obama's chances for re-election conti...

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22 Jun 16, 2011
Reagan's numbers were depressed at this point in 1983 because of a recession that started in 1982. By November of 1984, the economy was recovering and Reagan won by one of the biggest landslides in US history.

There is a big difference between the situation in 1983 and the one right now. With Reagan a recovery was beginning. We are not seeing that today. We are starting to see an overall slide. Most economists are pessimistic about the outlook between now and November 2012.

Remember, the economy is worse than it was on January 20, 2009 when it comes to unemployment.

Remember, Obama promised that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus passed....despite warnings that it would.

As for entitlements, how are we to pay for them? We could raise taxes on the wealthy to 70% and it won't cover the costs. We can eliminate all subsidies and it won't cover the costs. We could do both with full employment and we still cannot cover the costs of everything you pointed out in your post.

What are the Democrats plans to address this issue? The GOP has put forth a plan. That is the only plan on the table. I am open to better ideas but right now there are none.

“I'm not mean, you're a sissy”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#23 Jun 16, 2011
Hiker2009 wrote:
Reagan's numbers were depressed at this point in 1983 because of a recession that started in 1982. By November of 1984, the economy was recovering and Reagan won by one of the biggest landslides in US history.
There is a big difference between the situation in 1983 and the one right now. With Reagan a recovery was beginning. We are not seeing that today. We are starting to see an overall slide. Most economists are pessimistic about the outlook between now and November 2012.
Remember, the economy is worse than it was on January 20, 2009 when it comes to unemployment.
Remember, Obama promised that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus passed....despite warnings that it would.
As for entitlements, how are we to pay for them? We could raise taxes on the wealthy to 70% and it won't cover the costs. We can eliminate all subsidies and it won't cover the costs. We could do both with full employment and we still cannot cover the costs of everything you pointed out in your post.
What are the Democrats plans to address this issue? The GOP has put forth a plan. That is the only plan on the table. I am open to better ideas but right now there are none.
There is always a big difference in your rationale. The Republicans don't have a plan, unless you mean the lol Ryan Plan which as about popular as a fart in a crowded elevator.
The focus now should be jobs, the long term goal should be the deficit.What is the Republican answer for now? You do know what now is don't you? It's the thing you never want to discuss.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#24 Jun 16, 2011
Also, the article you linked us to is from May of 2010. There is 13 months of Obama's polling as well as massive GOP midterm gains that are not being accounted for in the article's thesis.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#25 Jun 16, 2011
Captain Beefheart wrote:
<quoted text>There is always a big difference in your rationale. The Republicans don't have a plan, unless you mean the lol Ryan Plan which as about popular as a fart in a crowded elevator.
The focus now should be jobs, the long term goal should be the deficit.What is the Republican answer for now? You do know what now is don't you? It's the thing you never want to discuss.
Here is the problem with job creation. There is too much uncertainty to justify business and industry to come off the $2 trillion that they are sitting on. Also, businesses are running efficiently to meet demand. There is no incentive to come off their money and invest to create jobs.

When Obama met with business leaders at the White House a few months back, they basically told him that they were not going to invest in the economy because of the uncertainty. They specifically pointed out the health care law and the eagerness to raise taxes.

Now it is waiting game. The GOP is chipping away at spending to solve the debt crisis. The uncertainty about the health care law and possible tax increases exist as long as Obama is POTUS.

“I see a dying party”

Since: Jan 11

called the Republicans

#26 Jun 16, 2011
Hiker2009 wrote:
.
As for entitlements, how are we to pay for them? We could raise taxes on the wealthy to 70% and it won't cover the costs. We can eliminate all subsidies and it won't cover the costs. We could do both with full employment and we still cannot cover the costs of everything you pointed out in your post.
What are the Democrats plans to address this issue? The GOP has put forth a plan. That is the only plan on the table. I am open to better ideas but right now there are none.
Okay Hiker, then maybe you can answer a few questions that we can't seem to get any other conservative to answer. You say we can't afford to give people who need the help their entitlements, yet why is it that conservatives don't mind giving the wealthiest 2% even more tax cuts, totaling $280 billion? Part of the debt we have now is because of the tax cuts Bush gave during his term! These are taxes that the middle class are eventually going to have to make up for the sake of not making the rich pay taxes. Why is it that there are no complaints that future generations are going to be saddled a heavy tax burden for this, but there's no hesitation at all to complain how the poor are sucking you dry? How are we possibly going to pay our country's debt off if only the middle class gets stuck with paying taxes? And just how do you Republicans plan to handle watching people starving and dying in the streets when there is no help for fellow Americans from their government? It's easy to say "let them stand up and help themselves," but if jobs are scarce, as they are now, just where and how are they going to support themselves? And what about the people who are unable to support themselves, like the old, handicapped and mentally disadvantaged? What are the Republicans planning to do---bring back debtors prisons? Doesn't it bother you at all knowing that the wealth is trickling upwards from the middle class to the very wealthiest and big corporations.....people who already have more money than they can spend and who are not lacking in anything instead of going to people who have already lost about everything and are trying to make ends meet? Are you asking these people to sacrifice their lives? I don't know how in all good conscience that you Republicans can condone this as the moral solution. People get mean when they have hungry bellies, so watch the crime rate go way up. Is this the reason the tea-baggers feel the need for guns?

Your party is busy busting up unions, laying off teachers, cops, firemen and other public servants, which increases the unemployment rate. They didn't want to bail out the auto workers, which would have increased the unemployment by another couple million. All these cuts they want to make will also cut more jobs and the unemployment will go further up. And when they are done, they'll put all the blame on Obama, won't they? The rich will take the $$ they don't have to pay out in taxes and they will invest it instead of create more jobs. These tax cuts have not worked in 30 years and will not jump the economy now. If they would have worked, there would have been more than 3 million jobs created during the 8 years of Bush.
Jobs

Marengo, OH

#27 Jun 16, 2011
Why would companies create jobs when they have one person is now doing the work of two people in many businesses because they have faced cut-backs over the last few years?

What is the Democrats plan for job creation cause what they are doing now doesn't appear to be working very well?

“I'm not mean, you're a sissy”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#28 Jun 16, 2011
Hiker2009 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the problem with job creation. There is too much uncertainty to justify business and industry to come off the $2 trillion that they are sitting on. Also, businesses are running efficiently to meet demand. There is no incentive to come off their money and invest to create jobs.
When Obama met with business leaders at the White House a few months back, they basically told him that they were not going to invest in the economy because of the uncertainty. They specifically pointed out the health care law and the eagerness to raise taxes.
Now it is waiting game. The GOP is chipping away at spending to solve the debt crisis. The uncertainty about the health care law and possible tax increases exist as long as Obama is POTUS.
The GOP is chipping away at spending to solve the debt crisis? Now that's f--king hilarious!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#29 Jun 16, 2011
What I find interesting is that numbers are thrown out there despite anyone understanding what they mean.

The cost of the 2% tax reduction is about $28 billion a year for 10 years. That $28 billion is assuming that they would not use tax referrals, write-offs, and loopholes. The way the tax code is, it entirely possible that it would only cost the government a fraction of the approximately $28 billion a year.

Our annual budget deficit is about $1.6 trillion. The interest on the national debt is $250 billion a year. The national debt has topped $14 trillion.

The total cost of the Bush tax cuts were about $700 billion or approximately $70 billion.... assuming the wealthy would not have used referrals, write-offs, and loopholes. That is a fraction of the annual deficits, when Bush ran a deficit.

When Bush became POTUS, we had a debt of $5.7 trillion. When he left office in 2009, we had a debt of $10.7 trillion. Part of that was the $700 billion TARP. The highest budget deficit of the Bush administration (until TARP) was $480 billion.

As of May 6, 2011 the national debt is $14.32 trillion. Deficits under Obama have all been over $1 trillion per year.

When there is an economic recession, the wealthy make less money too. When that happens, there is less revenue for the government to spend. In 2010, entitlement spending was:
Medicare and Medicaid,$793 billion
Social security,$701 billion
We won't go into the others because the list would be too long.

In 2010, government revenue was just over $2.1 trillion. We haven't even gotten to defense, government operations, debt interest, and other entitlement spending.

Do you see the problem on how irrelevant $28 billion or $70 billion when we look at the bigger picture?

My question is, how are we going to support the continued spending? It is spiraling out of control.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#30 Jun 16, 2011
In other words, taxing the rich is not going to fix the problem like many have been led to believe. It is just a drop in the bucket. We would still have a massive debt and huge budget deficit if the tax rates were still the same as they were under Clinton.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#31 Jun 16, 2011
Captain Beefheart wrote:
<quoted text>
The GOP is chipping away at spending to solve the debt crisis? Now that's f--king hilarious!
Yes. They are cutting spending. Haven't you watched CNN, NPR, or MSNBC over the last 4 months? It has been widely reported, so I do not know how you could have missed it. Of course, they are limited by a Democrat controlled US Senate and a Democrat president.

“Republican Outrage & Hate will”

Since: Jun 10

Cost Them Again Come 2016

#32 Jun 17, 2011
Hiker2009 wrote:
When Bush became POTUS, we had a debt of $5.7 trillion. When he left office in 2009, we had a debt of $10.7 trillion. Part of that was the $700 billion TARP. The highest budget deficit of the Bush administration (until TARP) was $480 billion.
As of May 6, 2011 the national debt is $14.32 trillion. Deficits under Obama have all been over $1 trillion per year.
When there is an economic recession, the wealthy make less money too. When that happens, there is less revenue for the government to spend. In 2010, entitlement spending was:
Medicare and Medicaid,$793 billion
Social security,$701 billion
We won't go into the others because the list would be too long.
In 2010, government revenue was just over $2.1 trillion. We haven't even gotten to defense, government operations, debt interest, and other entitlement spending.
Do you see the problem on how irrelevant $28 billion or $70 billion when we look at the bigger picture?
My question is, how are we going to support the continued spending? It is spiraling out of control.
I disagree with your figures on Bush's share of debt, much higher than the 11.7 trillion you say.

. Bush ALSO proposed, signed, and implimente≠d the '09 budget which went into effect 10/1/08 -9/30/09] with its $1.25 Trillion deficit -- which increased the Nat'l Debt to $11.8 Trillion. Also, the debt Obama inherited on the day he took office carried $280 Billion in annual interest -- attributab≠le to Bush. And, it was BUSH who committed our troops to Iraq thru 2012, Bush who launched [ without funding] Medicare Part D, Bush who increased UE 81%[ to 7.6%], Bush who filled our Veterans Hospitals with wounded warriors America must care for.

“Republican Outrage & Hate will”

Since: Jun 10

Cost Them Again Come 2016

#33 Jun 17, 2011
Analysis: Filers in Top 5 Percent Will Get Tax Cut 42 Times Bigger Than Bottom 60 Percent If Bush Tax Cuts Continue; Deficit Will Double

On Tenth Anniversary of Bush Tax Cuts, Citizens for Tax Justice Releases State and Federal Fact Sheets With 2013 Projections
In 2013, 47.2 percent of benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers
WASHINGTON - June 3 - As Congress and the President debate whether and on what conditions to raise the debt ceiling, America will mark the tenth anniversary of the policy change that accounts for much of the federal budget gap: the Bush tax cuts.

On June 7, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the first of the tax cuts that would turn the budget surpluses of the 1990ís into historic deficits. A new analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice explains that making these tax cuts permanent would almost double the long-term budget deficit.

The richest one percent of taxpayers, with an average income of about $1.4 million in 2013, would get an average tax cut of $68,079 that year if the Bush tax cuts are extended again. The poorest three fifths of taxpayers, with an average income of $29,000 that year, would receive an average tax cut of just $487.

The analysis also finds that the higher a filerís income, the larger the tax cut as a percentage of income. If the Bush tax cuts are extended again, in 2013 the poorest one fifth of taxpayers would receive tax cuts equal to less than one percent of their income, while the richest one percent would enjoy tax cuts equal to 4.6 percent of their income.

Some in Congress have threatened to cause the U.S. to default on its debt-obligations unless President Obama agrees to major cuts in federal spending to reduce the budget deficit, but they simultaneously demand the Bush tax cuts be made permanent.

Individual fact sheets for all 50 states and the District of Columbia along with facts about the costs of the Bush tax cuts nationally are at: http://www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts10yrs.php

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/06/...
DON SOUTH

Mount Vernon, OH

#34 Jun 17, 2011
Squirrels on the Right wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually his poll numbers are very much like Reagan's, even a bit higher.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/reagan-obama-a...
Obama broke a record----1st African American to be elected president. I think he will break another--first president to get re-elected even with high unemployment. Democrats will make sure that the electorate realizes the Republicans plan on cutting entitlements, how they were against renewing unemployment benefits, how they all want to kill Medicare and are now talking about privitizing SS and how they are taking away workers bargaining rights, defunding food-banks, WIC, Planned Parenthood. Since the recession that Obama inherited was the worse recession we have ever experienced since WW2, and could have gone into a depression that would have made the one back in the 30s look like a picnic, people should understand how close we came to a complete financial collapse if not for TARP and the stimulus. Anyway, Obama said from the start that it would probably take 4 or more years to pull out of the mess that took 8 years to create, and economists have stated over and over again that jobs are always the last thing to come back after a recession. I believe when people realize that the Republicans have no real plan to create jobs, other than their usual create more tax cuts for the rich and hope it trickles down to the middle class, that we aren't really going to see a big improvement in the economy anytime soon just because a Republican gets seated in the WH. Then they will wonder what it may be like for them when jobs are still scarce and they have already lost theirs. They'll understand with the Republicans in control (especially if they are in the majority of both houses and the presidentcy, that they will basically be on their own because their government, controlled by the GOP, refuses to give aid to the down-trodden like the Democrats always have. They are going to fear the possibility of their families starving to death shuld the situation arise. No government funded food-stamps, unemployment benefits getting cut, nothing to tide them over. I believe the intelligent voter will realize that if he think things are really bad now, they are about to get worse with the Right in control because the right always cuts programs for those who are already on their last leg so that the rich get even richer. All I can say is if people vote the Republican party back in---the ones who created this mess to begin with, then they deserve what they get!!!!
"THERE YOU GO AGAIN": INVOKING REAGAN'S NAME TO "PROVE" YOUR "POINT". A MAN THAT YOU AND YOUR ILK DESPISED WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT, AND A MAN THAT OPPOSED MOST EVERYTHING YOU "STAND FOR!"
DON SOUTH

Mount Vernon, OH

#35 Jun 17, 2011
Kickback 2U wrote:
Analysis: Filers in Top 5 Percent Will Get Tax Cut 42 Times Bigger Than Bottom 60 Percent If Bush Tax Cuts Continue; Deficit Will Double
On Tenth Anniversary of Bush Tax Cuts, Citizens for Tax Justice Releases State and Federal Fact Sheets With 2013 Projections
In 2013, 47.2 percent of benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers
WASHINGTON - June 3 - As Congress and the President debate whether and on what conditions to raise the debt ceiling, America will mark the tenth anniversary of the policy change that accounts for much of the federal budget gap: the Bush tax cuts.
On June 7, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the first of the tax cuts that would turn the budget surpluses of the 1990ís into historic deficits. A new analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice explains that making these tax cuts permanent would almost double the long-term budget deficit.
The richest one percent of taxpayers, with an average income of about $1.4 million in 2013, would get an average tax cut of $68,079 that year if the Bush tax cuts are extended again. The poorest three fifths of taxpayers, with an average income of $29,000 that year, would receive an average tax cut of just $487.
The analysis also finds that the higher a filerís income, the larger the tax cut as a percentage of income. If the Bush tax cuts are extended again, in 2013 the poorest one fifth of taxpayers would receive tax cuts equal to less than one percent of their income, while the richest one percent would enjoy tax cuts equal to 4.6 percent of their income.
Some in Congress have threatened to cause the U.S. to default on its debt-obligations unless President Obama agrees to major cuts in federal spending to reduce the budget deficit, but they simultaneously demand the Bush tax cuts be made permanent.
Individual fact sheets for all 50 states and the District of Columbia along with facts about the costs of the Bush tax cuts nationally are at: http://www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts10yrs.php
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/06/...
CAN YOU BELIVE THAT OBAMA ALLOWED THOSE BUSH TAX CUTS TO BE EXTENDED. "MY, HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN!" DOES THE "MAN" HAVE ANY "FIGHT" IN HIM?
Hiker 1999

Bellefontaine, OH

#37 Jun 17, 2011
Kickback 2U wrote:
Analysis: Filers in Top 5 Percent Will Get Tax Cut 42 Times Bigger Than Bottom 60 Percent If Bush Tax Cuts Continue; Deficit Will Double
On Tenth Anniversary of Bush Tax Cuts, Citizens for Tax Justice Releases State and Federal Fact Sheets With 2013 Projections
In 2013, 47.2 percent of benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers
WASHINGTON - June 3 - As Congress and the President debate whether and on what conditions to raise the debt ceiling, America will mark the tenth anniversary of the policy change that accounts for much of the federal budget gap: the Bush tax cuts.
On June 7, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the first of the tax cuts that would turn the budget surpluses of the 1990ís into historic deficits. A new analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice explains that making these tax cuts permanent would almost double the long-term budget deficit.
The richest one percent of taxpayers, with an average income of about $1.4 million in 2013, would get an average tax cut of $68,079 that year if the Bush tax cuts are extended again. The poorest three fifths of taxpayers, with an average income of $29,000 that year, would receive an average tax cut of just $487.
The analysis also finds that the higher a filerís income, the larger the tax cut as a percentage of income. If the Bush tax cuts are extended again, in 2013 the poorest one fifth of taxpayers would receive tax cuts equal to less than one percent of their income, while the richest one percent would enjoy tax cuts equal to 4.6 percent of their income.
Some in Congress have threatened to cause the U.S. to default on its debt-obligations unless President Obama agrees to major cuts in federal spending to reduce the budget deficit, but they simultaneously demand the Bush tax cuts be made permanent.
Individual fact sheets for all 50 states and the District of Columbia along with facts about the costs of the Bush tax cuts nationally are at: http://www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts10yrs.php
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/06/...
The numbers cited in the links are nothing more than a crapshoot. There is no guarantee that they would pay those amounts if there wasn't a tax cut in effect.

Those numbers are before any tax deferrals, write-offs, loopholes, etc. We know that the wealthy take advantages of those things. It is impossible to calculate how much would be gained by eliminating the tax cuts because noone knows how much they will take advantage of the above until the accountant sits down and crunches the numbers.

This is one of the reasons that revenue and deficits are always projected and usually experience daily changes. Nothing is set in stone until they get the check.

It is very possible that the government would not generate a penny by reversing the tax cuts. That is the way our tax code is and always has been. Comeon, you do not think that the wealthy paid a 90% tax in the 1950's, do you? Back then, a person could write-off just about anything. They were not paying anywhere near the 90% tax rate that they are now. Today, it is the same.

“Abolish political parties!”

Since: Aug 10

Bellefontaine, Ohio

#38 Jun 17, 2011
One would think Conservatives would have applauded Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts, right? They did not. So it is not about policy with respect to the Right's hatred of Obama. If not policy, then what darker forces are at work here? It does remind me of the Left's irrational hatred of Bush. We really need to stop hating our fellow Americans and realize that the true enemy resides across the Pacific Ocean and is laughing at us. Wake up! Remember "divided we fall?" I thought not.
DON SOUTH

Mount Vernon, OH

#39 Jun 17, 2011
The Dollar Man wrote:
One would think Conservatives would have applauded Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts, right? They did not. So it is not about policy with respect to the Right's hatred of Obama. If not policy, then what darker forces are at work here? It does remind me of the Left's irrational hatred of Bush. We really need to stop hating our fellow Americans and realize that the true enemy resides across the Pacific Ocean and is laughing at us. Wake up! Remember "divided we fall?" I thought not.
I AM A CONSERVATIVE, WHO DOES "APPLAUD" OBAMA FOR SIGNING AN EXTENSION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR, UNFORTUNATELY, ONLY 2 YEARS. I APPLAUD HIM FOR NOT CLOSING GITMO ON 01-20-2010. I APPLAUD HIM FOR SLOWLY LEARNING THAT BEING A DEMAGOGUE IS DIFFERENT THAN GOVERNING. WHAT AMAZES ME IS THAT, INSPITE OF HIS "CONSERVATIVE" POLICY MOVES, THE LIBTARD/ILL-LIBERAL LIBERALS APPLAUD HIM TOO. IT'S KINDA LIKE HE IS THE MIDDLE AGE LEGENDARY PIED PIPER OF HAMLIN, GERMANY, AND THEY ARE THE CHILDREN AND/OR THE RATS.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#40 Jun 17, 2011
The Dollar Man wrote:
One would think Conservatives would have applauded Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts, right? They did not. So it is not about policy with respect to the Right's hatred of Obama. If not policy, then what darker forces are at work here? It does remind me of the Left's irrational hatred of Bush. We really need to stop hating our fellow Americans and realize that the true enemy resides across the Pacific Ocean and is laughing at us. Wake up! Remember "divided we fall?" I thought not.
Did Obama want to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy? No. He had to due to demands of the GOP and moderate Democrats.

Part of this included extension of unemployment benefits. The GOP had no problem with extending them. It came down to the fine print......how to pay for it. The GOP wanted remaining stimulus funds to pay for it and Democrats wanted it to be via additional spending (increased deficit/borrowing).

At the same time, the Democrats wanted the tax cuts to expire for the wealthy and the GOP wanted them extended for everyone.

In the end, the Democrats lost ending the tax cuts for the wealthy and the GOP didn't get their way on the funding of the extended unemployment benefits.

In the end, a lot of people were not happy with the deal. Conservatives were mad about the funding of unemployment benefits and liberals were mad about the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Hiker 1999

Bellefontaine, OH

#41 Jun 17, 2011
Kickback 2U wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with your figures on Bush's share of debt, much higher than the 11.7 trillion you say.
. Bush ALSO proposed, signed, and implimente≠d the '09 budget which went into effect 10/1/08 -9/30/09] with its $1.25 Trillion deficit -- which increased the Nat'l Debt to $11.8 Trillion. Also, the debt Obama inherited on the day he took office carried $280 Billion in annual interest -- attributab≠le to Bush. And, it was BUSH who committed our troops to Iraq thru 2012, Bush who launched [ without funding] Medicare Part D, Bush who increased UE 81%[ to 7.6%], Bush who filled our Veterans Hospitals with wounded warriors America must care for.
NOTE: Don't understand what is going on with my posting. On my ipad, a previous post of this is not showing, but it is on my laptop. So, I am reposting

You can disagree, but here are the facts in black and white. They do not lie.

US National debt 2000-2010:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd ...

US Budget Deficit hits a record $432 billion (10-07-2008):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008 -...

At this point, you have TARP, the stimulus, etc. that came into play for FY 2009.
Hiker 1999

Bellefontaine, OH

#42 Jun 17, 2011
I Heart Sci Fi wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay Hiker, then maybe you can answer a few questions that we can't seem to get any other conservative to answer. You say we can't afford to give people who need the help their entitlements, yet why is it that conservatives don't mind giving the wealthiest 2% even more tax cuts, totaling $280 billion? Part of the debt we have now is because of the tax cuts Bush gave during his term! These are taxes that the middle class are eventually going to have to make up for the sake of not making the rich pay taxes. Why is it that there are no complaints that future generations are going to be saddled a heavy tax burden for this, but there's no hesitation at all to complain how the poor are sucking you dry? How are we possibly going to pay our country's debt off if only the middle class gets stuck with paying taxes? And just how do you Republicans plan to handle watching people starving and dying in the streets when there is no help for fellow Americans from their government? It's easy to say "let them stand up and help themselves," but if jobs are scarce, as they are now, just where and how are they going to support themselves? And what about the people who are unable to support themselves, like the old, handicapped and mentally disadvantaged? What are the Republicans planning to do---bring back debtors prisons? Doesn't it bother you at all knowing that the wealth is trickling upwards from the middle class to the very wealthiest and big corporations.....people who already have more money than they can spend and who are not lacking in anything instead of going to people who have already lost about everything and are trying to make ends meet? Are you asking these people to sacrifice their lives? I don't know how in all good conscience that you Republicans can condone this as the moral solution. People get mean when they have hungry bellies, so watch the crime rate go way up. Is this the reason the tea-baggers feel the need for guns?
Your party is busy busting up unions, laying off teachers, cops, firemen and other public servants, which increases the unemployment rate. They didn't want to bail out the auto workers, which would have increased the unemployment by another couple million. All these cuts they want to make will also cut more jobs and the unemployment will go further up. And when they are done, they'll put all the blame on Obama, won't they? The rich will take the $$ they don't have to pay out in taxes and they will invest it instead of create more jobs. These tax cuts have not worked in 30 years and will not jump the economy now. If they would have worked, there would have been more than 3 million jobs created during the 8 years of Bush.
The simple solution is for Obama to eliminate the uncertainty and create policy that would encourage business and industry to invest the $2 trillion that they are sitting on.

As for the public unions, states are facing a major problem with them. That problem is huge expenditures to cover pensions and health insurance. The states cannot afford it any longer.

Here is a good article that talks about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/your-money/...

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.

Bellefontaine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How to tell when Trump tells a lie 15 min Caiaphas 9
Harley Davidson closes Kansas plant-opens plant... 1 hr Caiaphas 18
Another School Shooting-maga maga maga 1 hr Caiaphas 107
Nobel peace prize 1 hr Caiaphas 30
friday night bingo in bellefontaine !!!!!! at... 1 hr Having fun 72
ed 1 hr Caiaphas 62
ATV / APV Trespassing -- new Laws going into ef... (Feb '10) 16 hr Caiaphas 12

Bellefontaine Jobs

Personal Finance

Bellefontaine Mortgages