Thread: GOP: now & in the future

The republican's say they want to cut costs, but when it comes to military spending they want to spend more. Apparently 2 trillion for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan is not enough. Obama has agreed to 708 billion for the defense department, 77 billion is for new weapons when the old ones currently exceed anything in the world. Just what is the right planning to do with all these weapons? I'll bet a lot of countries are asking the same question.
If there ever was a war the US would not be able to find enough people who met the weight requirements to serve.
America is morally bankrupt as evidenced by the massive killings in Iraq and Afganistan and throughout history. It is just a matter of time until they are financially bankrupt as well. When the unrest comes the weapons will be turned on American's.
This is what supporters of the republicans have produced, but it ain't over yet.

^They want to put more people in jail, too, and generally increase the intrusiveness of law enforcement, because they really love freedom 'n' stuff.

More of teh stoopid:
Graham: GOP has no one 'to blame but ourselves' - On Congress - POLITICO.com
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham conceded Wednesday that he and his fellow Republicans are now eating their own words as they try to convince the country they are working to stave off a federal default.
“Our problem is we made a big deal about this for three months. How many Republicans have been on TV saying, ‘I’m not going to raise the debt limit.’ You know, Mitch [McConnell] says, ‘I’m not going to raise the debt limit unless we talk about Medicare.’ And I’ve said I’m not going to raise the debt limit until we do something about spending and entitlements.’ So we’ve got nobody to blame but ourselves,” Graham told reporters after a GOP caucus lunch.

“We shouldn’t have said that if we didn’t mean it.”
---
The Thugs enlisted the Teahadists like the CIA enlisted the Muslim freedom fighters to fight the Sovs. Blow-back is a bitch, bitch.

Originally Posted by trisailer

The republican's say they want to cut costs, but when it comes to military spending they want to spend more.

Quite par for the course actually- who does military spending and war benefit? The Rich, and corporations.
How many Congressman's sons & daughters were risking their lives for 'freedom & democracy' in Afghan & Iraq? Zero.
But of course, the GOP does want to cut costs when it comes to the VA.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by trisailer

The republican's say they want to cut costs, but when it comes to military spending they want to spend more.

Quite par for the course actually- who does military spending and war benefit? The Rich, and corporations.
How many Congressman's sons & daughters were risking their lives for 'freedom & democracy' in Afghan & Iraq? Zero.
But of course, the GOP does want to cut costs when it comes to the VA.

To be fair, the Democrats are practically as bad. The military-industrial complex that a Republican president tried so hard to warn us about has its tentacles in every state, where it provides much-needed jobs. But yes, there is this "the GOP does want to cut costs when it comes to the VA," because they are scum.

Poll: Self-Identified Conservatives Outnumber Liberals 3-1

Please explain. I can't work seem to work that out after reading the article.

Did you read on down in the article that says there are more self-identified Democrats than Republicans?

The GOP is anything but conservative though booner.

I agree that the dems as just as bad as the gop in terms of the results. Obama has been a dissapointment, the whole "leadership" is a dissapointment.
These "leaders" serve at the whim of the American people and there lies the problem. America's are lazy and that fact is apparent in the ease that they are mislead.
The tea party movement is a perfect example. One only has to look at the result of the gop's actions, wars and tax cuts for the rich to see that the entire landscape of America has changed. Yet a significant percentage of American's cling to these simplistic ideas of libertarianism in spite of the fact that the only examples that exist in the entire world are somalia. What in fact this movement supported by the neo-cons is all about is making people indebted to the "company store". It is the oldest trick in the book and it has been obvious to me since reagan.
It is beyond my comprehension that working class people seem so willing to work their ass off for longer hours with less pay and accept that the future will be worse for them, yet they will still argure for the gop's agenda.
What is plain to me is that these gop directed agenda's have produced the opposite of the American dream. Most people think the future will be worse. Their correct, the debt, which is all on the backs of the middle-class will keep them grinding away in the "salt mine" for decades unless we take back that money that we were tricked out of and restore our future.
I can't believe that America's are so lazy that they can't see that we have examples of societies like Germany and Norway and Sweden, Denmark and others who are managing their societies in sustainable ways and resisting the impulse to deny a good life to all their citizens for benefit of a handful. This was the reason that democrocy's were formed in the first place. There are no examples of societies having any kind of success with the kind of unregulated dog eat dog approach advocated by the gop. The fact of the matter is that the chance of becomming successful in America today is far less than it was in the 70's.
I think that people are starting to wake up to the fact that we have been tricked into debt, but like the indian's and the black's before us we are powerless to fight it. If we try we will be cut down by our own militay, of that I am sure.
It was ignorant, neo-con, gop fools who lead us down this path, it is lazy uninformed American's who bought this crap and there are only two possible outcomes, revolution to take back what the bankers have stolen from us or continue to decline until we are absorbed by china. The rich won't be effected, they will be living the good life on their private islands.
It is indeed ironic that the the gop who claims to be motivated by a anti-socialist agenda is in fact producing the greatest likely hood that it will happen. It will not be the first society in history to fall because of mismanagement.

Republican Governors Prove That Conservative Economic Principles Work

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services upgraded Ohio’s debt rating just one day after it put the United States on “credit watch negative” on what it calls a rising risk of policy stalemate in the debt limit negotiations.
For Ohio, the rating was revised from “negative” to “stable” after Gov. John Kasich signed a new budget the ratings agency says will essentially balance the state’s finances for the next two years. S&P also said Ohio is experiencing a modest economic recovery which has stabilized revenue.
In making the upgrade, the agency also assigned a “AA+” long-term rating to Ohio’s $416.75 million general obligation bonds… “After a significant decline through the recession, Ohio’s economy is steadily recovering,” according to S&P’s statement issued Friday.
The agency listed factors such as Ohio’s unemployment rate has stabilized and fallen to 8.6 percent through May 2011 from a peak of 11 percent in March 2010. The also state experienced positive employment growth in 2010 and through the first quarter of 2011…


S&P Raises State of Ohio's Credit Rating; Cites GOP Governor Kasich's Whining About His Predecessor and His Budget, But Mostly His Budget

How about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels whose state is enjoying a 1.2 Billion dollar surplus. And he’s rewarding State employees with a one-time bonus of between $500-$1000.

State Employees To Receive Bonus | News - Indiana Public Media

And what political party does the governor of CA belong to eh?

Originally Posted by trisailer

these gop directed agenda's have produced the opposite of the American dream. Most people think the future will be worse.

The 'American dream' was paid for, by hard work, enterprise, thrift and Tax.
When you point out that the "real Amerkins" of the 50'6/ 60's sitcoms (the Teabag role models) paid considerably more tax than they do now, and invested in their childrens and nations future rather than leaving nothing but debt and a reduction in government services and infrastructure, they go blank and mumble something about Ronald Reagan or John Wayne. Or God. Or Guns.

So what are they in reality? Bad debtors and irresponsible parents. Harsh, but true. The GOP taps into their irresponsible 'credit card' mentality, packages it with Guns n God- which then becomes 'Patriotism', all the while acting as a blatant Lobby group for the richest few. Who, in fact, are the worst bad debtors of all.

Originally Posted by sabang

paid considerably more tax than they do now

I just looked up the income tax rate history. Boy, did they ever pay more taxes than now. In 1960 there was a 91% tax for the highest earners. Now 35% is the highest income tax.

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

All America needs to do is reinstitute the Clinton era tax rates. Deficit solved.

GOP Makes Huge Gains With White Voters – Particularly Among Young and Poor



Republicans have taken a 2-point edge among whites in 2008 and widened it to a 13-point lead today.
Pew Research Center

The man who has the GOP leadership scared:

Originally Posted by bsnub

All America needs to do is reinstitute the Clinton era tax rates. Deficit solved.

You misspelled "expenditures", "Clinton era expenditures".

The biggest single contributor to the Deficit are the Bush era 'temporary' tax cuts, which also failed to stimulate the US economy one iota. Of course they need to lapse- well it would be glaringly obvious to a primary school class, but not apparently US Congress.

Originally Posted by sabang

The biggest single contributor to the Deficit are the Bush era 'temporary' tax cuts, which also failed to stimulate the US economy one iota. Of course they need to lapse- well it would be glaringly obvious to a primary school class, but not apparently US Congress.

The biggest single contributor to the deficit is the democrats who have added over One Trillion Dollars to the Federal Budget in the last 4 years. Obama tripled the deficit his first year in office with the failed Obama-Pelosi stimulus plan. A total failure. In Obama’s second year the deficit topped a trillion dollars again. This year the Obama deficit may reach $1.29 trillion. Now that conservatives want to cut spending they’ve gone from being called “hostage takers” to “full blown terrorists.”

It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House “hostage takers.” But they have now become full-blown terrorists.
They have joined the villains of American history who have been sufficiently craven to inflict massive harm on innocent victims to achieve their political goals. A strong America has always stood firm in the face of terrorism. That tradition is in jeopardy, as Congress and President Barack Obama careen toward an uncertain outcome in the tea party- manufactured debt crisis.
As we stumble closer to Aug. 2, it has become clear that many in the tea party are willing to inflict massive harm on the American people to obtain their political objective of a severely shrunken federal government. Their persistence in rejecting compromise, even as the economic effects of the phony crisis they have created mount, has taken their radicalism beyond tough negotiating, beyond even hostage-taking.


Opinion: The tea party's terrorist tactics - William Yeomans - POLITICO.com

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The biggest single contributor to the deficit is the democrats

Bull Shit

^
Again, no source so...maybe we don't believe you...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Obama tripled the deficit his first year in office

Nope- and I showed you the Congressional Budget Office figures confirming that.
Most of the first year deficit was incurred under measures passed during the Bush incumbency, and thus are attributable to his term.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

the failed Obama-Pelosi stimulus plan.

The bailouts & stimulus started under Bush- what exactly is this 'Obama Pelosi' stimulus? Bush raised the US debt limit-what?, five times or sumfin. And the inconvenient fact remains that from Reagan onwards, the vast majority of the US governments debt has been incurred during Republican Presidencies. The GOP are definitely not the party of fiscal & economic conservatism- but neither are the Obama Democrats, albeit moderate in comparison. The Bush tax cuts were a failure, having no discernible effect on the economy whatsoever- and adding significantly to the ballooning US deficit, and federal debt. Common sense dictated that, now that the government faced a virtual budget crisis following a major, systemic financial crash, the temporary legislation should never have been extended- once again, the US government incurred substantial ongoing debt without even partially funding it, a leaf straight out of dubya's book. And now, everything is being rancorously argued at the last minute, and your political system resembles nothing more than a laughing stock. The guardians of the mighty US dollar.

The real fact is, the bailout/ stimulus packages are a mix of Republican and Democrat influences, and have been passed under both administrations. And neither were they all that different to begin with, frankly. Don't confuse the actual GOP with the 'wisdom of hindsight' Teabaggers, who having apparently rediscovered their long neglected Libertarian streak, now realise the bailouts & stim's were entirely a waste of money, and the banking system, GM etc should have just been let collapse- a stronger phoenix, presumably, arising from the ashes. They were certainly not saying that at the time however. Bush & Co, predictably, were saying the opposite- and so would have their Dem counterparts. Thats the thing about 'libertarianism'- for most people, it's just a bandwagon. They have little or no idea what it means.

Last but not least, the Stim/ bailouts can be by no means considered a failure. [cue- "what about that $54,000 spent on a lesbian dog walking track in San Francisco"] The most rational economic analysis I've read suggests that more could have been productively done actually- but against this you've got to offset the US governments proclivity of incurring debts and obligations now, while putting off how to pay for them indefinitely.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.


Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):

• GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
• Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
  The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
• The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
• The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]

Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.
The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.


Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income households pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.


In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.
Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.
Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.
Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18]

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-bush-tax-cuts