General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsB Calm
(28,762 posts)erronis
(15,303 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)ChangeUp106
(549 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)The man is awesome!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 04:45 AM - Edit history (1)
Urged by both Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan and voted for by many Democrats. And Glass Steagall remains repealed, despite near global economic collapse and four years of Democratic control of Congress, during two of which Democrats also held the White House.
a prescription drug program written by the phamaceutical industry
Having the industry write health legislation is not a good thing?
Indydem
(2,642 posts)You can act like it was a republicon action, but when push came to shove, Democrats supported it in droves when their pet project got a little attention in the final bill.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I'd hate to mislead Banyone who does not read your post, too. Besides, people tend to remember that which reinforces their already existing worldview.
It also shows, I think, that a popular Democratic President does indeed influence how Democratic members of Congress vote. I like Sanders very much, but he can be the Senator version of Krugman.
Thank you for the correction.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)and the Congress was GOP controlled when it passed. And the government/country was under the control of the Reaganomic deregualtion zeitgeist.
But I think even worse was the almost complete deregualtion of the mortgage industry under Bush admin. This is what Elliot Spitzer was trying to expose in 2007 just before he got taken out by the Republicans.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)In 1999? Signed by BILL CLINTON?
Riiiiiiiiight.
merrily
(45,251 posts)As Indy Dem said, you can act like this was a Republicon action all you want, but it wasn't.
Since when do three original sponsors of a bill mean anything? Medicare for all at one point had 100 co-sponsors and that didn't mean shit, let alone 3 people a bill happens to be named after.
But I think even worse was the almost complete deregualtion of the mortgage industry under Bush admin.
That could not have been done as to banks, but for repeal of Glass Steagall; and it was only the icing on the cake, compared with Glass Steagall. Just google.
We have to stop acting as though our only problem is Republicans. Corporatist Democrats, aka New Democrats, DLC, Third Way, and all the other names they've gone by haven't been doing right by us.
Warpy
(111,276 posts)is the military monkey on our backs.
While I realize saying so is still political suicide because of all the decades spent ginning up fear to gin up support for a bloated military, that is one more thing that has to be cut down to size.
Until that happens, this country will simply continue to add to the debt until it can do nothing else but pay the vig on it and at that point, it will cease to exist as a viable entity.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Especially not when the economy is bad. It's not only a matter of cutting down on the number of people the military employs, but also cutting down jobs around closed military bases, vendors to the military, etc.
Besides, we hate Russia again, so I guess we'll just have to win another cold war. And that takes troops, dammit!
After all the money spent on the military, we sent troops to Iraq with unarmored vehicles and poor Rumsfelf had to go to war with the army he had, not the army he wanted. So, what the hell were we spending the money on, I have to wonder? And what are we spending it on now? Is anyone even asking?
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Mostly b/c of Bush /GOP wars and their defense cronies.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)There's your 4 reasons right there...........
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Senator Sanders says this while President Obama implies that social security contributes to the debt.
I want a real Democratic president.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Have you never heard of property rich but cash poor? I've seen several cases of it. People who have a lot of property but not a lot of income. The plan is to sell it when they get older to fund their retirement. At THAT time the gain IS taxed.
You start trying to tax assets and the economy will crash like a wingless bird. And once again, the govt still wont get much out of it. The rich will ALWAYS find a way around taxes they feel are unfairly high. The corp tax is a great example. 35% and no one pays it. Trillions overseas and it will stay there, real or imagined, because we're the ONLY country who double taxes corp. income. Its just a stupid move.
Do you want more govt revenue or do you just want to feel good about a high tax rate?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Bandit
(21,475 posts)Reagan was the first to actually triple the National Debt from a little over one trillion to almost four trillion dollars. Then came Bush the first and another trillion was added. It went up a little under Clinton in his first term and then in his second term we were actually beginning to pay it down a bit. We had Budget surpluses. Then came Bush* and he doubled the National Debt to over Twelve Trillion dollars. Remember his campaign slogan, "It's Your Money" Well turns out he put it on all the tab. And they call themselves "Fiscal Conservatives" What is even weirder is that people still believe them even after decades of factual evidence to prove they are the exact opposite.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Now if more and more people can actually take the time to actually think things through maybe we can get back to a much more level playing field.
TBF
(32,067 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Last edited Wed May 21, 2014, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)
and the loss of 8 million tax paying jobs which was probably the biggest addition to our national debt since Obama got elected.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,035 posts)The rich paid higher taxes. The budget was balanced and the economy was booming. What's so hard to understand about this?