The two parties opposite agendas

[Bfgrn]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer up all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Avatar4321]

Paying people to be unemployed for two years is more than enough.

If you disagree, I'm sorry but maybe you should just start working.

 

[topspin]

bfgrn Elton Jonn called and said your gay'r than fanny packs.

 

[Oddball]

Democrat Party Fabian socialist progressives are all about sacrifice...As long it's someone else doing the sacrificing and them getting the benefits.

 

[Immanuel]

Simply because the two parties have differing philosophies, does not mean that one cares and the other does not.

In the case of unemployment, Liberals/Dems think that they are helping the unemployed by keeping them unemployed and sending them small checks twice a month. Conservatives/Republicans think that they help more by showing tough love and making the unemployed get off their asses and get back to work.

That being said, I don't really think any of the politicians really give a rat's ass about the rest of us, all they care about is convincing enough of us to vote for their side and the power they achieve when we do.

Immie

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Bfgrn]

Democrat Party Fabian socialist progressives are all about sacrifice...As long it's someone else doing the sacrificing and them getting the benefits.

'someone else' Jethro? Is there that much of a disconnect in your little mind, or is it just all your fawning over the elite? It's OK for the Wall Street bankers to sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE'S money and collect huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrifice taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility?

 

[Avatar4321]

Democrat Party Fabian socialist progressives are all about sacrifice...As long it's someone else doing the sacrificing and them getting the benefits.

'someone else' Jethro? Is there that much of a disconnect in your little mind, or is it just all your fawning over the elite? It's OK for the Wall Street bankers to sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE'S money and collect huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrifice taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility?

No. That's why they go to jail.

Course you still defend people like Soros anyway.

 

[Bfgrn]

Simply because the two parties have differing philosophies, does not mean that one cares and the other does not.

In the case of unemployment, Liberals/Dems think that they are helping the unemployed by keeping them unemployed and sending them small checks twice a month. Conservatives/Republicans think that they help more by showing tough love and making the unemployed get off their asses and get back to work.

That being said, I don't really think any of the politicians really give a rat's ass about the rest of us, all they care about is convincing enough of us to vote for their side and the power they achieve when we do.

Immie

Immie, what is the root word in unemployed? It means they HAD a job. The fact that they don't is not because they are lazy or anything they did. Currently there is ONE job for every five people unemployed. What do we do for the FOUR?

 

[Bfgrn]

Democrat Party Fabian socialist progressives are all about sacrifice...As long it's someone else doing the sacrificing and them getting the benefits.

'someone else' Jethro? Is there that much of a disconnect in your little mind, or is it just all your fawning over the elite? It's OK for the Wall Street bankers to sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE'S money and collect huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrifice taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility?

No. That's why they go to jail.

Course you still defend people like Soros anyway.

What Wall Street bankers who destroyed our economy went to jail? Name one that was even charged? Name one that didn't have a huge windfall gain at our expense?

 

[Revere]

All Republicans asked for was to pay for it with unspent stimulus. Democrats don't want to touch that slush fund, though.

 

[Revere]

'someone else' Jethro? Is there that much of a disconnect in your little mind, or is it just all your fawning over the elite? It's OK for the Wall Street bankers to sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE'S money and collect huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrifice taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility?

No. That's why they go to jail.

Course you still defend people like Soros anyway.

What Wall Street bankers who destroyed our economy went to jail? Name one that was even charged? Name one that didn't have a huge windfall gain at our expense?

Ooh, I know. Tim Geithner and Steven Rattner.

Wait, no. They aren't in jail. They went to work for Obama.

 

[Immanuel]

Simply because the two parties have differing philosophies, does not mean that one cares and the other does not.

In the case of unemployment, Liberals/Dems think that they are helping the unemployed by keeping them unemployed and sending them small checks twice a month. Conservatives/Republicans think that they help more by showing tough love and making the unemployed get off their asses and get back to work.

That being said, I don't really think any of the politicians really give a rat's ass about the rest of us, all they care about is convincing enough of us to vote for their side and the power they achieve when we do.

Immie

Immie, what is the root word in unemployed? It means they HAD a job. The fact that they don't is not because they are lazy or anything they did. Currently there is ONE job for every five people unemployed. What do we do for the FOUR?

You will note that I did not say that the unemployed were lazy... I said conservative/republicans believe... making the unemployed get off their asses. I did not say the unemployed were lazy.

Since I am one of those unemployed individuals, I honestly wish I knew what to do. You are correct, most of us are not lazy. The job market sucks right now. Finding a job in this environment has not been easy. I'm nearing 50 years old and I suspect that the few interviews I have gotten have not turned into jobs partly because of my age. But there are other reasons as well, such as for every job offered there are hundreds of resumes received. I know what kind of work I want to do and I have also considered changing my career and/or going back to school. But, I have to tell you, that if it were not for the unemployment checks I have been receiving, I might have already gone about this job search in a different manner and who knows maybe that would have provided some type of employment even in the interim. I could go to work for myself too, but I don't see myself as having the entrepreneurial spirit.

Unfortunately, neither party really gives a crap about the unemployed except for in how they can get votes from them.

My honest opinion is that tough love provides the better results in the long run. However, you can't just leave people high and dry until they find a job either. Not when as you say there is one job out there for every five unemployed individuals.

Immie

 

[Oddball]

Democrat Party Fabian socialist progressives are all about sacrifice...As long it's someone else doing the sacrificing and them getting the benefits.

'someone else' Jethro? Is there that much of a disconnect in your little mind, or is it just all your fawning over the elite? It's OK for the Wall Street bankers to sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE'S money and collect huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrifice taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility?

I'm against bailing them out too, numbnuts.

Next idiotic foaming-at-the-mouth red herring?

 

[The Outsider]

Immie, what is the root word in unemployed? It means they HAD a job.

Obviously you don't know what it means either

 

[Bfgrn]

Simply because the two parties have differing philosophies, does not mean that one cares and the other does not.

In the case of unemployment, Liberals/Dems think that they are helping the unemployed by keeping them unemployed and sending them small checks twice a month. Conservatives/Republicans think that they help more by showing tough love and making the unemployed get off their asses and get back to work.

That being said, I don't really think any of the politicians really give a rat's ass about the rest of us, all they care about is convincing enough of us to vote for their side and the power they achieve when we do.

Immie

Immie, what is the root word in unemployed? It means they HAD a job. The fact that they don't is not because they are lazy or anything they did. Currently there is ONE job for every five people unemployed. What do we do for the FOUR?

You will note that I did not say that the unemployed were lazy... I said conservative/republicans believe... making the unemployed get off their asses. I did not say the unemployed were lazy.

Since I am one of those unemployed individuals, I honestly wish I knew what to do. You are correct, most of us are not lazy. The job market sucks right now. Finding a job in this environment has not been easy. I'm nearing 50 years old and I suspect that the few interviews I have gotten have not turned into jobs partly because of my age. But there are other reasons as well, such as for every job offered there are hundreds of resumes received. I know what kind of work I want to do and I have also considered changing my career and/or going back to school. But, I have to tell you, that if it were not for the unemployment checks I have been receiving, I might have already gone about this job search in a different manner and who knows maybe that would have provided some type of employment even in the interim. I could go to work for myself too, but I don't see myself as having the entrepreneurial spirit.

Unfortunately, neither party really gives a crap about the unemployed except for in how they can get votes from them.

My honest opinion is that tough love provides the better results in the long run. However, you can't just leave people high and dry until they find a job either. Not when as you say there is one job out there for every five unemployed individuals.

Immie

Immie, I wish you luck finding a job. It's tough out there. It's a buyers market for employers, and it will remain that way for a decade or more. Just some of the unintended consequences of Wall Street leveling our economy. I try not to be cynical, but I have read up on 'Disaster capitalism' and Republican guru Grover Norquist did say: ""We're going to crush labor as a political entity" and he wants to "drown government in a bathtub"... if that is really the Republican's intent, then it couldn't have worked out ANY better. This may be 'starve the beast' in action.

I keep hearing from Republicans and right wing talking heads: 'The worst thing you can do is raise someone's taxes during a recession.' Well I have something that trumps that by a long shot; cutting off someone's lifeline when they are hanging on by their fingernails is way beyond that. It is criminal. We are willing to spend more money helping Iraqis than Americans. We have wasted so much blood and treasure with Bush's war of ideology, defense spending that is bloated with waste and cronyism, Fatherland Security which was one of the most egregious BIG government inventions in history.

What is ALWAYS missing from conservatives solutions and rhetoric is people. The human cost and suffering. Their morally bankrupt punishments require some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s public works and assistance programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

 

[Rozman]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer up all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

House Votes Against Jobless Benefits Extension - The Note

How is this the Republicans fault? Some Republicans actually voted for it and 11 Dems voted against it.....

So actually your party screwed the pooch....

 

[California Girl]

Democrat Party Fabian socialist progressives are all about sacrifice...As long it's someone else doing the sacrificing and them getting the benefits.

'someone else' Jethro? Is there that much of a disconnect in your little mind, or is it just all your fawning over the elite? It's OK for the Wall Street bankers to sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE'S money and collect huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrifice taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility?

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, what is the root word in unemployed? It means they HAD a job. The fact that they don't is not because they are lazy or anything they did. Currently there is ONE job for every five people unemployed. What do we do for the FOUR?

You will note that I did not say that the unemployed were lazy... I said conservative/republicans believe... making the unemployed get off their asses. I did not say the unemployed were lazy.

Since I am one of those unemployed individuals, I honestly wish I knew what to do. You are correct, most of us are not lazy. The job market sucks right now. Finding a job in this environment has not been easy. I'm nearing 50 years old and I suspect that the few interviews I have gotten have not turned into jobs partly because of my age. But there are other reasons as well, such as for every job offered there are hundreds of resumes received. I know what kind of work I want to do and I have also considered changing my career and/or going back to school. But, I have to tell you, that if it were not for the unemployment checks I have been receiving, I might have already gone about this job search in a different manner and who knows maybe that would have provided some type of employment even in the interim. I could go to work for myself too, but I don't see myself as having the entrepreneurial spirit.

Unfortunately, neither party really gives a crap about the unemployed except for in how they can get votes from them.

My honest opinion is that tough love provides the better results in the long run. However, you can't just leave people high and dry until they find a job either. Not when as you say there is one job out there for every five unemployed individuals.

Immie

Immie, I wish you luck finding a job. It's tough out there. It's a buyers market for employers, and it will remain that way for a decade or more. Just some of the unintended consequences of Wall Street leveling our economy. I try not to be cynical, but I have read up on 'Disaster capitalism' and Republican guru Grover Norquist did say: ""We're going to crush labor as a political entity" and he wants to "drown government in a bathtub"... if that is really the Republican's intent, then it couldn't have worked out ANY better. This may be 'starve the beast' in action.

I keep hearing from Republicans and right wing talking heads: 'The worst thing you can do is raise someone's taxes during a recession.' Well I have something that trumps that by a long shot; cutting off someone's lifeline when they are hanging on by their fingernails is way beyond that. It is criminal. We are willing to spend more money helping Iraqis than Americans. We have wasted so much blood and treasure with Bush's war of ideology, defense spending that is bloated with waste and cronyism, Fatherland Security which was one of the most egregious BIG government inventions in history.

What is ALWAYS missing from conservatives solutions and rhetoric is people. The human cost and suffering. Their morally bankrupt punishments require some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s public works and assistance programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Ted Sorensen's quote is a lie. I take it that Ted Sorensen is just another frigging politician. Republicans do not care more about property and Democrats do not care more about people. They are about the same in both categories. The difference is the solutions they come up with. For instance, as I said, Republicans believe in the tough love approach while Democrats believe in spoiling the child. I can only say that in my opinion spoiled children grow up to be spoiled adults who expect others to provide for them everything they need and when this happens they get exactly what they deserve... just enough to survive on. On the other hand, the disciplined child, learns how to make it on his/her own. They have to work harder, but the end result is that they earn what they get and they generally get much more out of life than the spoiled child.

Quite frankly, I fall on the side of tough love over spoiling the child. The results in the long run work out better for the child. On the other hand, the parent that uses the tough love approach is seen as not loving or caring about the child. But, who really cares more, the one that bites the bullet and uses some discipline or the one that spoils the child?

Politically and Economically, I suppose I am somewhat in the middle here. Because I believe in the idea of Capitalism, but I do not believe it should be unfettered. I believe that those who will risk their capital should be rewarded for doing so. I believe that we should encourage and reward those risks, but I do not believe that we can afford to let the entrepreneur have free reign because greed is a powerful force and the greedy person seems to forget that we all live in this world and have to drink the water that he would not think twice about polluting.

I believe we need the right combination of liberals AND conservatives leading the country, because both sides have good ideas and to go full bore progressive would utterly destroy economic and political freedom in this country yet too much the other way would stagnate and choke off our freedoms as well.

Health care reform is a good example of this. I cannot think of too many people that do not agree that we needed some kind of reform to the system we had. I have been saying for 10 years or more that the system needed to change or we were going to suffer an economic meltdown. The capitalists believe that the market will correct itself when things get out of hand. It did not and it would not have. In this case, the insurance companies were eating us alive. The free market was never going to correct itself because honest competition was squashed mostly due to the size of the current players and the economic/legal environment we had that prevented alternatives. Yet, the liberal idea which is to simply let the government have full control is in itself a frigging nightmare that will require huge tax increases loss of jobs and loss of our freedom in and of itself.

Something had to be done and the free market was not going to do it, but IMHO big government is not the answer either. I do not want Nancy Pelosi running my health insurer. I don't trust her or any of her cohorts regardless of party. I do not believe that in this particular instance, government control is the answer. It is a step closer to socialism.

I don't have the answer as to how to fix Health Care, but I don't think the free market will fix it and I damn sure don't want to live in a socialistic country, so I don't want Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama providing their version of the quick fix either, because their quick fix makes me think of the Third Reich. Go to jail for not having health insurance!! Was she born in America or NAZI Germany?

As for raising taxes, I hear people promote "trickle down" economics and then I hear people promote President Obama's "flood the basement" economics. Everyone seems to praise one of these and condemn the other. I think they both work at different times. When taxes are too high, cutting taxes and opening up investment opportunities may very well work to boost tax revenues. However, when taxes are low, as they are today trickle down doesn't do squat for the economy. By the way, President Obama's "flooding the basement" hasn't done squat either and it won't always work even if it did. For the time being though regardless of which theory works in the here and now, boosting revenue is not going to accomplish a damned thing when congress simply spends the increase. As far as I can tell, the only thing that will work is to boost tax revenues and CUT SPENDING!

Congress refuses to do more than pay lip service to cutting spending so we're screwed... by the way, it doesn't seem to matter whether it is a Democrat or a Republican controlled congress. Neither side seems to want to be the fiscally responsible disciplined side and cut spending.

Immie

 

[Harry Dresden]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer up all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

i know what your saying .....but when does it stop?......and i am being serious....how long should benefits go on?