Republicans set to just say no to jobs bill

[MaggieMae]

If the solution to our problems is a jobs bill, why wait over a year and until your supermajority is gone to pass it?

Typical of Republicans that there is "a" solution. One single thing that fix everything.

The irony is their "solution(s)" are cut spending and lower taxes. Now that the second part is being proposed, they're against it.

 

[MaggieMae]

If the solution to our problems is a jobs bill, why wait over a year and until your supermajority is gone to pass it?

Typical of Republicans that there is "a" solution. One single thing that fix everything.

If their is no solution, then why on earth do you want us to give up all our power to government instead of letting us deal with it ourselves?

There is an easy solution. Cut taxes and cut spending even more.

I rest my case. ^

 

[MaggieMae]

If their is no solution, then why on earth do you want us to give up all our power to government instead of letting us deal with it ourselves?

There is an easy solution. Cut taxes and cut spending even more.

Yes...throw us back into a depression

How is giving people more of their own money to spend and not handicapping businesses going to cause a depression?

You do realize that is exactly what Harding and Coolidge did to get out of the Depression of 1920 and create the Roaring 20s dont you?

You also realize that borrowing trillions of dollars we cant possibly pay off with our current spending is just going to cause economic collapse and likely world war on top of that don't you?

Oh gawd.... I ******* give up.

 

[MaggieMae]

Fair enough. Let's cut the military budget by 20%.

Non sequitur much?

We can and should cut 20% from every government program; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, Defense, etc. - straight on down the line. There is fraud, waste, and abuse in every program, every dept.

Of course we should. But NO ONE will support that. No one who can actually implement it of course. While the bi-partisan deficit commission was being discussed, for example, the Senate voted 97 to 0 to take Social Security off the table. When 'Obamacare' proposed Medicare reform for cost cutting purposes, the Republicans ran straight to old people ville with demagoguery about Democrats taking their Medicare away from them.

and on and on it goes.

It's the way they win over the public. Happens every time they're in a minority. Then the pubs get voted in with the rah rah rah public attitude, only to disappoint. Again. The lies are monstrous in order to sway the public. At the risk of posting a non sequitur (which apparently is only allowed by the cons here), how many times did we hear the shrieking that Clinton "gutted the military"?? What hogwash. All he did was bring it back to the level it was BEFORE Reagan increased the size of the military.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Stimulus Bill" => government spending on low-return ideas.

"Jobs Bill" => " "

What is the next Newspeak term we can expect to see from the left?

I'm sure you'll come up with something clever.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Stimulus Bill" => government spending on low-return ideas.

"Jobs Bill" => " "

What is the next Newspeak term we can expect to see from the left?

More speeches how we just don't get it.

Hard to guess what they'll say it's for. For several months they have been referring to unemployment checks as a "stimulus"---LOL.

Extending unemployment has come out of the stimulus bill. You would prefer that all those folks who couldn't find a job within 26 weeks should go completely on the government dole? It's TAXPAYER money wherever it's allotted from.

 

[MaggieMae]

Explain how you make such a conclusion?

I know when financial times were tight in my life, I sure as heck cut out waste.

Not quite the exact comparison I'm making. There is a difference. One side of the coin is knowing where the waste is, and cutting it out. The other side (the other side I saw being proposed) is simply cutting 20% of all these budgets, aiming wildly so to speak and hoping to hit some waste.

Look Dogbert, we do know where the waste is, or at least part of it.

We don't need private jets for Congress members. We don't need pet projects, not at this time. We don't need Pelosi's makeup and flowers budget. We don't need pay raise for government employees when they run deficit. Congress can cut on staff members. We know there is waste in Medicare, why don't they cut it right now with or without HC overhaul.

Yes, cut the budget not 20%, but 50%. Let them learn how to preserve and live on less. That's what we all do in our homes.

Is this the first time you've ever complained about congressional perks? I've been complaining for years, but there isn't a single elected lawmaker willing to do it, and I suspect even newly elected "tea party" people, once they get used to them won't either. Each member of Congress has his/her own office budget to work with and to spend however they want, within legal parameters. The perks you mention are minor compared with the lifetime benefits they receive once they're voted out or retire. THAT'S where the biggest expense is.

As for an across the board cut in all departments, you would need to write a law forbidding lobbyists (which would require circumvention of the Constitution), because they would be on The Hill en masse protecting their own interests and therefore you will never see such a massive budget cut. Even if it were possible, it would take many months of analysis to determine where an agency's budget should be cut (there are hundreds), and in the meantime there would be new elections and new people coming in who also would have input.

I know it all sounds like such an easy task, but it isn't.

 

[MaggieMae]

What, you're not?

Better question is who isn't against deficit spending in theory?

In reality, how do you propose we pay for the War in Afghanistan and Iraq? Give the troops monopoly dollars?

How?

War tax. As long we got troops there, we pay war tax. When we bring troops home, we eliminate tax. Longer we have troops over, longer we pay those taxes. There is another good thing about it, those who oppose taxes will not vote for wars. True?

But we all know how it works. Once government imposes any tax, it never goes away. Why? It’s because they're lying SOB's.

A war tax WAS proposed, by Rep. Obey and Sen. Durbin last November. Guess how far that got? JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOXNews.com - Lawmakers Propose 'War Surtax' to Pay for Troop Increase in Afghanistan

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The proposed bill which won the cloture vote yesterday, is all about helping small businesses. Why are Republicans already against it, with the exception of five brave ones?

S.A. 3310, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act

Umm isn't scott brown a republican?

He voted for it...he said if the house porks it up he will vote against it but he did vote for it and he is a republican.

And you give me crap for going off the handle at anti-tea partiers

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-with-votes-on-jobs-bill-already-making-waves

 

[MaggieMae]

Do you realize that drastically cutting back the defense budget right now would turn this recession into a second Great Depression? The military-industrial complex is too large a part of our economy now. Peace = lost jobs.

You should read all posts.

Edit. I already explained how to cover defense cuts in war time.

We're going be in war time for the foreseeable future. Perhaps for the rest of our time as a society. We have to be - otherwise our economy collapses.

Yup. I didn't really know what he meant at the time, but I can remember my Dad saying "We need another war" when our family was struggling in the post-WWII economy of the late 40's and early 50's when civilian jobs were scarce (manufacturing plants had been retooled for military equipment, etc.), trying to find a house to rent for a family of five (when apartment buildings were practically nonexistent, etc.), and there was only his VA compensation to live on because jobs for mothers were even scarcer.

There's a lot of good information here, along with a few more quotes from Eisenhower, if anyone is interested.

The Economic Cost of the Military Industrial Complex -- Seeking Alpha

 

[PatekPhilippe]

If the solution to our problems is a jobs bill, why wait over a year and until your supermajority is gone to pass it?

Typical of Republicans that there is "a" solution. One single thing that fix everything.

The irony is their "solution(s)" are cut spending and lower taxes. Now that the second part is being proposed, they're against it.

Right...because they aren't cutting spending to match....The democrats want to "cut taxes" and then spend 2 trillion dollars on a government run healthcare program....you clowns are insane!!!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Tu quoque is your reply to my comment.

Idiot.

And, I implied nothing. You inferred. Incorrectly. But, if you wish to invoke a tu quoque 'point' on the Newspeak front, I'll thank you for amusing me again.

I'm not going to argue logic with someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

Big words don't make you seem smart if you don't know what they mean.

And if you were "implying nothing", you would have just left the "from the left" out of your post.

Damn, I wanted to hit the sack, but now you are continuing with being a clown. Caught in your fallacy and you project, now.

Well, I would thank you for the unsolicited edit of my comment about the left and the Newspeak from them, but as the left is currently in power and the Newspeak terms I cited are from them, I'm pretty OK with my being accurate in what I type.

Facts can be annoying when one doesn't want to see them because of partisanship, for example.

 

[Si modo]

I'm not going to argue logic with someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

Big words don't make you seem smart if you don't know what they mean.

And if you were "implying nothing", you would have just left the "from the left" out of your post.

Damn, I wanted to hit the sack, but now you are continuing with being a clown. Caught in your fallacy and you project, now.

Well, I would thank you for the unsolicited edit of my comment about the left and the Newspeak from them, but as the left is currently in power and the Newspeak terms I cited are from them, I'm pretty OK with my being accurate in what I type.

Facts can be annoying when one doesn't want to see them because of partisanship, for example.

Not only accuracy is equivalent to being a partisan, so is logic.

The Newspeak is fascinating.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Not to mention disingenuous. What exactly are you talking about? When did I say anything about accuracy being equivalent to partisanship?

Let's see if I use a diffferent approach...an outline, perhaps?

We'll give it a try.

I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. Some posters try to make a point that the last administration did the same.
B. Si modo laughs at the fallacy of such 'points'.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

Thus, I have to laugh at the left's (you ARE on the left, no?) additional Newspeak: accuracy in posting = partisan.

First of all, no - I don't consider myself on the left. I may lean more left than right, but I'm way too much an anarchist to be "left". I just don't like people being disingenuously partisan.

And I'll address the rest of your post by editing it.



I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. A poster calls you out on your partisanship in blaming "Newspeak" on "the left".
B. Si modo misses the point, and claims that the post is employing a logical fallacy.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point, once again missing the point, since the poster is not disagreeing with her post, rather calling her out for partisanship.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

I think what you're missing is that even though "partisanship" and "accuracy" are not equal, they are not mutually exclusive either. Your OP was both partisan and accurate. Just like my equivalent post was both partisan and accurate, to prove the same point.

Good luck trying to be civil with that one, doc. She'll chase you like a ***** in heat until you run screaming from your screen in exasperation.

 

[MaggieMae]

The proposed bill which won the cloture vote yesterday, is all about helping small businesses. Why are Republicans already against it, with the exception of five brave ones?

S.A. 3310, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act

Umm isn't scott brown a republican?

He voted for it...he said if the house porks it up he will vote against it but he did vote for it and he is a republican.

And you give me crap for going off the handle at anti-tea partiers

Scott Brown: with votes on jobs bill, already making waves / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

I said "all but five brave ones." Did you miss that?

 

[MaggieMae]

Damn, I wanted to hit the sack, but now you are continuing with being a clown. Caught in your fallacy and you project, now.

Well, I would thank you for the unsolicited edit of my comment about the left and the Newspeak from them, but as the left is currently in power and the Newspeak terms I cited are from them, I'm pretty OK with my being accurate in what I type.

Facts can be annoying when one doesn't want to see them because of partisanship, for example.

Not only accuracy is equivalent to being a partisan, so is logic.

The Newspeak is fascinating.

I laugh at the hypocrisy of the statement.

 

[Si modo]

Let's see if I use a diffferent approach...an outline, perhaps?

We'll give it a try.

I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. Some posters try to make a point that the last administration did the same.
B. Si modo laughs at the fallacy of such 'points'.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

Thus, I have to laugh at the left's (you ARE on the left, no?) additional Newspeak: accuracy in posting = partisan.

First of all, no - I don't consider myself on the left. I may lean more left than right, but I'm way too much an anarchist to be "left". I just don't like people being disingenuously partisan.

And I'll address the rest of your post by editing it.



I. Si modo makes a post making fun of the names of bills that do nothing but waste citizens' money and comments on the Newspeak terms the left tries to call them.
A. A poster calls you out on your partisanship in blaming "Newspeak" on "the left".
B. Si modo misses the point, and claims that the post is employing a logical fallacy.

II. A poster tries to say Si modo implied something by referring to the left who is in power and who named the waste something other than waste-your-money in classic Newspeak.
A. A poster has issues with Si modo mentioning the left.
B. Si modo demonstrates that her post is accurate.
C. A poster agrees with the accuracy.

III. A poster says s/he is not commenting on the accuracy, but on the partisanship in Si modo.
A. Si modo highlights the fact that she has not denied the tu quoque from that poster, but points out that it is irrelevant to her original point, once again missing the point, since the poster is not disagreeing with her post, rather calling her out for partisanship.
B. The poster now says Si modo missed his/her 'point', that Si modo is partisan in her original accurate post.

I think what you're missing is that even though "partisanship" and "accuracy" are not equal, they are not mutually exclusive either. Your OP was both partisan and accurate. Just like my equivalent post was both partisan and accurate, to prove the same point.

Good luck trying to be civil with that one, doc. She'll chase you like a ***** in heat until you run screaming from your screen in exasperation.

Such class, MaggieMae.

 

[Si modo]

Not only accuracy is equivalent to being a partisan, so is logic.

The Newspeak is fascinating.

I laugh at the hypocrisy of the statement.

I am well aware at what humor you find and that concerns me. Usually I can't dumb my thoughts down to your level. But, I am quite under the weather today, so that explains my lack of acuity.

 

[rdean]

Typical of Republicans that there is "a" solution. One single thing that fix everything.

The irony is their "solution(s)" are cut spending and lower taxes. Now that the second part is being proposed, they're against it.

Right...because they aren't cutting spending to match....The democrats want to "cut taxes" and then spend 2 trillion dollars on a government run healthcare program....you clowns are insane!!!!!

Well at least we want to spend it on Americans. Republicans want to spend it on Iraq who wrote the "public option" into their constitution (Article 31).

Why is that? Why do Republicans want to spend America's future on a country who put it's women back in bags, kills their gays (oh, that's right, many Republicans want to do that here), and kills their Christians. Republican priories are so screwed up. Whatever happened to "America first"?

Funny, Republicans support Iraq and call it a success even when a million Christians go missing.

Health care companies cut 2.7 million Americans.

The majority of Americans are Christian.

That means the majority of those not covered by health care are Christians.

Republicans support Iraqi Muslims over American Christians, go figure.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The irony is their "solution(s)" are cut spending and lower taxes. Now that the second part is being proposed, they're against it.

Right...because they aren't cutting spending to match....The democrats want to "cut taxes" and then spend 2 trillion dollars on a government run healthcare program....you clowns are insane!!!!!

Well at least we want to spend it on Americans. Republicans want to spend it on Iraq who wrote the "public option" into their constitution (Article 31).

So as long as it's spent on Americans it's OK to be a hypocrite and plunge the country into another 10 trillion dollars of debt? rdean...seriously...seek out a mental health professional who can help you with your insanity.

and FYI....I believe the DEMOCRATS controlled the Senate when the Iraq War Resolution was passed...no?