Even The Party Faithful

cpwill · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
GIven your response, I can see that you are the type who thinks everything left of far right is liberal. Think what you want. I don't find it an insult being called a liberal. Liberal is not a dirty word. I am just not a liberal.

That is incorrect. Saying one is a progressive vice a liberal is a distinction without a serious difference.

I won't spend time trying to educate you to all the degrees there are from far left to far right.

it seems the reason you do so is that you are not terribly familiar with them yourself, but have found a label you prefer (it sounds nicer, no?), and have decided to stick with it. I would wager I am probably a bit more familiar with the history of Progressivism than you are

.

As far as fuel efficient cars, I can't make you accept the facts, nor will I try.

:lamo You haven't presented any facts!

Frakking is contaminating the drinking water in areas near the frakking sites.

my what a fascinating blanket claim. You know what's funny about that drinking water? it had oil in it before frakking started. Gosh, I wonder if that had anything to do with all the oil in the ground.

But if you are so worried about oily groundwater, then I can only urge you to join forces with us in trying to get all that nasty oil out of the ground as fast as possible

.

It is clear that frakking can and does cause damage to the environment.

It can, certainly. So can driving, or flying planes, or having bar-b-ques. However, the fact remains that drilling here in the United States is less detrimental to the environment than drilling in the 2nd and 3rd world countries that provide much of our global supply of oil. If you want to shift energy production to cleaner venues, then your first step needs to be to shift as much production to the United States and like first-world nations as fast as possible.

What is not clear yet is, how much damage is it causing. I don't think we should continue the practice until we do studies to see how safe it is or if we can make the process safer.

already long since done. You can't even put up a factory without half a dozen EPA studies and permits, much less drilling.

I realize you think putting money into renewable energy ideas is a bad idea.

I don't, actually. I just think putting taxpayer money into renewable energy for the sake of putting it into renewable energy is a bad idea. Whenever you have politicians distributing resources, it get's distributed according to political rather than economic incentives.

I think we should take the money we throw at oil companies that clearly do not need the corporate welfare and put it into renewable energy sources

as soon as you can show me that corporate welfare I'd love to see it. the only claims i've ever seen substantiated tend to be that money reinvested into production and R&D isn't considered for tax purposes; which is not at all unique to the oil industry, but is a standard deduction enjoyed by every single business in America.

The republicans have been saying, over and over again, we need to give tax cuts to the wealthy who are the job creators.

that is neither an accurate nor holistic description of various republican tax approaches.

THat has been the only job bill they have put forward and handing the wealthy more money hasn't created jobs.

actually there are I think a couple of dozen jobs bills that passed the Republican House currently languishing in the Democrat Senate, which cannot even be bothered to do it's legal duty and pass a budget.

obvious Child · Sep 4, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
But the market needs to decide, not the government. Some subsidization of R&D I can live with, but the actual industries? Bad idea.

Then we should stop subsidizing oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear.

I hear the whining against subsides to renewable, but where is the attacks on the subsidies to fossil and nuclear? Not once have I see a 'market needs to decide' call for the end to fossil and nuclear fuel subsides.

The hypocrisy and inconsistency here is amazing. I can't even measure it. And I'm a CPA for crying out loud.

Hairytic · Sep 4, 2012

cpwill said:
That is incorrect. Saying one is a progressive vice a liberal is a distinction without a serious difference.

it seems the reason you do so is that you are not terribly familiar with them yourself, but have found a label you prefer (it sounds nicer, no?), and have decided to stick with it. I would wager I am probably a bit more familiar with the history of Progressivism than you are .

:lamo You haven't presented any facts!

my what a fascinating blanket claim. You know what's funny about that drinking water? it had oil in it before frakking started. Gosh, I wonder if that had anything to do with all the oil in the ground.

But if you are so worried about oily groundwater, then I can only urge you to join forces with us in trying to get all that nasty oil out of the ground as fast as possible .

It can, certainly. So can driving, or flying planes, or having bar-b-ques. However, the fact remains that drilling here in the United States is less detrimental to the environment than drilling in the 2nd and 3rd world countries that provide much of our global supply of oil. If you want to shift energy production to cleaner venues, then your first step needs to be to shift as much production to the United States and like first-world nations as fast as possible.

already long since done. You can't even put up a factory without half a dozen EPA studies and permits, much less drilling.

I don't, actually. I just think putting taxpayer money into renewable energy for the sake of putting it into renewable energy is a bad idea. Whenever you have politicians distributing resources, it get's distributed according to political rather than economic incentives.

as soon as you can show me that corporate welfare I'd love to see it. the only claims i've ever seen substantiated tend to be that money reinvested into production and R&D isn't considered for tax purposes; which is not at all unique to the oil industry, but is a standard deduction enjoyed by every single business in America.

that is neither an accurate nor holistic description of various republican tax approaches.

actually there are I think a couple of dozen jobs bills that passed the Republican House currently languishing in the Democrat Senate, which cannot even be bothered to do it's legal duty and pass a budget.

When it comes to the so called GOP jobs bills, this article explains a lot.
Republican Jobs Bills Won't Actually Create Jobs, Say Economists
"In interviews conducted by The Huffington Post with five economists, most said the GOP jobs package would have no meaningful impact on job creation in the near term. Some said it was not likely to do much in the long term, either.
"A lot of these things are laughable in terms of a jobs plan that would produce noticeable improvements across the country in the availability of employment in the next four or five years," said Gary Burtless, a senior economist at Brookings. "Even in the long run, if they have any effect all, it would be extremely marginal, relative to the jobs deficit we currently have."
Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, agreed that the bills would have almost no effect on job creation in the short term, though he was slightly more optimistic about their long-term prospects.
"These kind of changes will matter over a period of three to five years," Zandi said. "It takes that long before businesses can digest changes and respond to them.""
The GOP has spent more time trying to ban abortions than they have in trying to create jobs.

As for corporate welfare spent compared to low income welfare, here is an good article stating the facts.
Welfare for Bankers - NYTimes.com
"In 2007, the latest year for which figures are available, TANF spending on cash assistance (not including child care or other subsidies) came to $4.5 billion. Total commitments to TARP since September 2008 come to $700 billion. So one year of TANF spending equals less than 1 percent of TARP. Citibank alone received $25 billion, five times the cash transferred to mothers and children receiving public assistance in 2007.

Here’s a more specific comparison. Top executives of banks bailed out this year — about 600 guys — received an estimated $1.6 billion in bonuses in 2007. That’s a little over a third of what 1.6 million families got in cash from TANF in that year."

Further, I think doing things we know harms the environment is stupid.
The GOP are clearly uninterested in rebuilding the middle class or helping the poor rise above their situations.
This is why I no longer support the GOP.

OpportunityCost · Sep 4, 2012

obvious Child said:
Then we should stop subsidizing oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear.

I hear the whining against subsides to renewable, but where is the attacks on the subsidies to fossil and nuclear? Not once have I see a 'market needs to decide' call for the end to fossil and nuclear fuel subsides.

The hypocrisy and inconsistency here is amazing. I can't even measure it. And I'm a CPA for crying out loud.

The principle tax breaks to oil are from cpaital invesment. I think they ought to end any special incentives they get, I think there is one for depreciation of leases that are not used, that seems pretty stupid to me.

SPecial tax breaks, eliminate them. Normal tax breaks that all companies get, ought to stay imo.

OpportunityCost · Sep 4, 2012

"In interviews conducted by The Huffington Post with five economists, most said the GOP jobs package would have no meaningful impact on job creation in the near term. Some said it was not likely to do much in the long term, either.

Five economists who were not named or quoted. Seems legit to me.

Bobcat · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
Out of all of your post, these are the two point I will comment on.
1. Are you better off than you where 4 years ago. This question should make the wealthy class vote for Obama. The wealthy have been making out very good with corporate executives being given huge bonuses while laying off workers or shipping jobs over seas. The statistics show that the wealthy class has been doing very well over the las 4 years. A better question would be, what does Romney plan to do to rebuild the middle class, which would bring strength to the economy. Romney claims he will create 12 million jobs. How does he plan to do this?
2. The Rush jab about Sandra Fluke is getting old. Sandra Fluke spoke out about how women's health is being ignored. Men's viagra is covered under health care plans as a treatment for a real medical problem. Birth control pills are also used to treat real medical problems, like the prevention of ovarian cysts that can lead to a complete or partcial historectomy. Yet, birth control pills were not being covered on health care plans. Sandra Flukes message had nothing to do with having sex. If you had turned the channel on Rush and listened to what Sandra Fluke was actually saying, you would know this.

The GOP has not helped itself by degrading women and women's health issues. This is why Romney is doing so poorly among women.

The Dem/Lib mantra of 2012------THE EVIL RICH MUST BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR SUCCESS.

Strucky · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
This ""republicans only control half of congress" bs is BS. Obama and the democrats have tried to work with the republicans.

Really? Please explain how a veto proof Democratic majority in Obama first term allowed Republicans to block Obama's agenda.Then you can explain how Reublicans are suppose to get things passed only controlling one half of one third of the government.

As for Obama trying to work with Republicans....

First minute is the relevent part,though the rest is kinda a bonus on the boneheaded statements from the last three years.

The tea party republicans see compromise as a dirty word. The old style republicans wanted to compromise,

The Tea Party have very strong beliefs on what they want done....Can you blame them for not wanting to compromise their principles?Old school Republicans working hand in hand with Democrats is what led to loose lending practices that resulted in the housing bubble and trillions in debt.

but Bohener couldn't get them on board. This is why we got a down grade.

This was in the media, maybe you should research it. Obama has plans to rebuild the middle class that he has been presenting to congress for over 3 years now. They are very detailed and easy to look up. However, answering my question as to what economic plan Romney has like you did tells me you have no clue what economic plan Romney has. Romney hasn't even mentioned rebuilding the middle class.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I'm sure it had nothing to do with spending lol

Bush Obama deficits

Hairytic · Sep 4, 2012

Bobcat said:
The Dem/Lib mantra of 2012------THE EVIL RICH MUST BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR SUCCESS.

That is such a republican spin on the whole topic. It's frankly getting old.

Travis007 · Sep 4, 2012

Bobcat said:
The Dem/Lib mantra of 2012------THE EVIL RICH MUST BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR SUCCESS.

and Isreal must go under the bus...

Travis007 · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
That is such a republican spin on the whole topic. It's frankly getting old.

no its not..I jsut heard that Obama is going to be hammering the rich in his speach...ITS FACT it will be the backbone of his speach

your Pro Obama spin is really getting old..

Hairytic · Sep 4, 2012

Strucky said:
Really? Please explain how a veto proof Democratic majority in Obama first term allowed Republicans to block Obama's agenda.Then you can explain how Reublicans are suppose to get things passed only controlling one half of one third of the government.

As for Obama trying to work with Republicans....

First minute is the relevent part,though the rest is kinda a bonus on the boneheaded statements from the last three years.

The Tea Party have very strong beliefs on what they want done....Can you blame them for not wanting to compromise their principles?Old school Republicans working hand in hand with Democrats is what led to loose lending practices that resulted in the housing bubble and trillions in debt.

This was in the media, maybe you should research it. Obama has plans to rebuild the middle class that he has been presenting to congress for over 3 years now. They are very detailed and easy to look up. However, answering my question as to what economic plan Romney has like you did tells me you have no clue what economic plan Romney has. Romney hasn't even mentioned rebuilding the middle class.

Yeah I'm sure it had nothing to do with spending lol

Bush Obama deficits[/QUOTE]

Republicans could have gotten things passed if they had worked with the president as opposed to saying it was their way or the highway. Just because the tea party didn't want to compromise, even when Obama was willing to put more on the table that the democrats felt strongly about is why nothing got done. The tea party isn't the only group that feels strongly about their ideas. The same could be said for the democrats. I guess you can't then blame the democrats for not wanting to compromise. Obama was constantly trying to give more to bring about comrpomise. He even incorporated many republican ideas to the point of losing a part of his base. The tea party held the economy hostage, which put congress' approval rating to the single digits.

Hairytic · Sep 4, 2012

Travis007 said:
no its not..I jsut heard that Obama is going to be hammering the rich in his speach...ITS FACT it will be the backbone of his speach

your Pro Obama spin is really getting old..

Obama isn't against the rich. It is simple economics. He is trying to fix the economy. This can't be done by giving those who can afford to pay more tax brakes. The rich have done very well throughout this last decade. This is evidence that the wealth is flowing upward. We can't build a stronger economy if the middle class isn't strengthened. We have to give out less corporate welfare. We have to close the loop holes that allows the wealth to flow upward. When corporate executives are giving themselves million dollar bonuses while laying off workers, something is wrong. If you tax the middle class more, the middle class with shrink. I don't see how you can't understand this.

danarhea · Sep 4, 2012

Travis007 · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
Obama isn't against the rich. It is simple economics. He is trying to fix the economy. This can't be done by giving those who can afford to pay more tax brakes. The rich have done very well throughout this last decade. This is evidence that the wealth is flowing upward. We can't build a stronger economy if the middle class isn't strengthened. We have to give out less corporate welfare. We have to close the loop holes that allows the wealth to flow upward. When corporate executives are giving themselves million dollar bonuses while laying off workers, something is wrong. If you tax the middle class more, the middle class with shrink. I don't see how you can't understand this.

well facts show that Barry Erkle Ozero knows nothing about the economics..

Just total wow on your post.. it makes no sense and cant work..

cutting taxes has been proven to bring in more tax revenues.. thats called economics 101..

the welthy are not getting wealthier they just are not investing it back into the economy becasue the risk has no reward..is that so hard to understand..its what smart people do..

Hairytic · Sep 4, 2012

Travis007 said:
well facts show that Barry Erkle Ozero knows nothing about the economics..

Just total wow on your post.. it makes no sense and cant work..

cutting taxes has been proven to bring in more tax revenues.. thats called economics 101..

the welthy are not getting wealthier they just are not investing it back into the economy becasue the risk has no reward..is that so hard to understand..its what smart people do..

The statistics have shown that the wealthy have gotten much wealthier of the last decade as opposed to previous decades. Cutting taxes across the board only works when there are plenty of jobs to be had. Our debt is growing, which means more revenue has to be brought in. By raising taxes on all income above 250K to the Clinton era taxes would bring down the debt and give money to rebuild the infrastructure. Rebuilding the infrastructure would create jobs. It's really simple.

Strucky · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
The statistics have shown that the wealthy have gotten much wealthier of the last decade as opposed to previous decades. Cutting taxes across the board only works when there are plenty of jobs to be had. Our debt is growing, which means more revenue has to be brought in. By raising taxes on all income above 250K to the Clinton era taxes would bring down the debt and give money to rebuild the infrastructure. Rebuilding the infrastructure would create jobs. It's really simple.

Raising taxes on the wealthy (who already pay 70% of Federal income taxes) to the levels Obama wants will raise 80 billion a year....the Federal debt this year will be around 1.2 trillion,I dont think thats the solution.

Hairytic · Sep 4, 2012

Strucky said:
Raising taxes on the wealthy (who already pay 70% of Federal income taxes) to the levels Obama wants will raise 80 billion a year....the Federal debt this year will be around 1.2 trillion,I dont think thats the solution.

Bringing in more money to create more jobs is a solution. We have to bring more revenue in to pay the bills. We can't keep cutting taxes and expect the debt to go away.

Strucky · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
Bringing in more money to create more jobs is a solution. We have to bring more revenue in to pay the bills. We can't keep cutting taxes and expect the debt to go away.

we need to cut Government spending in all areas to cut the deficit....raising taxes on the rich will NOT do it.

Travis007 · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
Bringing in more money to create more jobs is a solution. We have to bring more revenue in to pay the bills. We can't keep cutting taxes and expect the debt to go away.

your post makes no sense.. punishing the job creators will not increase jobs,,,no matter how many times you say it will..it wont.

you have it backaward... why am I not suprised..again CUTTING TAXES it is PROVEN will bring in MORE tax revenues..PERIOD..

Hairytic · Sep 4, 2012

Strucky said:
we need to cut Government spending in all areas to cut the deficit....raising taxes on the rich will NOT do it.

I agree we need to cut government spending as well, however, not in all areas. We should cut government spending wisely. Some government spending helps the economy. I don't agree with cutting the social safety net or education, for example.

Strucky · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
I agree we need to cut government spending as well, however, not in all areas. We should cut government spending wisely. Some government spending helps the economy. I don't agree with cutting the social safety net or education, for example.

There is waste in every area that can be cut,just throwing money into education or SS because it feels good is not gonna help us.

Travis007 · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
I agree we need to cut government spending as well, however, not in all areas. We should cut government spending wisely. Some government spending helps the economy. I don't agree with cutting the social safety net or education, for example.

How about we start by cutting Obama...

Mitt will do the job and not take a paycheck..

Hairytic · Sep 4, 2012

Travis007 said:
How about we start by cutting Obama...

Mitt will do the job and not take a paycheck..

Mitt can't get the job done.

Strucky · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
Mitt can't get the job done.

Apparently Obama cannot either,at least Mitt has a record of success

Travis007 · Sep 4, 2012

Hairytic said:
Mitt can't get the job done.

why ? is it that he isnt a race hustler, bigot, with no exec experience, that only has " community agitator" on his wafer thin resume? or is that he spent no time with Ayers, Alinsky or Wright?

I guess saving the Olympics and doing it for free wasnt enough? nor turning the lib sesspool of Taxachussetts around and being voted in there even with a liberal majority..

is the job to destroy the USA? becasue thats Obamas goal.. period.. History will destroy Obama ..he will go down as a blot

Even The Party Faithful

More options

cpwill

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Hairytic

OpportunityCost

OpportunityCost

Bobcat

Well-known member

Strucky

.

Hairytic

Travis007

Travis007

Hairytic

Hairytic

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Travis007

Hairytic

Strucky

.

Hairytic

Strucky

.

Travis007

Hairytic

Strucky

.

Travis007

Hairytic

Strucky

.

Travis007