- Jun 12, 2010
- 103,810
- 25,974
- Thread starter
- #21
Hmmmm...democrats (not) standing up on principle?
My, my, this is getting interesting.
Well, I don't think this was a good compromise, and apparently some Dems (and apparenhtly about the same number of Republicans) in the House agree.
I understand (I guess) what motivated Obama to buy into it, I just happen to think he gave away too much to the supply side in the process.
This so called compromise does put the lie to the GOP's continuing lie that they are fiscal conservatives, though, doesn't it?
They just added $720 billion to the national debt so their pals the billionaires would continue to get that tax break.
And the Dems gave that away so that they could save 6 million American families from losing their unemployment insurance for 26 more weeks.
And that we're informed will add still another $80 billion to the national debt.
But that's hardly a fair compromise, now is it?
The working class *demand side) gets 1 part of the pie and the billionaire class (supply side) gets 9 slices?
That means that Obama is not my choice to lead this ongoing class war OR to lead us out of this depression, either.
And I guess, he's not exactly popular with the Dems, either.
We're informed that the total cost for this "compromise" means another $858 billion to the national debt.
I seriously doubt that there's enough demand side incentives to much help get the American middle class out of the depression that THEY and ONLY they are in.
But I note that there's plenty of benfits to the truly wealthy who are not remotely suffering (in fact they're thriving) in this economy.
Not taking money from people can hardly increase the debt unless that money has already been spent. In that case, it means that the folks spending the money are spending too much. It also seems to imply that those in charge seem to think that the money belongs to them inthe first place.
What I plan to spend over any period is based on what I can reasonably expect I will collect. Budgeting to have a shortfall is beyond stupid except when you know that shortfall will be made up in the short term future.
REDUCE SPENDING!
They will not reduce spending because there's no political price for not reducing spending. The Republican Congress did not reduce spending for 6 years of Bush administration, and what happened? The voters gave them 2 years off and now have put them right back into power. The Democrats, on the other hand, are now throwing in the towel and capitulating to the GOP national suicide policy of just cutting taxes, continuing to spend, and running up the debt for as long as they can get away with it.
NOBODY (at least not enough anybodies) is willing to face the fact that fixing the situation requires SACRIFICE. This tax bill is not a fix because there's no sacrifice in it, no pain;
since the fix requires sacrifice, a bill without any in it cannot possibly make things better.
We are going to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the likes of the Chinese and the Saudis,
so Americans will have more spending money,
to buy more Chinese goods and Saudi oil.
Who honestly thinks that's the right plan??
You're going to bitch and complain about 6 years of Republican fuck ups compared to 55 years of democratic fuck ups? what a joke.