Tea Party and Obama
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
Duck you can't be serious?
The National Debt is what now?
The Sequester cut Billions from the military, who refused to veto it?
The majority of "boots on the ground" are now out of Iraq like he promised.
The "JV Team" and Iran have replaced them.
ICBM's are still being tested by the Ayatollahs, yet not a breach of the Nuclear Deal.
$100,000,000,000 (+) freed up to Ali Khamenei and Hezbollah terrorist while a presumed dead American hostage is left in Iran.
Abandoning Israel, promoting The Palestinian State???
I could go on and on and on....
Why then do you side with the atheist Bill Maher?
Because he speaks the truth and you simply repeat lies, damn lies, and statistics. Me, Maher, Michael Moore, John Stewart, Keith Olbermann, David Letterman. Truly great Americans. You? America hater, racist, dimwit.
Duck, even your liberal friends on this site understand that the folks you just named are either Late Night Fantasy TV host or wanta be FOX NEWS journalist.
The real blow to your credibility however was saying Fahrenheit 9/11 billionaire Michael Moore is for the little guy.
You really are a Silly Liberal
Nap time!
Been fun beating up you libs tonight!!
Have a good night sleep
A
ag-man
Guest
Why would the middle class vote for either Bernie or Hillary? This is the same old song we heard from Obama back in 2008 - crumbling infrastructure, raise the minimum wage, change the election laws, equal pay for equal work, break up big banks and corporations are evil. Gun control, circumvent the 2nd Amendment by opening up liabilities for gun manufacturers, Didn't Obama fix any of these things, apparently not...?
Federal spending has declined as a % of GDP from 2009 to now.
The point is true but not entirely meaningful - there was a lot of temporary spending in 2009 associated with fighting the economic downturn.
The middle class has no ho
To answer your question as to why would middle class for either of the Dems coach. I got 2 words for you. Trump Cruz
Who voted FOR the sequester? Obama put that out there thinking it would be so harsh on many fronts, especially defense spending, that republicans would never let it pass. Guess what it did, he signed it, and we're still here along with a lot of money saved on our over the top military spending. Every spending cut has consequences for someone or something and the closing of military bases that will kill some small towns may the big issue from the sequester, not our safety. The budget deficit has been cut by nearly half. Pretty hard to cut the national debt if we keep deficit spending. Maybe we could close, or least cut back on personnel, at some base overseas and bring those folks to base here and still save a LOT of money.
The cost was to great, RINO republicans failed US again and now will be replaced....no remorse
They busted the sequester in this last budget, and even with that the deficit has been cut by closer to 3/4 than half
If you want to be serious about producing a more sustainable budget in the long term, you have to tackle the combo of defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and revenue. Politicians who say otherwise are generally lying, because there really isn't enough spending in the other areas to make a dent (and fixing SS doesn't really fix the budget)
But, there's also no reason to reduce the debt in nominal dollar terms - get the deficit down to 1% of GDP or something like that in real terms and let economic growth lower the debt by 1%-1.5% of GDP per year.
Republicans have simple answers for complex problems Cruz "carpet Bomb" ISIS fighters "until we learn if sand can glow in the dark".
Trump“We will make America great again. We will win on everything we do.”
Reagan “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,”’ he proclaimed in a speech at the Berlin, I know, down deep, that the world actually isn’t simple but the democrats are such p***es.
Last edited:
Got this idea about building a wall. Simple. Temporarily ban mooooslims Simple to heck with Sunnis, if they could defeat ISIS they'd already done it.
Listen to the Dems whine scream and cry....priceless
Listen to the Dems whine scream and cry....priceless
And poll worse with independents than any other major candidate in either party.
The challenge is that, when you think of GWB, Obama, Clinton, or Reagan...their appeal was much more broad-based. It was more hopeful in nature - a hope that could be embraced by a large portion of America. Trump's appeal is driven by the anger of the base of one party, and that's never translated well into votes in the past.
Or short term Vs long term logic.
The long term answer is insuring everyone with Medicare for all to keep costs reasonable. Having employers pay health insurance companies has never made sense.
Insurance profits just make everything more expensive. I don't understand how anyone can't see that.
29 million still without insurance is not the "dream of Harry Truman" as Hillary suddenly proclaimed last night. Tweaking Obamacare isn't going to contain costs either.
You can argue the other side here as well:
- Sanders didn't actually propose anything that contains costs, for one
- Moving incrementally has moved millions of people into the system, and you could go further and further with time. That's the only thing you'll ever get through Congress, Sanders's plan is a pipe dream for now.
- There's a tremendous amount of disruption built into a move to a single payer system. Look at the ACA rollout. Take that times 50 and you're talking about what you'd have to do to move everyone to single payer. Sanders has no real plan to manage this.
- Sanders's tax proposal is not a good way to fund such a plan; realistically, if you want national health care, you would need a much more stable approach to raising revenue, like a consumption tax or more through FICA taxes. When you think about Canada and everyone else with national health care, they use that sort of tax policy.
Sanders sells a vision, not a plan
Yes dear sir, Only the anointed elite understand "nuance" and "complexity", while the conservative base voter gullible rubes on the right seek simplicity, as they cannot grasp the brilliant complexity of the elites (Sarcasm), Most of what I read in the news or on this board is PoliSci hogwash appreciated only by those on the left, who are nuanced to the point of missing a few basic truths.
1. The Constitution was a simple, brilliant document based on the concept that government must be limited because most politicians gravitate toward totalitarian power-seeking. It largely preserved our freedoms for 200+ years, until recently.
2. Hillary is simply not a "centrist", but an entirely corrupt leftist totalitarian selling influence for $billions.
3. Most of our problems are simply because government has grown too large, and the solution is to cut it by perhaps 50-75% or more.
#1 - true, but the whole world has moved in that direction as well. Why? Because it is what people all over the world have voted for in democratic societies. Even Republicans continue to ask for more and more from government. They just want different things. Trump is a great example of this.
#2 - Hillary is a mainstream D, she's not a centrist, I agree. She's more corporate than the mainstream of the party, I agree there as well, but she's no more captured than anyone who will win the R nomination besides maybe Trump.
#3 - Never going to happen unless you want to eliminate SS, Medicare, and national defense. Or, at the state level, eliminate schools and criminal justice systems. Not only will voters never go for that, it would never work in a country as large as ours. The private market is not set up to provide schooling, roads, a military, health care for old people, etc. in a way that will ever meet the needs of a modern society.
#4 the Republican frontrunners are treating their base like idiots and they are being rewarded for doing so
REPUBLICAN Mantra:
Trump: "I am going to cut taxes, remove red tape strangling business, seal our borders, boost national security, and only make good deals for America."
Cruz et al: "I am going to cut MORE taxes, remove MORE red tape, end all immigration, boost security, and get America back on her feet."
DEMOCRAT Mantra:
Hillary: "I am going to raise taxes on the rich, add more laws to make America more fair, cut the military and our world presence, and admit more future Americans."
Bernie: "I am going to raise taxes through the roof on everyone, add so many laws we'll need a personal attorney, eliminate the military, and mail invitations to the world to become U.S. citizens."
And there seems to be zero gray in between the parties. Incredibly.
They treat all of us like idiots!
Trump: "I am going to cut taxes, remove red tape strangling business, seal our borders, boost national security, and only make good deals for America."
Cruz et al: "I am going to cut MORE taxes, remove MORE red tape, end all immigration, boost security, and get America back on her feet."
DEMOCRAT Mantra:
Hillary: "I am going to raise taxes on the rich, add more laws to make America more fair, cut the military and our world presence, and admit more future Americans."
Bernie: "I am going to raise taxes through the roof on everyone, add so many laws we'll need a personal attorney, eliminate the military, and mail invitations to the world to become U.S. citizens."
And there seems to be zero gray in between the parties. Incredibly.
They treat all of us like idiots!
parties are much further apart than they were 20 years ago
The Dems sometimes treat their base like idiots but it's nothing like what Cruz and Trump are doing. Hillary is more like Jeb or Kasich than one of those two.
Average of the last 12 months of Bush would be higher as a % of GDP than the current budget. 4 months of FY 2009 was under the Bush admin.
Your post is the sort of thing Veer loves.
Well average Fed spending in the eight years under Bush was 18.5% of GDP
Average Federal Spending under Obama has been 21.9% of GDP in 7 years
Those aren't the right numbers - Federal spending was at or above 18.5% of GDP in every year Bush was in the White House per the OMB.
In general, as I pointed out in my first post, these comparisons are misleading without context.
Using the 8 year average is not all that meaningful. Bush oversaw a major expansion of the Federal Government, which is why the budget at the end of his presidency was higher - wars, DHS, Part D, TARP, etc. It doesn't really matter what it was at the beginning of his term, because that's not the government he helped to create. He created a long tail of spending. And he also lowered revenue at the same time (something that should not be ignored in any evaluation of the budget.)
For Obama, his spending picture is actually fairer for his impact, because he did pass the stimulus at the beginning of his Presidency which then went away. It does overstate his impact somewhat in the early years, because a large % of the increase in food stamps/unemployment/etc. isn't due to any change in government policy; it was a hangover from the Great Recession. His picture also understates the ACA impact over time, as enrollment will continue to increase and health care cost growth has generally exceeded GDP growth. And you can't ignore revenue with him, either - he took actions on that side which helped close the budget deficit and helped pay for the ACA.
Overall, Bush expanded the government far more than Obama did, and it shouldn't be a surprise in that case that the average government spending as a % of GDP was higher under Obama than it was under Bush.
Monster is correct...., but to be fair the Bush, Administration had its hands full. First, there were two recessions, the second being the worst since the Great Depression. Second, was the most damaging hurricane in U.S. history. Third, the Administration faced the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. In response, it launched the War on Terror, funding two wars at the same time. As a result, President Bush added $6 trillion to the U.S. debt -- more than anyone else in history.
In 2003, Congress passed the Bush Administration's Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
It covered prescribed drugs up to a certain point. Seniors paid the rest, up to another level, at which Medicare paid the rest. This unpaid portion was known as the "donut hole" to seniors. However, the paid portion added $550 billion to the debt. In 2005, Katrina hit New Orleans, causing $200 billion in damage and slowing economic growth to 1.5% in the fourth quarter. To help with the clean-up, $33 billion was added to the fiscal year 2006.
One of the worst things Bush did was the bankruptcy protection act of 2005 forcing 200,000 people from their homes, in lieu of protecting businesses. In 2002, Congress passed the HSA that handled domestic security and launched the war on Iraq. .Bush spent $850 billion on the two wars, while expanding funds for the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.
While this was all going on the subprime mortgage crisis was brewing. We all know the rest.
In 2003, Congress passed the Bush Administration's Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
It covered prescribed drugs up to a certain point. Seniors paid the rest, up to another level, at which Medicare paid the rest. This unpaid portion was known as the "donut hole" to seniors. However, the paid portion added $550 billion to the debt. In 2005, Katrina hit New Orleans, causing $200 billion in damage and slowing economic growth to 1.5% in the fourth quarter. To help with the clean-up, $33 billion was added to the fiscal year 2006.
One of the worst things Bush did was the bankruptcy protection act of 2005 forcing 200,000 people from their homes, in lieu of protecting businesses. In 2002, Congress passed the HSA that handled domestic security and launched the war on Iraq. .Bush spent $850 billion on the two wars, while expanding funds for the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.
While this was all going on the subprime mortgage crisis was brewing. We all know the rest.
After thinking a little more, regretfully the problem is not in finding candidates that have sophisticated answers to complex problems. The challenge is finding candidates the American people can trust., candidates with the charisma to win trust in the conviction that they will do the right things in representing all of the American people. For over thirty years, various writers have described how politicians have abandoned the vast majority of people, especially a fault of Democrats who have tried to be more like Republicans in order to court Republican money. Now what nobody understands, including the press, is that Trump and Sanders have released that anger.
As for us, we are living in a time when public education, television, and visual technology have produced a populace that cannot think in terms of anything beyond sound bites, to some degree I am guilty of this too. Lincoln & Douglas debated for hours and crowds came with packed lunches, the debates now are so dumb, and I'm a dummy that watches them looking for meaningful clues.
Last edited:
The Rs have moved a lot more over the last 20 years than the Ds have. The Ds made their move towards the center in the early 1990s. The Rs have made a hard turn in the last decade.
The #1 thing driving it all, to me, is not movement of the parties, it is the fact that middle class incomes have been under pressure for nearly 20 years now, and that the share of the economy paid out as wages has been declining since about 1980. People are feeling left behind by the system.
Even if you believe he needed to do these things, there was no reason to pass tax cuts at the same time. That's the single biggest criticism of his administration - it's one thing to believe you need more government; it's another to pretend you don't have to pay for it.
His tax cuts were more damaging to the budget than any single spending action was.
Republicans don't want fact and logic.
They believe what their masters tell them because 'MURICA!
And look at how the budget has died as a topic of conversation in their primaries - their proposals are far more budget destructive than what is coming from Clinton.
Timing is everything.Unfortunately, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie and AIG later that summer destroyed confidence in the global banking system. This negated any positive effect of the tax rebates, and plunged the U.S. economy into five quarters of recession.
Last edited:
It more than destroyed confidence, a lot of entities were insolvent because they had a lot of bad assets. They needed capital that had to be supplied by the lender of last resort, aka the Federal government
You also have to remember that the Bush tax cuts came in his first term - by the time 2008 rolled around, they didn't matter materially in terms of promoting marginal growth. In general the return in terms of economic growth for those cuts was pretty low. Passing a large tax cut, especially one focused on the rich, when the economy is doing fine and the government is already increasing spending is a pretty inefficient way to create economic growth. The economy didn't need that level of stimulus when you were already stimulating it via demand for goods and services through increased defense spending. Those tax cuts are a very good example of why the Laffer curve is not relevant at the level of marginal Federal income tax rates in effect in the US - they cost the govt a lot of money and didn't do much.
If anything, the tax cuts actually hurt come 2008 because it wasted some of the government's dry powder that it could have used to help fight the recession.
Last edited:
Perk, Bush created the Department of Homeland Security at who the hell knows what cost. I have yet to figure WHY we need it. It does the same thing all the 3 letter government agencies were supposed to be doing. All he needed to do was ORDER them to communicate with each other instead of competing with each other. There is no telling what Homeland is costing the taxpayers, and for what? Can you even imagine what it costs for all the properties and office space, here and across the world, for 250,000 new government employees plus all the so-called secure computer systems, big black SUV's, jet planes, helicopters, weapons and travel costs? THAT is a government agency that should disappear.
The DHS is the embodiment of everything the Rs make fun of the Ds for. They do the exact same things
Similar threads
