GOP Economic Policies Under Heavy Fire

[Full-Auto]

Yea, because healthcare for Americans is a bad thing. Just ask Paul Ryan. How's that working out for him?

You didnt address healthcare, you did pay off insurance companies along with several senators etc. Result higher costs.

You were saying?

The number one cause of bankruptcy before the health care bill was medical bills. Romney care didn't do any more damage than what Republicans have already done. We needed a "public option", but when have Republicans done anything good for this country in the last 20 or 30 years?

I love it when Republicans say, "If it was so good, how come you couldn't pass it"? Uh, because we have a political party whose ONLY goal is to make the first black president "fail"? Now Republicans have the lowest ratings in history. And their town halls are hilarious.

Republicans held both houses and the presidency for 6 straight years. And look at what they gave us. Do we have to go through the list again? Funny how Republicans can take the disastrous Bush years and turn "lemons" into "lemonAIDS".

Debunked so long ago. As that stat was determined by anyone that had a medical bill.

It was so good that you guys issued 1500 waivers.

Get a clue if you really want to debate.

 

[AVG-JOE]

everything if you're trying to destroy it.

The budget must come secondary to taxes.

Simple Tax Code = Fair Taxes.

Fair taxes, a budget balanced by law and then build a society your children can be proud of.

Complex Tax Code = Corruption.

Google Search: U S Tax Law

that's my point.

I may say it often, but I have no copyrights to the concept and I appreciate your help as we spread the word.

Fair taxes, a budget balanced by law and then build a society your children can be proud of.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing, when the timing is right. But should one try trimming their toenails during a heart attack?

Right now government should be spending on infrastructure and JOBS.

No, we shouldn't.

Because usually those projects waste money.

Remember the 1 Trillion dollar stimulus. How many jobs did that produce?

What we need to do is rebuild our manufacturing infrastructure and get our trade policies under control. Then you can get the money to do the infrastructure stuff.

We are running huge deficits because the free traders allowed us to move all the good manufacturing jobs overseas, and we are bleeding a half trillion a year in trade to other countries.

From 1776-1976, the entire national debt was all of 600 Billion. That was it. That's what we ran up with two world wars and a few smaller ones, building the interstate highway system, the space program, the New Deal and the Great Society. We could afford all this stuff.

Because in that time period, we exported more than we imported, there was plenty of money to finance the government, and plenty of jobs to keep the tax payer to tax recipiant ratio sane.

Spending a crapload of money we don't have isn't the solution. Getting us back on track econmically is. And if that means creating jobs that aren't great initially, so be it.

It wasn't a trillion, it was $821 billion and it created or saved 3 million jobs. The stimulus kept us from a Depression so it was money well spent...unlike the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which got us to the brink in the first place)

Who really thinks that you can invade two countries AND cut taxes?

I agree with you on manufacturing, but disagree with you on infrastructure. I think we DO need money spent on our infrastructure...to support 21st century technologies. Our broadband infrastructure is 17th in the world. That's pretty pathetic for the country that invented the internet.

The stimulus didnt create or save a single job, except for those GOP candidates running for public office.
The stimulus did not keep us from anything other than prosperity. It is a failure even on the criterion set out by Team Obama, which promised sub-8% unemployment
The wars in Afghanistan (which Obama expanded) and Iraq (which Obama continued) were absolutely necessary for national security. I suppose you support the Bill Clinton approach of lobbing a couple of missiles and shaking your first.
We have spent billions on "infrastructure" and this is the result, bridges to nowhere and train stations out of use for 30 years. More spending on crap like that helps Obama's union buddies and no one else.

 

[rdean]

Right?

Dont taze me bro.

As democrats cowered from discussing the healthcare bill and refused to hold town meetings.

Yea, because healthcare for Americans is a bad thing. Just ask Paul Ryan. How's that working out for him?

Pay for your own health care. It sells itself. There is no right to someone else paying for your care.

Uh, let me point something out. Health Care companies don't own any hospitals. Don't employ any Doctors or nurses. They are "middlemen".

If that's the case, how do CEO's deserve "bonus checks" of $100,000,000.00 or more? Do you understand how many tens of thousands of policies you have to "skim" to make that kind of paycheck?

I'm still waiting for a single Republican to explain to me why these men deserve that kind of money and why policy holders should have to ante up.

Why do Republicans defend the very people who hurt them so? I just don't get it.

What HC companies, with Republican help, give to the middle class.

 

[WillowTree]

Nothing, when the timing is right. But should one try trimming their toenails during a heart attack?

Right now government should be spending on infrastructure and JOBS.

watcha gonna spend asshole? we ain't got no money..

How about we use the $12 million per day we're currently spending to blow up other peoples infrastructure?

good idear, talk to da man in da wh.. he the cic.. innhe?

 

[rdean]

No, we shouldn't.

Because usually those projects waste money.

Remember the 1 Trillion dollar stimulus. How many jobs did that produce?

What we need to do is rebuild our manufacturing infrastructure and get our trade policies under control. Then you can get the money to do the infrastructure stuff.

We are running huge deficits because the free traders allowed us to move all the good manufacturing jobs overseas, and we are bleeding a half trillion a year in trade to other countries.

From 1776-1976, the entire national debt was all of 600 Billion. That was it. That's what we ran up with two world wars and a few smaller ones, building the interstate highway system, the space program, the New Deal and the Great Society. We could afford all this stuff.

Because in that time period, we exported more than we imported, there was plenty of money to finance the government, and plenty of jobs to keep the tax payer to tax recipiant ratio sane.

Spending a crapload of money we don't have isn't the solution. Getting us back on track econmically is. And if that means creating jobs that aren't great initially, so be it.

It wasn't a trillion, it was $821 billion and it created or saved 3 million jobs. The stimulus kept us from a Depression so it was money well spent...unlike the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which got us to the brink in the first place)

Who really thinks that you can invade two countries AND cut taxes?

I agree with you on manufacturing, but disagree with you on infrastructure. I think we DO need money spent on our infrastructure...to support 21st century technologies. Our broadband infrastructure is 17th in the world. That's pretty pathetic for the country that invented the internet.

The stimulus didnt create or save a single job, except for those GOP candidates running for public office.
The stimulus did not keep us from anything other than prosperity. It is a failure even on the criterion set out by Team Obama, which promised sub-8% unemployment
The wars in Afghanistan (which Obama expanded) and Iraq (which Obama continued) were absolutely necessary for national security. I suppose you support the Bill Clinton approach of lobbing a couple of missiles and shaking your first.
We have spent billions on "infrastructure" and this is the result, bridges to nowhere and train stations out of use for 30 years. More spending on crap like that helps Obama's union buddies and no one else.

Stunning Republican Hypocrisy on the Stimulus Package

The $787 billion stimulus gave $288 billion in middle class and small business tax cuts, $275 billion for contracts, grants and loans to rebuild America’s infrastructure and $224 billion in Entitlements to fund police, teachers, firefighters and unemployment programs. (See Recovery.gov)244 Democrats voted for the stimulus plan, 177 Republicans voted against the stimulus, but many are now quietly and cowardly touting its benefits of the President’s Plan. Republicans Who Opposed The Stimulus Continue To Pan It As A ‘Failure,’ While Also Taking Credit For Its Success. These exact same deceitful Republicans Who Opposed the Stimulus Line up To Criticize It Publicly, Request More Money Privately, deliberately fail to tell their constituents where the money came from!

---------------------------------------------------

In fact, if right wingers don't like my links, they can do their own research to prove I'm wrong. Here let me help get you started:

republican congressmen took stimulus

----------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty ******* good for such a "failed policy", wouldn't you say??????????????????

Oops!

(I have to admit, my favorite is "Republican congressmen "BEG" for stimulus". Hilarious.)

 

[Oldstyle]

Seriously, wtf is wrong with trying to balance our national budget.

Nothing, when the timing is right. But should one try trimming their toenails during a heart attack?

Right now government should be spending on infrastructure and JOBS.

It sure "would" be silly to trim someone's toenails during a heart attack...just as silly as it would be to have them lose three hundred pounds or do cardio exercises during a heart attack. That doesn't mean however that once the patient has survived said heart attack, their heart doctor wouldn't point out to them that being grossly over weight and totally out of shape is what brought on the heart attack in the first place and if they don't want to die NEXT time that they should both loose the weight and go on an exercise plan.

To use your "analogy" our Federal Government is an obscenely overweight patient that can't move it's so bloated. We've just had a SERIES of heart attacks and our "doctors" have pointed out that we need to either lose weight and start exercising or we're dead meat. All except for "Doctor Obama" who isn't even a cardiologist, having his PHD in community organizing. "Doc Obama" tells the patient that what he NEEDS is to put on a few more pounds and get a "power chair".

So you tell me, Lakhota...who do you think the patient should listen to?

 

[jgarden]

WASHINGTON — The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington’s new austerity and antitax orthodoxy.

MORE (by Jackie Calmes): G.O.P. on Defensive as Analysts Question Party’s Fiscal Policy

“The political brinkmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy,” S&P said in its report.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/How-The-Debt-Ceiling-Debate-Hurt-America.htm

The S&P decision was also based on the "political brinkmanship" and the willingness of some elements in Congress to use the deficit ceiling and a federal default as "political bargaining chips."

It doesn't take much imagination to figure to whom the S&P was referring - given that with the deadline looming and despite pleas from the GOP leadership, the original legislation had to be withdrawn and reworked to attract Tea Party support.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yea, because healthcare for Americans is a bad thing. Just ask Paul Ryan. How's that working out for him?

Pay for your own health care. It sells itself. There is no right to someone else paying for your care.

Uh, let me point something out. Health Care companies don't own any hospitals. Don't employ any Doctors or nurses. They are "middlemen".

If that's the case, how do CEO's deserve "bonus checks" of $100,000,000.00 or more? Do you understand how many tens of thousands of policies you have to "skim" to make that kind of paycheck?

I'm still waiting for a single Republican to explain to me why these men deserve that kind of money and why policy holders should have to ante up.

Why do Republicans defend the very people who hurt them so? I just don't get it.

What HC companies, with Republican help, give to the middle class.
]

Kaiser Pemanente doesn't own any hospitals? Who knew?
You are wrong BECAUSE you are RDean.

 

[Seawytch]

The number one cause of bankruptcy before the health care bill was medical bills. Romney care didn't do any more damage than what Republicans have already done. We needed a "public option", but when have Republicans done anything good for this country in the last 20 or 30 years?

I love it when Republicans say, "If it was so good, how come you couldn't pass it"? Uh, because we have a political party whose ONLY goal is to make the first black president "fail"? Now Republicans have the lowest ratings in history. And their town halls are hilarious.

Republicans held both houses and the presidency for 6 straight years. And look at what they gave us. Do we have to go through the list again? Funny how Republicans can take the disastrous Bush years and turn "lemons" into "lemonAIDS".

Debunked so long ago. As that stat was determined by anyone that had a medical bill.

It was so good that you guys issued 1500 waivers.

Get a clue if you really want to debate.

If you have facts that counter this Harvard study, please provide them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dems had a super majority for almost two years, junior...

Prove it.

Are you suggesting they didn't have a super majority until the Scott Brown election? Even after that they had it in the house and had 59 in the Senate and could have rammed through any legislation they wanted, like obamacare.....

I wasn't suggesting anything other than that you don't know what you're talking about.

So again,

prove it. Prove you aren't full of shit.

 

[Oldstyle]

WASHINGTON — The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington’s new austerity and antitax orthodoxy.

MORE (by Jackie Calmes): G.O.P. on Defensive as Analysts Question Party’s Fiscal Policy

“The political brinkmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy,” S&P said in its report.

The S&P decision was also based on the "political brinkmanship" and the willingness of some elements in Congress to use the deficit and a federal default as "political bargaining chips."

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out who they're referring to, given that despite pleas from the GOP leadership, the original legislation had to be withdrawn and reworked to attract Tea Party support.

They are referring to both sides actually since neither was willing to budge very far. But since the Tea Party was calling for REAL deficit reduction and the progressives were not...which of the two side is the REAL problem to reaching a solution that would have satisfied the rating agencies request that we cut 4 trillion from our deficit? Kindly explain why it is that progressives and President Obama won't even consider a balanced budget amendment since that is PRECISELY the kind of action that the rating agencies are telling us we NEED to make to prevent further downgrades.

 

[Seawytch]

WASHINGTON — The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington’s new austerity and antitax orthodoxy.

MORE (by Jackie Calmes): G.O.P. on Defensive as Analysts Question Party’s Fiscal Policy

“The political brinkmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy,” S&P said in its report.

The S&P decision was also based on the "political brinkmanship" and the willingness of some elements in Congress to use the deficit and a federal default as "political bargaining chips."

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out who they're referring to, given that despite pleas from the GOP leadership, the original legislation had to be withdrawn and reworked to attract Tea Party support.

They are referring to both sides actually since neither was willing to budge very far. But since the Tea Party was calling for REAL deficit reduction and the progressives were not...which of the two side is the REAL problem to reaching a solution that would have satisfied the rating agencies request that we cut 4 trillion from our deficit? Kindly explain why it is that progressives and President Obama won't even consider a balanced budget amendment since that is PRECISELY the kind of action that the rating agencies are telling us we NEED to make to prevent further downgrades.

I must disagree. The Democrats offered 4 Trillion in cuts but were rejected because their plan also had the closing of some tax loopholes and other revenue generators in it.

So one side is offering cuts and the other side absolutely refuses to consider anything revenue producing. This "both sides" argument is baloney (or bologna if you learned to spell it from the commercial).

Tell me why the Republicans didn't pass a balanced budget amendment when they had control of the House, Senate and Presidency for 6 years?

 

[Big Fitz]

Yea, because healthcare for Americans is a bad thing. Just ask Paul Ryan. How's that working out for him?

Pay for your own health care. It sells itself. There is no right to someone else paying for your care.

Uh, let me point something out. Health Care companies don't own any hospitals. Don't employ any Doctors or nurses. They are "middlemen".

If that's the case, how do CEO's deserve "bonus checks" of $100,000,000.00 or more? Do you understand how many tens of thousands of policies you have to "skim" to make that kind of paycheck?

I'm still waiting for a single Republican to explain to me why these men deserve that kind of money and why policy holders should have to ante up.

Why do Republicans defend the very people who hurt them so? I just don't get it.

What HC companies, with Republican help, give to the middle class.

Oh look. Answers to questions not asked.

Uh, let me point something out. Health Care companies don't own any hospitals. Don't employ any Doctors or nurses. They are "middlemen".

Then who DOES own a hospital? That doesn't address the issue either. You have no RIGHT to medical care beyond what you can provide yourself without resources, training or facilities provided by another. Everything after that point is an issue of commerce and trade, and you have no right to any product or service. To claim otherwise makes you no better than a slaver.

I'm still waiting for a single Republican to explain to me why these men deserve that kind of money and why policy holders should have to ante up.

I'm still waiting for a single socialist err I mean democrat to offer up a valid reason why they cannot be allowed that kind of money? All I hear is hypocritical envy.

If this was a free market with open competition, you would not have to buy ANY insurance from ANY company that offers that kind of compensation package. But when you only have a small number of choices, or NO choice when you talk government run systems, you can't avoid it, now can you?

Why do Republicans defend the very people who hurt them so? I just don't get it.

Hurt? Who's hurt now? Why did you hurt them? Why do liberals hurt the ones they claim to defend? more irrelevant blather from Hairnet.

What HC companies, with Republican help, give to the middle class.

I'm still trying to decipher this class warfare libberish. You don't 'GIVE' health care. You buy health INSURANCE. A product that is essentially a hedge bet that IF something goes wrong with your health, and you can't afford to pay for it, someone else will.

The problem is you don't even understand the issue, AND you're using it to distract from the fact that Obamacare is unconstitutional AND a financial trainwreck. GOP Economic policies are the lite version lately of the DNC. Have been for about 20 years, with some occasional REAL conservative attempts.

I'd love to see some REAL conservative economic policy too! You know, like ending all the unconstitutional social spending and return all that power overreach by the feddies to the states. Since 60% of all spending is attached to transfer payments and social spending, that budget reduction would automatically require taxes to be cut as the money would be languishing doing nothing (this of course is AFTER the debt is paid) but tempting idiots to repeat the moral hazard of unconstitutional spending and government involvement.

This government needs to be given the economic version of stomach stapling to save all our lives. Hopefullly we can admit it in time to save us all.

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama caused the downgrade by holding the country hostage.

His name is on the bad budget, Obama ownz it.

 

[rdean]

The number one cause of bankruptcy before the health care bill was medical bills. Romney care didn't do any more damage than what Republicans have already done. We needed a "public option", but when have Republicans done anything good for this country in the last 20 or 30 years?

I love it when Republicans say, "If it was so good, how come you couldn't pass it"? Uh, because we have a political party whose ONLY goal is to make the first black president "fail"? Now Republicans have the lowest ratings in history. And their town halls are hilarious.

Republicans held both houses and the presidency for 6 straight years. And look at what they gave us. Do we have to go through the list again? Funny how Republicans can take the disastrous Bush years and turn "lemons" into "lemonAIDS".

Debunked so long ago. As that stat was determined by anyone that had a medical bill.

It was so good that you guys issued 1500 waivers.

Get a clue if you really want to debate.

If you have facts that counter this Harvard study, please provide them.

Too bad no right wingers read your great link.

 

[rdean]

Pay for your own health care. It sells itself. There is no right to someone else paying for your care.

Uh, let me point something out. Health Care companies don't own any hospitals. Don't employ any Doctors or nurses. They are "middlemen".

If that's the case, how do CEO's deserve "bonus checks" of $100,000,000.00 or more? Do you understand how many tens of thousands of policies you have to "skim" to make that kind of paycheck?

I'm still waiting for a single Republican to explain to me why these men deserve that kind of money and why policy holders should have to ante up.

Why do Republicans defend the very people who hurt them so? I just don't get it.

What HC companies, with Republican help, give to the middle class.

Oh look. Answers to questions not asked.



Then who DOES own a hospital? That doesn't address the issue either. You have no RIGHT to medical care beyond what you can provide yourself without resources, training or facilities provided by another. Everything after that point is an issue of commerce and trade, and you have no right to any product or service. To claim otherwise makes you no better than a slaver.



I'm still waiting for a single socialist err I mean democrat to offer up a valid reason why they cannot be allowed that kind of money? All I hear is hypocritical envy.

If this was a free market with open competition, you would not have to buy ANY insurance from ANY company that offers that kind of compensation package. But when you only have a small number of choices, or NO choice when you talk government run systems, you can't avoid it, now can you?

Why do Republicans defend the very people who hurt them so? I just don't get it.

Hurt? Who's hurt now? Why did you hurt them? Why do liberals hurt the ones they claim to defend? more irrelevant blather from Hairnet.

What HC companies, with Republican help, give to the middle class.

I'm still trying to decipher this class warfare libberish. You don't 'GIVE' health care. You buy health INSURANCE. A product that is essentially a hedge bet that IF something goes wrong with your health, and you can't afford to pay for it, someone else will.

The problem is you don't even understand the issue, AND you're using it to distract from the fact that Obamacare is unconstitutional AND a financial trainwreck. GOP Economic policies are the lite version lately of the DNC. Have been for about 20 years, with some occasional REAL conservative attempts.

I'd love to see some REAL conservative economic policy too! You know, like ending all the unconstitutional social spending and return all that power overreach by the feddies to the states. Since 60% of all spending is attached to transfer payments and social spending, that budget reduction would automatically require taxes to be cut as the money would be languishing doing nothing (this of course is AFTER the debt is paid) but tempting idiots to repeat the moral hazard of unconstitutional spending and government involvement.

This government needs to be given the economic version of stomach stapling to save all our lives. Hopefullly we can admit it in time to save us all.

So you are saying bonus checks of a hundred million dollars skimmed off insurance policies is a "good" thing? That is such outrageous bullshit.

I suspect you mean that we should let insurance companies in one state sell to another state. The only problem with that is they would be completely unregulated.

What about America doing something good for America instead of praising companies that just drag down our country. Our government is made up of people we elect. If you elect ignorant right wingers who say government always fails, then it always will fail. Republicans will see to it.

Too bad other countries can do would Republicans won't let us do. And at a much lower cost.

 

[Big Fitz]

So you are saying bonus checks of a hundred million dollars skimmed off insurance policies is a "good" thing? That is such outrageous bullshit.

What right do you have to tell anyone they cannot earn the wage they desire? I don't think you're worth a plug nickle an hour, but I'm certain my opinion of your value will be overlooked thanks to minimum wage laws. Your envy gives you no right to that person's money and if we had a free market, you wouldn't have to purchase insurance from that rat bastard. I know if I found out my insurance company was being that fiscally irresponsible and had the ability to get the same product elsewhere for cheaper, I'd move in a heartbeat.

But, since so much government redtape is in the way, I doubt I'd be able to, or I'd get slapped with all sorts of 'pre-existing' shit I'd never find a good competing plan. Who's fault is that? Big intrusive government's and do-gooder busibodies.

Don't try to take the moral high ground, Hairnet. All that strong backlighting makes you such an easy target.

I suspect you mean that we should let insurance companies in one state sell to another state.

Of course. Competition drops prices. Eliminate state mandates and allow 'a-la carte' plans, you'd drop them even more. Why does MN have over 130 mandates covering drug treatment to rosacea to port wine stain removal and abortions? Because some "we MUST do SOMETHING" Idiot wailed long and loud enough they got paid off with this sop to shut the **** up and quit bothering people. Of course, the victim of this crap is the every day tax payer who's taxes AND insurance costs went up. The taxes went up to cover those who now cannot afford the coverage they previously could because premiums must be raised to keep the funds solvent by adding coverage 90% of the people in their plans didn't need and should have been able to opt out.

But of course you ignore the logistical effects of your do-goodery and just focus on your hellbound good intentions and assume it's the same damn thing as righteousness... which it isn't.

The only problem with that is they would be completely unregulated.

No. I have NEVER advocated complete deregulation. You ******* FIND a post where I said that and prove that lie, Hairnet. I have stated flatly that government must be REMOVED from all aspects of Health care and insurance EXCEPT for regulations like weights and measures, labor and consumer protection, competition and similar issues. The rest should be sorted out by the market like it was till the 1930's when FDR destroyed it with allowing tax deductions for businesses in lieu of pay raises. A practice intensified during WW2 when they were slapped with wage freezes and compensation had to come in the form of non-monetary methods. THAT is when the system got fucked three ways from sunday. ALL that crap needs to end. If you want deductions for health care costs, give them to the individual tax payer and not businesses. That right there makes it instantly portable because the person owns it, not the company. Second, they can shop prices and get the best deal possible for their needs.

But these are UNTRIED CONSERVATIVE SOLUTIONS that shatter government involvement and deny class warfare and suppression of freedom by government regulation. All things you fear.

What about America doing something good for America instead of praising companies that just drag down our country.

And

Too bad other countries can do would Republicans won't let us do. And at a much lower cost.

And what does this irrelevancy have to do with the conversation? Nothing. But if you want to talk about outsourcing, fine. Start another thread. I'd be happy to shred your arguments there too. But to be blunt about it, it's simple to stop jobs from fleeing this nation. Quit making an economic chaotic and oppressively regulatory environment that stifles return on investment and makes overseas a better place to invest and grow. Why else do you think companies are moving to China, India, Mexico and Brazil? Because they can manufacture their product and offer their services for the price point hypocrites like you will pay.

Interesting sidenote from some of my friends who work in the tech industry. They've been starting to hear complaints from those companies that had outsourced THEIR jobs to the Philippines and India, that they are having to look to move from those places too because the people there won't work as cheap as they did even 5 years ago, let alone 10. Those industries are causing enough people to become trained enough that they flee the crap jobs and move to the higher paying ones once they get enough experience to do so. China is losing the low grade manufacturing to Vietnam and Thailand. You know... jobs Chinese won't do. And why? Because capitalism has given them wealth and skill enough to start demanding their freedom. All shit you hate with a passion.

So if you want to stop this kind of stuff from ruining the rest of the world, bring the work back by showing business leaders we are a good place to invest and work. The nature of the world IS flux. Nothing will ever be the 1960's again, so quit trying to make it that way. You look a fool. Well more the fool.

Our government is made up of people we elect.

And we get the government we deserve. Right now that is an immoral, corrupt, deadbeat pandering mess. But at the state levels and even local levels, that is changing. In 2012, may it start to change radically at the federal to a real conservative solution that understands that deadbeats must be forced to work, government is the cause of most of our problems, and that people are the best ones to decide how their money is spent, and honor and self worth cannot be found in a government hand out.

If you elect ignorant right wingers who say government always fails, then it always will fail. Republicans will see to it.

Establishment DNC and GOP members will. They are the same direction, but different speeds. Insolvency, collapse and tyranny. that is why the Tea Party, Libertarianism and fiscally responsible small government candidates are quickly gaining in both popularity and political strength. We've run out of time with this downgrade. The effects have already started with the massive slide in the stock markets all around the world. Our creditors are going to be pulling a margin call soon and either not lend us the money, OR just lend it at an even worse rate. We must end our addiction to spending on frivolities. Like the crackhead or alcoholic, economically, we've just about hit the 'dark night of the soul' where all the illusions are stripped away and we must face the truth that we cannot keep doing what we are or we as a nation will DIE.

You think we'll just get away with the riots of the 60's where it was solved with kumbaya songs, flower power and giving peace a chance? Sorry, buddy. those days are dead as the dodo. All those 'tolerant nuanced' children you raised have been marinated in your hate and class warfare rhetoric for their entire lives. No, you're going to fire them up to try and end the threat that conservatism, libertarianism and the tea party are to you, and it's going to quickly spiral out of your control. Then we'll be lucky to see only an 'arab spring' level of unrest. If we're unlucky, The Russian Revolution. If we've incurred the wrath of that (in your mind) imaginary God, the French Revolution or Cambodian Killing Fields. And don't forget. All those things result in tyrants and monsters running the show. Look at how the Weimar republic ended up: the Third Reich.

And you're tempting fate and the American people and threatening the world economy by your ignorance of history.

 

[JoeB131]

[It wasn't a trillion, it was $821 billion and it created or saved 3 million jobs. The stimulus kept us from a Depression so it was money well spent...unlike the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which got us to the brink in the first place)

So you think we should have just ignored that 9/11 thingee?

Yeah, I guess it saved the jobs of union thugs and lazy government workers... at the expense fo the rest of us. But Unemployment still went up despite it. Or probably because of it.

Who really thinks that you can invade two countries AND cut taxes?

Who thinks we can pay more people to work and have a healthy economy. Who thinks we can exempt half the population from taxes and not run deficits.

I agree with you on manufacturing, but disagree with you on infrastructure. I think we DO need money spent on our infrastructure...to support 21st century technologies. Our broadband infrastructure is 17th in the world. That's pretty pathetic for the country that invented the internet.

It's pathetic that you are worried about "broadband", which is already being replaced by wi-fi. As Ronald Reagan said, "If it moves, Tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidize it."

We are spending billions on infrastructure. Sadly, most of it goes to unionized workers where five guys stand around watching one guy work because those are the union rules.

 

[editec]

...in their Iowa debate Thursday night, all eight participants raised their hands when asked who would reject a long-term debt reduction package that had $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases.

The above suggests that the GOP's current crop of hopefuls are much much more interested in winning their party's nomination than they are in solving the budget and debt crises.

Now to me this looks like a sort of passive-aggressive economic treason.

Incidently, I don't think that cuts in spending OR tax increases are really a good idea, but if I believed that the national debt was the biggest problem this nation had right now, (as the conservatives seem to believe) then I'd think a TEN TO ONE (in their favor, ideologically speaking) compromise was a pretty damned good deal.

Clearly they don't.

Ideologues do not make good politicians in a representational democratic republic.

Their failure to compromise on this issue will, I think, only make matters much worse.

Which leads me to think that they WANT things to get much worse.

Really, that's the only conclusion I can come up with to explain their intractable position.

It really does look to me like the TP players in the GOP are about the business of monkey-wrenching the economy.