cons are still able to push through all this crap on taxes and spending?
2007-12-07
02:02:58
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Government
http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm
"If the nation falls into a recession, which political party do you think would be best at restarting the country's economic growth: the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?"
.
Democratic
Party Republican
Party Both Equally
(vol.) Neither
(vol.) Unsure
% % % % %
11/30 - 12/3/07
45 30 6 9 10
2007-12-07
02:03:54 ·
update #1
vtjames, your source is ? I want my taxes to pay for services that I want to! better roads and schools if in your opinion I demand freebies at no cost, then you are lying! I pay taxes for it!
2007-12-07
02:13:38 ·
update #2
vt james your source?
Lonnie, I think you represent 9% according to this poll.
and claiming that Democrats controll congress is a political statment , which is not even true on paper. Democrat affiliated memebers of the congress controll only by one vote and in event of a tie the vote is casted by vice president - Republican. Never mind that a threat of veto reverses all the policies almost 180 degrees.
2007-12-07
02:19:49 ·
update #3
Jake S is a prime examle of this crap!
Clinton did not have tax cuts but had best economic expansion. Bush..tax cuts? What abot 9 trillion in national debt? (result of the tax cut)
Bush "success" was due to real etate market expansion and now we are going to pay for it.
2007-12-07
02:22:51 ·
update #4
oh and jobs ! lol 22 million under Clintion vs Bush's?
2007-12-07
02:24:01 ·
update #5
Braslay i gave link what is you source republican talking points?
2007-12-07
02:34:07 ·
update #6
Probably because the Dems don't have high interest in Halliburton and Oil companies to name a couple starters.
2007-12-07 02:11:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by John W 3
·
0⤊
4⤋
Where do you get this "Americans trust democrats on economy" BS? Democrat Carter had our economy in shambles, interest rates double digits, gas prices high if you could get gas at all and what became known as the "misery index" was developed.
Reagan took over, slashed tax rates and sat back and waited for the ride to start. Built up the largest deficit in US history but brought down the Soviet Union in so doing. Interest rates below 5%, unemployment below 5% when he left office. Economy was humming along well enough that Bush #1 was able to coast through his 4 years.
Along came Clinton. The economy was still strong and was able to move on. It wasn't until the end of the Clinton presidency that the economy began to stutter and slow.
Then Bush #2 was elected rightfully but not without scandal. 9/11 happened and our economy took a tremendous jolt from that. Spending increased to fund 2 warfronts. Bush cut interest rates how many times? The economy responded with growth in spite of everything that was happening. Still today interest rates are near record lows. Unemployment is below 5% yet.
Except for the 8 years of Clinton the economy has been largely influenced by Republican moves over the last 26 years.
Get over it and quit drinking the kool-aid.
removed the reference to the 73 oil embargo. Carter was in office from 1976 to 1980, embargo happened under Nixon.
Clinton's economic expansion was based on the previous 12 years of economic activity which provided impetus for the expansion he enjoyed taking credit for.
As for the deficit, no one in Washington can keep a dime in their pocket, neither Republican nor Democrat and they all have the "bring home the bacon" mentality. No fiscal restraint from either party means it is a dual owned mess, not creditable only to Bush. He only say yay or nay to what congress sends him.
He gets a bill that must go through but it's loaded with pork from both parties, veto it (such as he did SCHIP) or pass a bad bill can get fixed with the pork spending? No win.
Don't know who brasley is but as far as talking points go, both parties have them but dem's can't do a dam.... thing without sticking their finger in the air to see which way it's blowing!
2007-12-07 10:31:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." Alexander Tyler
Tyler's hypothesis is right on target. We have voted ourselves outlandish largess from the public treasury:
a) Big business gets corporate welfare in the form of tax incentives, special deductions, bail-outs and government grants;
b) Wealthy individuals pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than average citizens [as clearly pointed out recently by billionaire Warren Buffet];
c) Everyone believes they're 'entitled' to Social Security, even if they have hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, own two homes, drive luxury cars and take exotic vacations during their retirement;
d) Savvy citizens have figured out how to take advantage of 'the system' and live off the government trough for a lifetime by collecting welfare, disability or other entitlements which they don't deserve;
e) Our schools, municipalities, states, hospitals, and other public 'services' always have their hands out for financial endowments from the federal government;
f) Our giant military-industrial complex thrives on 'war' and other defense mechanisms of the federal government, often accepting billions from the Pentagon even if Congress doesn't think the expenditures are necessary.
Living off the government dole has become commonplace in America....and it will soon cause the collapse of our economy, our government, our environment and our way of life. Sooner rather than later. -RKO- 12/07/07
2007-12-07 10:37:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It has been in recent history that the Republicans have been more successful in turning the economy around. When a tax cut is enacted the result is that people have more money to spend and they spend it. As money is pumped into the economy more jobs are created and hence even more people have money to spend. Democrats, on the other hand, have never seen a tax that they did not like and as more money is funneled to the government the people have less money to spend. Government is a drain on the economy whereas private individuals pump more money into the economy. There is a strange thing that occurs though. As people earn and spend more money tax revenues increase because more people have jobs and are paying taxes.
2007-12-07 10:18:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jake S 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
I've never trusted Democrats on the economy.
but I don't trust the Reps all that much more anymore.
More taxes are bad for the economy.
2007-12-07 10:20:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Darkwolf 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Could it have anything to do with the larger and larger % of people who think that the government should provide everything to you at no cost? No cost to them of course and those who would foot the entire bill are a minority so their vote is easily defeated....
2007-12-07 10:08:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Let's recap:
The nation IS in recession.
Dems control Congress.
Reps in the White House.
Neither party is capable of bringing us OUT of recession; it would end their power struggle.
I trust NEITHER PARTY to do ANYTHING that stops them from usurping more power from 'We, the people . . . '
THROW ALL THE BUMS OUT AND GET SOME FOLKS IN WHO ARE NOT PARTY AFFILIATED LEMMINGS!!!!!
In short, your little poll can conclude all it wants; I'm an American who DISLIKES, DISTRUSTS, and WANTS THE PARTIES SMASHED!!!
2007-12-07 10:13:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lonnie P 7
·
0⤊
2⤋