Which political party is most responsible for our high national unemployment rates?

[Nighthawk62]

The Democrats took over the House and Senate after the elections in 2006. Since then, our thriving economy has gone to “hell in a handbasket” thanks to their very foolish tax and spend policies. And given this evidence, people correctly say the Democrats cannot think logically or rationally!

 

[Article 15]

The Republicrats, simpleton.

 

[kyzr]

Its actually BOTH political parties.

1. The dems protected Fannie & Freddie as their cash cows, and passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which gave mortgages to the unqualified, which led to the massive foreclosure rate and the financial collapse.

2. The GOP passed the "American Jobs Creation Act" which basically gave tax breaks to move factories & jobs overseas. The resulting unemployment rate led them to slither out of DC in shame with the US economy in shambles.

Both parties are lying coxuckers. I hope the TEA Party tosses everyone who helped create the mess out of DC.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets keep in mind the election results of three weeks ago where America obstensibly said "FCUKK YOU" to progressive public policy................

 

[skookerasbil]

what the election results told us..................

 

[Truthmatters]

DEREGULATION caused this mess.

Everytime we deregulate we end up with an Enron , savings loan fiasco and or what we have now.


There is one party that promotes deregulation as a solution to almost everything, the Republican party.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thomas Sowell
Deficit Reduction

Another deficit reduction commission has now made its recommendations. My own recommendation for dealing with deficits would include stopping the appointment of deficit reduction commissions.

It is not the amount of money that these commissions cost that is the issue. It is the escape hatch that they provide for big-spending politicians.

Do you go ahead and spend the rent money and the food money-- and then ask somebody else to tell you how to escape the consequences?

If President Obama or the Congress were serious about keeping the deficit down, they could have had this commission's recommendations before they spent hundreds of billions of dollars, handing out goodies hither and yon to their pet constituencies.

I don't know why people agree to serve on these bipartisan commissions, which save the political hides of the big spenders after they have run up huge deficits. Back in the 1950s, there was a saying: "If you didn't invite me to the take-off, don't invite me to the crash landing."

Deficit commissions make it politically possible to spend money first and get somebody else to recommend raising taxes later. They are a virtual guarantee of never-ending increases in both spending and taxes.

Why provide political cover? Leave the big spenders out there naked in front of the voters! Either the elected officials will change their ways or the voters can change the officials they elect.

There is no special information or wisdom available to unelected deficit commissions that is not available to elected officials. Nor are they more far-seeing than politicians.

Cutting defense spending to save money? That is one of the oldest moves in the liberal play book. Some soldiers may pay with their lives for this, but that could be years from now-- and after the next election, which is as far as most politicians think.

The biggest immediate tax issue is whether the Bush tax cuts will be extended for everyone. Here, as elsewhere in politics, sheer hogwash reigns supreme.

Nancy Pelosi claims that the "tax cuts for the rich" cannot be continued because it would be "too costly." Although former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey says, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics, here are some data anyway.

The first big cut in income taxes came in the 1920s, at the urging of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He argued that a reduction of the tax rates would increase the tax revenues. What actually happened?

In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue-- and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.

How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.

High tax rates which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.

The New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."

Expectations are in the eyes of the beholder-- and in the rhetoric of the demagogues. If class warfare is more important to some politicians than collecting more revenue when there is a deficit, then let the voters know that.

And spare us so-called "deficit reduction commissions."

Deficit Reduction - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative

 

[skookerasbil]

DEREGULATION caused this mess.

Everytime we deregulate we end up with an Enron , savings loan fiasco and or what we have now.


There is one party that promotes deregulation as a solution to almost everything, the Republican party.

 

[Mad Scientist]

DEREGULATION caused this mess.

Everytime we deregulate we end up with an Enron , savings loan fiasco and or what we have now.


There is one party that promotes deregulation as a solution to almost everything, the Republican party.

TM, why don't you start a new thread outlining the Democrat plan for job growth and defend it point by point. Don't forget to include Obama and the dems tripling the National debt and unemployment at near 10%.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why dont you ever accept the blame you deserve for your failed ideas and your white knuckle clinging to them even after history has proven they failed repetedly.

 

[Care4all]

the republicans are....

-the wars not in the budget
-emergency spending not in the budget ala Katrina
-tax cuts that DECREASED incoming revenues while spending like drunken sailors
-the republican Medicare pill bill passed
-the deregulation and blind eye to the bank/housing bubble
-the bailouts insisted on by president bush
-the challenge of president bush to the banks to come up with 'creative financing' for more of the poor to buy homes
-doubling defense spending from 2000 to 2010

IF YOU can please show us what democratic legislation and policies were done by the democratic congress in 2007 and 2008 that raised our deficit, that president bush did not veto, but signed and passed once they took control....that brought the deficit to the $1.5 trillion of president bush's last year of executive control...then do so now.



MAYBE you'd have a point

 

[California Girl]

Only the idiots will blame one party. Both are responsible.... and, while we're apportioning blame, let's all look in the mirror and carry our own share.

 

[Bfgrn]

Its actually BOTH political parties.

1. The dems protected Fannie & Freddie as their cash cows, and passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which gave mortgages to the unqualified, which led to the massive foreclosure rate and the financial collapse.

2. The GOP passed the "American Jobs Creation Act" which basically gave tax breaks to move factories & jobs overseas. The resulting unemployment rate led them to slither out of DC in shame with the US economy in shambles.

Both parties are lying coxuckers. I hope the TEA Party tosses everyone who helped create the mess out of DC.

The CRA was not to blame for massive foreclosures.

Don’t Blame CRA - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Federal Reserve governor Randall Kroszner, a conservative economist on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business, says the Community Reinvestment Act isn’t to blame for the subprime mess, despite some accusations to the contrary.

Fed economists found that about 60% of higher-priced loan originations — the technical definition of subrpime — went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods who aren’t targeted by CRA. More than 20% of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by institutions that aren’t banks — and aren’t covered by CRA.

The “striking result,” Kroszner said: “Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes.”

 

[BlindBoo]

Its actually BOTH political parties.

1. The dems protected Fannie & Freddie as their cash cows, and passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which gave mortgages to the unqualified, which led to the massive foreclosure rate and the financial collapse.

2. The GOP passed the "American Jobs Creation Act" which basically gave tax breaks to move factories & jobs overseas. The resulting unemployment rate led them to slither out of DC in shame with the US economy in shambles.

Both parties are lying coxuckers. I hope the TEA Party tosses everyone who helped create the mess out of DC.

I agree both parties are to blame. But, CRA loans did not make up a significant portion of the defaulted loans. It was private lenders who got into the sub-prime market not associated with the CRA program that had the most significant defaults.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

 

[DiamondDave]

Bush and his administration did not help with their idiotic economic policies.... while I can appreciate some of his accomplishments in other areas, domestic issues, spending, and the economy were not his strong points... but Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and crew took a floundering ship and blew holes in the bottom and put the bilge pumps in reverse

Plenty of blame to go around

 

[Care4all]

unemplyment was 4.0% when president bush took office, it was 8.1% obama's first full month in office....U/E doubled under bush control

 

[Nighthawk62]

Only the idiots will blame one party. Both are responsible.... and, while we're apportioning blame, let's all look in the mirror and carry our own share.

You are correct, both parties are responsible. But are they EQUALLY responsible? Please carefully check the information in the graph again before you give an answer. And don't forget, we VOTED time and time again for the people who got us into this horrible economic mess!

 

[editec]

The Democrats took over the House and Senate after the elections in 2006. Since then, our thriving economy has gone to “hell in a handbasket” thanks to their very foolish tax and spend policies. And given this evidence, people correctly say the Democrats cannot think logically or rationally!

And the above constiutes serious analysis to you, does it?

Are you really this foolish or do you just think we are?

 

[California Girl]

Only the idiots will blame one party. Both are responsible.... and, while we're apportioning blame, let's all look in the mirror and carry our own share.

You are correct, both parties are responsible. But are they EQUALLY responsible? Please carefully check the information in the graph again before you give an answer. And don't forget, we VOTED time and time again for the people who got us into this horrible economic mess!

I don't need to check it, thanks.

Fact.... Presidents and political parties do NOT create jobs. Business creates jobs. Therefore, this partisan crap about 'who created the most jobs' is at best naive, at worse, totally fucking stupid.

I do wish people would recognize that the world does not revolve around a political party.