I think Republicans opposed the fiscal cliff deal at the beginning of the year due to the tax increases for the wealthy, not so much the sequester piece. I don't think that the terms of the sequester are substantially different--it's still a split between discretionary and military spending, leaving entitlements alone, just like last time--and I'm honestly not sure why conservatives would oppose the sequester, since they want to reduce government spending. But yes, I do blame Obama for coming up with the stupid idea in the first place with the vain hope of achieving a "grand bargain".

 

White House adviser blames Republicans for cuts, waves off doomsday criticism

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-cuts-waves-doomsday-criticism/#ixzz2MUzhBxPN
​

I do appreciate the leftists,, they stick to their lies and manipulations, way after the score has been tallied.



​

 

From 1932 to 1940 the unemployment rate declined from 23.6 to 14.6.

Republicans like to point to the prosperity of the 1920s under Republican presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

Woodrow Wilson was a Democratic president. During his last year in office, in 1920, unemployment was 5.2 percent. During President Coolidge's last full year in office unemployment had declined to 4.2 percent.

Franklin Roosevelt was elected president in 1932, when unemployment was 23.6 percent. In 1940 when he was reelected the second time unemployment had declined to 14.6 percent.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

Correct my arithmetic if you need to. Nevertheless, I see a 1.0 percent decline when the Republicans dominated the country, and a 9.0 percent decline under the Democrats.

Harding was inaugurated in 1921. Coolidge's last full year in office was 1928.

For my data of the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) I am using figures compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. They are adjusted to 1996 dollars.

During the terms of Presidents Harding and Coolidge the per capita GDP grew by $1,681, or 29.19 percent.

During the first two terms of President Roosevelt the per capita GDP grew by $2,619, or 54.52 percent.

Here again, check my arithmetic if you need to.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

 

By 1944 unemployment had declined to 1.2 percent.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

One can argue that it was not New Deal programs that ended the Depression. Nevertheless, it was government spending and government employment that did end the Depression.

I fully support America's entry into World War II. Nevertheless, if the money had been spent on expansions of the public sector of the economy and infrastructure the benefits to the economy would have been greater.

This is what President Eisenhower said about the tragic waste of military spending:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9743.htm

From 1932 to 1944 the top tax rate grew from 63 percent to 94 percent.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

This disproves the Republican maxim that "We can't tax our way to prosperity."

 

The public sector is is much bigger today than it was during the misconceptions of the FDR era..........

How has this helped build our economy today??

 

President Obama tries to compromise with the Republicans when he does not need to.

According to a Pew Research Study released February 22, 2013 there is majority opposition for cutting any item in the federal budget, other than foreign aid, which is less than two percent of the budget.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/02...oms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/

For several years there has been considerable support for raising taxes on the rich.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...8975,d.dmQ&fp=95c9c19312d4e19&biw=600&bih=518

 

I'm glad that you feel that way,,the Republicans never need to compromise the Oballah for his cherished ''REVENUE INCREASES''

 

Taxes for the rich are much lower.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

That is the reason for the debt crises that Republicans are trying to use to cut popular public sector spending.

From the administrations of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the top tax rate never got below 70 percent. The national debt was paid down in terms of gross domestic product (GDP).

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Now it is true that public sector spending has increased. It has increased in response to broad popular demand. There is little support for reducing it. Since the administration of Ronald Reagan Republican tax cuts for the rich have been justified with the dishonest claim that they generate more tax revenue than tax increases for the rich.

 

Calling the President names is childish. I do not descend to that sort of thing.

 

If Barry can change his name to suit his needs,,,I can too....

 

''MASTER OF DEFLECTION'',,,,,,Did this bullshit answer my question?

 

Interesting exchange with many good points. Consider

* "Budget Cutting" is a mirage used by governments and businesses alike. You inflate (sandbag) projected expenses with stated reasonable cause then argue the irresponsibility of the budget cut and settle for a number in the end potentially higher than that of the previous fiscal period. Epitomizes "Liars figure, and figures lie"

* This scenario was contemplated decades ago as every single fiat currency in history (dollar became so when we moved from the gold standard) has collapsed. Dates back to Romans. It was expected legislators would consider risks, but decades of increasing entitlements and general fiscal irresponsibility has brought us to this point.

* Raising minimum wage, increasing entitlements, Obamacare, instituting additional bureaucratic oversight, etc., only exacerbate the economic graveyard spiral. Not saying we should refrain from entitlements and assistance, but they cannot be provided to the point of crippling an economy (Greece, Italy, Spain).

Amidst all the hyperbole and blame shifting the simple reality is that if the US doesn't get it's fiscal house in order we are done. Educate yourselves, verify what you hear, look at the numbers, hold our electorate accountable with your feedback and your vote (you do vote, right?).

I once heard insanity described as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Not saying the Tea Party is bad or good, but we know for certain that significant change needs to occur or there won't be a government to dismantle

 

My answer to your question is that most Americans have benefited from expansions in the public sector of the economy, they know it, and they do not want the public sector to be reduced.

Since the expansion of the public sector of the economy, which began with the Roosevelt administration, recessions have tended to be less severe. Nevertheless, they are again becoming more severe because of Republican efforts to roll back the Keynesian reforms that got the United States out of the Great Depression.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

http://images.businessweek.com/mz/10/03/decline_recovery.pdf

I would like to add that using words (and please excuse my repetition of the word) like "bullshit" is inappropriate to a learned discussion of a serious topic. When debating with you and others here I sometimes feel like I am reading my term paper in front of the class and bad boys are throwing paper wads at me.

 

Bullshit.

Read this:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2801206.html

 

Taxes are quite a bit higher in Scandinavia than in Greece, Italy, and Spain, and entitlements are more generous. Scandinavian countries have responded better to the Great Recession.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html

 

For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top 1 percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.

Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.

-------

I was comparing the Roosevelt administration, when life for most Americans improved. That was why Roosevelt was reelected three times.

Also, from the administrations of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the top tax rate never got below 70 percent. Recessions were milder. It was only after the top tax rate was reduced to 28 percent under Ronald Reagan that recessions became more serious, and that the national debt began to grow as a percentage of gross domestic product.

 

Haven't researched that but appreciate the link and will definitely check it out.

So many tentacles to this issue. Taxation, entitlements, immigration, health care, wasteful spending, unemployment, on and on, and that just the microeconomic part. Shift to macro pulling in trade, currencies, GDP, billions spent on global humanitarian efforts (don't even want to touch that here). It's no wonder there is a huge problem. It's got to be fixed.

It's my opinion that the problem is at the grass roots level...question of who votes, why they vote. Want to start a war of words tear apart voting rights. Should you have to be a high school grad, a tax payer, not receiving long term subsidies? Talk about a hazardous topic...limiting voters based on these metrics could epitomize a slippery slope to extreme inequality. Conversely the counterargument we are quickly descending to our demise on the other side may be credible.

We cannot have it all. We need to make some tough decisions while we still have the freedom to choose.

 

That is probably the most intelligent thing that I have ever read on this forum..

 

Are you one of those pissed off liberals I keep hearing about?

 

Republicans? They are like English Conservatives are they not? Just interested in preserving the wealth of the rich under the all encompassing banner of "FREEDOM".

Or am I a misguided liberal hippy?