And its funny watching Obama, who ran on Hope and Change, now arguing that we've got to handle this problem by doing things the same way we've always done it. (I guess in your eyes, I'm a racist to point that out) We can point fingers and we can fantasize about watching the other guy squirm when the shoe's on his foot all day. Or we can demand that the guys who've got the job now do it right.
Why would I think you are racist? And what is wrong with going back to Clinton era taxes, if it worked? I don't like Obama but he is putting all the no no's on the table, but here comes the GOP to defend the poor, helpless, rich people, who have no voice, and who have just been mistreated and seen all their money get given away to those lazy no good liberals. But it's cool I guess top credit rating really doesn't mean that much.
Not even close amigo, my point was, and I'll type this slowly so as to help you understand. t-h-e p-o-l-i-c-i-e-s haha no really. The things that you say bush did that got us into such a mess were all supported by your dems. Yes, cooperation yippie kie ya. However if your dems supported these bush policies how does that not place an equal amount of blame squarely in their lap as well. You get it now slappy? It can't be all dubyas fault if your boys bought it hook line and sinker.
I said in another thread that I wouldn't object to a return to the Clinton tax levels. But you're assuming that taking more out of the rich will automatically mean more tax dollars coming into the government. You're forgetting that unemployment under Clinton started below 8% and steadily fell throughout his 8 years. Unemployment jumped to 10% shortly after Obama took office and has hovered around 9.5% since. All of which is irrelevant to the original argument, sorry. The government gets enough money to do what it needs to do. The problem is spending, which is why I said we should make this administration prove it can make do with what its got before we give it any more.
good! their agenda is terrible. what is with this idea that the government should always be doing things? how many laws do we need? dont we have enough by now? we need our leaders to do far less than they are doing.
Equal? You're dreaming. They cooperated for the good of the country, even though many didn't agree with everything. You know, democracy. Jeez, you still don't get the point, Platoon Sergeant! I'll speak as if to Private Velcro. The democrats who cooperated and assumed a piece of the responsibility and a slice of any blame. The republicans now refuse to cooperate and assume no responsibility. Blame for the consequences of gridlocking government for political gain will not be shared. Blame will go 100% to one side or the other. Smart money is betting on the Party of No.
I think you have to drill down farther than that. The problem is entitlement spending. We had two massive, costly, and unfunded entitlements created under Bush. Obama created another massive, costly, but possibly funded, entitlement. We have to address these things and now. The reason the budget looked so much better under Clinton is because Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and Obamacare did not exist.
Thats what I was looking for. The rest was never in contention. I don't agree with your projected outcome but my opinion is most important to me.