Reply With Quote
or cut programs in other areas to offset the increase from part d. He shouldn't have to pay for the tax cut since that wasn't the govt.'s money. However I don't see how the congress isn't to blame?
Yes
No
double rainbow all the way
I'd say it's a necessary correction. That after the dust clears, we would now be better off if they did fail.
This stagnation we have is not sustainable.
or cut programs in other areas to offset the increase from part d. He shouldn't have to pay for the tax cut since that wasn't the govt.'s money. However I don't see how the congress isn't to blame?
....because that's what you do when the nation is facing slow growth, spend...and preferably spend rich people's money, because they certainly will use it against you if you don't..
Stagflation is characterized by high inflation and high unemployment....we don't have high inflation, we have deflation....
I didn't say stagflation. Did I.
but you see, It was the governments money....there was no need for a tax-cut at that time.....growth under Bush was sustained by deficit-spending...
How about cutting expenses somewhere else if this program required so much priority? Full control of Congress and the Executive when this passed.
Is it that hard to be responsible?
What's going to happen when you are an elder and you can't buy medicines and there's no part-d program because there's no money?
Add to that the hypocrisy to attempt to hold this administration to a different standard. This administration and the last one has much more in common than any of you are willing to admit. They're both a big turd sandwich.
If you got rid of medicare/aid all together, then there wouldn't be a part d.
That is just unreasonable......medicare was profitable until the GOP made it unprofitable......now the GOP wants someone else to fix it....
Strawman.
Is that the only government program that we have and we can trim?
Although Obama has done things that I think could have been done differently, probably better, I don't see the comparison to Dubya being even in the same ballpark...Add to that the hypocrisy to attempt to hold this administration to a different standard. This administration and the last one has much more in common than any of you are willing to admit. They're both a big turd sandwich
We need to make cuts, painful cuts, like cuts in corporate welfare, cuts in defense spending, and cuts in tax-cuts for the rich...
kinda hard to ignore dubya when he f'ed up the country the way he did
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/g...carter_bashingWhat Carter-bashing tells us about Bush-bashing
By Steve Kornacki
In a Hardball segment last night on Democrats' efforts to resurrect the Bush bogeyman, Chuck Todd noted that Republicans once played the same game with Jimmy Carter, backing it up with Carter-bashing clips from the 1984, 1988 and 1992 Republican conventions.
This is quite true. But the story of the GOP's Carter attacks is actually a complicated one, simultaneously providing today's Democrats with a hopeful example and a cautionary tale.
Carter and Bush, of course, left office under similar cir stances: feeble economy, brutal job approval ratings, sagging national confidence, and so on. And they were both replaced by charismatic leaders, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, whose inaugurations spawned widespread public optimism.
But when the economy worsened in 1981 and 1982, Reagan's popularity wore off -- just as Obama's has deteriorated in the face of strikingly similar unemployment numbers. Which is why, as they confronted grim midterm election outlooks, they both took to invoking their unpopular predecessors on the campaign trail.
This brings us to the first lesson from the GOP's Carter-bashing: Running against the guy you replaced, no matter how unpopular he was, just doesn’t work in midterm elections -- especially when the economy is in the gutter.
"Our critics are saying our economy is on its knees," Reagan said on the '82 campaign trail. "Well, you know something, if the economy is back on its knees, that's quite an improvement because two years ago it was flat on its back."
Those words fell on deaf ears, and Reagan's party was trounced in the '82 midterms -- even though polls showed that voters (especially independent voters) blamed Carter more than Reagan for the country's jobless rate, which was then over ten percent. You can see why Obama and the Democrats are so tempted to run against Bush today, with Americans still blaming him more than Obama for the economy. But, as I wrote last week, they're poised to learn the same lesson the GOP did in '82: It just doesn't matter.
Political cir stances are a bit different this time with the tea party running against their own in bents in the primaries...we'll see if that spills over into the general election but I really doubt it....the tea party is still a fringe movement capable of attracting enough wing-nuts to win its own party's primaries, but in many states, not likely to beat a more moderate to Progressive Democratic candidate...
at least he has never thrown any polemic against the immigrants that should have been blamed for all the disorders and snags America suffers, which should be enough satisfactory to you. After all Obama is not supposed to aim his gun at the immigrants, knowing he's also one immigrant himself.
The immigrant debate is not really an immigrant debate. Everyone knows nothing will be done. That's the point of immigration being thrown into the mix. It's just another way to attempt to show the masses that Obama is weak.
Most people know mexican immigrants are fine and just want work to help their families. We all know we'd be doing the same thing if fate bred us 200 miles south from our original location.
You don't think it registers with the masses when they see that Arizona just wants to take care of Arizona and Obama takes their ass to court for political posturing and votes? It does.
You don't think it registers with the masses when they hear Obama purposely misrepresent the Az. bill and make dumbass comments about po-po's arresting grandma at the ice cream shop thus increasing hostility towards leo's? It does.
Let's keep it real. There are only a handful of border states. The rest of the country couldn't care less. They still see it though. That's the purpose of dredging up the immigration mess at this time.
Last edited by EmptyMan; 08-14-2010 at 08:04 AM.
I didn't say only.
So there's no excuse for not making Medicare part-d a paid for program.
medicare and medicaid need to be cut back just like everything else our government is involved in.
Nah, the wonderful wizards of Washington will give us everything we need if we'd just let them.
No excuse.
I'm calling your lying bluff, asshole.
What specifically did the Dems do in Congress in 6 months that caused the housing/financial bubble to bust?
You logic is as accurate as gay marriage leads to bestiality and destruction of heterosexual marriage.
Corporate welfare, yes. No need to subsidize businesses.
Defense, only the items congress shoves down the Pentagons throat.
How about a minimum 5% federal income tax on all people, all income. You can deduct away, but still pay a 5% minimum.
Now the cuts we need are the handouts. When we cannot afford them, we stop subsidizing the poor who are capable of working. Reduce or eliminate things like food stamps. Make people go back to work, even if they don't like minimum wage jobs. make it impossible for illegals to work, opening up these jobs at fast food restaurants and other places.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
