If you’re asking middle-class Americans, then they picture the rich as their boss; hard-working but ruthless, and the poor as the guy on the street corner; unwilling to work and hoping to subsist through charity and welfare.
The poor hate the rich, the rich hate the poor, and the middle-class just want reasonable governance and for people to earn their keep.
Again, Democrats hope to win by racial/gender divisions. Welfare policy doesn’t win middle-class votes.
Sure, but everyone knows the govt is bought and elections are a gentlemen’s duel between competing sectors of capital. This is about the partisan horse race and identity politics.
I’d assume the crazies would still vote for them. I don’t think Republicans would even have to modify their actual policies much, just stop saying so much repellant shit that drives people away. They shoot themselves in the foot but still beat Dems in a race. Embarrassing.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
I’d assume the crazies would still vote for them. I don’t think Republicans would even have to modify their actual policies much, just stop saying so much repellant shit that drives people away. They shoot themselves in the foot but still beat Dems in a race. Embarrassing.
[/QUOTE]
They won’t do it though, because the idiot bastards actually think that there is a silent majority out there that want that repellant shit, and no evidence to the contrary will convince them other wise. If we just went a bit more to the right, our victory would be assured!!! 
The reason I mentioned subsidies and preferential treatment is because your link counting only government employees was rather too strict for a free marketeer. Many of these subsidised jobs would not exist if it were not for subsidies directly from the State. They are governmentt lite jobs. Of which there are millions.
You balance the budget when the recession has passed? So the US is still in recession? The US has balanced its budget literally zero times since the 1970’s(admittedly not always under Keynesians). The few times it did “balance” its budget was only through cheating by using non GAAP rules. Neither will it balance it’s budget for the forseeable future. That’s the problem with an ideology which suggests borrowing is good. It tends to borrow a awful lot during the bad times and reduce this to only quite a lot during the good times - precisely what is happening now.
Yeah, but Republicans need to stop doing it. One of the real advantages Republicans had before Reagan was being the party of fiscal responsibility. We need to take that back. It’s a huge handicap for Republicans when talking about fiscal issues. The next Republican President has to balance the budget. It needs to be THE priority.
Why? How many people would get jobs because of a balanced budget? Annual deficits in the trillions are not sustainable, but smaller deficits certainly are. People talk about balanced budgets as if it is the Holy Grail, but unless the good times are rolling, balancing the budget could be disastrous.
You balance the budget in good times so that you don’t have to worry about deficits in bad times. The other main benefit is that it makes it easier to set priorities and occasionally splurge on one time items. When the budget is always strained, as it has been for a few decades due to entitlement spending, and when you’ve been running deficits for even longer, then doing things like the Apollo program become practically difficult and politically impossible.
When the budget is always strained, as it has been for [del]a few decades[/del] 14 or so years due to [del]entitlement spending[/del] tax cuts…
There fixed that for you.
You’re welcome.
Absolutely agree with the first statement. Trouble was, W saw a surplus when he came in during the tail end of the Clinton boom, declared “the surplus belongs to us” and gave the unwarranted tax cuts. If he had left well enough alone and let the debt get pared down a little, he could have raised spending when the economy soured. He chose to create a massive deficit during good times- not a smart move.
So you claim Bush implemented tax cuts before 9/11 and the recession it caused? I don’t think that’s true.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with that. I sided with John McCain at the time and it’s a big reason I supported John McCain for President even through the tough times when had no money and no staff.
A lot is made of the culture wars with in the GOP, but there’s a less-covered battle between Coolidge-Eisenhower Republicans who believe in balanced budgets, and the supply side Reagan Republicans who believe in tax cuts above all on the theory that it will raise revenue. They need to give it up. You can’t cut taxes unless you also cut spending. Actually it’s not much of a battle because the supply siders dominate. But there are still John McCain types in the party, and he got all the way to the nomination, so all is not lost on that side.
Tax cuts are easy to fix. Spending programs are much more difficult to pare back. Even if Democrats raise every penny of revenue they believe they can get away with, they won’t even balance the budget now, much less be able to do anything new. There just isn’t enough money in taxing only people making over $400K. The only prudent thing to do now is reform entitlements and keep spending on everything else flat as it’s been for the last few years.
Tax cuts are easy to fix? Really? Have you heard of Congress?
Yep. The first round came in 2001.
9/11 caused the recession? News to me. Chimpy claimed he inherited a recession from Clinton. Would Shrubya lie?
Both large tax cuts were partially reversed. How many spending programs can we say that about?
Which tax cuts were partially reversed? The Bush tax cuts only went away because the underlying legislation made them go away after 10 years. Congress extended them for some brackets, which is hardly the same thing.
It was an effective reversal, nonetheless. There are also spending programs that automatically expire, yet Congress can still not bring themselves to just do nothing. For a Congress that is supposedly gridlocked, they always seem to find the time to continue these sunsetted programs. Examples: Patriot Act provisions, the Ex-Im Bank.
Bush implemented tax cuts at the start of a war. I have never heard of any other national leader doing that stupid thing. And of course a giant deficit was the inevitable result.
Why should they? Republicans still claim to be the part of fiscal responsibility, and their base seems to fall for it. I don’t see them giving up their current ways as long as it gets them elected.
If you want to be truly Machiavellian, it’s in their interest to keep the deficit high. That way, they can say it’s a problem, promise to fix it, and get re-elected in perpetuity.
We didn’t get into these deficits overnight, and we won’t get out of them overnight, either. Time can work against you, but it can also work for you; like starting a retirement account when you’re in your twenties. It requires discipline and an eye for the long term. If we went crazy with spending cuts and got the deficit to zero tomorrow, on the day after tomorrow they’d say “problem solved” and then go crazy with the spending again.
I think the best thing would be to get the trends going in the right direction. Get the deficit lower each year than the one before. Keep doing that for a decade or so and we might have a little more budgetary breathing room. And then don’t squander that breathing room.