Getting annoyed by the republican stupidity

Pre-College Issues High School Life
1

<p>I applaud Senator Bunning for reaching beyond party lines, and effectively portraying for the American people, the obstructionist nature of the modern day republican party. He has become the much needed posterboy for democratic attacks, when it comes to his refusal to extend unemployment benefits. </p>

<p>His main reasoning is that the "defecit in growing larger." He dosen't want the coming generations to feel the pain of "the defecit." I would truly like to remind him, that Republican Ronald Reagen spent far more than any president before him, and showed America what trillion dollar debt was (2 trillion by the end of his presidency). I want to ask the republican party what they were doing in that era, and if they did not remember the "coming generations."</p>

<p>In fact the only surplus we had in the last 50 years, was under Democrat President Clinton. It was mainly attributed to the quick decision that the the GREATEST REPUBLICAN president (IMO) George H.W. Bush made: he raised taxes! He saw that the country would fall into a period of prosperity, and inflation, and thus to battle the inflation he raised taxes!</p>

<p>George W. Bush had the oppurtunity to raise taxes, when the country fell into a period of inflation arising from the prosperity of the 2000's. INFLATION IS JUST AS HARMFUL AS A RECESSION IN THE LONG RUN. When the conservatives in congress passed the "Banking-Modernization Act" they went against the Glass-Stegal act of the 1930's. THEY ERASED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INVESTMENT, AND PERSONAL BANKING. Finally with Alan greespan's refusal to raise interest rates, the country fell deeper into inflation.</p>

<p>NO WE ARE PAYING FOR THIS AS THE "Great Recession" started with the housing crisis, and the rapid uncontrolled inflation that conservatives promoted for soem time.</p>

<p>SENATOR BUNNING AND REPUBLICANS need not continue this DEBT HYSTERIA.
I'll simplify things for them:
1) During a recession, you cut TAXES, and the defecit rises from government spending
2) During prosperity, and inflation You raise TAXES, CUT spending, AND PROMOTE A SURPLUS</p>

<p>If republicans had adhered to this principle in the past, we could have avoided the rapid inflation of the 2000's and also avoided the Recession. </p>

<p>What Obama, and the Democrats are doing in congress is fine. They ARE TAKING STEPS TO REMEDY THE RECESSION. </p>

<p>*IF ONLY THEY COULD EDUCATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC, and hopefully stop the republican stupidity from taking over </p>

<p>It's high time republicans distance themselves from hypocrisy, partisanship, speical interests, Sarah Palin etc. </p>

<p>"IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID."</p>

<p>I PROPOSE BEFORE ANY MEMBER IN CONGRESS SPEAKS, THEY MUST DEMONSTRATE BARE MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE IN ENONOMICS.</p>

2

<p>Cool story. </p>

<p>Actually, that was a good post. An A+</p>

3

<p>Unfortunately, you alone can’t make them do that. This is a free country, and those people were <em>elected</em> into office. You have to get the people that elected those senators to make the senators demonstrate bare minimum knowledge in economics before speaking.</p>

4

<p>@NulliSecundus</p>

<p>Hopefully you got something out of that then…</p>

<p>Hopefully you are not apart of the ignorant general public…</p>

5

<p>@ XRCatD
I know what I proposed wasn’t practical , but nonetheless it was what popped into my mind first…</p>

6

<p>Good points, themeaningoflife, but although money inflates from the deficit spending, the GDP doesn’t increase much with it, so prices simply go up faster than people’s wages increase.</p>

<p>In addition, during prosperity, it isn’t necessarily in the interests of the politicians to promote a surplus or make it last… they want to make their supporters happier. So they keep taxes low and let money inflate more. It may not be the best longterm, but it really makes everyone happy short-term. And look, when the recession hit, it’s not a Republican in office!</p>

<p>The thing with our democracy is that politicians are not directly motivated to make the nation go well. They are directly motivated to satisfy their supporters.</p>

7

<p>Oh I definitely did. I’m sharing your frustration. </p>

<p>I think that they’re doing things the wrong way. Basically what they’re saying is “Oh we have solutions, you just have to put us in power to see what they are,” when they should be doing the American thing and working to make things better. </p>

<p>Perhaps they should watch McCain’s concession speech, which was, IMO, by far the best speech of his campaign (and not just because it was a concession speech).</p>

8

<p>Riveting tale, chap.</p>

9

<p>In response…</p>

<p>"extend unemployment benefits. " This is probably the part that goes most against my views. While I understand unemployment benefits do aid the economy by providing more cash flow into the market, 2 years is ridiculous. At some point, you start losing valuable members of the workforce, as they feel they can get by just riding on the Gov’ts paycheck.</p>

<p>In terms of partisanship actions, I have to question: what political party does not play politics? If the situation was reversed, where the Republicans were in office and trying to pass extremely conservative measure, I have no doubt Democrats would try to block it if they could. That’s politics for you. I totally agree with XRCat about the fact that ALL politicians work to satisfy constituents, not necessarily do what’s best.</p>

<p>The Primary reason the debt rose significantly during Reagan’s administration was due to Cold War preparations. You can’t escape the fact that he did cut gov’t spending on nearly every other front. Today, the Russian-American War seems to have been averted, but it’s hard to tell whether it would or would not have been averted had Reagan not increased Cold War spending. You can’t deny that under his term, other measures of the economy showed great growth</p>

<p>As for the “surplus” under Clinton, the national debt actually increased every year he was in office. It was the Public debt that decreased during Clinton’s years, although his administration had little to do with that decrease. This is because Intragovernmental debt increased more than the public debt decreased through these years. The reason Public debt decreased was due to the dot-com bubble</p>

<p>As for GWB’s term, I’ll leave that alone since I don’t really like too much of what he did. However, I will address inflation. Inflation has been approximately the same year to year for the past 25 years. This INCLUDES Clinton’s administration.</p>

<p>Onto the late 2000s recession. This recession was not primarily caused by inflation. Rather, it was caused by an artificial bubble in the housing sector caused by risky loans. But neither the Republicans NOR the Democrats asked for oversight of this seemingly strong boom before it was too late. We’re all to blame for the recession. </p>

<p>Here’s the thing about the “debt hysteria”. I’m all for a level of Keynesian economic spending to get ourselves out of a recession hole. BUT, I absolutely don’t believe in frivolous governmental spending on other things, which is the problem with much of current Democratic bills. I don’t believe in a 2 year unemployment benefit, I view that as frivolous and not helping the economy.</p>

<p>Obama a Democrats in office so far have not “accomplished anything” yet. I’m withholding judgment until later, when I can see how much that effort really accomplished. Furthermore, trying and passing a Sh***y bill is no better than not doing anything at all. Action is not always better than Inaction if the action completely fails.</p>

<p>Finally, I feel there is a lot of stupidity on both sides. That’s all I’m gonna say.</p>

10

<p>^

</p>

<p>This is patently false. First, most workers actually would LIKE to work and secondly unemployment benefits aren’t enough to scrape a living by for a family of four. People do not usually leave the workforce just because they are unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits. Notice that most of the chronically homeless are not suffering from unemployment but substance abuse and metal illness. </p>

<p>2 year unemployment benefits definitely help the economy as they are putting money into the hands of those who are most likely to spend that money on immediate consumption.</p>

<p>Also, while I agree that the Dems haven’t passed anything of interest except for the stimulus bill, part of the problem is the GOP. Although the Republicans have a very good political interest in stopping all legislation, their lack of compromise and hypocrisy is disgusting. Mitch McConnell was the first to suggest a deficit committee but as soon as Obama wanted one as well, he decided that suddenly it was a bad idea and filibustered the idea. What more does he want?</p>

11

<p>Hmm well I guess we have a fundamental difference on the unemployment benefits issue. I believe that not everyone is willing to work (moreso for single unemployed).</p>

<p>As for the second, I agree republicans are part of the problem too. There is hypocrisy on the right wing. I’m moderate but fiscally conservative btw</p>

12

<p>my friends are friends with this really loud-mouthed republican. but i refuse to be, because he’s a cocky ass :)</p>

13

<p>Every time my sister tries to explain economics to me, I fall slseep on the phone. Pretty much everything I know about the economy comes from the NPR special on This American Life, about the Giant Pool of Money, and its sequel, Return to the Giant Pool of Money. </p>

<p>As such, I didn’t read the OP. I feared I would fall asleep.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>lolwut</p>

<p>We were 30+ years into the Cold War when Reagan became President. D</p>

15

<p>George Bush>Barack Obama</p>

16

<p>Sorry I meant increase in defense spending not preparation lol. In hindsight it war may not have been possible, but I don’t really fault the principles of reagans economic strategy for the debt increase.</p>

<p>Lol millancad, good choice. Politics always makes people angry :(</p>

17

<p>I remember reading in American Pageant that Reagan’s spending had made it economically impossible for the Democrats to expand the Great Society, and there seemed to be an implication (maybe even an explicit statement) that it was an intentional effect. I remember thinking that it was an interesting idea at the time, but now the debt seems to have become a chief part of the GOP’s rhetorical arsenal. I really do think it’s relevant to current politics that this problem is [chiefly</a> the responsibility of the party’s hero](<a href=“http://i206.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/bb26/Iam3elliott/chart.jpg"]chiefly”>http://i206.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/bb26/Iam3elliott/chart.jpg).</p>

<p>Well, maybe Bush I was [slightly</a> responsible](<a href=“http://i206.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/bb26/Iam3elliott/chart2.jpg"]slightly”>http://i206.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/bb26/Iam3elliott/chart2.jpg) too.</p>

<p>(The former is inflation adjusted)</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>The intelligence of a flea > Yours</p>

<p>If you could choose one person to best represent the Republican party, Bunning may be that person.</p>

<p>He complained about missing a basketball game for god’s sake. People are SUFFERING AND STARVING because of his selfishness.</p>

<p>What makes this more hilarious is the Republican assertion that reconciliation is an abuse of power… I guess this really takes that argument down.</p>