An interesting question

[firstandten]

I heard this on the Thom Hartmann show and the republicans who called into the show had a difficult time answering this.

The question is : Name one republican intiative since Reagan that was designed to help Joe and Jane Blow [[common middle class people)

We aren't talking bi-partisan or a trickle-down effect but something that was expressively designed to help common-folk by republicans

Based on this criteria, one would be hard pressed to come up with something.

[Detroitej72]

Well, Republicans claim to be anti-abortion, and surely, since they have appointed 6 justices to the Supreme Court since 1980 and have had a majority since, then Roe v. Wade must have been overturned... Oops, My bad, they only pay lip service!

They must have balanced the national debt, oops, they actually expanded it triple-fold.

OK, they secured our boarders, and stopped all those bad, illegal immigrants from the south from coming here. Damn, we actually had an amnesty program for illegals under Ronny, what the hell was I thinking.

Well, Regean defeated communism, shit, err, I mean, he watched as Pope John Paul II was the driving force behind the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

I give, what is the accomplishments of Repub's since then?

[firstandten]

During the time I listened the only thing a caller came up with was Bush Jr sent a lot of relief aid to Africa.

Not really americans but I guess that could count

[Detroitej72]

My right wing friends tell me Bush Jr kept us safe from terrorism. I fail to see how that is, since we had the biggest terrorist strike on American Soil under his presidency, not to mention the right wing anthrax attacks.

Well, at least he caught the DC Sniper, oops, my bad, he had nothing to do with that either!

[Pam]

Name one republican intiative since Reagan that was designed to help Joe and Jane Blow [[common middle class people)

Well, Republicans claim to be anti-abortion, and surely, since they have appointed 6 justices to the Supreme Court since 1980 and have had a majority since, then Roe v. Wade must have been overturned.

If they had overturned it, that wouldn't qualify as an answer to the question either.

[MCP-001]

The middle class in not within the republicratic party's interest.

They aren't "rich enough" to be counted on for substantial donations, and they aren't "poor enough" to bribe with government entitlements.

Which say a lot as to why the middle class was sold out big time over the last 20 years regarding jobs and taxes.

[TKshreve]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush Jr. deliver stimulus checks to all Americans who filed in one particular tax year. I seem to remember a check going out to a lot of people.

And that is not to be confused with the last check we recieved for $600. $1200 if you were married. Additional $200-400 per kid.

Yeah, I remember two stimulus checks going out to all working Americans. I recieved one of those checks. And I think they both happened during Bush Jr's stint.

After that, I don't have much.

[gazhekwe]

Yes, he gave us a little of "our money" back, thereby increasing the national debt since he then had to borrow money to keep the country running.

[MCP-001]

Yes, junior did dole out a "rebate" check about two years ago.

He also turned around a racked up a few trillion to our nation's debt.

Guess who'll be paying that off?

[ghettopalmetto]

Yes, junior did dole out a "rebate" check about two years ago.

He also turned around a racked up a few trillion to our nation's debt.

Guess who'll be paying that off?

Oh, but come on! The tax giveaway, er cut, for the wealthy was necessary! Rich people own businesses. Businesses hire people. So if you give rich people less responsibility to their country, I mean, more of their own money, then the businesses they own hire more people.

Can't you see? We HAD to cut taxes to CREATE JOBS!!!

[MCP-001]

Spending money that you do not have is not a tax cut.

It's just downright irresponsible behavior.

[ghettopalmetto]

Spending money that you do not have is not a tax cut.

It's just downright irresponsible behavior.

But see, that's not the way it works. If you give people more of their own money, then they invest it, and make more money. And somehow--known only to God and the Republican Party--tax revenues actually INCREASE when you give a $1 trillion+ tax cut!

Or so we were told.

[MCP-001]

But see, that's not the way it works. If you give people more of their own money, then they invest it, and make more money. And somehow--known only to God and the Republican Party--tax revenues actually INCREASE when you give a $1 trillion+ tax cut!

Or so we were told.

I see you've been listening to Bennett and Gallagher. I'm impressed.

They're still wrong.

You just starve the federal beast to make federal spending go down.

Less federal spending = lees need for taxes.

Even Pres. B.O. is wising up!

[ghettopalmetto]

"Wising up"? Attacking long-term deficits has always been part of President Obama's platform. You can't address spending deficits, though, when your economy is shrinking.

Unfortunately, we have a bunch of people in this country [[and in Europe) who wish to repeat the debacle of 1938 and prolong this recession.

Maybe next time we have a projected budget surplus, we won't have a frat boy President who decides we need to squander such surpluses on blow and yachts for our college buddies.

[MCP-001]

"Wising up"? Attacking long-term deficits has always been part of President Obama's platform...

Ha haha hahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

uh

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I needed that laugh.

Thanx!

[ghettopalmetto]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lf-four-years/

[MCP-001]

You really should read your links before posting them.

"When Obama says he will halve the deficit, he's comparing it to a 2009 deficit that is massive and far, far above the norm. It's a deficit fueled by a major recession [[translation: lost tax revenue) and boosted by costly recession-fixers like the bailouts last fall and the economic stimulus package passed in February. For comparison purposes, we note that the deficit in 2008 was $459 billion [[and less than half that the year before). So the deficit is expected to nearly quadruple in 2009.

That's the number Obama promises to cut in half.

"It’s true, but it's very misleading," said Brian Riedl, a research fellow in federal budget policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's true because they quadrupled the deficit this year and then they'll cut that in half." Riedl notes that Obama's projected deficits in four and five years will be "significantly higher" than deficits before the recession."

And people wonder why the US economy tanked.

[firstandten]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush Jr. deliver stimulus checks to all Americans who filed in one particular tax year. I seem to remember a check going out to a lot of people.

And that is not to be confused with the last check we recieved for $600. $1200 if you were married. Additional $200-400 per kid.

Yeah, I remember two stimulus checks going out to all working Americans. I recieved one of those checks. And I think they both happened during Bush Jr's stint.

After that, I don't have much.

Yep ! The economic stimulus act of 2008[[early part of 2008) was pushed by Bush after his economic advisors told him the economy was getting ready to tank. This led to our $ 600 checks and I believe him telling us to go spend it somewhere. He got the majority of Dems to support it and a minority of Repubs did support it.

I was getting worried, I knew average people don't fit into how republicans view the world, but at least they did that for the "little people".

[lincoln8740]

I heard this on the Thom Hartmann show

.

I wonder what the other two people that were listening thought of this!!!!!

[firstandten]

I wonder what the other two people that were listening thought of this!!!!!

He's not Rush or Beck by any means but he has a decent audience

[ghettopalmetto]

MCP, you're conflating short-term deficits necessary to stanch the bloodflow of the recession with long-term financial sustainability, without any evidence that the former necessarily leads to deterioration of the latter.

A similar argument is used to justify fiscal austerity. Both textbook economics and experience say that slashing spending when you’re still suffering from high unemployment is a really bad idea — not only does it deepen the slump, but it does little to improve the budget outlook, because much of what governments save by spending less they lose as a weaker economy depresses tax receipts. And the O.E.C.D. predicts that high unemployment will persist for years. Nonetheless, the organization demands both that governments cancel any further plans for economic stimulus and that they begin “fiscal consolidation” next year.

Why do this? Again, to give markets something they shouldn’t want and currently don’t. Right now, investors don’t seem at all worried about the solvency of the U.S. government; the interest rates on federal bonds are near historic lows. And even if markets were worried about U.S. fiscal prospects, spending cuts in the face of a depressed economy would do little to improve those prospects. But cut we must, says the O.E.C.D., because inadequate consolidation efforts “would risk adverse reactions in financial markets.”

The best summary I’ve seen of all this comes from Martin Wolf of The Financial Times, who describes the new conventional wisdom as being that “giving the markets what we think they may want in future — even though they show little sign of insisting on it now — should be the ruling idea in policy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/op...ef=paulkrugman

Many economists, myself included, regard this turn to austerity as a huge mistake. It raises memories of 1937, when F.D.R.’s premature attempt to balance the budget helped plunge a recovering economy back into severe recession. And here in Germany, a few scholars see parallels to the policies of Heinrich Brüning, the chancellor from 1930 to 1932, whose devotion to financial orthodoxy ended up sealing the doom of the Weimar Republic.

In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: They’re eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus, Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can’t afford $77 billion in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3 trillion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/op...ef=paulkrugman

Right now, we have a severely depressed economy — and that depressed economy is inflicting long-run damage. Every year that goes by with extremely high unemployment increases the chance that many of the long-term unemployed will never come back to the work force, and become a permanent underclass. Every year that there are five times as many people seeking work as there are job openings means that hundreds of thousands of Americans graduating from school are denied the chance to get started on their working lives. And with each passing month we drift closer to a Japanese-style deflationary trap.

Penny-pinching at a time like this isn’t just cruel; it endangers the nation’s future. And it doesn’t even do much to reduce our future debt burden, because stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/op...ef=paulkrugman

[Papasito]

Even Pres. B.O. is wising up!

B.O. .... the guy who appointed a "committee" to investigate cutting the debt while borrowing more than any president in history? Please. Over the course of B.O. and the last 4 presidents before him, the Government has way overstepped its' boundaries, overinflated itself in size, and has become completely unsubstainable. I don't care if you have a D or an R in the White House, both have completely thrown our country under the bus.

[ghettopalmetto]

B.O. .... the guy who appointed a "committee" to investigate cutting the debt while borrowing more than any president in history? Please. Over the course of B.O. and the last 4 presidents before him, the Government has way overstepped its' boundaries, overinflated itself in size, and has become completely unsubstainable. I don't care if you have a D or an R in the White House, both have completely thrown our country under the bus.

So you're in the Blame America First crowd, are ya? Why do you hate your country so much, Papasito?

Conveniently enough for you, your "positions" stated above are relativistic in nature. You provide zero rational basis for your conclusions, no measure of objectivity, and use sufficiently wishy-washy wording so that none of your claims can be "disproven" [[or "proven", for that matter).

At least try to understand what the circumstances, lest anyone think you're just unleashing a politically-motivated bitchfest rooted in your own ignorance.

[TKshreve]

Yep ! The economic stimulus act of 2008[[early part of 2008) was pushed by Bush after his economic advisors told him the economy was getting ready to tank. This led to our $ 600 checks and I believe him telling us to go spend it somewhere. He got the majority of Dems to support it and a minority of Repubs did support it.

I was getting worried, I knew average people don't fit into how republicans view the world, but at least they did that for the "little people".

Well I'm glad the OP agrees with what I posted.

I am not real impressed with what GWB accomplished while in office. But it did answer your question. It was a good example. I love how many came to the rescue when I suggested this, putting so much spin on the example, Tiger Woods would be impressed. What you did with your money/rebate/stimulus was your business. Some saved , some spent.

The strawman argument that it was our money to begin with is hollow. If we never recieved that money, it would have been squandered somewhere else. Instead, we recieved a check. And a good one at middle-class standards.

He also turned around a racked up a few trillion to our nation's debt.

What has the current administration done for our debt? Health reform, financial reform, riding the war out........

Help me remember....... was there not another stimulus check or tax rebate some years before the mentioned check? I rememeber not getting one, but most people I knew did get one. Anybody...... Bueller?

[GOAT]

FirstandTen, Nice loaded question by negating certain things done by the republicans. I'm glad to see you haven't gone so far as to start calling all conservatives stupid names .

A bit tongue in cheek but what about that $300 return people received? [[I thought it was dumb)?

How about Bush Sr [[who I thought was a good Prez until the recession ended his time) raising taxes because he had to? He didn't shirk his duty and it cost him his election.