Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans are Worried about the Deficit?

Why can’t we get an unemployment-benefits-extension bill passed? Republicans say they don’t want to increase the deficit. Why were they against the stimulus bill? Worried about the deficit. The healthcare reform bill? Again, the deficit. But then Republicans shout with one voice: “Maintain the tax cuts. Never mind the deficit.”

Senator Kyl presents a perfect example. Here's what he said on Fox News Sunday:

You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely congress has the authority and it would be right, if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.

In other words, spending for measures to help the poor must be offset in some way to not increase the deficit, but tax cuts for the rich do not have to be offset in any way. Ostensibly, according to Kyl's logic, tax cuts don't increase the deficit!

Here I thought that the huge Bush tax cuts, which benefit mostly the wealthy, were a big factor in increasing the tremendous deficit we are faced with. The Congressional Budget Office thinks so too. But Republicans know better. They KNOW that tax cuts do not increase the deficit. They have been telling themselves that the solution to any and all problems is tax cuts.

Do Republicans actually believe what they say? Or are they stuck with the same old habit? After all, tax cuts are good for the rich and powerful that Republicans represent, even though they are placing the rest of the country in an economic hell hole.

Judging from what they say and do, Republicans do not give a damn about the deficit. Their only concern is to help the rich and one big way to do this is throught tax cuts.

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 11, 2010 10:02 PM
Comment #303418

Seems to me Paul IMO Democrats need to worry more about fixing their own party and the deficit problem instead of worrying about what some Republican says about it. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses. Your party has enough of their own problems that need to be taken care of. The Republicans have enough of their own to.

Posted by: MAG at July 11, 2010 10:59 PM
Comment #303429

I am sure Paul understands the tremendous deficit we now have and which is expected to reach $20 trillion in the next decade. We hear the dems talk about reducing deficits at some point in the future but they have no stomach for it now. If not now, when? It’s always the next congress that is supposed to deal with these fiscal problems…why not now? At about $35 billion this would represent a small beginning.

Congress can find the money from unused stimilus funds or in hundreds of federal agencies that can be used to extend unemployement benefits that will not harm our recovery.

It’s good politics for the dems to delay passing any legislation to extend unemployment benefits. They can paint the Republicans as the bad guys in many of the close congressional and governor’s races this fall.

Politics always rules over the heart and conscious and both parties have their heads up their asses when it comes to benefiting the country.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 12, 2010 1:06 PM
Comment #303430

Royal, I think people are getting wise to the BS politics going on in DC now and realize that both parties do indeed have their heads up their collective butts. IMO incumbents of both sides will have their problems in the upcomming elections as we have seen so far with the primaries. Democrats can blame all they want as well as Republicans but people aren’t as dumb as politicians think they are, and dang sure aren’t as dumb as the liberals think they are.

Posted by: MAG at July 12, 2010 1:20 PM
Comment #303431

When Republicans were in power, some of their most prominent leaders were saying, Debt doesn’t matter.

They get kicked out of leadership by the voters, and suddenly debt and deficits matter.

See, therein lies the wisdom of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy.

If jobs, wages, debt and deficits matter to the people, then the people must vote out incumbents of all parties until the challengers they elect, come to see things the way the anti-incumbent voters do and act accordingly. Acting on the voter’s behalf will become the challenger’s road to reelection.

That is how democratic elections were always supposed to work, until the Parties divided and conquered the people for their own ends. Jobs, wages, debt and deficits aren’t partisan issues. They are the people’s issues. Don’t let the Parties divide us into liberal and conservative sides. Then, only the party’s and their wealthy special interests get what they want, and the people and their children continue to lose more and more in the long run.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2010 1:37 PM
Comment #303433

I agree Mr. Remer. The party’s be damned…American’s need to wake up and vote for folks who care about this country and not just the next election.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 12, 2010 1:47 PM
Comment #303444

“American’s need to wake up and vote for folks who care about this country”

RF, I disagree in that they all say they care about this country.

We need to treat both political parties as if they were one party. We need to vote out the incumbents while letting the challengers know that we think our government is broken, we want it fixed, and we are going to be WATCHING CLOSELY. We don’t want partisan solutions, we want logical, practical solutions to the problems that we face.

Posted by: jlw at July 12, 2010 6:09 PM
Comment #303454

Just heard on the news that the dem co chair of the debt commission said that if this country keeps spending the way it is now we will soon be BANKRUPT.

Posted by: MAG at July 12, 2010 8:32 PM
Comment #303467

It would have taken a brain to know a commission needed to be formed to look the situation over. That is why it did not happen sooner. But President Obama formed it and will listen to the findings. That is something the Republicans cannot seem to do…listen to anything but their own greed. Think about all the Republicans seem to be against. Here’s a little story: A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot with good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards.

He prepares his breakfast. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air is clean because some tree-hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and sometimes died for these working standards.

Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers.

Joe has to pay his student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on the radio, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good (He doesn’t tell Joe that Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys). Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

Posted by: Marysdude at July 12, 2010 11:28 PM
Comment #303471

No it didn’t take a brain dude, anyone with an ounce of common sence could see that spending the way this administration has been would sooner or later break this countries back, but I guess liberals don’t have common sence so they need a commission to study it.

Posted by: MAG at July 13, 2010 7:31 AM
Comment #303473


Let’s see…Reagan tripled the debt, BushI almost doubled THAT, Clinton almost got it going in the right direction, then Cheney/Bush tripled it again. I’m assuming you think conservatives handle the debt better than progressives? Ho Hum…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 13, 2010 9:08 AM
Comment #303475

Dude IMO neither liberals or conservatives have been any good at solving our economic problems as of late. Personnelly I don’t give a rats behind of what other administrations did I’m concerned about what’s happening now and now our economic problems aren’t in the best of shape.

Posted by: MAG at July 13, 2010 11:42 AM
Comment #303479

Debt is always increasing. Needs are always increasing. Never enough $ even though it is being printed. Where does all the money go?
Probably two places 1. The wealthy hoard it and the republicans have convinced middle america not to dare tax it; and 2. China is collecting it all and who knows how that will or should play out.

Posted by: Schwamp at July 13, 2010 12:03 PM
Comment #303493

Meanwhile, some in the nobility continue to foment revolt.

Posted by: jlw at July 13, 2010 4:19 PM
Comment #303529


The Myth: Republicans are rich white people and Democrats are not.
The Truth: 8 of the 10 Richest Millionaires in Congress are Democrats.

1 Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $251,025,020
2 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $244,796,667
3 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $214,570,011
4 Mark Warner (D-Va) $209,700,598
5 John Kerry (D-Mass) $208,801,275
6 Jared Polis (D-Colo) $158,173,566
7 Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $142,432,692
8 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $94,306,010
9 Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) $74,744,094
10 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $72,380,637
11 Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $69,619,248
12 Alan Grayson (D-Fla) $54,451,020
13 James E Risch (R-Idaho) $53,325,524
14 Bob Corker (R-Tenn) $52,345,517
15 Cynthia Marie Lummis (R-Wyo) $48,288,514
16 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $44,917,518
17 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) $40,898,090
18 Harry Teague (D-NM) $38,275,465
19 Carolyn B Maloney (D-NY) $36,751,045
20 Gary Miller (R-Calif) $36,719,525
21 Nita M Lowey (D-NY) $33,835,578
22 Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $31,378,542
23 Denny Rehberg (R-Mont) $31,372,505
24 Yvette D Clarke (D-NY) $30,000,001
25 Olympia J Snowe (R-Maine) $28,542,526

Source: Center for Responsive Politics, 2008. Now, watch some liberal sheep give this a thumbs down because he/she is too lazy to look it up.

Posted by: Journeyman at July 14, 2010 12:59 AM
Comment #303531

Journeyman sounds like union and as a conservatives know, unions are socialist organizations.

Your news is old news, if it explains anything it would be corpocracy.

I thought the word sheep was reserved for those who rely on Fox News, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh to do their thinking for them. Or, perhaps the word was goat.

Posted by: jlw at July 14, 2010 2:22 AM
Comment #303542

Journeyman, isn’t competition a good thing? Or, are you suggesting that competition isn’t a good thing when Democrats outnumber Republicans in that competitive arena? Are you for campaign finance reform that would eliminate the need for political candidates to be wealthy in order to have a competitive edge in winning elective office?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2010 10:35 AM
Comment #303569


You realize it was Republicans that put two wars on a credit card, right? This was with massive citizen approval.

Posted by: Max at July 14, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #303570

So your point is Max? Did I not say neither party has been doing to good with the economy. Also as I said I’m not concerned with who did what in the past but what is being done now.

Posted by: MAG at July 14, 2010 4:17 PM
Comment #303572

If I were a conservative Republican I would probably have the same attitude, the past is no concern, it is the here and now that counts.

If I were still a Democrat, I would still be blaming Bush for everything.

Max, many Democrats in the Congress approved of puting those wars on the credit card and when the Democrats took control of the Congress in 06, they continued to put the bills for those wars on the credit card.

The country will know it is begining to get on the right path if the Democrats loose big in the fall and the Republicans loose big in 2012, etc.

Posted by: jlw at July 14, 2010 4:36 PM
Comment #303584

jlw, quite right, that would mark the first successful stages of the growth of the anti-incumbent movement.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2010 7:02 PM
Comment #303593


He who does not study history is bound to repeat it. You lambaste this administration for borrowing us into a debt we have had for years. At least this time there is a valid reason for the borrowing. Without it our nation and then the world would go into free fall. You might think of it this way…if you get your way, and take over in 2012…you will have to live with the results. Your track record is not all that shining (that darned history again).

Posted by: Marysdude at July 14, 2010 9:34 PM
Comment #303599

What the hell? Tax cuts’s are mostly for the benefit of the rich? I’m far from rich $50k but the Bush Tax cuts allowed my boss to increase my pay each and every year they were in effect. I’m so sick and tired of the liberal a-holes and their government math.

Posted by: Darkitec at July 15, 2010 12:46 AM
Comment #303604


I guess that’s better than being sick and tired of being sick and tired. Before retirement, I’d been gainfully employed for more than fifty years, and other than recessionary periods, I was given the raises as I warranted them. Those recessionary periods always followed conservative administrations or wars. If your employers failed to give you merited raises, perhaps the cause was lack of merit?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 15, 2010 7:11 AM
Comment #303610

Sen. Richard Lugar (R) came out this week saying there is no victory to be had in Afghanistan, only perpetual deficits.

Bush’s former economic advisor this week said the Bush tax cuts resulted in deficits then, are creating deficits now, and will continue to create deficits going forward. Directly contradicting Mitch McConnells idiotic statement that there is no evidence that tax cuts increase deficits. I guess he meant besides 5.5 Trillion dollars in deficits the Bush administration racked up in 8 years.

Freshman Republican Jason Chaffetz opposes continuation of Afghan war this week.

Sen’.s Brown and Snowe say they will back the Financial Regulation legislation. I’ll believe it when their votes are recorded and the period to revise their votes is closed.

There are a number of Republicans who want to do the right thing. The right thing at this time is to not let perfection become the enemy of the necessary. But, the pressures on them from the GOP, RNC, Tea Partyers, etc. to avoid any action that might help Democrats improve anything in our country, are enormous. I really can’t fathom the lack of love of country and fellow Americans demonstrated by so many GOP supporters and Libertarians, who would sooner destroy it all than let Democrats lift a finger to help avoid such destruction.

The present political climate has to rival the very worst periods of politics in our history, if not surpass them. I commend the Republicans mentioned above who refuse, for a brief time on very specific issues, to allow Party loyalty to usurp American loyalty and dedication to making at least some incremental progress on their preferred issues even if it means agreeing with Democrats.

Dems prepare to extend Bush’s Middle Class tax cuts. Will Republicans oppose this too! Of course, many of them will. Perhaps even most. Perfection killing the necessary and doable. As if cutting taxes during a time of record deficits and recession recovery were a perfect solution. NOT!

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 15, 2010 10:58 AM
Comment #303616

Dude, And our economy isn’t about to go into a freefall now with all the borrowing? What happens when China wants their loans paid? I am a conservative and have no party affiliation. Who ever is in the WH in 2012 I hope does a better job then Bush or Barry. Bush did start the crazy spending and Barry continues so what do we have 2 idiots who like to overspend.

Posted by: MAG at July 15, 2010 12:03 PM
Comment #303617

The problem is on the spending side.

By simply eliminating the tax cuts for the rich, and leaving the tax cuts for the middle class, and a recovery in the economy, revenues should be on a healthy path when compared to historical norms.

What is outside of historical norms is spending. We have increased Federal Spending above historical norms.

Conservatives and Republicans are correct in that it is more important to restrain spending than deficits. The reason is simple. As soon as more revenue is available through taxes, Congress will spend it and we will have the same deficit as before. (by the way, this doesn’t seem to matter which party is in power, at least lately).

I hate to be cynical, but a vote for increases in tax revenue is not a vote to reduce the deficit. It really is a vote to increase the size and scope of government.

The only true way to reduce the deficit from history is Clinton’s way, which took a Republican congress that would not allow the passage of more spending, nor would Clinton allow additional tax cuts. The economy boomed.

Back then there was a gun to their head in the form of the bond market. Today there is a gun to our head in that the world is reducing the number of dollars they use for reserve currency. In other words, cut spending or we will find another reserve currency.

I would expect that after this next election, Obama will have the mandate he needs to cut spending as Clinton did after 1994.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 15, 2010 12:09 PM
Comment #303618


Maybe freefall for spending too much. Absolute freefall for spending too little. You still ain’t looking at the picture any closer than Glenn Beck’s right buttock.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 15, 2010 12:10 PM
Comment #303620

Dude, I am looking at the picture and it don’t look good at the rate we are going. As far as Beck I don’t even watch him. I picture myself borrowing and spending the way this government is doing and what would happen if I did the same. What would happen Dude if you borrowed and spent like that?

Posted by: MAG at July 15, 2010 12:38 PM
Comment #303627

Republicans are worried about the deficit (not really) and this blue column is worried about Republicans. Never mind a couple of wars, high unemployment, a Supreme in the nomination process, and a huge financial bill being voted on today. Go figure.

Cheney was exactly right when he said that deficits don’t matter. That’s because he was talking in political space and not economic space (if you take time to read the quote). His point back in 2004 was that there was no political penalty for deficit spending as evidenced by the midterm elections. Still in 2010 President Obama is proposing a $3.8T budget and a 1.5T deficit without taking enough heat on it. He must think they don’t matter as well.

Government spending equals how much can be collected via taxes plus how much money can be borrowed. You will never cut spending until the electorate decides that both of these matter. It’s already painful politically to increase taxes and hopefully soon it will also be painful to propose deficits at 10% of GDP like Obama did a while back.

Posted by: George at July 15, 2010 1:44 PM
Comment #303638

Craig Holmes:

The 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act ended a decade of a Republican cut taxes and spend era. It increased taxes, cut spending reduced the deficits and started a major economic boom. Not one Republican voted for it.

Clinton worked with the Republicans to pass a balanced budget agreement in 1997 which came close to achieving its objective.

Bush was elected and Republicans went right back to Reaganomics, cutting taxes and spending.

Posted by: jlw at July 15, 2010 4:38 PM
Comment #303645


You are forgetting Bush I “Read my lips, no new taxes” and then he raised them and then lost the election. Then Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes in 1993 as you say, and Democrats lost the election. There is a pattern here.

When Republicans came into power in 1995, we had gridlock and Clinton won reelection.

There were a few issues like the peace dividend and Welfare reform that helped along the way.

Clinton and Obama are exact opposite on spending. Spending as a percentage of GDP declined under Clinton and is soaring as a percent of GDP under Obama

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 15, 2010 5:51 PM
Comment #303647


Actually, let’s just get federal spending back to where it was at the end of Clinton’s term, (As a percentage of GDP), and crisis over. We should have a balanced budget again as soon as the economy recovers.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 15, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #303654

>What would happen Dude if you borrowed and spent like that?
Posted by: MAG at July 15, 2010 12:38 PM


If several in my family were dying of cancer, and I had no other recourse…borrow it would be. Unless you honestly believe we were never in danger after the financial catastrophe, unless you think just standing by would have been just as effective and that the system would have healed itself in a short amount of time, unless you think…well…you get the picture. The other thing is, even if you don’t think recovery methods were called for, can you not see how much more the nation needed a direction…something to hang on to?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 15, 2010 7:11 PM
Comment #303655

Dude, You can only borrow so much until the creditors run out. There are other ways instead of borrow and spend even Obama is beginning to realize that. Cut the unnecessary spending, cut the PORK. Yes we need recovery methods but spending us into oblivion is not the answer. Maybe you may think that but I don’t. Congress needs to tighten the purse strings.

Posted by: MAG at July 15, 2010 7:53 PM
Comment #303665


The President was touting spending cuts and pork restrictions and…and…and…all through his campaign, and during his one and a half years in office. You still wear Beck blinders as to what is really going on in America and the world. You may not watch him or listen to him, but you sure do sound just like him. And, like him, you make up your own history and live in your own reality.

When you are wounded there are certain procedures that should be followed, ie, stop the bleeding, protect the wound, prevent shock, etc. Those procedures are in a specific order because they have been found to heal more than if they are followed out of order. The financial crisis is similar, in that the first response had to be, “stop the bleeding”. If that is not done first, it seems to me that the rest will be of little good. When I indicated that if some in my family were to be stricken with cancer, and other recourses were lacking, my choice would be borrowing. Your comeback was, “Dude, you can only borrow so much, until the creditors run out.” Right back atcha…I’d borrow until the creditors ran out, and then perhaps steal before I’d allow my family to die…assuming my gaining money would lead to their recovery.

If America had cancer, or were bleeding to death, how much is too much borrowing, as long as the patient has a chance of recovery?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 15, 2010 10:37 PM
Comment #303668

Dude, Borrow til the creditors run out then steal? That is one stupid, ignorant statement. What good will you do your family being in the slammer? And what good will it do the country if it goes BANKRUPT? Spend, spend, spend and if need be borrow so we spend some more, Typical liberal ideology.

Posted by: MAG at July 15, 2010 10:52 PM
Comment #303669

Hmmmm! and around and around we go. Vote out the incumbants, don’t spend, spend, deficits aren’t important, deficits are important. Obviously this is all philosophical and political differences. I guess time will tell us who is right.

As a liberal democrat, I hope my side is but I am financially dumb so I have a hard time understanding all this. So many people here talks in absolutes. It must be nice to be so sure that you are right. It amazes me how sure people are about their positions.

The only thing I can say is that I trust the Obama White House a lot more than I trust any republican. It seems to me when I listen to the two sides that the democrats are more logical and rational.

I think that it is true that both sides have added to the current problem but it has been more the economics of Reagan and the republicans that has created the current crippling crisis.

Our country was on the edge of economic collapse while under George Bush so please excuse me if I am hesitant to listen to anything a republican or libertarian has to say. I will throw all my marbles in with the democrats

As far as throwing out the incumbants-this makes no sense. Anyone new will become an incumbent in no time. It wouldn’t take a new congress long to become dishonest and beholden to the corporations. Throwing out the incumbents is a useless talking point. We need to have term limits, and true reform regarding lobbying and campaign contributions.

An earlier post listed the wealthiest in congress as being mostly democrats. So what. Proving that there are more wealthy democrats in congress doesn’t prove your point. You are talking about a small segment of society not society as a whole. All you have proven with your data is that there are more rich democratics in congress that still put the belief of fighting for the middle class above their own personal wealth.

Mag- cut the unnecessary spending-cut the PORK! Exactly what would that be? Kinda of like: one man’s junk is another man’s treasure. Who gets to decide what is unnessary or PORK-you, me? Again just another talking point.

Posted by: Carolina at July 15, 2010 10:56 PM
Comment #303670

You want redistribution of wealth, Carolina, How about those rich DEMOCRATS redistributing some of theirs. But I know they can keep theirs, it’s everyone elses they want redistributed.

Posted by: MAG at July 15, 2010 11:07 PM
Comment #303671


You forget that it was typical conservative crap that got us here in the first place. It’s like I said, you have the Beckian history books, and refuse to look elsewhere for correct information. I’m sorry for you, and I pity you, but I don’t think any kind of medication will save you.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 15, 2010 11:09 PM
Comment #303673

Mag-excuse me but I never said anything about redistribution of wealth. Exactly where in my comments did I talk about redistribution of wealth?

Anyway that is another republican talking point. We have the really, really rich who make their money off the backs of the middle class. We have a system that pays outlandish salaries to people who play sports when police officers are shot and killed just about everyday and they earn nothing compared to football, basketball, and baseball players.

We have major corporations who pay minimal if any taxes. We have CEOs and bankers who are going home with their pockets lined with gold and teachers are being laid off.

Don’t talk to me about redistribution of wealth. Our country is sick- our priorities are screwed up.

I don’t believe in taking money from someone that was earned fair and square but when we value and defend the abuse of the middle class, the poor, minorities, children, and the sick and excuse people making money at others expense-I have problems with this.

Posted by: Carolina at July 15, 2010 11:23 PM
Comment #303674

Dude, Show me the correct info. I really don’t have any idea what Beck had to say about anything, if you listen to Olberman and Maddow I pity you those two make me want to puke. The only one that’s half way good is Chris Matthews and I watch him instead of Beck at least I get some truth out of him. And the way you talk you want this country to follow in the footsteps of Greece and a few of those other EU countries.

Posted by: MAG at July 15, 2010 11:24 PM
Comment #303675

Our country is sick, our priorities are screwed up. Now that’s something you don’t hear from a liberal. I have to agree with you on that statement Carolina. As far as corporation paying minimal taxes we need to change the tax codes not punish them. If people are dumb enough to pay to go watch those overpaid jocks then don’t begrudge them their salaries. When people stop paying those bloated prices to go watch them then maybe they won’t get so much til then it’s our fault. But don’t forget though it’s those rich corporations that put people to work, if we tax the crap out of them then we have NO JOBS they go elsewhere.

Posted by: MAG at July 15, 2010 11:45 PM
Comment #303686


I’m not Carolina, but when you say, “But don’t forget though it’s those rich corporations that put people to work…”, are you speaking of Americans or the Chinese? When did our AMERICAN businesses stop exporting jobs to other countries? You cannot say enough good about your corporations to pay for the harm they’ve done.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 16, 2010 9:58 AM
Comment #303689

Dude, In Ohio we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the country. Manufacturing has left this state in droves because of it and because of the greed of unions. We once had three different steel manufacturing plants now we have one and it’s not a full capacity mill. I don’t know if you were a union man but we can shift some of the corporate blame to them and their greed. Why didn’t you finish the statement you eluded to, if we do in fact tax the crap out of them and burden corporations with restrictions there will be no more corporate America and you liberals get your wish.

Posted by: MAG at July 16, 2010 10:29 AM
Comment #303690

Before you blow a gasket, please research what percentage of American corporations actually pay ANY corporate tax, and then how many get away with paying only a small portion of their share, and then of those how many went ahead and left the country in the lurch anyway. Then, to top it all off, weigh the good unions have done as compared to how much harm.
To answer the implied question…nope, I’ve never belonged to one (military 20 yrs, Wal*Mart 14 yrs, sold insurance, sold lumber, worked car rentals, etc., but never unionized). I do see that without unions, there would have never developed a middle class in this country. We can thank unions and the GI Bill for building that. We can thank the conservative agenda for destroying it.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 16, 2010 10:39 AM
Comment #303692

Dude, Didn’t I suggest changing the tax codes? I know that most corporations pay little or no tax and I do know that some do cheat case point the company I retired from during inventory they would hide stock in trailers parked in the yard saying that was in transit avoiding the taxes. That’s great that you never belonged to a union. Unfortunitly I have and would not recommend it to anyone. Granted unions were once good but now have outlived their usefullness. They along with CORPOPRATE got greedy and you can see the influence they had with the HC issue and with politics in general and also the downfall of some manufacturing or the moving of those manufacturing jobs elsewhere.

Posted by: MAG at July 16, 2010 11:00 AM
Comment #303707


Unions are the reason corporations moved their facilities elsewhere? All this time I thought it was greed and the search slave labor…damn! All we had to do to keep those jobs in America was to work for nothing? Why didn’t I think of that?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 16, 2010 3:29 PM
Comment #303708


Paul’s presept that it is strange that Republicans are suddenly concerned with our debt, after adding to it for thirty years, has fallen by the wayside. This subject wears me out, and so does going around in pointless circles. I do not suffer fools lightly.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 16, 2010 3:36 PM
Comment #303711

Both parties are adding to the debt Dude. Your spewing typical partician BS. Dems never do anything wrong BULLS—T.

Posted by: MAG at July 16, 2010 4:14 PM
Comment #303716

yep, repubs only worried about the debt when it involves unemployment but not when it means getting rid of the tax breaks for the very wealthy-then all of sudden the debt isn’t a problem. Very two faced IMO.

Posted by: Carolina at July 16, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #303729


“Dude, in Ohio we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the country.”

Actually that isn’t true. We do have a high corporate tax rate and that does discourage some businesses from coming into the state but not some others. We also allow a lot of exemptions and we let companies that do business in other states transfer their tax burden to states with lower rates; as a result, the actual taxes collected from corporations is less than in many other states.

Its those unions and taxes.

Republicans have controlled the Ohio General Assembly since 1994 and the governorship from 1991 until 2007. If Ohioans want to keep our bad economy, all we need to do is keep electing Republicans. It looks like we are planning to do that.

Posted by: jlw at July 16, 2010 11:11 PM
Comment #303733

Republicans have been in control of Georgia as well, and Georgia has the second worst economy in the nation. We are on the way to reelecting them again.

The greatest finincial failures in American history have been under great Republican influence. We may be on the verge of electing them again.

What is that old saw about insanity? It goes something like, “insanity is making the mistake of electing Republicans over and over, believing they will be the best shepherds of the economy”? I’m pretty sure it goes something like that.

It is fairly obvious that Republicans cannot govern, but they seem to be the best sheep herders in the world.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 17, 2010 5:54 AM
Comment #303742

You should add California to your list!! Along with New York!! All areas of strong Republican control.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 17, 2010 12:34 PM
Comment #303759

I live in Georgia, so the importance is direct here. The others are peripheral.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 17, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #303789

Ooops! I see you were just being snide. My bust. All seriousness aside, I think you’re cute too…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 18, 2010 6:13 AM
Comment #348992

ZY-The gala polly lace dress coast online must be chosen with great wedding turquoise full length dress uk and after weighing quietly. It is crucial that michael kors watches rose gold form fitting dresses polly lace dress coast headgear came by galas. the fari frill coat red can be split into several sections. Quinceanera sale michael kors watches mercer and wedding dresses can be panthea cover up as evening dresses. They are divided into long tamara maxi dress blue and short dresses. The robes are for mk5478 watch special gala events while short dresses are used for the gala occasion Ivory dress usual. There are many catalogs symphony maxi dress dresses gala on the websites michael michael kors watches clothing online stores. At reasonable maxi dresses sites, you will find the best deals on gowns petunia gowns a wide range of photos gala dresses. Among all these michael kors watches sale find model dresses filled with all sizes .

Posted by: coast abi fascinator at July 20, 2012 10:33 PM
Post a comment