Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman would disagree (read The Conscience of a Liberal). I think we have seen a 20 year experiment that shows that trickle down economics leads to bad outcomes.
I’m optimistic that we are finally getting to the point that we don’t run from Rovian charges of “class warfare,” but instead reapond with “Fuck yeah, and it’s about time we fought back.”
Seriously, coming from you… that’s like a freakin’ acid bath of irony.
Amen. There has never been a Republican yet who delivered on the spending cuts they promised. Why should we let them eat their dessert before they finish their vegetables?
I agree that we need to cut spending. However–and this is the important bit–right now, we can’t even pay for half the things the government spends on with our current tax rates. Thus the reason we need to raise taxes.
It’s not like it’s impossible. There was a surplus while Clinton was in office, which was only a decade ago.
So if the Dow doesn’t go up by %56 in four year, we must be in a deep, deep depression? :dubious:
Wait, so you believe there is zero chance that either candidate will cut spending, but you’re stumping for McCain because he pretends he will?
Are you quite sure it’s everyone else that’s wearing the party straightjackets?
For shame! Obama was asked a question, and answered honestly! How dare he? And what’s worse- his answer was a reflection of more-or-less universal postwar fiscal policy! How irresponsible!
Well, as long as we all agree it’s okay to run to Canada if your side loses. Pet an Eskimo for me.
Excellent point - Bush didn’t work out so well, so we’ll throw him out. Not representative of Republican ideals, etc. Fair enough.
Okay, so, George Bush Sr.- he was a Republican President! He must have cut spending and balanced the federal budget, right? Wait, what’s that? Increased taxes and increased spending? Oh. Well, he’s Bush Jr.'s dad… what did you expect?
Alright, how about Reagan? Now that was a Republican President. Surely he balanced the budget. He didn’t? He ran up bigger relative deficits than anyone? No! I don’t believe it!
Alright, let me see if I’ve got this straight. Balanced budgets are good. Deficit spending is bad. The last three Republican Presidents ran massive deficits. The last Democratic President ran a surplus. Therefore, vote Republican.
More than one poster on this board has said something similar. Personally, I think you need to relinquish your username to those that deserve it more.
How about a writer’s frustration? Typos? Shit, that should be my middle name.
You are a sick individual. Go ahead and live your life eaten up by jealousy about what someone else has. Me, I’d rather live my life working towards what I can get. Fight back? How about you get to work.
Could you explain this please? I have always and consistently said that the size of government is the problem. Where is the irony?
The Dow was there less than a year ago. Try “go back” instead of “go up”.
Good fucking Christ. You admit that we need to cut spending. You admit that the government can’t pay for all it does now. However you conclusion is…raise taxes? Are you insane? How about staying where you started: CUT FUCKING SPENDING.
Regardless of whether or not it’s been there before it’s still a 56% increase over today’s index. That is, of course, assuming it hasn’t plunged another couple hundred points while I typed this.
Which, of course, is totally irrelevant anyway, since the markets are not representative of the economy and the Dow is the least representative index of all.
You are assuming a false dichotomy. Perhaps you didn’t read anything else I said once I revealed myself to be on the OTHERSIDEOMG!!!111ELEVENTY!!! I want the governmnet to BOTH cut spending AND raise taxes. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
No, I believe that McCain’s proposed increase in spending is less than Obama’s, and McCain has at least acknowledged that spending needs to be cut. Obama hasn’t. My cynicism keeps me from believing that either one will do it, but if I think spending is the problem, why should I vote for the candidate whose whole platform is “Spend more!” against the guy who at least recognizes the problem?
Since party matters not a wit to me, I’m pretty sure.
You misunderstand. Not for shame, I applaud him for finally admitting what many of us have been saying for months. He’s finally told the truth. It’s just a damn shame that this didn’t happen in August when it might have made a difference.
I’m not considering “running to Canada” because my side loses, I’m considering (and note, just considering, I probably won’t because Canada’s economy is so enmeshed in ours that it’s going to crash right along with us) running to Canada because I think Barak Obama is going to be a disaster for the United States.
Again, all you seem to care about is party. I don’t give a rat’s ass about party. Party schmarty. I am voting based upon what each individual candidate proposes to do. Why is that so hard to understand? As a party, the Republicans have a lot to answer for. The swept into power in '94 on a promise to decrease the size of Government and proceed to be captured by the system and do exactly the opposite. They’ve spent, spent, spent without any rhyme or reason, without any thought for the consequences. I HATE the Republicans for what they’ve done. They claim to be the party of little government and controlled spending, but they are not. Again, it doesn’t matter. I am voting for McCain based upon his platform, not his party. I don’t know how much clearer than that I can say it, and all of the attempts by people here to tattoo me with the failings of the Republican party are for naught. they can try, you can try, anyone can try but it’s a foolish exercise because of one thing: I am not a Republican. How hard is that to understand?
I apologize if I misunderstood, I respond to posts and not posters, if you said something different before I missed it. As to you final question…Why is it so hard to comprehend?.. I hadn’t considered that you might want to cut spending and raise taxes, but to me at least that’s a baffling position to take. Why? Why raise taxes if you cut spending? Cutting spending solves the problem, why throttle people with new taxes on top of that? Seriously, why? Please explain it to me, I’d like to understand where you’re coming from.
I’m not pedescribe, but …
No matter how much we reduce our spending, we still we need to pay our current debts and our future obligations. Which means we need tax money, cuz the people are the US and they have to pay for all the shit our lovely representatives have purchased. To get our house in order, we will need to increase our income—because our current debts and obligations demand more money than we are throwing at them. Let me repeat that: Whether spending is increased or not, our current debts and obligations demand more money.
I happen to agree with Obama, we are better off if the wealth is spread around somewhat. And though I’d prefer if the government weren’t doing the spreading, we haven’t come up with a better way. At least the government tries to be somewhat equitable, unlike the market or private charity.
Because, while there are some things I’m willing to cut (like excessive military budget, some education plans, “pork”, etc.), the sum total of the parts of the government that I do support exceeds the revenue from taxes right now. I figure, meet halfway.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or not. You’re voting for a Republican based on something they’ve consistently promised to do but failed to do.
The question is, what makes you think McCain is any different?
He accepted Bush’s endorsement. His campaign staff are all Republican lifers, and most of them worked for Bush in '00 and '04. That suggests his cabinet will be much the same. What evidence is there that he’s not more of the same?
Ha! With your luck you’ll get here just when we elect Jack Layton’s NDP government in Ottawa that will make Obama look like Franco’s long lost grandson.
I really do think that you’re overstating how bad things will get if you elect Obama vs. McCain. We’re heading for a recession (or are in one) and it will be a tough few years no matter who is in the White House. As others have pointed out, the past several administrations have shown that Democrats tend to be more fiscally responsible. You can argue the details, but you can’t show any proof that Democratic administrations have led to noticeably poorer financial outcomes for the country.
Take a deep breath. Things will be OK