Top Line, whos fault is it

[Riverwind]

Top Line Scholar Norman Ornstein is pointing fingers in a new book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks," co-authored with Thomas Mann. Congress is partisan and polarizing, and one party, said Ornstein, bears the brunt of the blame.
"I wouldn't say it's all Republicans," said Ornstein, "it's 80-20 at this point."
"When you look at the data, including voting records ... the Democrats have moved left, to probably their own 25 yard line. President Obama's probably around the 40," said the American Enterprise Institute scholar. "The Republicans have moved behind their own goal post."
Check out this week's Top Line to hear Ornstein break down recent history and the gridlock in Washington.


What do you think?

River

[moi621]

Another smoke screen to the unholy relationship between
Democrats and Big Money, corporations, banks, etc. expressed by de facto Regressive Tax Codes and irresponsible deregulation at tax payer costs.
We expect it of the GOP, but it took decades of bi partisan effort from the avowed Anti New Dealer, JFK (tax cuts) to those of today to achieve the disparity of wealth and government debt of today.

Both parties have been serving the 1%.
The window dressing is just the <self serving> Liberals <traitor> being willing to tax the Middle Middle more to pay for "nice" programs for the poor. That's moving left!
Liberals !
It took five decades what it took the Israeli's six decades to achieve. (ref. Disparity of wealth)

Moi
Populist, remember


A Yahoo News blog on the same topic.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-pl...mt-container-b
Let a broader audience know what you think. Or not

[A-1]

moi,

...there you go again?

Do you see shades of grey or is EVERYTHING BLACK AND WHITE to you?

As far as disparity of wealth, well, your friend baby Bush (aka "THE SHRUB") did that...

[moi621]

moi,

...there you go again?

Do you see shades of grey or is EVERYTHING BLACK AND WHITE to you?

As far as disparity of wealth, well, your friend baby Bush (aka "THE SHRUB") did that...

Study up.
It took more then one party and one Presidency to create the current disparity of wealth.
It happened over decades. Not eight years.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ca-chart-graph

Black & White you say.
Why do you think they call it the simple truth.

[Riverwind]

Moi, which president lowered the income tax rate for the rich?


A: Reagan

Moi, which president lowered the capital gains tax on the rich?

A: Bush Sr.


Moi, which president lowered both?


A: Bush Jr.


Moi, Which president lowered the income tax rate from 90% to 54%?

A: Kennedy.

and he was the only one that was right.


but I love the way you can't bring yourself to blame republicans for their misconduct but have no problem blaming the Democrats for helping the Republicans fuck the country.

It is clear to me that it must all be the democrats fault right moi?


River the wise

[curious1111]

the only reason taxes were 90 percent in the 50s was to pay off the war debt of WW2

once it was paid off it makes sense to lower rates

the only reason we have income taxes was to pay for wars

the taxes were to go away after the debt was paid but never did because Washington enjoyed spending money too much

[Cainanite]

the only reason taxes were 90 percent in the 50s was to pay off the war debt of WW2

once it was paid off it makes sense to lower rates

the only reason we have income taxes was to pay for wars

the taxes were to go away after the debt was paid but never did because Washington enjoyed spending money too much

You are correct, and I hadn't been thinking about that.

Well... the USA currently has both the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war to pay off. Would it make sense for the USA to expect its citizens to pay for those wars the way they paid for WW2?

[moi621]

Y'wanna have a War (Powers Act).
Make a "War (Powers Act) Tax for each occurrence to be funded should it be prolonged; beyond budgeted Global Police actions.

I say Kennedy started the Anti New Deal, Tax Breaks for the Rich. That's all.
And the Democrats exerted no palpable leadership to oppose a problem that started in the early sixties.
Sure, the mostest occurred on the GOP watch. What do you expect?
I expect the Democrats, the Liberals, consistently support a Progressive Tax code.
That is too much to expect. These last decades show.
Did the Democrats filibuster. Rant. Have breath holding fits with any tax break legislation? Yup!
Outstandingly bad leadership or duplicity.

Moi
Populist. Rich Liberals are NOT to be trusted.
Unless they PROVE themselves beyond talk. Ms. Pelosi.

[Riverwind]

Y'wanna have a War (Powers Act).
Make a "War (Powers Act) Tax for each occurrence to be funded should it be prolonged; beyond budgeted Global Police actions.

I say Kennedy started the Anti New Deal, Tax Breaks for the Rich. That's all.
And the Democrats exerted no palpable leadership to oppose a problem that started in the early sixties.
Sure, the mostest occurred on the GOP watch. What do you expect?
I expect the Democrats, the Liberals, consistently support a Progressive Tax code.
That is too much to expect. These last decades show.
Did the Democrats filibuster. Rant. Have breath holding fits with any tax break legislation? Yup!
Outstandingly bad leadership or duplicity.

Moi
Populist. Rich Liberals are NOT to be trusted.
Unless they PROVE themselves beyond talk. Ms. Pelosi.

NO moi, they were told to go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up, as the Republicans were in charge or did you forget that the Republicans had both houses for 6 years of Mr. Bush (the shrubs) watch.

River

[moi621]

NO moi, they were told to go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up, as the Republicans were in charge or did you forget that the Republicans had both houses for 6 years of Mr. Bush (the shrubs) watch.

River

And they did as they were told.
That is the problem!

A failure of leadership or duplicity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4D14aMMBTM
For a good time, listen to it all, now more then ever, for a

Go ahead, Place just a wee bit of responsibility on the Democratic Party.
For objectivity sake.

[A-1]

Moi,

Hmmm. Should I make the "pet monkey" analogy? NAW!


It matters not how many times that it has been said,
It matters not not how big the lies are,
The fact IS, LIES ARE STILL LIES...

Now, the Republicans favor the RICH.
The Democrats favor the rest of us.

It is that simple.

(It is not biochemistry NOR is it rocket science).

FACTOID: Supporting the Rich DOES NOT make you rich. It makes you a suck-up lackey.

[Mac]

Moi,

Hmmm. Should I make the "pet monkey" analogy? NAW!


It matters not how many times that it has been said,
It matters not not how big the lies are,
The fact IS, LIES ARE STILL LIES...

Now, the Republicans favor the RICH.
The Democrats favor the rest of us.

It is that simple.

(It is not biochemistry NOR is it rocket science).

FACTOID: Supporting the Rich DOES NOT make you rich. It makes you a suck-up lackey.

The middle class has traditionally been victum of both political parties; funding the major portion of all govermnent programs. They pay the majority of the expense and get the least of the benefits.

[moi621]

The middle class has traditionally been victum of both political parties; funding the major portion of all govermnent programs. They pay the majority of the expense and get the least of the benefits.

That is bi-partisan corporationism.
The opposite of Progressive but some still call it Liberal

Moi

[Riverwind]

The middle class has traditionally been victum of both political parties; funding the major portion of all govermnent programs. They pay the majority of the expense and get the least of the benefits.

Sounds like you like it, you keep voting republican.

River