• 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!

Payrolls In U.S. Rose 80,000 In June; Jobless Rate 8.2%

Bronson said:
They haven't even passed a budget in over 1000 days. Not one of Obama's proposed budgets has passed. His last one was shot down without a single vote in it's favor.

How embarrassing
Click to expand...
Except it wasn't Obama's budget. It was a severely condensed version offered by Republicans purely as a political stunt.

Indeed.
 
Barack Obama In 2004 Attacked Bush For Weak Economy

In a 2004 weekly radio address given when the President was still a State Senator, Obama attacked Bush for “three dismal years of job loss.” The speech sounds strikingly similar to Republican talking points used against the current President and speaks volumes to the degree in which political rhetoric is recycled.
Click to expand...

State Senator Obama 2004 Radio Address Attacks Bush on Dismal Economy - YouTube

The unemployment rate for 2004 was 5.5%

United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com
 
Hare said:
Except it wasn't Obama's budget. It was a severely condensed version offered by Republicans purely as a political stunt.

Indeed.
Click to expand...

Look if you're going to reply to my posts you need to have your facts straight.

You can't just spout nonsense. Here are the facts:

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times

President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.
Click to expand...
 
Bronson said:
Look if you're going to reply to my posts you need to have your facts straight.

You can't just spout nonsense. Here are the facts:

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times
Click to expand...
The facts that are that the president's budget was not presented for a vote. A severely condensed version of the Obama budget was proposed by a senate republican, that was lacking in sufficient report language to even appropriate the hypothetical funds. A political stunt, no more, no less.
 
Bronson said:
Look if you're going to reply to my posts you need to have your facts straight.

You can't just spout nonsense. Here are the facts:
Click to expand...

Here are the facts: the amendment Republicans submitted to a vote, which you are calling Obama's budget, was not Obama's budget. It contained nothing but top-line figures with no specifics at all about how those numbers would be achieved. It's a little stunt that they've dreamed up.
 
Bronson said:
Look if you're going to reply to my posts you need to have your facts straight.

You can't just spout nonsense. Here are the facts:

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times
Click to expand...


A Guide to Recognizing Your Budget Stunts

Grab on to something. Steady yourself. Today, the House of Representatives will pass the Ryan budget. The number to remember is "4." That was how many Republicans voted against Ryan's 2011 budget, when Republicans were riding higher. And two of the "nos" came from Republicans who thought the bill was too soft: Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina. One "no" came from Montana U.S. Senate candidate Denny Rehberg, and one came from West Virginia freshman David McKinley, who has to answer to a huge population of seniors. If the Ryan budget gets more than four "nos," it'll say that Republicans are more trepidatious about selling Medicare voucherization in a general election.
But it'll pass, and it'll pass after two budget stunts failed miserably. Those stunts:

- Rep. Mick Mulvaney, who defeated Budget chairman John Spratt for his seat, introduced an amendment consisting of the numbers and appropriations of Barack Obama's 2012 budget. "It’s not a gimmick unless what the President sent us is the same," Mulvaney snarked. "We are voting on the President’s budget. I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it." (Calling a Democratic effort a "Democrat" effort is a minor swipe.)

The amendment went down 414-0, just like an identical Republican stunt in 2011 led to a unanimous defeat of an "Obama's budget" parody. "It was a caricature of the president's budget," explained Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, "so we voted against it."
- Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Rep. Steven LaTourette of Ohio, two of the last members you could really describe as moderates, collaborated on a zombie version of the Simpson-Bowles budget. Damian Paletta reports that pressure groups "appeared to be so alarmed that the budget resolution might gain momentum Wednesday night that they issued sharp news releases hours before the vote warning members not to compromise." But it wasn't clear whether they were afraid of momentum -- it was quite tough to break through the news cycle -- or whether they just wanted to set these guys right. Sixteen Republicans voted for the amendment, many of them takers of the Norquist pledge. All in all only 38 members voted for the amendment.
Once it was shot through the head, the zombie bill took on a sort of dignity.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What? Educate yourself: Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The great, teleprompter in chief, Omama blames MOST of our economic woes on the "Bush" federal income tax rate cuts, yet Obama not only keeps those BAD rates, but doubles down on federal spending AND adds SS payroll tax cuts of his own. Yes he did! Hmm...
Click to expand...

Obama only kept the tax cuts for the top bracket because the GOP caved on everything else in order to get them, the sluts. But just wait till after November and Obama offers to trade the riches tax cuts for the Defense budget sequestration cuts. There is going to be fireworks in the House as the T's explode and disappear in a blaze of light.
 
iguanaman said:
Obama only kept the tax cuts for the top bracket because the GOP caved on everything else in order to get them, the sluts. But just wait till after November and Obama offers to trade the riches tax cuts for the Defense budget sequestration cuts. There is going to be fireworks in the House as the T's explode and disappear in a blaze of light.
Click to expand...

It is possible that if Obama is re-elected he might try and blow up the government early to have time to get back to normalcy before the 2014 election cycle.
 
Bronson said:
Look if you're going to reply to my posts you need to have your facts straight.

You can't just spout nonsense. Here are the facts:

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Bush did have the worst job creation record in modern history, wages fell too. But that is just a typical for a Republican President, who as a group have created HALF as many jobs as Dems while in office.
Romney promises to be even worse than Bush, who boosted the number of Govt. jobs instead of cutitng them as Mitt wants.
 
AdamT said:
Here are the facts: the amendment Republicans submitted to a vote, which you are calling Obama's budget, was not Obama's budget. It contained nothing but top-line figures with no specifics at all about how those numbers would be achieved. It's a little stunt that they've dreamed up.
Click to expand...

The GOP should think of starting a circus with all the "performers" thay have in Washington. P.T. Barnum has nothing on them.
 
The problems of America's economy are structural not cyclic. The first step in dealing with any problem is to stop lying to one's self about the nature of the problem.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
The problems of America's economy are structural not cyclic. The first step in dealing with any problem is to stop lying to one's self about the nature of the problem.
Click to expand...
and what is this lie which cannot be revealed?
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
The problems of America's economy are structural not cyclic. The first step in dealing with any problem is to stop lying to one's self about the nature of the problem.
Click to expand...

Really? So you think that home construction is a dead industry forever? How do you figure that? How exactly is the subprime housing bubble not cyclic?
 
justabubba said:
so, if stymied, there would have been no spending
and if that were true, where did the $5 trillion you refer to come from
notice how the facts work against your position
Click to expand...

Are you serious? The spending keeps on happening. What has been stymied is any hope of reducing the spending...a direct result of Senate obstruction.

Actually, I've never referred to any $5 trillion in this thread. But since you asked, it's come from the laws jammed through Congress when the Democrats enjoyed their majority.
 
Mycroft said:
Are you serious? The spending keeps on happening. What has been stymied is any hope of reducing the spending...a direct result of Senate obstruction.

Actually, I've never referred to any $5 trillion in this thread. But since you asked, it's come from the laws jammed through Congress when the Democrats enjoyed their majority.
Click to expand...
and as we know, the spending could not happen but for the approval of the GOP dominated house of representatives
 
justabubba said:
and as we know, the spending could not happen but for the approval of the GOP dominated house of representatives
Click to expand...

sigh...

It takes two...or, in this case, three...to tango. Do you get my drift?

There's no way you can lay blame for government spending on the current GOP-controlled House. They've been trying for almost two years to reduce spending.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

It takes two...or, in this case, three...to tango. Do you get my drift?

There's no way you can lay blame for government spending on the current GOP-controlled House. They've been trying for almost two years to reduce spending.
Click to expand...

glad you are getting closer to acknowledging the GOP's complicity in the deficit spending
 
justabubba said:
glad you are getting closer to acknowledging the GOP's complicity in the deficit spending
Click to expand...


The choice was either go along with the spending or the dems would shut the government and the media would blame the gop.

Sad thing is, as the country continues to be mired in this mess, and many millions are adversely effected political hacks rejoice when they score some silly point. No wonder younger generation says politics is all BS and doesn't bother to vote for either sorry excuse for a presidential candidate.
 
justabubba said:
glad you are getting closer to acknowledging the GOP's complicity in the deficit spending
Click to expand...

I'm sure you would prefer the GOP go hardline and shut down the government...right?
 
Mycroft said:
I'm sure you would prefer the GOP go hardline and shut down the government...right?
Click to expand...

you mean like what they did when newt was leading the house?
how did that turn out for your side

hehe
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

It takes two...or, in this case, three...to tango. Do you get my drift?

There's no way you can lay blame for government spending on the current GOP-controlled House. They've been trying for almost two years to reduce spending.
Click to expand...

LOL They only want to decrease spending they don't like. The House added billions to the defense budget that wasn't wanted or asked for plus a half billion $ "slush fund" with no stated purpose. The idea that Republicans want to cut spending goes against all the history to the contrary. It is almost comical.


The extra half-billion dollars in the House billls “is money without stated purpose or direction,” said Mr. Wheeler, who spent three decades as a Capitol Hill staffer overseeing Pentagon budgets for both Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

“That has slush fund written all over it,” he told The Times.
Click to expand...
House Republicans add half-billion dollars to Pentagon budget - Washington Times
 
Mycroft said:
I'm sure you would prefer the GOP go hardline and shut down the government...right?
Click to expand...

Funding is still going on but the Congress is effectively shut down. The Executive and Judicial branches are left to take up the slack(ers)
 
Mycroft said:
I'm sure you would prefer the GOP go hardline and shut down the government...right?
Click to expand...

Not sure what enjoyment you have going back and forth with this poster. Better to just bang your head against the wall. I am sure he knows what he is saying is nonsense, just having some fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom