Which party's policies will do more to help the financially stressed American middle class?
jt
2012/08/25 15:57:48
|
|
|||||
|
118 votes
|
|
80% | ||
|
30 votes
|
|
20% | ||
"In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real income, a little less than a month's income every year.
Unfair, you say, because Mr. Obama inherited a recession? Well, even if you start the analysis when the recession ended in June 2009, the numbers are dismal. Three years after the economy hit its trough, median household income is down $2,544, or nearly 5%."
A fwd article: -jt
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468...
Top Opinion
-
ComeOnNow 2012/08/25 17:59:18Romney/Ryan Plan
+44Every democrat policy kills jobs. As Europe crumbles due to the same failed policies, the morons keep pushing them. Either democrats are freqking oblivious or do selfish that they are just fine with destroying this country for our children so they don't have to take any personal responsibility.
That said, Romney/Ryan will be so far superior to what we have now, that people will be shocked at the difference - but those who expect to see this train wreck turn around inside a couple of months will be disappointed. Massive destruction is each and fast. Building things takes more time than does destroying them. Both Romney and Ryan understand what works and what doesn't work.
All of this is said with the assumption we will actually have a Presidential election any time soon.
How is that going to help the middle class?
But... the question is also silly, because SH is overwhelmingly populated by conservatives, and no conservative would say ANYTHING good about Obama. The conservative posters here are so anti-Obama that they might love a plan by Ryan or Romney, but if Obama stated the exact same plan they would consider it unconstitutional or insolvent or just plain anti-American... not Obama's implementation, mind you, but the policy itself.
It happened when Reid proposed a budget that was virtually identical to the republican plan -- the conservatives who loved it before now hated it. The only thing new was the person who supported it.
P.S. I HAVE KNOWN HARRY REID FOR MORE THAT FORTY YEARS IN NEVADA...
HE WAS THE MOB'S BOSSES POCKET WATCH ON THE NEVADA GAMING BOARD.
The budget I'm referring to happened last summer (2011). Boehner proposed a budget, which was rejected by democrats and some republicans. The democratic Senate proposed an alternative, which was attacked by republicans. As deadlines loomed, Reid then proposed a budget that was nearly identical to Boehner's, which was attacked by the republicans who had voted for it before. The only real difference was that it was proposed by Reid instead of Boehner -- it was pretty much the same otherwise.
There were a few differences, but those were not the pieces that the GOP complained about. They were upset that Reid did not cut MORE than Boehner. Basically, the GOP decided that if the democrats agreed to what the GOP demanded, then the GOP should demand more. That mentality ultimately made the democrats withdraw their offer, because they realized anything they agreed to would be rejected. The GOP smelled blood and saw no reason to compromise -- because compromise would help the economy and therefore help Obama (they even said this).
So... I'm not claiming Reid is a saint, or even decent, but at least he put America before his party's agenda (unlike the republicans at the time).
I realize it happened a little over a year ago, but it is truthful and factual information. How is it you cannot remember facts that occurred about 13 months ago?
But regardless, your points -- whether true or not -- have nothing to do with my point. Even if he is a party animal, and a criminal to boot (though clearly neither accused nor convicted), he still did what I said -- he DID put forth the budget I mentioned. It is fact, it is on record. And it was virtually identical to the one Boehner put forth, which republicans voted for in droves.
But for the same thing with Reid's name on it, they said no.
1) those allegations were not proven false. To be criminal they must be false, and the intent must have been to defame Romney's name (which would be easy to demonstrate). It is highly irregular to make such accusations on the Senate floor -- certainly not in keeping with traditional decorum (though one might say that is long gone, having departed when Representative Wilson yelled "you lie!" during Obama's State of the Union Speech a while back).
I am not a legal expert, but I am confident that no legal investigation was pursued regarding these statements. So Reid was clearly not found guilty of a crime.
2) regardless, that has no bearing on my argument. Reid's criminality has no bearing on the fact that he put forth essentially the same budget as Boehner, nor does it change the fact that republicans voted FOR it when it had Boehner's name and AGAINST it when it had Reid's.
They did not mind the budget content -- they just didn't like the idea of agreeing with democrats.
Until this election, my state was not considered really purple -- I live in Wisconsin. Because the (jerk) Romney picked a running mate from Wisconsin, we are now purple and thus inundated by ads. I'd almost prefer living in Texas -- they probably don't have to see as many political ads.
Even so, you we both will still have to deal with uncountable numbers of politician visits, print ads, and radio pundits who think it is important to interrupt songs to give political opinions...
At least neither of us live in Ohio or Florida -- both must-wins for probably both parties. Wisconsin and Colorado are important, but not as much.
But you are right that each party tends to overlook *some* things its own members do. The republicans don't investigate republicans much, either.