Why exactly does America need the Republican Party?

[Billy000]

And, we're well on our way to 17 trillion in debt.
It's about the spending, dude

The stimulus was a one time expense. We spend that amount on defense on. Yearly basis. It was money well spent given the outcome.

We borrowed the money for the stimulus, and it was a failure....it didn't create the jobs it was supposed to, it was basically paying back the unions.
Money well spent would have been to create the jobs, that's what bring revenue to the economy, and we're still not there yet.

Part of that 787 billion was paid for through tax cuts. It was just spending. Tax cuts aren't free. You are living in a fantasy land if you think they are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And, we're well on our way to 17 trillion in debt.
It's about the spending, dude

Hate to break the bad news to ya, but we're well over 17 trillion in debt. $17.2 trillion to be exact.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Yeah, that was my thinking as well.

 

[Meister]

Tell me. What good has it done for this country? Tax cuts have been proven to cause more harm than good. That has always seemed to be their biggest selling point. Guess what? It wasn't tax cuts that created economic growth during Reagan's years. If it was, we would have seen massive job growth during Bush Jr.'s years. We didn't. Job growth was pitiful until Obama came into office. In fact, we wouldn't have had the economic collapse in 2008 in the first place if republican policies worked. 2.5x more private sector jobs were created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8. Guess what saved the economy, Pubs? DEMAND side economics. That was Obama's stimulus package. It has proven to be much more successful than supply side. The obvious reason why the unemployment rate is higher under Obama is because the economic collapse happened 4 month before Obama was sworn in! Obviously the several millions of jobs we lost would translate into a higher unemployment rate in his years. Whether you cons want to admit it or not, Obama inherited a steaming mess. Luckily Obama's stimulus turned the free fall into growth. Unfortunately, we still have a way to go. Obama himself has admitted that. Slow is better than nothing.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

(Explains why tax cuts do more harm than good and why Obama's demand side economics were such a success).

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

More Jobs Created Under Obama Than Bush, Non-Partisan Report Finds | Politics And Regulation | Minyanville's Wall Street

Come on. This is the party that convinced their base that tax cuts pay for themselves. Knuckle dragging logic. I don't pretend that democrats are the heroes, but there is no denying that democratic economic policies have worked.

So tell me repubs. What do you have to show for yourselves? Reagan? Please. That was decades ago. Nowadays you got nothing. There is no evidence republicanism has done this country any good. Bush jr. drove this country into the ground.

Tell me what would Romney have accomplished? Government spending would have continued under his reign. Private sector job growth was already happening under Obama. And healthcare? RomneyCare? Tell me, what exactly made Romney/Heritage's healthcare system any better than Obama's? Answer: nothing. Why? Because it is the same damn plan!

Oh, and the massive income disparity in this country? The massive gap between the middle class and the wealthy? We can easily blame that on republicanism. Since 2009, 95% of income gains have gone to the wealthiest Americans despite the massive productivity that the lower classes have accomplished.

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider

Let me address this job creation between Obama and Bush 43 once and for all, Billy.

Bush had for 6-7 years a fully employed America where UE was between 4-5%. There was no need for job growth because it was fully complemented. Those 4-5% that were UE is the people who weren't willing to work, there is no such thing as a 0% UE.

So I don't know why you keep bring this subject up (not the first time you posted this non argument). You just keep ignoring the facts behind it.
If you just want to argue about something, how about the UE started going up when the democrats had the majority in the Senate and Congress.....let's debate that, okay?

 

[Meister]

The stimulus was a one time expense. We spend that amount on defense on. Yearly basis. It was money well spent given the outcome.

We borrowed the money for the stimulus, and it was a failure....it didn't create the jobs it was supposed to, it was basically paying back the unions.
Money well spent would have been to create the jobs, that's what bring revenue to the economy, and we're still not there yet.

Part of that 787 billion was paid for through tax cuts. It was just spending. Tax cuts aren't free. You are living in a fantasy land if you think they are.

So you have no argument in what I posted? I guess we both agree with my post.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The stimulus was a one time expense. We spend that amount on defense on. Yearly basis. It was money well spent given the outcome.

We borrowed the money for the stimulus, and it was a failure....it didn't create the jobs it was supposed to, it was basically paying back the unions.
Money well spent would have been to create the jobs, that's what bring revenue to the economy, and we're still not there yet.

Part of that 787 billion was paid for through tax cuts. It was just spending. Tax cuts aren't free. You are living in a fantasy land if you think they are.

Talk about living in a fantasy land. Can you prove that was paid for with tax cuts?

The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory, which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration. Shortly after the law was passed, however, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman while supportive of the law, criticized the law for being too weak because it did not "even cover one third of the (spending) gap".

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Ah but it's not. Economic demand is a ripple effect. See the stimulus cost tax payers 10 billion a month, however, it created 16.7 billion a month in economic demand.

You're ignoring the "ripple effect" of the resources taken out of the economy to pay for the "stimulus."

Um no that was the 10 billion.

Yes, and the negative ripple effect of that was $16.7 billion a month.

 

[Billy000]

Tell me. What good has it done for this country? Tax cuts have been proven to cause more harm than good. That has always seemed to be their biggest selling point. Guess what? It wasn't tax cuts that created economic growth during Reagan's years. If it was, we would have seen massive job growth during Bush Jr.'s years. We didn't. Job growth was pitiful until Obama came into office. In fact, we wouldn't have had the economic collapse in 2008 in the first place if republican policies worked. 2.5x more private sector jobs were created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8. Guess what saved the economy, Pubs? DEMAND side economics. That was Obama's stimulus package. It has proven to be much more successful than supply side. The obvious reason why the unemployment rate is higher under Obama is because the economic collapse happened 4 month before Obama was sworn in! Obviously the several millions of jobs we lost would translate into a higher unemployment rate in his years. Whether you cons want to admit it or not, Obama inherited a steaming mess. Luckily Obama's stimulus turned the free fall into growth. Unfortunately, we still have a way to go. Obama himself has admitted that. Slow is better than nothing.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

(Explains why tax cuts do more harm than good and why Obama's demand side economics were such a success).

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

More Jobs Created Under Obama Than Bush, Non-Partisan Report Finds | Politics And Regulation | Minyanville's Wall Street

Come on. This is the party that convinced their base that tax cuts pay for themselves. Knuckle dragging logic. I don't pretend that democrats are the heroes, but there is no denying that democratic economic policies have worked.

So tell me repubs. What do you have to show for yourselves? Reagan? Please. That was decades ago. Nowadays you got nothing. There is no evidence republicanism has done this country any good. Bush jr. drove this country into the ground.

Tell me what would Romney have accomplished? Government spending would have continued under his reign. Private sector job growth was already happening under Obama. And healthcare? RomneyCare? Tell me, what exactly made Romney/Heritage's healthcare system any better than Obama's? Answer: nothing. Why? Because it is the same damn plan!

Oh, and the massive income disparity in this country? The massive gap between the middle class and the wealthy? We can easily blame that on republicanism. Since 2009, 95% of income gains have gone to the wealthiest Americans despite the massive productivity that the lower classes have accomplished.

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider

Let me address this job creation between Obama and Bush 43 once and for all, Billy.

Bush had for 6-7 years a fully employed America where UE was between 4-5%. There was no need for job growth because it was fully implemented. Those 4-5% that were UE is the people who weren't willing to work, there is no such thing as a 0% UE.

So I don't know why you keep bring this subject up (not the first time you posted this non argument). You just keep ignoring the facts behind it.
If you just want to argue about something, how about the UE started going up when the democrats had the majority in the Senate and Congress.....let's debate that, okay?

Um the reason the unemployment went up so high in the first place was the crisis in sept of 0'8. Several millions of jobs were lost. We were losing 100,000s of jobs each month. As high as 800,000 a month. It wasn't until Obama's stimulus that we began to CREATE jobs. Because of Obqma, we are even in a recovery.

Tell me genius. Why was Bush's job growth so pathetic? Obviously because tax cuts don't actually create jobs. 4.6 jobs per millilon dollar cut is all Bush has to show for.

 

[Meister]

Tell me. What good has it done for this country? Tax cuts have been proven to cause more harm than good. That has always seemed to be their biggest selling point. Guess what? It wasn't tax cuts that created economic growth during Reagan's years. If it was, we would have seen massive job growth during Bush Jr.'s years. We didn't. Job growth was pitiful until Obama came into office. In fact, we wouldn't have had the economic collapse in 2008 in the first place if republican policies worked. 2.5x more private sector jobs were created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8. Guess what saved the economy, Pubs? DEMAND side economics. That was Obama's stimulus package. It has proven to be much more successful than supply side. The obvious reason why the unemployment rate is higher under Obama is because the economic collapse happened 4 month before Obama was sworn in! Obviously the several millions of jobs we lost would translate into a higher unemployment rate in his years. Whether you cons want to admit it or not, Obama inherited a steaming mess. Luckily Obama's stimulus turned the free fall into growth. Unfortunately, we still have a way to go. Obama himself has admitted that. Slow is better than nothing.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

(Explains why tax cuts do more harm than good and why Obama's demand side economics were such a success).

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

More Jobs Created Under Obama Than Bush, Non-Partisan Report Finds | Politics And Regulation | Minyanville's Wall Street

Come on. This is the party that convinced their base that tax cuts pay for themselves. Knuckle dragging logic. I don't pretend that democrats are the heroes, but there is no denying that democratic economic policies have worked.

So tell me repubs. What do you have to show for yourselves? Reagan? Please. That was decades ago. Nowadays you got nothing. There is no evidence republicanism has done this country any good. Bush jr. drove this country into the ground.

Tell me what would Romney have accomplished? Government spending would have continued under his reign. Private sector job growth was already happening under Obama. And healthcare? RomneyCare? Tell me, what exactly made Romney/Heritage's healthcare system any better than Obama's? Answer: nothing. Why? Because it is the same damn plan!

Oh, and the massive income disparity in this country? The massive gap between the middle class and the wealthy? We can easily blame that on republicanism. Since 2009, 95% of income gains have gone to the wealthiest Americans despite the massive productivity that the lower classes have accomplished.

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider

Let me address this job creation between Obama and Bush 43 once and for all, Billy.

Bush had for 6-7 years a fully employed America where UE was between 4-5%. There was no need for job growth because it was fully complemented. Those 4-5% that were UE is the people who weren't willing to work, there is no such thing as a 0% UE.

So I don't know why you keep bring this subject up (not the first time you posted this non argument). You just keep ignoring the facts behind it.
If you just want to argue about something, how about the UE started going up when the democrats had the majority in the Senate and Congress.....let's debate that, okay?

Um the reason the unemployment went up so high in the first place was the crisis in sept of 0'8. Several millions of jobs were lost. We were losing 100,000s of jobs each month. As high as 800,000 a month. It wasn't until Obama's stimulus that we began to CREATE jobs. Because of Obqma, we are even in a recovery.

Tell me genius. Why was Bush's job growth so pathetic? Obviously because tax cuts don't actually create jobs. 4.6 jobs per millilon dollar cut is all Bush has to show for.

For the love of God, you're stupid. Try comprehension sometime.

 

[Billy000]

We borrowed the money for the stimulus, and it was a failure....it didn't create the jobs it was supposed to, it was basically paying back the unions.
Money well spent would have been to create the jobs, that's what bring revenue to the economy, and we're still not there yet.

Part of that 787 billion was paid for through tax cuts. It was just spending. Tax cuts aren't free. You are living in a fantasy land if you think they are.

So you have no argument in what I posted? I guess we both agree with my post.

I you actually knew the impact you would know that the stimulus not only created jobs, it saved jobs. The economy was in a free fall til it kicked in. Slow recovery is better than no recovery at all.

 

[Meister]

Part of that 787 billion was paid for through tax cuts. It was just spending. Tax cuts aren't free. You are living in a fantasy land if you think they are.

So you have no argument in what I posted? I guess we both agree with my post.

I you actually knew the impact you would know that the stimulus not only created jobs, it saved jobs. The economy was in a free fall til it kicked in. Slow recovery is better than no recovery at all.

The stimulus was a failure, Billy, The jobs weren't created even Obama admitted that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo]Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube[/ame]



But, you can just go on with your drivel.....you have every right to it.

 

[whitehall]

Low information lefties are so predictable. When they know they are going to lose the next election they think they can wish the other party out of existence. Thanks to generations of sub-standard federal education bureaucracy we have a generation based on emotion and fantasy. Next thing you know they will wish fair and balanced information sources out of existence.

 

[Londoner]

The Republican Party used to be Burkean in that it supported the dominant consensus of the people. It was against (top down) political revolutions, preferring instead to let society change and grow organically based on deep social and cultural rhythms.

During the postwar years, great presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon supported the dominant national consensus for the New Deal and a government which was responsive to the middle class rather than a small class of private sector capitalists (and the lobbying infrastructure that would develop under Reagan). Americans, especially in the South, voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party, which brought water and energy to many parts of rural America through FDRs vast public works projects. They also supported Eisenhower when he used Big Government to put our veterans to work building our national interstate system, which had a massive commercial multiplier effect as whole new parts of the country benefited from the cheap and efficient shipment of goods.

But the Republican Party changed under Reagan. A small group of powerful capitalists, mostly in oil and finance, seized power and drained the party of its moderate elements. They also funded a vast think tank and media coalition which was paid handsomely to use religion, patriotism and the culture war to fool average Americans into unwittingly supporting the tax and regulatory agenda of the mega-rich.

The New Right was determined to move resources once used for the public to a subsidy system for the wealthy. This meant they not only had to destroy the Welfare state, but they also had to get rid of anything that didn't help the wealthy, like the GI Bill, funding for education and transportation (and the vast network of government programs that supported the middle class). To achieve this, the Republican Party endorsed a top down revolution bent on destroying the great postwar middle class government that defeated the Nazis and helped build modern America.

Whenever a small group of people takes over a country, they always manipulate the sympathies of the poor and the stupid. Hitler's appeal to "Real Germans" is just like the Right's appeal to "Real Americans". In the front of the house, they claim to be supporters of the common man, but in the back of the house they ship the common man's job to Communist China, because sweatshop labor gives them higher returns. It's a fucking hoax.

The Republican Party has turned its under-educated voters into Revanchists who believe that their country has been stolen by a murky, outside force call liberalism. This is exactly what happened in Germany circa 1930s.

Hint: whenever a political party tells you that someone else stole your country, than it's usually them that done the stealing.

Focus people. You've been lied to.

 

[Meister]

The Republican Party used to be Burkean in that it supported the dominant consensus of the people. It was against (top down) political revolutions, preferring instead to let society change and grow organically based on deep social and cultural rhythms.

During the postwar years, great presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon supported the dominant national consensus for the New Deal and a government which was responsive to the middle class rather than a small class of private sector capitalists (and the lobbying infrastructure that would develop under Reagan). Americans, especially in the South, voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party, which brought water and energy to many parts of rural America through FDRs vast public works projects. They also supported Eisenhower when he used Big Government to put our veterans to work building our national interstate system, which had a massive commercial multiplier effect as whole new parts of the country benefited from the cheap and efficient shipment of goods.

But the Republican Party changed under Reagan. A small group of powerful capitalists, mostly in oil and finance, seized power and drained the party of its moderate elements. They also funded a vast think tank and media coalition which was paid handsomely to use religion, patriotism and the culture war to fool average Americans into unwittingly supporting the tax and regulatory agenda of the mega-rich.

The New Right was determined to move resources once used for the public to a subsidy system for the wealthy. This meant they not only had to destroy the Welfare state, but they also had to get rid of anything that didn't help the wealthy, like the GI Bill, funding for education and transportation (and the vast network of government programs that supported the middle class). To achieve this, the Republican Party endorsed a top down revolution bent on destroying the great postwar middle class government that defeated the Nazis and helped build modern America.

Whenever a small group of people takes over a country, they always manipulate the sympathies of the poor and the stupid. Hitler's appeal to "Real Germans" is just like the Right's appeal to "Real Americans". In the front of the house, they claim to be supporters of the common man, but in the back of the house they ship the common man's job to Communist China, because sweatshop labor gives them higher returns. It's a fucking hoax.

The Republican Party has turned its under-educated voters into Revanchists who believe that their country has been stolen by a murky, outside force call liberalism. This is exactly what happened in Germany circa 1930s.

Hint: whenever a political party tells you that someone else stole your country, than it's usually them that done the stealing.

Focus people. You've been lied to.

You could switch the words republican to democrat and conservatism to liberalism and still get the same results. What's your point, that we're screwed? Yep, we are with the politicians we have today.

 

[boedicca]

Part of that 787 billion was paid for through tax cuts. It was just spending. Tax cuts aren't free. You are living in a fantasy land if you think they are.

So you have no argument in what I posted? I guess we both agree with my post.

I you actually knew the impact you would know that the stimulus not only created jobs, it saved jobs. The economy was in a free fall til it kicked in. Slow recovery is better than no recovery at all.

The stimulus was a pay off for government workers (unions) and Big Government Cronies. Even Obama himself (belatedly) realized that there weren't really any "shovel ready jobs". So, we went into debt to hand out money to people who have fake government subsidized ones.

 

[Billy000]

So you have no argument in what I posted? I guess we both agree with my post.

I you actually knew the impact you would know that the stimulus not only created jobs, it saved jobs. The economy was in a free fall til it kicked in. Slow recovery is better than no recovery at all.

The stimulus was a failure, Billy, The jobs weren't created even Obama admitted that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo]Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube[/ame]



But, you can just go on with your drivel.....you have every right to it.

This isn't proof anything but of course you already knew that.

 

[1776]

Liberals being socialists deep down don't want any competition for power and any counter-voice to their actions....

 

[Meister]

I you actually knew the impact you would know that the stimulus not only created jobs, it saved jobs. The economy was in a free fall til it kicked in. Slow recovery is better than no recovery at all.

The stimulus was a failure, Billy, The jobs weren't created even Obama admitted that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo]Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube[/ame]



But, you can just go on with your drivel.....you have every right to it.

This isn't proof anything but of course you already knew that.

Don't let reality bitch slap you, Billy. You need to do some feinting at some point and you're not. You just ignore the facts and keep going with your mantra. just an observation...

 

[bripat9643]

Part of that 787 billion was paid for through tax cuts. It was just spending. Tax cuts aren't free. You are living in a fantasy land if you think they are.

So you have no argument in what I posted? I guess we both agree with my post.

I you actually knew the impact you would know that the stimulus not only created jobs, it saved jobs. The economy was in a free fall til it kicked in. Slow recovery is better than no recovery at all.

That's pure fantasy. Employment always goes down after it goes up. That's the history of recession, accept, that is, when liberals try to solve the problem by making government the employer.

The claim that the stimulus is the only thing that brought the unemployment rate down is too absurd for words.

 

[Billy000]

So you have no argument in what I posted? I guess we both agree with my post.

I you actually knew the impact you would know that the stimulus not only created jobs, it saved jobs. The economy was in a free fall til it kicked in. Slow recovery is better than no recovery at all.

That's pure fantasy. Employment always goes down after it goes up. That's the history of recession, accept, that is, when liberals try to solve the problem by making government the employer.

The claim that the stimulus is the only thing that brought the unemployment rate down is too absurd for words.

The stimulus was the main thing that brought it down. Any economist will tell you this downturn is the second worst in history so therefore the least understood. Losing 800,000 jobs a month is no normal recession.

 

[Billy000]

The stimulus was a failure, Billy, The jobs weren't created even Obama admitted that.

Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube



But, you can just go on with your drivel.....you have every right to it.

This isn't proof anything but of course you already knew that.

Don't let reality bitch slap you, Billy. You need to do some feinting at some point and you're not. You just ignore the facts and keep going with your mantra. just an observation...

I have provided facts this entire time. You look rather ridiculous claiming I didn't when you haven't put forth any of your own.