A one time attempt to stimulate the economy does not equal "redistribution of wealth"

[The Rabbi]

Dr Greg: This was just a one-time thing and everyone is calling Obama a socialist. It isn't fair.
Others: It isn't a one time thing. He passed the stimulus bill and now he's passing a "jobs" bill.
Dr Greg: But so did Bush.

Get your story straight, Dr Greg. Whether Bush passed a stimulus bill (which he did, with Pelosi's help and encouragement) or not is irrelevant. Obama passed an unprecedented amount of "stimulus" in terms of GDP. That failed. Now he is passig a second measure but because the first sucked he can't call it "stimulus." So it's a "jobs bill." Yeah, right

 

[Maple]

They passed a stimulus bill last year, and this year they are not because they changed the name of it to a "jobs bill"

That kinda looks like something that is happening every year, at least so far.

First stimulus was under Bush, no?

None of the stimulus bills have worked, Obama passed before ANYONE had a chance to read the damn thing a 787 billion dollar stimulus bill that has yet to create ANY jobs in the PRIVATE SECTOR. He did that in Feb of 2009. Bush passed rebate checks, you got $600 dollars per taxpayer, it's a one time check and one time checks do NOTHING to stimulate the economy over the long term. It's across the board tax cuts, with government tightening their belts that has ALWAYS worked for private sector growth. More on Obama and the re-distribution of wealth- he is all for it as long as HE doesn't have to share HIS wealth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsapJii1rMY]YouTube - Barack Obama On Redistribution of Wealth[/ame]

 

[beowolfe]

Now, if every year Obama and the dems pass a stimulus package, you may have a point. But this was a one time thing to try and overcome a horrible economy. so why the insistence on claiming Obama's going to turn the country entirely socialist, or that he's for redistrubuction of wealth, when for decades wealthy people paid a higher percentage in taxes, and occurred under both parties.

That's yet another example of partisan hackery dishonesty. You can make points without resorting to that bullshit, or can the ones that make those claims actually put forth an intelligent argument?

Because he is for the re-distribution of wealth- just a reminder-

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM]YouTube - Obama-Spread the wealth around[/ame]

So, you equate 'spread the wealth around' with re-distribution! Another example of words having no meaning.

 

[DiamondDave]

Try discerning Diamond Dave? how about posting here instead of commenting in a neg rep, so everybody can see? Umm, I don't think the morons that rant and rave about Obama even know what they are arguing, just blasting him because they are stupid partisan hacks. Maybe you people should make it clear, cause its hard to see a point through all the rants and childish name calling of Obama.

Try understanding what people argue about with redistribution of wealth.. and what they argue with with expanded government.. and discerning between the 2

There.. that better, asshole??

 

[beowolfe]

They passed a stimulus bill last year, and this year they are not because they changed the name of it to a "jobs bill"

That kinda looks like something that is happening every year, at least so far.

First stimulus was under Bush, no?

None of the stimulus bills have worked, Obama passed before ANYONE had a chance to read the damn thing a 787 billion dollar stimulus bill that has yet to create ANY jobs in the PRIVATE SECTOR. He did that in Feb of 2009. Bush passed rebate checks, you got $600 dollars per taxpayer, it's a one time check and one time checks do NOTHING to stimulate the economy over the long term. It's across the board tax cuts, with government tightening their belts that has ALWAYS worked for private sector growth. More on Obama and the re-distribution of wealth- he is all for it as long as HE doesn't have to share HIS wealth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsapJii1rMY]YouTube - Barack Obama On Redistribution of Wealth[/ame]

First, your pemise that none of the stimulus bills have worked is contrary to the evidence that's out there. Second...Obama didn't pass anything, the congress did. Obama signed off on what congress passed. But I don't think that presenting facts to you will do anything. You're spouting GOP talking points. As for no-one reading the stimulus bill, heck I read it. So, if some congressperson didn't read it, it's because they chose not to read it and I don't think you can blame anyone for that except those congresspeople.

 

[WillowTree]

Now, if every year Obama and the dems pass a stimulus package, you may have a point. But this was a one time thing to try and overcome a horrible economy. so why the insistence on claiming Obama's going to turn the country entirely socialist, or that he's for redistrubuction of wealth, when for decades wealthy people paid a higher percentage in taxes, and occurred under both parties.

That's yet another example of partisan hackery dishonesty. You can make points without resorting to that bullshit, or can the ones that make those claims actually put forth an intelligent argument?

Because he is for the re-distribution of wealth- just a reminder-

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM]YouTube - Obama-Spread the wealth around[/ame]

So, you equate 'spread the wealth around' with re-distribution! Another example of words having no meaning.

what does spread the wealth around mean to you?

 

[beowolfe]

Try discerning Diamond Dave? how about posting here instead of commenting in a neg rep, so everybody can see? Umm, I don't think the morons that rant and rave about Obama even know what they are arguing, just blasting him because they are stupid partisan hacks. Maybe you people should make it clear, cause its hard to see a point through all the rants and childish name calling of Obama.

Try understanding what people argue about with redistribution of wealth.. and what they argue with with expanded government.. and discerning between the 2

There.. that better, asshole??

Your post would be valid if there was anyone out there trying to re-distribute wealth on a grand scale. This administration is doing what practically every other administration has done before it. They're using the tax code to reward some behaviors and discourage others. Now, you may disagree with their targets, but you can show no examples of this administration doing anything that is beyond the pale when compared with previous administrations. Big government? I can understand that concept, but I have a real hard time with people who didn't have a problem with big government under republican control all of a sudden having a problem with big government under democratic control. For that reason, and that reason alone, it all appears as just rank partisianship to me.

The GOP passed an unfunded medicare Rx drug bill. The 'conservatives' punished Bush by re-electing him. So, again, pardon me if I continue to think you all are just partisian hacks.

 

[The Rabbi]

First, your pemise that none of the stimulus bills have worked is contrary to the evidence that's out there. Second...Obama didn't pass anything, the congress did. Obama signed off on what congress passed. But I don't think that presenting facts to you will do anything. You're spouting GOP talking points. As for no-one reading the stimulus bill, heck I read it. So, if some congressperson didn't read it, it's because they chose not to read it and I don't think you can blame anyone for that except those congresspeople.

the evidence is that the stimulus bill(s) has failed. It did not do what the administration claimed. It boosted the deficit to historic highs. And the result has been unemployment that we have not seen in 30 years.
Obama called for this bill. Obama pushed this bill. It is Obama's bill, regardless of who actually passed it.
Read the stimulus bill? Ask John Conyers:
Video: Democrat John Conyers: Read the bill? Why bother | The Lonely Conservative

And I doubt whether very many of the buffoons in Congress have read the healthcare bill or understand it if they have. I know Obama hasn't.

 

[DiamondDave]

Try discerning Diamond Dave? how about posting here instead of commenting in a neg rep, so everybody can see? Umm, I don't think the morons that rant and rave about Obama even know what they are arguing, just blasting him because they are stupid partisan hacks. Maybe you people should make it clear, cause its hard to see a point through all the rants and childish name calling of Obama.

Try understanding what people argue about with redistribution of wealth.. and what they argue with with expanded government.. and discerning between the 2

There.. that better, asshole??

Your post would be valid if there was anyone out there trying to re-distribute wealth on a grand scale. This administration is doing what practically every other administration has done before it. They're using the tax code to reward some behaviors and discourage others. Now, you may disagree with their targets, but you can show no examples of this administration doing anything that is beyond the pale when compared with previous administrations. Big government? I can understand that concept, but I have a real hard time with people who didn't have a problem with big government under republican control all of a sudden having a problem with big government under democratic control. For that reason, and that reason alone, it all appears as just rank partisianship to me.

The GOP passed an unfunded medicare Rx drug bill. The 'conservatives' punished Bush by re-electing him. So, again, pardon me if I continue to think you all are just partisian hacks.

See any and all personal entitlement programs for mass redistribution of wealth

I was against the Rx drug bill.. but I certainly was not going to help elect an even worse choice in Kerry

 

[beowolfe]

You truly can not be serious with this response to my thread.
I mean....really?
Jeez...you are a whacko....and I have had it with you and your crap......so long dickhead......on ignore....I have better things to do with my time than try to explain why conservatives think as they do.

ANd you refer to me as a liar...why? Because you cant reach back and understand why others think as they do?

Pathetic.

First, there are very few conservatives anymore. The neocons have usurped that label. Second, conservatives think? No kidding? And here I was assuming they just regurgitated GOP talking points.

The GOP does not represent conservatives...but certainly are a better bet for us than the Democratic party.

Yeah...we do think. I know...tough to accept.....but we think....as a matter of fact a good example is..

"We think before we sign"

Seems liberals most certainly sympathise with those that dont think before they sign...

Interesting....no?

Since the GOP doesn't represent conservatives and we have basically a two party system, there wouldn't be anything for conservatives to sign.....right?

 

[beowolfe]

Try understanding what people argue about with redistribution of wealth.. and what they argue with with expanded government.. and discerning between the 2

There.. that better, asshole??

Your post would be valid if there was anyone out there trying to re-distribute wealth on a grand scale. This administration is doing what practically every other administration has done before it. They're using the tax code to reward some behaviors and discourage others. Now, you may disagree with their targets, but you can show no examples of this administration doing anything that is beyond the pale when compared with previous administrations. Big government? I can understand that concept, but I have a real hard time with people who didn't have a problem with big government under republican control all of a sudden having a problem with big government under democratic control. For that reason, and that reason alone, it all appears as just rank partisianship to me.

The GOP passed an unfunded medicare Rx drug bill. The 'conservatives' punished Bush by re-electing him. So, again, pardon me if I continue to think you all are just partisian hacks.

See any and all personal entitlement programs for mass redistribution of wealth

I was against the Rx drug bill.. but I certainly was not going to help elect an even worse choice in Kerry

Are you saying that no matter how bad a POTUS goes against the wishes of conservatives, you'll still vote for them rather than vote for a Democrat? Well, you're getting your 'just desserts' if that's the case. GOP supporters should take a page from the Democratic supporters, they don't vote for a Dem the second time if he did things on that large a scale that they were against. Even if it means replacing a Democrat with a Republican. It's called putting 'country first'.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

They passed a stimulus bill last year, and this year they are not because they changed the name of it to a "jobs bill"

That kinda looks like something that is happening every year, at least so far.

First stimulus was under Bush, no?

No it wasn't. That was a bank BAILOUT. It didn't create shit...just like Obama's Stimulus.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Now, if every year Obama and the dems pass a stimulus package, you may have a point. But this was a one time thing to try and overcome a horrible economy. so why the insistence on claiming Obama's going to turn the country entirely socialist, or that he's for redistrubuction of wealth, when for decades wealthy people paid a higher percentage in taxes, and occurred under both parties.

That's yet another example of partisan hackery dishonesty. You can make points without resorting to that bullshit, or can the ones that make those claims actually put forth an intelligent argument?

1)Multiple such things have been done in DC in the last 8 years

2)'Stimulus' DOES NOT WORK. In the end, it only digs ythe hole deeper.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

They passed a stimulus bill last year, and this year they are not because they changed the name of it to a "jobs bill"

That kinda looks like something that is happening every year, at least so far.

First stimulus was under Bush, no?

Yep.

Bush was doing the same shit. Thanks for arguing your opponents' point for them.

 

[Oldandtired]

First, there are very few conservatives anymore. The neocons have usurped that label. Second, conservatives think? No kidding? And here I was assuming they just regurgitated GOP talking points.

The GOP does not represent conservatives...but certainly are a better bet for us than the Democratic party.

Yeah...we do think. I know...tough to accept.....but we think....as a matter of fact a good example is..

"We think before we sign"

Seems liberals most certainly sympathise with those that dont think before they sign...

Interesting....no?

Since the GOP doesn't represent conservatives and we have basically a two party system, there wouldn't be anything for conservatives to sign.....right?

Conservatives sign mortgage applications just like everybody else. Conservatives sign credit card contracts just like everybody else.

The difference is, we blame ourselves for not reading them well enough if we get screwed over.

Seems liberals like to blame those that wrote the applications and contracts.

Personal responsibility.

 

[DiamondDave]

Your post would be valid if there was anyone out there trying to re-distribute wealth on a grand scale. This administration is doing what practically every other administration has done before it. They're using the tax code to reward some behaviors and discourage others. Now, you may disagree with their targets, but you can show no examples of this administration doing anything that is beyond the pale when compared with previous administrations. Big government? I can understand that concept, but I have a real hard time with people who didn't have a problem with big government under republican control all of a sudden having a problem with big government under democratic control. For that reason, and that reason alone, it all appears as just rank partisianship to me.

The GOP passed an unfunded medicare Rx drug bill. The 'conservatives' punished Bush by re-electing him. So, again, pardon me if I continue to think you all are just partisian hacks.

See any and all personal entitlement programs for mass redistribution of wealth

I was against the Rx drug bill.. but I certainly was not going to help elect an even worse choice in Kerry

Are you saying that no matter how bad a POTUS goes against the wishes of conservatives, you'll still vote for them rather than vote for a Democrat? Well, you're getting your 'just desserts' if that's the case. GOP supporters should take a page from the Democratic supporters, they don't vote for a Dem the second time if he did things on that large a scale that they were against. Even if it means replacing a Democrat with a Republican. It's called putting 'country first'.

Nice attempt to put words into my mouth... that's not going to be allowed to fly there sparky

I said that Kerry was an even worse choice... did not say that if the opposition would have put out a candidate that was not worse or that I agreed with more, that I would inherently vote against the DEMs

 

[beowolfe]

First, your pemise that none of the stimulus bills have worked is contrary to the evidence that's out there. Second...Obama didn't pass anything, the congress did. Obama signed off on what congress passed. But I don't think that presenting facts to you will do anything. You're spouting GOP talking points. As for no-one reading the stimulus bill, heck I read it. So, if some congressperson didn't read it, it's because they chose not to read it and I don't think you can blame anyone for that except those congresspeople.

the evidence is that the stimulus bill(s) has failed. It did not do what the administration claimed. It boosted the deficit to historic highs. And the result has been unemployment that we have not seen in 30 years.
Obama called for this bill. Obama pushed this bill. It is Obama's bill, regardless of who actually passed it.
Read the stimulus bill? Ask John Conyers:
Video: Democrat John Conyers: Read the bill? Why bother | The Lonely Conservative

And I doubt whether very many of the buffoons in Congress have read the healthcare bill or understand it if they have. I know Obama hasn't.

An economic stimulus is an effort by the goverment to pump money into an ailing economy, whether through spending, tax cuts or interest rate reductions. By replacing money not being spent by businesses or consumers, a stimulus is meant to put a floor under a recession and pave the way for a return to growth.

Has the economy continued to fall off a cliff? Seems to me the stimulus bill was successful in it's purpose. With the exception of employment, most other economic indicators say the downward economic spiral has stopped.

Obama inherited the largest deficit in history. Everyone knew that the $787 billion was 'on top of that'. If you didn't........well.....

As for Conyers, you'll have to blame him for not reading it. But that still doesn't say that 'no one' read it. Even some congress people and/or their staff read it. Despite everything you've said........you've still offered zero evidence that the stimulus bill has failed. Now you're free to believe whatever you wish, but you're not free to invent facts that are contrary to reality.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Dr Greg: This was just a one-time thing and everyone is calling Obama a socialist. It isn't fair.
Others: It isn't a one time thing. He passed the stimulus bill and now he's passing a "jobs" bill.
Dr Greg: But so did Bush.

Get your story straight, Dr Greg. Whether Bush passed a stimulus bill (which he did, with Pelosi's help and encouragement) or not is irrelevant. Obama passed an unprecedented amount of "stimulus" in terms of GDP. That failed. Now he is passig a second measure but because the first sucked he can't call it "stimulus." So it's a "jobs bill." Yeah, right

For once, I agree with the jew

 

[beowolfe]

See any and all personal entitlement programs for mass redistribution of wealth

I was against the Rx drug bill.. but I certainly was not going to help elect an even worse choice in Kerry

Are you saying that no matter how bad a POTUS goes against the wishes of conservatives, you'll still vote for them rather than vote for a Democrat? Well, you're getting your 'just desserts' if that's the case. GOP supporters should take a page from the Democratic supporters, they don't vote for a Dem the second time if he did things on that large a scale that they were against. Even if it means replacing a Democrat with a Republican. It's called putting 'country first'.

Nice attempt to put words into my mouth... that's not going to be allowed to fly there sparky

I said that Kerry was an even worse choice... did not say that if the opposition would have put out a candidate that was not worse or that I agreed with more, that I would inherently vote against the DEMs

Kerry worse? In what way?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So, you equate 'spread the wealth around' with re-distribution! Another example of words having no meaning.

What?