Monday, December 20, 2010

Once Again Rosa DeLauro Votes Against Her District

Why she got reelected is beyond me. Why the people of Connecticut's Third Congressional District vote for her is amazing. She in my economic opinion does not in any way represent this district. Representative DeLauro voted against the extension of the Bush tax cuts, she actually voted against her President. Her President who is economically challenged when dealing with economic issues. She apparently voted against the bill because of supposed tax cuts for the 2% of the most wealthy and that it does not create enough jobs. As an economist I fail to see how the top 2% are getting such a massive cut in this bill, if anything those who leave $5 million dollars in inheritances will see the federal government steal 35% of it now. That money has been taxed numerous times already. Why is that justified? How did DeLauro's vote for socialized health care and the Obama stimulus package actually create jobs for our economy either? They were both job killers.
Once again she has voted against her district. Why is she our Representative?

5 comments:

twodox said...

It is wonderful how you manage to form opinions devoid of any facts. The stimulus did in fact create many jobs, just not enough to turn the economy. The Bush tax cuts, which have been in place for nine years, led to the greatest recession in decades.

And, for the record, the vote was to repeal the Bush tax increase, which was in his original package and supported by all the Republicans who were in office at the time. This was their little "trick" to go with their treat. It was necessary under their own rules to pretend that these cuts would not balloon our deficits (which they did.) That was the last time the Republicans claimed to care about deficits, a zeal they have recently rediscovered.

Bob Swick said...

Yes I normally form opinions devoid of facts that is why I am an economist and why individuals like you must defend DeLauro, Obama and the failed policies of the Democrat party with ridiculous statements such as that. How economically the Bush tax cuts led to the "greatest recession" in decades shows economic illiteracy in my opinion.

twodox said...

Let's see: (Per the U.S. BEA)

GDP growth p.a. (constant dollars) during Clinton years (with higher taxes): 3.79%

During Bush years with benefit of the tax cuts: 1.75% (Worst of any modern President.)

The latter is the worst of any postwar President. (You might also read Paul Krugman's column in today's NYT. He is writing about you.)

Bob Swick said...

I have no desire to read his economic bias. Good luck with your skewed view of the economy.

red06525 said...

Bob- you speak the truth. Why do the libs always quote the Clinton years as though he was at all responsible for the growth which happened then? The Republican Congree pushed Clinton kicking and crying to their point of view, he was smart and step out of the way and gets the credit for the 90's being a good decade. People forget the Dems have run Congress since 2006 and could have change GWB's budgets, etc- they didn't.