• 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.
A government $14T in debt has no business doing anything of the sort and is lying if it tells you to expect "future earnings" from it.
 
Catawba said:
If the country is so conservative, how did we elect a Kenyan Marxist for president in 2008???
Click to expand...

He lied about being a fiscally conservative moderate.
 
Smokified said:
Actually the bill failed in the democrat controlled senate...maybe you should get your facts straight before you go out and vote.
Click to expand...

...actually it did not survive cloture, a process controlled by the Republicans. Hence the original proposition "Job killing GOP" stands. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you go out and vote or post next on DP. No one likes the disingenuous.
 
Reg said:
A government $14T in debt has no business doing anything of the sort and is lying if it tells you to expect "future earnings" from it.
Click to expand...

I was not speaking to the magnitude of the debt (in fact, I specifically carved that out), I was speaking to the macro-economic theory that, in my view, was not very well understood by a previous poster. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with a $14T debt; what is wrong is the dangerously high ratio of debt to GDP (which always seems to climb during Republican administrations)
 

Attachments

  • debt2.gif
    debt2.gif
    15.6 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
Reg said:
He lied about being a fiscally conservative moderate.
Click to expand...

On the whole, he campaigned as a progressive and has governed as a moderate. He went along with the Republicans on bailing out the banks, look at his foreign policy, he didn't eliminate the Bush tax cuts when he could have, he went along with the Republican idea of an insurance mandate, rather than with a single payer system, and he has not pushed for any bans on guns.
 
Reg said:
He lied about being a fiscally conservative moderate.
Click to expand...

You and I must have different definitions of the meaning of "fiscally conservative moderate." He ran on a big liberal platform. He has been much less than liberal. In fact, he has been fairly moderate. Sure, he has done his "socialist workings" of Obamacare, promoting gay rights, etc. but he also kept the Republican Bush Tax Cuts, he has remained fairly friendly with Wall St / Big business, and left a few of the Conservative rights alone.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
You and I must have different definitions of the meaning of "fiscally conservative moderate." He ran on a big liberal platform. He has been much less than liberal. In fact, he has been fairly moderate. Sure, he has done his "socialist workings" of Obamacare, promoting gay rights, etc. but he also kept the Republican Bush Tax Cuts, he has remained fairly friendly with Wall St / Big business, and left a few of the Conservative rights alone.
Click to expand...

Moderate? Obama is a virtual Bush clone. Obamacare is in many ways a handout to private insurance the same way Bush's medicare D was a hand out to big pharm.
 
digsbe said:
I'm glad it was voted down. This is just another spending bill with the label of "job creation" smacked onto it. It's Democratic tactic to try and sensationalize a bill's name to make voters think it's really some magic thing that will fix everything. The facts are that we are in a spending crisis, and this bill wants to spend more money. It's nothing short of illogical partisanship to say Republicans are terrorists or that they hate America because they voted down this bill.
Click to expand...

I find clarity of thought very refreshing in this endless sea of partisanship.
 
Gill said:
Yes, Republicans and Bush share some of the responsibility, BUT the Democrat controlled Congress from 2006 - 2010 and Obama have spent like drunken sailors.
Click to expand...

That's really not a fair statement.

Drunken sailors usually have to stop when they run out of money.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
You and I must have different definitions of the meaning of "fiscally conservative moderate." He ran on a big liberal platform. He has been much less than liberal. In fact, he has been fairly moderate. Sure, he has done his "socialist workings" of Obamacare, promoting gay rights, etc. but he also kept the Republican Bush Tax Cuts, he has remained fairly friendly with Wall St / Big business, and left a few of the Conservative rights alone.
Click to expand...

So because he didn't go completely communist, you think he was too soft?

Because he snuggled up to wall st. while placing increasing regulation end running congress, destroying the very people that gave him the most money for his election is being friendly?

With friends like him...you know the rest.

J-mac
 
Catawba said:
If the country is so conservative, how did we elect a Kenyan Marxist for president in 2008???
Click to expand...

When Obama rope a doped an entire country.... it was monumental. Never before have so many in the U.S. been duped by a snake oil salesman. He does deserve some credit. Hope and Change... and the seas will call his name and the angles will sing from the heavens.... :lamo
 
j-mac said:
destroying the very people that gave him the most money for his election is being friendly?
Click to expand...

Who has he destroyed specifically?

I'm pretty sure despite "regulations" corporate profits are up.
 
Conservative said:
those are the taxes that fund state and local services including Teachers, Fire fighters, and Teachers.
Click to expand...

And don't forget teachers. And don't forget the folks that cook school lunches that Republicans want to fire, so school children die of hunger.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Sure are. I shouldn't want to help out others with my money either? Helping others is a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Helping others is a good thing, and you are welcome to send all of your money to those people.
 
Catawba said:
If the country is so conservative, how did we elect a Kenyan Marxist for president in 2008???
Click to expand...

Why? Because they bought the rheotric and ignored the resume. Now he has a record which will be on the ballot in 2012. Obama isn't who most people thought he was, too leftwing, no leadership skills, and a true divider.
 
j-mac said:
So because he didn't go completely communist, you think he was too soft?

Because he snuggled up to wall st. while placing increasing regulation end running congress, destroying the very people that gave him the most money for his election is being friendly?

With friends like him...you know the rest.

J-mac
Click to expand...

Communist? I think not.
 
American said:
Helping others is a good thing, and you are welcome to send all of your money to those people.
Click to expand...

Bit of hyperbole, eh? Nobody ever said ALL the money.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

He answered the question. May not have been an answer you liked, but he did answer it. And for the record, he bails himself out when financial problems arise, one has nothing to do with his opinion on the other.
 
BamaBrat said:
He answered the question. May not have been an answer you liked, but he did answer it. And for the record, he bails himself out when financial problems arise, one has nothing to do with his opinion on the other.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about the answer? Do you believe it is your responsibility to fund police, fire fighters, teachers in Boise, Idaho? That is the point, those are state responsibility issues not the Federal Govt. for once the Federal Govt. money ends who picks up the payments? If the states are going to pick up the payments down the road, why not now and use the money to lower the deficit? Govt. doesn't create jobs, it creates the atmosphere for the private sector to create the jobs. Liberals seem to miss that reality.
 
Conservative said:
How do you feel about the answer? Do you believe it is your responsibility to fund police, fire fighters, teachers in Boise, Idaho? That is the point, those are state responsibility issues not the Federal Govt. for once the Federal Govt. money ends who picks up the payments? If the states are going to pick up the payments down the road, why not now and use the money to lower the deficit? Govt. doesn't create jobs, it creates the atmosphere for the private sector to create the jobs. Liberals seem to miss that reality.
Click to expand...

Doesnt really matter what my opinion on it is. I can see points on both sides. Im just sayin dont say someone is refusing to answer a question, when they certainly did, you just didnt like his answer... and thats ok too. Obviously, the two of you are never going to agree or change each others minds about anything.
 
BamaBrat said:
Doesnt really matter what my opinion on it is. I can see points on both sides. Im just sayin dont say someone is refusing to answer a question, when they certainly did, you just didnt like his answer... and thats ok too. Obviously, the two of you are never going to agree or change each others minds about anything.
Click to expand...

So what is it about the position of Federalism that you support? Do you really believe it is the responsibility of the FEDERAL taxpayer to fund local police, fire fighters, and teachers? What is the role of the state if that is your position? How do you feel about not knowing where your taxdollars are going?

We currently have a 14.8 trillion dollar debt because of massive Federal Spending and massive expansion of the Federal Govt. Is that the role of the Federal Govt?
 
AdamT said:
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is, did the stimulus significantly reduce unemployment *relative to where it would have been without the stimulus*, and to that most economists say aye.

We are not going to be at full employment any time soon, that is for sure. Again -- wrong question. The objective now is to prevent a double dip recession and/or a decade of more of economic stagnation. The cost will be high, but not as high as the cost of doing nothing.
Click to expand...

How do you know where it would be without the stimulus? Pure speculation! What we do know is where unemployment is WITH the stimulus and anyone that believes spending a trillion dollars to get these numbers is a good thing is out of touch with reality.

You continue to believe what this Administration tells you and the question is why? They have yet to be right on any economic prediction

How can the "smartest man" ever to hold the office of the Presidency WITH a Democrat Congress in overwhelming numbers generate these kind of results and get a pass? Seems you have a lot of patience for Obama where you have none with a Republican as you continue to point out the Bush performance for a few months of 2008 as an overwhelming indictment of his Administration as you ignore that he had a net job gain and had a GDP the grew at 4.5 trillion dollars in those 8 years.

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of blind loyalty?
 
Conservative said:
So what is it about the position of Federalism that you support? Do you really believe it is the responsibility of the FEDERAL taxpayer to fund local police, fire fighters, and teachers? What is the role of the state if that is your position? How do you feel about not knowing where your taxdollars are going?

We currently have a 14.8 trillion dollar debt because of massive Federal Spending and massive expansion of the Federal Govt. Is that the role of the Federal Govt?
Click to expand...

It pisses me off that the federal taxpayer is being asked to fund other states local police, fire fighters and teachers. A lot of things piss me off about our federal govt and state govts. Having said that, being a citzen of the "United States", we also have responsibilities to other states than are own. We all may live in different states, but we should all care about what happens in our country as a whole (and our people as a whole)... otherwise, I think that you should just go ahead and make each state an individual country and get it over with. I dont know... like I said, I can see both sides points of view. Funding of police in one state, whether we like it or not, affects other states in some ways as well. If Georgia has really strong immigration laws and are enforcing them and illegals are scared and running so they dont get sent back to their own country, they just hop on over to Alabama. If Alabama doesnt have the police force to handle them, that affects us and every other state around us. (maybe a bad example, but whatever). Fire fighters cross state lines all the time to help other states when they need help. If Alabama has a huge fire that we just dont have the people to handle and we need Georgias help... well we better hope Georgia has the money to pay their firefighters. Teachers affect all of us... We have a responsibility to make sure that our country has the brightest and strongest minds ever so that we can compete in this world, so we can lead instead of falling behind all these other countries in everything. I dont know, there has to be a happy medium somewhere.

I do agree that it really doenst make any sense to just keep these folks for this year and then next year we are in the same damn boat. I think you can have short term fixes, but if you dont have long term answers for this and a host of other issues, were just spinning our wheels.
 
Last edited:
BamaBrat said:
It pisses me off that the federal taxpayer is being asked to fund other states local police, fire fighters and teachers. A lot of things piss me off about our federal govt and state govts. Having said that, being a citzen of the "United States", we also have responsibilities to other states than are own. We all may live in different states, but we should all care about what happens in our country as a whole (and our people as a whole)... otherwise, I think that you should just go ahead and make each state an individual country and get it over with. I dont know... like I said, I can see both sides points of view. Funding of police in one state, whether we like it or not, affects other states in some ways as well. If Georgia has really strong immigration laws and are enforcing them and illegals are scared and running so they dont get sent back to their own country, they just hop on over to Alabama. If Alabama doesnt have the police force to handle them, that affects us and every other state around us. (maybe a bad example, but whatever). Fire fighters cross state lines all the time to help other states when they need help. If Alabama has a huge fire that we just dont have the people to handle and we need Georgias help... well we better hope Georgia has the money to pay their firefighters. Teachers affect all of us... We have a responsibility to make sure that our country has the brightest and strongest minds ever so that we can compete in this world, so we can lead instead of falling behind all these other countries in everything. I dont know, there has to be a happy medium somewhere.

I do agree that it really doenst make any sense to just keep these folks for this year and then next year we are in the same damn boat. I think you can have short term fixes, but if you dont have long term answers for this and a host of other issues, were just spinning our wheels.
Click to expand...

As a Citizen of the United States you have the right to be protected under the Constitution, not the obligation to forceably send your tax dollars to the govt. so they can spend them on other state local issues. Why do you buy that the Federal Govt. which is in debt to the tune of almost 15 trillion dollars knows what is best for the states and local communities thus can spend your money better than you can? If you want to support my local community then I can send you the address the tax department so you can directly benefit us if that is what you want to do.
 
Conservative said:
As a Citizen of the United States you have the right to be protected under the Constitution, not the obligation to forceably send your tax dollars to the govt. so they can spend them on other state local issues. Why do you buy that the Federal Govt. which is in debt to the tune of almost 15 trillion dollars knows what is best for the states and local communities thus can spend your money better than you can? If you want to support my local community then I can send you the address the tax department so you can directly benefit us if that is what you want to do.
Click to expand...

I get you. I totally understand your point of view. For me personally, its just not that black and white.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom