Democrats say if some is good, more MUST be better!

Nude_IHB

Nude_IHB

New member
<span style="font-size: 16px;">Even before the stimulus checks have hit banks accounts, your Democratic party leadership in Congress has pledged to spend more of your money on you than the Republicans can:</span>

<blockquote>NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Democratic leaders are signaling that they will launch a spring offensive on the economy by pushing for measures aimed at creating jobs and providing relief for Americans struggling financially.



The effort, which has started taking shape in the past week, comes just two months after the first stimulus package was enacted and a few weeks before the IRS will start distributing one-time tax rebates to more than 130 million households. The push is set against the election-year backdrop of a national economy that is showing increasing signs of strain and even recession.



So far, President Bush isn't on board. He has said repeatedly he wants to give the first package a chance to work before considering other measures.</blockquote>
Well, there is something new... Bush43 showing some spending restraint. Where were you 7 years ago, George? But I digress...

<blockquote>The provision most likely to pass is an extension of unemployment benefits, which are usually capped at 26 weeks. One bill being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee this week calls for a 13-week extension plus an additional 13 weeks in states with high unemployment, defined under the bill as 6% or more.



A similar measure was taken out of the first bipartisan stimulus package. But since then unemployment has gone up to 5.1%, and supporters note that 1.3 million people have exhausted their benefits in the past six months and 3 million will do so in the next year.



"Extended jobless benefits immediately boost the economy while also providing targeted relief to struggling homeowners and those communities hit hardest by the foreclosure crisis," said Maurice Emsellem, policy co-director for the National Employment Law Project, in testimony before a Ways and Means subcommittee last week.</blockquote>
Well, that's awfully nice of them. They are going to double the cost being paid by employers who had to let people go in order to stay in business. I'm sure that will stimulate the economy and get those highly paid workers their high-paying jobs back.

<blockquote>A few other measures seen as possible stimulus candidates: an increase in food stamp payments and <strong>a second tax rebate for low- and middle-income Americans, especially those who may not have qualified for the maximum rebate in the first package</strong>. The theory is that people who need a rebate most will be most likely to spend it - and thus to juice the economy.



But the fact that housing is one of the main causes of the downturn could alter lawmakers' thinking on the need for direct consumer spending stimulus.



"There is a sentiment that the $<strong>10 billion or $15 billion</strong>[that could be spent on a fiscal stimulus measure] might be better targeted to something housing-related," Phillips said.



Deficit hawks will also be on guard against efforts by lawmakers to slip in measures under the guise of stimulus, the cost for which typically isn't offset by other provisions.



Said Stretch: "<u><span style="color: red;">Part of the dynamic here is that as long as 'stimulus' can get stamped on it, that lets [lawmakers] get away from the budgetary obligation to pay for it.</span></u>" </blockquote>
Excellent. Brilliant. We have yet to see -one thin dime- of the original 'stimulus' package but that hasn;t stopped those wonderful "pay-go" Democrats from eagerly trying to buy their way into your hearts and political offices... with your own money.



<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/15/news/economy/stimulus_options/index.htm?postversion=2008041508">Source</a>



(btw, CNN Money has an excellent new currency exchange rate tracker... <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/15/news/economy/stimulus_options/index.htm?postversion=2008041508">go look!</a> )
 
I oppose the current stimulus package because I think there is no way in hell it will do anything to our economy other than increase the deficit. But it makes the dems feel good and the Republicans bought into it because Bernake (the economy czar) told them to do it.



That said, extending jobless benefits would have been much better for the economy than handing out checks but politically it would have been impossible to pass.



Handing out a second check is just plain idiocy.
 
<em>"those wonderful ?pay-go? Democrats from eagerly trying to buy their way into your hearts and political offices? with your own money" </em>



Isn't that done through <strong>any</strong> decrease in taxes ($1.6 trillion tax cut proposal over a decade in 2001) or tax refund checks (flashback to the $400 in 2003, for instance)??? Any politician will try to buy voter's hearts by offering something in return - regardless on which side of the aisle they are.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1208390218]<em>"those wonderful ?pay-go? Democrats from eagerly trying to buy their way into your hearts and political offices? with your own money" </em>



Isn't that done through <strong>any</strong> decrease in taxes ($1.6 trillion tax cut proposal over a decade in 2001) or tax refund checks (flashback to the $400 in 2003, for instance)??? Any politician will try to buy voter's hearts by offering something in return - regardless on which side of the aisle they are.</blockquote>
Cutting taxes means they are taking *less* money out of my pocket, and it affects everyone in the adjusted bracket. The tax cuts in 2001 were a direct result of a surplus in tax revenues. Rather than pay down the national debt, Bush decided to cut the rate to fight the recession. A tax cut can only be seen as a buy-out if your view of private income is 'uncollected taxes'. But, I agree that I'd be more inclined to vote for the person offering to lower the amount of money confiscated by the government.



But that's the problem with this plan. The Democrats got all up-in-arms about the 'cost' of fixing the AMT because it wasn't being paid for by tax increases in other areas, and yet they are more than willing to toss their new found fiscal responsibility under the bus when it becomes politically expedient. They aren't offering to lower my taxes, they are offering to give even more of my money to specific groups without seeing if the first give-away has any effect at all on the problem and will either increase deficit spending or raise taxes to do it. There is no decrease in tax *rates*, only a targeted donation based on a yet unproven theory.



If you can't see the difference between a tax cut and wealth distribution, then you probably can't see the blatant Democrat hypocrisy either. :-/
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1208391414][quote author="green_cactus" date=1208390218]<em>"those wonderful ?pay-go? Democrats from eagerly trying to buy their way into your hearts and political offices? with your own money" </em>



Isn't that done through <strong>any</strong> decrease in taxes ($1.6 trillion tax cut proposal over a decade in 2001) or tax refund checks (flashback to the $400 in 2003, for instance)??? Any politician will try to buy voter's hearts by offering something in return - regardless on which side of the aisle they are.</blockquote>
Cutting taxes means they are taking *less* money out of my pocket, and it affects everyone in the adjusted bracket. The tax cuts in 2001 were a direct result of a surplus in tax revenues. Rather than pay down the national debt, Bush decided to cut the rate to fight the recession. A tax cut can only be seen as a buy-out if your view of private income is 'uncollected taxes'. But, I agree that I'd be more inclined to vote for the person offering to lower the amount of money confiscated by the government.



But that's the problem with this plan. The Democrats got all up-in-arms about the 'cost' of fixing the AMT because it wasn't being paid for by tax increases in other areas, and yet they are more than willing to toss their new found fiscal responsibility under the bus when it becomes politically expedient. They aren't offering to lower my taxes, they are offering to give even more of my money to specific groups without seeing if the first give-away has any effect at all on the problem and will either increase deficit spending or raise taxes to do it. There is no decrease in tax *rates*, only a targeted donation based on a yet unproven theory.



If you can't see the difference between a tax cut and wealth distribution, then you probably can't see the blatant Democrat hypocrisy either. :-/</blockquote>


All I'm saying is that <strong>ALL</strong> politicians will try to find their way into the voter's heart through their wallet. You were sort of giving the Democrats a monopoly on that aspect. I'm not defending this proposal by any means, nor do I argue that Democrats are going about it the right way. And as far as a tax cut goes, I was just taking a jab at the projected surplus that everyone was envisioning back in 2000-2001. Alas, things turned out to be somewhat different. Offering a tax cut at the expense of running up a deficit doesn't sound as good anymore.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1208391414]

Cutting taxes means they are taking *less* money out of my pocket...</blockquote>


Not really. Cutting <em>spending </em>would be taking less money out of your pocket. Borrowing and spending (the result of Bush cutting tax rates without cutting spending) simply pushes your tax burden into the future.



Back to your point, though -- all politicians are pandering hypocrites. The Democrats just happen to be the party in power. Maybe the next generation of Republicans can regain power and actually cut spending <em>and </em>taxes, but I am not holding my breath. If the Democrats keep doing this, they may hasten their own downfall, but not until after their constituency enjoys the largess of our federal government.
 
ron paul says hello.



but ron paul is a crazy person.



by transitive property, cutting taxes and spending is apparently crazy.
 
totally agree... i hope the lasting impact of his popularity is the right actually starts moving to the right for once.
 
[quote author="acpme" date=1208399784]

but ron paul is a crazy person.

</blockquote>


As great as some of his ideas may be, he has too much of a hard time holding on to a single thought. Whenever he starts making a good point he ends up rambling into a tangential. You need someone that has more charisma and who is a better demagogue to embody those ideas. Otherwise they'll just be seen as some loony banter.



BTW, how do the libertarians on this board feel about Bob Barr?
 
actually i think ron paul too often gets stuck on a single thought. and that leads him to one of his crazy tangent rants. but i guess we're sort of saying the same thing.



congressman paul, what do you think of the economy?

<span style="color: red;">omigawd the fed is just printing money and the dollar is crashing!</span>



what would you do about the war in iraq?

<span style="color: red;">omigawd we keep talking about war and we don't even see that the fed is printing money and the dollar is crashing!

</span>

what do you think about nationalizing health care?

<span style="color: red;">omigawd how are we going to pay for that when the fed is printing money and the dollar is crashing!</span>
 
[quote author="skek" date=1208404122]Trouble is, I see no, repeat no impact from Ron Paul on the GOP mainstream. Granted, he fires up the hard-core libertarians and college students, but neither of those are significant Republican constituencies. Further, he is considered just far enough outside the mainstream that elected Republicans try to distance themselves from him, rather than align themselves with him. I wish he'd have more of an impact, but my suspicion is that his impact will dissipate with his candidacy in a few months.</blockquote>
He's the republican Ralph Nader
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1208417227]when was the last time either party actually paid down the huge federal deficit (ie grandchild tax)?</blockquote>
The deficit is the amount overspent ever fiscal year. The debt is the accumulation of the deficits.



Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress under Speaker Newt Gingrich were the last to come up with a budget that created a surplus rather than a deficit, and it took a complete government shutdown to accomplish it. When Bush came in to office, the budget was running a considerable surplus that should have gone to pay down the debt. Instead, he cut taxes under the rationale that it is "your money" and to end the recession. When military and defense spending skyrocketed post-9/11, all the budgetary restraint was removed (by both parties) and deficit spending came roaring back, while the tax cuts were increased to keep the economy going.



The short answer to your question is: we've carried a national debt since 1835. Andrew Jackson was in the White House. He was a Democrat, but I doubt that the definition would describe him as well today.
 
sorry for the mis-phrased question.



did Clinton actually pay down the debt?



I suspect that the huge debt run up during WWII was paid down in the 1950s, but since then?



(don't get me started on the "fiscal conservative" Bush the lesser, and the republican party)
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1208419881]sorry for the mis-phrased question.



did Clinton actually pay down the debt?



I suspect that the huge debt run up during WWII was paid down in the 1950s, but since then?



(don't get me started on the "fiscal conservative" Bush the lesser, and the republican party)</blockquote>
<img src="http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Gross-National-Deficit.gif" alt="" />

Before I give myself an aneurysm, let's be straightforward: It takes both Congress and the President to spend money; the President's role is limited to suggestion and approval, it is Congress that decides the budget. Pinning the blame or laying praise on any one person is to ignore half the facts and lead to incorrect conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top