Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
That's exactly why I posted this. NOT to endorse Obama, but to refute GOP claims. Three years after driving the country off a fiscal cliff, and then
spending the interim time trying to prevent it from being rescued, the GOP are right back in the saddle and poised to reclaim total control of the
Damn, people have a short memory in America. After the lies of 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, the corruption, and the disastrous fiscal policies of
rewarding the wealthy while driving the middle class into the ground (see here
for a big list), here we are again. More right-wing then ever.
Hell, according to the CBO, over a trillion dollars of our current deficit came from the game of brinkmanship the GOP played that cost us our AAA bond
rating. Thank that happened by accident? All part of making Obama look bad so they can get right back into power and rewarding their wealthy
There are several things wrong with this post. First off, Democrats still maintain 2/3rds majority in government today. From 2007 up until 2010, they
maintained both houses of Congress (which was still 2/3rds of government). From 2009-2011, Democrats had full control of all houses of government.
More than enough time for them to pass whatever they liked. Democrats have effectively controlled government for the most part since 2007. So I don't
think you're trying to be as nonpartisan as you would like to think you are. Most of your talking points are quite liberal sounding. Especially your
argument against tax breaks. But I'll address that a bit further down.
Now, the OP is incredibly misleading. It only measures increase
in spending as a percent. This really amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. It
is quite meaningless in other words. Spending has not gone down, and trillion dollar deficits are now the norm with this president and Congress. That
is absolutely unacceptable regardless of which political party is responsible for running government. No president in the history of the United States
has signed the US into more debt than President Barrack Obama. So the title of the article you sourced is intellectual dishonesty at its absolute
finest. That in itself would normally be a yellow flag to an astute viewer who has a bit better grasp on the situation.
Additionally, your argument for tax breaks doesn't really hold up. Obama continued the "Bush tax-cuts" by keeping them in place when he could have
increased taxes in 2010 (when he had full control of Government). But because his party was trying to fend off republicans in the 2010 November
elections, and the fact that this own economists advised against raising taxes, He decided to maintain the Bush tax cuts. So technically, they're now
"Obama tax cuts." But I'll let it slide for now.
Moving on, you claim that tax cuts incurred more debt. But this logic fails miserably when it actually comes to understanding economics. Federal
Revenue before the "Great Recession" was right around historical averages. The Bush tax cuts didn't affect Federal Revenue at all. The recessions
however did. Once more, revenue wasn't the issue, spending however was
, and it still remains a major issue that this president and Congress
can't seem to figure out. As for your opinion on the AAA credit rating downgrade. This happened with one of the smallest credit rating agencies inside
the US. Moody's and Fitch still maintain a AAA credit rating for the US. So, how does one credit rating agency seemingly decide Americas credit
rating, when far more prominent ones maintain a AAA credit rating?
I don't think you quite think your posts out, or research the material before you make a thread/post. In the meantime, try and abide by the sites
edit on 1-8-2012 by rock427 because: spelling