Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story
carol

Orlando, FL

#818499 Dec 8, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The Republicans cannot be participants in Obama's disastrous economic policy.
Selling out the country for political advantage is not a good policy.
Sometimes you just gotta be reduced to ashes before you can fly again. Like the Phoenix.

It's never going to end if the American people don't snap out of this self-induced coma and being brainwashed by The Team Obama Cheerleaders. We all might have to suffer for that to happen.

Hopefully, we will come back even stronger when we finally regain some semblence of sanity and common sense.

Or go down trying.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818500 Dec 8, 2012
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Republican Cult of Economic Failure

In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

In terms of promoting job growth, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

In terms of fiscal prudence, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

....Bush's failure was masked by a sleazy accounting trick that Bill Clinton had tried to stop in 1999, when the government's operations approached break-even.

The Social Security surplus is supposed to be invested in Treasuries, which generate compound interest to build up a nest egg for the day when baby boomers start retiring. Of course a real Treasury instrument is a legal promise to pay. So Bush took the cash paid out by you, me and our employers into the Social Security "Trust Fund" and used it to reduce his current operating deficits. Instead of exchanging the cash for real Treasuries, the Trust Fund bought "Special Treasuries," which the government can change at will. USA Today said it best:

The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes.

Scam artists like Mitch McConnell justify their talk about "reforming" Social Security by pointing to "unfunded liabilities." This nonsense about unfunded obligations is one of the biggest frauds of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Social Security was funded by you, me and our employers. Bush took the surplus funds and used them to subsidize his failed tax policies. The Trust Fund's liabilities are unfunded for one reason and one reason only: Bush, more than any other President, defunded them. Because Republican politicians can't handle the truth, they cry out, "Class warfare!" But all their screaming cannot alter the immutable rules of simple arithmetic. Now they want to double down on their past failures.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/t...
Lincoln Duncan

United States

#818501 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
In case the poster, Chicago, hasn't said this yet.
The Senate voted to approve The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq with the support of large bipartisan majorities on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush administration with a legal basis for the U.S. invasion under U.S. law.
It cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution signed by former President Clinton, that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Being bipartisan will help in the reducing taxes on 98% of Americans.
Republicans seems to be coming around.
carol

Orlando, FL

#818502 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You people are talking apples and oranges and you don't even know it.
His point was Congress declared war. And the Congressional records "prove" it. I simply asked for them.
You're still not smart enough to know the AUMF AUTHORIZED the president to use military force at HIS DISCRETION. They know who the commander in chief is... you clearly don't.
Con stupidity can be so appalling... and then I bust out laughing at how comical it is!
At least Bush asked Congress for permission.

Obama asks the UN.
Lincoln Duncan

United States

#818503 Dec 8, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The Republicans cannot be participants in Obama's disastrous economic policy.
Selling out the country for political advantage is not a good policy.
Republican can and seem to be moving in that direction.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#818504 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it was doing just fine under Reagan after Carter's recession and again under Bush after 9/11 all the way up until the housing bubble popped.
The Cold War, 9/11 and the housing market crisis weren't part of Supply-Side economics.
They were just realities that had to be dealt with.
Sure wish you guys could get that through your heads.
Carol again displays her total lack of economic comprehension.

She again follows whatever she is told on FAUX.

----------

"Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12...

"he Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business. Republicans understand the needs of business, we are told, and if the country would leave the economy in their hands business would boom. All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators”– more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen. Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.


The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party. We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim. The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized. Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions. Which description fits best? Many Republicans still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy enhance economic growth despite the evidence to the contrary, but it’s rare to hear a Republican admit that these supply-side policies have failed."

----------

It's truly funny to watch a dirt poor person like Carol defending perks for the wealthy, even as she has to buy used furniture and crappy used vehicles because she can't afford better.

But then, she's also a smoker who spent much time and effort defending smokers rights and decrying the fact that smokers are social outcasts. Then she tried to sell the idea that she's a former smoker!!

The woman will lie about anything. She's been caught in lots of lies on this thread. Willful lies, not mistakes.

Lots of weird stuff going on in her head.

That's why she's Carol and Lorac. She's got everything ass-backwards.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#818505 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
I rooted for Nixon in 1968 in high school but then turned against him when he accelerated and then delayed ending the war until after he won his second election. I was happy Carter won in 1977 but didn't become a registered voter until 1980 when Reagan ran again (he lost the first time around) and when it became clear Democrats didn't have a clue what they were doing.
It was never the kind of blood sport with so much hatred and distrust towards fellow Americans during either Carter's or Reagan's presidencies. Neither Bush Sr.'s and even Clinton's - until he screwed the pooch in his second term, so to speak.
So, basically, Clinton's gross lack of character and democrats defending it is where it all started. Just answered my own question.
Sure it was Carol, you just paying attention.

Allen Dulles/J Edgar Hoover were a foul combo__not politicians but appointed__still devious and powerful.

Huey Long, Joe McCarthy__Carol we could fill up 10 topix pages and never scratch the surface regarding the crooked, nasty pieces of chit who have "run this nation, it's states and cities" since the ink was still wet on the Constitution.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#818506 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes you just gotta be reduced to ashes before you can fly again. Like the Phoenix.
It's never going to end if the American people don't snap out of this self-induced coma and being brainwashed by The Team Obama Cheerleaders. We all might have to suffer for that to happen.
Hopefully, we will come back even stronger when we finally regain some semblence of sanity and common sense.
Or go down trying.
Carol playing the victim card.

Again.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#818509 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! poor chica. still as idiotic without the facts as before.
Lol Poor Yeahoo, Throws all kinds of stuff against the wall, hoping nobody calls him on it? Facts, you wouldn't know facts, if someone put them in your pablem..
carol

Orlando, FL

#818510 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Talking to themselves is how most cons answer things.
Like families, they keep it to themselves!
That makes no sense. Please elaborate.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818511 Dec 8, 2012
Supply-Side Economics, R.I.P.

Bruce Bartlett

During the George W. Bush years, however, I think SSE became distorted into something that is, frankly, nuts--the ideas that there is no economic problem that cannot be cured with more and bigger tax cuts, that all tax cuts are equally beneficial, and that all tax cuts raise revenue.

These incorrect ideas led to the enactment of many tax cuts that had no meaningful effect on economic performance. Many were just give-aways to favored Republican constituencies, little different, substantively, from government spending. What, after all, is the difference between a direct spending program and a refundable tax credit? Nothing, really, except that Republicans oppose the first because it represents Big Government while they support the latter because it is a "tax cut."

I think these sorts of semantic differences cloud economic decisionmaking rather than contributing to it. As a consequence, we now have a tax code riddled with tax credits and other tax schemes of dubious merit, expiring provisions that never expire, and an income tax that fully exempts almost on half of tax filers from paying even a penny to support the general operations of the federal government.

The supply-siders are to a large extent responsible for this mess, myself included. We opened Pandora's Box when we got the Republican Party to abandon the balanced budget as its signature economic policy and adopt tax cuts as its raison d'être. In particular, the idea that tax cuts will "starve the beast" and automatically shrink the size of government is extremely pernicious.

Indeed, by destroying the balanced budget constraint, starve-the-beast theory actually opened the flood gates of spending. As I explained in a recent column, a key reason why deficits restrained spending in the past is because they led to politically unpopular tax increases. But if, as Republicans now maintain, taxes must never be increased at any time for any reason then there is never any political cost to raising spending and cutting taxes at the same time, as the Bush 43 administration and a Republican Congress did year after year.

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-ba...
Lincoln Duncan

United States

#818512 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
At least Bush asked Congress for permission.
Obama asks the UN.
GOP and Rape seems still an issue.
Sad to see the GOP having problems, really we all are...
Despite publicly disavowing candidate Todd Akin after his “legitimate rape” remark, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) quietly sent $760,000 to Missouri in a last-ditch attempt to aid Akin’s unsuccessful bid to unseat Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
carol

Orlando, FL

#818513 Dec 8, 2012
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Carol again displays her total lack of economic comprehension.
She again follows whatever she is told on FAUX.
----------
"Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed
Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12...
"he Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business. Republicans understand the needs of business, we are told, and if the country would leave the economy in their hands business would boom. All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators”– more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen. Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.
The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party. We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim. The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.
The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized. Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.
A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions. Which description fits best? Many Republicans still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy enhance economic growth despite the evidence to the contrary, but it’s rare to hear a Republican admit that these supply-side policies have failed."
----------
It's truly funny to watch a dirt poor person like Carol defending perks for the wealthy, even as she has to buy used furniture and crappy used vehicles because she can't afford better.
But then, she's also a smoker who spent much time and effort defending smokers rights and decrying the fact that smokers are social outcasts. Then she tried to sell the idea that she's a former smoker!!
The woman will lie about anything. She's been caught in lots of lies on this thread. Willful lies, not mistakes.
Lots of weird stuff going on in her head.
That's why she's Carol and Lorac. She's got everything ass-backwards.
You could have summarized that entire cut and past and ensuring rant by just saying Republicans are pro business.

And less government.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#818514 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Syria could likely become Obama's Iraq. Have you read the news lately? About Syria's WMDs? The same ones Saddam once had?
What goes around, comes around.
Where do you get the crazy idea that Syria's WMD's came from Iraq??

Must be FAUX, because it's a lie.

So once again, Carol promotes lies wshe knows are lies.

Let's see your proof, Carol. You continue with the lie that Syria has Iraq's WMD's.

Where's your proof??

Remember, even Bush and Cheney admitted there were not WMD's in Iraq when we invaded. Remember??

You calling your hero a liar??

Put up or shut up.
Lincoln Duncan

United States

#818515 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
A poster wrote just a few minutes ago that the schools in his area took out God and inferred saying the Pledge of Allegience to Obama instead.
Try and keep up.
Tea Party handed President Obama and Democratic party victory in 2012.
Carol, keep posting to help the Democrats :-)
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818517 Dec 8, 2012
Bill Kristol, for once, is right. The Bush tax cuts for the rich have to go.

The election is barely over, but true to form, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have already bungled the next one. Their line in the sand is exactly the wrong way to recast the GOP’s appeal to minorities, women, and working-class whites.

Look at the data. Exit polls showed that voters largely agreed that Romney was a “strong leader” and “had a vision for the future.” But as AEI’s Henry Olsen notes,“Romney lost because he lost among those who chose the remaining characteristic – by 63 points, 81-18. That characteristic? Cares about people like me.”(The exit polls do not include the nine million white voters who showed their opinion by not voting at all.)

Having lost two national elections in which the Bush tax cuts were at issue, the GOP Congressional leadership now seems determined to dig the ditch deeper.

C.S. Lewis begins his classic Mere Christianity by listing phrases we’ve all heard or said:“How’d you like it if someone did the same to you”–“That’s my seat, I was here first”–“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”–“Why should you shove in first.” He notes that a child’s first introduction to immorality is when someone cuts in front of him in the school lunch line. The response is instinctual:“That’s not fair.” All moral codes, Lewis says, begin with that one reaction:“That’s not fair.”

The Republican Party can appeal to “Judeo-Christian values” as long as the sun shines and their voices hold out. But they’ve abandoned the most basic moral value of all: fairness. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity. But tell that to minorities, to single women, to working-class whites. Even 44 percent of voters who earn over $200,000 a year voted for Obama, the candidate who promised to raise their taxes.

We all know that eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will not make much of a difference in the deficit ($42 billion a year, by most estimates). But anybody who preaches on that point will find himself talking to an empty auditorium. And if raising taxes on the rich is redistributionist socialism, someone should should have told Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan, whose rates on the rich were 91, 70, and 50 percent.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-re...

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#818519 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
You could have summarized that entire cut and past and ensuring rant by just saying Republicans are pro business.
And less government.
Again you prove your ignorance.

The entire post was not about pro or anti business. DUH

It dealt with the failure of supply side economics and your denial to accept it.

And you wonder why you lost the election??

It's proof that most Americans are far brighter than any Teabagger.

As proven by you, Nobraina (currently appearing as John Galt), and the nitwit from KY. Teabaggers all.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#818520 Dec 8, 2012
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
The Republican Party?
You trying to steal anyone's jello-duhmbo?

SHAME on you!

Dem dems need ta get busy--FIXING that rotten apple barrel cart before the broke back mules of robbinghoodieTIC billage of FLYPAPER buzzardry--and learn what a NATIONAL BUDGET is again!

SHAME on them--pickpocketing the unsuspecting WORKING class--the ones still with jobs anyway--and even worse--wanting double DEBT those who are unemployed!! For SHAME!
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#818521 Dec 8, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Where are you privy to that information? You have a vivid imagination....
Common knowledge__Cindy McCain is one of the wealthiest women in the US, let google be your friend, start with Hensley and Company.

Why wouldn't she be a moderate (R) or even a (D) without John boy__he was never a conservative until he had to be to get reelected.

Teresa Hienz went from wife of one of the most conservative US Senators to the wife of thee most liberal__catch a fkn clue pal.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818522 Dec 8, 2012
Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution

http://www.cato.org/store/books/leviathan-rig...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min Guru 180,911
My true thoughts about this song. 48 min dumbwhore 2
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr DonPanic 48,584
EverGreen Belgrade 3 hr aqif blyta 11
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 4 hr Swedenforever 54,527
Aldi's is the Worst Supermarket Chain (Jun '12) 5 hr Jamie 330
Boycott all Topix Sponsors 5 hr Jamie 5
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:15 pm PST

NBC Sports 4:15PM
Washington benches RGIII, Colt McCoy to start
Bleacher Report 5:56 PM
Breaking Down Lions' Game Plan vs. Bears
Bleacher Report 7:26 PM
Bold Predictions for Colts Week 13 Matchup
NBC Sports 9:17 PM
Week 13 skill-position injury report — Wednesday
NBC Sports11:56 PM
Colts put in extra time to prepare for McCoy - NBC Sports