Do you think Barack Obama will "strike the root of the problem"?Couldn't tell you. Maybe we are in a slow recovery, maybe we are about to have prolonged recession/depression. What I do know is that we have these recessions about every 18 years. Its been happening for about 200 years now. Until we recognize it as unnatural and until we strike the root of the problem it is going to continue.
So says Singapore. What about the rest of you?No president in USA was off the hook.
Sorry, but you didn't read what I said. "As an averaged percentage of each house of Congress, a mild majority of Democrats voted for the war."You didn't read what I said. Please try again!
"A majority of Democrats also voted against the needless Iraq war that cost taxpayers $2 trillion dollars."
61% of Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war compared to almost 100% of Republicans.
In what world is 61% not a majority?
Do you think Barack Obama will "strike the root of the problem"?
Sorry, but you didn't read what I said. "As an averaged percentage of each house of Congress, a mild majority of Democrats voted for the war."
60% of House Democrats against the bill, as did 42% of Senate Democrats. The average of that is...51%? Odd, I calculated 49% yesterday...
My point still stands. The Democratic Party was divided right down the middle on this - hardly the dovish crusaders you portrayed them to be.
I did have my percentage slightly off before. It was 57% of Congressional Democrats instead of 61% that voted against AOF in Iraq. However, your shell game doesn't hold up to the math:
In Congress,
7 Republicans out of 270, voted against AOF in Iraq or approximately 3%
vs
147 Democrats out of 258, that voted against AOF in Iraq or approximately 57%
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fact that a majority of Democrats voted against the AOF in Iraq vs a near unanimous majority of Republicans that voted for AOF in Iraq is one of the reasons we chose Obama in the last two elections.
OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) has what to do with the economic downturn and recovery? It started 6 years before the "crash" and I for one, don't see where it had any negative effect upon the economy. In fact, I would say it employed quite a few people and thus had a positive affect on the economy.
Wars usually are positives for the economy, unless of course you are in the country where they are being fought, then it can be bad.
The Constitution only says defense, it says nothing about wars of choice or spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. I have no problem cutting waste wherever it is in the government.
What waste besides the excessive military do you see needs to be made. Despite the GOP complaining about spending, they continue to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military and have not offered any specific cuts they want made.
$2 trillion dollars of tax payers money wasted in a needless GOP war against Iraq on behalf of big oil did not help our economy, it was just the most wasteful part of our deficit spending.
That still doesn't explain how it is related to the economy. It explains, partly, a relationship between it and the governments budget, but not the economy.
And cheaper oil is a positive for the economy, not a negative.
You don't believe that deficit spending and huge national debt hurts the economy? Most Americans do not agree with the blood for oil policy in Iraq, that's one of the reasons we voted for Obama, as he was the only viable candidate that said it should be ended.
They only hurt the economy when tax rates are changed. Higher tax rates will always negatively impact the economy, however, there is no definitive proof that lowering tax rates improves the economy. Also, every single year of Bush, the deficit Decreased after it spiked.
U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress
I notice you still bring up Iraq, but didn't answer my question about Afghanistan. Are you now conceding that it was a necessary war for our defense?
So debt is no problem? Glad to hear it!!! Stop whining about having to repay US debt then.
No, I am conceding that, unlike with the Iraq war, a majority of both parties voted for going after Al Qeada in Afghanistan.
Not exactly what I said. Saying it doesn't always have a significant impact upon the economy is not the same as saying it not harmful in other ways.
Define Whining as you see it? Stating that it is too high is not whining. Stating that it will have a negative impact on the Economy when taxes have to be raised is not whining. Saying that debt cannot continue to rise indefinitely is not whining. I cannot think of a single thing I have ever said about the debt or deficits that could be considered whining.
Perhaps my insistence that you and others qualify the wars (to which you and another responded about the debt/deficit caused,) as to how they relate to the economy, the subject of this thread, as in the downturn and the recovery of the economy. You might consider that whining, but actually, it is an attempt to get you to focus on the actual subject of this thread and relate what you said to that subject.
I have given you my view on how they relate, however, you still have not supported your view that they somehow affected the economy negatively or that they are preventing economic recovery. You brought up the wars, in this thread, thus saying that they related to the downturn or the recovery of the economy. It is your argument, it is you that must support it if questions or concede that they did not.
Recovery, I can figure out myself, if Taxes get raised, but these are factors that existed long before the "crash". I am not debating their potential negative impact upon economic recovery.
So, please, lay out your associations and logic chain on how the wars negatively impacted the economy and how the wars in any way helped cause the economic downturn. Or do you concede that they did not?
Either we have a debt problem we need to address, or we don't, which is it?
If we have a debt problem, then we need to cut our most wasteful spending, which is excessive military spending and wars of choice. The Democrats have been a bigger advocate of cutting this most wasteful spending than have been the GOP.
If you want to discuss debt, then move to or create a thread about debt. This is about the economy.
How does your post about two wars relate to the economy? Specifically, what roles did they play in causing an economic downturn?
The only relation I know of is Taxes, and Taxes have not changed since before the Wars. I am trying to understand how you are relating the wars to the economy.
Setting aside for a moment that you think debt and deficit spending are unrelated to the economy, what we need is further stimulus to spur infrastructure jobs and growth while assuring no tax increase/benefits decrease for the working class.
I think income taxes should be equal for everyone.
We have already pored more than a Trillion dollars into stimulus, it didn't really work. I have my opinion why it didn't work, but it didn't. So why should we give the same people any more money to stimulate the economy when they have already demonstrated that their approach to doing it doesn't work?
Also, jobs bills have come up in Congress and been defeated. Why were they defeated?
So, if I am understanding you correctly, the wars, started 7 and 5 years before the economic down turn did not cause the downturn but prevent recovery because you feel the government should have a greater role in the economy. So, exactly how, 7 and 5 years before the wars, was Bush and Congress supposed to know that the economy would crash?
Where, in any governing document, aka the Constitution, does it say that the government is responsible for controlling the economy? Or to stimulate it (especially after they broke it)?
Fortunately our forefathers were wise enough to see that a flat tax for everyone led to a two class system of robber barons and serfs when they instituted a progressive tax system, and as we saw in the Presidential election and all the polls, the majority of voters still support a progressive tax system.
Are you seriously asking why Congress didn't take your opinion rather than the CBO? The CBO testified before Congress that they and the nation's top economists have determined that unemployment would have been worse without the stimulus.
Because the GOP was more interested in scoring political points with their base than they were concerned for Americans without jobs.
Because a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of the money is concentrated at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers. We learned this first in the 1920's and repeated the mistake in the 2000's.
I've seen no one suggest that the government control the economy. All that I have seen done is to stimulate the economy when the private market is not doing it. The goal of the whole Constitution is to promote the welfare of we the people. A strong economy promotes the welfare of we the people.
Did congress take the opinion of the CBO? And why was it the opinion of the CBO instead of facts?
I disagree about your assertions about a consumer economy.
BTW, it says "promote the general welfare". That does not mean every single individual.
Unemployment topped out at 10% nationally, so if 90% are doing ok or good, how is 10% to called the "general welfare"? And of that 10%, how many of them were in that position and stayed there because of their individual, not government, actions and choices. 100%, thats how many. There is around 15% of Americans living in poverty, again, by their own choice, so you believe that under the "general welfare" the government should spend trillions of dollars to provide for less than 20% of our population? And that less than 20% who, for the most part, won't lift a finger to help themselves. I'm not buying it. For the general welfare, we should just let those less than 20% waste away instead of bankrupting 100% to care for them. Better to place them on work farms or projects at tell them "work or die" and let them choose and leave the rest of us out of it.
Here is you some food for thought "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."
The facts the CBO and economists studied showed that unemployment would have been higher without the stimulus.
Perhaps we should hold an election then and let the citizens decide. Oh, that's right, we just did that.
Of course not, it means what is best for we the people collectively.
Since there are more people than jobs your reasoning above fails.
Exactly why we chose a leader that was concerned about the needs of the many, rather than a candidate that was just concerned with the wants of the few?
But the could not definitely prove it.
Are there more people than jobs? Prove it.
The CBO is the most non-partisan, authoritative entity available, and they concurred with the leading economists.
For 34 Straight Months, There Have Been More Than Four Unemployed Job Seekers For Every Job Opening
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?