What can we do to strengthen the middle class?

[fuzzybabybunny]

I agree with you about innovation, but I have a problem with your second observation. You're asking how we "strengthen the middle class" and complaining that too many of our jobs are "low pay" yet your suggestion is to lower wages. You then compare us unfavorably to China, in spite of the fact that China has very little "middle class" precisely because their wages are crap. You need to explain how we strengthen our middle class by emulating a country with a very weak middle class and a terrible standard of living.

So what's the other solution? Increase wages? Companies already are unwilling to pay current American wages.

Either wages or productivity can change.

If an American worker can make up for the higher wages by drastically increasing productivity and quality, then sure, I'll pay more.

If hiring an American worker can get me massive tax benefits to more than make up for their higher cost, that's great too.

The other option is to simply decrease American wages to a point where companies no longer see an incentive in off shoring.

Like I said and as you mentioned, there is no way to get even close to the $500 a month of a Chinese worker and it's unsustainable since they have no middle class. But the reality of the situation is that there are people out there who are working for $500 a month, thanks to capitalism and ineffective government regulation.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

That's why my post began with:



Some people make the mistake of concluding 'government is bad'.

That's an even worse conclusion than government serving the wealthy.

Government serving the people is essential to the people's interest.

If the people destroy governnent instead of taking it back for themselves, then they won't have any power against the powerful interests.

My philosophy as a rationalist and as a businessman has always been that government is absolutely necessary. Capitalism will always do what is most profitable, and that single desire will ruin nations.

Government is there to do the sometimes unprofitable things, the things that need to be done in order to secure stability and fairness for the people. We're supposed to be civilized. We're not wolves living out in the Alaskan wilderness where it is every animal for itself.

Government needs to provide foundation and infrastructure and LEADERSHIP.

Our government hasn't been doing this. Our government is a complete clusterfuck.

 

[Craig234]

Unfortuantely, generally speaking, economics is generally concerned 100% with the 'efficiency' issue and zero with the 'good of the people'.

Economics views slavery as an excellent thing in many ways, concerned only if it somehow reduces the productivity of the people (keeping the illiterate, for example).

So the people you might want to turn to to ask, 'how do we set things up economically for the people to prosper' don't really have much science to answer that.

I guess the above is a reason to post the Bobby Kennedy quote related to this:

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.


"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

That's why we don't have an economist run the country. The good of the people is a political priority as well. Productivity is a means to an end - the welare of the people.

 

[Craig234]

My philosophy as a rationalist and as a businessman has always been that government is absolutely necessary. Capitalism will always do what is most profitable, and that single desire will ruin nations.

Government is there to do the sometimes unprofitable things, the things that need to be done in order to secure stability and fairness for the people. We're supposed to be civilized. We're not wolves living out in the Alaskan wilderness where it is every animal for itself.

Government needs to provide foundation and infrastructure and LEADERSHIP.

Our government hasn't been doing this. Our government is a complete clusterfuck.

I largely agree with that, which is why I said to begin with regaining control of government to serve the public.

In the hands it's in now, it is primarily 'for the people' just enough to get elected, while having agendas very much against the public interest.

It's a bit more balanced than that sounds - a mixed bag of public interest and against it - but too much is against it.

The election industry is very good at burying the important economic issues bad for the public and making the public vote based on manufactured issues and nonsense.

2012 was no exception - Mitt Romney was electable with disastrous economic policies, but a sharp debate quip by Obama about cavalry being obsolete hurt him.

The 47% video was almost policy, but was really more a 'gotcha' event - the policies underlying it had not caused him a problem being elected.

Every election is like this, with the money buying opinion more and more.

And as bad as it is, it could be so much worse.

For example, North Carolina hasn't had the Republicans control both sides of government since 1870 - but the new law allowing unlimited money changed that. Thing is, 75% of that outside money was from one guy, who inherited a lot from his father's discount stores, who is just a committed right-wing partisan who spent $15 million to buy the election. If business were really figuring out how to engage this new law, we could see far greater sums to the point anyone not serving them would be all but unelectable.

Government really can be the enemy when our elections are broken; and that can lead to the people turning on government, which plays into the hands of the wealthy interests.

The great victory of America was the people taking more power for themselves away from the few most wealthy - and this corruption of politics threatens to see the people themselves trash that power for themselves. That's why it's so insidious for Reagan to have told the people to hate the government.

 

[OGOC]

The election industry is very good at burying the important economic issues bad for the public and making the public vote based on manufactured issues and nonsense.

2012 was no exception - Mitt Romney was electable with disastrous economic policies, but a sharp debate quip by Obama about cavalry being obsolete hurt him.

Your statement says Romney's economic policies are disastrous.
This implies Obama's economic policies are different.
This also implies Obama's economic polices are not "disastrous."

But Obama's economic policies are disastrous, and he still got elected anyway.

 

[Engineer]

Quit shipping their good paying, wealth building (i.e. making stuff) jobs out under guise of 'so called free trade'. The only thing free about free trade is we're freely giving our good paying job away in exchange for cheap, foreign made stuff. Not to mention, mortgaging our long term future for short term profits by those at the top.

It's pretty simple really.....especially if you look at the growth and now decline of the middle class and what transpired to get us to both.

 

[Craig234]

Your statement says Romney's economic policies are disastrous.
This implies Obama's economic policies are different.
This also implies Obama's economic polices are not "disastrous."

But Obama's economic policies are disastrous, and he still got elected anyway.

Even if you want to argue against Obama's policies, they're far less 'disastrous' than Romney's.

Romney would have slashed spending that benefits the American people - he called them 'the 47%' but it's actually many more - while greatly increasing wealth concentration.

 

[Craig234]

Quit shipping their good paying, wealth building (i.e. making stuff) jobs out under guise of 'so called free trade'. The only thing free about free trade is we're freely giving our good paying job away in exchange for cheap, foreign made stuff. Not to mention, mortgaging our long term future for short term profits by those at the top.

It's pretty simple really.....especially if you look at the growth and now decline of the middle class and what transpired to get us to both.

There are arguments for some of that 'free trade', given the global market where American companies have to compete with companies using cheap foreign labor.

But there are ways to address that which protect Americans more, instead of only serving the corporate owners while leaving the American people to see their wealth slashed.

Higher taxes on the wealthy owners benefiting from that market is just one good policy.

I'd like to find again a chart I recently saw comparing workers' income rising 5% over 20 years while the top 1% (0.1%?) rose 728%.

 

[Engineer]

Even if you want to argue against Obama's policies, they're far less 'disastrous' than Romney's.

Romney would have slashed spending that benefits the American people - he called them 'the 47%' but it's actually many more - while greatly increasing wealth concentration.

The 47% is now down to 43% and is expected to decline to 34% by 2020 (from an article that I just read). Nothing to do with your post other than the 47% number.

 

[Craig234]

The 47% is now down to 43% and is expected to decline to 34% by 2020 (from an article that I just read). Nothing to do with your post other than the 47% number.

That doesn't make any sense. First, Romney's use of '47%' was about people who are not declinng in number that I see.

Second, my point was that his policies would have been a disaster for a lot more than the 47% figure he used.

His policies were aimed at the 'top 0.1%'. Nearly everyone else paid the price.

 

[Engineer]

That doesn't make any sense. First, Romney's use of '47%' was about people who are not declinng in number that I see.

Second, my point was that his policies would have been a disaster for a lot more than the 47% figure he used.

His policies were aimed at the 'top 0.1%'. Nearly everyone else paid the price.

The 47% number originally came from the idea that 47% of the working people in the US paid no federal income tax (not counting SS, Medicare, etc). Because the economy is picking up, the number has dropped to 43% this year and is expected to continue to decline to 34% by 2020 (i.e. more people are expected to work and make more money and pay federal taxes). Not saying that will happen but that's the 'projection' as of right now.

If Romney was using the number out of context (don't remember), then I retract my statement above (although it still stands to the origins of the 47% number).

 

[OGOC]

Even if you want to argue against Obama's policies, they're far less 'disastrous' than Romney's.

That's just your opinion.
Obama's policies are similar to Bush's policies, and I hear a lot of people hate Bush's policies.

Maybe both Romney's and Obama's policies are disastrous. That's likely the correct answer.

 

[Craig234]

The 47% number originally came from the idea that 47% of the working people in the US paid no federal income tax (not counting SS, Medicare, etc). Because the economy is picking up, the number has dropped to 43% this year and is expected to continue to decline to 34% by 2020 (i.e. more people are expected to work and make more money and pay federal taxes). Not saying that will happen but that's the 'projection' as of right now.

If Romney was using the number out of context (don't remember), then I retract my statement above (although it still stands to the origins of the 47% number).

Well, that's a good question. I'm referring to the 47% as Romney's estimate of those his spending cuts would hurt, when it would be far more. He did refer to 47% as the percent of Americans not paying federal income tax, but that was almost a secondary comment after his other comments about them:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people...

 

[Craig234]

That's just your opinion.
Obama's policies are similar to Bush's policies, and I hear a lot of people hate Bush's policies.

Maybe both Romney's and Obama's policies are disastrous. That's likely the correct answer.

No, what I said is the correct answer.

If you want to look at similarities, you can find them - with almost the entire economic recovery under Obama going to the top 1%.

But the Republicans wanted to far, far worse things than Obama has done.

 

[Murloc]

I think a good thing would be to implement a dual education system as it already exists here and in other countries in Europe.
Most of the swiss population, instead of going to high school, does an apprenticeship with parallel schooling (which is not just technical but includes languages and other stuff, but much less than high school), or a full-time professional school where they learn a profession.

The point is that you enter the workforce without college and without debt as a skilled blue collar, and no one is expected to go to high school and college and put himself into debt while studying useless stuff, plus they can contribute to the family's financial security during the schooling. There are bridges for those who want to change paths with a loss of 1 year at most so no doors are shut by bad choices.

From what I've seen in "the wire" secondary schooling is a big problem in the US. Those difficult kids wouldn't even be admitted in high school here, because of low middle school grades (and the inability to pass the admission exam they have to do if those grades are low).

Another good reform would be to subsidize public universities so that students only pay a bearable fee (unless they have to repeat years, to avoid abuse). Graduates drowning in debt as they exit university surely doesn't contribute to creating a middle class with solid assets and decent disposable income.

 

[OGOC]

But the Republicans wanted to far, far worse things than Obama has done.

Yeah, like the "extremist" ones that want to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling and want to stop adding trillions to the debt of your kids.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, like the "extremist" ones that want to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling and want to stop adding trillions to the debt of your kids.

Since this is discussion club you can't get away with a drive by lie and no correction.

So, let's review the facts which disprove your partisan, misinformed political attack.

Now, the 'liberal era' in the US was rougly from FDR to LBJ or arguably to Carter.

World War II caused a huge debt - but look at what the liberal era did after.

Who ended that decades-long trend of debt reduction? The radical shift of Reagan. He pioneered in US history the huge increase of borrowing in peacetime, for politcs.

And he got the reward for spendig your grandchildrens' money - a 49 state re-election. Woo hoo, good times were here again (he did get inflation down, following Carter's policy).

Was Reagan an anomoly of modern Republicans? After eight years of his big debts, they continued - down a tiny bit - under his Vice-President for a total of 12 years of big deficits.

So what turned things around? Let's see - then we elected a Democrat, with a Democratic Senate and House. So they're gonna blast that debt up, right? Wrong. Clinton got his deficit-fighting budget passed with every single Republican voting no (maybe a few abstained), and the all-Democratic government immediately began reducing the big Republican deficits - continuing over his eight years to the point of a surplus.

Then we got another Republican (who stole the office), so according to you, we'll see big deficit reduction, right? Wrong. Immediately, Bush - and a Republican Congress - while promising to not only continue the surpluses and even pay off the entire debt in ten years, actually immediately shot the defict back up to high levels, including a messaive, 100% borrowed tax cut for the rich, his #1 first term domestic priority.

And HE continued huge deficits his 8 years, until he crashed the economy and left.

Now, the chart ends early, with Obama dealing with the economic crisis - but at least he has shot the deficit up, right?

No, somehow, Obama has prevented the economic crash from getting worse, had the economy recover enough the stock marker has more than doubled to new highs (even if all the recovery went to the tp 1%), did a stimulus in spending that helped the recovery and yet has cut the deficit by more than half, and continuing to decrease.

So, the facts are, the liberalrs are the ones who have cut the deficit for decades, and every skyrocketing of it has been by the Republicans since Reagan. Not any by Democrats.

Note the green line in the chart showing what the deficit would have been if Republicans had just had balanced budgets, and Democrats had the budgets they had.

But the Republicans have a great well-paid propaganda machine - since voters like to hear 'fiscal responsibility', Republicans realized they don't have to actually do it and give up all those goodies - they just need a great marketing campaign where they SAY they're so fiscally responsible and attack Democrats for their huge deficits, and lots of voters will fall for it. You know anyone who fits that description?

In fact, while the facts are that the deficit has gone down to less than half of when Obama took office and is declining, let's look at the public opinion on the issue from the propaganda:

So one in 20 has the correct very basic issue of the direction of the deficit - at least you are not alone.

Look, in principle, I'd defend borrowing by the Democrats for the right reasons and attack cuts by Republicans for the wrong reasons. So I'm not entirely excited about all this fiscal responsibility from the Democrats. But I am pointing out that the facts are totally the opposite of what you say and think they are.

Now, to get to your other point, yes, the tea party types are extremists. They aren't cutting the spending one cent with these actions - they're attacking *paying our bills* of already approved spending, for no other reason that by their dangerous actions that threaten the credit of the country and will greatly harm our country and increase our costs are good politics, giving them something to spin for their voters as if they're radicals fighiting for something worth while against the big bad evil Obama government.

The debt ceiling is an antiquated law that serves no useful purpose - it merely adds a required step in paying our bills. It's never been controversial to raise it, though there have been protest votes when those votes didn't really threaten it, including one by Senator Obama against the Bush spending. But for the first time in American history, these extremists are threatening not to raise it, actually, causing huge damage, all for politics, to hold the American economy hostage to their demands they can't get passed legitimately.

Yes, they are extremists, you are wrong to use the word sarcastically.

What's their great cause in the current threat? Not funding the Afforcable Care Act, which has all kinds of extremely popular benefits to the American people and will lower the costs of healthcare and the price to patients, and get tens of millions of uninsured Americans coverage. Not a great cause - but it's only one used to serve their purpose of trying to find something to paint as a big evil to run on, to get re-elected and pass their policcies of redistributing wealth from the American people to the top 0.1%.

Save234

 

[OGOC]

Since this is discussion club you can't get away with a drive by lie and no correction.

It's not a drive by, nor a lie.
You insinuating it is a drive-by lie is a lie, though. You need to stop lying.

You are either lying or don't pay attention to politics if you tell me certain people in Congress who have tried to stop the automatic raising of the debt ceiling and who have tried to actually balance the budget haven't been called "extremists" or similar. "Oh, look at those evil people who want to stop adding trillions of dollars of debt to the backs of your kids... they're such 'extremists.'"

Stop making excuses for stealing from your own kids.

 

[Craig234]

It's not a drive by, nor a lie.
You insinuating it is a drive-by lie is a lie, though. You need to stop lying.

Wrong. It was both.

You are either lying or don't pay attention to politics if you tell me certain people in Congress who have tried to stop the automatic raising of the debt ceiling and who have tried to actually balance the budget haven't been called "extremists" or similar. "Oh, look at those evil people who want to stop adding trillions of dollars of debt to the backs of your kids... they're such 'extremists.'"

You're making up something I didn't say. Not only did I not say they haven't been called extremists - which was not the issue - I clearly called them extremists myself.

So you're here completely dodging the topic of how you completely misrepresented the issue of who has done what on the debt, by making false claims about their label.

Stop making excuses for stealing from your own kids.

You were given clear, factual information about who is 'stealing from the children'. For whatever reason, you completely ignored it and simply repeated the same false attack.

Not rational, not honest, whichever or both, that's all you're doing. Not discussing honestly.

 

[OGOC]

You're making up something I didn't say. Not only did I not say they haven't been called extremists - which was not the issue - I clearly called them extremists myself.

lol, look who's talking about making things up!

If you admit they have been called extremists, then stop arguing with me about them being called extremists.

And they being called extremists is the issue because that's the issue I posted about. I post about a specific thing, you then call it a lie, and then you say I'm making things up you didn't say, even though you then say the specific thing I first said is similar to what you said.

Here's where it started:

But the Republicans wanted to far, far worse things than Obama has done.

Yeah, like the "extremist" ones that want to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling and want to stop adding trillions to the debt of your kids.

Here's your next sentence:

Since this is discussion club you can't get away with a drive by lie and no correction.

So, let's review the facts which disprove your partisan, misinformed political attack.

And now you say:

So you're here completely dodging the topic of how you completely misrepresented the issue of who has done what on the debt, by making false claims about their label.

Like I said, you are either lying or don't pay attention to politics if you tell me certain people in Congress who have tried to stop the automatic raising of the debt ceiling and who have tried to actually balance the budget haven't been called "extremists" or similar.

And, to recap, you now say this:

You're making up something I didn't say. Not only did I not say they haven't been called extremists - which was not the issue - I clearly called them extremists myself.

So you agree with me they've been called extremists. Which is what I said. If you agree they have been called extremists for wanting to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling and stop putting more debt onto your kids, then that is what I said too.

But then you go on some crazy rant about me being dishonest, even though you agree with what I said. So that makes you the one who is dishonest and a liar.

 

[Craig234]

lol, look who's talking about making things up!

You are.

If you admit they have been called extremists, then stop arguing with me about them being called extremists.

You're the one who invented the idea someone is denying they were called extremists.

I'm arguing with that they deserve the label.

And they being called extremists is the issue because that's the issue I posted about. I post about a specific thing, you then call it a lie, and then you say I'm making things up you didn't say, even though you then say the specific thing I first said is similar to what you said.

Here's where it started:



Here's your next sentence:

And now you say:

You appear to misunderstand what I'm saying is a lie - it's your insinuation that the Republicans are the ones fighting against debt, and the Democrats are to blame for it.

I showed quite clearly the opposite is the case.

I am NOT saying you were wrong that the people you mention have been called extremists; I've pointed out clearly that I call them extremists. And I showed why.

It's easy for a politician to talk against debt all day and do the opposite. Some people fall for that.

Now, you might want to try to nuance the tea party types from the rest of the Republicans, despite their generally voting with them, their joining the same party. But I also showed that their 'don't raise the debt ceiling' actions are NOT about reducing debt, they are about threatening to not pay our bills, which will INCREASE the expense to our government and INCREASE our debt, all to use the American economy as a hostage for their demands to protect the private healthcare insurance industry at the expense of the American people.

When you give credit to the Democrats as the fiscally responsible party, from not having huge deficits before Reagan, to cutting the Republican deficit to a surplus under Clinton, to Obama cutting the Bush deficit by more than half, then we can talk about you having some accuracy on the issue.

Like I said, you are either lying or don't pay attention to politics if you tell me certain people in Congress who have tried to stop the automatic raising of the debt ceiling and who have tried to actually balance the budget haven't been called "extremists" or similar.

And, to recap, you now say this:

So you agree with me they've been called extremists. Which is what I said. If you agree they have been called extremists for wanting to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling and stop putting more debt onto your kids, then that is what I said too.

But then you go on some crazy rant about me being dishonest, even though you agree with what I said. So that makes you the one who is dishonest and a liar.

You shouild be clear now:

The lie is your false representation of who is increasing the deficit, and who is not.

You made up the issue that someone claimed the tea party peope have never been called extremists.

Not liking having your deficit misrepresentation attacks, you think that running around with the word 'liar' about something I didn't say it an effective argument.

You say I agree with what you said. The part I agree with is that tea party leaders have been called extremists - something you called into question for no apparent reason.

I disagree with you that there is controversy about that; and I disagree with you saying it's Repulicans who are good on the deficit.

Every politician claims to be good on the deficit, even those who are skyrocketing it at the same time, starting with Reaagan, recently Bush.

And the tea party is no exception. Anyone can slash spending - the spending they don't like. Same with the tea party. Their threats to the debt ceiling are not about a responsible policy on spending, it's about an irresponsible threat to not pay the bills we've already incurred with the budget, and destroy the credit of our country, increasing our costs, all as a power grab. You choose to praise them as some sort of deficit cutters for that bad behavior. They're extremists. I showed who is and is not responsible for our big deficits.

 

[OGOC]

You're the one who invented the idea someone is denying they were called extremists.

Let's go back to the beginning of this again. I will quote it again.

But the Republicans wanted to far, far worse things than Obama has done.

Yeah, like the "extremist" ones that want to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling and want to stop adding trillions to the debt of your kids.

Since this is discussion club you can't get away with a drive by lie and no correction.

Which part is my supposed lie? The part where we agree some Republicans have been called "extremist," or the part where I say they want to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling and want to stop adding trillions to the debt of your kids?

All of those things are true, so none of it can be a lie. You are a dishonest partisan liar is all.

When you give credit to the Democrats as the fiscally responsible party, from not having huge deficits before Reagan, to cutting the Republican deficit to a surplus under Clinton, to Obama cutting the Bush deficit by more than half, then we can talk about you having some accuracy on the issue.

lol, "Democrats are the fiscally responsible party." There you go being dishonest and lying again.

And I don't have to talk about all of those things before I talk about people who want to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling being called "extremists."

How about neither party is the fiscally responsible party. How 'bout that.

Not liking having your deficit misrepresentation attacks, you think that running around with the word 'liar' about something I didn't say it an effective argument.

You started it with your first sentence in post 42, so here we are. Maybe you shouldn't start it next time.

Anyone can slash spending -

lol, apparently not since so few people in government want to do it. Even the "terrible" sequester didn't really cut spending. More money will still be spent every year.

Same with the tea party. Their threats to the debt ceiling are not about a responsible policy on spending, it's about an irresponsible threat to not pay the bills we've already incurred with the budget, and destroy the credit of our country,

There you go lying again.

 

[nehalem256]

Well from an old LA Times article the recommendation was:

Brookings economists Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill studied the noneconomic components of poverty and came up with a rule. "If young people do three things — graduate from high school, get a job, and get married and wait until they're 21 before having a baby — they have an almost 75% chance of making it into the middle class," Haskins said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/02/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-twous-20110102

Doesn't seem like unreasonable expectations to me.

 

[Craig234]

Let's go back to the beginning of this again. I will quote it again.



Which part is my supposed lie? The part where we agree some Republicans have been called "extremist," or the part where I say they want to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling and want to stop adding trillions to the debt of your kids?

The part where you claim Republicans are the ones trying to stop adding trillions to the debt of children, implying the trillions of debt we have given them is from the Democrats.

As I showed, it's the Republicans who have skyrocketed the deficit, Democrats who have brought it down, over all the decades we've had a massive peacetime debt.

And I showed the tea party actions threatening the national economy - threatening to default on our paying our debts - are a power grab threatening to increase our costs hugely, not about any responsible attempt to cut spending. And finally, I pointed out every politician wants to cut some spending, the spending they disagree with.

All of those things are true, so none of it can be a lie. You are a dishonest partisan liar is all.

And you're about to go on ignore, since there's no honest conversation to be had with you. You posted something false about who is responsible for the debt and refuse responsibility.

lol, "Democrats are the fiscally responsible party." There you go being dishonest and lying again.

There are the facts, which I posted, and there are your continued lies.

Democrats aren't perfrect or pure 'fiscal conservatives' by any means - thank goodness - but the evidence is clear they are the fiscal conservatives between the two parties.

I posted the facts - Republicans begane the massive peacetime debt, Republicans have had it *every year since Reagan*, and Democrats have consistently cut it since Reagan.

And I don't have to talk about all of those things before I talk about people who want to stop automatically raising the debt ceiling being called "extremists."

This isn't about the debt ceiling issue or calling them extremists - this is about your false claims of who has been primarily responsible for adding to the deficit.

So, yes, you do need to discuss all that about who has added to the deficit, when you claim it's the Republicans who are the party opposing adding to it.

How about neither party is the fiscally responsible party. How 'bout that.

No, that would be like saying 'both parties are the party against Obamacare'.

Go re-read my post with the facts on who has increased and who has decreased the deficit.

The facts are not a 'both parties' sort of situation.

As I said, the Democrats aren't perfect - just as there are some Democrats who voted against Obamacare - but it's not close to an equal share.

Saying otherwise is a lie about who did what.

But I guess it's progress when you try to go from a bigger lie of saying Republicans are the party against the deficit - except in their speech - to a smaller one equating the parties.

You started it with your first sentence in post 42, so here we are. Maybe you shouldn't start it next time.

You think falsely throwing around the word liar is a defense to having your lie pointed out.

Wrong. You can't escape the lie you told with false name-calling. You lied. I didn't.

You falsely claimed the Republicans are the party fighting adding to the deficit billed to children. I falsely claimed nothing.

You tried to claim that I had denied the tea party types had been called extremists, calling the denial of that I'd supposedly made a lie. I pointed out that I call them extremists.

No lie. Just you lying more instead of taking responsibility.

lol, apparently not since so few people in government want to do it. Even the "terrible" sequester didn't really cut spending. More money will still be spent every year.

You're confusing cutting 'net' spending with cutting 'some' spending. As I said before, every politician likes to describe themselves as wanting to cut some spending.

But it's one party only who has consistently driven up the deficit to high peacetime levels.

There you go lying again.

Actually, there you do. Prove one thing in what I said false. You haven't. Just more trying to defend your false posts with false name-calling.

 

[Juddog]

Ultimately it boils down to keep jobs in America.

If you offshore jobs for short term profit and lay off the American workers, then it creates a ripple effect which causes people to buy stuff less over time.

The most easy thing to do is start penalizing companies that offshore jobs to produce goods sold in America to stop the bleeding. The more jobs leave the US, the less purchasing power Americans will have, and the worse it will become. It's short term gains for long term losses and a myopic vision of the future that has done irrevocable damage to the economy.