Myth that Republicans hate the poor

B

Bigrob

New Member
I'm in the minority here, but I don't think the GOP hates poor people. They just hate the poor who don't want to work and are Government dependent on everything like amount of kids they have, buy 1 get 1 free tattoo, Cell phones, Pimping cars. Republicans=Capitalism=Jobs! The poor are alway's the scapegoat for a socialist agenda.
 
Man, that's the last time I read a post like this while drinking Dr. Pepper. Now I have to clean my computer screen off.

That being said,the Bush administration created only 3 million jobs over the course of eight years; whereas Clinton created 23 million during the course of his administration. Under Clinton-level tax structures we ran a surplus and had low unemployment, whereas under Bush we ran an historic deficit and saw unemployment skyrocket. Voodoo economics does not work, lowering taxes on the rich does not create jobs at all (and if it does, the jobs it creates are not the sort that everyday Americans can get).

Also I found it amusing how Tea Party patriots crowed about the deficit in the weeks leading up to the election, yet the selfsame party that they voted into office is threatening to cut off benefits for the unemployed and allow taxes to rise for the middle class unless the exorbitantly wealthy can get their share too. Forget that these tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners - when 60% of US wealth already belongs to the top 1%, mind you - are totally unnecessary and add $700 billion to the deficit. No, tax cuts for rich people are freedom and America.

Also there's nothing at all wrong with socialism, seeing as how the opposite of socialism is corporatism, not capitalism. Social democracy (to some degree or another) is working just fine for every single first-world industrialised country. And if you're so against socialism, I'm sure Uncle Sam won't mind if you forfeit your right to Medicare and Social Security. Only seems fair to put your money where your mouth is, no?
 
k7pGJ.jpg
 
blackguyatprinceton said:
Man, that's the last time I read a post like this while drinking Dr. Pepper. Now I have to clean my computer screen off.

That being said,the Bush administration created only 3 million jobs over the course of eight years; whereas Clinton created 23 million during the course of his administration. Under Clinton-level tax structures we ran a surplus and had low unemployment, whereas under Bush we ran an historic deficit and saw unemployment skyrocket. Voodoo economics does not work, lowering taxes on the rich does not create jobs at all (and if it does, the jobs it creates are not the sort that everyday Americans can get).

Also I found it amusing how Tea Party patriots crowed about the deficit in the weeks leading up to the election, yet the selfsame party that they voted into office is threatening to cut off benefits for the unemployed and allow taxes to rise for the middle class unless the exorbitantly wealthy can get their share too. Forget that these tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners - when 60% of US wealth already belongs to the top 1%, mind you - are totally unnecessary and add $700 billion to the deficit. No, tax cuts for rich people are freedom and America.

Also there's nothing at all wrong with socialism, seeing as how the opposite of socialism is corporatism, not capitalism. Social democracy (to some degree or another) is working just fine for every single first-world industrialised country. And if you're so against socialism, I'm sure Uncle Sam won't mind if you forfeit your right to Medicare and Social Security. Only seems fair to put your money where your mouth is, no?
Click to expand...

Great post fam
 
blackguyatprinceton said:
Man, that's the last time I read a post like this while drinking Dr. Pepper. Now I have to clean my computer screen off.

That being said,the Bush administration created only 3 million jobs over the course of eight years; whereas Clinton created 23 million during the course of his administration. Under Clinton-level tax structures we ran a surplus and had low unemployment, whereas under Bush we ran an historic deficit and saw unemployment skyrocket. Voodoo economics does not work, lowering taxes on the rich does not create jobs at all (and if it does, the jobs it creates are not the sort that everyday Americans can get).

Also I found it amusing how Tea Party patriots crowed about the deficit in the weeks leading up to the election, yet the selfsame party that they voted into office is threatening to cut off benefits for the unemployed and allow taxes to rise for the middle class unless the exorbitantly wealthy can get their share too. Forget that these tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners - when 60% of US wealth already belongs to the top 1%, mind you - are totally unnecessary and add $700 billion to the deficit. No, tax cuts for rich people are freedom and America.

Also there's nothing at all wrong with socialism, seeing as how the opposite of socialism is corporatism, not capitalism. Social democracy (to some degree or another) is working just fine for every single first-world industrialised country. And if you're so against socialism, I'm sure Uncle Sam won't mind if you forfeit your right to Medicare and Social Security. Only seems fair to put your money where your mouth is, no?
Click to expand...


When was the economy better, during the Clinton era with higher taxes, or during Bush II with lower taxes? The idea tax rates on the rich have a profound impact ont he economy or jobs has never been proven true. It's pure fantasy.
 
Bigrob said:
When was the economy better, during the Clinton era with higher taxes, or during Bush II with lower taxes? The idea tax rates on the rich have a profound impact ont he economy or jobs has never been proven true. It's pure fantasy.
Click to expand...

So then why are you trying to argue that lower taxes on the rich create jobs which is true they just don't exist in the US even though they depend on US consumership for their products and services. Fucking disgusting.
 
Bigrob said:
When was the economy better, during the Clinton era with higher taxes, or during Bush II with lower taxes? The idea tax rates on the rich have a profound impact ont he economy or jobs has never been proven true. It's pure fantasy.
Click to expand...


That's a rhetorical question right? The answer is during the Clinton era with higher taxes.

Higher taxes = more government revenues = more social programmes = lower deficits/higher surpluses.

I mean you could in theory have a flat tax like some of the Eastern European countries have (lithuania in particular), but what ends up happening there is that instead of paying 40 dollars in income taxes you pay 15 in income taxes then 15 in social security then 10 in medical insurance; so you end up at exactly the same level unless you are obscenely rich. Government revenues would dramatically decline if a flat tax were to be issued.

Of course if you just slashed unnecessary defense spending you could pay for all of the tax cuts many times over, but I digress...
 
If you weren't asleep during the Clinton era, you'd know that under the Clinton administration, there was a major billion dollar surplus, along with a lower unemployment rate across the board. Of course, this contributed to the tech bubble and the continuing prosperity of the nation when raising taxes on the rich was considered. This helped significantly.

However...Bush 43 turned that surplus into a deficit through wasteful spending and his tax cut program actually contributed to the unemployment levels rising one year after he took office. This is a conservative estimate, not including the natural disaster known as Katrina. You need to remember what life was like under the Bush administration. If you can't, then selective memory has played you false.

Bigrob said:
When was the economy better, during the Clinton era with higher taxes, or during Bush II with lower taxes? The idea tax rates on the rich have a profound impact ont he economy or jobs has never been proven true. It's pure fantasy.
Click to expand...
 
blackguyatprinceton said:
That's a rhetorical question right? The answer is during the Clinton era with higher taxes.

Higher taxes = more government revenues = more social programmes = lower deficits/higher surpluses.

I mean you could in theory have a flat tax like some of the Eastern European countries have (lithuania in particular), but what ends up happening there is that instead of paying 40 dollars in income taxes you pay 15 in income taxes then 15 in social security then 10 in medical insurance; so you end up at exactly the same level unless you are obscenely rich. Government revenues would dramatically decline if a flat tax were to be issued.

Of course if you just slashed unnecessary defense spending you could pay for all of the tax cuts many times over, but I digress...
Click to expand...

Look at policies instead of party affiliations. For example, Eisenhauer actually raised marginal rates while Kennedy lowered them. When we had Clinton marginal rates went up, capital gains rates simultaneously went down, which led to more compensation being in the form of options and stock. That's one of the reasons the stock market did so well during his terms.
 
The stock market doesn't determine how well the economy is performing. Again:

- unemployment was lower in the Clinton era
- More jobs were created
- Surplus was abound (thank you rich people for paying more)
- The standard of living was healthier for even working class individuals

How can you ignore all this and continue to spout hot air?

Bigrob said:
Look at policies instead of party affiliations. For example, Eisenhauer actually raised marginal rates while Kennedy lowered them. When we had Clinton marginal rates went up, capital gains rates simultaneously went down, which led to more compensation being in the form of options and stock. That's one of the reasons the stock market did so well during his terms.
Click to expand...
 
Bigrob said:
Look at policies instead of party affiliations. For example, Eisenhauer actually raised marginal rates while Kennedy lowered them. When we had Clinton marginal rates went up, capital gains rates simultaneously went down, which led to more compensation being in the form of options and stock. That's one of the reasons the stock market did so well during his terms.
Click to expand...


You do understand that the parties essentially flipped after JFK? LBJ was the last southern Democrat. Eisenhower was slightly left of the aisle in his fiscal policy despite being a Republican; also you have to take into account the fact that Eisenhower had the Korean war to deal with so the hike was somewhat quantified.

Compensation in the form of options and stock works well when there doesn't exist the danger of your life savings being crapped out the crapper at the snap of a finger, which is more or less what can happen in wake of Clinton's repeal of Glass-Stegall (he repealed this in order to negotiate with Senate Republicans who had deadlocked Congress, also he figured Gore would win in 2000 and reverse the trend of market deregulation).

And before you go pointing fingers, remember that Bush had eight years to replace Glass-Stegall if he really wanted to...but no; the beautiful deregulated market gave us the international game of AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities hot potato which singlehandedly destroyed Iceland's economy when they got burnt with just a fraction of the toxic assets. France and Germany were forced to nationalise certain elements of their banking systems in order to prevent a repeat offence. Of course we may very well see the same thing happen in America because Barack Obama refused to nationalise the banks (which would have been the socialist move) and instead bailed them out and preserved free-market laissez-faire banking.

I am a socialist and I can assure you that Barack Obama is most definitely not one. Had he not bailed out the banks, the global financial system (or at the very least America's) would have collapsed, sending us into a Depression. Obama softened the fall with TARP (by the way we've already made the money back from that and then some).
 
blackguyatprinceton said:
You do understand that the parties essentially flipped after JFK? LBJ was the last southern Democrat. Eisenhower was slightly left of the aisle in his fiscal policy despite being a Republican; also you have to take into account the fact that Eisenhower had the Korean war to deal with so the hike was somewhat quantified.

Compensation in the form of options and stock works well when there doesn't exist the danger of your life savings being crapped out the crapper at the snap of a finger, which is more or less what can happen in wake of Clinton's repeal of Glass-Stegall (he repealed this in order to negotiate with Senate Republicans who had deadlocked Congress, also he figured Gore would win in 2000 and reverse the trend of market deregulation).

And before you go pointing fingers, remember that Bush had eight years to replace Glass-Stegall if he really wanted to...but no; the beautiful deregulated market gave us the international game of AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities hot potato which singlehandedly destroyed Iceland's economy when they got burnt with just a fraction of the toxic assets. France and Germany were forced to nationalise certain elements of their banking systems in order to prevent a repeat offence. Of course we may very well see the same thing happen in America because Barack Obama refused to nationalise the banks (which would have been the socialist move) and instead bailed them out and preserved free-market laissez-faire banking.

I am a socialist and I can assure you that Barack Obama is most definitely not one. Had he not bailed out the banks, the global financial system (or at the very least America's) would have collapsed, sending us into a Depression. Obama softened the fall with TARP (by the way we've already made the money back from that and then some).
Click to expand...

Political science or economics degree?
 
Bigrob said:
I'm in the minority here, but I don't think the GOP hates poor people. They just hate the poor who don't want to work and are Government dependent on everything like amount of kids they have, buy 1 get 1 free tattoo, Cell phones, Pimping cars. Republicans=Capitalism=Jobs! The poor are alway's the scapegoat for a socialist agenda.
Click to expand...

Oy.
 
blackguyatprinceton said:
Man, that's the last time I read a post like this while drinking Dr. Pepper. Now I have to clean my computer screen off.

That being said,the Bush administration created only 3 million jobs over the course of eight years; whereas Clinton created 23 million during the course of his administration. Under Clinton-level tax structures we ran a surplus and had low unemployment, whereas under Bush we ran an historic deficit and saw unemployment skyrocket. Voodoo economics does not work, lowering taxes on the rich does not create jobs at all (and if it does, the jobs it creates are not the sort that everyday Americans can get).

Also I found it amusing how Tea Party patriots crowed about the deficit in the weeks leading up to the election, yet the selfsame party that they voted into office is threatening to cut off benefits for the unemployed and allow taxes to rise for the middle class unless the exorbitantly wealthy can get their share too. Forget that these tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners - when 60% of US wealth already belongs to the top 1%, mind you - are totally unnecessary and add $700 billion to the deficit. No, tax cuts for rich people are freedom and America.

Also there's nothing at all wrong with socialism, seeing as how the opposite of socialism is corporatism, not capitalism. Social democracy (to some degree or another) is working just fine for every single first-world industrialised country. And if you're so against socialism, I'm sure Uncle Sam won't mind if you forfeit your right to Medicare and Social Security. Only seems fair to put your money where your mouth is, no?
Click to expand...

I second this motion.


MrFantastic said:
Political science or economics degree?
Click to expand...
MrFantastic, I think we have another like-minded soul here.
 
Last edited:
I'm liking this guy more and more. Excellent job with your posts. Continue your impressive articulation on political matters, buddy.

blackguyatprinceton said:
You do understand that the parties essentially flipped after JFK? LBJ was the last southern Democrat. Eisenhower was slightly left of the aisle in his fiscal policy despite being a Republican; also you have to take into account the fact that Eisenhower had the Korean war to deal with so the hike was somewhat quantified.

Compensation in the form of options and stock works well when there doesn't exist the danger of your life savings being crapped out the crapper at the snap of a finger, which is more or less what can happen in wake of Clinton's repeal of Glass-Stegall (he repealed this in order to negotiate with Senate Republicans who had deadlocked Congress, also he figured Gore would win in 2000 and reverse the trend of market deregulation).

And before you go pointing fingers, remember that Bush had eight years to replace Glass-Stegall if he really wanted to...but no; the beautiful deregulated market gave us the international game of AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities hot potato which singlehandedly destroyed Iceland's economy when they got burnt with just a fraction of the toxic assets. France and Germany were forced to nationalise certain elements of their banking systems in order to prevent a repeat offence. Of course we may very well see the same thing happen in America because Barack Obama refused to nationalise the banks (which would have been the socialist move) and instead bailed them out and preserved free-market laissez-faire banking.

I am a socialist and I can assure you that Barack Obama is most definitely not one. Had he not bailed out the banks, the global financial system (or at the very least America's) would have collapsed, sending us into a Depression. Obama softened the fall with TARP (by the way we've already made the money back from that and then some).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom