• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why won't it work? 9% FIT, 9% sales tax, 9% Corporate taxes?

You do know it would mean Texas would start paying a sales tax, right? Where the state currently pays "ZERO (0)...zip...NAHDAH" state sales.

Do you really think Gov. Perry - in a bid for the 2012 Presidency - would allow this to go unchallenged?

Do you really think any governor whose state does have a sales tax, especially a conservative Republican governor, would back Cain knowing that their taxes would increase?

Do you really think any governor whose state doesn't have a sales tax would allow their state's tax policy to be hijacked by the Fed?

Think about what you're saying, man!
 
Last edited:
Are you serious? Do you really think Sen. McConnel and the rest of the Senate GOP would have gone for that and accepted a straight-up majority vote? We ARE talking about the U.S. Senate after all - the most difficult chamber of Congress to get any legislation through.

Yes, I'm quite serious.............

Well, today on the floor of the United States Senate, Kentucky’s senior senator, Mitch McConnell, called Obama’s bluff. Lifting a copy of the AJA in his hand, the Republican Minority Leader offered to introduce the proposal and call for a vote:

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid immediately blocked McConnell’s attempt to introduce President Obama’s jobs proposal. Reid said he would bring up the jobs bill later this month — promising a vote in October. "Right away is a relative term," he said.
Mitch McConnell calls Obama

McConnell and Reid both knew that Dems wouldn't vote for the bill as proposed by Obama. Reid and the rest of the Dems wanted a "NO" vote from the Republicans so they could use it during the campaign.
 
Objective Voice;1059879355]You know, even Jeb Bush said recently in an interview w/Piers Morgan that he believed the President was doing the right thing concerning his focus on improving education in this country. If you're pushing to change the education system, why wouldn't you push to protect jobs for teachers?

That isn't the role of the Federal Govt. as that is a state responsibility. You want a massive central govt? Then do away with the states!

Crime has been on the rise since the economy has stagnated a few months ago. Wouldn't you think it's smart to keep police on the job?

Again, that is a state responsibility not a Federal Responsibility. Stop buying what you are being fed. Once the temporary stimulus money runs out who picks up the bill?

Put simply, Stimulus 1 helped keep teachers, police and firefighters on the job because the States couldn't afford to. I see nothing wrong with providing more short-term federal funding - Stimulus 2 - to do the same while also providing incentives for State and federal governments to form public-private partnerships to spur job growth and prop up local/state economies. Think of it this way...

Since stimulus ONE over 2 million jobs have been lost so nothing was accomplished other than adding 4.2 trillion to the debt. Again, what happens when the funding runs out?

States, especially those with Republican Governors and GOP majority legislatures, have worked hard to bring their budgets into balance and reduce waste, etc., etc. If they're finally getting their spending on track but just need alittle bit more of a cushion, why not provide that push at the federal level? It worked once for teachers, firefighters and police to keep them employed, why shouldn't it work again?

Since Republican Governors are doing what they were elected to do, when will Obama do what he was supposed to do. State responsibility seems to be a foreign term to you.

You do realize that the President's Jobs Plan and his Deficit Reduction Plan are two separate proposals purposely designed to work together?

Please show me the specifics of the President's deficit reduction plan and what is the base that plan uses?

The Jobs Plan is intended to spur short-term economic growth while other legislation, such as trade agreements and expediting pattents, are intended for long-term economic stability.

What was the purpose of Stimulus 1 and when will you hold Obama responsible for its failure?

Sidenote: Just heard Rush lie about the Senate vote on the President's Jobs Plan. He said the Dems on gained 50 votes which is true. However, he falsely claimed that the Dems could have passed the bill all by themselves. How is that possible when there are only 52 Democrats in the Senate?

Probably the same way you expected Bush to keep us out of recession with Democrat total control of Congress from 2007-2008 and expected Republicans to generate positive results with Obama and Congress under Democrat control 2009-2010.

He's also now claiming that the Occupy movement was "created by Liberals". Interesting, since I attended a local Occupy rally over the weekend and met folks who were both Democrats and Republicans - same political mix alleged by the Tea Party. Nice try, Rush. Not everyone is fooled by your :spin: and misinformation.

Spin? What is the goal of OWS and why aren't they protesting Congress and the WH? The entire purpose of the radicals is to destroy what made this country great, capitalism.
 
I thought you were against class warfare?

What is class warfare in expecting everyone to pay their fair share? My definition of fair share is everyone paying the same rate.
 
You want more revenue to the govt, then support 90 million Americans paying at least something in FIT. Why don't you show us the math that generates those higher numbers

Critics of the 9-9-9 plan say that its negative microeconomic effects -- that is, the potential burden on low-income Americans -- would outweigh any benefits for the economy as a whole.

(Read the rest at Herman Cain's 999 Plan: Will It Work? Experts Speak Out - International Business Times) While I only pointed out the bad side of the plan, the criticism of it encompasses the good side. It is saying that the good it would produce would be WAY outweighed by the bad. It would put to much of a burden on those who already have nothing.
 
(Read the rest at Herman Cain's 999 Plan: Will It Work? Experts Speak Out - International Business Times) While I only pointed out the bad side of the plan, the criticism of it encompasses the good side. It is saying that the good it would produce would be WAY outweighed by the bad. It would put to much of a burden on those who already have nothing.

It is a start and simplification of the tax code fools people like you. You seem to be an expert on those without anything. Where do you get your data?
 
It is a start and simplification of the tax code fools people like you. You seem to be an expert on those without anything. Where do you get your data?

Oh, right, you must've never worked and lived on 12k a year (in our current economy) trying to scrape by. If you even taxed me then $10.00 a month I would of missed meals, which I was hardly eating anyways.
It's almost like you think being poor is some lavish lifestyle...
 
It is a start and simplification of the tax code fools people like you. You seem to be an expert on those without anything. Where do you get your data?

I can't believe conservatives can get behind a 9% consumption tax. So... weird.
 
Oh, right, you must've never worked and lived on 12k a year (in our current economy) trying to scrape by. If you even taxed me then $10.00 a month I would of missed meals, which I was hardly eating anyways.
It's almost like you think being poor is some lavish lifestyle...

I had a Father that worked for .50 a day and there were many years that he worked for 12K per year. He worked hard, took risk and raised two very productive kids. I find your ignorance of personal responsibility, capitalism, and the role of the Federal govt. staggering.
 
I can't believe conservatives can get behind a 9% consumption tax. So... weird.

I actually prefer a flat tax and significant reduction of the size of Govt. down to about 1.5 trillion a year.
 
I had a Father that worked for .50 a day and there were many years that he worked for 12K per year. He worked hard, took risk and raised two very productive kids. I find your ignorance of personal responsibility, capitalism, and the role of the Federal govt. staggering.

Right because 50 cents is the same then as it is now...
 
Yes, I'm quite serious.............

All I'm gonna say here is you must be delusional to think the GOP would do anything to help this President have a victory of any kind especially when his jobs initiative has large public support behind it....63-64% of Americans supported his jobs plan.

McConnell and Reid both knew that Dems wouldn't vote for the bill as proposed by Obama. Reid and the rest of the Dems wanted a "NO" vote from the Republicans so they could use it during the campaign.

First off, the article you referenced was published before the Senate finally did vote on the President's Job plan.

Second, while I'm sure Sen. Reid was very much aware that he'd still be a few votes shy of getting the bill passed even with help from his party, the fact that no Republicans voted for it does more to illustrate further obstructionism by Senate Republicans than a failing of Senate Democrats to unify for a party-line vote. Again, of the 52 Senate Democrats only 2 voted against the President's Jobs Plan...TWO!

And finally, Senate Reid changed his vote at the last minute just so that he, as Senate Majority Leader, could bring the issue back up against if he wanted to. Hardly a scathing disapproval by himself or his party affiliates, but you keep telling yourself that it was.
 
All I'm gonna say here is you must be delusional to think the GOP would do anything to help this President have a victory of any kind especially when his jobs initiative has large public support behind it....63-64% of Americans supported his jobs plan.



First off, the article you referenced was published before the Senate finally did vote on the President's Job plan.

Second, while I'm sure Sen. Reid was very much aware that he'd still be a few votes shy of getting the bill passed even with help from his party, the fact that no Republicans voted for it does more to illustrate further obstructionism by Senate Republicans than a failing of Senate Democrats to unify for a party-line vote. Again, of the 52 Senate Democrats only 2 voted against the President's Jobs Plan...TWO!

And finally, Senate Reid changed his vote at the last minute just so that he, as Senate Majority Leader, could bring the issue back up against if he wanted to. Hardly a scathing disapproval by himself or his party affiliates, but you keep telling yourself that it was.

Why would anyone support this President who demonizes individual wealth creation, corporations, and anyone that has benefited from hard work and risk taking? Why do you buy what this President tells you when he hasn't been truthful on any of his policies? This country wasn't built on the principles that Obama is implementing and the results are quite telling. Why are you ignoring the Obama results and supporting more of the same.

A Report Card: Obama's First 1,000 Days - President Obama - Fox Nation
 
All I'm gonna say here is you must be delusional to think the GOP would do anything to help this President have a victory of any kind especially when his jobs initiative has large public support behind it....63-64% of Americans supported his jobs plan.

You must be delusional if you think this bill would have passed a straight up majority vote. It never had a snowball's chance in hell of passing the Senate. Two Dem Senators voted against allowing it to be voted on and two more said they would vote against it if it was ever brought to a vote.

First off, the article you referenced was published before the Senate finally did vote on the President's Job plan.

No kidding............ McConnell tried to get Reid to bring a straight up majority vote on the bill, but Reid refused for two reasons:

1. He knew he didn't have 50 votes for it.
2. He wanted a campaign issue.

They didn't vote on the bill, they voted on cloture.

Second, while I'm sure Sen. Reid was very much aware that he'd still be a few votes shy of getting the bill passed even with help from his party, the fact that no Republicans voted for it does more to illustrate further obstructionism by Senate Republicans than a failing of Senate Democrats to unify for a party-line vote. Again, of the 52 Senate Democrats only 2 voted against the President's Jobs Plan...TWO!

And like I said, two more publicly stated they would vote against it if it came up for a vote, but were willing to have it debated. If he had 50 Dems that would vote for it, he could have had his vote and passed the bill. He didn't.
 
Why would anyone support this President who demonizes individual wealth creation, corporations, and anyone that has benefited from hard work and risk taking? Why do you buy what this President tells you when he hasn't been truthful on any of his policies? This country wasn't built on the principles that Obama is implementing and the results are quite telling. Why are you ignoring the Obama results and supporting more of the same.

A Report Card: Obama's First 1,000 Days - President Obama - Fox Nation

sometimes you are absolutely hilarious. a report card from fox nation........gee thanks.
 
sometimes you are absolutely hilarious. a report card from fox nation........gee thanks.

Does it matter where the score card came from? Refute the data in that score card? What information there is false?
 
Does it matter where the score card came from? Refute the data in that score card? What information there is false?

She doesn't care if the data is correct or not, she simply wants it to be hidden from view and the source of it ridiculed.
 
She doesn't care if the data is correct or not, she simply wants it to be hidden from view and the source of it ridiculed.

It is rather frustrating. I wish someone could explain to me what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty where results never matter but the source for those results does? The results listed are referenced and thus verifiable. Over 4.2 trillion added to the debt and over 2 million jobs lost. That somehow is ignored by liberals.
 
It is rather frustrating. I wish someone could explain to me what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty where results never matter but the source for those results does? The results listed are referenced and thus verifiable. Over 4.2 trillion added to the debt and over 2 million jobs lost. That somehow is ignored by liberals.

Yep, I noticed that she didn't bother refuting any of the facts in the article.
 
It is rather frustrating. I wish someone could explain to me what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty where results never matter but the source for those results does? The results listed are referenced and thus verifiable. Over 4.2 trillion added to the debt and over 2 million jobs lost. That somehow is ignored by liberals.

the main reason i didn't read it? your post. you posted that obama demonzies the wealthy, instead of leading with maybe a fact or 2 from the link. a very partisan post. results DO matter, i'm just not stupid enough to believe that all of our problems could be solved in 3 years. it took much longer than that for these problems to become critical. and quite frankly, you are the most single minded poster here, do you have stock in the bls?
 
the main reason i didn't read it? your post. you posted that obama demonzies the wealthy, instead of leading with maybe a fact or 2 from the link. a very partisan post. results DO matter, i'm just not stupid enough to believe that all of our problems could be solved in 3 years. it took much longer than that for these problems to become critical. and quite frankly, you are the most single minded poster here, do you have stock in the bls?

Do you actually deny that Obama demonizes wealthy people ?????
 
You know, even Jeb Bush said recently in an interview w/Piers Morgan that he believed the President was doing the right thing concerning his focus on improving education in this country. If you're pushing to change the education system, why wouldn't you push to protect jobs for teachers?

Crime has been on the rise since the economy has stagnated a few months ago. Wouldn't you think it's smart to keep police on the job?

Put simply, Stimulus 1 helped keep teachers, police and firefighters on the job because the States couldn't afford to. I see nothing wrong with providing more short-term federal funding - Stimulus 2 - to do the same while also providing incentives for State and federal governments to form public-private partnerships to spur job growth and prop up local/state economies. Think of it this way...

States, especially those with Republican Governors and GOP majority legislatures, have worked hard to bring their budgets into balance and reduce waste, etc., etc. If they're finally getting their spending on track but just need alittle bit more of a cushion, why not provide that push at the federal level? It worked once for teachers, firefighters and police to keep them employed, why shouldn't it work again?



You do realize that the President's Jobs Plan and his Deficit Reduction Plan are two separate proposals purposely designed to work together?

The Jobs Plan is intended to spur short-term economic growth while other legislation, such as trade agreements and expediting pattents, are intended for long-term economic stability.
The problem with Stimulus1 going to fund cops, firefighters, and teachers is that these are STATE and LOCAL responsibilities. A stimulus from the federal government is just a band aid, sure you keep a cop on the streets for another 12 months, but when those federal dollars run out, whose going to pick up the tab? Oh that's right, the federal government, again. Rinse, recycle and repeat. At some point we have to stop the bleeding and start cutting spending.
 
the main reason i didn't read it? your post. you posted that obama demonzies the wealthy, instead of leading with maybe a fact or 2 from the link. a very partisan post. results DO matter, i'm just not stupid enough to believe that all of our problems could be solved in 3 years. it took much longer than that for these problems to become critical. and quite frankly, you are the most single minded poster here, do you have stock in the bls?

The reason you didn't read the article is that you don't want to admit that the facts are there and you have been wrong in your support. Why couldn't the problem be fixed in 3 years with the "smartest man" ever to hold the office with overwhelming Democrat numbers in Congress in an economy that was out of recession in June 2009? How do you justify adding 4.2 trillion to the debt and losing over 2 million jobs? How do you justify another Jobs Bill without cutting spending and why do you continue to buy the lies from this Administration?

Sorry, Liblady, but I confuse you with facts, facts that make you made but are verifiable. Single minded poster? Hardly, but I am results oriented and results matter more than rhetoric. It would give you more credibility if you took the results cited and prove those results wrong? The prescription for the economy is what Reagan did as the recessions were very similar but the difference is Reagan added 17 million jobs with a 1.7 trillion debt and Obama has a net job loss with 4.2 trillion added to the debt. Reagan had a net job gain at the end of three years in office whereas Obama has a net job loss. That is reality why are you ignoring that reality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom