What has GOP done for workers?

[IndyFarmer]

by Clint C. Gold Reprinted from the Tulsa World 10/24/99

Not too long ago, my wife and I attended a TV football party in south Tulsa. With a lopsided score, the conversation turned to a livelier subject -- politics. The crowd was, of course, top-heavy with Republicans. With each point expressed their faces became more flushed, eyes bulging a little more and veins popping in their foreheads as they railed against the liberal programs.

Finally a lone, liberal voice asked: "Will you people name me one bill your party ever passed to help the working man of this country?" The question created much din and clamor, and someone sputtered, "Well, what have the Democrats done?"

http://www.bartcop.com/proud-liberal.htm

[crocdog1]

I'm sure that somewhere, and sometime, the GOP has done something for the working folk. There may be a GOPer out there who will point this out.

What I do know is that the GOP does not give a darn for Senior Citizens. To my knowledge, until now, they have not said word one or done one deed about older folk.

Now, all of a sudden, they show so much concern for our older people. They do this by making grotesque falsehoods about the Health Care Reform Bill.

They tell us a big fat untruth when they scream out loud that the HCRB is a death warrant for Seniors.

They do this with a straight face and a truthful heart, knowing that they are right because they are the Party of solid faith based moral and social values, beliefs and convictions.

[watcher2005]

Some people might say that NOT passing bills and regulations is what helps working people most. Government getting out of things and leaving us alone is what many working families want.
jmo


Yeah, it would be better than making things worse. If only it were more reality.

[watcher2005]

...

Why don't they suggest something substantial like imposing tarriffs on imported goods so than manufacturing jobs don't continue to migrate overseas, and closing loopholes that make it more profitable for corporations to manufacture overseas?

...

Republicans used to be for tariffs once upon a time.

[Brentwood]

As it said in op link...
"What it boils down to is this: the liberals dragged you into the 20th century scratching and screaming with your heels in the mud, fighting anything that's progressive, everything that's made this country great."

[dinojen]

Personally I don't care what party does what... right now neither are doing jack diddly.. especially those sitting in the current administration... it was all smoke an mirrors prior to Nov.... and now look at what we have..

Hey I'm not crazy really about any of the idiots sitting in DC... time to clean house and get some people elected that really care about the taxpayers... and don't have backdoor politics in their agenda...

I don't solely blame the Republican's and I don't solely blame the Democrat's.. I think they are all at fault for the mess this country is in..

JMHO


Wish I could go vacay in Martha's Vineyard.. but I have to go to work tomorrow to make sure I keep my medical insurance to cover my surgery come October... must be nice to be an elected official in DC and get cadillac coverage and have a summer recess....:rolleyes:

[MiamiNice1]

Some people might say that NOT passing bills and regulations is what helps working people most. Government getting out of things and leaving us alone is what many working families want.
jmo
Good answer. Why do we need a "party" helping the working man? Why the helping hand mentality? It starts with US. Be a hard working, moral, educated person and then pass that along to your children. It is the people's responsibility to make society better!

imo

[MiamiNice1]

Personally I don't care what party does what... right now neither are doing jack diddly.. especially those sitting in the current administration... it was all smoke an mirrors prior to Nov.... and now look at what we have..

Hey I'm not crazy really about any of the idiots sitting in DC... time to clean house and get some people elected that really care about the taxpayers... and don't have backdoor politics in their agenda...

I don't solely blame the Republican's and I don't solely blame the Democrat's.. I think they are all at fault for the mess this country is in..

JMHO

Wish I could go vacay in Martha's Vineyard.. but I have to go to work tomorrow to make sure I keep my medical insurance to cover my surgery come October... must be nice to be an elected official in DC and get cadillac coverage and have a summer recess....:rolleyes:

I agree with you, dinojen, that neither party can claim any moral high ground on this question. The Libs love to accuse and throw out the insults - just look at the description of the guy in the OP's article about his right wing friends. :rolleyes:

Fresh faces in Washington would be nice, at least for a short while - as we know that usually after spending a short amount of time there, power corrupts, and then it's the same old, same old.

This is why I believe people need to do for themselves.....and if we get a little "help" every now and then, it would be a pleasant surprise.

imo

[orangetaffy]

I agree with you, dinojen, that neither party can claim any moral high ground on this question. The Libs love to accuse and throw out the insults - just look at the description of the guy in the OP's article about his right wing friends. :rolleyes:

Fresh faces in Washington would be nice, at least for a short while - as we know that usually after spending a short amount of time there, power corrupts, and then it's the same old, same old.

This is why I believe people need to do for themselves.....and if we get a little "help" every now and then, it would be a pleasant surprise.

imo

I agree. Term limits would reduce some of this problem.

[MiamiNice1]

You've said a lot right here. Too bad more of us haven't adopted that philosophy. I can't help but think it is mainly a result of how we were raised.
IMO
Yes, I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I, too, think it is how we were raised.

Now, I know, that even when you do everything "right" as a parent, there are children that deviate - but I believe this is the exception, while the rule is that society will be a huge beneficiary if only the majority of people would live that philospophy.

imo

[MiamiNice1]

I agree. Term limits would reduce some of this problem.
Exactly so! Term Limits.

(and I could have just used 2 words - Term Limits - instead of my long explanation! ;))

[RosyParks]

Very long on flowery language and self congratulatory rhetoric but completely lacking in substance. Many Americans are barely making ends meet let alone saving money. You have people with college degrees working in multiple part time jobs at low wages.

Why don't they suggest something substantial like imposing tarriffs on imported goods so than manufacturing jobs don't continue to migrate overseas, and closing loopholes that make it more profitable for corporations to manufacture overseas?

They should quit cow-towing to multinational corporations for once and do something for the middle class like pass EFCA, raise minimum wages. Give workers a fighting chance.

:cursing::shrug: Eight long years of nada from the GOP.

[RosyParks]

Exactly so! Term Limits.

(and I could have just used 2 words - Term Limits - instead of my long explanation! ;))Voters CAN impose term limits. If a representative is not satisfactory, vote them out.

Seems wrong to impose term limits, on those who do represent the people.

[crocdog1]

Good answer. Why do we need a "party" helping the working man? Why the helping hand mentality? It starts with US. Be a hard working, moral, educated person and then pass that along to your children. It is the people's responsibility to make society better!

imo

Right on! We do not need a party for the working man. This is called SOCIALISM.

We already have the "helping hand mentality for the very wealthy in our country. George Bush and Co. have already bailed them out (WITH NO OVERSIGHT, OF COURSE).

They were supposed to free up the credit market with our monies, but, instead, they gave themselves millions of dollars in bonuses for shoddy management decisions. They also closed plants in America and laid off American workers, and, instead, hired low paid foreign workers without any paid vacations, retirement, health and other benefits.

We certainly don't need any more "helping hand mentality" parties. One is enough.

To paraphrase a popular big business slogan, "what's good for big business is good for the country"-- of China and other Asian Nations.

the above is JMHO

[Susan43]

We've Forgotten Who Saved This Country

Unfortunately, many of us who lived through the Great Depression have forgotten the complete economic collapse, chaos, and near rebellion that took place. We’ve forgotten who saved this country. With empty bellies, our people elected Franklin Roosevelt. He and the Democrats enacted legislation that saved our nation. Their liberal programs saved our banks; created Social Security and Federal Housing Authority. They enacted the Securities and the Exchange Commission, saving Wall Street and welfare for the corporate and poor. With oil at four cents a barrel, they saved the oil industry with prorationing laws.

http://michaelwshelton.com/election2004/clintgold.htm

[ABC]

We've Forgotten Who Saved This Country



http://michaelwshelton.com/election2004/clintgold.htm


I absolutly agree Susan, which is why I am still a Blue Dog Democrat. All of that we are thankful, however, I am not looking to go far left either socially or economically. My Grandparents had a picture of FDR on the wall till they died.

[momof6]

What has the GOP done for the workers? Over the years, I see where the GOP are consistantly battling the Dems. for less taxes on the worker.

As a worker, LESS taxes means more of my money in my pocket, I can spend it as I see fit.

MORE taxes means as a worker, I don't get more money, and over the course of time more and more taxes implemented daily means I could have to work two or three jobs to live. Or that I could eventually lose my house on forclosure (sound familiar) because my paycheck is still the same, but I bring home less and give Uncle Obama more.

So if the GOP does nothing but try to keep Gov. from taxing me to death, I'll take it as helping the worker.

[dd7947]

What has the GOP done for the workers? Over the years, I see where the GOP are consistantly battling the Dems. for less taxes on the worker.

As a worker, LESS taxes means more of my money in my pocket, I can spend it as I see fit.

MORE taxes means as a worker, I don't get more money, and over the course of time more and more taxes implemented daily means I could have to work two or three jobs to live. Or that I could eventually lose my house on forclosure (sound familiar) because my paycheck is still the same, but I bring home less and give Uncle Obama more.

So if the GOP does nothing but try to keep Gov. from taxing me to death, I'll take it as helping the worker.

Typical Republican. While you are bending over to pick up the dime in lower taxes the Republicans throw you, they are stealing $100.00 bills out of your back pocket. The Republican party has done everything in their power to make life worse for working Americans, fewer benefits, lower wages, more dangerous working conditions, agressively moving to outsource our job to third world countries. All the while you are worried about a few measly dollars in taxes, while obscenely large tax breaks go to big business. Wake up. Ask the real question here, it isn't what has the Republican party done for workers. The quesiton is what has the Republican party done to American workers.

[magythekat]

Typical Republican. While you are bending over to pick up the dime in lower taxes the Republicans throw you, they are stealing $100.00 bills out of your back pocket. The Republican party has done everything in their power to make life worse for working Americans, fewer benefits, lower wages, more dangerous working conditions, agressively moving to outsource our job to third world countries. All the while you are worried about a few measly dollars in taxes, while obscenely large tax breaks go to big business. Wake up. Ask the real question here, it isn't what has the Republican party done for workers. The quesiton is what has the Republican party done to American workers.


I think you need to post some links here to prove your outlandish assertions...I'll be checking back. If you don't post links or can't, at least end your post with a IMO. Because at this point, it looks to me like that's all it is...gleaned from talking points, from some of the well known leftist sites.

[Barbara2]

The GOP also introduced the bill that lessened the marriage penalty in the tax code. That benefited ALL working, married couples. There were couples who chose not to marry because the penalty was so extreme. That bill is getting ready to expire. Another member of the GOP has introduced a bill to try to prevent that penalty from being reinstated in 2010.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-74

[orangetaffy]

we all know what little the GOP has done for us the last 8 years, the next 8 they will spend trying to prevent the Democrats from restoring our great country, not very American of them, republicans see America's success as a end of their party, not true at all, they just need to get with the program, America wants a two party system, republicans are just out of touch with the needs of America

Not ALL Americans agree with the "2 party" system. I for one think BOTH parties are quite useless at this point. I dont think EITHER party is truthful, capable of running the country, or looks out for the best interest of the people.

[Barbara2]

we all know what little the GOP has done for us the last 8 years, the next 8 they will spend trying to prevent the Democrats from restoring our great country, not very American of them, republicans see America's success as a end of their party, not true at all, they just need to get with the program, America wants a two party system, republicans are just out of touch with the needs of America

The misrepresentations of the Republican party in this post makes it not even worthy of debate. IMO

[dd7947]

I think you need to post some links here to prove your outlandish assertions...I'll be checking back. If you don't post links or can't, at least end your post with a IMO. Because at this point, it looks to me like that's all it is...gleaned from talking points, from some of the well known leftist sites.

Instead of a link I'll ask you to answer one question, on the morning in January of 2009 that George Bush left office, were you, your neighbors and your friends, as well off financially as you were the day, Bill Clinton left office?

[orangetaffy]

Instead of a link I'll ask you to answer one question, on the morning in January of 2009 that George Bush left office, were you, your neighbors and your friends, as well off financially as you were the day, Bill Clinton left office?

Yes, my family, friends and neighbors were MUCH better off in 2009 than they were in 2001.

[dd7947]

I've read and reread your post and mulled it over in my mind for some time now and I've got to say:

I Tip My Hat To You!!!

Here I (and millions of others) wasted probably billions of hours in boring Econ Classes trying to understand how Economic Systems work and yet you have simplified everything with a single nugget of truth:

Nothing really matters except who the last President was!

I stand in awe!!!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I noticed you didn't answer my question. After eight years of a Republican administration are you now better off then you were after eight years of a Democratic administration?

This thread isn't about the study of economics. It's about which political party's policies are more likely to advance the interests of the average American worker. It would strike me that a valid method of determining the answer to this question would be to look at actual real world results.

If you would prefer to stick to theory rather then practice that is certainly your right. However, since we are talking about the financial well being of the entire population of the United States, I would personally prefer we look at what actually works, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to rely on theory rather then reality.

[magythekat]

Instead of a link I'll ask you to answer one question, on the morning in January of 2009 that George Bush left office, were you, your neighbors and your friends, as well off financially as you were the day, Bill Clinton left office?

Of course we were.

[Veritas]

The GOP fought to abolish slavery and they accomplished it.

The GOP has fought for blacks and women to have the right to vote.


The GOP went on to pass the nation’s first ever Civil Rights Act, extending citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds.


:thumbsup:

[crocdog1]

The GOP fought to abolish slavery and they accomplished it.

The GOP has fought for blacks and women to have the right to vote.


The GOP went on to pass the nation’s first ever Civil Rights Act, extending citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds.


:thumbsup:

Gosh, and I thought it was Lyndon Jonson who pushed through the Civil Rights Act. Guess I was wrong.

I looked at the crowds that attended the JM/SP rallies. I looked at the crowds that attended the Tea Parties. I watch the Town Hall meetings with the large, angry, and hostile crowds that don't let the speaker say his/her piece.

What do I see? I see a SEA of White. There are, of course a few folks of other races and creeds--but this is just token as are the very few on the FOX network.

John McCain could not get his choice for VP, as the extreme Right Wing Fundamental Protestant Christians would not allow anyone who did not adhere to their very strong faith based beliefs, convictions, values and tenets.

All I see in the GOP, as it is today, is a Party that is tied to to big business and to Right Wing Fundamental Protestants.
Just My Humble Opinion

[Veritas]

Civil Rights Act of 1866


President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill, saying that blacks were not qualified for United States citizenship and that the bill would "operate in favor of the colored and against the white race."

The Republicans in congress overrode the presidential veto on April 9, 1866. The act declared that "all persons born in the United States not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed," were citizens of the United States. Such citizens were "of every race and color" and "without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude."[1] As citizens they could make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real estate and personal property. Persons who denied these rights to former slaves were guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction faced a fine not exceeding $1,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding one year. It was the first major law ever enacted due to an override of a presidential veto.




LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866)

[Veritas]

Civil Rights Act of 1871


One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan by providing a civil remedy for abuses then being committed in the South.



In 1871, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant signed Butler's legislation, the Ku Klux Klan Act.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871)

[Veritas]

Civil Rights Act of 1875


The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement).




The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was a United States federal law proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin F. Butler in 1870. Signed byRepublican President Grant.


LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875)

[Veritas]

Civil Rights Act of 1957

The goal of the 1957 Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all African Americans could exercise their right to vote.


Because of Democratic opposition and amendment of The Civil Rights Act of 1957, it was largely ineffective in its enforcement and its scope. By 1960, slightly fewer blacks were voting in the South than had been in 1956. It did however open the door to later legislation that was effective in securing voting rights as well as ending legal segregation and providing housing rights.


LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act)


The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote or actually vote.



The act was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on May 6, 1960.


LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1960)

[crocdog1]

[QUOTE=Veritas;13419307]

RE: Civil Rights Act of 1875

Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement.)

------------------------------------------

Well, I see where we are not talking about the facts of life for Blacks as they actually were before the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.

I lived in Houston, Texas and know for an absolute fact how Balcks were treated, and beleive me when I say, it was mild in Houston compared to other Southern cities.

In the forties and part of the fifties, we had separate movies, restaurants, schools, drinking fountains, restrooms, etc. Blacks had to ride iin the rear of buses and Houston was divided into Black and White regards housing, apartments and the like.

Things changed some with Eisenhower's legal action on the schools, but by and large, until Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, Blacks did not have equal rights in the United States of America that I, as a White person, lived in.

Maybe it was different where you lived.

[Barbara2]

I sure hope that everyone is off watching 60 Minutes right now. Wow! A really good explanation of how the current collapse was created.

[Barbara2]

This is the segment you want to watch

FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - Steve Kroft examines the complicated financial instruments known as credit default swaps and the central role they are playing in the unfolding economic crisis. Frank Devine and Jennifer MacDonald are the producers.

Although this would be better posted on a thread about what the Democrats have done. IMO

[Veritas]

RE: Civil Rights Act of 1875

Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement.)

------------------------------------------

Well, I see where we are not talking about the facts of life for Blacks as they actually were before the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.

I lived in Houston, Texas and know for an absolute fact how Balcks were treated, and beleive me when I say, it was mild in Houston compared to other Southern cities.

In the forties and part of the fifties, we had separate movies, restaurants, schools, drinking fountains, restrooms, etc. Blacks had to ride iin the rear of buses and Houston was divided into Black and White regards housing, apartments and the like.

Things changed some with Eisenhower's legal action on the schools, but by and large, until Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, Blacks did not have equal rights in the United States of America that I, as a White person, lived in.

Maybe it was different where you lived.


I grew up in Virginia. What point were you trying to make?

[orangetaffy]

Yes, isn't it. Thankfully our new president has not taken advantage of his position. Unlike our last one. Did you know that George Bush spent 2/3 of his presidency on vacation?? Wasn't that disgraceful??

Wow, I didnt know that. That would be 1941 days of vacation. Can you give me a link so I can see just where he went for almost 2000 days?

[flareon]

I am all in favor of BO taking all the time off that he can get away with!

Go to a Broadway Play!

Go to Martha's Vineyard!

Go to Hawaii!

The less time he spends screwing with Government Stuff the more he benefits the American People, IMO!

:laugh::laugh:

I don't know. Even when he is gone and can't personally cause any more damage, the incompetent people he has put in charge can still wreak havoc.

[theal3]

Listen Up! This info and link has been provided many times before. Here it is again since it seems there are some individual's around here who question it. Let's not forget he went to kennebunkport for 43 days, making a grand total of:

1,020 days

That's a huge number folks, and considering that an 8 year term consists of a total of 2920 days, that means he was out of the WH on personal time:

34.90% of the time

WHOA!!!! That's shocking!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/18/bush-spent-487-days-at-ca_n_158902.html

MOO :patriot:

That's like on vacation over 1/3 of the time. Part-time President. And in the first year, took a month off in Aug. right before 9/11. Obama took a week, and a well deserved one. Bush really only served 6 or less years, was on vacation rest of the time. What a difference between a younger Pres. and a senior citizen President. Just a different generation. On with the new century, please.

[Barbara2]

If he were working in a normal job we can guess that he might work 5 days a week. If you multiply 8 years times 52 weeks times two days, you get 832. If you figure in 4 weeks of vacation a year out of the 52 weeks, you get another 160 (subtracting out those weekend days that have already been figured in) days. Adding the two together you get 992. So the extra 28 days averages out to 3.5 days a year. I think we have more National Holidays than that so he actually put in more time than the average American worker. I also believe that he was working at least some of those days at Camp David and probably the ranch too. IMO

[orangetaffy]

If he were working in a normal job we can guess that he might work 5 days a week. If you multiply 8 years times 52 weeks times two days, you get 832. If you figure in 4 weeks of vacation a year out of the 52 weeks, you get another 160 (subtracting out those weekend days that have already been figured in) days. Adding the two together you get 992. So the extra 28 days averages out to 3.5 days a year. I think we have more National Holidays than that so he actually put in more time than the average American worker. I also believe that he was working at least some of those days at Camp David and probably the ranch too. IMO

I dont consider time at Camp David as vacation. Obama just returned from vacation, and will now head to Camp David. Camp David, to me, is a working environment.

[Bill Justice]

I'm sure that somewhere, and sometime, the GOP has done something for the working folk. There may be a GOPer out there who will point this out.

What I do know is that the GOP does not give a darn for Senior Citizens. To my knowledge, until now, they have not said word one or done one deed about older folk.

Now, all of a sudden, they show so much concern for our older people. They do this by making grotesque falsehoods about the Health Care Reform Bill.

They tell us a big fat untruth when they scream out loud that the HCRB is a death warrant for Seniors.

They do this with a straight face and a truthful heart, knowing that they are right because they are the Party of solid faith based moral and social values, beliefs and convictions.

I don't trust either party but every time the Democrats get into power they spend like the dickens and raise our taxes..Republicans allow us to keep more of our money but they have bland personaliites except Sarah Palin who I enjoy watching but would never vote for her.

[Barbara2]

I dont consider time at Camp David as vacation. Obama just returned from vacation, and will now head to Camp David. Camp David, to me, is a working environment.

I have no doubt that it WILL be considered work by the HuffPo writers when our current President is there. IMO

[crocdog1]

I grew up in Virginia. What point were you trying to make?

The point I'm tried to make, but didn't, was that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 obviously did not work.

As I said, maybe it did in your state.

Please refer to your post of the 1875 Civil Rights Act. I copied it for my original reply to your posr.

[flareon]

I don't trust either party but every time the Democrats get into power they spend like the dickens and raise our taxes..Republicans allow us to keep more of our money but they have bland personaliites except Sarah Palin who I enjoy watching but would never vote for her.

That's because the Democratic way is to throw money at every problem without ever seeking or trying to correct any deficiencies. You have seen it through the years and it is evident in every bill they have tried to pass so far.

The Republicans aren't much better but they don't squander money as readily as the Democrats. Very few of them have the political courage to put forth legislation that would actually tackle the long festering problems.

[crocdog1]

5 and 1/2 years on vacation? I don't think so.

You are correct. GWB did not spend 5 1/2 years on vacation.

He was our President for some 2,535 days. Of these, he spent all, or part, of some 908 days on vacations or on retreats.

In other words, he spent over 30% of his years as President on vacations/retreats.

As we well know, during his years as President we got involved in two wars, including the one in Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

JMHO

[crocdog1]

[QUOTE=crocdog1;13420590]Are you black?

You muist not have read my post. I indicated on it that I was White.

As a White man, who lived in Houston during the years I wrote about, I bear witness to the way the Black people were treated in the United States of America (in Houston, TX) before the 1960s Civil Rights Act.

[cantstandnuts]

That's because the Democratic way is to throw money at every problem without ever seeking or trying to correct any deficiencies. You have seen it through the years and it is evident in every bill they have tried to pass so far.

The Republicans aren't much better but they don't squander money as readily as the Democrats. Very few of them have the political courage to put forth legislation that would actually tackle the long festering problems.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

Clinton is a democrat, no?

[cantstandnuts]

Vacations...all presidents take them.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=8416646&page=4

[Brentwood]

Did this thread get derailed? It is suppose to be abouty... what has gop done for workers. Not much, imo.

[Susan43]

That's because the Democratic way is to throw money at every problem without ever seeking or trying to correct any deficiencies. You have seen it through the years and it is evident in every bill they have tried to pass so far.

The Republicans aren't much better but they don't squander money as readily as the Democrats. Very few of them have the political courage to put forth legislation that would actually tackle the long festering problems.

The Republicans don't squander money? Then how did we go from a $5.7 Trillion dollar debt to a $10.7 Trillion dollar debt from 2001 to 2009? Can you really say that the money wasn't squandered?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

When you go to the website just put in Jan 2001 & 2009 and you will see the numbers.

[Susan43]

Did this thread get derailed? It is suppose to be abouty... what has gop done for workers. Not much, imo.

Yeah, I think it did get derailed. Sorry about that.

In the 8 yrs that the right had control in DC 3 million jobs were created. That's less then any other administration.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

[orangetaffy]

When the Democrats regained control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt was $8.67 trillion.

In the two years Pelosi and the Democrats have been in charge, the national debt grew to $10.70 trillion. That means $2.03 trillion was added to the national debt for an increase of 23% increase in two years the Democrats controlled Congress.

[Susan43]

When the Democrats regained control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt was $8.67 trillion.

In the two years Pelosi and the Democrats have been in charge, the national debt grew to $10.70 trillion. That means $2.03 trillion was added to the national debt for an increase of 23% increase in two years the Democrats controlled Congress.

It's called cleaning up the mess.

[Barbara2]

It's called cleaning up the mess.

It's called spending money that you don't have and having nothing to show for it. IMO

[orangetaffy]

It's called cleaning up the mess.

Sorry, my economic beliefs says you dont spend money to get out of debt. I know some like to preach the opposite, but common sense says if you spend more than you have, you aint getting out of debt.

[Brentwood]

Yeah, I think it did get derailed. Sorry about that.

In the 8 yrs that the right had control in DC 3 million jobs were created. That's less then any other administration.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Exactly! We need a certain amount of job growth just to stay even. I don't think that some understand that.

[orangetaffy]

Exactly! We need a certain amount of job growth just to stay even. I don't think that some understand that.

If we would quit bringing in foreign workers, we wouldnt need to create so many new jobs. So far a majority of the jobs created by this administration have been government positions. Yeppers, that's really helping the average citizen.

[cantstandnuts]

Well, he had a Republican Congress.

And he was often too preoccupied to really give his full attention to the traditional Democrat Tax and Spend Technique.

BO, BTW, doesn't suffer from these impediments!

IMO.

:laugh::laugh:

Clinton was a democratic president who balanced the budget, regardless of the opposition or support he got. Are we saying that Congress controls everything or that the president, with his veto power does? You CANNOT have it both ways. Either the budget was balanced or it wasn't. Are you saying that he was ineffective because he had an affair? ROFLMAO, that's irrelevant to what he did for this country. He didn't cheat on you, he cheated on his wife...big difference.

Clinton balanced our budget and Bush, in 8 years, screwed it all up. That's fact.

[flareon]

Well, he had a Republican Congress.

And he was often too preoccupied to really give his full attention to the traditional Democrat Tax and Spend Technique.

BO, BTW, doesn't suffer from these impediments!

IMO.

:laugh::laugh:

You are exactly right about the Republican Congress. It was only after the mid year change that Bill Clinton did his best work. It was to all of their credit that they were able to hammer out legislation that actually benefited the American people and kept the budget in check. Of course near the end of his last term the dot com was bursting and he was lucky he got out before the real damage took hold.

That should have been a message to every voter, but obviously it was lost on a few.

[crocdog1]

It's called spending money that you don't have and having nothing to show for it. IMO

Oh, we have something to show for it.

We have over 4,000 of our troops killed.

We have tens of thousands more with horrific wounds that we are unable to take care of because we spent billions on weapons at the expense of our ground troops.

I'm talking about the Iraq war, where we attacked a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and was not a threat to the security of our nation.

We are still spending 10 BILLION dollars a month to prosecute this war. We are still spending billions on defensive weapons, again at the expense of our ground troops, who we put in harms way with the most shoddy and inferior equipment in the history of our country,

Just My Humble Opinion

[FurthurBB]

What has the GOP done for the workers? Over the years, I see where the GOP are consistantly battling the Dems. for less taxes on the worker.

As a worker, LESS taxes means more of my money in my pocket, I can spend it as I see fit.

MORE taxes means as a worker, I don't get more money, and over the course of time more and more taxes implemented daily means I could have to work two or three jobs to live. Or that I could eventually lose my house on forclosure (sound familiar) because my paycheck is still the same, but I bring home less and give Uncle Obama more.

So if the GOP does nothing but try to keep Gov. from taxing me to death, I'll take it as helping the worker.

Actually, you probably pay less taxes under democrat administrations. I pay more, but, am okay with that because my home will never be foreclosed on and I will never need to work two jobs. IMO

[Barbara2]

Oh, we have something to show for it.

We have over 4,000 of our troops killed.

We have tens of thousands more with horrific wounds that we are unable to take care of because we spent billions on weapons at the expense of our ground troops.

I'm talking about the Iraq war, where we attacked a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and was not a threat to the security of our nation.

We are still spending 10 BILLION dollars a month to prosecute this war. We are still spending billions on defensive weapons, again at the expense of our ground troops, who we put in harms way with the most shoddy and inferior equipment in the history of our country,

Just My Humble Opinion

I'm actually surprised that you are giving the credit for all of that to the Democrats. I think the Republicans have some responsibility as well. IMO (I was responding to someone talking about what the Democrats had done.)


Originally Posted by Susan43 View Post
It's called cleaning up the mess.

Originally Posted by Barbara2 View Post
It's called spending money that you don't have and having nothing to show for it. IMO

[Barbara2]

He did nothing to hurt this country. And he is not the first president to cheat on his wife. He is just the first president who's cheating was made public by the opposition party to try and ruin him. But it didn't work. His approval rating was at 68% when he left office, thank you very much.

Under Bill Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.

I think that's more than both Bush's did combined.

You might need to go back and study that particular history without a biased, partisan view. The REAL history tells a different story. IMO

[cantstandnuts]

Did you mean "for this country" or "to this country"?

IMO, Clinton did a great deal to hurt this country. I mean, just talking about morals and lttle things like that and considering that he was the President, after all.

What a great message to the Youth of America. But to some antiquated ideas like that just don't matter very much, do they?

Clinton was, is and always will be a Politician - first, foremost and always. And a disgraced one, at that.

IMO, of course!

:smile:


Clinton left this country in very good shape. You seem to want to skirt all around that and just focus instead on the affair. That was not a great moment, but was inconsequential for the majority of us, unlike the economy when he left office.

[crocdog1]

Did you mean "for this country" or "to this country"?

IMO, Clinton did a great deal to hurt this country. I mean, just talking about morals and little things like that and considering that he was the President, after all.

What a great message to the Youth of America. But to some antiquated ideas like that just don't matter very much, do they?

Clinton was, is and always will be a Politician - first, foremost and always. And a disgraced one, at that.

IMO, of course!

:smile:

When I think about morals, the GOP always comes to mind.

After all this is the party of THE MORAL MAJORITY, right!

You know who I'm talking about. The folks who wear their faith based social and religious values on their sleeves, but not in their heart.

They want you to do as they say, but not as they do, except of course, if you are a Republican. This is where being unfaithful to your spouse is so common, we yawn when we hear of it.

Oh yes, and telling big humongous falsehoods against your fellow man is perfectly OK with these good, kind, Christian people. Example: the falsehood about President Obama not being a native born American citizen.

Same goes with telling big fat falsehoods such, as the lie about the Health Care Reform being a death warrant for Seniors.

Yes, good, kind Christian folk--THE MORAL MAJORITY. This is what the youth of America has as their standard of Truth.

Just My Humble Opinion

[Barbara2]

If what you're saying is that Clinton looked pretty darn good when compared with BO then I think we're in agreement.

:laugh:

I can't even agree that Clinton left this country in great shape. The real history tells a different story. IMO

[Barbara2]

Well, he did manage to destroy the Stock Market before he left but most of his other dumber instincts were headed off by a Republican Congress.

He did set an incredibly low Moral Standard for the Youth of America, though.

That should have gotten him some Brownie Points with the Progressives!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

He put in place the bank deregulations that led to the current crisis and managed to pretend that the dot com industry was a plus when it was really a fake industry that led to disaster. Other than that, what did he do? IMO

[Barbara2]

Tough one.

I'll go with "Lied to a Grand Jury"??

:confused::confused::confused:

I have personal stories that I wish I could tell but I'm not allowed. My brother was in the Air Force and had a position that let him be privy to information. He was very happy when Clinton was out and Bush was in. That's all I can say.

[crocdog1]

Oh.

Don't like Christians?

OK.

:laugh:.

Where in the world did you get that idea?

I am a Christian. However, I do not moralize as do those who want to force their Christian beliefs on me, on other Christians, and on Jews, Buddists, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and all other people who do not believe in their very strict faith based values, beliefs, convictions and tenets.

These are the fundamentalist Christians who have taken control of the GOP. There are some 25-30 millions of them.

They seek to force their faith based social and religious values on people who do not believe their very strong faith based beliefs, convictions and tenets.

Their very strict interpretation of the Bible does not include loving your fellow man as Jesus taught us.

The Jesus I worship, taught us to love our fellow man. He did not teach us to make falsehoods about them, as per saying Obama is not a native born American citizen. This is a lie.

They call Obama a Nazi, and a Communist. They say he is a Muslim. This is a flat falsehood. The Jesus I worship did not teach us to make falsehoods. He taught us to tell the truth. "Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make ye free."

Yet these good Christians continue to tell us the The Obama Health Care Reform is a death warrant for seniors. This is a humongous lie.

They are very prim and proper when it comes to obeying the precepts of the Bible. Yet more and more, we hear of these good folks being unfaithful to their spouses. This is perfectly OK if you are one of them, but if you do are a Democrat and do this it is an abomination and you are a reprobate. You are an immoral person.

Oh, I almost forgot, you also are not a true American. Only those who believe as they do are true Amercans.

As the writer, Sinclair Lewis said in 1935: "When facism comes to America it will be clothed in the flag, carrying a cross."

This is what these good folks offer the American youth. Do as I do, not as I say.

Just My Humble Opinion

[cantstandnuts]

If what you're saying is that Clinton looked pretty darn good when compared with BO then I think we're in agreement.

:laugh:

Obama's a newbie.

Nobody on the right wants to give him some time, my goodness! :biggrin:

[cantstandnuts]

I can't even agree that Clinton left this country in great shape. The real history tells a different story. IMO

Not really. History all runs into each other. It's impossible to tell, actually, which pres it was that got things done because things happen the way they do.

I will say that I think it has always been the democrats doing the really good stuff. :wink:

[cantstandnuts]

I have personal stories that I wish I could tell but I'm not allowed. My brother was in the Air Force and had a position that let him be privy to information. He was very happy when Clinton was out and Bush was in. That's all I can say.

so, he was a republican? that is the only way to explain that he was happy with Bush. Bush was really a war monger.

[cantstandnuts]

Where in the world did you get that idea?

I am a Christian. However, I do not moralize as do those who want to force their Christian beliefs on me, on other Christians, and on Jews, Buddists, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and all other people who do not believe in their very strict faith based values, beliefs, convictions and tenets.

These are the fundamentalist Christians who have taken control of the GOP. There are some 25-30 millions of them.

They seek to force their faith based social and religious values on people who do not believe their very strong faith based beliefs, convictions and tenets.

Their very strict interpretation of the Bible does not include loving your fellow man as Jesus taught us.

The Jesus I worship, taught us to love our fellow man. He did not teach us to make falsehoods about them, as per saying Obama is not a native born American citizen. This is a lie.

They call Obama a Nazi, and a Communist. They say he is a Muslim. This is a flat falsehood. The Jesus I worship did not teach us to make falsehoods. He taught us to tell the truth. "Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make ye free."

Yet these good Christians continue to tell us the The Obama Health Care Reform is a death warrant for seniors. This is a humongous lie.

They are very prim and proper when it comes to obeying the precepts of the Bible. Yet more and more, we hear of these good folks being unfaithful to their spouses. This is perfectly OK if you are one of them, but if you do are a Democrat and do this it is an abomination and you are a reprobate. You are an immoral person.

Oh, I almost forgot, you also are not a true American. Only those who believe as they do are true Amercans.

As the writer, Sinclair Lewis said in 1935: "When facism comes to America it will be clothed in the flag, carrying a cross."

This is what these good folks offer the American youth. Do as I do, not as I say.

Just My Humble Opinion

I have to say so many words so this quote will bump. Bump! GREAT POST and I agree! :patriot:

[cantstandnuts]

"Give him some time" is one of the weaker arguments I've heard recently but, hey, any port in a storm!!!

:laugh::laugh:

And thinking he could clean up this incredible mess in less than a year is an equally weak argument, but yet ya say it. :tonguewag:

[cantstandnuts]

I respect your post and I'm not really trying to be difficult but is it at all possible that you could condense your train of thought a bit?

Maybe a single paragraph or even a couple of paragraphs?

I could probably be OK with three??

The reason I mention this is that while I felt that you had said something of value that I really needed to respond to - I found myself dozing off before I reached the end of your post.

:smile:

And yet, I was hanging on every word. Everyone is so different, eh?

[cantstandnuts]

I respect your post and I'm not really trying to be difficult but is it at all possible that you could condense your train of thought a bit?

Maybe a single paragraph or even a couple of paragraphs?

I could probably be OK with three??

The reason I mention this is that while I felt that you had said something of value that I really needed to respond to - I found myself dozing off before I reached the end of your post.:smile:

Bolding mine.

I also notice you did not actually respond.

[cantstandnuts]

Dozing would kind of supersede responding.

By definition.

Don't you think?

:confused::confused:

Way to skirt how you wanted to respond.

I don't mind long posts. I like to read. :biggrin:

[Hunky Dorie]

by Clint C. Gold Reprinted from the Tulsa World 10/24/99



http://www.bartcop.com/proud-liberal.htm
In a word, nuthin'.

[Sesame Seed]

In a word, nuthin'.

Great minds think alike.

[FurthurBB]

Not really. History all runs into each other. It's impossible to tell, actually, which pres it was that got things done because things happen the way they do.

I will say that I think it has always been the democrats doing the really good stuff. :wink:

I think it is a matter of republican's whining the most about how it is not their fault and somehow that gets remembered. IMO

[FurthurBB]

so, he was a republican? that is the only way to explain that he was happy with Bush. Bush was really a war monger.

Some people are happier, especially if they are in a position of command because they get more money at the expense of others. I also know many people who were privy to information that felt just the opposite. Personal naratives mean very little. IMO

[Philly]

I agree with you, dinojen, that neither party can claim any moral high ground on this question. The Libs love to accuse and throw out the insults - just look at the description of the guy in the OP's article about his right wing friends. :rolleyes:

Fresh faces in Washington would be nice, at least for a short while - as we know that usually after spending a short amount of time there, power corrupts, and then it's the same old, same old.

This is why I believe people need to do for themselves.....and if we get a little "help" every now and then, it would be a pleasant surprise.

imo

Yes, people should be able to do for themselves, but as more and more corporations move overseas and jobs become more and more scarce, it makes it extremely difficult to do that.

[momof6]

I have personal stories that I wish I could tell but I'm not allowed. My brother was in the Air Force and had a position that let him be privy to information. He was very happy when Clinton was out and Bush was in. That's all I can say.

Exactly right. I met the commander in charge of the somalia attack that the movie Black Hawk Down was based on. He stated how Clinton messed the whole thing up and would not listen to him even though he was the commander. He despises Clinton.

This commander was giving a speech at a convention. He tells the story of how it went down and it is sickening what Clinton did. My family and I got to personally meet him.