• 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.
Gill said:
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.
Click to expand...

And yet it received 50 out of 52 Democrat votes...enough to be a majority vote.

Look, I'm not going to continue arguing Senate procedures with you. The bill didn't pass because 2 Dems and every Republican Senator voted against it. End of story for passing the bill out of the Senate in its full text form. I'll wait and see how Congress and the House in particular handles things from here.



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....
Click to expand...

Which is a fancy way of for saying, "Let's have a procedural vote on the proposed legislation without debating on it and see whose willing to take up the matter now or not at all."

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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you mean "50 solid votes in favor of the bill itself" because Reid did get 50 Senate Democrats to vote to take up the bill; Republicans simply voted in lock-step against it. But you keep on trying to convince yourself and others that this Senate measure had no Democrat support...keep telling yourself that. I'm sure in your own mind it's very true. :roll:
 
Objective Voice said:
And yet it received 50 out of 52 Democrat votes...enough to be a majority vote.

Look, I'm not going to continue arguing Senate procedures with you. The bill didn't pass because 2 Dems and every Republican Senator voted against it. End of story for passing the bill out of the Senate in its full text form. I'll wait and see how Congress and the House in particular handles things from here.





Which is a fancy way of for saying, "Let's have a procedural vote on the proposed legislation without debating on it and see whose willing to take up the matter now or not at all."



I'm sure you mean "50 solid votes in favor of the bill itself" because Reid did get 50 Senate Democrats to vote to take up the bill; Republicans simply voted in lock-step against it. But you keep on trying to convince yourself and others that this Senate measure had no Democrat support...keep telling yourself that. I'm sure in your own mind it's very true. :roll:
Click to expand...

Why do you support the Jobs Bill after Stimulus One failed? Why should the people of Huntsville, Alabama fund police and fire fighters along with teachers in Chicago, Illinois? Think about it. Police,, Fire,, Teachers are state and local responsibilities. Why do we have a state govt. if that becomes the role of the Federal Taxpayers?
 
Gill said:
Do you actually deny that Obama demonizes wealthy people ?????
Click to expand...

He doesn't do it because he actually believes it, it's just for political gain. Those wealthy people are his biggest contributors and so is Wall Street, ironically enough.
 
Objective Voice said:
I'm sure you mean "50 solid votes in favor of the bill itself" because Reid did get 50 Senate Democrats to vote to take up the bill; Republicans simply voted in lock-step against it. But you keep on trying to convince yourself and others that this Senate measure had no Democrat support...keep telling yourself that. I'm sure in your own mind it's very true. :roll:
Click to expand...

Two Dems voted with Republicans against bringing the bill to the floor.

Two more Dems, Minchin of West Virginia and Webb of Virginia, along with Independent Joe Lieberman, voted to bring the bill to the floor but said they would vote against it.

The bill never had a chance because Dems were not united behind it.
 
neocon1225 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, instead of keeping our cities streets safe from crime - because as we all know once the economy begins to faulter, the crime rate esculates - you'd rather not provide the States any aid to keep cops on the beat?

Look, I totally understand your point and Conservative's on this "State's rights" matter, but if the states are just barely starting to get their financial houses in order, why would you be opposed providing them with the financial aid they need to continue to protect and serve the public's interest?

As for the call to cut spending, I'd say trimming an initial $1.5T over 10-years is a damned good start; and the President has asked for more...upwards of another $3.5T. You can find the President's Deficit Reduction Plan at Whitehouse.gov.
 
Objective Voice said:
So, instead of keeping our cities streets safe from crime - because as we all know once the economy begins to faulter, the crime rate esculates - you'd rather not provide the States any aid to keep cops on the beat?

Look, I totally understand your point and Conservative's on this "State's rights" matter, but if the states are just barely starting to get their financial houses in order, why would you be opposed providing them with the financial aid they need to continue to protect and serve the public's interest?

As for the call to cut spending, I'd say trimming an initial $1.5T over 10-years is a damned good start; and the President has asked for more...upwards of another $3.5T. You can find the President's Deficit Reduction Plan at Whitehouse.gov.
Click to expand...

Glad you believe in states' rights however you never answered the question as to why your taxdollars shouldd go to short term stop gap spending in another city in another state?

You claim that Obama has proposed for more than 1.5 trillion in cuts,where is that specific proposal? Cutting 1.5 trillion or more over 10 years is 150 billion off a 3.7 trillion dollar budget, a drop in the bucket. Why do you buy Obama rhetoric?
 
Gill said:
Two Dems voted with Republicans against bringing the bill to the floor.

Two more Dems, Minchin of West Virginia and Webb of Virginia, along with Independent Joe Lieberman, voted to bring the bill to the floor but said they would vote against it.

The bill never had a chance because Dems were not united behind it.
Click to expand...

The bill never had a change because 47 Republicans - the entirety of Senate Republicans - were dead set on voting against it!!! It wouldn't have mattered if all 53 Democrats voted for the plan; they'd still need atleast 8 Republicans to vote with them.

Stop being disingenuous about this vote.
 
Objective Voice said:
The bill never had a change because 47 Republicans - the entirety of Senate Republicans - were dead set on voting against it!!! It wouldn't have mattered if all 53 Democrats voted for the plan; they'd still need atleast 8 Republicans to vote with them.

Stop being disingenuous about this vote.
Click to expand...

The bill would have passed if Reid had brought the bill to the floor as requested by McConnell AND if all of the Democrats had voted for it. Republicans could not have stopped it.

Those are the facts, however inconvenient they are.
 
Conservative said:
Glad you believe in states' rights however you never answered the question as to why your taxdollars shouldd go to short term stop gap spending in another city in another state?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension, dude...see my post #380 which you obviously causually clanced over. :roll: But I'm make it very plain for you why I'd support this measure...

I'm a patriot; I believe in rendering aid to my country where I can. It's really no different than sending firefighters to another state in crisis, i.e., the forrest fires in CA, AZ and TX. If a governor from another state requests assistance, I'd think those states that can send reinforcements (firefighters and equipment) would do so. Same should apply if the President deems it necessary to send federal aid to the states to supplement public employees or public works projects. Why? "General welfare of the country..." Everyone benefits if our teachers, firefighters and local/state law enforcement can continue to do their civic duties.

You claim that Obama has proposed for more than 1.5 trillion in cuts, where is that specific proposal?
Click to expand...

Again, see my previous post...

Cutting 1.5 trillion or more over 10 years is 150 billion off a 3.7 trillion dollar budget, a drop in the bucket. Why do you buy Obama rhetoric?
Click to expand...

Because it's a good first step in a long-term process. You have to start somewhere, right? Especially, since you Conservative Republicans continue to argue that spending cuts as promised in the past never came to be. You can't make that claim currently; you can only look back after the next 10-12 years and see if the cuts actually took place. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the man is trying to do what he believes is right for the country and leading experts properly vet his proposals, i.e., OMB, CBO, economist, even Congress!, I can support his initiatives.
 
Objective Voice said:
So, instead of keeping our cities streets safe from crime - because as we all know once the economy begins to faulter, the crime rate esculates - you'd rather not provide the States any aid to keep cops on the beat?

Look, I totally understand your point and Conservative's on this "State's rights" matter, but if the states are just barely starting to get their financial houses in order, why would you be opposed providing them with the financial aid they need to continue to protect and serve the public's interest?

As for the call to cut spending, I'd say trimming an initial $1.5T over 10-years is a damned good start; and the President has asked for more...upwards of another $3.5T. You can find the President's Deficit Reduction Plan at Whitehouse.gov.
Click to expand...
When does it stop though? Two years after Stimulus1 we're still in a hole and our President is offering the same exact thing (except half the size) that didn't work the first time. We're at a point where we can't spend our way out this hole. The problem with stop gap measures is it just delays reality a little bit longer. I understand local and state governments are broke, when the federal government money runs out the states are still broke. We're trying to take aspirin to cure a cancer, it's not going to work, if we're going to provide relief money to the states I want it to come with some strings attached. Until we address the inherent problems in our tax code, and we do something address our addiction to spending and debt I don't want any "stimulus" spending.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of infrastructure spending and very moderate and limited aid to the states, but I oppose at this point because of where we are in this country. We have leaders in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, who aren't serious at all about fiscal restraint and sanity and just want to spend spend spend or offer up small inadequate proposals. We need a restructuring of the tax system, along with a budget that shows that we're serious about lowering spending and reducing the deficit and the debt and then we can maybe look at other issues. But right now, with where we're at as a country, and the man we have in the White House, I know this "jobs" "plan" is a bridge to nowhere that I refuse to support.
 
Objective Voice said:
The bill never had a change because 47 Republicans - the entirety of Senate Republicans - were dead set on voting against it!!! It wouldn't have mattered if all 53 Democrats voted for the plan; they'd still need atleast 8 Republicans to vote with them.

Stop being disingenuous about this vote.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected; I quickly forgot it was a procedural vote, not an actually vote on the bill itself...

That's what happens when the debate gets so emotionally heavy...it's too easy to lose focus.

Carry on...:2wave:
 
Objective Voice;1059879909]Reading comprehension, dude...see my post #380 which you obviously causually clanced over. :roll: But I'm make it very plain for you why I'd support this measure...

I'm a patriot; I believe in rendering aid to my country where I can. It's really no different than sending firefighters to another state in crisis, i.e., the forrest fires in CA, AZ and TX. If a governor from another state requests assistance, I'd think those states that can send reinforcements (firefighters and equipment) would do so. Same should apply if the President deems it necessary to send federal aid to the states to supplement public employees or public works projects. Why? "General welfare of the country..." Everyone benefits if our teachers, firefighters and local/state law enforcement can continue to do their civic duties.
Click to expand...

If you believe in benefiting the country why would you promote sending your money to the politicians that created the 14.8 trillion dollar debt we have today? Why not send your money directly to the states then instead of to the Federal Govt. so they can send it where they want? Sounds like a very naive approach to me for what makes you think that the Federal Govt. has any idea what the real problems are in your state or any other?


Again, see my previous post...

Because it's a good first step in a long-term process. You have to start somewhere, right? Especially, since you Conservative Republicans continue to argue that spending cuts as promised in the past never came to be. You can't make that claim currently; you can only look back after the next 10-12 years and see if the cuts actually took place. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the man is trying to do what he believes is right for the country and leading experts properly vet his proposals, i.e., OMB, CBO, economist, even Congress!, I can support his initiatives.
Click to expand...

A good first step? It isn't a positive step at all,, the budgets being cut are record budgets. If you have to start somewhere then why not with the 2008 baseline instead of the record budgets of today? How many failures does this President have to have before you hold him to a different standard?
 
neocon1225 said:
When does it stop though? Two years after Stimulus1 we're still in a hole and our President is offering the same exact thing (except half the size) that didn't work the first time.
Click to expand...

But it did work! Teachers, police and firefighters were able to stay on the job until just last year. I consider that a win for the states and for the country.

We're at a point where we can't spend our way out this hole.
Click to expand...

Considering that private sector job growth has on the rise even after the Census workers were removed from the numbers before things went to hell with the debt limit negotiations, I'd say federal jobs spending was working quite well and would have ended once the nation began to see sustainable job growth. I mean, look at what's happened since late-July/early August? Private sector job growth has come to a complete stand-still. And where is the free market system? Where is big business? Has the private sector stepped forward to pickup where federal spending has ceased? THIS IS THE FOOLISHNESS PEOPLE WHO THINK AS YOU AND CONSERVATIVE DO DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION!!!

The private sector is still hurting, but you guys refuse to see it!!! Look at what the banks are doing...charging fees...still trying to recoup their loses. Yes, it's in part due to a Dodd-Frank ruling on bank fees (I forget the exact portion of the legislation the new bank fee rules apply to), but must they try doing this now when the economy is still soft? C'mon!!!

The problem with stop gap measures is it just delays reality a little bit longer.
Click to expand...

OR it provides the states with a buffle while a better other long-term initiatives come online that spurs real job growth. Just depends on your perspective. You can either remain partisan and have a short-sighted point of view or you can try to see the big picture and the long-term view. Your choice. I prefer the latter.

I understand local and state governments are broke, when the federal government money runs out the states are still broke. We're trying to take aspirin to cure a cancer, it's not going to work, if we're going to provide relief money to the states I want it to come with some strings attached. Until we address the inherent problems in our tax code, and we do something address our addiction to spending and debt I don't want any "stimulus" spending.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of infrastructure spending and very moderate and limited aid to the states, but I oppose at this point because of where we are in this country. We have leaders in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, who aren't serious at all about fiscal restraint and sanity and just want to spend spend spend or offer up small inadequate proposals. We need a restructuring of the tax system, along with a budget that shows that we're serious about lowering spending and reducing the deficit and the debt and then we can maybe look at other issues. But right now, with where we're at as a country, and the man we have in the White House, I know this "jobs" "plan" is a bridge to nowhere that I refuse to support.
Click to expand...

I understand your concerns, but tax reform takes time. I doubt it get done any time soon even if Obama isn't re-elected. But if that's your biggest opposition to short-term stimulus spending, you really do need to come out of your partisan bubble.
 
Conservative said:
If you believe in benefiting the country why would you promote sending your money to the politicians that created the 14.8 trillion dollar debt we have today? Why not send your money directly to the states then instead of to the Federal Govt. so they can send it where they want? Sounds like a very naive approach to me for what makes you think that the Federal Govt. has any idea what the real problems are in your state or any other?
Click to expand...

Last response because I've wasted enough time on you today.

Under normal circumstances, my tax dollars go where they need to go automatically. Taxes come out of my pay regularly, and if it's determined that I didn't pay enough (as apparently it has for the last 9 yrs per my state tax claims anyway), I pay accordingly. In times of national crisis, I don't have a problem paying more because the country as a whole needs the help.

We are the United States of America, not just Texas, Kansas, Ohio, Indiana or Alabama. When the country has a national need, I have no problem with more of my tax dollars going to the Treasury for such a national calling. You might take issue with it which is your right, but I don't share that individualist attitude in times of national crisis. Now, I may take issue with how the money is spent, but that doesn't seem to be the angle from which yourself and others are coming from. YOU just don't want the federal government to spend money on the states period! regardless of the circumstances. I think that's just wrong-headed thinking.

With that, have a good day.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Glad you believe in states' rights however you never answered the question as to why your taxdollars shouldd go to short term stop gap spending in another city in another state?

You claim that Obama has proposed for more than 1.5 trillion in cuts,where is that specific proposal? Cutting 1.5 trillion or more over 10 years is 150 billion off a 3.7 trillion dollar budget, a drop in the bucket. Why do you buy Obama rhetoric?
Click to expand...
BO didn't propose a single dollar in cuts. No details, no guidance.....nada. What he propose was massive tax increases, on that subject he always details. He wanted to tax the ship out of the successful businesses and successful business owners ..... that is how he expects to increase jobs .....union jobs. Take money away from private businesses the the owners and give it to union teachers, union state government employees, etc. Nothing ever changes with the fool in the White House.
 
Objective Voice said:
The bill never had a change because 47 Republicans - the entirety of Senate Republicans - were dead set on voting against it!!! It wouldn't have mattered if all 53 Democrats voted for the plan; they'd still need atleast 8 Republicans to vote with them.

Stop being disingenuous about this vote.
Click to expand...

The GOP offered a straight up vote.
 
Objective Voice said:
But it did work! Teachers, police and firefighters were able to stay on the job until just last year. I consider that a win for the states and for the country.



Considering that private sector job growth has on the rise even after the Census workers were removed from the numbers before things went to hell with the debt limit negotiations, I'd say federal jobs spending was working quite well and would have ended once the nation began to see sustainable job growth. I mean, look at what's happened since late-July/early August? Private sector job growth has come to a complete stand-still. And where is the free market system? Where is big business? Has the private sector stepped forward to pickup where federal spending has ceased? THIS IS THE FOOLISHNESS PEOPLE WHO THINK AS YOU AND CONSERVATIVE DO DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION!!!

The private sector is still hurting, but you guys refuse to see it!!! Look at what the banks are doing...charging fees...still trying to recoup their loses. Yes, it's in part due to a Dodd-Frank ruling on bank fees (I forget the exact portion of the legislation the new bank fee rules apply to), but must they try doing this now when the economy is still soft? C'mon!!!



OR it provides the states with a buffle while a better other long-term initiatives come online that spurs real job growth. Just depends on your perspective. You can either remain partisan and have a short-sighted point of view or you can try to see the big picture and the long-term view. Your choice. I prefer the latter.



I understand your concerns, but tax reform takes time. I doubt it get done any time soon even if Obama isn't re-elected. But if that's your biggest opposition to short-term stimulus spending, you really do need to come out of your partisan bubble.
Click to expand...
You speak of buffers while "better long term solutions" are being made up, but I ask you do you really believe that Barack Obama is working on "better long term solutions?" Do you trust that Obama is really doing that? My biggest reservation is I don't trust our current crop of "leaders" to really work on any good long term solutions. Obama just wants to keep spending money when it didn't work the first time. Sure cops and firefighters kept their jobs for a while longer, but now the federal dollars are gone and the states need more money. We could pass this "jobs" bill tomorrow and in a few years the states will need more money and then more money and then more money. Until our government, local, state, and federal, get serious about fiscal restraint and serious cuts in spending we'll be stuck in this cycle forever.
 
cpwill said:
It's not perfect - but it would certainly work better than what we are saddled with currently.
Click to expand...

Hey if it worked in Sim City, its got to work in real life right?
 
Conservative said:
Why do you continue to buy what the Obama Administration tells you?
Click to expand...

It didn't come from Obama, it came from Maxis, the creator of SimCity.

simcity4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
It didn't come from Obama, it came from Maxis, the creator of SimCity.
Click to expand...

the Occupy Wall Street Protest groups now include the Communist Party, Nazi Party, and the Socialist Party and Obama has embraced their protests when it was Obama that supported the Wall Street bailout and received the most money from Wall Street in the last election. This is the man you support but apparently like most at the OWS protests you don't know why either.
 
neocon1225 said:
You speak of buffers while "better long term solutions" are being made up, but I ask you do you really believe that Barack Obama is working on "better long term solutions?" Do you trust that Obama is really doing that? My biggest reservation is I don't trust our current crop of "leaders" to really work on any good long term solutions. Obama just wants to keep spending money when it didn't work the first time. Sure cops and firefighters kept their jobs for a while longer, but now the federal dollars are gone and the states need more money. We could pass this "jobs" bill tomorrow and in a few years the states will need more money and then more money and then more money. Until our government, local, state, and federal, get serious about fiscal restraint and serious cuts in spending we'll be stuck in this cycle forever.
Click to expand...

What Objective Voice doesn't seem to understand is the role of the Local, State, and Federal Govt. and has a naive approach to funding local services. OV will not address the issue as to why it is someone else from another state to fund police, fire, and teachers in another state other than the belief it is the right thing to do. Wonder who is going to bail OV out when financial problems arise? Makes absolutely no sense for the Federal Govt. to spend money in a state or local community until that state or local community tries to get themselves out of their financial problems. Sounds like a very naive and young approach to problem solving.
 
Conservative said:
the Occupy Wall Street Protest groups now include the Communist Party, Nazi Party, and the Socialist Party and Obama has embraced their protests when it was Obama that supported the Wall Street bailout and received the most money from Wall Street in the last election. This is the man you support but apparently like most at the OWS protests you don't know why either.
Click to expand...

I support the non-violent protests too!
 
Catawba said:
Not a fan of freedom eh? Try not to get too giddy, the protesters are still standing up to their oppressors.
Click to expand...
Freedom and liberty are awesome. The Arab Spring, not so much. Why do you believe the Muslim Brotherhood is for freedom? Have you not read the Koran? Have you not seen what happens when Islamofascists have their way with a country?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom