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

[Ham Murabi]

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?

The point made was that Congress decides spending, that Clinton was on a high-spending track that reversed when the GOP took over both houses of Congress, that Bush II's spending really skyrocketed when the Democrats took over Congress, and that Congress was controlled by Democrats when Reagan and Bush I were in office.
I am not defending either Bush as budget hawks, and W's spending record and policy-making before the Democrats took over Congress (No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription benefit) were appalling, though it's worth noting Democrats were bleating that neither was fully funded. Imagine the spending if both had funding Democrats deemed sufficient.
It's clear that in the last 20 years, in terms of fiscal responsibility, Clinton and the GOP Congress set the standard.

 

[RightField]

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.

This was worth a good laugh. They are very good points that cut to the heart of the matter.

 

[RightField]

You're a kid, right?

You have never worked, right?

Reagan deficit spent like crazy.

This is what has happened.

If I was a kid, I'd have a long and difficult time finding a job in this economy, wouldn't I? It's ironic that "kids" helped get Obama elected in 2008 and by 2010, they realized how badly Obama and the dems destroyed the economy and stayed away from the ballot box.

A young woman came to my house before the 2008 Presidential election and started into a well-rehersed speech on why I should vote for Obama. I held up my hand like a stop sign and when she stopped I said "you realize, of course, that based on the professed policies of these guys you're hoping to elect, you are voting to eliminate any hope you have of finding a job." The results that we've experinced were as clear as chalk on blackboard to anyone who took the time to actually think about what they were saying. It has been a real problem for the middle class.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

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.

And I'll be sure to fill in all of your half-truths.

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.

Not true. Carter inherited a piece of shit economy wrecked by the oil embargo from 1973. The entire economy was being dragged down by OPEC price increases. Come on - tell us I'm wrong on this. Cite the error.

Those 25 years of growth under Reagan went to the rich, not the working class. Plus, thanks to him, the national debt skyrocketed. Remember that? Or do you cling to the Dick Cheney mantra of "deficits don't matter"? Come on - tell us I'm wrong on this.

If the 4 years of Democratic control had been replaced by 4 years of Republican control we'd still be in the shitter. You do recall the Republicans supported the bailouts... right? Come on - tell us I'm wrong on this. Cite the error.

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?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

Your plan to cut the budget was actually carried out - by Ireland. Do you wish to discuss with us what has happened to Ireland? Clue: if Obama had done what you want, you'd have even MORE to be mad at him about.

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.

He went to war against a country that had no role in 9/11. He lied to Congress and the United States people to make it happen. You left that part out.

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).

You mean the one that Obama and Bush both pushed for? And the Republican Congress, too? You left that part out.

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.

But you also caused a subprime collapse that just HAPPENED to explode when the Democrats got into office. You left that part out. Plus you left out the fact that Bush II had the worst job growth record since Hoover. And you left out the $700 billion bailout package he pushed for in 2008.

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.

The subprime crash hit just in time for the Democrats to take office, forcing greater expenditures. You left that part out.

As for unemployment, please remember that we acheived full employment, 4.6% during that last year that Republicans had the congress and White House.

The worst job growth on record since Hoover. Most people studying those unemployment rates agree that it left out the throngs of Americans, back then, who were discouraged from looking for work. That's why the Government is ALTERING its standards of gathering unemployment - retroactively to the last 10 years.

Democrats like to complain about Bush employment figures because of the dip in his last year

No, they're complaining about Bush II's entire record, which was the worst since Hoover came along.

(mostly caused by the democrats social engineering and the resulting real estate bubble discussed above)

A bubble that the Republicans declined to stop when they and Bush II ruled Congress.

Democrats social engineering did not cause the subprime collapse. The Community Reinvestment Act had no role in this. Banks under the CRA jurisdisction were not the ones that fell the hardest, or in most cases, at all. You have no facts behind you to blame this on the Democrats.

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",

Under Bush II, wages lagged behind inflation. Job growth did not even keep up with the growth of the working class population. Plenty of more jobs could have been created - for those who the BLS recognize as "Discouraged" workers. And there were a lot of those.

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.

And that is yet another big untruth. There were plenty of people who had dropped out of the hunt for jobs because there was nothing for them; plus the jobs being created were lower wage jobs, too. You left that part out of your cherry harvest.

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?

We're dealing with the consequences of 6 years of Bush and his Republican Congress.

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.

The Democrats were stupid to continue the Bush wiretaps. And the USAPATRIOT Act, which no one was allowed to see before they signed.

As for Bush's spending, you keep declining to admit that Bush II actually pushed for the $700 billion bailout, and also the equally large bailout for Auto makers and other businesses. Obama signed it because Bush was out of office by the time it got passed.

Luckily, I don't think independents are going to get fooled by these same democrat tricks again though.

But you've lost the non-white vote. 60% of Hispanics and 90% of blacks see right through your lies.

Think about that - because non-white births outnumbered white births in 2010. That doesn't look good for your side in the decades to come.

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're ALREADY starting to see Democrats surging again because of the Republican Party's insane behavior. ALREADY.

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.

Find me one expert source anywhere who would say the subprime collapse wouldn't have happened if the GOP had held Congress.

Find me one source anywhere who says Bush II did not push for 1.4 TRILLION in bailout spending.

If you can't do that then you lose this argument, badly.

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.

Because the subprime market wouldn't have crashed on their watch? Because Bush wouldn't have begged for $1.4 trillion in bailouts?

The bottom line is that Republicans would have kept a lid on spending,

You mean like when they voted for Bush's $1.4 Trillion in bailouts before Obama got into office? That's not a what-if, that is one of those "did happen" things.

You know, RobDownSouth nailed you to the wall here before I could, but he's right - when bad things happened under Bush you blamed it on the Democrats, but when you think good things happened under Reagan (which really didn't), you credited it all to him.

The truth is, from the Great Depression to the S&L Crisis and the Subprime Collapse, all of these have been preceded directly by Republican administrations.

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).

What we've got now is a huge repair bill on our hands after 30 years of Reaganomics.

Once again I'll defer the readers to your coming inability to explain why Ireland is fulfilling your dream of cutting the Government, and yet they're worse off now than they were 2 years ago.

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),

WRONG.

http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html

People earning under $20,000 a year are growing in population FASTER than those who earn above $75,000 a year. Twice as fast, in fact.

in general, people thrived. Many bought vacation homes, RV, motorcycles, all sorts of new electronic gadgets.

All on debt.

Now, with the democrats in control,

... consumers don't have all that debt to rely on.

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.

In other words the Republicans stood by FOR SIX YEARS while the subprime scam gutted our economy and as of 2007 the Democrats came into office and were left holding the bag.


Dude, did you get paid for all the cherry-picking you just did?

 

[RightField]

And I'll be sure to fill in all of your half-truths.

Not true. Carter inherited a piece of shit economy wrecked by the oil embargo from 1973. The entire economy was being dragged down by OPEC price increases. Come on - tell us I'm wrong on this. Cite the error.

Those 25 years of growth under Reagan went to the rich, not the working class. Plus, thanks to him, the national debt skyrocketed. Remember that? Or do you cling to the Dick Cheney mantra of "deficits don't matter"? Come on - tell us I'm wrong on this.

If the 4 years of Democratic control had been replaced by 4 years of Republican control we'd still be in the shitter. You do recall the Republicans supported the bailouts... right? Come on - tell us I'm wrong on this. Cite the error.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

Your plan to cut the budget was actually carried out - by Ireland. Do you wish to discuss with us what has happened to Ireland? Clue: if Obama had done what you want, you'd have even MORE to be mad at him about.

He went to war against a country that had no role in 9/11. He lied to Congress and the United States people to make it happen. You left that part out.

You mean the one that Obama and Bush both pushed for? And the Republican Congress, too? You left that part out.

But you also caused a subprime collapse that just HAPPENED to explode when the Democrats got into office. You left that part out. Plus you left out the fact that Bush II had the worst job growth record since Hoover. And you left out the $700 billion bailout package he pushed for in 2008.

The subprime crash hit just in time for the Democrats to take office, forcing greater expenditures. You left that part out.

The worst job growth on record since Hoover. Most people studying those unemployment rates agree that it left out the throngs of Americans, back then, who were discouraged from looking for work. That's why the Government is ALTERING its standards of gathering unemployment - retroactively to the last 10 years.

No, they're complaining about Bush II's entire record, which was the worst since Hoover came along.

A bubble that the Republicans declined to stop when they and Bush II ruled Congress.

Democrats social engineering did not cause the subprime collapse. The Community Reinvestment Act had no role in this. Banks under the CRA jurisdisction were not the ones that fell the hardest, or in most cases, at all. You have no facts behind you to blame this on the Democrats.

Under Bush II, wages lagged behind inflation. Job growth did not even keep up with the growth of the working class population. Plenty of more jobs could have been created - for those who the BLS recognize as "Discouraged" workers. And there were a lot of those.

And that is yet another big untruth. There were plenty of people who had dropped out of the hunt for jobs because there was nothing for them; plus the jobs being created were lower wage jobs, too. You left that part out of your cherry harvest.


We're dealing with the consequences of 6 years of Bush and his Republican Congress.


The Democrats were stupid to continue the Bush wiretaps. And the USAPATRIOT Act, which no one was allowed to see before they signed.

As for Bush's spending, you keep declining to admit that Bush II actually pushed for the $700 billion bailout, and also the equally large bailout for Auto makers and other businesses. Obama signed it because Bush was out of office by the time it got passed.


But you've lost the non-white vote. 60% of Hispanics and 90% of blacks see right through your lies.

Think about that - because non-white births outnumbered white births in 2010. That doesn't look good for your side in the decades to come.


You're ALREADY starting to see Democrats surging again because of the Republican Party's insane behavior. ALREADY.


Find me one expert source anywhere who would say the subprime collapse wouldn't have happened if the GOP had held Congress.

Find me one source anywhere who says Bush II did not push for 1.4 TRILLION in bailout spending.

If you can't do that then you lose this argument, badly.


Because the subprime market wouldn't have crashed on their watch? Because Bush wouldn't have begged for $1.4 trillion in bailouts?


You mean like when they voted for Bush's $1.4 Trillion in bailouts before Obama got into office? That's not a what-if, that is one of those "did happen" things.

You know, RobDownSouth nailed you to the wall here before I could, but he's right - when bad things happened under Bush you blamed it on the Democrats, but when you think good things happened under Reagan (which really didn't), you credited it all to him.

The truth is, from the Great Depression to the S&L Crisis and the Subprime Collapse, all of these have been preceded directly by Republican administrations.


What we've got now is a huge repair bill on our hands after 30 years of Reaganomics.

Once again I'll defer the readers to your coming inability to explain why Ireland is fulfilling your dream of cutting the Government, and yet they're worse off now than they were 2 years ago.


WRONG.

http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html

People earning under $20,000 a year are growing in population FASTER than those who earn above $75,000 a year. Twice as fast, in fact.


All on debt.


... consumers don't have all that debt to rely on.


In other words the Republicans stood by FOR SIX YEARS while the subprime scam gutted our economy and as of 2007 the Democrats came into office and were left holding the bag.


Dude, did you get paid for all the cherry-picking you just did?

You start your rebuttal by trying to say that Carter wasn't a complete disaster for the nation and the economy. Why would anyone feel the need to read beyond that first paragraph to realize that you're not playing with a full deck?

As far as the rich profiting and no one else. That's an inane argument as anyone who lived through that era can tell you. The first reason that yours is a bogus argument is that you assume that there's no movement between quintiles. In fact, the census figures show that there's tremendous movement between quintiles. What this means is that in one year there's a group of people amongst the poorest (for the most part in entry level jobs), but 5 years later, it's a completely different group because most of the people move up the income ladder as they age and gain experience, so, comparing one set to another is almost meaningless. Young people, immigrants come in and take entry level jobs, they gain experience and move up in pay and experience and new young people and immigrants come in and take the entry level jobs left behind. How many people remain at minimum wage their entire lives? There are many factors that effect average wages in the lowest quintile, not the least of which are how many young people, immigrants there are both legal and illegal and where the jobs show up. With our economy booming, there were lots and lots of illegal immigrants coming in to fill the many new entry level positions which tended to supress enty level wages and in now way reflects poverty in America...merely the supply of labor at that particular time. Almost everyone gained wealth during those years and many people went from low income to some pretty high incomes...it was a good time for people to work hard and earn good living.

Even with the bogus comparision, the Bureau of Labor statistics shows that total compensation increased during the Reagan years for civilian production workers. There was a report by a liberal writer who tried to show confusion about that and it was widely circulated amongst the liberal press (which is probably why you remember it), but it was discredited as yet another lame attempt by liberals to twist the truth. You just need to go to the BLS figures.

Most of the rest of your points make no sense.

If you look at the debt and spending through the prism of who controlled congress at the time, a completely different picture comes though. If you lag it for the time it takes to implement new programs, an even clearer picture arises. (for example, if you pass a tax cut in August to take effect in January, you don't start seeing the real benefits of it until sometime around the following October and then in earnest the following January)...changes have to ripple through the economy.

Your factcheck reference is for 2002/2003 when we were struggling to recover from 9/11, gearing up for war and trying to get the economy back in shape. The tax cuts were implemented around that time and the economy improved dramatically afterwads and by 2006, unemployment was down to 4.6%. It's odd that you mentioned "cherry-picking" because you've done a pretty good job of that to justify your positions (lol...Carter was good for the country?....lol).

Obama put the stimulus bill together well after he got elected and it was fought tooth and nail by the Republicans. You can't even remember that far back accurately? Bailout spending is different and that was a bi-partisan effort and, from what I understand, much of that has been paid back already. The stimulus, though, was pure liberal pork that did nothing but provide payola to government special interest groups that supported Obama in the election at the expense (the considerable expense) of our grandkids. As far as I'm concerned, it was unethical to increase our debt so radically for the benefit of narrow liberal special interest groups.

As far as demographics, there certainly are rising numbers of blacks and hispanics in our nation. Our best hope (as a nation) is that they become saavy enough to recognize that identity politics is not a strong foundation for governance and national leadership and rather, they should look for policies that are good for the nation as a whole, including examining whether a sound and stable economy, good schools, and the rule of law is in their interest (as opposed to the favortism clearly evident now and charactoristic of liberal politics...how many people have waivers from Obamacare now?).

The bottom line, simply, is that Obama and the democrats have increased our debt by $5.5T AND driven the economy into the ground. We still have over 9% unemployment and middle class people are losing their jobs and their homes. Is this what you call "good liberal leadership?"

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You start your rebuttal by trying to say that Carter wasn't a complete disaster for the nation and the economy. Why would anyone feel the need to read beyond that first paragraph to realize that you're not playing with a full deck?

The same, or worse, could be said about Ronald Reagan. Reagan made the economy look better by raising our debt by an additional 200%.

Imagine if Obama increased the national DEBT by 200% and drove unemployment down like that. Oh wait. Obama's unemployment as of now is not as high as it was under Reagan! Sillyme!!

Oh, and I forgot!!! The number of Americans in poverty INCREASED under Reagan. 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988! For people under 18 the poverty rate was even worse, percentage-wise. Wealth inequality also increased.

As far as the rich profiting and no one else. That's an inane argument as anyone who lived through that era can tell you. The first reason that yours is a bogus argument is that you assume that there's no movement between quintiles. In fact, the census figures show that there's tremendous movement between quintiles. What this mean is that in one year there's a group of people in the amongst the poorest, but 5 years later, it's a completely different group because most of the people move up the income ladder as they age and gain experience, so, comparing one set to another is almost meaningless. Young people, immigrants come in and take entry level jobs, they gain experience and move up in pay and experience and new young people and immigrants come in and take the entry level jobs left behind. How many people remain at minimum wage their entire lives? There are many factors that effect average wages in the lowest quintile, not the least of which are how many young people, how many immigrants both legal and illegal and where the jobs show up. Almost everyone gained wealth during those years and many people went from low income to some pretty high incomes...it was a good time for people to work hard and earn good living.

And yet there is never more than 1% of Americans holding 30-40% of America's wealth. Your claims of poor people becoming wealthy are vastly overblown. Nice theory, though; too bad reality looks so much different.

If you were in fact right, the middle class would be growing, and the ranks of the $75,000+ income group would be growing faster than the < $20,000 group.

Even with the bogus comparision, the Bureau of Labor statistics shows that total compensation increased during the Reagan years for civilian production workers. There was a report by a liberal writer who tried to show confusion about that and it was widely circulated amongst the liberal press (which is probably why you remember it), but it was discredited as yet another lame attempt by liberals to twist the truth. You just need to go to the BLS figures.

Show us these figures.

Your factcheck reference is for 2002/2003 when we were struggling to recover from 9/11, gearing up for war and trying to get the economy back in shape. The tax cuts were implemented around that time and the economy improved dramatically afterwads and by 2006, unemployment was down to 4.6%.

The unemployment rate is not the same as the middle class growth rate. Please try to keep up. The ranks of those earning over $75,000 never grew as fast as those earning less than $20,000 during the Bush II years. Bottom line.

The bottom line, simply, is that Obama and the democrats have increased our debt by $5.5T AND driven the economy into the ground.

It would be much lower if he hadn't extended Bush's tax cuts to the rich.

We still have over 9% unemployment and middle class people are losing their jobs and their homes. Is this what you call "good liberal leadership?"

The economy was on a crash course before the Democrats got into office. Reagan had higher unemployment during this time in his presidency.

Now I noticed you declined to talk about Ireland. You do know that they are following your advice with massive budget cuts, right? Ireland is doing what you Right wingers say we should do. How are they doing?


Hey, do you hear that? The Tea Party needs someone to pick more cherries for free!

 

[John Doe]

You are a moron.

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

You two seriously don't know that Congress has more control over the budget than the President does?

 

[overthebow]

You two seriously don't know that Congress has more control over the budget than the President does?

You seriously don't know how the process works, that the President negotiates with Congress with regard to what he is willing to sign and what he is wiling to veto, do you?