Republicans Have Forsaken Any Claim to "Fiscal Responsibility"

[NYcarbineer]

You forgot:
2003 Medicare Part D
2003 Invasion of Iraq or Tax Cuts while involved in two wars (your choice)
2008 TARP

Of course she forgot. She's a partisan hack with a gargantuan contempt for facts.

She left out the disaster of Reaganomics that is what started us down this trail of doom.

The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

Reaganomics didn't do any of that. That's a steaming heap of classic post hoc fallacies. You might as well be claiming that Reaganomics caused the AIDs epidemic, and then cite the number of AIDs cases in 1980 and 1988 respectively.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

Reaganomics didn't do any of that. That's a steaming heap of classic post hoc fallacies.

Then what did?

 

[loosecannon]

Richard Trumka: Republicans Have Forsaken Any Claim to "Fiscal Responsibility"

I expected they were just blowing smoke when they suddenly found fiscal responsibility and used it as an election wedge issue.

Now we all know they are full of shit, again.

Republicans have always hated fiscal responsibility. They just want to make sure that every deficit dollar ever spent is spent supporting their pork.

 

[skookerasbil]

Richard Trumka: Republicans Have Forsaken Any Claim to "Fiscal Responsibility"

Just keeping it real................

Lets not forget that "The Huffington Post" is a far left radical website frequented by the fringe of the political spectrum. Far less than 5% of the country have ever heard of Richard Trumka.

Now.....back the the debate...................

 

[uscitizen]

Richard Trumka: Republicans Have Forsaken Any Claim to "Fiscal Responsibility"

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

All those programs were paid for until the Reagan revolution began the tax cut death spiral.

The national debt was under 3/4 trillion when Reagan took office.
The entire national debt was less than 1/2 of what the Iraq war has cost so far.

and we had SS, medicare, Fannie, Freddie, welfare, etc.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Behind every insolvent city or state is a union.

Amen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

All those programs were paid for until the Reagan revolution began the tax cut death spiral.

The national debt was under 3/4 trillion when Reagan took office.
The entire national debt was less than 1/2 of what the Iraq war has cost so far.

and we had SS, medicare, Fannie, Freddie, welfare, etc.

We also had factories, plants, and mills where we made things. People don't get that even as late as the 80's, when people got laid off, there was still a good chance it was just a layoff, and they got called back when the economy picked up. Layoffs nowadays are likely to be permanent; there is no callback, because there's nothing there anymore.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

Reaganomics didn't do any of that. That's a steaming heap of classic post hoc fallacies.

Then what did?

The business cycle mostly.

 

[Synthaholic]

Fail&Won'tGo announced his departure from the board over a month ago... he has forsaken any claim to credibility.... Not that he had any credibility.... continual links to HuffyPuffy tend to kill a person's credibility anyway.

Double fail for Fail&Won'tGo.

 

[uscitizen]

Reaganomics didn't do any of that. That's a steaming heap of classic post hoc fallacies.

Then what did?

The business cycle mostly.

Now the business has cycled offshore to increase corporate profits and diminish the standard of living in the USA.

 

[loosecannon]

Then what did?

The business cycle mostly.

Now the business has cycled offshore to increase corporate profits and diminish the standard of living in the USA.

It does sprain your neck when you realize that American businesses are offshoring our jobs to a communist country.

I NEVER thought I would see that day!

And now we are enacting our third stimulus to save the RED Chinese economy!

 

[rdean]

1937 Social Security Democrats
1938 Fanny Mae Democrats
1965 Medicare Democrats
1970 Freddie Mac Democrats
1979 CRA Democrats
1992 Cuomo HUD/ Clinton Democrats
2010 Obamacare Democrats

Those darn Democrats. Helping people to put away money for their old age. Helping people own "homes". "Helping people".

Republicans help 1.7% of the top income earners. I guess they feel "quality above quantity". For Republicans, only "rich people" matter. Everyone else? Not so much.

Now deanie-weanie, the OP clearly stated that this thread was an indictment of the uncontrolled spending of Democrats,...whoever read the OP to you must have left out that part.

Could you define "only "rich people" ?

I hate to burden you in that way...let me help:

1. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

2. Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.

a. Everyone, it seems, wants to believe that he is just as good as the next guy, and in a democracy, the government adds its authority by the ‘leveling’ process. “ But what his heart whispers to him, and the law proclaims, the society around him incessantly denies: certain people are richer, more powerful than he, others are reputed to be wiser, more intelligent. The contradiction between social reality and the combined wishes of his heart and the law, therefore incites and nourishes a devouring passion in everyone: the passion for equality. It will never cease until social reality is made to conform with his and the law’s wishes.” Pierre Manent, “An Intellectual History of Liberalism,” p. 107-8.

b. The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. “And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"…Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks.” Hard Truths About the Culture War


Envy, deanie....it's your envy.

So you think "rich people" are somehow "better"? Now that is hilarious. But it certainly defines the Republican Party. Next, they'll be electing Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, both "a CUT above".

 

[Revere]

Bipartisanship, baby. Suck it up.

 

[Synthaholic]

Those darn Democrats. Helping people to put away money for their old age. Helping people own "homes". "Helping people".

Republicans help 1.7% of the top income earners. I guess they feel "quality above quantity". For Republicans, only "rich people" matter. Everyone else? Not so much.

Now deanie-weanie, the OP clearly stated that this thread was an indictment of the uncontrolled spending of Democrats,...whoever read the OP to you must have left out that part.

Could you define "only "rich people" ?

I hate to burden you in that way...let me help:

1. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

2. Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.

a. Everyone, it seems, wants to believe that he is just as good as the next guy, and in a democracy, the government adds its authority by the ‘leveling’ process. “ But what his heart whispers to him, and the law proclaims, the society around him incessantly denies: certain people are richer, more powerful than he, others are reputed to be wiser, more intelligent. The contradiction between social reality and the combined wishes of his heart and the law, therefore incites and nourishes a devouring passion in everyone: the passion for equality. It will never cease until social reality is made to conform with his and the law’s wishes.” Pierre Manent, “An Intellectual History of Liberalism,” p. 107-8.

b. The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. “And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"…Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks.” Hard Truths About the Culture War


Envy, deanie....it's your envy.

So you think "rich people" are somehow "better"? Now that is hilarious. But it certainly defines the Republican Party. Next, they'll be electing Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, both "a CUT above".

 

[uscitizen]

The business cycle mostly.

Now the business has cycled offshore to increase corporate profits and diminish the standard of living in the USA.

It does sprain your neck when you realize that American businesses are offshoring our jobs to a communist country.

I NEVER thought I would see that day!

And now we are enacting our third stimulus to save the RED Chinese economy!

Because it serves corporate interests and that is really who our current government serves.

 

[Avatar4321]

So the corporations control the government to make it more difficult for them to do business in the United States to put together and evil scheme to move their businesses overseas?

If the corporations controlled the government, wouldnt you think they would save a few bucks and just knock off some of the restrictions here so they dont have to move?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Reaganomics didn't do any of that. That's a steaming heap of classic post hoc fallacies.

Then what did?

The business cycle mostly.

Can you be a little more specific? It didn't just happen for no reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then what did?

The business cycle mostly.

Can you be a little more specific? It didn't just happen for no reason.

Well, the business cycle is the underlying cause of all recessions and recoveries/expansions.

But if you want specifics about the Reagan era, the page below, for example, is a reasonable overview:

President Reagan's Economic Policies

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Fail&Won'tGo announced his departure from the board over a month ago... he has forsaken any claim to credibility.... Not that he had any credibility.... continual links to HuffyPuffy tend to kill a person's credibility anyway.

Double fail for Fail&Won'tGo.

Its just like California Girl to constantly attack the person and avoid addressing what they're posting and or their position. I'm sick and tired of her personal attacks on posters whose views she disagrees with and her whining about misogyny, ageism and sexual harassment when she gets it thrown right back at her.


BTW, where is CG's credibility when she does contradictory BS like posting biased partisan hackery like this one minute:

Destroying our housing market under the guise of 'helping the poor' to own homes that they couldn't afford. With friends like the Democrats, poor people don't need enemies. Damn, you are a fool if you think the Dems give a shit about the poor. They care about their votes - nothing else.

Then thanking a post where a poster criticizes both parties rightfully for both being fiscally irresponsible:

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can claim fiscal responsibility. They've been giving us a bipartisan ass raping for a long time.

Then again, thats just typical CG, spewing Republitard hackery and accusing others of being biased, while simultaneously trying to put on a non-partisan face.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those darn Democrats. Helping people to put away money for their old age. Helping people own "homes". "Helping people".

Republicans help 1.7% of the top income earners. I guess they feel "quality above quantity". For Republicans, only "rich people" matter. Everyone else? Not so much.

Now deanie-weanie, the OP clearly stated that this thread was an indictment of the uncontrolled spending of Democrats,...whoever read the OP to you must have left out that part.

Could you define "only "rich people" ?

I hate to burden you in that way...let me help:

1. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

2. Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.

a. Everyone, it seems, wants to believe that he is just as good as the next guy, and in a democracy, the government adds its authority by the ‘leveling’ process. “ But what his heart whispers to him, and the law proclaims, the society around him incessantly denies: certain people are richer, more powerful than he, others are reputed to be wiser, more intelligent. The contradiction between social reality and the combined wishes of his heart and the law, therefore incites and nourishes a devouring passion in everyone: the passion for equality. It will never cease until social reality is made to conform with his and the law’s wishes.” Pierre Manent, “An Intellectual History of Liberalism,” p. 107-8.

b. The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. “And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"…Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks.” Hard Truths About the Culture War


Envy, deanie....it's your envy.

So you think "rich people" are somehow "better"? Now that is hilarious. But it certainly defines the Republican Party. Next, they'll be electing Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, both "a CUT above".

Deanie, deanie, deanie....

It's so cute the way you struggle to understand the post, and then figure out an answer based on those big wooden alphabet blocks that you toss to make up a post!

Maybe I can help...

1. You were asked to define 'rich people'...I knew that would be over your head, so...

2. I helped you by listing "Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans"

The point here was that there is no class of hereditary rich people, as over 90% of the rich made their money...

"New figures from Smart Money show that only 3% of millionaires inherited their wealth. That means 97% earned their vast fortune themselves. Smart Money also reports that 80% of millionaires are extra thrifty shoppers. Many of them even clip coupons! "

Millionaires clip coupons and other secrets of the rich! on clarkhoward.com

3. But it must have hurt when they read this line to you: "...certain people are richer, more powerful than he, others are reputed to be wiser, more intelligent...'

Sorry.

4. And, if you understood the satire, I'll bet you hated the Vonnegut story, huh?

5. And the best part, your 'denouement' where you identify that you understood no part of the post: "So you think "rich people" are somehow "better"?

Classic, deanie, classic!

Absolutely no comprehension!

Deanie, I do so apprecieate your holding yourself up for public ridicule!
I think you should so identify yourself as 'Comic Relief!'