Sidestepping on the economy?

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by Charles

No offense, Carl, but when it comes to pushing an agenda, you've just whipped up a couple of dandy straw men yourself.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Chas

I thought that I was showing in the quote that Reagan did it 18 times with no stinky biz, Bush 7 times and he did not include military in his budget. And even Obama has 3 already and no stinky biz.

You bet Obama tried to do something constructive that might actually benefit us all. Crappy on both sides with the room left to bargain with. Meh, so what IMO.

And yes, I do have a problem with extending the Bush tax credits to millionaires that do not need the money. Money we had to borrow to do it. Then out of the blue, this crap?

Borrow money to give to those that don't need it then place more hardships on seniors to pay for it.

Just strikes me as low down and hypocritical. But this is just repeating myself from previous postings.


Carl

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by CarlV

I thought that I was showing in the quote that Reagan did it 18 times with no stinky biz, Bush 7 times and he did not include military in his budget. And even Obama has 3 already and no stinky biz.

You bet Obama tried to do something constructive that might actually benefit us all. Crappy on both sides with the room left to bargain with. Meh, so what IMO.

And yes, I do have a problem with extending the Bush tax credits to millionaires that do not need the money. Money we had to borrow to do it. Then out of the blue, this crap?

Borrow money to give to those that don't need it then place more hardships on seniors to pay for it.

Just strikes me as low down and hypocritical. But this is just repeating myself from previous postings.


Carl

Tell it, Carl! Das what I'm talkin' 'bout.

You left out the babies. You know, the ones whose futures are being stolen by those welfare check cashing deadbeat seniors.........

(Must be Billion Dollar Babies.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86-Xr...eature=related

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by CarlV

I thought that I was showing in the quote that Reagan did it 18 times with no stinky biz, Bush 7 times and he did not include military in his budget. And even Obama has 3 already and no stinky biz.

You bet Obama tried to do something constructive that might actually benefit us all. Crappy on both sides with the room left to bargain with. Meh, so what IMO.

And yes, I do have a problem with extending the Bush tax credits to millionaires that do not need the money. Money we had to borrow to do it. Then out of the blue, this crap?

Borrow money to give to those that don't need it then place more hardships on seniors to pay for it.

Just strikes me as low down and hypocritical. But this is just repeating myself from previous postings.


Carl

The Democrats had a chance to raise taxes on the wealthy in 2009 and 2010 and they never did it.

BTW, wasn't it during this time period that COLA's were denied to SSI recipients due to the fact that "core Inflation" hadn't increased? That's a good one!!!

Now it's a mixed bag as to who has benefited the most from the stimulus money, but it certainly hasn't hurt the wealthy. No doubt the wealthy COULD afford to pay more, but even if you took everything they had it wouldn't be enough to cover the spending by the Fed Gov.

Besides, they'd just move it ALL offshore which would really dry up any investments here.

And when the Republicans point out that spending levels like we have now are unsustainable, and we need to take a comprehensive approach to cuts, which included SSI and Medicare/Medicade...this is somehow morphed into "Throw Granny over the cliff".

Wasn't it about a year ago when the Presidents Debt Commission? came out with a comprehensive plan of increased revenues and spending cuts...only to be roundly booed from the stage? At first glance, I thought their plan was reasonable enough, at least for a start.

But it looks as though this election will be conducted as they all are, any talks of policy will quickly degenerate into sound bites, half truths, and outright lies.

I'll tell you what, the politicians have the rubes in the peanut gallery figured out...and that's a fact.

Chas

[piece-itpete]

Reagan also was dead set against new taxes, as he said new revenue always results in more spending, not debt reduction.

Pete

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Reagan also was dead set against new taxes, as he said new revenue always results in more spending, not debt reduction.

Pete

Ronald Reagan, tax hiker

APRIL 15, 2010

It’s Tax Day, so I decided to dedicate this space to celebrate California’s greatest tax and spend governor. The one who, more than any of the other 38 men who’ve run the state, hit residents with bigger taxes and grew government more than any other.

Yes, I’m talking about Ronald Reagan.

In terms of real dollars, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $12.5 billion hike in early 2009 was the biggest, sure, but in terms of percentage of general fund, none beats Reagan’s, as Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton pointed out back in July. “[T]he all-time champ is Reagan,” he wrote. “His tax increase equaled roughly 30 percent of the general fund. [Pete] Wilson’s was 16 percent; Schwarzenegger’s 14 percent.”

This, from a guy who ran on a platform in 1966 of “squeeze, cut and trim.” And Reagan was no slouch on spending, either – as Skelton pointed out in an Oct. 29, 2009 LA Times column, the general fund’s average annual growth was 13.6 percent. His nearest rival, Jerry Brown, grew the general fund at only 12.7 percent a year. Pat Brown was slightly lower at 11.7 percent. By comparison, Schwarzenegger has been a slouch, growing the general fund an average of just 1.3 percent each year he’s been in office.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2010/04/1...gan-tax-hiker/

If we are going to talk about 30 years ago why not make it 40?



Carl

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

And when the Republicans point out that spending levels like we have now are unsustainable, and we need to take a comprehensive approach to cuts, which included SSI and Medicare/Medicade...this is somehow morphed into "Throw Granny over the cliff".

Chas

I think it might be because most people know, deep down inside, that it was Democrats who created SS and Medicare, and it has always been Republicans who have bitched and moaned about the cost and denounced these programs as "Socialism". Deriding colleagues who support them as being "Reds", "Commies" or "Lefties". Since, oh, I'm guessing the 1930s, or so.

I don't recall a time when this wasn't the case.

Neither could my old man. Can you?

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I think it might be because most people know, deep down inside, that it was Democrats who created SS and Medicare, and it has always been Republicans who have bitched and moaned about the cost and denounced these programs as "Socialism". Deriding colleagues who support them as being "Reds", "Commies" or "Lefties". Since, oh, I'm guessing the 1930s, or so.

I don't recall a time when this wasn't the case.

Neither could my old man. Can you?

Dave

Some of them yes, the majority of them no.

The Pubbies have been more willing to touch the 3rd rail from time to time, suggesting that steps need to be taken to keep it solvent.

Kind of a joke really, since both parties have already spent the money.

Chas

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by Charles

The Democrats had a chance to raise taxes on the wealthy in 2009 and 2010 and they never did it.

BTW, wasn't it during this time period that COLA's were denied to SSI recipients due to the fact that "core Inflation" hadn't increased? That's a good one!!!

Now it's a mixed bag as to who has benefited the most from the stimulus money, but it certainly hasn't hurt the wealthy. No doubt the wealthy COULD afford to pay more, but even if you took everything they had it wouldn't be enough to cover the spending by the Fed Gov.

Besides, they'd just move it ALL offshore which would really dry up any investments here.

And when the Republicans point out that spending levels like we have now are unsustainable, and we need to take a comprehensive approach to cuts, which included SSI and Medicare/Medicade...this is somehow morphed into "Throw Granny over the cliff".

Wasn't it about a year ago when the Presidents Debt Commission? came out with a comprehensive plan of increased revenues and spending cuts...only to be roundly booed from the stage? At first glance, I thought their plan was reasonable enough, at least for a start.

But it looks as though this election will be conducted as they all are, any talks of policy will quickly degenerate into sound bites, half truths, and outright lies.

I'll tell you what, the politicians have the rubes in the peanut gallery figured out...and that's a fact.

Chas

You on FIRE Chas!!!! You change your diet?? All this posturing by the DEMS about stuff they DIDN'T change when they had the chance..

And did Biden fall asleep again?? I thought the Prez appointed him the lead man on the budget debate at the SOTU address while he was napping out.. Where IS that dude? Is he stuck on Amtrak in Conn or sumthin???

And CarlV -- it's not the # of times the ceiling was raised which is the principle being fought over here. It's the rate of GROWTH of the debt ceiling that worth fighting over..

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I think it might be because most people know, deep down inside, that it was Democrats who created SS and Medicare, and it has always been Republicans who have bitched and moaned about the cost and denounced these programs as "Socialism". Deriding colleagues who support them as being "Reds", "Commies" or "Lefties". Since, oh, I'm guessing the 1930s, or so.

I don't recall a time when this wasn't the case.

Neither could my old man. Can you?

Dave

Did ya miss the part where Obama Care passed because Pelosi/Reid was counting $500Bill in Medicare cuts as a down payment? Or the rescue of Soc Sec when it last went negative during Reagan? Or the attempts to channel the EXCESS SS surplus to programs that would have deferred future debts and liabilities (while there were still surpluses of course) that were ALL repub. proposals...

I remember the Dem House leader at the time that SS passed promising something to the effect of "if this program EVER exceeds 4% of income, I'll eat the legislation"... Can we exhume this guy and force feed him???

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Did ya miss the part where Obama Care passed because Pelosi/Reid was counting $500Bill in Medicare cuts as a down payment? Or the rescue of Soc Sec when it last went negative during Reagan? Or the attempts to channel the EXCESS SS surplus to programs that would have deferred future debts and liabilities (while there were still surpluses of course) that were ALL repub. proposals...

I remember the Dem House leader at the time that SS passed promising something to the effect of "if this program EVER exceeds 4% of income, I'll eat the legislation"... Can we exhume this guy and force feed him???

If PPACA covers from cradle to grave, then what do we need Medicare for? Has it occurred to you that maybe that this was the thinking?

Or, maybe we could just go back to a system that only covers those who can afford to pay.....and to hell with anyone else? Let them go to the charites seeking alms...............

Dave