I Dont Get It

[accuratehorn]

I don't get it-how a buch of people can think that 99% of what Rush Limbaugh spews is the truth, and what mainstream media reports is some sort of invented conspiracy.
I don't get it-how in a bad economy caused by multiple huge problems, that people think electing someone whose economic policies benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else will improve the economy miraculously and instantlty.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
But in answer to your question, I suppose it is the American public having to decide between two and only two choices for president, and which choice would likely improve the economy better for the long run for the majority, not the short term gain by a select few.

 

[Horns11]

The answer is clear: vote for Gary Johnson.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Perham1]

Cut spending, including welfare entitlements and defense; raise taxes.

What is it that both political parties don't get? What is it that the public doesn't get?

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Sip94]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Burnt Orangeman]

Romney wants to do the same stuff Bush did that failed.
I don't get how that's supposed to work the 2nd time around.

I think you have to do something for the middle class. Then they can buy the products and services the rich boys provide. Then everybody wins. I think Obama is better for the middle class.

 

[Monahorns]

The economy didn't fail because of any Bush policies.

The Clinton administration started intimidating banks to get them lend to people who didn't qualify under standard rules. Fast forward years later those people couldn't pay their mortgages, which lead to defaults which lead to the real estate industry problems.

Anything Bush did that affected the economy Obama has done plus much more like stimulus, deficit spending. If you didn't like Bush, you should hate Obama. What you are saying is that Bush is bad but Bush on steroids is great. That's irrational.

 

[Horns11]

"What you are saying is that Bush is bad but Bush on steroids is great. That's irrational."

The dollar amount versus the percent increase from the previous administration isn't even close. I agree that spending more isn't the answer.

Also, the mortgages that failed were the ones that lenders were giving from 2005-08, not during the Clinton years. While Slick Willie surely has some responsibility in it, Bush didn't do jack **** to stem the tide. I'll try to find a link.

 

[Crockett]

Peham -- I think people don't get it because they think there is a way out that will exclude themselves from sacrifice. Rich people want tax breaks. Their mindset is always to maximize their money and there is no point at which they will say "I have enough it's time to share.". Businessmen want credit for creating the entire infrastructure and freedom from onerous regulation -- and they see all regulation as onerous. Poor people want food stamps and the working poor want tax returns even if none was withheld. Liberals want poor folks to go to the doctor instead of the emergency room. Medical practitioners want protections for monopoloy on delivery of drugs and services, fair compensation for treating Medicare and Medicaid recipients and drug companies want to cover all their R&D/ovehread costs in America.

Problem is when you give everybody what they want, nobody looks out for the overall enterprise. Working folks have little bargaining power for better wages and benefits, even though if everyone in the economy started rewarding the dramatic productivity of the workforce here in the US there would be a helluva a lot more money in circulation and business oppportunities for all classes.