At the end of 2008 the Republican party was a discredited and disgraced entity that for all intents and purposes, having brought us 3 Great Depressions based on failed economic dogmas not even approaching the level of 'theory', the American people had had enough of. Yet they survive, why? Is it just from the life support of Rupert Murdoch and the Kochs? Or is it the two party insular hermetic duopoly system where there is no mechanism for one of the two duopolistic parties to actually 'fail' not matter how badly they screw up? Because the two parties have excluded the possibility of the corrective forces of viable third parties. Without allowing for ranked choice voting, thrid parties are a wasted vote and cannot provide the needed corrective to this endemic rot affecting us now. We NEED ranked choice voting ASAP!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/29/republicans-on-the-debt-ceiling-screwing-over-america.html
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/republican_party/?story=/opinion/conason/2010/07/09/gop
http://www.studentsfororwell.org
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BEK8FQ/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B003L20IGU/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/world/30post.html
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Trolls and Hobbits Debate the Debt Ceiling While My Boehner Gently Weeps
Damian Crudele wrote:
.
17 debt ceiling raises were given to Reagan, none of them had conditions attached. 7 debt ceiling raises were given to Bush43, none of them had conditions attached. But, now the GOP far right has decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage to politics; completely disrupting the bond market that contains our Treasuries... this isn't playing with fire, this is more like playing with nitro glycerin.... the Legislative branch is bringing the whole republic down. We hit the debt ceiling two months ago, the Treasury auctions have been stopped, the government has run out of money and the debt service in August is huge. We have to restart the auctions in time to service the debt, Social Security checks are already delayed, and these politicians in Congress still won't do their jobs. Obama needs to go before the Supreme court, Monday, and ask them to rule on unilateral action by the executive branch to save the nation.
3 Recommendations
..KEVIN OLEARY replied:
.
The guvment wasn't feasting on 25% of the nation's GDP during either Reagan or Bush....or any other president for that matter.
The spending and debt we've seen during the last 2 years have never been seen before and need to be reigned in by the adults....btw, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are the children in case you are wondering.
3 Recommendations
.bob russell replied:
.
Now you can understand why we need some conditions to increasing the debt limit. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
1 Recommendation
..Jonathan Murray replied:
.
Have you looked at the graphs the WSJ has been running all week that show the slope of increasing debt during the Reid-Pelosi-Obama government spending binge? It wasn't sustainable, and financial markets would have been disrupted and, perhaps, U.S. bond ratings downgraded even if the debt limit had been increased with no drama.
The spiralling growth in debt was characteristic of neither the Reagan nor the Bush presidencies. Yes, each increased debt, but each also produced significant economic growth and job creation. That's a worthwhile investment. (Yes, yes, Bush was the devil incarnate, I know. But between his reduction in marginal tax rates and 2007 7 million new jobs were created. The financial crisis destroyed the same number, but Bush doesn't own the calamity that was building in the housing finance market.)
The money the Marxists currently, and temporarily, running Washington have spent is gone. They had their spending binge. They paid off their political constituents. They toed the hard-left ideological line. But they created neither economic growth nor jobs. All that's left is their debt, and it would have resulted in a downgrade even if Congress had increased the debt limit simply.
Those are the facts.
5 Recommendations
.Max Woodworth replied:
.
Just to review your assessment of W's economic tenure. When he left office, there had been ZERO net capital formation in the previous eight years. That was a first in recent US history. Median income in real terms was $52,499 in 2000 and $50,303 in 2008 -- a DECREASE of 4%. However, after the Bush tax cuts, the income share of the top 10% of earners rose from 43% to 50%, which is to say their income rose during the period in real and nominal terms. And yes, his administration must bear the dominant share of the blame for being in charge of an economy that went straight into a ditch despite the warnings of many highly placed and intelligent people whose skepticism in the magic of markets was dismissed on quasi-religious grounds.
1 Recommendation
.Dennis Grannen wrote:
.
The argument you are making is about as valid as the fact that you are quoting. " Senator (sic) Sharron Angle". Just for your information she lost her senate race.
The Bohner plan GUARANTEES that we will go through this again in about 6 months. The Reid plan puts it off until after the 2012 election. At that point the American public will have decided between 2 bad choices. The Tea Party owned GOP or Democrats.I as an independent think that the only hope that the Republicans have in 2012 is to do what is right for the country, not what their small fanatic base wants. Compromise and look at the polls. America wants a balanced approach with some tax increases.
Many of us remember having a booming economy and budget surplus 12 years ago before the Bush tax cuts. Going back to the Clinton era tax rates is what we really need.
1 Recommendation
..Jonathan Murray replied:
.
Tax rates had nothing to do with the Clinton economy.The Clinton economy surged ONLY AFTER Republicans took control of Congress and forced him to accept spending restraint. If you look at the graphs of the growth in U.S. debt that the WSJ has been running all week, debt went up at the beginning of the Clinton Presidency, and dropped after 1994. That was Newt Gingrich's doing.
Clinton also decimated defense spending. This is what enabled his budgets to look better than they otherwise would have, but also set the stage for our weakness leading up to and after 9/11.
Remember, also, that when Bush reduced marginal tax rates--after having inherited the dot.com bust and 9/11--the economy very quickly surged, creating four years of robust growth and 7 million new jobs. You can look it up. What derailed this progress was the crisis that was building in the housing finance market--the seeds of which were planted in the Clinton Presidency. Bush does not own that.
2 Recommendations
.Gerald Thomas replied:
.
Wow. I guess I'll vote for Republicans from now on. Thanks for showing us "lib-tards" the light.
Recommend
.randy james wrote:
.
The real question is and always has been: will the rule of law trump a deeply entrenched and thoroughly corrupt cabal of elected officials, privileged petitioners from the private sector, and craven bureaucrats feeding at the public trough. This was the moment of opportunity to find for principled governance, and against the rabble, bent on looting the credit and currency of a once great nation. The rabble won.
.
17 debt ceiling raises were given to Reagan, none of them had conditions attached. 7 debt ceiling raises were given to Bush43, none of them had conditions attached. But, now the GOP far right has decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage to politics; completely disrupting the bond market that contains our Treasuries... this isn't playing with fire, this is more like playing with nitro glycerin.... the Legislative branch is bringing the whole republic down. We hit the debt ceiling two months ago, the Treasury auctions have been stopped, the government has run out of money and the debt service in August is huge. We have to restart the auctions in time to service the debt, Social Security checks are already delayed, and these politicians in Congress still won't do their jobs. Obama needs to go before the Supreme court, Monday, and ask them to rule on unilateral action by the executive branch to save the nation.
3 Recommendations
..KEVIN OLEARY replied:
.
The guvment wasn't feasting on 25% of the nation's GDP during either Reagan or Bush....or any other president for that matter.
The spending and debt we've seen during the last 2 years have never been seen before and need to be reigned in by the adults....btw, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are the children in case you are wondering.
3 Recommendations
.bob russell replied:
.
Now you can understand why we need some conditions to increasing the debt limit. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
1 Recommendation
..Jonathan Murray replied:
.
Have you looked at the graphs the WSJ has been running all week that show the slope of increasing debt during the Reid-Pelosi-Obama government spending binge? It wasn't sustainable, and financial markets would have been disrupted and, perhaps, U.S. bond ratings downgraded even if the debt limit had been increased with no drama.
The spiralling growth in debt was characteristic of neither the Reagan nor the Bush presidencies. Yes, each increased debt, but each also produced significant economic growth and job creation. That's a worthwhile investment. (Yes, yes, Bush was the devil incarnate, I know. But between his reduction in marginal tax rates and 2007 7 million new jobs were created. The financial crisis destroyed the same number, but Bush doesn't own the calamity that was building in the housing finance market.)
The money the Marxists currently, and temporarily, running Washington have spent is gone. They had their spending binge. They paid off their political constituents. They toed the hard-left ideological line. But they created neither economic growth nor jobs. All that's left is their debt, and it would have resulted in a downgrade even if Congress had increased the debt limit simply.
Those are the facts.
5 Recommendations
.Max Woodworth replied:
.
Just to review your assessment of W's economic tenure. When he left office, there had been ZERO net capital formation in the previous eight years. That was a first in recent US history. Median income in real terms was $52,499 in 2000 and $50,303 in 2008 -- a DECREASE of 4%. However, after the Bush tax cuts, the income share of the top 10% of earners rose from 43% to 50%, which is to say their income rose during the period in real and nominal terms. And yes, his administration must bear the dominant share of the blame for being in charge of an economy that went straight into a ditch despite the warnings of many highly placed and intelligent people whose skepticism in the magic of markets was dismissed on quasi-religious grounds.
1 Recommendation
.Dennis Grannen wrote:
.
The argument you are making is about as valid as the fact that you are quoting. " Senator (sic) Sharron Angle". Just for your information she lost her senate race.
The Bohner plan GUARANTEES that we will go through this again in about 6 months. The Reid plan puts it off until after the 2012 election. At that point the American public will have decided between 2 bad choices. The Tea Party owned GOP or Democrats.I as an independent think that the only hope that the Republicans have in 2012 is to do what is right for the country, not what their small fanatic base wants. Compromise and look at the polls. America wants a balanced approach with some tax increases.
Many of us remember having a booming economy and budget surplus 12 years ago before the Bush tax cuts. Going back to the Clinton era tax rates is what we really need.
1 Recommendation
..Jonathan Murray replied:
.
Tax rates had nothing to do with the Clinton economy.The Clinton economy surged ONLY AFTER Republicans took control of Congress and forced him to accept spending restraint. If you look at the graphs of the growth in U.S. debt that the WSJ has been running all week, debt went up at the beginning of the Clinton Presidency, and dropped after 1994. That was Newt Gingrich's doing.
Clinton also decimated defense spending. This is what enabled his budgets to look better than they otherwise would have, but also set the stage for our weakness leading up to and after 9/11.
Remember, also, that when Bush reduced marginal tax rates--after having inherited the dot.com bust and 9/11--the economy very quickly surged, creating four years of robust growth and 7 million new jobs. You can look it up. What derailed this progress was the crisis that was building in the housing finance market--the seeds of which were planted in the Clinton Presidency. Bush does not own that.
2 Recommendations
.Gerald Thomas replied:
.
Wow. I guess I'll vote for Republicans from now on. Thanks for showing us "lib-tards" the light.
Recommend
.randy james wrote:
.
The real question is and always has been: will the rule of law trump a deeply entrenched and thoroughly corrupt cabal of elected officials, privileged petitioners from the private sector, and craven bureaucrats feeding at the public trough. This was the moment of opportunity to find for principled governance, and against the rabble, bent on looting the credit and currency of a once great nation. The rabble won.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)