Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal
In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness
There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.
It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.
Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls
I don't understand how one can be moderate...
So breaking the constitution is only OK some of the time?
That would make moderates, actually progressive.
In my book you either stand for a man/womans civil liberties or you don't, if you're in the middle you're fucking confused - that or don't know your rights or constitution.
Our Constitutional values are in better shape than at any time in the last 200+ years. Americans have more freedom than at any time in our history
In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal
In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness
There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.
It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.
Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls
Jobs created under Bush, Jr. were a fraction of those created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthiest.Then where did the net 4.4 million jobs gained under Bush come from?
2x bubble.. But hey whatever right?
.com
housing
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJJobs created under Bush, Jr. were a fraction of those created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthiest.Then where did the net 4.4 million jobs gained under Bush come from?
2x bubble.. But hey whatever right?
.com
housing
More Nazi analogies.....looks like you win
Care to name a period in our history where Americans had more freedom?
Prior to 1910 you could do pretty much anything you wanted so long as it didn't harm anyone else. Now you can't smoke in a public place, can't ingest drugs in your home, can't carry weapons for your personal defence, can't carry large amounts of cash on trips, can't eat what you want, can't pick up rocks on BLM land, care for me to go on?
You REALLY need to educate yourself there fella.
Jobs created under Bush, Jr. were a fraction of those created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthiest.How far back in history, though? The low 15% over the last decade has NOT trickled down by those investors able to enjoy that low rate. If it had, I'd agree.
Then where did the net 4.4 million jobs gained under Bush come from?
So, no answer on the tax hikes to spending cuts needed to end the deficit?
Are we really sticking to raising taxes to cut 4 trillion in 10 years while raising the deficit near 20 Trillion in that same amount of time... Meaning with the tax hikes (assuming there are ZERO repercussions) we have a net 16ish Trillion added to the deficit? So what gets to make up the difference?
No answers? just talk with no accountability???
Jobs created under Bush, Jr. were a fraction of those created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthiest.Then where did the net 4.4 million jobs gained under Bush come from?
Clinton raised tax rates on the middle class also. The wealthiest were able to find workarounds, just like they always do.
Are you saying tax rate increases create jobs?
Jobs created under Bush, Jr. were a fraction of those created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthiest.
2x bubble.. But hey whatever right?
.com
housing
close... the .com bubble wasn't as significant as everyone says it was, it led to one of the smallest recessions in history, and techinically wasn't even a recession since a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which never happened. And as for the housing bubble, the first year of double digit growth in housing prices was 2001 at 11%, under Clinton it was never over 8% (which is still to high so the bubble did begin then) but it only got really bad when the fed kept slashing interest rates and then kept them low for years.
I repeat:Jobs created under Bush, Jr. were a fraction of those created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthiest.
Clinton raised tax rates on the middle class also. The wealthiest were able to find workarounds, just like they always do.
Are you saying tax rate increases create jobs?
Clinton and the Dems raised taxes in 93, but the Repubs lowered them back down a few years later under Gringrich. IMHO, neither tax rate change had much effect, the mood of the country was gung-ho, let's make some moola.
Nowadays the mood is different, everybody is scared. High UE, home values still dropping, no cooperation or leadership from anybody in Washington as the debt climbs higher. I don't think a tax cut would appreciably help things at this point, but I do think a tax hike such as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 1% would not be a positive signal to encourage economic growth here.
Prior to 1910 you could do pretty much anything you wanted so long as it didn't harm anyone else. Now you can't smoke in a public place, can't ingest drugs in your home, can't carry weapons for your personal defence, can't carry large amounts of cash on trips, can't eat what you want, can't pick up rocks on BLM land, care for me to go on?
You REALLY need to educate yourself there fella.
I'll take the bait on this one.
"Now you can't smoke in a public place" I am a smoker and actually I don't like people smoking around me while I'm eating, I find it very rude, and I do believe that second hand smoke can be harmful to others (although probably not near as much as they say)
"can't ingest drugs in your home," well here, I don't believe pot really leads to many crimes, so I'm actually ok with that, but any drugs that make you act crazy and violent (angel dust) I am not ok with.
"can't carry weapons for your personal defence" honestly if I saw someone dressed like a hoodlum carry a 9 sticking out of his belt I'd be scared.
"can't eat what you want" i keep hearing this but I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Did the government outlaw the big mac?
Jobs created under Bush, Jr. were a fraction of those created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthiest.
Clinton raised tax rates on the middle class also. The wealthiest were able to find workarounds, just like they always do.
Are you saying tax rate increases create jobs?
Clinton and the Dems raised taxes in 93, but the Repubs lowered them back down a few years later under Gringrich. IMHO, neither tax rate change had much effect, the mood of the country was gung-ho, let's make some moola.
Nowadays the mood is different, everybody is scared. High UE, home values still dropping, no cooperation or leadership from anybody in Washington as the debt climbs higher. I don't think a tax cut would appreciably help things at this point, but I do think a tax hike such as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 1% would not be a positive signal to encourage economic growth here.
2x bubble.. But hey whatever right?
.com
housing
close... the .com bubble wasn't as significant as everyone says it was, it led to one of the smallest recessions in history, and techinically wasn't even a recession since a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which never happened. And as for the housing bubble, the first year of double digit growth in housing prices was 2001 at 11%, under Clinton it was never over 8% (which is still to high so the bubble did begin then) but it only got really bad when the fed kept slashing interest rates and then kept them low for years.
Right but we were talking about jobs and even though the .com bubble was not massive and the housing bubble was just starting they created a lot of jobs. My point was that the poster wanted to make Bush out to be a bad guy by comparing him to Clinton while giving no context. Bush also didn't need to create tons of jobs because most people had a job and in fact if you didn't have a job you simply didn't want one.
It's too bad we can't talk about politics without being declared as supporting either the GOP or DNC as a way to attacked in so many cases.
Bush was a horrid president, so was his Republican congress... Now I'm still conservative even though Bush was not, but to many that still make me a right win hack... Go figure.
Clinton raised tax rates on the middle class also. The wealthiest were able to find workarounds, just like they always do.
Are you saying tax rate increases create jobs?
Clinton and the Dems raised taxes in 93, but the Repubs lowered them back down a few years later under Gringrich. IMHO, neither tax rate change had much effect, the mood of the country was gung-ho, let's make some moola.
Nowadays the mood is different, everybody is scared. High UE, home values still dropping, no cooperation or leadership from anybody in Washington as the debt climbs higher. I don't think a tax cut would appreciably help things at this point, but I do think a tax hike such as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 1% would not be a positive signal to encourage economic growth here.
QFT.
Lets say you have a cut on your hand and you keep scratching it... Now lets say on the other hand in the same spot you have no cut and you keep scratching it. Persistent scratching is bad (taxes) but doing it to the hand that has a cut is worse (recession).
I repeat:Clinton raised tax rates on the middle class also. The wealthiest were able to find workarounds, just like they always do.
Are you saying tax rate increases create jobs?
Clinton and the Dems raised taxes in 93, but the Repubs lowered them back down a few years later under Gringrich. IMHO, neither tax rate change had much effect, the mood of the country was gung-ho, let's make some moola.
Nowadays the mood is different, everybody is scared. High UE, home values still dropping, no cooperation or leadership from anybody in Washington as the debt climbs higher. I don't think a tax cut would appreciably help things at this point, but I do think a tax hike such as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 1% would not be a positive signal to encourage economic growth here.
President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. Thats almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.
His job-creation record wont look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clintons administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.
I repeat:Clinton and the Dems raised taxes in 93, but the Repubs lowered them back down a few years later under Gringrich. IMHO, neither tax rate change had much effect, the mood of the country was gung-ho, let's make some moola.
Nowadays the mood is different, everybody is scared. High UE, home values still dropping, no cooperation or leadership from anybody in Washington as the debt climbs higher. I don't think a tax cut would appreciably help things at this point, but I do think a tax hike such as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 1% would not be a positive signal to encourage economic growth here.
President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. Thats almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.
His job-creation record wont look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clintons administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.
Yet you dont understand how congress works...
Democrat presidents dictate or tell congress what to do
Republicans ask congress what to do.
The House (republicans) send a bill to the Senate (democrats), and the Sentate passes it its law, if they don't "try again."
Now, which side has been in charge, who authorized epic spending??
In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal
In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness
There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.
It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.
Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls
close... the .com bubble wasn't as significant as everyone says it was, it led to one of the smallest recessions in history, and techinically wasn't even a recession since a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which never happened. And as for the housing bubble, the first year of double digit growth in housing prices was 2001 at 11%, under Clinton it was never over 8% (which is still to high so the bubble did begin then) but it only got really bad when the fed kept slashing interest rates and then kept them low for years.
Right but we were talking about jobs and even though the .com bubble was not massive and the housing bubble was just starting they created a lot of jobs. My point was that the poster wanted to make Bush out to be a bad guy by comparing him to Clinton while giving no context. Bush also didn't need to create tons of jobs because most people had a job and in fact if you didn't have a job you simply didn't want one.
It's too bad we can't talk about politics without being declared as supporting either the GOP or DNC as a way to attacked in so many cases.
Bush was a horrid president, so was his Republican congress... Now I'm still conservative even though Bush was not, but to many that still make me a right win hack... Go figure.
sorry I don't think you got the last memo, you have to completely and blindly follow one party and believe everything they say otherwise you are a demon and should BURN
Clinton and the Dems raised taxes in 93, but the Repubs lowered them back down a few years later under Gringrich. IMHO, neither tax rate change had much effect, the mood of the country was gung-ho, let's make some moola.
Nowadays the mood is different, everybody is scared. High UE, home values still dropping, no cooperation or leadership from anybody in Washington as the debt climbs higher. I don't think a tax cut would appreciably help things at this point, but I do think a tax hike such as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 1% would not be a positive signal to encourage economic growth here.
QFT.
Lets say you have a cut on your hand and you keep scratching it... Now lets say on the other hand in the same spot you have no cut and you keep scratching it. Persistent scratching is bad (taxes) but doing it to the hand that has a cut is worse (recession).
I'm actually agreeing with you on this part, but at the same time cutting spending leads to cutting jobs, cutting jobs leads to those people spending less money, = worse economy. So cutting massive amounts of money will lead to a higher unemployment rate, as the unemployment rate goes up you will see consumer sentiment go down a,d they will start spending less money. I guess the simple truth is, you have 3 options raise taxes, cut spending or do nothing, a lose-lose-lose situation.
