House GOP to vote NO on stimulus package

editec said:
Consider this your opportunity then to provide at least one of said examples...
Click to expand...

I can provide a few rather easily...

Source Wikipedia

You want me to do the same regarding tax laws?

That is rather more difficult sinc eht toxic tax benefits of which I speak are often BURIED in some bill having little to do with taxation.

Tell you what...let's see how you respond to the above list first, before I waste my time giving you example after example of things that I understand are fucking over our people, shall I?
Click to expand...
so, you want to go back to the isolationist policies of the 1920's?


seems to me that was part of what CAUSED the great depression in the first place

how come so many dems of today are as stupid as the republicans of the early 20th century
 
Edi, what union you shilling for half the stuff you post sound like it came striaght out of an AFL CIO handbill from twenty years ago.

Free trade is the best thing ever happended to working people when it is actually free trade. Take The sort of Communist China out of the poicture and we have nearly a trade surplus, Remove Japan and we do.
 
Bern80 said:
editec said:
Consider this your opportunity then to provide at least one of said examples...
Click to expand...

I can provide a few rather easily...

Source Wikipedia

You want me to do the same regarding tax laws?

That is rather more difficult sinc eht toxic tax benefits of which I speak are often BURIED in some bill having little to do with taxation.

Tell you what...let's see how you respond to the above list first, before I waste my time giving you example after example of things that I understand are fucking over our people, shall I?
Click to expand...

Okay, free trade.

Do non-free trade policies protect american jobs, jobs that are typically middle to lower income? Yes.

And upper incomes, too, sport. Workers and management sort of go hand in hand, ya know.

In the short term.
Click to expand...

That sort term benefit you're dismissing actually lasted about 200 years, and was responsible for American workers having the highest standard of living in the world. Something that we definitely no longer have, I might add.

In the long term it inflates the price of of goods so everything costs more for everyone than it would if those policies weren't in place.
Click to expand...

Not really. Sneakers are actually more expensive now than the were (in terms of the time it takes an average worker) to buy one.


Can you imagine how much a television would cost If we tried to protect that from foreign competition.
Click to expand...

No, can you?

We can both imagine a lot of things, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.


The question is who's pocket book are you more willing to sacrafice?
Click to expand...

No that isn't the question -- the important question is whose national economy are you willing to sacrifice?


The workers (who worst case would have lose a job and possibly retrain themselves to do something else)
Click to expand...

I think I've missed your point above. Unemployed and under employed workers in America wouldn't be losing their jobs.


or the consumers(who worst case will continue to pay higher costs one everything for as long as those policies are in place)?
Click to expand...

I don't know how old you are, and I am not trying to play they "you're immature game" but I was alive when America was the manufacturing giant of the world and the world's largest creditor, too.

Damned little cost us much more then than it costs us now, amigo.

Of course consumer electonics did, but that had more to do with the newness of them (and their actual costs to produce since they used TUBE technolgoy) but really that is about the extent of it.

Shoes were more expensive, but then too they weren't plastic pieces of shit like most of the cheapies are now, either.

Shirts suits and so forth? Well they were a tad more expensive than they seem to be now except again, the QAULITY of them was FAR superior to what passes for garments, today, too.

I see NO real benefit to the system we have now and I actually lived in BOTH economic systems.
Click to expand...
 
I think I've missed your point above. Unemployed and under employed workers in America wouldn't be losing their jobs.

Quite true. It is damn hard to lose something you never would have had anyway.
 
Robert_Santurri said:
The problem with the Republicans here is they can knock down this package all they want; but the American people want solutions.

The Republicans as far as I know have offered none other then to let all these companies and businesses fail.

That's not a solution, that's called sitting on your ass when you're suppose to represent the people who vote for you; the same ones who are losing their jobs right now.
Click to expand...

Tax Cuts are the solution.

Across the board.

The government can not put any money into the economy that it did not first take out of the economy.

Every penny the government spends on a bailout was either, taken from the economy in the form of taxes, loans(which drive up the price to barrow) or by printing new money(which drives down the value of said money)

So only an idiot would actually think this retarded, Bloated spending spree is an economic stimulus plan, it is nothing more than a whole lot of new spending which will simply multiply our problems.

Welcome to Obama?pelosi Economics.

you guys think the last 8 years of republican spending were bad, hold on to your hat, Obama, and Pelosi seem bound and determined to make Bush and the Republicans look fiscally responsible next to them.

Hundreds of millions of dollars for things like polishing a statue, and handing out condoms, are just a few of the STUPID spending programs that are in this joke of a bill.

I only find one silver lining in all this. Soon you Dems and Libs will have nothing to hide behind, soon the American people will see the disaster in action that will be the Democrat economic plan, and you people will not be able to blame anyone but yourselves.

Obama will see no more than 4 years in office, and by 4 to 6 years from now Republicans will be back in control of congress as well.

If that is the Dems continue down this misguided path.
 
michiganFats said:
I for one will not be fooled by the GOP. They can oppose the stimulus and try to portray themselves as champions of limited government, but their recent history proves otherwise. The headline should read "GOP will oppose this particular version of the stimulus package".

I know this is conjecture on my part, but I seriously doubt the GOP would oppose a stimulus package if McCain had won the Presidency and the GOP hadn't have taken a colossal bitch-slapping in the Congressional races.
Click to expand...
I have no idea who to support anymore. I have no party affiliation. I view myself as a conservative but I value the idea of being a pragmatist more. If an idea makes sense for a particular situation and is dynamic in nature then even a liberal proposition will garner my support.

For instance, when President Obama discussed a serious investment in infrastructure and renewable energies, I was willing to listen. When he discussed the supposed transparent nature of his ideas and his declaration that sweet savory pork was going to meet the fell stroke of the veto pen, I was listening. I figured these propositions sounded much more desirable than the path the leader of the GOP chose which is basically a what, when, and where the hell did the money go? Of course, as recent days have shown President Obama is not following through.

But with that said the stimulus/bail out package is a colossal GOP mistake and one in which they have to accept responsibility for. President Bush's plan had no real concrete direction, lacked initial oversight (surprise), and provided zero transparency. As you said, I have little doubt myself, if President Obama was President McCain the GOP would be digging the lint out of our back pockets. There were some who stood up but far too few. The GOP will not regain my trust until those who voted for TARP are gone.
 
Is a vote against the stimulus plan a vote *for* recession? According to the BBC, this is the prevailing attitude on the hill. House members who could not imagine voting against *any* assistance package might appear callous to voters, ignoring that the market has plummeted from artificial levels, and that injections of capital are rather like drastic measures taken to assure that an exec is not deprived of his fourth shiatsu massage, and Joe the Plumber well in reach of his Double Whopper.
 
Last edited:
Which recent history woiuld that Be The Gingrich Republicans who balanced the Budget inspite of the Dems or the Bush Republicans who managed to out spend the Dems.

It's all about the leadership. Mr. Bush's Democrat lite rinos got hammered and rightfully so. The only people hurt worse than they in this election were the Alphabet Soup media who revealed themselves for what they are namely a bunch simpering leftist swine without so much as a shred of intellectual integrity. MSNBC has the smallest audience of any of the 24 hour News Services and is largely viewed only by people who tilt so far to the left that they can no longer walk but roll about like ten pins mostly in the direction of the gutter. NBC the mother ship is only slightly better. Fox News the network the left loves to hate Has a larger audience than any other three news shows combined. And you idiots keep trying to tell me this is a center left country...
 
clars said:
Is a vote against the stimulus plan a vote *for* recession? According to the BBC, this is the prevailing attitude on the hill. House members who could not imagine voting against *any* assistance package might appear callous to voters, ignoring that the market has plummeted from artificial levels, and that injections of capital are rather like drastic measures taken to assure that an exec is not deprived of his fourth shiatsu massage, and Joe the Plumber well in reach of his Double Whopper. Should there be such a price tag for politicians to be loved, and feel like they are acting the part of good politicians?

Should all of us be entitled to *enjoy* at any cost?
Click to expand...

What's this got to do with Pelosi's facelift? One would think if you are going to make an accusatory, sensationlist thread title, you could at least mention it once in your editorializing.
 
garyd said:
Edi, what union you shilling for half the stuff you post sound like it came striaght out of an AFL CIO handbill from twenty years ago.

Free trade is the best thing ever happended to working people when it is actually free trade. Take The sort of Communist China out of the poicture and we have nearly a trade surplus, Remove Japan and we do.
Click to expand...

Journalist Ian Austen reported for the New York Times 8 February 2007:
Nortel to Cut Another 3,900 Jobs ...About 1,000 of those positions will be shifted to lower-cost operations in Mexico, China and India.
Click to expand...

Are you denying this report that "1,000 of those positions will be shifted to lower-cost operations in Mexico, China and India"?

Proponents of free trade agreements are proponents of RACE TO THE BOTTOM

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-10.htm

Free Trade at the Fore of Races - Los Angeles Times



-
 
Last edited:
They've been there all along, voting against the American people.
1) When asked whether they favor or oppose an "economic stimulus" plan that would cost $800 billion or so (give or take a hundred million), Americans generally express support in the mid-50-percent range.
2) When pollsters also provide an explicit "do not have an opinion" option, as NBC/Wall Street Journal and (presumably) Rasmussen do, support falls to the mid-40 percent range and (on the NBC/WSJ poll at least) opposition also falls proportionately.
3) When the questions provide more information on how the $800 billion (or so) will be spent, usually specifying a combination of tax cuts and transportation, education and energy projects," support grows to mid-60 low-70 percent range.
4) Only one question -- again from NBC/Wall Street Journal -- poses explicit arguments for and against the proposal, and it produces a slightly higher level of support (57%) than the first category of questions that mention only the overall price tag and omits a specific prompt for "no opinion."
5) Every question shows net support for the proposal.
​
Click to expand...
Pollster.com: Economic Stimulus and the Many Faces of "Public Opinion"
 
Ravi said:
They've been there all along, voting against the American people.
1) When asked whether they favor or oppose an "economic stimulus" plan that would cost $800 billion or so (give or take a hundred million), Americans generally express support in the mid-50-percent range.
2) When pollsters also provide an explicit "do not have an opinion" option, as NBC/Wall Street Journal and (presumably) Rasmussen do, support falls to the mid-40 percent range and (on the NBC/WSJ poll at least) opposition also falls proportionately.
3) When the questions provide more information on how the $800 billion (or so) will be spent, usually specifying a combination of tax cuts and transportation, education and energy projects," support grows to mid-60 low-70 percent range.
4) Only one question -- again from NBC/Wall Street Journal -- poses explicit arguments for and against the proposal, and it produces a slightly higher level of support (57%) than the first category of questions that mention only the overall price tag and omits a specific prompt for "no opinion."
5) Every question shows net support for the proposal.
​
Click to expand...
Pollster.com: Economic Stimulus and the Many Faces of "Public Opinion"
Click to expand...

Do the polls say that most of that money won't even get spent until 2010?
Do the polls state that the largest amount of spending is not for direct stimulus spending but rather appropriations, otherwise known as earmarks?

The bill is a bad idea and voting against it is NOT voting against the "people"
 
garyd said:
Edi, what union you shilling for half the stuff you post sound like it came striaght out of an AFL CIO handbill from twenty years ago.
Click to expand...

"AFL CIO" also promotes RACE TO THE BOTTOM

I posted this awhile back on another message board:

From Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) WebSite:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL POLICY — Despite some recent positive indicators, our economy continues to struggle. Since January 2001, the United States has lost close to three million manufacturing jobs. Michigan 's unemployment rate is among the highest in the nation. Our country is also back into a very deep deficit ditch.

Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

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

Taking a look at Senator Levin VOTING RECORD on Free Trade Agreements, I wonder at the audacity of the "AFL-CIO" to proclaim this senator "pro-union". Even the local unions are supporting this senator for re-election to the Senate "representing" Michigan, and thus subsidizing their own demise.

6s9ju40.gif



AFL ENDORSES DURBIN

In 2004, a friend sent to me an Email concerning remarks that Senator Durbin (D, Illinois) had entered into the Congressional Record 11 February 2004. The Senator had gone to the Walter Reed Hospital with some other Senators to have lunch with some of the wounded soldiers there who had returned from battle in Iraq. The soldiers told of some of the battles they were in, and how they were injured, mostly from rocket fire and roadside bombs penetrating the light armor of their vehicles. The Senators asked what they, as Congressmen, could do to help, and the soldiers mentioned that it would help a lot if the vehicles were fitted with a heavier plated door; that they were invading scrap yards to install plating on their vehicles in an effort to protect themselves.

Senator Durbin related that he visited the Rock Island Arsenal in his home State of Illinois where the new heavier plated doors were being fitted on the vehicles.

From the Congressional Record:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I said to the commander at the arsenal: How long will it take us now? We need 8,400 sets and we are also doing them at Anniston. He said: We are going to get these doors built in one year.

One year? In World War II, we were building bombers in 72 hours and ships in 30 and 60 days, and we need 1 year to make the armor-plated doors to protect the Humvees so that fewer of our men and women in uniform will have to go to Walter Reed Hospital for prosthetic devices and medical treatment.

I said: Why is it taking one year? He said: Because there is only one steel-fabricating plant left in America, and it is in Pennsylvania. It makes the steel that we can convert into the armor plating for these doors. We are using everything they produce as fast as they produce it.

So when the issue comes up about loss of manufacturing jobs, and loss of American jobs, and loss of our industrial base, it is more than a cold discussion of statistics; it is a discussion about the reality of our economy and the reality we face. Whether you live in North Carolina, where we have lost textile jobs, or you live in Illinois, where we have lost steel jobs, the fact is, as we lose these jobs, we lose our capacity. When it comes to something as basic as steel, that capacity plays out so that our soldiers in Iraq today are more vulnerable to enemy attack because we cannot produce the steel in America.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote back in an Email: "Senator Richard Durbin, a Democrat, while a Congressman in the House of Representatives representing his constituents in Illinois, voted for the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), GATT (General Agreement on Tariff and Trade), and when he became a Senator representing the State of Illinois in the Congress, voted for the China trade agreement, the Chile free trade agreement, and the Singapore free trade agreement."

These hypocrites in Congress new very well what would happen. It was predicted over two hundred years ago. Now they have put our soldiers, and the whole country, at risk in this economic regression.

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

US/CHINA/TRADE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is rare when a government official actually blames himself for his mistakes. That straight talk occurred in the June 4 issue of Foreign Policy in Focus when Robert Cassidy, President Clinton's Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Asia and China, took himself to task for the trade agreement he negotiated with China. He began: "As the principal negotiator for the landmark market access agreement that led to China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), I have reflected on whether the agreements we negotiated really lived up to our expectations. A sober reflection has led me to conclude that those trade agreements did not." Cassidy notes that only two groups benefited from our trade agreement with China: "multinational companies that moved to China and the financial institutions that financed those investments, trade flows, and deficits." The American economy and the American worker were the big losers with up to 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE FREE TRADE

HOUSE FREE TRADE



-
 
Last edited:
Ravi said:
They've been there all along, voting against the American people.
1) When asked whether they favor or oppose an "economic stimulus" plan that would cost $800 billion or so (give or take a hundred million), Americans generally express support in the mid-50-percent range.
2) When pollsters also provide an explicit "do not have an opinion" option, as NBC/Wall Street Journal and (presumably) Rasmussen do, support falls to the mid-40 percent range and (on the NBC/WSJ poll at least) opposition also falls proportionately.
3) When the questions provide more information on how the $800 billion (or so) will be spent, usually specifying a combination of tax cuts and transportation, education and energy projects," support grows to mid-60 low-70 percent range.
4) Only one question -- again from NBC/Wall Street Journal -- poses explicit arguments for and against the proposal, and it produces a slightly higher level of support (57%) than the first category of questions that mention only the overall price tag and omits a specific prompt for "no opinion."
5) Every question shows net support for the proposal.
​
Click to expand...
Pollster.com: Economic Stimulus and the Many Faces of "Public Opinion"
Click to expand...



That's just donkeycrap!
 
This is a good opportunity for Obama to REALLY show some of the bipartisanship he campaigned on and work with the GOP to make a better but not fatter bill.
 
Lawrence B. Lindsey: How About a Payroll Tax Stimulus? - WSJ.com

And what of the plan being put forward now? As crafted, it is unlikely to produce the desired results. For a similar amount of money, the government could essentially cut the payroll tax in half, taking three points off the rate for both the employer and the employee. This would put $1,500 into the pocket of a typical worker making $50,000, with a similar amount going to his or her employer. It would provide a powerful stimulus to the spending stream, as well as a significant, six percentage point reduction in the tax burden of employment for people making less than $100,000. The effects would be immediate.



But why would the government not want people to keep more of their own money?

Answer: because they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.
 
Skull

It is as simple as this... the most effective "stimulus" is to have more $$$ in the hands of people who then spend, save, and choose what to do with their money..

But that does not give these politicians power.. when THEY can direct the $$$, they assume power, they up their influence... which is what they are all about... it is not about the people, it is not about the economy, it is not about what is best... it is simply about their power
 
People, the idea of the obamalama is to take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't. So called trickle up economics or wealth redistribution. Pure and simple. He promised us he would do it. And Pelsoi sprained her leg towing the party line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Economic Crisis, Congressional Reward

< Previous Thread

House REJECTS delay in switching to digital

Next Thread >

Similar threads

AMart
Senate GOP Border Deal Leaked: Migrants to Get Work Permits, Lawyers, Green Cards
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
1K
billyerock123
B
Weatherman2020
Dave Barry’s 2023 Year in Review: Yes, the situation is hopeless
Replies
14
Views
1K
August West
A
J
Republican Establishment Not Trump To Blame For No Red Wave!
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
miketx
miketx
task0778
Pelosi delays vote on bipartisan infrastructure bill
Replies
12
Views
426
Indeependent
Indeependent
task0778
House Dem to vote NO on $3.5 tril Bill
Replies
18
Views
805
Dagosa
Dagosa

Latest Discussions

1srelluc
Joe Biden uses team of walkers to hide shuffling gait’
Replies
7
Views
35
two_iron
two_iron
Independentthinker
Trump Has A First Amendment Right To Say The Election Was Stolen
56 57 58
Replies
1K
Views
105K
GLASNOST
GLASNOST
Orangecat
Zone1 A question for the USMB left.
17 18 19
Replies
369
Views
3K
IM2
IM2
Roy C
Can anyone demonstrate one lie Trump told?
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
9K
Blisterfinger
Blisterfinger
E
Alvin Bragg
Replies
9
Views
61
22lcidw
2
View more…

Forum List

Back
Top