Page 111 of 197 FirstFirst ... 1161101109110111112113121161 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,110 of 1961

Thread: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

  1. #1101
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Taiwan does not have the huge largesse class that we do, looking always for more free stuff.
    That was not part of Conservatives original requirements.... want to move the goal posts... go ahead

  2. #1102
    Advisor GreenvilleGrows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    My version of reality
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    566

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Swit View Post
    Well this is a very narrow view of our national economy.... Its like looking through a pinhole trying to see the big picture
    True, the DOW is a narrow indicator, but it's an indicator. My description also included the concept of "prosperity" vs. just the DOW itself. I would submit, that the DOW may be the MOST favorable indicator for Obama. Many other indicators such as unemployment, national debt in relation to GDP, etc. are less favorable.

    If he's defeated in 2012. History might say something like "President Obama was notable as the first Black President (or, whatever is politically correct in 2050) and the first downgrade to US credit rating. He served one term with no other notable accomplishments.

    Bush2 will get discussion on 9/11 & perhaps be credited with democracy in Iraq or even a freedom trend in Middle East if both don't end up failing.

    Clinton will have scandal and general maintenance.

    Bush1 gets nothing.

    Reagan gets long term economic prosperity and the end of the cold war.
    The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.

  3. #1103
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Jryan View Post
    Don't feed the trolls man.
    Fair enough... perhaps I should just stay quite till tonight

  4. #1104
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    RE:

    H.R. 2 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

    ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2 is shown in following table. Most of the budgetary effects of the legislation are reductions in revenues. However, the bill also would increase outlays by making various changes to the income tax brackets and rates of taxation. By reducing the amount of taxes owed, those changes would result in a larger portion of tax credits being refundable--and thus recorded as outlays rather than reductions in revenues. The act also would increase the child credit, which is refundable under the tax code and counted as outlays in the budget to the extent that it results in "refunds" of income taxes not actually paid. In addition, H.R. 2 would increase outlays by increasing the federal share of Medicaid spending in 2003 and 2004 and by providing funds directly to states.


    Direct Spending

    Outlays from Refundable Tax Credits. JCT provided the outlay effects resulting from the refundable tax credits contained in titles I and III of the bill. JCT estimates that enacting those provisions would increase outlays by $3.6 billion in 2003 and by $9.5 billion over the 2003-2009 period (with no effects after 2009).
    Fiscal Relief for States. Section 401 of the act would increase the federal share of Medicaid spending in 2003 and 2004 and provide a total of $10 billion in funds for states to use on government services. CBO estimates that these provisions would increase spending by a total of $7.7 billion in 2003 and $12.3 billion in 2004.
    Increase in Medicaid match rate. The federal government pays a portion of the costs for each state's Medicaid program. The federal government's share, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), varies for each state and is based on each state's per capita income. Under current law, FMAPs are updated annually to reflect new data on per capita income in each state. The act would change the FMAPs in three ways:

    • The FMAP for the last two quarters of 2003 would equal the higher of the FMAPs (as determined under current law) for 2002 or 2003;
    • The FMAP for the first three quarters of 2004 would equal the higher of the FMAPs (as determined under current law) for 2003 or 2004; and
    • The FMAP for all states would increase by 2.95 percentage points for the last two quarters of 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004.

    These provisions are not mutually exclusive; states could potentially qualify for all three increases. CBO estimates that these provisions would increase federal Medicaid spending by $2.7 billion in 2003 and $7.3 billion in 2004.
    Aid to states. The act would provide $5 billion in each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for states to use on maintaining essential government services or to cover the cost of complying with unfunded federal intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Under H.R. 2, payments would be made to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Such payments would be based on the population of each state, except that the provision would establish minimum payment levels. CBO estimates that this provision would result in outlays of $5 billion in 2003 and $5 billion in 2004.


    H.R. 2, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
    Great, is there a purpose for this post? What does Bush have to do with the Obama record today, 2011? How is you keeping more of your money an expense to the govt and since it isn't, why would someone else keeping
    more of what they earn be an expense to the govt? Increasing outlays means increasing expenses but has nothing to do with keeping more of your money. When you want to reduce debt you cut spending. Govt wants to reduce the debt they increase taxes and increase spending.

    Aid to state or aid to unions? There is a difference. Why is it the people of TX's responsibility to bail out the state of Illinois? Aid to states has to be paid for and will be paid for by the state taxpayer when that Federal funding runs out.

  5. #1105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Great, is there a purpose for this post? .
    I was responding to your comment about do tax cuts have to be paid for and the costs of tax cuts. It is incidental that it was bush.

    BTW in Obama jobs bill there are provisions to pay for it.

    Now if you were truly worried about running deficits and increasing debt these things would have meaning to you. However we all know that NOT to be the case in regards to you.

  6. #1106
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Swit;1059897655]I didn't vote for him... how is he mine.... and fine.... I will give you $1,000,000 if you can show a single post of mine where I made the claim that somehow individuals keeping money is a government expense.
    then either refute the data I have posted or stop defending him. His record is indefensible and makes you look foolish

    Ahh but this is clearly not what my response was to.... you said... and I quote:

    how is adding confusion to a conversation anything other than an attempt at deception?
    Seems it is only confusing to Obama supporters. I posted the data, gave the verifiable source for the data, and Obama supporters claim that data is distorted yet have never proven it but they have proven that they can distort data quite well, i.e. private sector job grow which doesn't tell the whole story but makes it look like an Obama success. The real number is 2.6 million NET JOB LOSS.

    bold part irrelevant as it was not part of the original request for information further attempts at moving this goal post will be ignored.
    proof
    and if you don't like Taiwan here is Canada's
    I am still waiting for proof that the single payer system has lowered costs and improved health care quality. There aren't 310 million people in Canada and healthcare costs in Canada haven't improved nor has the quality.

    Can you please explain what I was wrong about? k, thnx
    You are wrong in trying to defend the indefensible.

  7. #1107
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I was responding to your comment about do tax cuts have to be paid for and the costs of tax cuts. It is incidental that it was bush.

    BTW in Obama jobs bill there are provisions to pay for it.

    Now if you were truly worried about running deficits and increasing debt these things would have meaning to you. However we all know that NOT to be the case in regards to you.
    The point remains, if you keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt then someone else doing the same thing isn't either.

    What happens when the money runs out and how is increasing the taxes on the job creators going to pay for any job creation? Who pays those expenses when the money runs out?

    Keep trying but the fact remains, spending causes debt not tax cuts. When you have debt you cut spending.

    By the way, time for Church, bbl
    Last edited by Conservative; 10-23-11 at 12:01 PM.

  8. #1108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The point remains, if you keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt then someone else doing the same thing isn't either.

    What happens when the money runs out and how is increasing the taxes on the job creators going to pay for any job creation? Who pays those expenses when the money runs out?

    Keep trying but the fact remains, spending causes debt not tax cuts. When you have debt you cut spending.

    By the way, time for Church, bbl
    Spending is not going away:


    • The aging of the population and increases in per-person costs throughout the U.S. health care system (in both the public and private sectors) will increase the cost of meeting longstanding federal commitments to seniors and people with disabilities. Together, these factors will drive up spending for the three largest domestic programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Limiting total federal spending to 21 percent of GDP despite these developments would have enormous implications for those programs as well as the rest of government.
    • The federal government’s responsibilities have grown since 2000, with developments at home and abroad pushing spending above the average for earlier decades. These responsibilities include homeland security (in the aftermath of September 11, 2001​); aid to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (many of whom need health care and income support); education (with the federal government providing more resources to improve educational quality and outcomes); the Medicare prescription drug benefit (which Congress added in 2003); and health reform (which extends health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and will increase federal spending, even though it will reduce the deficit).
    • Spending for interest on the federal government’s debt also will be substantially higher in coming decades than it was during the past 40 years. By the end of 2010 — largely as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the large Bush-era tax cuts, and the current severe recession — debt held by the public will be nearly twice as large (as a percentage of GDP) as in 2001, with a commensurate increase in interest costs.

    Federal Spending Target of 21 Percent of GDP Not Appropriate Benchmark for Deficit-Reduction Efforts — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

  9. #1109
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,928

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Bush lost the elecction in 2008 but your obsession with him says a lot about you and your attempt to divert from the Obama record. So I will keep providing it to you. Thanks again for proving the GDP numbers right and I am sure you will find the others right as well and believe you have.

    Obama economic results in 2011,
    .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
    25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
    2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
    4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
    Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
    Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
    38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
    Conservative's cut and paste punditry crap debunked here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  10. #1110
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,928

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Obama economic results in 2011,
    .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
    25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
    2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
    4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
    Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
    Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
    38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
    Debunked cut and paste tripe found here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •