Republicans eager to return to Bush era policies. Why?

[Article 15]

yeah, just like they held a gun to all those Democrats heads who voted for the Iraq war..

you people always have some lame ass excuse for Democrats..

In December of 2010 the GOP's position was that they wouldn't pass the extension of unemployment benefits unless the tax cuts were extended as well.

I know it sucks for you to be reminded of how shitty your party is but there it is.

And Obama and Democrats put their name on it, meaning Obama owns it. Obama didn't even try to fight it, and why would he when he was busy bragging how many tax cuts he gave out in his stimulus.

He didn't have much choice. It was either take the food off of millions of Americans tables or cave in to the mustache twirling GOP.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Good question!

WHAT was Bush thinking???? Anyone should know you can't promise tax breaks to a populace while taking their country to WAR huh?

Fortunately for Bush though....with the help of FOX News the shell game worked. The rhetoric turned to "support" even though the collective mentality turned AWAY from any realistic definition of what that word really means.

If Bush, Cheney, Wolfofitz, Rice, Powell, et. al. had repeatedly told the American people, Congress, and the international community the truth....something like...."look folks.....we REALLY want to secure American control over Iraq because we have BIG (OH yeah!) plans for the middle east oil market down the road and we can't quite do it without a friendly puppet government there...... so we need your unquestioning support," the outcome might have been different huh?

Then take that a step forward to "My fellow Americans.....great SACRIFICE will be required in order to invade and conquer Iraq therefore you will be required to pay much HIGHER taxes in the years to come in order to finance this "war" that you claim to "support."

That worked during WW II but it's a different world now I guess? Americans actually seem to think war is free. They think "support" consists of plastering one's car with cheap chi-com "I support the troops" magnets and that's it I suppose?

Anyway, our national budget is sure feeling GW's "free war" now!

Why hasn'y Obama repealed those tax cuts though?

Maybe because everytime he has discussed doing so in the past Conservatives get a photo-op calling it "Obama's tax INCREASE???"

Welcome to the board. We were short one loon.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's policies have been a total failure. It is only logical to go back to the place where government policies worked, which is free market capitalism.

 

[Stephanie]

just ran across this..

Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits
SNIP:
By Phil Izzo
49.1%: Percent of the population that lives in a household where at least one member received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011.

Cutting government spending is no easy task, and it’s made more complicated by recent Census Bureau data showing that nearly half of the people in the U.S. live in a household that receives at least one government benefit, and many likely received more than one.

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.

The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

read it all..
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[Article 15]

just ran across this..

Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits
SNIP:
By Phil Izzo
49.1%: Percent of the population that lives in a household where at least one member received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011.

Cutting government spending is no easy task, and it’s made more complicated by recent Census Bureau data showing that nearly half of the people in the U.S. live in a household that receives at least one government benefit, and many likely received more than one.

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.

The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

read it all..
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ

It's almost like there was some kind of epic economic disaster in the second half of 2008 or something. Crazy, I know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It’s gotten to the point where republicans/conservatives don’t even know what their ‘policies’ are. The hyper-partisanism, hypocrisy, and inconsistency of conservatives over the last 20 years has blurred and contorted their message to the point of meaningless irrelevance.

Just because you can't understand something does not mean no one else can. Just look at how many people on this site can use the quote function properly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans eager to return to Bush era policies. Why? I've seen Republicans on this board insist Iraq was a success. The Bush tax cuts "worked". The reason people died after Katrina was their fault for not leaving. Iraq is now a democracy and friends with America.

How do they see things so different than the rest of the world?

I am still trying to figure out what Obama is doing that is different than Bush.

Pisses off people like you.

That isn't it.

 

[Vidi]

Let us now reverse the original question why are left wingers so willing to continue the Obama policies which are the same as every Democratic President or Presidential contender that came before him? Policies I might add that did not work well for the other's and are not working for Obama.

As I've said repeatedly, the choice is a weak ass version of what I want vs a weak ass version of what I don't want.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans eager to return to Bush era policies. Why?

Have you seen the Obama era policies? LOL!

Bush policies win going away.

 

[Liability]

just ran across this..

Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits
SNIP:
By Phil Izzo
49.1%: Percent of the population that lives in a household where at least one member received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011.

Cutting government spending is no easy task, and it’s made more complicated by recent Census Bureau data showing that nearly half of the people in the U.S. live in a household that receives at least one government benefit, and many likely received more than one.

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.

The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

read it all..
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ

It's almost like there was some kind of epic economic disaster in the second half of 2008 or something. Crazy, I know.

That got MUCH worse starting January 2009 and right through this very moment.

 

[Oddball]

Republicans eager to return to Bush era policies. Why?

Have you seen the Obama era policies? LOL!

Bush policies win going away.

For us to return to the Bush-era policies, we first would had to have significantly moved away from them...Which we haven't.

 

[Article 15]

just ran across this..

Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits
SNIP:
By Phil Izzo
49.1%: Percent of the population that lives in a household where at least one member received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011.

Cutting government spending is no easy task, and it’s made more complicated by recent Census Bureau data showing that nearly half of the people in the U.S. live in a household that receives at least one government benefit, and many likely received more than one.

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.

The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

read it all..
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ

It's almost like there was some kind of epic economic disaster in the second half of 2008 or something. Crazy, I know.

That got MUCH worse starting January 2009 and right through this very moment.

That's just nonsense, man.

The economy was still in the process of bottoming out in January when Obama took office. It was shedding 750,000 jobs a month and losing 5% GDP a quarter. The stock market was still falling off and didn't finally bottom out until March. It has since doubled I believe. That -750,000/mo has become about a +200,000 jobs a month....damn near a net gain of a million jobs/mo from where we were and GDP has been growing for something like 10 straight quarters now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's almost like there was some kind of epic economic disaster in the second half of 2008 or something. Crazy, I know.

That got MUCH worse starting January 2009 and right through this very moment.

That's just nonsense, man.

The economy was still in the process of bottoming out in January when Obama took office. It was shedding 750,000 jobs a month and losing 5% GDP a quarter. The stock market was still falling off and didn't finally bottom out until March. It has since doubled I believe. That -750,000/mo has become about a +200,000 jobs a month....damn near a net gain of a million jobs/mo from where we were and GDP has been growing for something like 10 straight quarters now.

And yet, we have an additional $5 trillion in debt and fewer jobs than the day Obama strolled into office.
We can do better.

 

[Liability]

It's almost like there was some kind of epic economic disaster in the second half of 2008 or something. Crazy, I know.

That got MUCH worse starting January 2009 and right through this very moment.

That's just nonsense, man.

The economy was still in the process of bottoming out in January when Obama took office. It was shedding 750,000 jobs a month and losing 5% GDP a quarter. The stock market was still falling off and didn't finally bottom out until March. It has since doubled I believe. That -750,000/mo has become about a +200,000 jobs a month....damn near a net gain of a million jobs/mo from where we were and GDP has been growing for something like 10 straight quarters now.

Oh please.

That's just a long-winded, convoluted and baseless claim by which apologists for The ONE can deny the responsibility of the incumbent and blame all such problems on the guy that came before.

 

[Article 15]

That got MUCH worse starting January 2009 and right through this very moment.

That's just nonsense, man.

The economy was still in the process of bottoming out in January when Obama took office. It was shedding 750,000 jobs a month and losing 5% GDP a quarter. The stock market was still falling off and didn't finally bottom out until March. It has since doubled I believe. That -750,000/mo has become about a +200,000 jobs a month....damn near a net gain of a million jobs/mo from where we were and GDP has been growing for something like 10 straight quarters now.

Oh please.

That's just a long-winded, convoluted and baseless claim by which apologists for The ONE can deny the responsibility of the incumbent and blame all such problems on the guy that came before.

Oh, I get it now.

You're joking.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Bush Era Policies = Obama Era Policies.

 

[Bloodline]

Good question!

WHAT was Bush thinking???? Anyone should know you can't promise tax breaks to a populace while taking their country to WAR huh?

Fortunately for Bush though....with the help of FOX News the shell game worked. The rhetoric turned to "support" even though the collective mentality turned AWAY from any realistic definition of what that word really means.

If Bush, Cheney, Wolfofitz, Rice, Powell, et. al. had repeatedly told the American people, Congress, and the international community the truth....something like...."look folks.....we REALLY want to secure American control over Iraq because we have BIG (OH yeah!) plans for the middle east oil market down the road and we can't quite do it without a friendly puppet government there...... so we need your unquestioning support," the outcome might have been different huh?

Then take that a step forward to "My fellow Americans.....great SACRIFICE will be required in order to invade and conquer Iraq therefore you will be required to pay much HIGHER taxes in the years to come in order to finance this "war" that you claim to "support."

That worked during WW II but it's a different world now I guess? Americans actually seem to think war is free. They think "support" consists of plastering one's car with cheap chi-com "I support the troops" magnets and that's it I suppose?

Anyway, our national budget is sure feeling GW's "free war" now!

Why hasn'y Obama repealed those tax cuts though?

Maybe because everytime he has discussed doing so in the past Conservatives get a photo-op calling it "Obama's tax INCREASE???"

Welcome to the board. We were short one loon.

Thanks :-O !

 

[Harry Dresden]

The GOP wants to return to Bush policies because they know the American people will always vote for a free lunch,

if you package it correctly.

well thats something the Democrats have known for quite a while....

 

[Harry Dresden]

In fact, they will post links based on the title alone. Many times, there own links don't support their position.

you got that right Dean.....your the king of doing that....remember this thread title of yours?....

Republicans HATE Education and want to END it......and of course no where in YOUR link did it say that....but of course to you cutting the Education budget means the same thing.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Part of the reason I think Republicans are a dirty party. Very dirty and rotten to the core.

So Stephanie, doesn't it bother you when you see videos like this? Or articles like the one from the Christian Science Monitor? You never give back anything but denial. Why is that?

so are you Dean.....but in your case i will also add VERY dishonest....