Four Things the Republicans Don't Want You to Know About the Economy

In the past few weeks, I've heard lots of Republican talking heads make some pretty damning arguments about "liberal" Democratic economic policies and Barack Obama's "wasteful" spending plans. The arguments may sound convincing at first blush, but the Republicans aren't offering any serious alternatives. So I did some research and came up with a quick list of four things Republicans don't want you to know about the economy.

1. Tax cuts don't always work.

In 1929, Herbert Hoover cut marginal tax rates to the lowest level in modern history (24 percent) and the economy still collapsed. In 1982, Ronald Reagan slashed taxes to the lowest level in 50 years and, in return, unemployment soared to the highest level in 50 years. In 2001 and 2003, George Bush cut taxes twice and yet unemployment rose to 6 percent. And that's to say nothing of the 2.6 million jobs lost in the final year of the Bush administration.

Tax cuts are politically popular, but they are not a panacea for our nation's economic woes. Cutting corporate tax rates won't stimulate the economy or create new jobs if there's no demand for the goods and services that businesses produce. And cutting estate taxes and capital gains taxes will primarily benefit the wealthy. Despite the GOP claims to the contrary, when you give rich people money, there's no guarantee they will use it in ways that will trickle down to the masses. If we're going to cut taxes, then tax cuts should be targeted to businesses that hire new workers or invest in infrastructure, or they should go to middle-class Americans, who have been losing their jobs, their homes, their health care, and their savings in the Bush economy.

2. Higher taxes don't necessarily hurt.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but don't believe the hype that tax increases on the wealthy will hurt the economy or kill jobs. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt raised marginal tax rates to an astoundingly high 94 percent and yet we still had almost full employment (1.2 percent unemployment), thanks to the war. Taxes fell after the war, but in 1951, Harry Truman raised taxes again (from 84 to 91 percent) and yet unemployment dropped by 50 percent. In fact, from 1947 to 1973, median family income rose 2.7 percent a year, even while the top marginal tax rate was never lower than 70 percent, twice the current rate.

Perhaps the best example of the utility of tax increases comes from recent history. In 1993, Bill Clinton defied every single Republican in the House of Representatives and raised marginal tax rates to almost 40 percent. Despite GOP predictions that businesses would go bankrupt and workers would be laid off, the U.S. enjoyed the longest peacetime economic expansion in history.

That doesn't mean we need to raise taxes right now in the midst of the recession, but it does mean we shouldn't be afraid of higher marginal tax rates or of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010. Republicans often complain that higher taxes will kill the economy, but there's not much evidence to support those fears.

3. Democrats are better at balancing the budget.

Republicans love to talk about balancing the federal budget...when somebody else is in charge of it. But during eight years of the Bush administration, we hardly heard a whimper from Republicans about balanced budgets, even as Democrats complained about the huge cost of fighting two wars and cutting taxes.

The truth is that no Republican president in my lifetime has ever balanced the budget. But the Democrats have balanced the budget five times during the same time span. Clinton did it four times and Lyndon Johnson did it once. The last Republican president to balance the budget was Eisenhower.

Yes we do need to balance the budget eventually, but this is not the right time. To do so would mean cutting government programs that serve those most at-risk in society and it would slow down the chance of recovery as the lack of government spending would contract the economy. But still, if you really want to balance the budget, the Democrats, historically speaking, are far more likely to do it.

4. Democrats create more jobs.

Republicans love to crow about the Reagan economy, but it pales in comparison to Bill Clinton's record. The U.S. economy created 21 million new jobs in the Clinton administration. That's more than the last three Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, combined. And despite the GOP argument that the Republican Congress deserves credit for the Clinton economy, the truth is that seven million of those jobs were created in the first two years when Democrats, in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, raised taxes with virtually no Republican support.

But it's not just Clinton. Despite the well known economic woes the country faced under Jimmy Carter, the U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from 1977 to 1980. That's more new jobs under 4 years of Carter than under 12 years of both Bush presidents combined. And for all the right-wing complaints about the failures of LBJ's "Great Society," they fail to mention that the economy created 10 million new jobs during Johnson's tenure, with a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, while fighting the Vietnam War and authorizing a massive expansion of the welfare state to include Medicare and Medicaid.

The truth is that nobody has all the answers to our current economic problems. But to believe Republicans lately requires us to forget the successful history of Democratic presidents and to ignore the failure of the most recent Republican president. It was George W. Bush, after all, who squandered the Clinton surpluses, ran up the biggest deficits in history and doubled the national debt.

While we embrace President Obama's spirit of bipartisanship and unity, Democrats should not forget their history and must not let the GOP browbeat them into silence and submission.

Comments

[realpolitic]

While conservative deregulatory policies have led to an implosion in the financial sector, by allowing investment banks to leverage $40 for every $1 they themselves risk, conservative tax cuts for the wealthy have led to income inequlaities not seen since the Gilded Age.

Consider....

"The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks."

"The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000."

"We've had a 30-year trend of increasing inequality.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119215822413557069.html


"Not since the '20s has income inequality been this great."

"Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40%. And the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s. On measures of income and wealth inequality, the U.S. tops the charts among the advanced industrial nations."

http://www.businessweek.com/@@*7OQP4YQG8gsPxgA/magazine/content/04_44/b3906038_mz007.htm

[emcslead]

Well written, and I don't necessarily doubt it's veracity given other materials I've read, but where is the backup? Where did you get this information? A few external links would have been nice and also would have made this a stronger case.

[Lisa1964]

I agree well written but where is the back up. Lots of good contrast between Clinton and Bush II, I wish you could have provided us with links to look up the data.

[OregonRusalka]

N.B., Carter inherited an enormous deficit from Nixon/Ford, the legacy of Nixon tax cuts; by 1980, his administration had eliminated it and presented a balanced budget to Congress before Reagan took office. Among the Reagan's first acts was to throw out that budget. Our current economy is the direct result of Republican policies since 1980: Job exportation, corporate freeloading, abuse of the Constitution (e.g., Ollie North,now a wealthy man thanks to his shilling). The American people didn't like the results of Reagan-Bush policies and voted them out in 1992, but the right-wing propaganda machine engineered the coronation of Newt Gingrich and a disgusting impeachment scandal. But that wouldn't have been enough to win elections either, so Rove et al. used fraud to ensure the election of Bush the Second, not once, but twice. Only a massive groundswell of voting reform in Ohio, etc., could defeat the Republicans. The American people never liked the policies of the modern GOP and its effects on jobs, incomes, services, and social well-being. It is high irony, after eight years of huge GOP deficits, transferring wealth to the already-wealthy and making the Iraq War a war profiteer's dream, that now the GOP says it's worried about the debt load on our children and grandchildren. When BushCo were doing the gifting and it was going to the rich and to Halliburton et al., not one Republican in Congress complained. How times have changed!

[Bladernr1001]

Nice re-write of history.

[jamesmk]

Nice point-by-point rebuttal.

[jamesmk]

Bladernr1001 wrote:
> Nice re-write of history.

Nice point by point rebuttal.

[research]

Nice Alternate reality.

[jnutlfam2]

You have something more substantive to say? Say it. If not get out the way.

[realpolitic]

Republlicans are lousy at policy, but excel at manipulating the media. Obama should design a stimulus bill the way he would like it to go. Then his presidency can rest on his stimulus package. It would also help to limit the debate on Keynesian economic techniques, which Republicans always try to discredit. Democrats have a resounding majority created by Bush and Republican failures. Let's use it!

[Wake-up]

OMG - you cannot be serious! "Republlicans are lousy at policy, but excel at manipulating the media."

What media are you talking about?! Dem's OWN - All major and minor TV News and virtually every major newspaper and news magazine... Obama's fund raising via the internet is record breaking

Dem's are better at Policy?? Like the Fanny and Freddie mess? I could go on...

Dem's one for two reasons - They got lucky as the election was during the start of a recession (happens about every 10 years) and 2 - Obama got about 90% of the black vote and the majority of Hispanics... it was 52% to 47%... resounding? ah, no... almost half the country was against him...

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

"almost half the country was against him..."

And more than half the country was with and for him. The people who were against Obama in November were millionaires, racists, grits eaters, and Utah polygamists -- not real Americans.

Obama won EVERY demographic except 1) low-education Southern voters, and 2) voters over 65.

"Dem's one [sic] for two reasons - They got lucky as the election was during the start of a recession..."

But after eight years of Bushie cutting taxes to corporations and the wealthy, shouldn't America's streets be paved with gold? After all, that's what he promised, "Tax cuts will bring prosperity." Hm, maybe the recession was BECAUSE OF Bushie's actions?

"What media are you talking about?! Dem's OWN - All major and minor TV News and virtually every major newspaper and news magazine..."

You are hallucinating. The MSM is solidly Republican, and rolled over for Bush/Cheney during the last eight years. Whereas they have been trying to pin one "scandal" after another on Obama, since January 2008.

[research]

catapulting that propaganda, huh?

All these lies have been debunked..

You are just reinforcing the image of GOP conservatives as liars and deceivers.

80% reject your nonsense.

[idest]

"What media are you talking about?! "

Wow, you still believe in liberal media bias. LOL, how gullible are you?

Do you know how much media Rupert Murdoch, that flaming liberal, has control over? What about ClearChannel?

You could at least shift your propaganda once its been thoroughly debunked.

[twinkerbell]

Get real! Major media are owned by large corporations who want to maximize their profits for the shareholders. Fore example, Rupert Mudeoch: his multimedia empire. NBC is owned by General Electric, hardly a bastion of liberalism. And those are just for starters. There's no such thing as "liberal" media except in the minds of Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh's "dittoheads".

[realpolitic]

Well, the policies of the Bush years created the economic implosion. Fanny and freddie had little to do with it. Most of the subprime loans were made by subprime lenders that were entirely unregulated. Fannie and Freddie were losing their market share with regard to buying these loans. The economic imposion resulted from the financial engineering done around the subprime loans, the credit default swaps.

The press nitpicks all Obama's moves, as they did with Clinton. They gave Bush an eight year hiatus or at least until his blunders were too enormous to ignore, like with Katrina. The press usually adopts the conservative take on things. When they speak of the stimulus package they usually ask why the package does not offer more tax cuts and not why does it not spend more on rebuilding infrastructure.

[DuganS1]

Comparing job growth during Presidential terms is highly mis-leading. Such statistics depend more on the timing of the business cycle than economic policies. For example, from mid-2003 to Dec-2007 the economy created 8.2 million jobs, but W's overall job growth numbers don't look as good because the economy went into recession on almost the very day he entered office. Carter and Clinton, in contrast, both became President when the economy had just emerged from recession a year before. George H.W Bush witnessed the 80s hangover recession about a year after he entered office - not his fault, recessions happen. Re LBJ, his Medicaid and Medicare programs were just getting started by the time he left office. Those programs exploded in the late 70s, 80s, and even now. They only made up a small part of the budget during LBJs final years. Now they look like a fiscal trainwreck.

[research]

Comparing GDP is also missleading,

because it allows the "fiscal conservatives" to

barrow and spend on their cronies, and say:

Look the GDP went up.

That's why they always want to reference data to the GDP.

Of course that means Obama's Reinvestment Plan will also boost the GDP.

[Wake-up]

Nice try... more propaganda... GDP is GDP, it's a constant measure of the economy. Obama's "reinvestment plan" is all PORK... it's Politics as usual.

Government that governs least governs best. - Thomas Jefferson (He said this for a reason... which is that he knew that Gov. having power over the people would be dangerous...)

Now's the time to uphold this...

[realpolitic]

Dugan is a great historical revisionist here. He wants us to look at W's record, but ignore the initial recession and the 21/2 million jobs lost last year. The 21/2 million job lose is supposed to be just be part of the business cycle. Clinton created over 20 million jobs in his eight years in office. Bush created about 5 million in the same period, left huge deficits and a decimated economy. As said, LBJ created 10 million jobs and reduced the percentage of those in poverty by half. Dugan fails to explain the high rates of growth seeen during the late 40's, 50's, and 60's with a high marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Dugan also fails to account for the growth in GNP explained by the massive borrowing done by Reagan and W.

"Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administions."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php

"Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt."


http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/03/opinion/oe-kinsley3

[realpolitic]

With regard to Reagan,

"The past three decades have seen a momentous shift: The rich became vastly richer while working-class wages stagnated. Economists say 80 percent of net income gains since 1980 went to people in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, boosting their share of total income to levels unseen since before the Great Depression."

"The Census Bureau has tracked the economic fortunes of affluent, middle-class and poor American families for six decades. According to my analysis, these tabulations reveal a wide partisan disparity in income growth. The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at the 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike."

"Every Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower presided over increasing economic inequality, while only one Democrat — Jimmy Carter — did so."

"And while Republicans have presided over dismal income growth for middle-class and poor families in most years, they have, remarkably enough, produced robust growth in election years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-idealab-t.html?_r=1

[Wake-up]

New York Times is not a valid source... they are in the bag for socialism...

[LeftRight]

Oh of COURSE!!! It's all the business cycle and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the actual POLICIES of the Presidents who just HAPPEN to be in office when the business cycle times it..... Uh huh. If THAT were the case then we would see ONE Democratic President who did bad at improving the economy and ONE Republican President who did good at improving the economy. And yet, all the way back to HOOVER we see that every Republican President (no matter WHAT the economy was when they started!) do worse at managing the economy, and every Democratic President do BETTER at managing the economy!!

[realpolitic]

Yes, Dugan acts as if the business cycle were immune from governmental policy. If that's the case, why does he back supply side tax cuts so much whose benefits mainly go to the wealthy? If government policy does not affect the business cycle, then who cares what the policy is? The truth is Democratic policies are better for business because their policies help all to prosper and when all prosper business does better. Democratic policies have been shown to be better than conservatives for growth in GDP, in jobs created, and even in the stock market. Dugan undoubtedly will have to try to slice and dice the data to say otherwise, as when he looks at W's reign and ignores 2 1/2 million jobs lost last year, enormous deficits, and a financial implosion.

[DuganS1]

The Reagan tax cuts didn't reduce unemployment initially because the Fed Reserve Chairman increased interest rates dramatically right after Reagan took office. Once interest rates peaked and started coming down, the economy began a 25 year long boom where unemployment reached historic lows for a large portion of it. Regarding the Bush tax cut, consumer spending remained strong throughout the entire recessionary period as it was business investment that dried up (in the aftermath of the tech/telecomm boom). The economy started booming substantially in Q3 of 2003, coinciding with Bush's supply side tax cuts. The extent that those cuts fueled the boom is debatable as low interest rates probably played a bigger part of it. Regarding tax increases, the top rates in the 1950s and 1960s were at much higher income levels ($400,000 per year which is more than a million in todays dollars). Re the Clinton cuts, the boom began a year before Clinton came into office and saw a mid-cycle slowdown in 1995, leaving it at the time as a historically weak economic recover. After 1995, there was Windows 95, a boom in PCs and semiconductors, the birth of the internet, and an explosion in cell-phones. It would be more accurate to say the economy grew "despite" the tax increases.

[realpolitic]

Clinton's economy recovery was weak you say, W's is the weakest on record. Then we are led to believe the economy grew despite what Clinton did. Man, conservatives are so good at constructing alternative realities.

"President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges."

"The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father."

"But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301_pf.html

[realpolitic]

"But Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans. Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. (Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)

Nor does having a Republican Congress help the market. A Democratic Senate showed returns of 10.5 percent (versus 9.4 percent for a GOP upper chamber), and a Democratic House returned 10.9 percent versus 8.1 percent for the Republicans.

"Democrats had some awfully good streaks of peace and prosperity in the '30s, late '40s, and '90s. These could be chance, or it could be that Democrats more tightly regulate the markets, which gives investors confidence. Democrats are more likely to spread the wealth around through public spending on education or transportation, which may stimulate the economy more broadly. The foundation of recent GOP economic policy—tax cuts—may offer narrower benefits than Republicans claim. High defense spending, another GOP hallmark, may only boost one sector while hurting the whole economy in the form of bigger federal deficits and higher interest rates."

http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929

[carolinecantoo]

Thank You! excellent post.

[mnyegele]

Let's stop expecting Obama to do everything. Obama needs US.
First, we all need to contact Obama via whitehouse.gov and express our support for his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Let's urge him not to cave into petulant Republican demands.
Second, we need to write to our Congessional representatives and make it clear that we want a plan passed now. Already the House is voting on the plan. If the Republicans vote against the plan, as the French say, tant pis. (Add another s to the final word, and you'll know what that really means.)
The biggest obstacle is the Senate. We must demand reform NOW. The Senate must eliminate the filibuster. The senate must eliminate the 60 vote procedural rule. If the Republicans in the Senate attempt their old obstructionist tactics, then the Obama administration must resort to the nuclear option. We must demand that the Senate operate according to the will of the people.
We must back Obama. We must insist that Congress to their job - and represent the will of ordinary people - not just the wealthy lobbyists.

[Bladernr1001]

The way to get the "wealthy" lobbyists out of the system is shrink the size and power of government. There is no other way. The more you give government to do the more attempts at influencing their decisions you will get.

Public employee unions are also lobbyists, so is the AARP. Do you think any of these orgs are acting in the best interests of the tax payers?....short answer, no. Those public employee unions (and unions in general) are the greediest folks on the planet right now. They are why even in this bad economic times there is not the least decrease in taxes or government. Everybody needs to cut....we are overdebted. It all has to correct...even government.

[LeftRight]

OR you could limit the "rights" of the corporations to lobby the government, and ensure that the gifts limits are set at almost nothing so that our Senators and Congresspeople cannot be bribed!

[Rule Of Law]

since every one of those union members is also a tax payer, I'd have to say that, yes, the unions are working in the best interest of them!

You want to cut something--start with the Pentagon.

[JustMyWords]

Oh, yes, the demon unions. They've certainly never contributed anything positive to our lives, have they? Well, there's that 40 hour work week thing. And the extra pay for overtime thing. Oh, and that paid vacation and sick time thing (even if the US gets less time off than any other industrialized nation in the world). Oh, and that workman's compensation thing for workers injured on the job. Oh, and there's that minimum wage thing. And that weird law about not allowing children to operate heavy machinery.

Yeah, unions are definitely the worst thing that ever happened to us.

[twinkerbell]

Yeah, the unions, all 12% of us; we have more influence than all the corporations put together. We've all just spent a million dollars apiece to redecorate our work spaces. Unionists are taxpayers as well; we lobby for causes which are good for all taxpayers. There would not have been a viable middle class had it not been for union activists, and the people who share your viewpoint want to turn the clock back to pre-New Deal; no Social Security, no health benefits, no 8-hour day. Shame on you!.

[MagPi]

I agree. The only problem is I don't know what is in the stimulus packages. Is there anywhere you can read what it proposes?

[LamontC]

Hi. You can find the bill by Googling "house appropriations committee" to find various simplified descriptions of it including the bill itself. To just find the bill itself, use

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf

[Imperial61]

I am a Republican by tradition.But the post -Reagan GOP left all of the practical and innovative conservatism of the past,and ideals of noblese oblige behind to become the party of neo-coservative Churchillians,and fundementilist crazies.The Gingrich-Bush 2 party is appalling.Its actions over eight years merited its routing defeat.Its latest insanity of rejecting President Obamas overtures this past week in favor of narrow ideological confrontation merits its coming extinction.

[jackwaddington]

What the republican­s/conserva­tive fail to realize is that capitalism has finally imploded. The economy is never going to recover. We have to find a new way to behave in a non capitalist system. It will be scary but (if we are to survive as a species) we'll find a way; and we'll be so surprised we never thought of it before (actually some of us--very few--did).

[EasyCheese]

Ok...so what is this grand system?

[research]

Regulated capitalism with social services for all.

Awful huh?

[Wake-up]

You must be young... This is the best system EVER invented by Man. Point to any other system (country) that's even close to what we have? One?

This is a normal economic cycle that's been made worse by easy credit and Gov. regulation (Fanny and Freddie)... Everyone wants constant up-side and freak when there's a down market... like Ocean Waves, it always comes back because every country wants a piece of America... it's still the safest best investment in the world. And you want to change this why?

[research]

Regulated Capitalism is good,

unregulated capitalism is just Robber Barons and peasants.

Social services for all is just Smart.

[research]

Regulated capitalism is the best system.

Unregulated capitalism is just robber barons.

How many times should we be lied to and deceived by the GOP before we stop taking you seriously?

[jackwaddington]

You sounds like you have bought the whole American propaganda. BUT, we will see. When it is fully understood that the capitalist/economic system has evaporated, the propaganda you have bought into will fail you in getting through the rest of your life. It's often called 'not being able to see outside the box."

[twinkerbell]

I love it! People like you talk about the economy being in trouble because of Fanny & Freddie. You never talk about the Reublican-­controlled Houe & Senate which abolished the Glass-Steagle legislation which broke down the wall between banks and investment houses. You never talk about Republican Senator Phil Gramm's legislation which abolished most regulatory measures which had been in place to monitor these companies. I'm sure the economy will recover at some time in a form different than what we have now, but it will be in spite of people like you..

[lstl4]

To jump start the economy, the Middle Class needs more substantial tax cuts. I am tallking about the consumers who are losing their jobs, homes, and basic needs to live. I dont think these representatives get it because they are all so rich, they cannot even imagine how the real world lives. These people need to be put in a home where someone is making $10 an hour and have 3 kids to support. I bet they would have a whole different stimulus plan for us then..

[TheDieHard]

Close, but figure -- what good are tax CUTS to people who make so little that they don't pay taxes ANYWAY? The woman with three kids making minimum wage is already not paying taxes. (She's also working two jobs, with no health benefits and no savings and no retirement -- what good are "tax cuts" going to do?)

How about training and jobs? We desperately need doctors, teachers, engineers, skilled labor. Let's RAISE taxes on the loudmouth multi-millionaires flapping their lips in their thousand-dollar makeup jobs, to pay the people who do something WORTHWHILE.

[lagumbo]

The republicans will not agree on anything that PRESIDENT OBAMA want. They will continue to play their games until the country is so deep in to their s--t that PRESIDENT OBAMA won't be able to do a thing. Why don't OBAMA just go it without them. These criminals only wants to play their political games. They are not about country first.

[lcarliner]

I just wish Obama would say to the f%$#n' Republicans that we tried your way, and it was an abject failure! Just look at the last "stimulus" program! Any benefit from that program was dissipated faster than you can say "job cut"! Or, that so-called "Hope for Homeowners" program that has not helped a single homeowner!

Now, at great costs and inconvenience to television station broadcasters, the cut-over to digital broadcasting is going to have to be delayed for a substantial period because of the very stingy funding and oppressive restrictions on the coupon program and its incompetent administration and virtually no funding for hands-on outreach assistance! The Republicans are quick to say that refunding of the converter box program does not belong in a stimulus package, but do they realize the fury that would be unleashed on elected representatives by over ten million viewers whose TV's went dark, especially those from the newly unemployed that could not afford very basic cable service as a substitute for the coupons that will not arrive in time?

[Scoppertop]

Two words: Luxury Tax.

[TheDieHard]

Unfortunately, we tried that. The ultra-rich all went out and bought their yachts and diamonds the week before the tax took effect, and then wailed and declared losses.

For one thing, we need to end the "religious" tax exemption. There are GOLF COURSES, for pity's sake, that are registered under a church in order to keep from paying property tax, or even tax on their water.

For another, tax on profit would end this "but a tax cut will stimulate jobs!" nonsense. Well, no, obviously, it didn't. The CEOs spent their profits on cocaine and high-priced hookers instead of upgrading their equipment and paying their employees.

Of course, we could always legalize hookers and cocaine, and tax them the way we do cigarettes and alcohol.

[Archie1955]

I hate to appear obvious but why would we think or expect that the Republicans who caused the country's problems would suddenly have an answer to them?

[Wake-up]

You got this backwards... See Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for more details...

Truth is, Politicians did a lot of this but it's a normal economic cycle they made worse. Problem is, every wants constant growth and up-side and the world doesn't (can't) work that way.

[research]

80% of American have rejected Bush, and the GOP economic dogma.

How many times should we let you GOP conservatives lie and deceive and still listen to your bs?

[Rule Of Law]

Watch Bush on tv in 2002 asking Americans to buy homes, and ordering Fannie, Freddie and anyone else with cash to start pressing it into the hands of anyone with, well, with hands...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

[Wake-up]

Right, trying to help with the 911 economy and the recession he inherited... and the Liberal congress jumped on this and when Bush tried to regulate this in 2007, the blocked him out...

[a2burns]

great article keith boykin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! truth is what i like to read !!!!