Zero Republicans Voted For Stimulus Package

[rastaman]

Stimulus Passes House With NO Republican Support -- Zip, Zilch, Nada

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/stimulus-passes-house-with-no.html

The House version of the $819 billion stimulus bill just passed 244-188. But in a minor surprise, the bill apparently passed without ANY Republican member voting for it. Twelve Democrats voted against the bill, meanwhile, based on the C-SPAN tally.

So here's the key question: do the Republicans, having shown this much unity in the House, actually have a chance of filibustering the bill in the Senate?

I think that remains unlikely, for three reasons:

Firstly, the House Republican Caucus has shown much greater party discipline (or, if you prefer, much more partisanship) than the Senate has. In looking at the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, for instance, just 3 of 178 Republicans (1.7%) voted for the bill on the House side, but 5 of 41 (12.2%) did on the Senate side. Similarly, on the TARP (bailout) extension vote, Republican members of the Senate were considerably more likely than those in the House to side with the Administration. These sorts of differences are not necessarily uncommon and may be a consequence of the cultural and structural differences

Secondly, the Senate will be voting on its own version of the bill, not the House's, and there has arguably a more bipartisan process in formulating the Senate version of the bill than in the House's (Barack Obama's meetings with House Republicans notwithstanding).

And thirdy, voting against a bill is one thing -- filibustering it is another. Maybe an Olympia Snowe or a Judd Gregg, residing in states that Obama won by overwhelming margins, can get away with voting against the bill. But preventing it from coming to the floor is another, particularly when Obama has the advantage of the bully pulpit.

[Spider]

Reps are afraid Obama will do it right .. so they put party before country in hopes they look good , make Dems look bad .................Nothing shocking here

[Paladin]

I believe that vote shows that Repugnicans are not interested in doing the best for American families or workers or the Country as a whole. It only shows a very high degree of selfishness, fear and incompetence. They have no sense of cultural competency nor of true nonpartisan consideration of the troubles America is having. Not one of those SOBs spoke out against the high bonuses being paid to the bankers. Why? Because that's their constituency.

I sincerely hope the GOP and their Libertarian cousins crash and burn in Dante's lowest level.........

Without wax.....

[Bob]

I believe that vote shows that Repugnicans are not interested in doing the best for American families or workers or the Country as a whole. It only shows a very high degree of selfishness, fear and incompetence. They have no sense of cultural competency nor of true nonpartisan consideration of the troubles America is having. Not one of those SOBs spoke out against the high bonuses being paid to the bankers. Why? Because that's their constituency.

I sincerely hope the GOP and their Libertarian cousins crash and burn in Dante's lowest level.........

Without wax.....

We will all crash and live in hell here on earth...party affliation is a waste of energy. The only thing we agree on may be the lack of sincerity of the Repubs, as they were voting for various spending plans when it was their guy... so their conversion is not sincere.

[watermock]

It's politically expedient.

When they can find the 60 trillion missing from the derivatives market let me know.

[spdirty]

its great. Why the **** would they? Because this "stimulus package" couldnt stimulate a 14 year old boy if it had 300 mil in hookers in it.

This thing works, GOP looks like total asses, and if its magical, dems will be able to run on that in 2010 and might have 65 senate seats and take 20 more house seats. But, like a lot of gop congressmen said, there is a reason why Obama wanted this to be "bipartisan" and its not because he wants to get along with republicans. Its because when this plan is an "epic fail" he doesnt want republicans to completely skip the blame. He wants to be able to say "well, they voted for it too."

But, why in the hell do any of you democrats want repubs to vote for this anyway? They can get whatever they want and the GOP cant do a damn thing about it. Plus, itll be even more great when this magic pork...errr, stimulus bill makes this country great again and the GOP cant take any credit for it. Right??

[rastaman]

It's politically expedient.

When they can find the 60 trillion missing from the derivatives market let me know.

That's pretty insane isn't it! Now we are playing with monopoly money at this stage of the game.

[rastaman]

Reps are afraid Obama will do it right .. so they put party before country in hopes they look good , make Dems look bad .................Nothing shocking here

Once a Republican, always a Republican! Gotta give it to them..they are consistent in their idiotic thinking! Bi-Partisianship is non-existent for the GOP party. I do believe Rush Limbaugh is the head of the GOP..silently!

I do believe they ALL want Obama to fail! The country is never in their best interest. There is a time to spend, and a time to restrict spending. I believe the time is now to spend--on the American people. Repubs will never get it, and I am happy to see we do not need them or their votes to pass a bill.

Now, when the economy begins to show sings of reviving from the slump that Bush and his cohorts placed us in, then lets see what twist and spin they will put on their arguments for a ZERO support for the country.

[spdirty]

anyone know why the GOP got 11 democrats to vote no as well?

[rastaman]

its great. Why the **** would they? Because this "stimulus package" couldnt stimulate a 14 year old boy if it had 300 mil in hookers in it.

This thing works, GOP looks like total asses, and if its magical, dems will be able to run on that in 2010 and might have 65 senate seats and take 20 more house seats. But, like a lot of gop congressmen said, there is a reason why Obama wanted this to be "bipartisan" and its not because he wants to get along with republicans. Its because when this plan is an "epic fail" he doesnt want republicans to completely skip the blame. He wants to be able to say "well, they voted for it too."

But, why in the hell do any of you democrats want repubs to vote for this anyway? They can get whatever they want and the GOP cant do a damn thing about it. Plus, itll be even more great when this magic pork...errr, stimulus bill makes this country great again and the GOP cant take any credit for it. Right??

I guess the Republicans were all for voting for the $750 billion bailout when Bush brought it to them, and it gave big corporations a bunch of free money with no strings attached, which they used to give upper management perks while cutting 100,000 jobs.

However, now that Obama is wanting money to help the people who lost their jobs, now the Republicans are the champions of fiscal conservativism?!? What a load of crap.

For the last 8 years the Republicans have done nothing but expand government and spend out of control. Sorry, GOP but your old arguement of opposing the "cash and spend" Democrats no longer applies.

The GOP wants to stay irrelevent for the decade or so, that is there perrogative! Real Americans do not need these unpatriotic scoundrels in the Republican Congress.

They still want to do things the same exact way as before, LET THEM. They sure don't learn very well!! At least President Obama tried. The GOP will still try to block progress and should be represented by a dinosaur, not an elephant. Dinosaurs are extinct!!

[rastaman]

anyone know why the GOP got 11 democrats to vote no as well?

Those were "Blue Dog" Democrats who are masquerading around as bastardized Republicans who are worried about reelection in 2010.

[spdirty]

I guess the Republicans were all for voting for the $750 billion bailout when Bush brought it to them, and it gave big corporations a bunch of free money with no strings attached, which they used to give upper management perks while cutting 100,000 jobs.

However, now that Obama is wanting money to help the people who lost their jobs, now the Republicans are the champions of fiscal conservativism?!? What a load of crap.

For the last 8 years the Republicans have done nothing but expand government and spend out of control. Sorry, GOP but your old arguement of opposing the "cash and spend" Democrats no longer applies.

The GOP wants to stay irrelevent for the decade or so, that is there perrogative! Real Americans do not need these unpatriotic scoundrels in the Republican Congress.

They still want to do things the same exact way as before, LET THEM. They sure don't learn very well!! At least President Obama tried. The GOP will still try to block progress and should be represented by a dinosaur, not an elephant. Dinosaurs are extinct!!

see, what you said you would have a good point, but the fact is that the Republicans did not simply just vote no for the sake of voting no. And you do. They were wrong in voting for that bill. But, new congress, new senate, new administration, new times. They did in fact put out an alternative stimulus package which is an actual stimulus package rather than just another bullshlt spending and pork bill.









http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2853502020090128

Jan 28 (Reuters) - Following are details of an alternative proposal to boost the struggling U.S. economy that Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to offer during debate on Wednesday. The cost of their proposal is approximately $478 billion.

* Cut the lowest two income tax rates for 2009 and 2010, from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent.

* Extend through 2010 a patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to ensure that wealthy people pay taxes, but instead would hit millions of middle-income families with higher taxes.

* Expand the $7,500 first-time homebuyers tax credit for a principal residence to all homebuyers while limiting it to purchasers who can make a down payment of at least 5 percent of the purchase price.

* Provide a tax deduction for small businesses with less than 500 employees equal to 20 percent of their income.

* Offer new tax deduction for those who do not receive tax-preferred, employer-sponsored health care coverage. And provide assistance to the unemployed who do not qualify for a COBRA premium subsidy.

* Give tax exemption on unemployment benefits and extend temporary federal unemployment benefits through 2009, phasing it out through mid-2010.

* Allow companies to write off current losses against previous tax years for up to five years. Companies now can only "carry back" losses for two years. The tax break would not be available to banks and other companies receiving help from the $700 billion bailout package.

* Extend through 2009 a break for small businesses that allows them to immediately write off up certain capital expenditures. (Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, editing by David Wiessler)

[watermock]

that make some sense!

Now put 200B for the states to avoid default and we have a 674 $ plan.

[peacepipe]

see, what you said you would have a good point, but the fact is that the Republicans did not simply just vote no for the sake of voting no. And you do. They were wrong in voting for that bill. But, new congress, new senate, new administration, new times. They did in fact put out an alternative stimulus package which is an actual stimulus package rather than just another bullshlt spending and pork bill.









http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2853502020090128

Jan 28 (Reuters) - Following are details of an alternative proposal to boost the struggling U.S. economy that Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to offer during debate on Wednesday. The cost of their proposal is approximately $478 billion.

* Cut the lowest two income tax rates for 2009 and 2010, from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent.

* Extend through 2010 a patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to ensure that wealthy people pay taxes, but instead would hit millions of middle-income families with higher taxes.

* Expand the $7,500 first-time homebuyers tax credit for a principal residence to all homebuyers while limiting it to purchasers who can make a down payment of at least 5 percent of the purchase price.

* Provide a tax deduction for small businesses with less than 500 employees equal to 20 percent of their income.

* Offer new tax deduction for those who do not receive tax-preferred, employer-sponsored health care coverage. And provide assistance to the unemployed who do not qualify for a COBRA premium subsidy.

* Give tax exemption on unemployment benefits and extend temporary federal unemployment benefits through 2009, phasing it out through mid-2010.

* Allow companies to write off current losses against previous tax years for up to five years. Companies now can only "carry back" losses for two years. The tax break would not be available to banks and other companies receiving help from the $700 billion bailout package.

* Extend through 2009 a break for small businesses that allows them to immediately write off up certain capital expenditures. (Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, editing by David Wiessler)
What a surprise! reps never learn,tax cuts don't work.

[Spider]

LOL some are so transparent ...... but any hoo, I am a blue dog dem , I agree with the bill, wouldnt mind seeing some of the republican plan implemented , but then we all know the reps will **** it up see the last 8 years ............but a poster here , pissing and moaning , then sees a republican plan all of the sudden a bail out makes sense ...... Phony .......

[cutthemdown]

The bill is so large I'm not surprised republicans wary of voting for it. It has tons of money being spent that IMO won't do much in the long term.

Not enough in the package is being allocated to update bridges, railways, and ports IMO which i thought would be a major part of it.

Too much is just for unemployment benefits. All that does is allow people to not have to hustle as fast to find employment. I already know 3 people who have said now that unemployment will last like a yr longer they plan to just take it and have a vacation.

It's a bad bill IMO filled with a bunch of stupid stuff. I'm happy the repubs voted against it. The dems will get a lot of credit if it works. It will mark the resurgence of repubs in later elections in it doesn't.

[baja]

Well I just bought another 50 pounds of brown rice.

[cutthemdown]

Well I just bought another 50 pounds of brown rice.

you must like to eat a lot of rice.

[cutthemdown]

Well I just bought another 50 pounds of brown rice.

I just bought a Playstation 3 and Tigerwoods golf, madden football.

With my generator i can play even when the grid fails and anarchy breaks out. That is if i can fight my way through the mad maxers guarding the diesel.

[baja]

I almost bought a playstation for the Blue Ray

[jhat01]

1B for Amtrack, who hasn't turned a profit in 40 years. 50B for national endowment of arts. 400M for global warming research. 650M for TV conversion coupons.
So about 30B or 5% is for fixing infrastructure, and 90B out of 825B (12 cents on the dollar) can be considered growth stimulus.
600B for new government cars...Now I don't necessarily have a problem with these:

81B for Medicade
36B for unemployment
20B for food stamps
83B for EIC.....These are justified probably to help folks out, but job creators not.

Pelosi said it best: "We won the election. We wrote the bill."

Republicans are letting them take the credit, and rightfully so. How many of you Dems support all of this crap? Why can't it just be bare-boned economy igniting?

[cutthemdown]

I almost bought a playstation for the Blue Ray

yeah i got it for that. I got he big one with the 180gig hard drive. Really though it's getting redundant on the hard drive thing because i have a tuner in my computer and 2 huge external drives. Plus my DVR and now my playstation 3.

Still though it's worth it for the Blue Ray player as my old DVD player was pretty dated.

I'm not a gamer but I thought trying to learn Madden would be sort of fun.

I also bought 30 pounds of weed to go along with it just in case there isn't any available when anarchy hits.

[cutthemdown]

1B for Amtrack, who hasn't turned a profit in 40 years. 50B for national endowment of arts. 400M for global warming research. 650M for TV conversion coupons.
So about 30B or 5% is for fixing infrastructure, and 90B out of 825B (12 cents on the dollar) can be considered growth stimulus.
600B for new government cars...Now I don't necessarily have a problem with these:

81B for Medicade
36B for unemployment
20B for food stamps
83B for EIC.....These are justified probably to help folks out, but job creators not.

Pelosi said it best: "We won the election. We wrote the bill."

Republicans are letting them take the credit, and rightfully so. How many of you Dems support all of this crap? Why can't it just be bare-boned economy igniting?

I'd rather see the train money go to building the track needed for high speed trains. Amtrak will just waste it on old technology. If I'm wrong and it is going for that then my bad. I really think high speed trains ould get a lot of trucks of the road. That would free up traffic and help with Co2.

[Crushaholic]

1B for Amtrack, who hasn't turned a profit in 40 years. 50B for national endowment of arts. 400M for global warming research. 650M for TV conversion coupons.
So about 30B or 5% is for fixing infrastructure, and 90B out of 825B (12 cents on the dollar) can be considered growth stimulus.
600B for new government cars...Now I don't necessarily have a problem with these:

81B for Medicade
36B for unemployment
20B for food stamps
83B for EIC.....These are justified probably to help folks out, but job creators not.

Pelosi said it best: "We won the election. We wrote the bill."

Republicans are letting them take the credit, and rightfully so. How many of you Dems support all of this crap? Why can't it just be bare-boned economy igniting?

Those items are bandages to help people get through the tough times. Ironically, it's covering the wound of big government dependency...

[La Caspa Del Diablo]

Change my ass. More of the same Washington bull****.

[frerottenextelway]

anyone know why the GOP got 11 democrats to vote no as well?

Blue Dog Dems. Usually Dems from very Republican areas (60-40 R/D splits) - usually in the South. Most Blue Dogs still voted for it though.

[Garcia Bronco]

I wouldn't vote for it either, but I would with changes on some of the stuff I have read.

[Garcia Bronco]

Well I just bought another 50 pounds of brown rice.

What's better the Brown Rice of White rice?

[Dukes]

Why do Dems care is the Republicans vote for it anyway? The only reason is they want cover in case it fails. Not to mention the press making Reps look partisan. If it succeeds then they'll blow the Republicans even more out of the water in the next election.

[baja]

What's better the Brown Rice of White rice?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/78000/the_nutritional_value_of_brown_rice.html?cat=5

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Economy shrinks at 3.8 percent pace in 4Q (AP) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090129/i/r941436161.jpg?x=130&y=91&q=85&sig=OoZkb3FICKDUwPJBrKNbYA-- (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy)AP - The economy shrank at a 3.8 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, as the deepening recession forced consumers and businesses to throttle back spending.

[cutthemdown]

Why do Dems care is the Republicans vote for it anyway? The only reason is they want cover in case it fails. Not to mention the press making Reps look partisan. If it succeeds then they'll blow the Republicans even more out of the water in the next election.

They don't really care.

[Rohirrim]

Boehner is a partisan hack who has always put party before country. He's really no different than Sean Hannity. Expecting cooperation out of a Boehner led coalition in the house is a fool's dream. Obama should get over it and plan accordingly.

BTW, speaking of partisan hacks, did anybody see O'Reilly had Rove on last night and offered Rove a hide out if he needs to evade federal prosecution? My country tis of thee... :rofl:

[baja]

Economy shrinks at 3.8 percent pace in 4Q (AP) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090129/i/r941436161.jpg?x=130&y=91&q=85&sig=OoZkb3FICKDUwPJBrKNbYA-- (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy)AP - The economy shrank at a 3.8 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, as the deepening recession forced consumers and businesses to throttle back spending.

That's some very scary numbers this is a long long way from over.

[Garcia Bronco]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/78000/the_nutritional_value_of_brown_rice.html?cat=5

Sweet. I'll switch up on my next run.

[NaptownChief]

While there are some good things in there for stimulus, there is a lot of wasteful pork projects that have nothing do to with stimulus. Every dollar being spent should be spent on projects that have the chance to give us the best bang for the buck and not just wasteful projects of filtering money to politicians buddies back home.

[El Guapo]

When half of the "stimulus" doesn't even involve stimulating the economy, then something is wrong. I agree with all of the republicans and the 11 dem's who felt this way.

Do you know this was the LARGEST bill ever and it only took an hour to pass?! wtf.

[El Guapo]

The following is VERY alarming as well:

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='FOX News' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=undefined&referralObject=3479955' />

[cutthemdown]

When half of the "stimulus" doesn't even involve stimulating the economy, then something is wrong. I agree with all of the republicans and the 11 dem's who felt this way.

Do you know this was the LARGEST bill ever and it only took an hour to pass?! wtf.

It's easy to spend money when it's not yours.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's easy to spend money when it's not yours.

Absolutely.

[bronco militia]

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/drew/DREW012909.gif

[El Guapo]

^ GM already announced about 6 months ago that they pulled out of all Super Bowl advertising for the first time in about 20 years.

[Garcia Bronco]

^ GM already announced about 6 months ago that they pulled out of all Super Bowl advertising for the first time in about 20 years.

Yep and they dropped Tiger Woods as well.

[ElwayMD]

It's easy to spend money when it's not yours.

Yep it's like the govt got dad's credit card and there's no spending limit...SHOPPING SPREE FOR THE GOVERNMENT!!!

[bronco militia]

^ GM already announced about 6 months ago that they pulled out of all Super Bowl advertising for the first time in about 20 years.

it doesn't matter, and Drew didn't name names in his toon.

GM will wither on the vine for a few more months and then they'll be back begging for more money again

[Smiling Assassin27]

It'll be interesting to see what political retatliation those 11 Dems will have to suffer through from the 'bi-partisan' Administration. Those guys voted their conscience, clearly, and are probably gonna have madam pelosi's fist in their collective arse.

Meanwhile, 40% of America is against the bill as it now stands. Not exactly a mandate for Obama's stimulus bill at the moment. As Spider said earlier, it could be the greatest plan since sliced bread, but you just know that the political hacks on both sides will utterly fail in their implementation of it.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Update:

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) seems unsure about even garnering Democrat votes in the Senate for this bill. Repubs are gonna vote thumbs down, of course (with the exception of maybe Maverick, who has his nose and brain way up Obama's arse), but to see the Dems distancing themselves from Obama's plan is a real story.

An influential Senate Democrat said Friday that it's unclear whether President Obama's $819 economic stimulus bill will win enough support to pass in the Senate.

"I don't even know how many Democrats will vote for it, as it stands today," Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., told FOX News.

[Dukes]

Why stop at 800 Billion? If all that money going to reconstruction (pork) will stimulate the economy why not mortgage the next 5 generations and make it 5 trillion?

[rastaman]

So, creating 4 million jobs by 2012 won't stimulate the economy? The alternative the Repubs are pressing for is giving tax cuts to businesses that are failing because people can't buy their products/services BECAUSE people are out of work. How in the world will that create jobs or even truly help the businesses? It's ludicrous! Business taxes did not throw us into this recession!

The GOP (Generaly Obstructing Progress) Republicans just keeps regurgitating the same BS that got us into this mess! Namely cutting taxes for the wealthy and stating publicly that this will trickle down to everyone else because, as history has proven, the "haves" always use their power and money to help the "have nots." Please!

In order for the US to acheive wide spread prosperity, we must have a sensibly regulated capitalism with a healthy dosage of "FAIR TRADE"! and the temperance of government oversight. Now that Bush has proven the 100% Free (for-all) market does not work, we need government programs and jobs to get us back on track.

Republicans and fringe Democrats may not like the idea of Obama's Stimulus package in totality, but I'm afraid they have no choice--but to play ball in the end. Even now the Wall Street CEO's are taking off with 3% of taxpayer bail out money to give out $16 billion in bonuses, that was supposed to go to creating jobs, putting money back into circulation and saving companies.

[Beantown Bronco]

A large, local firm that admitted that 2008 was their 2nd best year in history (over 100 years of existence) recently laid off a significant portion of their associates and support staff and announced the likelihood of a salary freeze for those that are staying.

Profit per partner numbers went waaaaay up though.

That tells me all I need to know about "trickle down" economics.

[Garcia Bronco]

A large, local firm that admitted that 2008 was their 2nd best year in history (over 100 years of existence) recently laid off a significant portion of their associates and support staff and announced the likelihood of a salary freeze for those that are staying.

Profit per partner numbers went waaaaay up though.

That tells me all I need to know about "trickle down" economics.

To me it's always been and always will be trickle down. All this appropiated money will go out for bid, and Corporations will be in the best position to bid on these. I really don't see how this is any different than in the past.

[Garcia Bronco]

So, creating 4 million jobs by 2012 won't stimulate the economy? The alternative the Repubs are pressing for is giving tax cuts to businesses that are failing because people can't buy their products/services BECAUSE people are out of work. How in the world will that create jobs or even truly help the businesses? It's ludicrous! Business taxes did not throw us into this recession!

The GOP (Generaly Obstructing Progress) Republicans just keeps regurgitating the same BS that got us into this mess! Namely cutting taxes for the wealthy and stating publicly that this will trickle down to everyone else because, as history has proven, the "haves" always use their power and money to help the "have nots." Please!

In order for the US to acheive wide spread prosperity, we must have a sensibly regulated capitalism with a healthy dosage of "FAIR TRADE"! and the temperance of government oversight. Now that Bush has proven the 100% Free (for-all) market does not work, we need government programs and jobs to get us back on track.

Republicans and fringe Democrats may not like the idea of Obama's Stimulus package in totality, but I'm afraid they have no choice--but to play ball in the end. Even now the Wall Street CEO's are taking off with 3% of taxpayer bail out money to give out $16 billion in bonuses, that was supposed to go to creating jobs, putting money back into circulation and saving companies.


We are in this mess for one reason. People spending money they don't have...not the D or R next to their name. It's Debt...all around debt from credit cards to bad lending. We are to blame: Americans

[NaptownChief]

So, creating 4 million jobs by 2012 won't stimulate the economy? The alternative the Repubs are pressing for is giving tax cuts to businesses that are failing because people can't buy their products/services BECAUSE people are out of work. How in the world will that create jobs or even truly help the businesses? It's ludicrous! Business taxes did not throw us into this recession!




Oh really...What if you raise business taxes to 99%? You think there will be any business left?


Liberals can't understand the economics of how corporations work because they can't get past the top 5-10 executives making huge amounts of money. Because of that they see corporations as the "evil empire". The reality is that 95% of all corporations is the collection of little people. If companies have more money they increase pay, benefits, bonus' and expand their business. When they have less money they cut jobs, benefits and bonus'. It is that simple. Liberals would rather strangle out 10,000 common folks in order to make sure 5 to 10 people don't collect huge pay days.

[NaptownChief]

A large, local firm that admitted that 2008 was their 2nd best year in history (over 100 years of existence) recently laid off a significant portion of their associates and support staff and announced the likelihood of a salary freeze for those that are staying.

Profit per partner numbers went waaaaay up though.

That tells me all I need to know about "trickle down" economics.



That isn't how it works in good companies. Well ran companies have to adjust to what is coming, not what happen in the past.

I work for one of the best ran companies in the world and we had a very good year in 2008. Considering our industry, we had a great year. But we are in the process of cutting 15% of our staff because we know this year will be a bad year because of the overall economy. We are adjusting before we get in trouble. Poorly run companies adjust after they are in a pickle....ie GM.

[Garcia Bronco]

That isn't how it works in good companies. Well ran companies have to adjust to what is coming, not what happen in the past.



aka...Business Assumptions.

[NaptownChief]

Beantown,

To further on that point.....Ask yourself this:

If you had a crystal ball and knew that due to obesity you were going to have a heart attack and die in 10 years. Would you want to start eating better and working out harder now, 10 years in advance or would you wait 9 years and on your last leg to make changes?

[rastaman]

Oh really...What if you raise business taxes to 99%? You think there will be any business left?


Liberals can't understand the economics of how corporations work because they can't get past the top 5-10 executives making huge amounts of money. Because of that they see corporations as the "evil empire". The reality is that 95% of all corporations is the collection of little people. If companies have more money they increase pay, benefits, bonus' and expand their business. When they have less money they cut jobs, benefits and bonus'. It is that simple. Liberals would rather strangle out 10,000 common folks in order to make sure 5 to 10 people don't collect huge pay days.

Republicans got to do better than this. They have only negativity and disdain to offer. Unfortunately, Pres. Obama worked to create opportunity for bipartisanship and they trhrew it away. I hope Pres. Obama keeps trying to gain bipartisan support but if they don't respond then he should not make the compromises on what he thinks they want if they can't step up. In the end, he will only alienate his supporters.

Republicans lead this country to near destruction and they need to recognize that they have NO good ideas, and they have NO political clout, and they have NO credibility. Let them step out of the light and go to the back of the room and try to figure out what they stand for and if they even care about the American people!

[NaptownChief]

Republicans lead this country to near destruction and they need to recognize that they have NO good ideas, and they have NO political clout, and they have NO credibility. Let them step out of the light and go to the back of the room and try to figure out what they stand for and if they even care about the American people!



BS...This is a time that all politicians need to do what is best for the country....Do you think throwing $335 million at STD prevention is in the best interest of a country that is in a huge recession? No, that is about Pelosi's self interest and probably funding a friends budget for 10 years.

The reason why this economy melted down is because of a ton of people....Dems and Repubs alike. You have all the left coast liberals that foolishly ran up housing prices to silly levels, using trick mortgages to pull it off. You have Bill Clinton telling the country that home ownership "should be a right"...and then getting Congress to push lenders into making loans available to people that don't have the financial means. You have Democratic chums running Fannie and Freddy into the ground. You have Wall Street financial firms (Dems and Repubs) foolishly taking risk they don't understand....You have Clinton and Bush administrations that were given huge clues to the possible problem and doing nothing to address it....It goes on and on and if you think this is a problem caused by one party then you are as dumb as the people that bought homes they couldn't afford and distorted as many of the politicians that just hope it would pass over.

[rastaman]

We are in this mess for one reason. People spending money they don't have...not the D or R next to their name. It's Debt...all around debt from credit cards to bad lending. We are to blame: Americans

And don't think for a minute that the financial ruin of our BANKS is a mere coincidence !!!

How else do the outgoing PIGS try to assure trouble for the incoming administration , WHILE filling their pockets with our cash ? These ARE NOT REAL AMERICANS !!!

They DO NOT support AMERICA, they support themselves. Dick Cheney is involved helping move Halliburton (and the $) to Bahrain.

I'm still trying to figure out why there is any element of surprise about the current economic woes of the US and the world. I think a lot of indicators were ignored for a long time, or even covered up. Either way we've been shafted.

The timing of McCain's "suspending" his campaign to go make Congress fix the suddenly unsound economy seems more and more disingenuous and faked. I'm thinking that it was an attempt to make lemonade out of lemons. Trying to make voters think that McCain would save the day and thereby keep the GOP in the White House.

I mostly sigh when I hear Right Wing Conspiracy theories, but I'm pretty suspicious about the whole Economy/Bailout debacle and how the GOP is still trying to take advantage of it and shift the blame onto Obama, who's been in office a whole week now Bush's resistance to oversight for the disbursement of TARP funds especially makes me suspicious.

Why was it all such a surprise and emergency that the money had to be quickly spent before the inauguration? I smell greed, corruption, and arrogant manipulation. Bush even tried to get the second half of the funds before he flew out of DC in his helicopter. Good riddance.

The solid GOP resistance to the stimulus package also makes me suspicious. Fortunately Obama didn't need their support. They have Rush Limbaugh, we have Obama. I think that means we win.

[NaptownChief]

And don't think for a minute that the financial ruin of our BANKS is a mere coincidence !!!

How else do the outgoing PIGS try to assure trouble for the incoming administration , WHILE filling their pockets with our cash ? These ARE NOT REAL AMERICANS !!!

They DO NOT support AMERICA, they support themselves. Dick Cheney is involved helping move Halliburton (and the $) to Bahrain.

I'm still trying to figure out why there is any element of surprise about the current economic woes of the US and the world. I think a lot of indicators were ignored for a long time, or even covered up. Either way we've been shafted.

The timing of McCain's "suspending" his campaign to go make Congress fix the suddenly unsound economy seems more and more disingenuous and faked. I'm thinking that it was an attempt to make lemonade out of lemons. Trying to make voters think that McCain would save the day and thereby keep the GOP in the White House.

I mostly sigh when I hear Right Wing Conspiracy theories, but I'm pretty suspicious about the whole Economy/Bailout debacle and how the GOP is still trying to take advantage of it and shift the blame onto Obama, who's been in office a whole week now Bush's resistance to oversight for the disbursement of TARP funds especially makes me suspicious.

Why was it all such a surprise and emergency that the money had to be quickly spent before the inauguration? I smell greed, corruption, and arrogant manipulation. Bush even tried to get the second half of the funds before he flew out of DC in his helicopter. Good riddance.

The solid GOP resistance to the stimulus package also makes me suspicious. Fortunately Obama didn't need their support. They have Rush Limbaugh, we have Obama. I think that means we win.


You are lost. Why do you think so many of the politicians that could be making $500k to $1 million a year choose to make about $200k a year being politicians? They are whores for power, prestige and self interest. That covers both sides of the isle equally.

I don't give two $hits about either sides social agenda...I care about what is best for this country as a whole and economically I have little doubt that Republican policy, while very flawed at times, by far is the most sound in education, history and accuracy.

[rastaman]

BS...This is a time that all politicians need to do what is best for the country....Do you think throwing $335 million at STD prevention is in the best interest of a country that is in a huge recession? No, that is about Pelosi's self interest and probably funding a friends budget for 10 years.

The reason why this economy melted down is because of a ton of people....Dems and Repubs alike. You have all the left coast liberals that foolishly ran up housing prices to silly levels, using trick mortgages to pull it off. You have Bill Clinton telling the country that home ownership "should be a right"...and then getting Congress to push lenders into making loans available to people that don't have the financial means. You have Democratic chums running Fannie and Freddy into the ground. You have Wall Street financial firms (Dems and Repubs) foolishly taking risk they don't understand....You have Clinton and Bush administrations that were given huge clues to the possible problem and doing nothing to address it....It goes on and on and if you think this is a problem caused by one party then you are as dumb as the people that bought homes they couldn't afford and distorted as many of the politicians that just hope it would pass over.

Sorry, but the past 8 years has proven that republinomics don't work. In fact, republican economic strategy only funnels money upward from the tax base into a few wealthy hands, bankrupts the country, destroys the banking industry, and puts everyone out of work.

How much worse do you want things to get?

Republicans were only too glad to hand out a trillion dollars in subsidies to their cronies. That was not pork or a giveaway or anything like that. It was a real "stimulous" package that helped stimulate us right into the toilet, just as most economists said it would. Now those same thugs just want more of the same.

I say the hell with bi-partisanship, since the Republicans don't seem to give a crap about it. Instead of offering compromises which seem to make no difference, the Dems should take a page out of the Republicans' own book and simply go for the whole enchilada. Let 'em scream because they're gonna do it anyway.

[barryr]

Oh brother. Some just don't get it. It's not just republicans that that created this problem. Democrats are equally to blame. Geez, you think since the democrats get more money from the wealthy means, which has gone on for many years now, is being done out of the goodness of their own hearts? Please. Money comes deals, regardless of what side of the aisle you reside one. This "republicans" only care about the rich, but the democrats don't" is such crap and has been for years. Yet it's typically the left who claims others can't think outside the box, and yet here they cling to BS all the time. Wake up.

[Garcia Bronco]

"And don't think for a minute that the financial ruin of our BANKS is a mere coincidence !!!"

All banks are not in Ruin. Most aren't.

"How else do the outgoing PIGS try to assure trouble for the incoming administration , WHILE filling their pockets with our cash ? These ARE NOT REAL AMERICANS !!!"

This started years ago and has nothing to do with that

"They DO NOT support AMERICA, they support themselves. Dick Cheney is involved helping move Halliburton (and the $) to Bahrain."

In the example you defined, I agree 100 percent. Generally however, No.

"I'm still trying to figure out why there is any element of surprise about the current economic woes of the US and the world. I think a lot of indicators were ignored for a long time, or even covered up. Either way we've been shafted. "

Agreed, Americans in general. The economy is like any other system in nature. It expands and contracts

"The timing of McCain's "suspending" his campaign to go make Congress fix the suddenly unsound economy seems more and more disingenuous and faked. I'm thinking that it was an attempt to make lemonade out of lemons. Trying to make voters think that McCain would save the day and thereby keep the GOP in the White House."

McCain is a good man at heart. But I think his suspension was no more or less an attempt, as you say, to sell himself to the American people

"I mostly sigh when I hear Right Wing Conspiracy theories, but I'm pretty suspicious about the whole Economy/Bailout debacle and how the GOP is still trying to take advantage of it and shift the blame onto Obama, who's been in office a whole week now Bush's resistance to oversight for the disbursement of TARP funds especially makes me suspicious."

The bailouts are bad and it doesn't matter who's pushing them. It will only prolong the down swing.

"Why was it all such a surprise and emergency that the money had to be quickly spent before the inauguration? I smell greed, corruption, and arrogant manipulation. Bush even tried to get the second half of the funds before he flew out of DC in his helicopter. Good riddance."

Could be, but that would be another conspiracy theory

"The solid GOP resistance to the stimulus package also makes me suspicious. Fortunately Obama didn't need their support. They have Rush Limbaugh, we have Obama. I think that means we win."

Rush Limbaugh doesn't even matter. I swear the most people that listen to him are people that disagree with him. It passed the House, but it hasn't passed the Senate yet. So it hasn't been won. There will be one. I have no doubt. I just hope it get widdled down even more. All it amounts to is printing money, which devalues the dollar, and ultimately won't help anyone.

[rastaman]

You are lost. Why do you think so many of the politicians that could be making $500k to $1 million a year choose to make about $200k a year being politicians? They are whores for power, prestige and self interest. That covers both sides of the isle equally.

I don't give two $hits about either sides social agenda...I care about what is best for this country as a whole and economically I have little doubt that Republican policy, while very flawed at times, by far is the most sound in education, history and accuracy.

Republican Party at one time controled all three branches of the federal government -- executive, judiciary and both houses of Congress, druing the first 6 years of the Bush Administration. If things are screwed up, most of us know exactly where to place the responsibility. The problem with Republicans is not their commitment to winning; it is their inability to govern effectively.

From Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, right on through to Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and the Bush crime family, one of the outstanding characteristics of the modern Republican Party is its commitment to winning at all costs. While Agnew was distorting the truth about the media, Nixon was busy distorting the electoral process. The next generation of GOP winners went from distortion to out and out fabrication.

The Bush lies about John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary; Republicans questioning the patriotism of triple-amputee Vietnam veteran Democratic Sen. Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senatorial campaign; and the Bush Swift-Boaters lying about John Kerry's Vietnam War record were just the latest in a long line of GOP lies designed to prove beyond question the Republican commitment to winning.

Commitment isn't their problem. The problem is Republicans continually run their mouths about balanced budgets while the biggest deficits in American history have been rung up by the last three Republican presidents -- Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. (Look it up.)

President Clinton achieved the last surplus and balanced budget. He achieved that by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Republican conservatives screamed socialism and warned that Clinton's policies would lead to both inflation and recession. Instead, we had eight years of growth, a balanced budget and eventually budget surpluses. I have yet to hear one right-winger apologize for their incorrect prognostications.

That is not the worst of it. Modern Republicans love illegal wars. With Reagan we had Iran-Contra, Grenada and supporting right-wing thugs in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. While George H.W. Bush got it right by getting congressional approval before attacking Iraq, he illegally invaded Panama to arrest his old CIA and drug-running buddy, Manuel Noriega. There is no need to go into the foreign-policy disasters of George W. Bush. Most of us are painfully aware.

[Garcia Bronco]

Republican Party at one time controled all three branches of the federal government -- executive, judiciary and both houses of Congress, druing the first 6 years of the Bush Administration. If things are screwed up, most of us know exactly where to place the responsibility. The problem with Republicans is not their commitment to winning; it is their inability to govern effectively.


That is true on many fronts, but the Democrats hands, as a party, is just as dirty. Barney Frank, Meeks, and Franklin Raines come to mind. Bill Clinton didn't help when he signed the GLB and thus repealing the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933.

[Garcia Bronco]

President Clinton achieved the last surplus and balanced budget. He achieved that by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Republican conservatives screamed socialism and warned that Clinton's policies would lead to both inflation and recession. Instead, we had eight years of growth, a balanced budget and eventually budget surpluses. I have yet to hear one right-winger apologize for their incorrect prognostications.



There was no budget surplus. It was on the assumption of revenue never acheived. And there was a reccession in 1999. The dotcom bubble burst and the retail market tanked badly.

[NaptownChief]

Sorry, but the past 8 years has proven that republinomics don't work. In fact, republican economic strategy only funnels money upward from the tax base into a few wealthy hands, bankrupts the country, destroys the banking industry, and puts everyone out of work.

How much worse do you want things to get?

Republicans were only too glad to hand out a trillion dollars in subsidies to their cronies. That was not pork or a giveaway or anything like that. It was a real "stimulous" package that helped stimulate us right into the toilet, just as most economists said it would. Now those same thugs just want more of the same.

I say the hell with bi-partisanship, since the Republicans don't seem to give a crap about it. Instead of offering compromises which seem to make no difference, the Dems should take a page out of the Republicans' own book and simply go for the whole enchilada. Let 'em scream because they're gonna do it anyway.


Live in your ignorance, I couldn't care less.


Hoover gets credit for being a nightmare, Carter had people paying 20% for car loans, Clinton era is economically looked upon as good yet it was a Gingrich led congress, the last couple years of Bush hasn't been good but a Democrat led congress.

You can paint the blame anyway you would like but only biased fools think it is one sided.

[Dukes]

Sorry, but the past 8 years has proven that republinomics don't work. In fact, republican economic strategy only funnels money upward from the tax base into a few wealthy hands, bankrupts the country, destroys the banking industry, and puts everyone out of work.

How much worse do you want things to get?

Republicans were only too glad to hand out a trillion dollars in subsidies to their cronies. That was not pork or a giveaway or anything like that. It was a real "stimulous" package that helped stimulate us right into the toilet, just as most economists said it would. Now those same thugs just want more of the same.

I say the hell with bi-partisanship, since the Republicans don't seem to give a crap about it. Instead of offering compromises which seem to make no difference, the Dems should take a page out of the Republicans' own book and simply go for the whole enchilada. Let 'em scream because they're gonna do it anyway.

Wrong. If anything Repubs in the past decade were Democrat light. There's nothing conservative about growing government (I'll give Bush a pass on Dept of Homeland Security) the way Bush did. Those are Democrate ideas and Bush was no conservative.

[NaptownChief]

Wrong. If anything Repubs in the past decade were Democrat light. There's nothing conservative about growing government (I'll give Bush a pass on Dept of Homeland Security) the way Bush did. Those are Democrate ideas and Bush was no conservative.


Bush was a spender and he made the huge mistake of trying to appease both sides. He should have pissed on the Dems the way they have done him.

As the old saying goes, stand on the left side of the road and you are ok, stand on the right side and you are ok....stand in the middle and you get run over.

[Dukes]

Bush was a spender and he made the huge mistake of trying to appease both sides. He should have pissed on the Dems the way they have done him.

As the old saying goes, stand on the left side of the road and you are ok, stand on the right side and you are ok....stand in the middle and you get run over.

That was certainly the case with McCain this year

[rastaman]

Wrong. If anything Repubs in the past decade were Democrat light. There's nothing conservative about growing government (I'll give Bush a pass on Dept of Homeland Security) the way Bush did. Those are Democrate ideas and Bush was no conservative.

No you're wrong!!! Reagan-Bush I & Bush II spent money, increased the deficit and national debt btwn 1981-92 and 2001-2008, unlike any administrations in U.S. history.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan promised that, if elected, he would cut taxes, raise military spending AND balance the budget—all at the same time. His opponent, George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics”. But Reagan won the election and kept his promise. He cut the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners from 75% to 38%. What happened?

In 1982, the first full year for Reagan’s policies, the economy shrank by 2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. Investment — the magic transmission belt through which all other Supply Side benefits were supposed to flow — actually declined as a percent of GDP over the 1980s. Worse, Reagan’s Supply Side policies created the biggest budget deficits in history. The numbers tell the story.

Jimmy Carter’s last budget produced a deficit of $77 billion. At the time, it seemed huge. But Reagan’s first budget swelled the deficit to $128 billion. By the next year, 1983, it had exploded to $208 billion and was creating severe problems for the economy. By 1992, at the end of the “Reagan Revolution,” (under Reagan’s Vice President and successor, Bush, Sr.) the deficit was approaching $300 billion a year.

Annual deficits, of course, accumulate to the national debt. In 1980, the national debt amounted to less than $1 trillion. By the end of 1992, it had reached $4.35 trillion. In other words, the debt, which had taken over 200 years to reach $1 trillion, quadrupled in the 12 years of Supply Side Economics. A more complete, definitive repudiation of Supply Side’s claims could not be imagined. What went wrong?

According to Supply Side “theory,” tax cuts should go to the wealthy for only they can afford to use the extra income to invest in the economy — to increase its capacity to “supply” goods. But there is nothing to make sure they actually invest, especially in the U.S. economy.

The new money might simply sit in the bank, or be spent on expensive foreign imports. It might be wasted in misdirected speculation, or invested in fast growing markets like southeast Asia. Without the ability to ensure that tax cuts are, in fact, invested in new productive assets, Supply Side Economics cannot ensure any real linkage between tax cuts and the hoped-for economic boom.

Revealingly, Supply-Siders strenuously resisted calls to tie tax cuts to actual productive investments, that is, give the tax cut only after the investment had been made. This led critics to suspect the real motives behind the “theory.” The only thing that was certain was that the rich would become richer and revenues to the government would be lower. Beyond that, it is all just wishful thinking.

Contrast this wishful thinking with Demand Side economics. Demand Side Economics, says that if taxes are to be cut, they should go to those who earn the least amount of money. The reason is that low-income workers spend virtually all of their incomes. Money given to them goes right back into circulation, fueling a boom in consumer spending. This is essentially the policy that rescued the U.S. economy from the Great Depression. This, say the Demand Side economists, is the real foundation for an expanding economy. How has this theory held up in practice?

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?

The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It wasn’t even close. The economy performed dramatically better in almost every way once Supply Side policies were replaced with Demand Side policies.

The most dramatic outcome was the reversal of the Reagan-era Supply Side deficits. Clinton’s Demand Side policies not only paid down the Reagan/Bush deficits, they produced the first budgetary surpluses since 1969. By the time Clinton left office, the government was running surpluses of almost $140 billion per year. This is what he turned over to George W. Bush in January of 2001.

Bush, of course, returned to the Supply Side policies of Reagan and his father. He lowered taxes on the very rich — his “base” as he calls them. His $1.6 trillion in tax cuts give 45% of the benefits to the top 1% of the population. It is classic Supply Side economics. What happened?

According to the Economic Policy Institute, "By virtually every measure, the economy has performed worse in this business cycle than was typical of past ones." GDP growth since the bottom of the 2001 recession has averaged 2.8%. But it grew at an average rate of 3.5% over the prior six recoveries dating back to World War II. Or consider jobs: 1.3% more jobs under Bush versus 8.8% more during earlier upswings.

Private sector jobs — an especially telling measure of economic health — are up only 1% since 2001 versus an average of 8.6% for past recoveries. Investment? That Holy Grail of Supply Side orthodoxy? Up 3.6% compared to the 8.2% average for the six earlier rebounds. Pick your measure: growth, jobs, income, spending, investment. The recovery based on the Bush II Supply Side tax cuts is one of the weakest ever recorded.

The one thing the Supply Side revival did excel at — not surprisingly — is debt. Bush turned a $136 billion surplus from Bill Clinton into a $158 billion deficit in his first year. When he took office, the national debt stood at $5.8 trillion. It now stands at $8.1 trillion and is projected to hit $10 trillion by 2008 when Bush’s second term is over. The ten-year cumulative deficit forecast by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has changed from a $5.6 trillion surplus in January 2001 to a $3.4 trillion deficit in March of this year—an almost inconceivable swing of $9 trillion to the worse in only six years.

After more than 17 years of experience with Supply Side economics, we now know beyond doubt that this is not an accident.

These mammoth debts are a huge boon to that rich “base” that Bush loves to coddle. It is they, the very rich, who loan the money to the government to fund its debts. And since more borrowing drives up interest rates, they get to do so at higher and higher rates of return. This is simple supply and demand. By increasing the demand for borrowed money in the economy as a whole, Supply Side deficits drive up the cost, not just of government borrowing, but of ALL borrowing—everything from credit cards and mortgages to car loans and municipal bonds.

In other words, Supply Side economics rewards the rich both coming and going. Higher government debt leads to higher interest rates for all borrowing — or in their case, lending. And then, they get to pay lower and lower taxes on their higher and higher earnings. It is a magical two-fer worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

This is the real reason Bill Clinton was so relentlessly hounded while in office. It wasn’t that he was being serviced by an intern or that he was a particularly radical president. Indeed, Clinton himself described himself as “an Eisenhower Republican.” His big faux pas was that by paying down the Republican debts, he lowered interest rates, the basis of Republican earnings. In fact, real interest rates declined 40% while Clinton was in office. You can see why he simply had to go.

This is the real magic of Supply Side economics: greater-debts-leading-to-higher-returns-but-lower-taxes for the rich. It is one of the reasons the top 20% of income earners has raised its share of national income from 44% in 1980 when Supply Side policies began, to 50.1% last year. They now earn more than all of the rest of the people in the economy combined.

But it only works for the rich. If you’re not rich, it is you who are paying those higher and higher interest rates and it will be you — or perhaps, more precisely, your children — who will be stuck with the bill for the higher government debts. Paying off those debts can only come at the expense of future economic growth for income spent paying off inflated debts is money that is not available for college tuitions, job retraining, repairing infrastructure, etc.

Rarely in matters of public policy do we have the luxury of such starkly clear, repeatedly proven, empirically founded contrasts. Demand Side economics, as we saw in the 1990s, while far from perfect, produces robust growth, budgetary surpluses, and broad based prosperity. Supply Side economics produces middling growth, soaring deficits, and broad based debt. Mountains of debt. And the mountains are growing.

If we are to salvage any kind of economic sanity and prevent the bankruptcy of the nation, the next Congress must reverse the Supply Side agenda and return the country to a responsible fiscal course.

by Robert Freeman
Published on Sunday, May 14, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

[rastaman]

Live in your ignorance, I couldn't care less.


Hoover gets credit for being a nightmare, Carter had people paying 20% for car loans, Clinton era is economically looked upon as good yet it was a Gingrich led congress, the last couple years of Bush hasn't been good but a Democrat led congress.

You can paint the blame anyway you would like but only biased fools think it is one sided.

Reagan had the largest buget deficits in history until that time and increased the debt from under $1 trillion in 1981 to about $3 trillion in 8 years by 1989. George H. W. Bush increased it to about $4.5 trillion in 4 years by 1993. Clinton increased it to about $5.8 trillion in 8 years by 2001. George Bush has increased the debt to $ 8.55 trillion in less than 6 years, and he left office with the debt approaching well over $10 trillion dolalrs.

Many on the right reflexively blame the Democratically controlled Congress for the “big spending” during his administration, even though Republicans controlled the Senate for the first six years of his two terms. Only during the last two years of the Reagan administration was the Congress completely controlled by Democrats, and the records show that the growth of the debt slowed during this period. It appears that the frequently referenced Reagan’s Conservative mythology is contrary to the truth, he was an award winning, record setting CONSERVATIVE spender and government grower.

The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8%per year.

The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year.

While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war.

Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.

George Bush Sr. meekly followed in Reagan’s shadow after his election in 1988, by increasing the debt on average a mere 11.8% a year during his four years as President. In his last year in office he quite responsibly worked with Democrats to raise taxes to help reduce the massive yearly increases in the national debt. This bipartisan plan got the growth down to under 11% in 1992, but it was too little too late and didn’t make much difference in the overall trend.

The Neo-Conservatives controlling the Republican Party rewarded him for putting the nation’s future above his party’s ideology by throwing him out of office even though it had hardly been a year since he was credited with winning the Gulf War.

In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration.

Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased.

When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut.

The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has typically been around $500,000,000,000 per year.

Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.

[Spider]

Rast , a piece of Advice typing all that out is a waste of time ....... Better off just calling Nappy a ****ing turd and make fun of those that agree with him ...... Using facts and reality with Nappy is complete waste of time , Nappy will always Put party before country each and every post ........ very anti American .......

[Bronco Bob]

^ GM already announced about 6 months ago that they pulled out of all Super Bowl advertising for the first time in about 20 years.

And at this point in time Ford isn't asking for any bailout money.

I guess that leaves Chrysler. But hey, they are working on a deal
to partner up with Fiat. So maybe they won't need the money
either.

[Bronco Bob]

It'll be interesting to see what political retatliation those 11 Dems will have to suffer through from the 'bi-partisan' Administration. Those guys voted their conscience, clearly,

Yes, clearly only politicians who vote against a bill designed to get
the country back in its feet have a conscience.



Meanwhile, 40% of America is against the bill as it now stands.

Meanwhile 60% of America is either for the bill or have no objections to it.

Not exactly a mandate for Obama's stimulus bill at the moment.

Sounds more like just the disgruntled 33% Bushies and another 7%
for whatever reason.

[Bronco Bob]

Oh really...What if you raise business taxes to 99%? You think there will be any business left?


Taxes were 92% when Eisenhower was president. Are you saying
there were no businesses during the 1950's?


Liberals can't understand the economics of how corporations work because they can't get past the top 5-10 executives making huge amounts of money. Because of that they see corporations as the "evil empire". The reality is that 95% of all corporations is the collection of little people. If companies have more money they increase pay, benefits, bonus' and expand their business. When they have less money they cut jobs, benefits and bonus'. It is that simple. Liberals would rather strangle out 10,000 common folks in order to make sure 5 to 10 people don't collect huge pay days.

They have less money these days because of the bloated salaries of those
top 5-10 executives making huge amounts of money, not because of taxes.
I like a plan floated today that any company that has an executive making
over $400,000 a year gets no bailout money.

[broncocalijohn]

Amazing the Republicans actually act like Conservative on fiscal policy when they dont have to cave in to a compromising president. When Bush was president, they spent like a Democrat. When the opposition runs the White House, they are back at what they promised their districts. If they stick to their beliefs regardless of who is in the White House, they might be respected more. Kudos for sticking together. This farce of a stimulus is going to screw us and not be productive. But then again, $1 million per acre for the National Lawn will bring jobs in by the thousands and show what a great deal we are getting at that cost!

[Dukes]

Amazing the Republicans actually act like Conservative on fiscal policy when they dont have to cave in to a compromising president. When Bush was president, they spent like a Democrat. When the opposition runs the White House, they are back at what they promised their districts. If they stick to their beliefs regardless of who is in the White House, they might be respected more. Kudos for sticking together. This farce of a stimulus is going to screw us and not be productive. But then again, $1 million per acre for the National Lawn will bring jobs in by the thousands and show what a great deal we are getting at that cost!

Good point. The bottom line is they are politicians, quickly becoming on of the lowest life form in this country.

[Spider]

Taxes were 92% when Eisenhower was president. Are you saying
there were no businesses during the 1950's? of course there was no business in the 50's , this is all new ........ pretty handing for Republicans



They have less money these days because of the bloated salaries of those
top 5-10 executives making huge amounts of money, not because of taxes.
I like a plan floated today that any company that has an executive making
over $400,000 a year gets no bailout money. Imports such as Toyota doing excellent , paying well but their CEO makes a small fraction of what American car companies CEO makes ......
But dont tell nappy , he is off in his happy place , no need to disrupt his vactaion from Reality

[jhat01]

So what about the gravy here??? 12 cents on every dollar goes to what would be considered growth. That's not good enough, plain and simple.

[barryr]

The growth is enough for those easy and eager to believe in "The One."

[Spider]

So what about the gravy here??? 12 cents on every dollar goes to what would be considered growth. That's not good enough, plain and simple.

of course not , but bumping up corporate taxes wouldnt hurt .......what the problem is when Reagan passed a law stating a company can be an individual , that alone right there ****ed over mom and pop business , for these super conglomerates ..... Main street America is getting killed , when was the last time you went ot a Butcher , then to a produce stand , bakery etc ?
one thing for sure was , you knew what you was getting from these guys ...... Should I tell you about the gas Wal Mart uses to keep meat on the shelf longer ? or when you go to Albertsons and how long that meats been on the trailer ?
these are stories you dont want to hear , but a few years back ,there was no stories , just great quality and fresh products ........

[gyldenlove]

What's better the Brown Rice of White rice?

Brown rice for survival, they have a higher level of nutrients and will sustain you longer when Kremlin-Joe lets fly with the nukes or the dead rise from their graves...

[gyldenlove]

Astra/Zeneca came out of 2008 with moderate profits, but are slashing up to 10% of the staff anyway.

Most non-American banks reported only slightly diminished profits for 2008 and yet more than 30 countries have created bank help packages worth will in excess of 1 trillion dollars.

This downturn is for many a convenient time to up profit margins by slashing staff, slashing wages and I bet the next thing we will see is requests to lower legal requirements for certain products, such as emission regulations for cars, food and drug safety and material safety for consumer products.

Most banks have limited lending even though they have been making profits all through 2008, but this way they can get government handouts and up their profit margins considerably. The rich get richer and you and me end up paying for the party.

[peacepipe]

It'll be interesting to see what political retatliation those 11 Dems will have to suffer through from the 'bi-partisan' Administration. Those guys voted their conscience, clearly, and are probably gonna have madam pelosi's fist in their collective arse.

Meanwhile, 40% of America is against the bill as it now stands. Not exactly a mandate for Obama's stimulus bill at the moment. As Spider said earlier, it could be the greatest plan since sliced bread, but you just know that the political hacks on both sides will utterly fail in their implementation of it.
yeah,but the 52% in favor to the 37 % against does. Your goofball of a pres. GWB set the presidence,back in 2000, that you only need a slight majority to have a mandate.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The writing is on the wall.

The Obama administration is not about bipartisanship or unity. They are about pure, unadulterated power and unimpeded control over your life.

Get ready for the breadlines.

[Spider]

The writing is on the wall.

The Obama administration is not about bipartisanship or unity. They are about pure, unadulterated power and unimpeded control over your life.

Get ready for the breadlines.

LOL ........ bread lines ..... so your god will let you beg for food in a bread line after faithfully serving him ......... what good is he ?

[epicSocialism4tw]

LOL ........ bread lines ..... so your god will let you beg for food in a bread line after faithfully serving him ......... what good is he ?

Starring Lenny Small as "Spider"...

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/mice.jpg

[Spider]

Starring Lenny Small as "Spider"...
LOL so much for faith in your god

[Bronco Bob]

BS...This is a time that all politicians need to do what is best for the country....Do you think throwing $335 million at STD prevention is in the best interest of a country that is in a huge recession?

And how is people running around with AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes
and spreading it to other people helping the county? Yeah, it's odd it's
in an economic stimulus package, but just because some clown inserted
some dumb things in it here and there doesn't mean you scrap the whole
deal.

Ever heard the phrase throwing out the baby along with the dirty bathwater.

[cutthemdown]

I disagree with STD prevention in stimulus package. I agree with a separate bill that deals with that. It is in countries best interests to fund STD prevention. Anyone who can't see that is a fool.

Bush did a lot around the world and in Africa to stop the spread of Aids. How many lives saved? who knows.

An effort in America to stamp out Aids in the end would save money.

[rastaman]

Amazing the Republicans actually act like Conservative on fiscal policy when they dont have to cave in to a compromising president. When Bush was president, they spent like a Democrat. When the opposition runs the White House, they are back at what they promised their districts. If they stick to their beliefs regardless of who is in the White House, they might be respected more. Kudos for sticking together. This farce of a stimulus is going to screw us and not be productive. But then again, $1 million per acre for the National Lawn will bring jobs in by the thousands and show what a great deal we are getting at that cost!

Whats this propaganda that Reagan-Bush I and Bush II have sudddenly spent money, created deficits and raised the debt like Democrats. Truth be told Democrats have never borrowed and spent the way the last three Republican Administration have.

Remember, when Reagan came into power, the national debt was just 1 trillion dollars!!! Now over the last 28 years of which 20 of those years America has had Republican Presidents that trillion dollar debt has gone from
1 trillion dollars to over 11 trillion dollars.

The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase.

The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich.

The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.

So history has shown and documented that the Reagan-Bush I and Bush II Administrations are Republican administrations who are largely responsible for our 11 trillion dollar deficits and debt we see today.

[broncocalijohn]

And how is people running around with AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes
and spreading it to other people helping the county? Yeah, it's odd it's
in an economic stimulus package, but just because some clown inserted
some dumb things in it here and there doesn't mean you scrap the whole
deal.

Ever heard the phrase throwing out the baby along with the dirty bathwater.

So keep all the pork in there? Line item vetoes are the way to go and it shows what the president really backs. Putting this crap, even at a small percentage of the package, is how perks get put into bills that are not related to the bills subject. If the same people are beatching about $100 million dollar bonus, jets, etc., then this should piss you off also. This bill had more than birth control to vote it down. If the Republicans stated get rid of this and we vote for it, dont you think Pelosi would make sure it is deleted? Oh wait, she stated she didnt come to Washington to be Bi-partisan. Exactly the opposite of what Obama stated. Of course he sounds more in Pelosi's camp than his true words.

[broncocalijohn]

Whats this propaganda that Reagan-Bush I and Bush II have sudddenly spent money, created deficits and raised the debt like Democrats. Truth be told Democrats have never borrowed and spent the way the last three Republican Administration have.

Remember, when Reagan came into power, the national debt was just 1 trillion dollars!!! Now over the last 28 years of which 20 of those years America has had Republican Presidents that trillion dollar debt has gone from
1 trillion dollars to over 11 trillion dollars.

The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase.

The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich.

The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.

So history has shown and documented that the Reagan-Bush I and Bush II Administrations are Republican administrations who are largely responsible for our 11 trillion dollar deficits and debt we see today.

Keep running the liberal rhetoric of the Reagan legacy. I guess you didnt see our stagnation economy during the Carter years. Obama will need to increase the debt for the same reasons. It will just be a different philosophy on how to do it and what the results will be. As of right now, this stimulus package will fail and be a waste of putting us more in debt while driving down the dollar. There is a reason for so many Reagan democrats to this day. While your numbers are correct on the debt, the personal lives of those effected in the late 70s to early 80s knew what was needed to bring prosperity back to America. More money was kept in house holds with lower interest rates, lower taxes and more jobs. Not all debt is bad and having a cap on spending would help (especially here in California with our socialist assembly in Sacramento). Reagan was a perfect time socially and fiscally. Obama will have the same opportunity to create debt but improve the economy. Reagan got a Democratic controlled house and senate, with a speaker verbally against Reagan politics, to go with his policies. So far Obama and Pelosi have failed with their own controlled house and assembly.

[Paladin]

Whats this propaganda that Reagan-Bush I and Bush II have sudddenly spent money, created deficits and raised the debt like Democrats. Truth be told Democrats have never borrowed and spent the way the last three Republican Administration have.

Remember, when Reagan came into power, the national debt was just 1 trillion dollars!!! Now over the last 28 years of which 20 of those years America has had Republican Presidents that trillion dollar debt has gone from
1 trillion dollars to over 11 trillion dollars.

The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase.

The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich.

The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.

So history has shown and documented that the Reagan-Bush I and Bush II Administrations are Republican administrations who are largely responsible for our 11 trillion dollar deficits and debt we see today.

Absolutely fantastic post. Well stated, and complete. Kudos.
Too bad the stupid Repugnicans and their libertarians cohorts simply do not understand the concepts you point out.

The fact that the GOP said that they opposed the Stimulus bill en masse is tantamount to surrendering their pledge to be working in the interests of America. I think there are a number of issues in the proposed package, but I would like to see the Congresscritters work those differences out in a compromise. Now I understand Pelosi is an anathema to the GOP, but those bustards earned their scorn over the past eight years for their arrogance, hypocrisy and stupidity. Now Pelosi needs to be reigned in, but that happens only when the Rpugnicans begin to be a bit more understanding as to why they got absolutely pummeled in the last election.....

To give a clue: it happens to be about concern for the average American who is losing out on the "American Dream". I'll let you figure out what that is......

One other thing. I think the Social Security stuff does need to be fixed. And Health care needs to be addressed. I think the Biden Committee may well give some handles on the scope of the problem. For my part, I would not mind if SS was frozen at the current level for the next couple of years. Further, any new increase needs to be graduated by income or whatever. The offset might be that SS recipients might be exempted from some taxes such as local sales tax or taxes on cars or a number of other things. Also, if Medicare were allowed to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies, then I think a large amount of savings could be realized there. (Part D was a sop to the pharmaceuticals to prevent the importation of drugs from Canada at lower prices; they don't give a damm about the needs of the population, only their inflated bottom lines).

In short, I think this "unified stand" by the GOP Congresscritters is a slap in the face of their responsibilities as Americans as representatives of America. It is a piquant, stubborn passive-aggressive response to getting their butts kicked and a stinging rejection of the Repugnican policies over the last eight years fostered by Dubya and his cronies. No amount of high-sounding resistance to "over spending" is going to erase their basic sniveling, whiney BS they engaged in......

I would favor a line item veto, but the Congresscritters would not go for it.....Something about the Constitution - I 'm sure you heard of it because Dubya shredded it so much - saying that the House originates all Spending Bills and the President can veto the whole bill or not. Further, Money can be authorized, even appropriated - those are two different things, you know - but the Administration may choose to not spend all of it or even any of it.

Without wax, baby.........

[broncocalijohn]

Paladin, please try to stay as an adult and stop using petty name calling words for congress or republicans. Use it once and maybe twice but to continue to use it in your little rant is childish. Obama's numbers have gone done a lot since his 80% approval rating. People want to see results of this stimulus plan and all they have seen is pork barrel spending and little (12%) to stimulate the economy. Republicans in the house and senate are there for their constituents, not for you in another state.

[peacepipe]

Paladin, please try to stay as an adult and stop using petty name calling words for congress or republicans. Use it once and maybe twice but to continue to use it in your little rant is childish. Obama's numbers have gone done a lot since his 80% approval rating. People want to see results of this stimulus plan and all they have seen is pork barrel spending and little (12%) to stimulate the economy. Republicans in the house and senate are there for their constituents, not for you in another state.
FYI,pork barrel spending is money spent on infastructure. For example the money that was supposed be used on the mall in D.C., actual people/workers have to be hired & put to work to fix/refurbish the mall.

[Spider]

Paladin, please try to stay as an adult and stop using petty name calling words for congress or republicans. Use it once and maybe twice but to continue to use it in your little rant is childish. Obama's numbers have gone done a lot since his 80% approval rating. People want to see results of this stimulus plan and all they have seen is pork barrel spending and little (12%) to stimulate the economy. Republicans in the house and senate are there for their constituents, not for you in another state.

Dude the republican party is full of bed wetters

[Arkie]

Spider, don't let Obama brainwash you like Bush did back in 2001.

[Paladin]

Paladin, please try to stay as an adult and stop using petty name calling words for congress or republicans. Use it once and maybe twice but to continue to use it in your little rant is childish. Obama's numbers have gone done a lot since his 80% approval rating. People want to see results of this stimulus plan and all they have seen is pork barrel spending and little (12%) to stimulate the economy. Republicans in the house and senate are there for their constituents, not for you in another state.

Yes. Right. After one week or so, you want to bash him for not having fixed the economy that your boy and his cronies screwed up over the course of 8 years.

Since when are people of other constituencies are so different from other Americans?

I will stop calling them Repugnicans when you stop calling people who have different opinions than yours "liberals". Some are a bit more independant and knowlegable than that sterotyped BS. Your effort at deflection is rather telling, don't you think?

"Liberal"? Remember Kennedy's definition? Look it up. I might find it for you if you'd like.....

[rastaman]

Keep running the liberal rhetoric of the Reagan legacy. I guess you didnt see our stagnation economy during the Carter years. Obama will need to increase the debt for the same reasons. It will just be a different philosophy on how to do it and what the results will be. As of right now, this stimulus package will fail and be a waste of putting us more in debt while driving down the dollar. There is a reason for so many Reagan democrats to this day. While your numbers are correct on the debt, the personal lives of those effected in the late 70s to early 80s knew what was needed to bring prosperity back to America. More money was kept in house holds with lower interest rates, lower taxes and more jobs. Not all debt is bad and having a cap on spending would help (especially here in California with our socialist assembly in Sacramento). Reagan was a perfect time socially and fiscally. Obama will have the same opportunity to create debt but improve the economy. Reagan got a Democratic controlled house and senate, with a speaker verbally against Reagan politics, to go with his policies. So far Obama and Pelosi have failed with their own controlled house and assembly.

Look, you can try to rationalize and TRY to justify Reagan's 8 years of increasing the deficit and national debt unlike any President in U.S. history before him! But the facts remain that Republican Presidents over the last 28 years have borrowed and spent unlike any Presidential Admin. in the history of THE UNITED STATES.

In 1982, the first full year for Reagan’s policies, the economy shrank by 2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. Investment — the magic transmission belt through which all other Supply Side benefits were supposed to flow — actually declined as a percent of GDP over the 1980s. Worse, Reagan’s Supply Side policies created the biggest budget deficits in history. The numbers tell the story.

Jimmy Carter’s last budget produced a deficit of $77 billion. At the time, it seemed huge. But Reagan’s first budget swelled the deficit to $128 billion. By the next year, 1983, it had exploded to $208 billion and was creating severe problems for the economy. By 1992, at the end of the “Reagan Revolution,” (under Reagan’s Vice President and successor, Bush, Sr.) the deficit was approaching $300 billion a year.

Annual deficits, of course, accumulate to the national debt. In 1980, the national debt amounted to less than $1 trillion. By the end of 1992, it had reached $4.35 trillion. In other words, the debt, which had taken over 200 years to reach $1 trillion, quadrupled in the 12 years of Supply Side Economics.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?

The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It wasn’t even close. The economy performed dramatically better in almost every way once Supply Side policies were replaced with Demand Side policies.

The most dramatic outcome was the reversal of the Reagan-era Supply Side deficits. Clinton’s Demand Side policies not only paid down the Reagan/Bush deficits, they produced the first budgetary surpluses since 1969. By the time Clinton left office, the government was running surpluses of almost $140 billion per year. This is what he turned over to George W. Bush in January of 2001.

Bush, of course, returned to the Supply Side policies of Reagan and his father. He lowered taxes on the very rich — his “base” as he calls them. His $1.6 trillion in tax cuts give 45% of the benefits to the top 1% of the population. It is classic Supply Side economics.

[Spider]

Spider, don't let Obama brainwash you like Bush did back in 2001.

;D I will put the same amount of faith in Obama as did bush , if Obama burns me like Bush did , I wont have a damn thing to do with him .........

[mhgaffney]

I have a very bad feeling about the so called economic bail out.

Is Obama serving the best interests of the nation at large -- or is he rewarding the bankers who gave him MAJOR campaign money to defeat McCain?

Sorry -- but it sure does look to me like the latter is the case.

I agree with Ron Paul and Kucinich -- that the fisrt step outa this mes should be to dissolve the federal reserve bank.

Why do we need a private bank to create money for the nation (out of thin air) and charge us for the priviledge? It is a scam and its only purpose is to line the pockets of a tiny group of assholes.

Everyone else -- 99.99% of the nation -- gets screwed.

MHG

[broncocalijohn]

FYI,pork barrel spending is money spent on infastructure. For example the money that was supposed be used on the mall in D.C., actual people/workers have to be hired & put to work to fix/refurbish the mall.

So at a million dollars an acre to resod, how much are they paying the workers per hour? Dont patronize me and tell me that pork barrel spending is necessary and needed. States get money from the Federal government for projects. Pork barrel spending is pet projects to pay back donors and their home town area....for the most part.

[peacepipe]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/cshnqwvbg0kphvd5_ilhzw.gif

[peacepipe]

So at a million dollars an acre to resod, how much are they paying the workers per hour? Dont patronize me and tell me that pork barrel spending is necessary and needed. States get money from the Federal government for projects. Pork barrel spending is pet projects to pay back donors and their home town area....for the most part..In D.C. probably between 10-20 dollars an hr, closer to ten most likely. Either way it is putting people to work which is the point.

[cutthemdown]

I have a very bad feeling about the so called economic bail out.

Is Obama serving the best interests of the nation at large -- or is he rewarding the bankers who gave him MAJOR campaign money to defeat McCain?

Sorry -- but it sure does look to me like the latter is the case.

I agree with Ron Paul and Kucinich -- that the fisrt step outa this mes should be to dissolve the federal reserve bank.

Why do we need a private bank to create money for the nation (out of thin air) and charge us for the priviledge? It is a scam and its only purpose is to line the pockets of a tiny group of a-holes.

Everyone else -- 99.99% of the nation -- gets screwed.

MHG

8 billion for high speed rail, I'm pretty happy about that. If they spend the money building things that last and are useful at least we aill have something to show for the money.

It's all the money for things like unemployment that worry me because when its gone there could just be a bunch of unemployed people again.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

What? The GOP is opposed to legislation that is designed to do something other than promote national security and help big business?! Knock me over with a feather.

All kidding aside, you know that they're wrong when all they can do is say it's wasteful spending and that we should either cut taxes or do nothing instead. If it is so wasteful, why do these brilliant economists that presided over the biggest increase in national debt in history, not provide us with a more efficient plan?

[Bronco Bob]

If anyone is curious as to what is actually in the bill and don't
just want to take Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann's word for
it, here is the whole thing.

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf

[Bronco Bob]

Amazing the Republicans actually act like Conservative on fiscal policy when they dont have to cave in to a compromising president. When Bush was president, they spent like a Democrat. When the opposition runs the White House, they are back at what they promised their districts. If they stick to their beliefs regardless of who is in the White House, they might be respected more. Kudos for sticking together. This farce of a stimulus is going to screw us and not be productive. But then again, $1 million per acre for the National Lawn will bring jobs in by the thousands and show what a great deal we are getting at that cost!

Been listening to Limbaugh again? :wiggle:

Actually the money isn't just for sod, it's for construction and repair
of buildings and other facilities.


NATIONAL MALL REVITALIZATION FUND
For construction, improvements, repair, or replacement of facilities related
to the revitalization of National Park Service assets on the National Mall in
Washington, DC, $200,000,000, of which $100,000,000 shall only be
made available to the extent that funds are matched by
non-Federal contributions: Provided, That the amount set
aside from this appropriation pursuant to section 1106 of
this Act shall be not more than 5 percent instead of the
percentage specified in such section.

And even then they only get half the money if it is matched by
private contributions.

[barryr]

Oh, so I get it. Any republican who doesn't vote with Obama is just playing politics. Any democrat who didn't vote for a Bush policy or any republican for that matter, was doing it for the good of the country and not playing politics. The double standards continue.

[cutthemdown]

I also heard much of the 8 billion for high speed rail is coming straight to california and nevada. High speed train from SD to SF and another from LA to Vegas. Yeah baby!!!!!!

[cutthemdown]

Oh, so I get it. Any republican who doesn't vote with Obama is just playing politics. Any democrat who didn't vote for a Bush policy or any republican for that matter, was doing it for the good of the country and not playing politics. The double standards continue.

I think in a way the Republicans are being like that. They forget how they didn't include dems on tons of bills and legislation? To the victor goes the spoils. As someone who agrees with Republicans more then Democrats you just have to understand and accept that.

If the Dems ideas fail miserably you can bet Obama won't win in 4 yrs. If the economy picks up, does well, we have good security he probably win again. It really is that simple.

Like I said earlier, 8 Billion for high speed rail development. I'm stoked about that because I think high speed trains can solve a lot of problems.

[Arkie]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/cshnqwvbg0kphvd5_ilhzw.gif

I don't think many people comprehend $800,000,000,000.00. That's $3000 per person or $12,000 for a family of four. Most people won't be held accountable for that debt. A 3rd of our govt is funded by the top 1% taxpayers. The other two 3rds are covered by the top 50%. The bottom 50 barely owe anything.

[peacepipe]

I don't think many people comprehend $800,000,000,000.00. That's $3000 per person or $12,000 for a family of four. Most people won't be held accountable for that debt. A 3rd of our govt is funded by the top 1% taxpayers. The other two 3rds are covered by the top 50%. The bottom 50 barely owe anything.I don't think many people realize how big a hole we're in. Considering how much reps have been on the news blasting the stim,i'm pretty sure everyone is well aware of how big it is. the size of this bill has been completely vetted & to much of the republicans dismay it has almost 60% support.

[Taco John]

I'm glad they didn't vote for this travesty of a bill.

This bill will ruin our nation.

[barryr]

It also wasn't long ago democrats and the media were deriding Bush for not being a "uniter" so that does that mean people can start being hysterical like them and say the same about Obama?

[Bronco Bob]

Oh, so I get it. Any republican who doesn't vote with Obama is just playing politics.


Yep, that should be fairly obvious to anyone paying attention.



Any democrat who didn't vote for a Bush policy or any republican for that matter, was doing it for the good of the country and not playing politics.

Just the ones that were smart enough to realize that the Bush Crime Syndicate
was all about enriching their corporate buddies.

[Bronco Bob]

It also wasn't long ago democrats and the media were deriding Bush for not being a "uniter" so that does that mean people can start being hysterical like them and say the same about Obama?

When did Obama dub himself the "uniter"?

[Taco John]

When did Obama dub himself the "uniter"?

Bi-partasainship has been his calling card. Where have you been?

[Spider]

Bi-partasainship has been his calling card. Where have you been?

Sen Lugar wouldnt even board Air force 1 with Obama ...... how can one be Bi partisan when the otherside wont work with him on any thing ?

[Bronco Bob]

Bi-partasainship has been his calling card. Where have you been?

You still haven't answered the question.

[Bronco Bob]

Sen Lugar wouldnt even board Air force 1 with Obama ...... how can one be Bi partisan when the otherside wont work with him on any thing ?

Obama should just say, look folks, I gave it a try. From now on we Democrats are
just going to do what we think is best for the country and if the Republicans
don't like it, I don't really care. If in four years you think I got it wrong,
feel free to vote me out.

[Meck77]

I don't think many people comprehend $800,000,000,000.00. That's $3000 per person or $12,000 for a family of four. Most people won't be held accountable for that debt. A 3rd of our govt is funded by the top 1% taxpayers. The other two 3rds are covered by the top 50%. The bottom 50 barely owe anything.

It simply amazes me that there are people who think our government can spend that money better than the American people could.

If the government cut me a check for 6k right now I'd create a part time job for my business by the end of the week. Instead that 6k is going to be wrapped up in a pile of government BS for years.

Actually I'd probably make it a full time job if I knew that 800 ****ing billion dollars was going into the pockets of other business people in this country instead of a bunch of corrupt aholes.

[Bronco Bob]

It simply amazes me that there are people who think our government can spend that money better than the American people could.


Actually the purpose of the bill is to give money to people to spend.
Part of it is tax cuts for the middle class and part of it is to create
jobs for people who aren't working so they will have money to spend
too.

If the government cut me a check for 6k right now I'd create a part time job for my business by the end of the week. Instead that 6k is going to be wrapped up in a pile of government BS for years.


So if more people have money and start buying more of your widgets,
won't that also give you an incentive to hire some more people?


Actually I'd probably make it a full time job if I knew that 800 ****ing billion dollars was going into the pockets of other business people in this country instead of a bunch of corrupt aholes.

Some money goes to business people, some goes to people who work for a living.

[Taco John]

You still haven't answered the question.


He hasn't used the word "uniter" to my knowledge though it's not an important distinction. What's the point of quibbling over a word when the base sentiment is really about bipartisainship?

[peacepipe]

Bi-partasainship has been his calling card. Where have you been?Yes, you are right,but with all do respect, some people obviously can't be reasoned with. Obama did everything he could to make this bipartisan. You can't put the blame on him for the othersides ignorance.

[Taco John]

Yes, you are right,but with all do respect, some people obviously can't be reasoned with. Obama did everything he could to make this bipartisan. You can't put the blame on him for the othersides ignorance.


If this is Obama's attitude, then this country is worse off than I had ever imagined. The fact that he couldn't get a single Republican to vote his way is going to be of historic significance when this thing fails.

This is a stark ledge that the Democrats are jumping this country off of. Personally, I believe it's doomed to failure. I think that it's going to end very badly for our nation, and I'm very concerned. This could very well be the begining of the greatest collapse of government in the history of the world. No nation has ever put themselves in debt to the rest of the world so greatly in the history of mankind. I personally can't imagine how this could possibly turn out in any other way but disater.

[Spider]

If this is Obama's attitude, then this country is worse off than I had ever imagined. The fact that he couldn't get a single Republican to vote his way is going to be of historic significance when this thing fails.

This is a stark ledge that the Democrats are jumping this country off of. Personally, I believe it's doomed to failure. I think that it's going to end very badly for our nation, and I'm very concerned. This could very well be the begining of the greatest collapse of government in the history of the world. No nation has ever put themselves in debt to the rest of the world so greatly in the history of mankind. I personally can't imagine how this could possibly turn out in any other way but disater.

LOL pretty hysterical ........

[peacepipe]

If this is Obama's attitude, then this country is worse off than I had ever imagined. The fact that he couldn't get a single Republican to vote his way is going to be of historic significance when this thing fails.
This is a stark ledge that the Democrats are jumping this country off of. Personally, I believe it's doomed to failure. I think that it's going to end very badly for our nation, and I'm very concerned. This could very well be the begining of the greatest collapse of government in the history of the world. No nation has ever put themselves in debt to the rest of the world so greatly in the history of mankind. I personally can't imagine how this could possibly turn out in any other way but disater.Quite a bold assumption, What's going to be the historical significance when this thing succeeds?

[Bronco Bob]

Quite a bold assumption, What's going to be the historical significance when this thing succeeds?

The Republicans will just claim it would have gotten better on its own.
Or, as in the case of Roosevelt, Obama delayed it getting better
on its own by his intervention. Fortunately in the case of Roosevelt
the working people were smart enough to see through the Republican
BS and vote Roosevelt in for a record four terms. Just hope if
Obama succeeds the working people will again be smart enough
to see through the Republican BS. Because it is going to take
at least another 8 years to undo the mess Bush created.

[BroncoInferno]

He hasn't used the word "uniter" to my knowledge though it's not an important distinction. What's the point of quibbling over a word when the base sentiment is really about bipartisainship?

There is two sides to the bipartisan coin, Taco. If the Republicans refuse to play ball out of political posturing (which most are clearly doing), there is not a whole lot Obama can do about that. He'll just have lead by example, and if his policies succeed the Republicans will either have to start getting into the game or fall further into political irrelevancy.

[watermock]

http://markets.usatoday.net/custom/usatoday-com/fp-trans-quotes3.gifquote

See, it's allready working....

http://markets.usatoday.net/custom/usatoday-com/fp-trans-quotes3.gifquote