Lower taxes for rich people outweigh all other issues.
The deficit? Not as important as lower taxes for the rich.
A reduced risk of nuclear proliferation or war? Not as important as lower taxes for the rich.
Citizenship for immigrant soldiers? Not as important as lower taxes for the rich.
Extension of unemployment benefits? Of course, not as important as lower taxes for the rich.
Repeal of don't ask, don't tell? Oh, right, they're against that anyway.
The core Republican view of the world holds that, if rich people are even better off, everyone else is either better off or doesn't deserve to be better off. Mostly the latter. Peons.
Hotels: Occupancy Rate Increased 2.8% Year-over-year
14 hours ago
3 comments:
Ah yes…the next installment of class warfare. The reason income tax is such an issue right this moment is because they are set to spike during a recession. If you democrats wouldn’t have enacted income taxes in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Want an answer….look in the mirror.
The highest year for deficit spending during Bush 43 was in 08 when he caved to a democrat controlled congress and allowed a budget deficit of just over 400 billion. The first two years of his Presidency actually showed a surplus. Obama, on the other hand, had a deficit of 1.85 TRILLION his first year. You have your nerve claiming that Republicans aren’t concerned enough about deficit spending.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
The window for “immigrant soldiers” to become citizens isn’t set to expire in a few weeks.
Two years of free money wasn’t enough? Unemployment compensation is just another way you
dems try to by votes with other people’s money.
You trying to blame the rich for your own lack of financial success is getting rather apparent. Keep it up as you only look like a bitter fool pissed off at the world because you hate your life and it must be the fault of those evil Republicans and their puppet masters the rich and the super rich.
So, you agree, tax cuts for the rich are the most important thing for you. And who is the class warrior?
You're lying about the budget, though, conveniently ignoring whose budget was in surplus and whose was in deficit.
Clinton's last budget, FY01, had a surplus (kinda, sorta - it required the Social Security surplus to be in the black). Duhbya's first budget, FY02, again had a deficit that couldn't be covered over. It was due to his budget-busting tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy. Yeah, no shit.
Duhbya's last budget, FY09, is the one with the huge deficit. Obama's first budget year, FY10, has a smaller deficit than Duhbya.
It is totally typical of you and the Republicans at the dishonest Heritage Foundation that you give President Obama an entire two months before you blame him for the Bush deficit. Two goddamn months. What a bunch of transparent propagandists!
Oh yeah, they try to give Duhbya credit, not only for FY01, but for FY00, which ended more than a month before Duhbya was "elected" and two months before he was selected. If bullshit were a rare commodity, you guys would have the mother lode.
Republicans don't care about deficits. They in fact prefer deficits so that they can scare economic illiterates into thinking the government shouldn't help anyone (anyone but the rich).
My nerve! You're flinging lies right and ... right. But of course wrong.
Anonymous: not only are you incorrect in your "facts", you obviously don't know your history. Here is a primer:
1) in the 20 years that Reagan and Bush I & II were in office they increased spending in ALL TWENTY YEARS (and with both Reagan and Bush I the Congress actually approved less money than they requested over the course of each of their terms)
2) W raised both spending AND the debt limit in 7 or the 8 years he was in office (and it would have been 8 of 8 if Clinton hadn’t left him a surplus in his first year).
3) From the end of WWII through the end of W's second term, the only President's NOT to decrease the ND as a % of GDP were, you guessed it, Reagan and the two Bushes (and Ford).
4) From 1978-2005 spending under Democratic President's increased an average of 9.9% per year. In that same time period, Republican President's raised spending an average of 12.2%/year.
5) ND per capita (i.e. how much every American "owes" on the ND) in 1980 (the last year of Carter budgets/deficits) was $4,094 which was 53% of Per Capita Income . By 1988 (Reagan's last b/d year) those number rose to $10,979 and 84%. Bush I, 1992: $16,379 (increase of $4,400 in FOUR years) and 110%. Clinton, 2000: $20,067 (increase of $3,700 in EIGHT years, including a DECREASE from $21.182 in 1999 to the 2000 level of $20,067) and 90%. W: $35,153 (increase of $14,000 or 70% in 8 yrs) and 130%.
Post a Comment