Schwarzenegger to Stimulus Opponents: Economy More Important Than Principles

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Feb 22, 2009.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    "The horrible thing about politics is that, the more they attack each other, the more that they try to derail each other, the worse it is for the people. That's why ... you know, you've got to go beyond just the principles. You've got to go and say, 'What is right for the country right now?'" Schwarzenegger said.


    More Here
     
  2. dragonfly

    dragonfly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    I watched this interview and I agree completely with Arnold. He's a republican I might could vote for if I lived in California.
     
  3. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't Arnold get California into this fix by ignoring principles?

    The population of California is what - 30% illegal aliens?

    The producing/tax paying part of California's population is fleeing the state in droves.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    It is never right to go against principles when your principles are right.
     
  5. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    I watched Schwarzenegger this morning on This Week for a few minutes. I was amazed.

    He said that you "give the people what they want, even if it violates your principles. If a poll shows the majority want nationalized health care, then give them nationalized healthcare no matter what your principles say."(quoted as best as I can from memory and it is close)

    This is the opposite of leadership. This is mob rule. This is giving pollsters power over govenment. What a stupid thing to say.

    BTW, didn't the people of California vote to ban homose*ual marriage? Didn't Schwarzenegger oppose the will of the people on that issue?

    What a hypocrite. His political skills are worse than his acting skills.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    The California legislature is dominated by brain dead big spending democrats.

    Arnold is impotent when trying to force any kind of fiscal restraint on those bozos.

    He inherited a mess and it has gotten worse. Now the rest of the country has to bail out those blockheads.

    Wanna see what the financial condition of the country will be if democrats stay in power long enough? Just take a good hard look at California's condition and triple it.
     
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    What person accused Schwarzenegger of having principles?
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Calefornia could have gotten $50 billion with a B by allowing offshore drilling but the whacko environmentalists/democrats/and assorted others would not allow it.
     
  9. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ignoring principles is never right. But Arnold isn't a beleiver in principles either.
     
  10. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Arnold is in a difficult spot with 8.4% unemployment, $40 Billion budget deficit and having to send 20K state workers layoff notices. The lesson I believe he learned is there is only so much government that can be cut and at a point you have to raise taxes if you want to balance the budget. Reagan learned that his second year in office when he had to increase taxes after those huge cuts in his first year.

    (OK REV, REAGAN DIDN'T RAISE THEM THE HIGHEST BUT HE STILL HAD TO RAISE THEM AND STILL ENDED UP DOUBLING THE DEFICIT BECAUSE HE SPENT MORE THAN HE TOOK IN).

    Sorry to yell but I wanted to make sure you heard me this time... :laugh:
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790

    My mistake, the "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982" did temporarily raise some taxes, but overall, Reagan was a major tax cutter. Factcheck.org is playing games. No reasonable person would argue that Reagan raised taxes overall. He agreed to raise certain taxes that had only been cut for one year in 1982, such as doing away with accelerated depreciation of assets, which had only been on the books for one year. Reagan did this because Democrats promised to cut spending by $3 for every $1 of tax cuts Reagan did away with. Factcheck draws a correlation between government revenue brought in the next year after a tax law passes as being caused by the tax law. Actually government revenue increases and decreases because of thousands of things, not just one tax law passed the year before. In other words, just because 'A' happens, and then 'B' happens, does not mean that 'A' caused 'B'. Ronald Reagan did not raise taxes more than any other President, he lowered them a great deal.

    The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.


    Research Coordinator
    Center for Data Analysis
    The Heritage Foundation
    214 Massachusetts Avenue NE
    Washington DC 20002
    (Tel.) 202-608-6249
     
  12. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know he was old but did he really believe the Democrats would cut spending 3 to 1? I know he hoped they would but seriously, when you want spending cut the last person you call on is a democrat...

    Also, I agree he was the great tax whacker but he also doubled the deficit which is a product of spending more than you take in.
     
  13. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    PS... Bush cut taxes and the Democrats still refused to pay until they were offered a job in the cabinet... :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790

    because the Dems gutted the military and he was playing catchup. Funny you should criticize for deficit spending.
     
  15. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not criticizing, just pointing out how it's sometimes a necessary evil...
     

Share This Page

Loading...