"You know, Paul [O'Neil], Reagan proved deficits don't matter," - Dick Cheney
So, either deficits don't matter (when it's under Republicans), or deficits do matter (when under Democrats).
The economy thrived under Reagan, so maybe they do matter when under Republicans.
WHADDAYA THINK OF THAT?
Just keep making the issues about stuff that really doesn't matter. The public will follow.
Exactly what we got out of the GOP convention. No history or credibility, decisive us against them politics, do what bush did (without mentioning him) and everything will be great. (for the 1%)
And the DNC about messages about Abortion, HealthInsurance, Birthcontrol, Tax Returns, Fairness, all weighs heavily on the publics mind when the economy is in the shitter and we have 8%+ unemployment.
I return you to post 88.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33927247&postcount=88
When you explain that and tell me how Romney will do better, you may get some credibility.
Edit: Especially when he wishes to expand defense spending with an unpaid for tax cut. I call shens.
Divert much? Where is the added cost of 2 years of unemployment Bush caused ?
Government that fall under discressionary spending that have seen 10-20% increases?
That graph is a heaping pile of flem and you know it.
Now, back on topicv. Abortion, HealthInsurance, Birthcontrol, Tax Returns, Fairness is what the country cares about over Jobs?
No, it's called basic economics. Unless your family budget can increase its earnings whenever you want, either by raising (no good analogy to taxation) or in the worst case scenario by (no good analogy to printing money) at the cost of (there's no good analogy for slower economic growth, because it's a shit analogy to start)? Unless you're arguing that we're all family and so we have to support each other when we're broke and down no matter the cost? Unless there's no such thing as debt collectors or repo men when your family wracks up a debt? Unless the whole world is eager to lend you money at sub-inflation rates, despite the previous difference?
It's a shit analogy. Government debt is nothing like the kind of debt we experience day-to-day. It's still 100% possible to understand that and argue for eliminating the debt being very important for the government. It just requires talking about what it is rather than trying to oversimplify.
I can think of a great analogy for taxation and printing money it's called stealing but extortion works too.
Fixed.
No. I think it's kind of telling. Much more than you would like to accept.
Dude this thread is about the Decifit. Not that. You are off topic.
Now answer!
How can you vote for Romney when he wishes to expand defense spending with an unpaid for tax cut?
Ugh yeah those are great analogies for household accounting, I know my house's income is entirely derived from extorting and stealing from my family members, and then I use that money for my family's benefit, that's a perfect 1 to 1 comparison that makes things easy to understand.
Ugh yeah those are great analogies for household accounting, I know my house's income is entirely derived from extorting and stealing from my family members, and then I use that money for my family's benefit, that's a perfect 1 to 1 comparison that makes things easy to understand.
Lets not bring what Gov does to those who pay a positive amount of Fed taxes to pay for all the sh1t Gov spends money on into the discussion...
Which Bush policy was it that cause the Housing Market to crash?
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Bush said:If houses get too expensive, people will stop buying them... Economies should cycle
"Unpaid" is false - From Romney's Tax Plan - "revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. "