Obama and Boehner Speeches

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-20-2007
Obama and Boehner Speeches
46
Mon, 07-25-2011 - 9:46pm

What are your thoughts about it?

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 07-29-2011 - 9:33pm

I suggest this to get a better understanding

Understanding Macroeconomics and Finance

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 07-29-2011 - 10:57pm

Considering that both parties contributed to the current unbalance (and there's an interesting piece by Ezra Klein comparing the amount of debt built by Bush and that built by Obama; it's Bush who did the vast bulk of spending), I would say that the reasonable thing to do is to put the nation front and center. Ditch the political posturing. Ask everybody to do a little belt tightening and stop acting like the tax breaks enjoyed by big corporations are set in stone for all time.

Don't kid yourself that the Tea Party is the catalyst. There have been enough other economies in disarray--Portugal, Ireland, Greece, that economists knew we would have to find a way to avoid the same sorts of issues.

And no, people didn't vote in the Tea Party out of some economic prescience. They were sold a bill of goods about death panels and death books, affordable health care act, that Obama was a socialist, blah, blah, blah. Conservative groups whipped up fear because it worked to take the nation to war with Iraq. Why ditch a tactic which worked so well before?

IF the Tea Party gets its way, there will be all hell to pay during the next elections and here's why--the only way that a balanced budget can be accomplished to the degree the TP'er's demand, is by cutting deeply into programs which were the tradition purview of conservatives. Defense. Social Security benefits for seniors. Medicare benefits for seniors. Which means come the next election there are going to be some furious voters who once rallied around the flag of the GOP. Frankly, I think economically-rabid conservatives deserve the shellacking they're likely to get for implementing their demands. But many people will be hurt--which could well mean that the economy will wilt even more than it already has.

What I suspect the leaders of the Tea Party truly want is not to come up with a viable compromise, but a way to ruin Obama's chances for re-election, at whatever cost. But those who behave with malice and selfishness often sow the seeds of their own eventual destruction.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2011
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 11:36am

I will admit that Bush's spending was disastrous, but Obama's spending is utterly insane.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 5:18pm

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 5:31pm
Free Republic?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 6:29pm

<<

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 6:31pm

Hmmmm...... I didn't analyze Klein's claims but am well aware that numbers can be manipulated and/or categorized in ways which can be skewed to tell whatever story is wanted.

Speaking of which, the claim that "Democrats controlled Congress between 2006 and 2010" is true in as much as they had a simple majority in both houses. BUT they didn't have the votes in the Senate to overturn a presidential veto, nor did they have the supermajority numbers which would shut off filibuster, or even the threat of filibuster--which BTW, is still the case: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-debt-impasse-20110730,0,166771.story Hence, the narrative of Democratic legislative control is false. But there are those who don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good tale.

Bush trashed the country and Obama hasn't been able and/or willing to get it cleaned up as he promised and we hoped. I remember thinking that it truly would take a messiah to work the miracles needed to bring the country back on track and Obama was a mere human. So people, at least those of us paying attention, remember well enough just how miserable Bush was in "leading" the country down the primrose path to ruin.

Since the Tea Party's reason for existence was mostly about their own "hatred and vitriol", I find it more than a little ironic that you claim they're hated. Do you not remember all the town hall meetings where TP'ers yelled, heckled, threatened, and disrupted? The gun-toting gatherings? Because I sure do and most emphatically disagree that those who point out the TP'ers rage were "the real malicious ones".

Edited to add that the claims of death panels and death books ( as part of the Affordable Health Care ACT) which were promulgated in both the conservative blogosphere and on NewsCorp outlets, and which too many citizens believed, were nothing more than hyperbole, breathless sensationalizing and worst of all, fear mongering lies.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 9:04pm

I completely agree with you!

*****

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 07-31-2011 - 12:06am
jabberwocka wrote:


Bush trashed the country and Obama hasn't been able and/or willing to get it cleaned up as he promised and we hoped. I remember thinking that it truly would take a messiah to work the miracles needed to bring the country back on track and Obama was a mere human. So people, at least those of us paying attention, remember well enough just how miserable Bush was in "leading" the country down the primrose path to ruin.

This is laughable. Yeah, right. Bush "trashed the country", then poor old Barrack Hussein came in and just hasn't been able to clean up the mess! Huge deficit spending, as never before seen, and gigantic government expansion just hasn't put the private sector back on track. What a surprise! An idiot community organizer in charge, and we have an iron fisted government pushing us toward bankruptcy.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Sun, 07-31-2011 - 8:22am

<>

Any party that wants to kill jobs is not supporting the Constitution:

"Republicans in Congress, not wanting to appear to defend the rich, have attempted to block any deal that includes higher taxes on the grounds that tax hikes are "job-killing." But experience shows that in a period of slack demand like the present, tax hikes are no more job-killing than spending cuts, and probably less so. Cutting spending -- say, by firing federal employees or canceling procurement -- removes demand from the economy dollar-for-dollar. A dollar tax hike, on the other hand, especially one aimed at upper incomes, cuts demand by less than a dollar. Those who pay the tax cover part of it from their savings and only part by reducing their spending. If lawmakers insist on using the phrase "job-killing," Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, wrote in a recent blog post, "they should apply it equally to both tax increases and spending cuts."

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/113223/why-debt-crisis-is-even-worse-than-you-think-businessweek?mod=bb-budgeting

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM