 1809

 

[MaggieMae]

so then why be so afraid to tell us what party Jefferson founded in 1792??

The Democratic-Republican Party, which dissolved after the 1824 election.

show me an original source: newspaper, ballot, speech, congressional record from the 1790's that says Democratic Republican rather than Republican and I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History

5th Congress (1797-1799)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."-Susan Dunn,Jefferson's Second Revolution.


-During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)
We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans,—we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
- When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)

-That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
"The

Try just opening an encyclopedia for a change. "Republicans" of yore are not the "Republicans" of the present; "Socialists" of yore are not indicative of "social" POLICIES today, which you also continue to confuse.

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party. The party favored states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. The Democratic-Republican Party ascended to power in the election of 1800.

 

[MaggieMae]

We need incentives that are results driven.

thats idiotic, did someone say they wanted incentives that are not results driven???


Why not share with us the biggest most important incentive you can think of.

This country needs to see a return of Capitalism of which is about financing new industies and creating new jobs which in turn create a strong middle class.

Free market capitalism has been a myth for a long time and has proven to be unsustainable in the long run, especially over the last 30 years. Free markets are code words that allows the weatlhy to pocket as much wealth as possible...but socialize it loses on the backs of the poor, working poor and the midle class.

Since the industrial revolution you had the European bankers backed a few robber barons in the US who controlled the largest industries and energy. JP Morgan, JD and William Rockefeller, Carnegie who sold out to JP, EH Harriman, James J. Hill, Schiff, Warburg-maybe seven people at the top. They controlled railroads, steel, banking, and best of all oil. Since 1913 the wealthy have foisted the private Fed/IRS scam on us and all Federal Taxes go into their private banks or offshore tax heaven.

The Free Market has allowed the wealthy elite to control the markets for their own greed and obscene profits. Hence, so even after the Free Market and deregulation caused the Financial Crisis in 08. In 2011, the Corporations, banks, and wall street are yelling.....let the Free market sort it all out. They control the Free Markets. They control the media, education, banking, corporations, big oil, and best of all credit, money supply, interest rates-therefore EVERYTHING.

But but but...the loyal constitutionalists will argue that they have every right to operate in that manner. That they have no obligation to look out for the needs of anyone or anything else other than their own profits. Somehow I don't think that's what the founders had in mind when they began writing the law of the land with "We the People..."

 

[Brutus]

Free market capitalism has been a myth for a long time and has proven to be unsustainable in the long run, especially over the last 30 years.

A perfect example of the pure ignorance of liberal Marxism:

You don't need to be an economist to see how rich the middle class got by looking at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 10 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, color matched front loader washing machines, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 6 burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Netflix boxes, jet skis, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies.

The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.

 

[Brutus]

Hence, so even after the Free Market and deregulation caused the Financial Crisis in 08.

Actually, It seems the greatest economists and greatest newspapers on the left and right agree that liberal interference caused the crisis. Sorry


"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal Reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"


If you still can't grasp what happened why not read "Reckless Endangerment" by NY Times person and see if you can say with a straight face that the crisis was not caused by liberal interference with the free market.

 

[Zander]

It's the spending stupid.

 

[Polk]

Please, Zander, tell us what all this new spending was on. Since Pelosi and Obama are on some wild shopping spree according to you, the very least you can do is tell us what they spend it on.

 

[jillian]

The appropriate option was intentionally left out of the poll... typical of extremists an idealogues...

the truth is that it is both.. .we need to increase revenues AND streamline spending.

But it's dumb as toast to cut government jobs in the midst of a fragile recovery.

but then again....

 

[Polk]

The appropriate option was intentionally left out of the poll... typical of extremists an idealogues...

the truth is that it is both.. .we need to increase revenues AND streamline spending.

But it's dumb as toast to cut government jobs in the midst of a fragile recovery.

but then again....

The current economy is really great for the right. They're getting what they always said they wanted (public sector workers being laid off), but since they're out of power, they also get to complain about weak jobless numbers. I wonder if the public sector layoffs have any impact on that...

 

[Foxfyre]

The appropriate option was intentionally left out of the poll... typical of extremists an idealogues...

the truth is that it is both.. .we need to increase revenues AND streamline spending.

But it's dumb as toast to cut government jobs in the midst of a fragile recovery.

but then again....

Far more dumb to raise taxes on the very people we need to turn loose of investment capital they're sitting on and start expanding and hiring again. If we can keep from increasing private sector unemployment by decreasing government jobs, that makes perfect sense. Many governmnt jobs are absolutely necessary and worth every penny, but they add nothing to the economy and only drain money from it. Non essential government jobs should be the very first to go when there isn't enough money to pay everybody.

 

[Immanuel]

The appropriate option was intentionally left out of the poll... typical of extremists an idealogues...

the truth is that it is both.. .we need to increase revenues AND streamline spending.

But it's dumb as toast to cut government jobs in the midst of a fragile recovery.

but then again....

Far more dumb to raise taxes on the very people we need to turn loose of investment capital they're sitting on and start expanding and hiring again. If we can keep from increasing private sector unemployment by decreasing government jobs, that makes perfect sense. Many governmnt jobs are absolutely necessary and worth every penny, but they add nothing to the economy and only drain money from it. Non essential government jobs should be the very first to go when there isn't enough money to pay everybody.

I have to say that I don't believe it is taxes or the threat of increased taxes that is what is hindering the recovery. Employers are not as concerned about taxes going up as they are about the economic well being of this country and the uncertainty of the future.

Health Care Reform is just one of the things that have employers concerned. The convoluted way that was written and presented leaves everyone guessing as to how it is ultimately going to affect their business. Their are so many things that are going on in this country such as the collapse of the housing market, banking industry, and auto industry that employers are hesitant to do anything at all.

Right now people and business are in survival mode. They are not going to do a damned thing until things begin to look up.

Moderate increases in the tax rate are not going to hinder the recovery. What needs to happen is that people need to begin to feel secure again. Quite frankly, we need another housing bubble or dot com bubble to brighten the day.

Immie

 

[Wiseacre]

The appropriate option was intentionally left out of the poll... typical of extremists an idealogues...

the truth is that it is both.. .we need to increase revenues AND streamline spending.

But it's dumb as toast to cut government jobs in the midst of a fragile recovery.

but then again....

Far more dumb to raise taxes on the very people we need to turn loose of investment capital they're sitting on and start expanding and hiring again. If we can keep from increasing private sector unemployment by decreasing government jobs, that makes perfect sense. Many governmnt jobs are absolutely necessary and worth every penny, but they add nothing to the economy and only drain money from it. Non essential government jobs should be the very first to go when there isn't enough money to pay everybody.

I have to say that I don't believe it is taxes or the threat of increased taxes that is what is hindering the recovery. Employers are not as concerned about taxes going up as they are about the economic well being of this country and the uncertainty of the future.

Health Care Reform is just one of the things that have employers concerned. The convoluted way that was written and presented leaves everyone guessing as to how it is ultimately going to affect their business. Their are so many things that are going on in this country such as the collapse of the housing market, banking industry, and auto industry that employers are hesitant to do anything at all.

Right now people and business are in survival mode. They are not going to do a damned thing until things begin to look up.

Moderate increases in the tax rate are not going to hinder the recovery. What needs to happen is that people need to begin to feel secure again. Quite frankly, we need another housing bubble or dot com bubble to brighten the day.

Immie

Have to agree Immie, except that part about moderate tax rate increases. First, it's a step in the wrong direction if you want to incentivize US and foreign investors to create or expand businesses here. Sure, there's a bunch of other factors: housing, heathcare costs, over regulations, energy, and a poisonous climate in Washington, one just doesn't know what they'll do next. People are going to have to begin to feel better about these issues and what we're doing about it.

I've said it many times, money flows to places where it gets the best return on ivestment. And the tax rate influences that decision, raising rates sends the wrong signal.

 

[Immanuel]

Far more dumb to raise taxes on the very people we need to turn loose of investment capital they're sitting on and start expanding and hiring again. If we can keep from increasing private sector unemployment by decreasing government jobs, that makes perfect sense. Many governmnt jobs are absolutely necessary and worth every penny, but they add nothing to the economy and only drain money from it. Non essential government jobs should be the very first to go when there isn't enough money to pay everybody.

I have to say that I don't believe it is taxes or the threat of increased taxes that is what is hindering the recovery. Employers are not as concerned about taxes going up as they are about the economic well being of this country and the uncertainty of the future.

Health Care Reform is just one of the things that have employers concerned. The convoluted way that was written and presented leaves everyone guessing as to how it is ultimately going to affect their business. Their are so many things that are going on in this country such as the collapse of the housing market, banking industry, and auto industry that employers are hesitant to do anything at all.

Right now people and business are in survival mode. They are not going to do a damned thing until things begin to look up.

Moderate increases in the tax rate are not going to hinder the recovery. What needs to happen is that people need to begin to feel secure again. Quite frankly, we need another housing bubble or dot com bubble to brighten the day.

Immie

Have to agree Immie, except that part about moderate tax rate increases. First, it's a step in the wrong direction if you want to incentivize US and foreign investors to create or expand businesses here. Sure, there's a bunch of other factors: housing, heathcare costs, over regulations, energy, and a poisonous climate in Washington, one just doesn't know what they'll do next. People are going to have to begin to feel better about these issues and what we're doing about it.

I've said it many times, money flows to places where it gets the best return on ivestment. And the tax rate influences that decision, raising rates sends the wrong signal.

I would agree, but I don't think the tax rates are the major issue here. True, other countries are undercutting us for the business, but I don't think tax rates are what is driving companies out in droves. More so would be labor rates in other countries.

I don't think our tax rates are the problem here. Rather it is the uncertainty employers are facing as well as cheaper labor elsewhere. However, labor aside, businesses just don't know what to expect in the future and they are making there decisions based upon that uncertainty.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

For those who think the problem is only in generating revenue... what WOULD constitute a spending problem?