Republican war on the Middle Class: what's next?

[Lancecastor]

Really? Please name which MBA's and PhD's blame people who were hoodwinked into loans they couldn't afford and thrown out of the homes they were told they could. Which economic powerhouses claim bankers were feckless victims to the cunning schemes of poor people from which they could not defend themselves.

The MBA's were in the Marketing Department.

http://www.mortgagelenderatlanta.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pre-approval.jpg

 

[Lancecastor]

I might as well go down to the bus station and start a discussion with the most unhinged beggar I can find.

I liked this. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Luk]

Since neither of you have a viable rebuttal, I'll leave you with this:

Save the country, save the middle class, vote Republican. The Democrats have once again proved that they can't Govern or lead. Good luck with your endeavors and have good evening.

I would log out too if I got embarrassed that badly.

 

[Ham Murabi]

The end goal is to get rid of political power for the middle class. Republicans are going after unions for public workers now.

What's next?

So the high unemployment, rising food and fuel prices, continuous foreclosures and record deficit spending that have been hallmarks of the Obama administration have been good for the middle class.
I didn't know that.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

The Republicans say "Lets be competitive in the world, lets create an evironment that facilitates competition and growth" (and keep a basic safety net in place).

Reagan created tremdous growth, Clinton got some growth going (4.2%) (after Gingrich forced balanced budgets on him through a government shutdown) and Bush II created some growth, more modest, but still, he got the unemployment rate to 4.6% and our annual deficit down to $172M in the year before the democrats took over the House of Representatives and spiked up the deficit spending again).

Your post is historically wrong.

Unemployment was over 10% under Reagan, which meant any growth you can show occurred on his watch went to the rich and not the working class. He skyrocketed the national debt: 900 billion to 2.8 trillion dollars.

Bush II had the worst job creation record since Hoover. Job growth did not keep up with working class population growth, and wages did not keep up with inflation under Bush II. Republicans allowed the subprime mortgage plague to continue unabated, resulting in a crisis that erupted JUST as Democrats took office. The deficit topped 400 billion a year in 2004. The national debt skyrocketed again, rising by 5 trillion - half of that debt came while Republicans ruled Congress.

If the Republicans had kept Congress we'd still be just as deep in hot shit. After all, as you declined to point out, Republicans did almost unanimously support the bailouts, along with the Democrats.

I suspect you'll shut the fuck up now.

 

[RightField]

Your post is historically wrong.

Unemployment was over 10% under Reagan, which meant any growth you can show occurred on his watch went to the rich and not the working class. He skyrocketed the national debt: 900 billion to 2.8 trillion dollars.

Bush II had the worst job creation record since Hoover. Job growth did not keep up with working class population growth, and wages did not keep up with inflation under Bush II. Republicans allowed the subprime mortgage plague to continue unabated, resulting in a crisis that erupted JUST as Democrats took office. The deficit topped 400 billion a year in 2004. The national debt skyrocketed again, rising by 5 trillion - half of that debt came while Republicans ruled Congress.

If the Republicans had kept Congress we'd still be just as deep in hot shit. After all, as you declined to point out, Republicans did almost unanimously support the bailouts, along with the Democrats.

I suspect you'll shut the fuck up now.

Your lack of intellectual integrity is well recognized by almost everyone on this board and I therefore typically ignore your comments, but I'll respond to this in case there are any newbies around.

Reagan spent his first few years repairing the decimated economy that Carter left and once that was done, our economy soared and our employment figures improved dramatically. We had 25 years of economic growth and prosperity under Republican economic principles and now, look what's happened. In 4 years of democrat control our economy has fallen into the sewer and its causing economic hardship all across the country.

Reagan's goal was to reduce both spending and taxes, but congress wouldn't let him cut back spending in all the areas he wanted. Nevertheless, in hindsight, his total deficits after 8 years were almost, not quite, about the size of one year of Obama deficits. Obama's latest "plan" included a deficit the size of all of Reagan's (Obama's latest one year plan has a deficit of $1.6T in it). The Republicans in the house were trying to reduce Obama's planned deficit from $1.6T to $1.5T and the Democrats were screaming bloody murder about it. Do you want to continue to talk about fiscal discipline?

As for Bush, his initial deficits were reasonable and low, but then he had to deal with the attack on 9/11 and in war, our priorities changed a little bit. We had to figure out how to protect the nation and to prosecute the wars. Nevertheless, the total costs of the war, noted in the article above, as of 2009 were far less than the one stimulus bill that Obama put in ($700B for the all the years of the two wars and $787B for the stimulus). The deficits were large as we tried to get more equipment (hardened Humvees, flack jackets, ordinance) needed for war and tried to develop new approaches in law enforcement, security and inteligence to protect American lives. Through all this, with the aid of a Republican congress, Bush kept a lid on domestic spending and drove the deficit down each year until in the final year of having a Republican Congress, he drove the deficit down to $172B....I would call that a significant accomplishment given the fact we were in two wars at the time. When the democrats won congress in the two years before the Presidential elections, spending increased dramatically (congress writes the spending bills and authorizes them...the President merely signs the spending bills though he can influence it with the bully pulpit) and that's when we started getting large deficits...deficits that have multiplied and grown even larger once the democrats won the white house.

As for unemployment, please remember that we acheived full employment, 4.6% during that last year that Republicans had the congress and White House. Democrats like to complain about Bush employment figures because of the dip in his last year (mostly caused by the democrats social engineering and the resulting real estate bubble discussed above) and will use all sorts of deception to make anyone who will listen to them think badly about Bush's economy. They'll say "He didn't create a lot of jobs"....but the bottom line is that you don't need to create a whole bunch of new jobs once you hit "full employment", what would be the point of pushing for lots of new job creation once you have full employment, it would only result in lots of new jobs being unfilled. Compare that to where we are now....lots and lots of unemployment and lots of people giving up. Doesn't 4.6% unemployment sound good in comparision?

In their raw and aggressive desire to return to power, the democrats were spreading lies far and wide and making a big deal out of things like the foreign wiretaps (listening for known terrorists in other countries making calls and sometimes those calls came to the USA) and calling them unconstitutional and saying that Bush was profligate and creating debt that was impossible for our kids to repay. When they got elected, the the dems quietly changed their mind and decided that the foreign wiretap law was constitutional after all and extended the program. As far as the budget and spending priorities, they spent far more than Bush ever contemplated. Their lies worked enough so that they got congress first (Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) and later the White House and we all regret that now.

Luckily, I don't think independents are going to get fooled by these same democrat tricks again though. The dems have messed things up so badly that I hope it will be another whole generation before anyone will be willing to undertake the pain that comes from electing democrats again. Democrats can't govern, they can't lead. Vote them out.

You said, "If the Republicans had kept Congress we'd still be just as deep in hot shit" which is inviting a "what if" game. It would have been a lot different and much, much better for the nation if the Republicans had maintained power in both the congress and the white house. The bottom line is that Republicans would have kept a lid on spending, particularly if the trends that Bush had put into place that reduced our annual deficit to $172B remained in place. If we had kept the Repubicans in power and kept the deficit at that level (when there was a Republican President and Republican Congress) we'd have amased another $860M in debt in these past 5 years. With democats in charge of congress and then in charge of both congress and the White House, during that time we've amassed new Debt of $5.5T instead. Most of the debt has done nothing for the country, it was steered towards democrats special interests (govt employees, unions, trial lawyers) and did nothing but add additional stress to our economy and add to the problems of the rest of America. That means that having democrats in control has created an additional $4.6T of debt and what has it given us....a worse economy and a huge new debt.

As far as the bailouts, most of them have been paid back. The same can't be said for the democrats-only spending priorities that led to $5.5 TRILLION in new spending and debt. They have lots of safe and secure democrat special interest groups while the rest of us worry whether our jobs will be here tomorrow and whether the democrat spending and money printing will cause inflation that will eat away at what little we've been able to save for retirement (while being obligated to provide munificent retirement payment to government employees).

Under Republican government, the middle class gained wealth and thrived. People like LT would complain that the lower middle class was shrinking based on the census figures, but then we'd have to point out to him the census figures showed that it was because so many of them were moving up (not down), in general, people thrived. Many bought vacation homes, RV, motorcycles, all sorts of new electronic gadgets. Now, with the democrats in control, the middle class is worried whether they'll have job next week and many are already unemployed and being forced to sell their homes and other valuable possessions. The dems are destroying our country...not just now, but with the obligations of this huge debt, for the distant future also.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Iraq: The first appearance of the Flee-Bagger Party...




__________________
"How about just tracking down every single person who said drill baby drill and putting them all in prison. Why don’t we do that?"
Alan Grayson

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Reagan did not write off jobs as lost forever to get his numbers looking better...





He refused to flee-bag it and ended up creating a nation conducive to new jobs.

 

[RightField]

My bet is that one of them will come in and tell me to stop C&P.

It's beyond belief that some of them don't see the economic and social ruin that we're going through now.

 

[overthebow]

Reagan spent his first few years repairing the decimated economy that Carter left and once that was done, our economy soared and our employment figures improved dramatically. We had 25 years of economic growth and prosperity under Republican economic principles and now, look what's happened. In 4 years of democrat control our economy has fallen into the sewer and its causing economic hardship all across the country.

You're a kid, right?

You have never worked, right?

Reagan deficit spent like crazy.

This is what has happened.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif

 

[RightField]

You're a kid, right?

You have never worked, right?

Reagan deficit spent like crazy.

This is what has happened.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif

You'll notice that Bush's deficit numbers were fairly stable (even though we had 9/11 and a war) until the democrats took over congress (and responsibility for developing the spending bills) and the deficits really started growing at that point. That is where the line spikes up in a vertical climb.

Clinton's numbers went down, you'll notice, only after Gingrich forced a govenment shutdown and then Clinton came back to the table and they negotiated a reasonable approach from that point forward that brought the debt down. Clinton wanted to spend tons of money and had all sorts of plans for spreading money on his favorite special interests groups until Gingrich said "No Way!". It was Republican control of congress that made the big difference there too.

If you added Obama's numbers in, the chart would go off the top. We're now at $14T overrun due to the $5.5T in new spending from the democrats....and destroyed our economy at the same time.

I need to work to pay for the $4 Gas that my car drinks.

 

[overthebow]

You'll notice that Bush's deficit numbers were fairly stable (even though we had 9/11 and a war) until the democrats took over congress (and responsibility for developing the spending bills) and the deficits really started growing at that point. That is where the line spikes up in a vertical climb.

Clinton's numbers went down, you'll notice, only after Gingrich forced a govenment shutdown and then Clinton came back to the table and they negotiated a reasonable approach from that point forward that brought the debt down. Clinton wanted to spend tons of money and had all sorts of plans for spreading money on his favorite special interests groups until Gingrich said "No Way!". It was Republican control of congress that made the big difference there too.

If you added Obama's numbers in, the chart would go off the top. We're not at $14T overrun due to the $5.5T in new spending from the democrats....and destroyed our economy at the same time.

You are a moron.

 

[zipman]

You'll notice that Bush's deficit numbers were fairly stable (even though we had 9/11 and a war) until the democrats took over congress (and responsibility for developing the spending bills) and the deficits really started growing at that point. That is where the line spikes up in a vertical climb.

Clinton's numbers went down, you'll notice, only after Gingrich forced a govenment shutdown and then Clinton came back to the table and they negotiated a reasonable approach from that point forward that brought the debt down. Clinton wanted to spend tons of money and had all sorts of plans for spreading money on his favorite special interests groups until Gingrich said "No Way!". It was Republican control of congress that made the big difference there too.

If you added Obama's numbers in, the chart would go off the top. We're not at $14T overrun due to the $5.5T in new spending from the democrats....and destroyed our economy at the same time.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Ham Murabi]

You are a moron.

You are denying the facts on your chart.
Good time to start name-calling.

 

[Lancecastor]

Americans always talk the way you guys are talking when the economy's in rough shape and unemployment is up.

None of you are political elite, but here you are, spouting their talking points like slaves.

Your government runs on 4-8 year cycles, party-wise.

Your economy cycles up and down every 10-12 years like a balloon...bigger, smaller, bigger, smaller.

And then you dutifully blame the guy in the chair or the one before him every time it happens, based on the bar code stamped on your forehead by the party that has owned you since birth.

Here's the good news...your economy and job numbers will rise again.

You'll be able to buy a new Caddy for $299 a month with no money down.

And the TV ads will make you like another politician soon.

And the polls will say you have increased "hope for the future".

I promise.

 

[overthebow]

You are denying the facts on your chart.
Good time to start name-calling.

I don't know what it is that you are talking about, but the chart shows deficits being rung up during the Reagan-Bush years, and again during the Bush-Obama years.

Note that the national debt went down as a function of GDP during the Vietnam war because the economy was expanding. It even went down during the Carter years. There may have been deficits in those years, but the economy was still expanding.

So, just what facts am I denying?

 

[overthebow]

Here's what's next: giveaways to oil companies

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/67...rns-back-markey-plan-to-recover-oil-royalties

The House rejected an amendment Friday night aimed at pressuring oil-and-gas producers to renegotiate offshore leases that currently allow them to avoid paying federal royalties even when energy prices are high.

Lawmakers voted 174-251 against Rep. Ed Markey’s (D-Mass.) amendment to the fiscal year 2011 spending bill.

Oil companies are getting royalty free licenses for off-shore drilling.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't know what it is that you are talking about, but the chart shows deficits being rung up during the Reagan-Bush years, and again during the Bush-Obama years.

Note that the national debt went down as a function of GDP during the Vietnam war because the economy was expanding. It even went down during the Carter years. There may have been deficits in those years, but the economy was still expanding.

So, just what facts am I denying?

Notice the double standard applied by Right Field: when good news occurred during a Republican administration, he claims it was because of good Republican Presidential Leadership.

Bad news during a Republican administration? That...that's different. That's the sole fault of a Democratic Congress.

 

[Luk]

Notice the double standard applied by Right Field: when good news occurred during a Republican administration, he claims it was because of good Republican Presidential Leadership.

Bad news during a Republican administration? That...that's different. That's the sole fault of a Democratic Congress.

It's the same thing vettebigot does except the bigot goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers with that nonsense.

 

[richard_daily]

It's the same thing vettebigot does except the bigot goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers with that nonsense.

They're both partisan idiots to the core.

 

[RightField]

All you guys can come up with is name calling?

If you jump up and down and pound the table, sometimes that helps too. I've seen it lots of times.

 

[overthebow]

All you guys can come up with is name calling?

If you jump up and down and pound the table, sometimes that helps too. I've seen it lots of times.

No, BB and Vette take care of that. You can join them if you want. They were making a circle jerk and were looking for a pivot man.

 

[RightField]

No, BB and Vette take care of that. You can join them if you want. They were making a circle jerk and were looking for a pivot man.

I'm usually pretty calm. I'll leave the histrionics to others.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Luk]

We know that you, the stunted pud pounder who wears his little brothers trousers, and the other dweeb, will all stop by to catch the result on their retrusive chins.

I can appreciate a good insult. Please let me know when you come up with one.