Why when americans protest government health care...

[Democratic Hawk]

Fox New is anti high-taxes and so are people, so what!

Where are the high taxes with this president, Wingnut? The vast majority of Americans have received a tax cut as part of the stimulus

And how about this since you're a fan of "fiscal conservatism":

1. Ronald Reagan actually signed off on tax increases during six of his eight years of president in response to a growing deficit caused, in no small part, by his supply-side tax cuts which were, according to his budget director, David Stockman and his computer simulations, supposed to see GDP grow by 5%, in 1982, when, in fact, the economy contracted by 2.2%. Of course, the economy did rebound nicely thanks to, as any Keynesian economist would tell you, deficit spending!

2. Meanwhile, it was a conservative Republican, George W Bush, who pursued a policy of fiscal recklessness which was, perhaps unprecedently, skewed in favor of the wealthiest, who accomplished that most lofty goal in taking the federal government from living well within its means to anything but. Events, of course, in addition, to such recklessness, contributed to that. Not to mention the unfunded Part D - Prescription Drugs expansion to Medicare

Nevertheless, in 2004, the choice was clear. You had the promise of big insolvent government with George W Bush or the chance of big solvent government with John Kerry - and we all know who won!

So if this president has to increase taxes beyond those singles earning more than $200,000 and joint filers earning more than $250,000, you know exactly who to blame - and it isn't him. Obama wasn't bequeathed a robust economy that had generated 23 million jobs, far from it

Furthermore, the income demographic that has most to "lose" actually, on 2004, swung most heavily Democratic and, as far as healthcare reform goes, the president has set the parameters: 1) deficit neutrality and 2) no tax hikes on the middle class

Even for "conservative" Republicans, as I've pointed out, fiscal principles can often go by the wayside when faced with the realities of governing and the pressing concerns, and challenges, of the day

[Democratic Hawk]

Plus, didn't Obama, when getting elected, promise he'd cut taxes for most americans(which is a conservative thing) and didn't he say unemployment wouldn't go past 8% when they passed the phony stimulus and his number ARE deteriating and this ain't what people asked for.

FTR, the vast majority of Americans have already received a tax cut as part of the stimulus. FACT!

Yes, unemployment has exceeded 8% but in case you hadn't noticed, George W Bush bequeathed him the 'Great Recession' which has been haemorrhaging jobs at a rate not seen since the recession of 1981-82 (aye, that of your sainted Reagan)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are totally divorced from reality when it comes to this president and his policies. And you  can get over your Obama Derangement Syndrome as well

The stimulus, which cost trillions

$787bn actually. $288bn of which were tax cuts. Thicko

If it's anything, Obama is for ECONOMIC-CUTS.

Aye, like that would stand him in good stead for re-election

Would it please you to know that in the post-Depression era, it has been Democratic presidents, rather than Republicans, who have presided over more 1) robust economic growth and 2) job creation; as well with a more equitable rise in prosperity across all income groups

And about Crap-for-Clunkers that was going out of busniess(government-controlled) just means government can't run a corporations.

No, far from going out of business, Cash-for-Clunkers proved to be a successful initiative, so much so that it required supplemental appropriations to finance it

Analysts predict billions in benefits from 'Cash for Clunkers'

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/07/cash.for.clunkers/index.html

Story Highlights

-Analysts: $3 billion for program may provide $18 billion boost for economy
-Critics: Program just shifts consumer spending from one area to another
-Consumers save in gas, maintenance; auto industry sells twice as many cars

Indeed, 77 House Republicans voted in favor of it. It's reassuring to know that some Republicans actually do give a dam about American jobs and livelihoods dependent on the auto industry

[Democratic Hawk]

OH, I GET IT... IT'S BUSH'S FAULT THAT OBAMA LIED ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT NOT GOING FROM 8% AFTER HE PASSED THE STIMULUS!

That wasn't a lie. That was what I call too optimistic a projection

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama hasn't been in office long for his policies to have had much effect one way or the other - and the simple truth of the matter is that Obama was bequeathed an economy that was haemorrhaging jobs at a rate not seen since the recession of 1981-82. Remember the one you right wing dogmatoids forever blamed on Carter. Yet using your reasoning, that recession can only have been Reagan's.

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush's rating were higher than Obama in th same amount of time in office.

All that tells me is that Obama is being held to a higher standard

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush's rating were higher than Obama in th same amount of time in office.

All that tells me is that Obama is being held to a higher standard

What that tells me and alot americans is that Obama owns more of the economy than Bush.

Well, if he were to be held to the same standard as Reagan on the economy (and right-wing dogmatoids have been blaming Obama since before he took office just like they were blaming Carter well after Reagan took office), he'll own the economy around the end of Q1, 2010 - for better or worse

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh the right-wing protesters are very real, but it amusing to consider who constitutes this group.

Essentially it is a mass of either (a) bourgeois, who are quite comfortable with their employer-provided healthcare (b) seniors, who are quite comfortable with their medicare (which they assininely assert they do not want taken over by the government).  Both systems are products already of the federal government, whether by tax cuts in the former or direct payments in the latter.

So while they might self-righteously shroud their motives in small-government, individualistic rhetoric, they are still essentially government dependents fighting to preserve their entitlements.

One can see this pattern all across the conservative movement.  One wonders how long these pretenses remain before politics finally becomes a battle of pensioners.

I'm not trying to say the Democrats can "escape" this dynamic (as if that were preferable or possible), but at least the Democrats are frank about the necessity of big government to manage the complexities of the 21st century.  The Republican Party offers an alternative of massive delusion, a diseased nostalgia; I can only hope Americans will not swallow this opiate to their destruction.

Very true

The Republican Party has a disease - you could call it dogmatoid arthritis - given that their 'panacea' appears to be $3 trillion in new tax cuts (skewed in favor of those to whom they are dogmatically beholden - the richest (aka as the elite), in addition to extending the fiscally wreckless Bush tax cuts in their entirety complete with a spending freeze (save defense and veterans) - and at a time of acute economic crisis (mostly, of their making)

The House GOP alternative CBR even proposed means-testing Social Security (watch out seniors!); replacing Medicare with vouchers (watch out again seniors, who seem very happy with it as it stands), along with block grants for Medicaid. Not to mention rolling back the tax cuts for workers in the stimulus. It proved too much to stomach for 'moderate' Republicans. By comparison, the alternative substitute amendmends from the "left" of the Democratic Party couldn't even gather the support of a majority of Democrats

All attention is on Obama and the Democrats, right now, but for any one who wants "radicalism" they will find plenty of that coming from the dogmatoid arthritic wing of the Republican Party. Who would have thought that liberals, and populists (I don't mean them right-wing pseudos), would be the pragmatists and conservatives, the radicals? Is it supposed to be that way? Alas, Edmund Burke ain't around to tell us