PSA to fellow liberals: Conservatives don't want our advice on how to win elections

[buckshot24]

This sounds stupid and ignorant.

Reagan didn't spend within our means, bush 2 didn't either. That's 16 years of republicans not spending within our means.

Haven't even researched bush 1 but I doubt he did.

What does this have to do with what I wrote?

 

[buckshot24]

If eliminating food stamps will not appreciably lower the deficit. Then cutting them by a less amount surely will not.

Who is talking about cutting food stamps as a means to reduce the deficit? If I have ever said something like this I'd like to see it.

If I would propose cutting food stamps it would be in an effort to reduce dependency not the deficit.

 

[buckshot24]

It's a start in the right direction. Revenues obviously need to go up, and the only way that tax increases for upper class & upper middle class people will be political palatable is if the Rich demonstrably pay more.

Revenues go up with a growing economy. Raising the costs of transactions is going to create less of them than there otherwise would have been. What rates would you like to see on cap gains and the top income bracket?

Trickledown economics is a lie, and always has been. Concentration of income in this country has become so severe as to be debilitating to commerce & the general economy. What was a symbiotic relationship between working people and the Rich has become parasitic, with the very few at the very top hoarding resources that are beyond their ability to use in any sort of productive fashion. The only way to put those money resources back into circulation is with taxes or borrowing, and we've seen what 30 years of borrowing has accomplished.

Where do the rich keep their money? Mattresses? No they keep them in banks which the banks then loan out to lower income workers when they buy their cars and houses.

It's their money? I suppose so, and it's he right & responsibility of our democratically elected govt to determine how much of it they get to keep after taxes.

What a fascist you are.

A thriving middle class capable of supporting the Rich class needs middle class incomes & benefits, and if capitalists won't provide that on their own, then the people will force them to do so, one way or another. If capitalists want low taxes, then they need to make capitalism work for everybody, not just for themselves.

The "poor" here live better than the "poor" just about anywhere else in the world. Do you have any counter examples?

 

[Jhhnn]

What does this have to do with what I wrote?

How deliberately obtuse can you be? Clearly, the last 3 Repub presidents haven't described "spending within our means" the same way you do, at all. Nor have Repub Congresses, either. The only time they wring their hands over deficit spending is when they're out of power & when deficits aren't something they create with tax cuts, particularly tax cuts for the Rich.

Both you & they conveniently conflate the issues, using the current situation as a foil in the usual attack on the Welfare State, the state they've made necessary with their own policy. The need for it has not been greater since the last time Repub policy crashed the economy, leading to the Great Depression.

 

[lotus503]

What does this have to do with what I wrote?

You said liberal politicians, when reality is its all politicians. It seems you don't have an issue with it as long as you agree on what money is being spent on.

Given that politicians overspend Partisans only complain about spending they don't agree with, like welfare etc.

The sooner people accept the problem is the political process in general is bad for government the better off we will all be.

 

[nehalem256]

Who is talking about cutting food stamps as a means to reduce the deficit? If I have ever said something like this I'd like to see it.

If I would propose cutting food stamps it would be in an effort to reduce dependency not the deficit.

So you think that somehow it is possible to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you think that somehow it is possible to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending.

Of course he does. It's the GWB premise, that cutting taxes will create enormous economic growth outstripping the losses from lower rates.

It's never worked, nor will it ever, and it just hand waves away the ongoing distributional changes.

Hooray! GDP is up! Median families don't get shit out of it, other than more of them getting laid off & a bigger line of credit, but it's wonderful, wonderful news for the financial elite!

It's all about priorities... and Repub priorities are all about the Rich getting richer.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Liberals, take your advice and ram it up your asses. At least there it might do a little good.

Why the hell should we listen to people who want us to lose?

The simple fact that Republicans have won the Presidency explains why you are wrong.

Approx. 15-20% of the Obama vote was actually 'in play' in this election. Which means they didn't want 'you' to lose; they simply did not prefer Romney to Obama.

Social policy is massively secondary to economic policy for most voters; dial down the Rhetoric and you stop alienating women and social liberals. Adopt intelligent (but still conservative) economic policy, and Republicans win in a landslide.

And you know what? The only people who will be upset are the 'team Democrat' voters; the type who vote straight ticket, every time, and couldn't give a rational reason why.

The people have spoken; they do not want neoconservative policies (deregulate as quickly as possible, aggressive military policy), and they are not social conservatives (abortion, all-in on WOD, DOMA).

Republicans have 2 years, minimum to control the House; even if every bill is vetoed, they can prove that there is intelligence and commitment left in the party.

You won't be 'beating' the people giving you advice, you'll be giving them a reason to join you.

 

[Lemon law]

Liberals, take your advice and ram it up your asses. At least there it might do a little good.

Why the hell should we listen to people who want us to lose?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry buckshot24, in terms of losing, you proud republicans are doing a fine job of losing all by yourselves! You don't need any democratic help there.

But then again, as the GOP now claims the dimocrats can't get anything right. Maybe the GOP should listen to democratic advice and then do the opposite. Or wait, maybe that what the GOP already did in losing the election of 2012.

 

[Jhhnn]

Revenues go up with a growing economy. Raising the costs of transactions is going to create less of them than there otherwise would have been. What rates would you like to see on cap gains and the top income bracket?

We tried that, remember? It didn't work. That was the GWB song & dance routine, for sure. It's just that growth never occurred at a rate sufficient to overcome the tax rate cuts. GWB & a Repub congress doubled the national debt in that particular flimflam.

Where do the rich keep their money? Mattresses? No they keep them in banks which the banks then loan out to lower income workers when they buy their cars and houses.

Sounds peachy, except that the general population is deleveraging from the Ownership society, paying off debt & saving rather than borrowing. Anybody who bought a house during that period will be deleveraging for a very long time to pay down an underwater mortgage. Anybody whose credit was ruined won't be doing much borrowing, either.

Of course, there are lots of opportunities offshore, and plenty of US govt bonds available because of ultra-low taxes... maybe that has something to do with deficits, huh?

What a fascist you are.

Now you've resorted to simple name-calling using terms you obviously don't understand. Tax rates on the wealrhiest are much, much higher in other first world countries, and were in this country prior to Reagan. The Rich were, nonetheless, quite rich, and will remain so while paying higher taxes.

The "poor" here live better than the "poor" just about anywhere else in the world. Do you have any counter examples?

So what? That's mere attribution, anyway. Can you show that poor people are worse off in Scandinavia, Germany, or the rest of first world Europe? You'll need to do that to support such an assertion.

Poverty is a relative term, not an absolute, as it relates to any culture. This is a rich country, not a poor one, so it's reasonable to think that poor people should be better off than the poor of Bangla Desh...

 

[buckshot24]

How deliberately obtuse can you be?Clearly, the last 3 Repub presidents haven't described "spending within our means" the same way you do, at all. Nor have Repub Congresses, either. The only time they wring their hands over deficit spending is when they're out of power & when deficits aren't something they create with tax cuts, particularly tax cuts for the Rich.

Lets suppose that I didn't complain about GW Bush's spending (you have no evidence that I didn't by the way but let's assume that I didn't). I would have been wrong to not care about the spending going on when Republican's were in power from 2001 through 2007. Now just because I was wrong then (again assuming I didn't complain) doesn't excuse the levels of spending occurring now.

So bringing up any other president's policies of spending just doesn't answer the question about our current president's policies as far as spending is concerned. It's irrelevant what they did because we can't do jack shit about it. We can only change the future.

In any case our deficits are much larger now than any Republican president. It's sort of like the boiling pot and the frog. Obama has just turned up the heat enough for more people to notice.

 

[buckshot24]

So you think that somehow it is possible to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending.

Nobody is saying anything of the sort.

 

[UberNeuman]

Nobody is saying anything of the sort.

Eat or be eaten....

 

[Lemon law]

Nobody is saying anything of the sort.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since nearly everyone is asking that same question buckshot24, I guess you just proved yourself to be a non existent nobody in denial of reality.

Thank you very much, buchshot24, for self identifying yourself as in being unqualified to partispate in rational discussions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lets suppose that I didn't complain about GW Bush's spending (you have no evidence that I didn't by the way but let's assume that I didn't). I would have been wrong to not care about the spending going on when Republican's were in power from 2001 through 2007. Now just because I was wrong then (again assuming I didn't complain) doesn't excuse the levels of spending occurring now.

So bringing up any other president's policies of spending just doesn't answer the question about our current president's policies as far as spending is concerned. It's irrelevant what they did because we can't do jack shit about it. We can only change the future.

In any case our deficits are much larger now than any Republican president. It's sort of like the boiling pot and the frog. Obama has just turned up the heat enough for more people to notice.

There's a reason for large deficits now, the greatest economic depression since the Great Depression. It's mostly due to automatic provisions in existing law that were put there for good reasons, to stabilize the economy, prevent the kind of damage caused by the Great Depression.

The reason we have that Depression is because of Republican policy over the preceding years- economic collapse cannot happen in a truly healthy economy, but rather only from an unsustainable speculative peak & the over extension of credit to create it. That's exactly what Republican governance achieved, along with the greatest class warfare looting spree in the history of finance.

Who the Hell do you think owns all the debt in this country? Poor people? Quite the contrary. The financial elite owns it, and they'll be getting paid & collecting interest on it for a very long time to come.

In a deflationary situation, debtors get screwed, hard, because every dollar they pay is harder to get than the one before it. Commerce tends to collapse, as well, because saved money increases in value from the very act of holding on to it. Austerity, which is what Repubs want, is strongly deflationary, and will only enhance the value of liquidity hoards among those possessing them. Who is that, anyway?

 

[buckshot24]

There's a reason for large deficits now, the greatest economic depression since the Great Depression. It's mostly due to automatic provisions in existing law that were put there for good reasons, to stabilize the economy, prevent the kind of damage caused by the Great Depression.

The reason we have that Depression is because of Republican policy over the preceding years- economic collapse cannot happen in a truly healthy economy, but rather only from an unsustainable speculative peak & the over extension of credit to create it. That's exactly what Republican governance achieved, along with the greatest class warfare looting spree in the history of finance.

You're a hack. Republicans may have some blame in what caused the housing crash but they don't have all of it. The idea that it was only Republicans that caused the bubble in the first place and it was the republicans who caused it to burst is ridiculous.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You're a hack. Republicans may have some blame in what caused the housing crash but they don't have all of it. The idea that it was only Republicans that caused the bubble in the first place and it was the republicans who caused it to burst is ridiculous.

It's quite funny that all your intellect could navigate in that was the tiny little barb.

This is why you conservatards are jokes. You can't actually process anything. You don't understand the first thing about the world around you and your opinions are based on nothing but your rampant stupidity, yet you expect those opinions to be respected.

 

[Ausm]

So let's lay off with the "advice" with which we pretend to be helpful but really just want them to shift closer to our views, okay? Seriously.

I personally don't fucking care but I am REALLY REALLY enjoying watching them self implode.

 

[buckshot24]

It's quite funny that all your intellect could navigate in that was the tiny little barb.

This is why you conservatards are jokes. You can't actually process anything. You don't understand the first thing about the world around you and your opinions are based on nothing but your rampant stupidity, yet you expect those opinions to be respected.

And yet John says that Republicans were the only party to blame for the housing bubble/burst and I don't understand reality? Get fucking real. Anybody who sees the world in that way is a hack. What I expect is for you to go fuck yourself.

 

[Bowfinger]

So let's lay off with the "advice" with which we pretend to be helpful but really just want them to shift closer to our views, okay? Seriously.

Meh. Children don't want to hear why vegetables are good for them either, but it's information they need. I happen to think America needs a healthy balance between the left and the right, which means America needs an intelligent and rational conservative influence. Today's GOP is neither intelligent nor rational. They should be the adults at the political table, moderating the child-like irresponsibility and self-indulgence of the left. Instead, they are even more childish, showing no interest whatsoever in delivering good, responsible government.

 

[Bowfinger]

And yet John says that Republicans were the only party to blame for the housing bubble/burst and I don't understand reality? Get fucking real. Anybody who sees the world in that way is a hack. What I expect is for you to go fuck yourself.

No dear, he didn't say that. You're the one pretending America's financial troubles are due solely to the housing bubble. That's not what Jhhnn said at all. That is your straw man, presumably because you cannot address his real argument.

 

[sm625]

How to win elections: Run a stuffed suit candidate that promises to give trillions to rich bankers, but can also stare into a pair of cleverly placed teleprompters and spout transparent 3rd rate propaganda in a somewhat charismatic sheeple-fooling way. Watch and laugh as the idiot masses vote to give their money to the top 0.1%. And then laugh more as your stuffed suit stooge talks about how the top 1% need to pay "their fair share"! Ha ha HAAAAAA. What a riot. "They actually think he's raising taxes on the top 0.1%?" Ha ha haaaaaaaa! The only thing dumber than a frickin neocon republican stooge is a liberal democrat stooge.

Tell me something, Mr Anderson, what good is a tax when you give them money for free? What the hell is the point in taxing back some of the money given to them for free. These obamanoids dont even understand what's being done, much less care.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The only period in recent history where our government ran a surplus was the clinton years -- a mix of democratic president, republican congress (before the republican party went full retard), and dot com bubble.

I doubt such a situation will reoccur for some time.

The short answer here is that the budget was balanced because we had a roaring PRIVATE SECTOR, which generated a lot of revenue. I've said it before and I'll say it again, until we can find a way to re-energize our private sector, thereby creating non .gov jobs, we won't make any appreciable dent in our deficit.

But the current admin won't do much in this regard since they're marketing expanded government, government dependence, and class envy.