Just what will the Republicians do?

Congress only has the power to shift the economy in one direction -- downward -- and they do that by undercutting the confidence of consumers.

That is precisely what the Democrats learned, and are working to unravel. They intentionally tanked the economy in the lead up to the last presidential election, and since have been trying to reverse their damage by "saying" that all is well, when in fact, America understands that it is not!

TO suggest that Republicans are intentionally trying to tank the economy is ludicrous. What they ARE attempting is to halt the rampant spending and taxation in its tracks. While Obama and company continue to blame G. W. Bush for EVERYTHING, they fail to realize (well, they know, but it has worked so well for them to ignore) is that they are now spending what Bush spent on deficit spending in his worst year (400 billion) every TWO months.

America cannot sustain this track and we WILL collapse.

My bet is that the Democrats know that and want that. They intend to loose this election and then sit back and watch the economy tank for Republicans so that they can own it all forever after. And, yes, they are that crazy. Just check out how many of Obama's plans START to kick in after 2012... :BangHead:

 

That's a scary thought that I've also had. The Marxists within that party are indeed that radical.

......and the clock just keeps ticking

We might be better off with Dems in the White House and Repubs in both houses come 2013.

 

Perhaps, save that we are NEVER better off when Marxist are running the country...

 

I remember the 1994 revolution; the congressional elections forced the far left Billary regime to the center.

[edit] That may well be the best we can hope for. Obama to keep us from more war, with the Republicans in charge of the purse strings.

 

They also forced him to balance the budget, something that the Left has taken credit for ever since... :tonofbricks:

 

Irregardless, the nation benefited from the arrangement.

Clinton handed Dubya and the Republicans the first balanced budget in decades, and they thoroughly, totally blew it. It angers me to no end about how badly they did blow it.

 

In the last 100 years has any country fought a war under a balanced budget? How are you Republicans going to advance your empire under a balanced budget?

 

That too is a common liberal meme... The recession was in full swing long before Clinton left office. W inherited that. Nothing he could have done would have caused that so quickly after taking office.

Perhaps we should list out a number of really common liberal talking points and defuse them?

1. "Rich Republicans" -- Sorry... Most of the really wealthy persons in America, and especially around the world are avowed socialists or liberal leftists. This one has played since before the Great Depression and it is high time it gets set down to rest. Wall Street votes Democrat, as does most of the big-paying high tech industry, entertainment, journalism, sports, etc. Republicans are "mom and pop" America that run small business, raise larger families, and vote their conservative values.

2. Republicans don't want to help "people" -- Sorry again. It is just that Republicans see that the best way to ACTUALLY help people is to get the heck out of the way and let them help themselves without a lot of central planning and government interference, taxation, etc. Give a man a fish or teach him to fish so that he can feed his family for a lifetime. Guess who is for which position...

3. Republicans are warmongers and hawks... -- Whoops! Most of the military action that the United States has seen was instigated under the Democrat administrations that were in power during those events. Often, however, Republicans had to step in to finish the job left hanging by the government-expanding liberals. Republicans ARE for a strong defense, and that for a couple of reasons. First, protecting America and Americans is one of the primary tasks assigned to the Federal government by the Constitution. Second, national sovereignty is assumed by the Constitution and the only way to hold that is to remain strong enough to do so. Gutting the military so that more money can be spent expanding government is a serious mistake and one that will eventually cost us our own nation.

Republicans are "racist" -- Whoa there Nelly! History shows that the Democrats rejected the Civil Rights bill! Democrats also have proven over the decades that they are perfectly happy keeping all those poor people and minorities right where they belong -- in their back pocket as voters to keep their paychecks coming in.

Perhaps there are a few other memes that we can defuse as long as we are at it. Feel free to chime in.

 

I sense an inconsistency in these two statements.

 

No, no inconsistency at all. Congress voted in a balanced budget. That Congres, if you recall, was led by Newt Gingrich with the "Contract with America," which they actually fulfilled for the most part, in that they brought the bills forward, but not all passed the Senate nor were signed into law by an opposition party President.

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

That, however, has little to do with the entire issue of effecting consumer confidence via rhetoric, taxation, or rampant spending, all of which the Democrtats do every chance they have.

The question is why do they do that when they already know before hand what the results will be? From Kenedy onward, it is clear that cuting taxes and energizing the private sector eventually increases the economy, while removing access to private funds by taxation, regulation, and centralized planning always decreases the economy. Kenedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut taxes and saw government revenue increase because they removed some of the penalty for being successful.

For the sake of discussion, the liberal argument against tax cuts is almost always that "had the taxes not been cut, government revenues would have increased even more." That, however, is a fatal fallacy, and one proven by Obama, Carter, Johnson, and others. Clinton is exempt from the list because his hand was forced by the conservative Republican majority in the House -- FIRST time in almost 6 decades by the way. When people are punitively punished for doing well, hiring people, and expanding business, they will eventually just stop. They can do fine on their own income and have no real need to just toss it to an administration that takes it and always wants more, so they clam up and sit tight. We are seeing that RIGHT NOW.

 

I find it odd that there's no mention of the term 'neo-conservative' in this post.

And trust me, I'm no Liberal.

 

For you to say there is no inconsistency between:

"Congress voted in a balanced budget"

and

"Congress only has the power to shift the economy in one direction -- downward"

you must be arguing that balancing the budget shifted the economy downward. Is that your argument?

 

Nope... Apples and oranges, that's all.

Did the balanced budget shift the economy upward? Or did citizens do that? And, did it go up at all, even with a balanced budget? I recall a recsssion after that event, but that was blamed on W, so most Democrats don't remember it the way that history records.