Republican politicians lie when they say they want to stop deficit spending

[rdean]

Republican politicians lie when they say they want to stop deficit spending

After Iraq, the economy and everything they've said about Obama, you would think they would understand that "lying" is a poor political strategy, but apparently, one they refuse to give up on.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Hmmm, how did the economy do in the 90s before Bush cut taxes on the richest of the rich?

You asked the question the wrong way.
"How is it that, despite a tremendously robust economy fueled by technological development the Democrats led by Bill Clinton could not pay down the debt?"
The Boom of the 90's was caused by the internet revolution. Not by Bill Clinton or the Democrats.
Don't be an idiot.

Clinton certainly benefited from the rise in capital gains tax receipts, but his (and George HW Bush's) tax increases, as well as his and the Republican Congress's spending restraints are the main reason why the budget was in surplus.

The debt rose under Clinton because of increases in liabilities in the social security and medicare trusts. Total publicly held debt fell under Clinton.

As for how well did the rich do in the 90s.

I'm sorry but given the sources and the data reflected, I must say I have a hard time swallowing what this pro-ports to demonstrate. This is just fueling a zero-sum game analysis.

If I make money, you lose it. If you make money, I lose it. There is only one eventual outcome -- social revolution.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Republican politicians lie when they say they want to stop deficit spending

After Iraq, the economy and everything they've said about Obama, you would think they would understand that "lying" is a poor political strategy, but apparently, one they refuse to give up on.

Are you talking about Republicans or conservatives?

If Republicans, I would agree. They showed no fiscal discipline at all when they had power. Furthermore, the showed extremely poor judgment in some of their policies.

However, the fact that Republicans spent like a pale imitation of liberal democrats, is no reason to let democrats off the hook when they spend like sailors on a two-week bender.

When George HW ran against Clinton, I held my nose a voted for a "third-class fireman" because he was better than a "first class arsonist." We have much the same conundrum now. We have thrown out the Keystone Kops-like firemen we used to have and traded them for the best arson gang in the land.

I'm not sure if this speaks directly to your "lying" point, but you probably see the point.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Obama has already raised taxes on some of the poorest Americans in the form of his cigarette tax.

Cigarettes are intrinsically a "stupid" tax. Only stupid people smoke so only stupid people have to buy them. Putting a tax on them is actually a possible way to reduce the consumption of cigarettes (along with consumption due to cigarettes) without hurting anyone. People who spend $60 a week on cigarettes can still spend &60 a week on cigarettes and just smoke less. Win Win

You have it partially right. Stupid is one way of saying uneducated I suppose and the less education the chances are the less you earn. And it has been proven in both cases that more of the under educated and low income earners smoke more than the better educated and in a higher tax bracket. SO. knowing that more poor people smoke Obama taxed the hell out of them. What was his quote? "If you make less than $200,000 you won't see any new taxes in any form!" He Lied............

 

[SFC Ollie]

Obama has already raised taxes on some of the poorest Americans in the form of his cigarette tax.

Cigarettes are intrinsically a "stupid" tax. Only stupid people smoke so only stupid people have to buy them. Putting a tax on them is actually a possible way to reduce the consumption of cigarettes (along with consumption due to cigarettes) without hurting anyone. People who spend $60 a week on cigarettes can still spend &60 a week on cigarettes and just smoke less. Win Win

Cigarettes have a low price elasticity. What that means is that demand falls much more slowly than the rise in price. Most rich nations heavily tax smokes for this reason.

As much as I agree with taxing cigs heavily, doing it now would be a bad idea.

Correction; Was a bad idea.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Cigarettes are intrinsically a "stupid" tax. Only stupid people smoke so only stupid people have to buy them. Putting a tax on them is actually a possible way to reduce the consumption of cigarettes (along with consumption due to cigarettes) without hurting anyone. People who spend $60 a week on cigarettes can still spend &60 a week on cigarettes and just smoke less. Win Win

Cigarettes have a low price elasticity. What that means is that demand falls much more slowly than the rise in price. Most rich nations heavily tax smokes for this reason.

As much as I agree with taxing cigs heavily, doing it now would be a bad idea.

Correction; Was a bad idea.

Why? Because it might force people to smoke less?
At some point they don't have any more money for their poison and will be forced to do without.
Before you ask, I have NO sympathy for Phillip Morris or any of the other merchants of death who might have an economic downturn from lower cigarette sales.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

Guess what? It's going to happen very soon...Obama has announced he's "agnostic" about raising taxes on "all Americans."

Yeah, you guys keep spreading that lie. Obama keeps saying he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

He's just going to let Bush tax cuts on the rich expire.

Well be back to the days of prosperity like in the 90s.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

You're too fucking stupid to have words in the english language to descibe you.

 

[Toro]

I'm sorry but given the sources and the data reflected, I must say I have a hard time swallowing what this pro-ports to demonstrate. This is just fueling a zero-sum game analysis.

This data is fairly well known and has been generated from a number of sources. It is not debatable amongst serious people.

If I make money, you lose it. If you make money, I lose it. There is only one eventual outcome -- social revolution.

If you look at the last 150 years of American economic history, social progress, i.e. less racial violence, tends to occur when the vast majority of American people are improving their lot, and the country tends to experience more strife and animosity when most of the people see their incomes stagnate. For much of the past decade, people did not see an increase in their income, or saw very small gains, whereas the wealthiest made out like gangbusters. When this happens, the vast middle and lower class will extract their gains out of the political arena if they can't get it out of the economy. Social revolution tends to come when the masses aren't getting theirs while seeing a small portion of the population get rich.

 

[Toro]

Cigarettes have a low price elasticity. What that means is that demand falls much more slowly than the rise in price. Most rich nations heavily tax smokes for this reason.

As much as I agree with taxing cigs heavily, doing it now would be a bad idea.

Correction; Was a bad idea.

Why? Because it might force people to smoke less?
At some point they don't have any more money for their poison and will be forced to do without.
Before you ask, I have NO sympathy for Phillip Morris or any of the other merchants of death who might have an economic downturn from lower cigarette sales.

The biggest mistake that the Obama administration has made is to focus too much on social progress instead of a laser-like focus on the economy. Getting the economy back on track and creating jobs should not only be priority #1, it should be priority #2, 3, 4 & 5. It has not been for Obama, and he is paying for it politically.

The reason why smoking is price inelastic is because demand for cigarettes does not change much when the price rises. People do smoke less, but not much. It doesn't save a lot of lives, and it certainly will not save any now. I agree that taxing cigarettes is a great source of new revenue, but it should not be done in a time when the economy is on its back. Raising taxes primarily on the poor and middle class when the poor and middle class are losing their jobs is bad policy.

 

[Full-Auto]

This isn't about denying a party is doing something wrong. This is about the party claiming they want to cut deficit spending, then voting no to do so.



You are confused. All reps voted no to increase the debt cieling ALL OF THEM

But it wasnt enough, since democrats insist on running up the debt, why shouldnt they get a piece of the pie to thier districts.

 

[JWBooth]

Republican politicians lie when they say they want to stop deficit spending

They are politicians, that's what they do.

 

[Foxfyre]

This isn't about denying a party is doing something wrong. This is about the party claiming they want to cut deficit spending, then voting no to do so.



You are confused. All reps voted no to increase the debt cieling ALL OF THEM

But it wasnt enough, since democrats insist on running up the debt, why shouldnt they get a piece of the pie to thier districts.

And that's why we need to infuse in the reformers the concept that the Federal government should not be able to give anything to any individual, group, organization, business/corporation, or state that is not given equally and without prejudice to all.

It takes an almost unrealistic degree of integrity and courage for an elected official to say 'no' while watching everybody else grab as many goodies as they can get with which to buy votes back home.