Republicans Have Forsaken Any Claim to "Fiscal Responsibility"

[Old Rocks]

Behind every insolvent city or state is a union.

And behind every job sent overseas is a Republican.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Behind every insolvent city or state is a union.

And behind every job sent overseas is a Republican.

"The North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2007[update] the trade bloc is the largest in the world and second largest by nominal GDP comparison.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC)."
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So...who was President on December 8, 1993?

Must have been a Republican...


But this is what I love about empty barrels like you, Rocks....you have grown up under the motto "Being Liberal Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry."

Carry on.

 

[The T]

Behind every insolvent city or state is a union.

And behind every job sent overseas is a Republican.

No. By this Government and it's punative taxation. And might as well throw Unions in the mix as well and thier overpriced labor.

 

[editec]

Behind every insolvent city or state is a union.

And behind every job sent overseas is a Republican.

Not true.

In fact it was originally the REPUBLICANS who mostly objected to FREE TRADE, OR.

But once they got their marching order from the masters, naturally they signed onto this terrible idea, too.

You need to take off your Democratic partisan blinders and start reading your history, amigo.

The FREE TRADE mess is a BIPARTISAN disaster.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Don't you just love it how liberals define things.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When are you idiots going to realize that neither Repugnantcans nor Dimocrats have been fiscally responsible in our lifetimes?

It's time for a total overhaul of our political party system. We need a better option than the two piss poor ones we now have.

 

[JimH52]

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

Of course they have! They said the words and talked the talk and when they got the chance, they gave their promise of austerity to their rich friends. They agreed to borrow more money from China to prop up the rich. HYPOCRITES! They said what they had to, to win Congress. Now, back yo the game plan. I am sure furture speak Boner will cry his way out of this as he hands out checks on the House floor again...

But the Tea Baggers are watching and will make the GOP wish they have stuck to their word. Sarah and her half demented crowd with make them all suffer in 2012.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Of course they have! They said the words and talked the talk and when they got the chance, they gave their promise of austerity to their rich friends. They agreed to borrow more money from China to prop up the rich. HYPOCRITES! They said what they had to, to win Congress. Now, back yo the game plan. I am sure furture speak Boner will cry his way out of this as he hands out checks on the House floor again...

But the Tea Baggers are watching and will make the GOP wish they have stuck to their word. Sarah and her half demented crowd with make them all suffer in 2012.

You post screams out for a fuller analysis...

1. "Nearly one in five Americans, or 45 million adults, experienced some form of mental illness last year, according to a major US government survey published on Friday.
The 18-25 age group reported the most mental illness, and more women than men were afflicted, said Peter Delany, a doctor who heads behavioral research at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

"One in five people have suffered from a mental illness in the past year. That is a lot of people," Delany told AFP"
One in five Americans had mental illness last year: survey

And by an amazing coincidence,...look where we also see a 'one out of five'...

2. "PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s."
"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group



Now, let's see how these facts line up with your precise "...Sarah and her half demented crowd ..."


3. "Of the Tea Party supporters who responded, 20 percent make more than $100,000, versus 14 percent for the general pool of people polled. Fourteen percent of Tea Party supporters have a post-graduate education, compared with 10 percent for the general public. Twenty-three percent of Tea Party supporters have a college degree, compared with 15 percent for the general public, according to the poll. The 18 percent of people who counted themselves among the Tea Party crowd are also mostly white, male and older than 45 years old. "
FoxNews.com - Tea Party Supporters Richer, More Educated Than Most, Poll Finds

Nice projection there, Jimmy.
Oops...your keeper is calling!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Of course they have! They said the words and talked the talk and when they got the chance, they gave their promise of austerity to their rich friends. They agreed to borrow more money from China to prop up the rich. HYPOCRITES! They said what they had to, to win Congress. Now, back yo the game plan. I am sure furture speak Boner will cry his way out of this as he hands out checks on the House floor again...

But the Tea Baggers are watching and will make the GOP wish they have stuck to their word. Sarah and her half demented crowd with make them all suffer in 2012.

When democrats start being "Fiscal Responsibility" you can call republicans HYPOCRITES!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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!'

Clearly by the tone of your posts your are implying that being rich equals being smarter, more hardworking and better and not being rich equals being jealous, envious, resentful, less smart and less hardworking, typical Republitard, extreme capitalist BS.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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

Of course they have! They said the words and talked the talk and when they got the chance, they gave their promise of austerity to their rich friends. They agreed to borrow more money from China to prop up the rich. HYPOCRITES! They said what they had to, to win Congress. Now, back yo the game plan. I am sure furture speak Boner will cry his way out of this as he hands out checks on the House floor again...

But the Tea Baggers are watching and will make the GOP wish they have stuck to their word. Sarah and her half demented crowd with make them all suffer in 2012.

When democrats start being "Fiscal Responsibility" you can call republicans HYPOCRITES!

Since when did outsourcing jobs and potential incomes to non-American countries become "fiscally responsible?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Behind every insolvent city or state is a union.

And behind every job sent overseas is a Republican.

"The North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2007[update] the trade bloc is the largest in the world and second largest by nominal GDP comparison.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC)."
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So...who was President on December 8, 1993?

Must have been a Republican...


But this is what I love about empty barrels like you, Rocks....you have grown up under the motto "Being Liberal Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry."

Carry on.

So your belief is that NAFTA was/is responsible for sending U.S. jobs overseas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!'

Clearly by the tone of your posts your are implying that being rich equals being smarter, more hardworking and better and not being rich equals being jealous, envious, resentful, less smart and less hardworking, typical Republitard, extreme capitalist BS.

You're talking to the kind of people who think a teacher making 60,000 a year is overpaid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And behind every job sent overseas is a Republican.

"The North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2007[update] the trade bloc is the largest in the world and second largest by nominal GDP comparison.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC)."
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So...who was President on December 8, 1993?

Must have been a Republican...


But this is what I love about empty barrels like you, Rocks....you have grown up under the motto "Being Liberal Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry."

Carry on.

So your belief is that NAFTA was/is responsible for sending U.S. jobs overseas.

Manufacturing Jobs: Technology Changes Decreased U.S. Manufacturing Employment | The Heritage Foundation

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!'

Clearly by the tone of your posts your are implying that being rich equals being smarter, more hardworking and better and not being rich equals being jealous, envious, resentful, less smart and less hardworking, typical Republitard, extreme capitalist BS.

Just ask, and you shall be informed:

I have a great deal of respect for folks who will risk their time and treasure, and achieve the benchmark that the left deprecates as 'rich.'

1.Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.” Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

2. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

3. The German sociologist, Karl Mannheim, suggested that the elites of each era are selected based on these principles: blood, property, and achievement.

i. Aristocratic societies chose elites based on blood.
ii. Bourgeois societies chose elites based on property
iii. Modern democracies chose elites based on achievement.

“The real threat of contemporary mass society [is]…that it has recently shown a tendency to renounce the principle of achievement as a factor in the struggle of certain groups for power, and has suddenly established blood and other criteria as the major factors to the far-reaching exclusion of the achievement principle.” Karl Mannheim, “ Man and Society,” p. 91

If we recognize race, ethnicity and sex as the basis for reward, it becomes clear that the achievement principle has been discarded in America today.


In summary, I want to see us respect hard work and achievement, rather than entitlement and hand-outs.
Don't you agree?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!'

Clearly by the tone of your posts your are implying that being rich equals being smarter, more hardworking and better and not being rich equals being jealous, envious, resentful, less smart and less hardworking, typical Republitard, extreme capitalist BS.

You're talking to the kind of people who think a teacher making 60,000 a year is overpaid.

I am not at all shy about my beliefs, and write quite a bit...why, then do you feel it necessary to fabricate my attitudes?

Unless you can provide a post of mine where I have said that, you have identified yourself as a putrid prevaricator.

Again.

 

[Full-Auto]

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

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.

Hey dufus your side spent the money. Now how exactly is it put away. I dont take IOUs

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clearly by the tone of your posts your are implying that being rich equals being smarter, more hardworking and better and not being rich equals being jealous, envious, resentful, less smart and less hardworking, typical Republitard, extreme capitalist BS.

You're talking to the kind of people who think a teacher making 60,000 a year is overpaid.

I am not at all shy about my beliefs, and write quite a bit...why, then do you feel it necessary to fabricate my attitudes?

Unless you can provide a post of mine where I have said that, you have identified yourself as a putrid prevaricator.

Again.

I think the non-pretentious word you were looking for was 'liar'. Be brief, concise, and to the point and you will make many here much less likely to ignore your painfully long tortuous ramblings, which, I can assure you, most are doing now.

If you wish to state, unequivocally, that you don't think teachers making 60,000 a year are overpaid,

then I'll stand corrected on the error of over-generalization.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clearly by the tone of your posts your are implying that being rich equals being smarter, more hardworking and better and not being rich equals being jealous, envious, resentful, less smart and less hardworking, typical Republitard, extreme capitalist BS.

You're talking to the kind of people who think a teacher making 60,000 a year is overpaid.

I am not at all shy about my beliefs, and write quite a bit...why, then do you feel it necessary to fabricate my attitudes?

Unless you can provide a post of mine where I have said that, you have identified yourself as a putrid prevaricator.

Again.

Again? You have a moment to prove that before you get neg repped for falsely accusing me of lying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're talking to the kind of people who think a teacher making 60,000 a year is overpaid.

I am not at all shy about my beliefs, and write quite a bit...why, then do you feel it necessary to fabricate my attitudes?

Unless you can provide a post of mine where I have said that, you have identified yourself as a putrid prevaricator.

Again.

I think the non-pretentious word you were looking for was 'liar'. Be brief, concise, and to the point and you will make many here much less likely to ignore your painfully long tortuous ramblings, which, I can assure you, most are doing now.

If you wish to state, unequivocally, that you don't think teachers making 60,000 a year are overpaid,

then I'll stand corrected on the error of over-generalization.

Is this a retraction?