Can I see the stats when Bush was in power please?

Well, according to data from the Fed, real wages dropped consistently throughout Reagan's term. They more or less levelled off during the elder Bush's term, stayed steady and then rose up in the second Clinton term. It arcs up slightly more during the second Bush's term, and then turns back down.

That last part isn't entirely relevant, but I wanted to have complete information.

Reagan's tax cuts might have expanded the economy, but as the real wage index shows, it didn't actually help the average person that much.

And economic expansion is great, but if it doesn't actually do anything good for the average man or woman, what goddamn good is it?

Vonnegut had something to say about economic redistribution: The wealth of the nation continues to be redistributed in a manner strikingly unhelpful. (i.e. to the wealthy). I don't begrudge anybody a respectable profit, but even Henry Ford wanted to pay his employees enough that they could afford to buy his cars. (Its that demand-side approach coming along again! Dammit, I really do link this stuff together!)

@ Jack and obiwan

Reagan had to increase military spending in order to win the Cold War, which he did successfully. I would also like to point out that Bill Clinton served with a Republican congress.

Reagan's tax policies did indeed spark an economic expansion that made Bill Clinton's life exceptionally easy. If the Soviet Union did not exist and Reagan had not jacked up military spending in order to win the Cold War, Reagan would have easily balanced the budget. Bill Clinton did not have to deal with an economic recession or a cold war.

Comparing any presidency to another is totally apples-to-oranges.

Also, the Republicans' refusal to compromise is not a result of excessive religious or moral influence within the Republican party, but a Republican backlash against the Democrats' actions. The Republicans' backs are against the wall. They cannot compromise any more. The government has to stop spending now. The cuts have to be more dramatic than the Democrats want. We need to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes on businesses (not just the rich, as you liberals like to say). Business taxes need to be lower than the Democrats want. The Republicans are refusing to compromise because they realize that we are out of time and out of options.

I'm sorry Jack, but Obama's deficits were bigger than Reagan's deficits.
Reagan's deficits resulted from tax cuts that sparked economic expansion.
Obama's deficits resulted from government stimulus that didn't spark anything.

Yeah, you can't dick over the middle-class out of money then expect them to buy your shit. It just doesn't work that way, and the conservatives haven't quite realised that everyone loses.

The tax burden is at its lowest level since 1958. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-05-05-tax-cut-record-low_n.htm

The entire idea that we're over-taxed is just insane. Obama is actually willing to go up against stalwarts in his own party to cut spending, but unless he has something to bring with him to make them happy, this shit ain't gonna pass.

He's trying to be moderate, and the fact that both extremes are pissed at him right now means he's probably got the right idea.

@ Tettleton's Chew

I understand that your're a "damn the torpedoes" guy, but you still need to know when to say something and when to not say anything. If you get into a big debate all the time, you will lose your credibility. After you lose your credibility, there's no point in even arguing, because your name will be dirt. Just look at people like Putin33. No one listens to him anymore.

"The government has to stop spending now. The cuts have to be more dramatic than the Democrats want. We need to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes on businesses"

Wait, what? So we need to reduce spending by giving tax cuts to businesses? A+ logic.

@ dD_ShockTrooper

That's a big misconception. Most conservatives and Republicans don't want to dick over the middle class.

@ Gunfighter

They just like to reward the upper class more than is reasonably fair, which due to relativity, dicks the middle and lower class. The tax bracket for high income earners is lower than middle ones. It doesn't even make sense.

@ dD

No. We need to reduce spending by cutting back or eliminating entitlements, and we need to simultaneously stimulate the economy by cutting taxes on everyone. Poor, Middle-class, rich, business, everyone. Tax cuts for everyone.

Sorry, I type slow. Right now I'm delayed by one post.

TC, handwave all you like. I think its pretty clear to any reasonable person here than you have absolutely no interest in having a discussion, compromise, or any exchange of ideas.

Obama is bad, because you KNOW he's bad. And you're not going to let any silly things like opposing points of view or facts get in your way.

I don't even hold Obama responsible for most of this mess. He should be leading more, but that doesn't mean that Congress can't take initiative and start throwing bills at him. Get some legislation going so we can see how good of a president he is. I hold the Democratic Senate responsible for blocking whatever the Republicans pass in the House.

Gunfighter: Eliminating entitlements is a political dead letter.

There are people who planned their retirement after a long life of hard work on the assumption that they would be able to draw upon Medicare and Social Security. You simply cannot tell all those hard working people that they're shit out of luck.

And where do you draw the line? If you're above age 50 now, you're in, but below that, fuck y'all?

Granted, I'm coming from the position of wishing Obamacare was a single payer system. So that's me. I'm not sure a Swedish public system would work here, but I wouldn't mind trying... I think we can do it even better than the Swedes, personally.

Welface was effectively eliminated by a Democratic president and a Republican Congress so yet entitlements can by eliminated.

Bankruptcy can also end entitlements.
Entitlements are ending in countries all over Europe because they are fiscally unsustainable.

@ Jack_Klein

It will take a very cold-hearted bastard who doesn't give a fuck about getting reelected, but we're out of options. Some people will be shit-outta-luck, but that's because the government got involved in the first place. Single-payer works pretty well for some countries. Complete privatization would work wonders in America. As we've seen in America, a clusterfuck of government and private companies does not work.

Spending cuts hurt bad. Like I've said several times, we have no other choice. It's either that or America goes bankrupt. We could cut spending, which would hurt a lot of people, but it would still be less than the amount of people hurt by government bankruptcy. There is no easy way out. There is no magic fix. This is one of those times when we have to dig deep down inside ourselves and do things the hard way because there is no easy way.

(I know that was a little gung-ho, but I felt it was necessary to get my point across)

You can't just say: "oh wait, we screwed up that trickle down thing, how about from now on we just raise/lower taxes evenly from what we have now and call it square." They really need to fix those tax brackets first, then lower it by an even amount. And I'd hate to beat a dead horse, but is the defence expenditure you have really necessary? I can't understand how "around the board cuts" translates to "cut everything but defence, the biggest money eater".

From the website "Swede and Sour" written by a Swedish author, Johan Norberg.

"If Sweden left the EU and joined the U.S. we would be the poorest state of America."
Sweden is poorer than the Mississippi.

"Using fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data, the median household income in Sweden in the late 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800 compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households - before taxes. And then we should remember that Sweden has the world´s highest taxes. "

":The Swedish Research Institute of Trade, which conducted the study, underlined that African Americans, who have the lowest income in the United States, now have a higher standard of living than an ordinary Swedish household."

"Spending cuts hurt bad. Like I've said several times, we have no other choice. It's either that or America goes bankrupt. We could cut spending, which would hurt a lot of people, but it would still be less than the amount of people hurt by government bankruptcy."
You could *raise* taxes. Sorry, you just forgot to list that option.

Entitlements is actually the biggest money eater, and defense is mostly untouchable for a variety of reasons, but I don't really feel like a debate about defense spending right now. Maybe TC will have a go with defense spending.

I agree that the tax system is broken. In the short term, we need to cut taxes. Sometime soon, we will need to completely overhaul the tax code. No loopholes and make it as fair as possible. (Don't pickpocket the rich but don't fuck the poor and middle classes)

Raising taxes would kill our struggling economy. Not an option.

I'm logging off, guys. It's been entertaining. I look forward to picking it back up tomorrow. Don't let anyone hijack the thread =P

+1 Shocktrooper

He raises a point I neglected to add. If we're going to talk spending cuts, then lets put all the sacred cows on the table. We spend an absolutely absurd money on defense. We could slash that fucker in half, and still spend more money than any potential threat.

Basically, the refusal of the Republicans to negotiate with all options on the table shows either a profound arrogance, or a profound ignorance. Either way, it ain't gonna work. Even if Obama would give them exactly what they want (fuck the elderly and the poor, hello more tax cuts for the wealthy!), there is no way that would pass the Senate.

Compromise. Without the ability to actually DO politics, we aren't going to get anything solved. (and if you want an excellent definition of political action, read Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition... it really lays out what is needed to have real effective politics).

The most immoral act of all - making individuals dependent on a government program that is fiscally unsustainable, goes bankrupt, and leaves those dependent individuals worse off than they were before the program was initiated.

It is happening all over California right now with MediCal.

"Sweden is poorer than the Mississippi."
While you might not have as much money, you don't need as much there, because the government provides you with things. See, money that is taxed is actually *used* by the government to help the people, it does not simply disappear.

TC: The CIA world factbook disagrees.

Sweden has a GDP of 354 billion dollars. That would put them right between Michigan and Washington if Sweden became a state. (13th and 14th in the nation respectively).

Sorry, try again sir.

"From the website "Swede and Sour" written by a Swedish author, Johan Norberg. "
Oh shit, how did I believe that crap for a second. He had me fooled for a while.

The worst thing about the federal government is the redundancy of departments that perform the same tasks.

Here is a link to the GAO's report "Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue."

http://www.gao.gov/ereport/gao-11-318sp

"Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of taxpayer dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services,"

If Obama is a great politician then the time is right to do exactly what is needed.
We need leadership, but Obama is not leading.
Reagan led.