Republicans Hate Babies, schoolchildren, the elderly, unemployed, welfare, immigrants

[MaggieMae]

Nice focusing on Bookman and ignoring Krugman.

cherry pick much?

Jay Bookman is also a senior fellow at The Brookings Institute, not your average Joe The Blogger.

No, he's the same Jay Bookman that has written article after article defending Obama at every turn. He's a subpar partisan hack.

Next.

So you can prove that he's lying? Or is your comment based solely on the fact that you're an Obama hater, period. (Talk about a "hack"... you beat them all.)

Next?

 

[MaggieMae]

I can't speak for Republicans since I'm not one, but YES to a certain degree Conservatives do "hate" a large number of those groups; for one simple reason.... they are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, thereby forcing us (and society in general) to help take care of them.

Liberals hate those groups because rather then liberals taking any personal responsibility to help them they let government do it, and no one is less capable of taking care of anyone then government. Liberals are vicious that way...

Yep. Only liberals are on the gubmit dole.

 

[MaggieMae]

On the contrary, tax cuts are very popular and so is most of the spending. Anyone to suggest - Or enact - doing away with either, loses. That's where most of the problem is coming from.

Exactly!! Americans in general want their cake and eat it too. This is the most recent Gallup poll on where Americans want spending cuts, and other polls show similar results:

Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense

It's like "the government" to some is an intangible facility unto its own, where there's a White House, a Rose Garden, and a Money Garden, and what they do there shouldn't affect Mr. and Mrs. US Citizen living on Main Street in East Podunk.

$300 billion deficits under Bush had you libbies rolling on the floor foaming at the mouth as to what we were doing to our children. Now $1.5 trillion dollar deficits don't make you blink. Double standard anyone? BTW, you were right the first time, too bad you didn't mean it...

It was far more than $300 billion because the war supplementals were never included in the annual budget process and therefore not added to the deficit. Plus the fact that all that money was going for "NATION BUILDING" in places other than THIS nation. It became a moral issue after awhile. Building new schools in Iraq and Afghanistan and providing Iraqis with free health care while our own citizens went without sucked.

 

[MaggieMae]

I know plenty of americans willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

I'd give up all my payments into social security right now and accept never seeing a dime of that forced investment back if it meant helping reduce and eliminate our national debt.

I'd even pay more in taxes if those taxes were guaranteed to go toward the national debt and nothing else.

That's great, but I'll bet if you randomly asked ten other people, they wouldn't.

 

[MaggieMae]

Two separate issues. Children of illegal immigrants should not be punished for the illegal actions of their parents.

I also think that people who think it's "easy" for illegals to collect government welfare, don't know what they're talking about. First off, to even apply, they would be admitting they're not here legally, and all it would take is a quick phone call to ICE. That's why they stay in the shadows.

The law is the law you break it you are a criminal



I don't know about other states or cities but in Meckliburg county does give money to illegals.

The total cost of welfare, food stamps and Medicaid for suspected illegal immigrants in Mecklenburg county in July was 2-point-7 million dollars. About 3 and a half percent of the 77 million dollars in total payments. Not all of it county money.

Cover Story: Breaking law to punish lawbreakers? - WBTV 3 News, Weather, Sports, and Traffic for Charlotte, NC-

Maggie did you miss this post?

No, and I think I responded by saying that's a STATE issue. You can't take isolated incidents and then turn around and blame the federal government as a whole for doing it.

 

[Immanuel]

not that I enjoy defending Bush

Clinton did not have wars do deal with and he got to rid the tech bubble.

Not that Bush was a fiscal conservative by any stretch of my imagination.

Bush did not have to have two wars to deal with. Bush could have retaliated with some bombings and then been done with it. Bush chose to listen to Cheney and the other neocons and to enter the field of nation-building. Note: he chose, he made the choice. We didn't have to go in as an occupying force.

Immie

Non-sense.

If we had bombed with no boots on the ground we would all be baby-killers. Once no wmd's were found the media and public opinion turned on him.

thinking the cost would be less is iffy at best since bombing raids are costly and missle cost over a million each.

Then we are all baby-killers anyway because we had done it in the past and we have done it since then.

And I agree the media and public opinion did turn on him when no WMD's were found. That doesn't change the fact that Bush chose those two wars when there were other ways to deal with the situation.

And the costs would have been tremendously lower than a hundred plus year occupation which is exactly what we are looking at right now.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

NO!! Just once, I'd like to enter a forum where all The Stupids from both "sides" are playing somewhere else.

Oh? So now you too are telling me to STFU! Or actually GTFO (Get the F! Out).

Sheesh!!! I can't win for losing.

Immie

I wasn't talking about you. Sorry if that was misinterpreted. Actually, this thread has been pleasantly devoid of the ones I could list.

That one was not misinterpreted. I was just kidding around with you. Jillian, Anguille (I think she was involved) and Ravi had a similar conversation yesterday as well in one of the abortion threads that has popped up this last week. It just kind of fit in with everything.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In theory. But why, then, when the tax rates were reduced, sustainable jobs weren't created? That, to me, was a major assist to the economic collapse. Businesses were not able to maintain themselves due to lack of working capital in tim
es of stress, so they had to lay people off. I call that the Laffmyassoff curve!!

But in reality we have the actual data in these charts from actual government data not from blog sites:

united states

iceland

I don't think "graphs" show reality, which is the inyourface fact that corporations take advantage of tax loopholes and keep foreigners employed rather than Americans. Take a look at this analysis, prepared as a result of IRS statistical data reported for 2008, which shows the reality of the Bush tax cuts and their effect on the average American worker.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

I know i know the graphs actually show the results in an easy to comprehend, non partisan, way. They are just pictoral displays of data.

Post up some links to actual data that back up your opinion in this matter. Or post the graph or something.

I refrained from posting the dozen or so articles I found that all show how the Laffer curve is reliable and accurate and has been proven through history by data because they just said so instead of providing charts, graphs, or links to raw data.

 

[boedicca]

(deleted a bunch of meaningless nonsense for which MM provided no cogent analysis)

I don't think "graphs" show reality, which is the inyourface fact that corporations take advantage of tax loopholes and keep foreigners employed rather than Americans. Take a look at this analysis, prepared as a result of IRS statistical data reported for 2008, which shows the reality of the Bush tax cuts and their effect on the average American worker.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

MM displays the heartbreak of economic illiteracy. Tax rates did not cause the great depression. Inane monetary policy did. The fed raised interest rates and did not increase the money supply to combat deflation.

 

[signelect]

It is getting harder and harder to tell the R's from the D's, now new ideas, no solutions, no tolerance, nothing just complaints. We didn't do it they did. that really gets tiring.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It is getting harder and harder to tell the R's from the D's, now new ideas, no solutions, no tolerance, nothing just complaints. We didn't do it they did. that really gets tiring.

Amen brother, you are preaching to the choir here but AMEN!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Things I deeply want defunded cuz it won't make a dent;

Foreign aid
Amtrack
PBS
NPR
GE
Farms

That's a short list of things that can be done where no one will be affected.

 

[MaggieMae]

But in reality we have the actual data in these charts from actual government data not from blog sites:

united states

iceland

I don't think "graphs" show reality, which is the inyourface fact that corporations take advantage of tax loopholes and keep foreigners employed rather than Americans. Take a look at this analysis, prepared as a result of IRS statistical data reported for 2008, which shows the reality of the Bush tax cuts and their effect on the average American worker.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

I know i know the graphs actually show the results in an easy to comprehend, non partisan, way. They are just pictoral displays of data.

Post up some links to actual data that back up your opinion in this matter. Or post the graph or something.

I refrained from posting the dozen or so articles I found that all show how the Laffer curve is reliable and accurate and has been proven through history by data because they just said so instead of providing charts, graphs, or links to raw data.

There are links and to IRS statistical data in the tax.com link I provided. It wasn't an "opinion," but a dialog explaining the statistical results by the IRS.

The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000.

In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998.

The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166.

The Statistics of Income data on tax-free, high incomes severely understate economic reality because they exclude deferral accounts, including those of hedge fund managers with billion-dollar incomes who can legally report no current income and borrow against their untaxed gains to live tax free. The IRS Tables follow.

 

[MaggieMae]

(deleted a bunch of meaningless nonsense for which MM provided no cogent analysis)

I don't think "graphs" show reality, which is the inyourface fact that corporations take advantage of tax loopholes and keep foreigners employed rather than Americans. Take a look at this analysis, prepared as a result of IRS statistical data reported for 2008, which shows the reality of the Bush tax cuts and their effect on the average American worker.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

MM displays the heartbreak of economic illiteracy. Tax rates did not cause the great depression. Inane monetary policy did. The fed raised interest rates and did not increase the money supply to combat deflation.

I wasn't talking about the Great Depression. I was talking about more recently, and the link proves that the lower tax rate THIS TIME did not do much to increase revenue (nor create jobs), period. Isn't that the point? What low tax rates accomplish in today's economy?

I just noticed where you "(deleted a bunch of meaningless nonsense for which MM provided no cogent analysis)." Too bad you deleted some of Pilgrim's contribution, not mine. Oopsy.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is getting harder and harder to tell the R's from the D's, now new ideas, no solutions, no tolerance, nothing just complaints. We didn't do it they did. that really gets tiring.

Amen brother, you are preaching to the choir here but AMEN!

They both "did," but when I see someone completely willing to only blame Democrats, or using selected data which politically favors a certain THEORY and excludes any other economic FACT, I tend to become suspicious. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no economics scholar, but I do know when someone's trying to sway me by digging up obscure charts and tables which are intended to look genius, but in fact are probably representative of only a small fraction of the whole measurement indicating a good or bad economic trend.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can't speak for Republicans since I'm not one, but YES to a certain degree Conservatives do "hate" a large number of those groups; for one simple reason.... they are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, thereby forcing us (and society in general) to help take care of them.

I don't mind taking care of those who CAN'T take care of themselves.

I object to taking care of those who WON'T take care of themselves.

 

[Uncensored2008]

DAMN! You forgot the most important ones!!

Unions and government!

No gop deadpool is complete w/o those.

But you can also toss in;
Schools
books
all muslims
free speech
bikinis

You've got me there! I really do hate bikinis. Every time I see a cute girl in a bikini, I want it off of her - NOW. In fact, sometimes I take it off her in my mind..... I mean, at least the top...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, I am no fan of ragweed.

And the delta smelt makes great sushi. Little wasabi and a bit of ginger... Mmmmmm.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Am I a good liberal lemming now?

Seriously you guys are saying that by cutting less than 1% of the total budget the republicans are trying to starve seniors?

Your also trying to say that by cutting the budget and spending they are actually going to add more to the debt than if they didn't spend less? This one is a doozie, and some liberals wonder why many americans view them as dim-witted.

Not all liberals mind you, there are many smart liberals out there but man the caliber of the ones posting here is just horrid.

I think both Republicans and democrats are elitist and do not care for anyone but their pocket book
Both are too blame for this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id04EMU6OIw]YouTube - Bernanke says no to where the money went[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

An example of a liberal lemming being confronted with honesty and without either side being too rude, both the liberal man and the conservative man behaved ok in my opinion.

YouTube - Liberal Confronts Herman Cain!

Herman Cain!