Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Conservative · Oct 23, 2011

Jryan said:
So if the only solution to fix the economy and have good old America back is to go against something in the constitution, you wouldn't be for it?

What specific policy should the Republicans compromise on? You have shown that you aren't very good on specifics so another chance for you?

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Look, I understand why Obama supporters want to ignore the numbers but they are what they are. Results matter no matter how you spin it

Fine.... not going to argue with ya.... let me give you a couple pointers when dealing with those of us on the left...

1. Focus on how WE believe the current administration (Obama) has fail us.... giving too much ground to tax breaks for the rich, caving in on a single payer health plan, etc... just not standing his ground in general.
2. If a previous statistic is not gaining traction amend it, and by all means make sure it is accurate... Simply stating the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over isn't going to accomplish any goal except perhaps pumping your post count.
3. Actually think about the questions poised to you..... wouldn't you at least like to have a conversation that drives somewhere rather that merely just cutting and pasting the same tired data over and over again?
4. Be willing to admit the deficiencies of what you support.... I guarantee that most lefties here are more than willing to expose the potential problems with ideologies with what they espouse... its how solutions are discovered. Nothing is perfect.
5. Be open to opinions that are different than yours. Quite often human beings come upon information they did not have before which necessitates inclusion into their current world view. Unfortunately, this is not an immediate process... even for those of us on the left
6. IF you are sure you are right.... I mean absolutely sure. Figure out other ways to present the concept. Repeating the same concept in the same way ad nauseum typically never achieves the desired result. If they didn't understand it the 1st time chances are they won't understand it the 5th, or 6th, or 7th times either
7. LOGIC, LOGIC, LOGIC... Learn it... Live it... Know it... (yeah yeah I'm old.... It's a 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' reference)

And above anything else IF ANY PIECE OF INFORMATION EVER MAKES YOU PAUSE AND THINK ABOUT IT PAY EXTRA SPECIAL ATTENTION TO IT... this is typically where learning is done

GreenvilleGrows · Oct 23, 2011

Example: the linked graph shows the Dow Jones Average since 1900. Obviously, the DOW is not the only indicator of economic or Presidential success, but it's part of the picture. In 1980 Reagan inherited about 15 years of going nowhere. Then, 3/4's of the way through his first term, things started climbing rapidly and didn't stop until the tech stock bubble burst in the last year or so of the Clinton administration (followed shortly by 9/11). So, Reagan gets credit for incredible financial gain. Bush1 didn't last long in office, but nobody blames him for much economically because prosperity continued. Clinton is credited, too, because growth continued under his watch (again, until the last year). Then, starting in Clinton's last year it trended downward severely until 2002 when it headed up again.

So, the DOW turned around under Bush2's 1st term and he was re-elected. Things tanked the last year of his term (similar to Clinton's), and now it's turning around again.

The problem is that it takes awhile for prosperity to return even after the DOW recovers. President Reagan, Bush, and Clinton are all ok with everyone because they prospered (despite the downward trend starting under Clinton). Bush gets bashed because people didn't really get back to prosperity, and Obama will get bashed too if the DOW doesn't get back up to where it was when he took office and continue to sustain growth.

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

cpwill said:
Rule of law. ist' important.

Sure it is... can you explain the relevance of this statement?

Conservative · Oct 23, 2011

Swit;1059897501]Fine.... not going to argue with ya.... let me give you a couple pointers when dealing with those of us on the left...

1. Focus on how WE believe the current administration (Obama) has fail us.... giving too much ground to tax breaks for the rich, caving in on a single payer health plan, etc... just not standing his ground in general.

Conservatives don't believe that allowing people to keep more of their own money is an expense to the govt. but it is class warfare. Conservatives believe that healthcare insurance is a personal responsibility and know that the single payer system has failed all over the world.

2. If a previous statistic is not gaining traction amend it, and by all means make sure it is accurate... Simply stating the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over isn't going to accomplish any goal except perhaps pumping your post count.

The previous statistics have been ignored by liberals but are what they are and have led to the 39% JAR. Stating the same thing over and over again is the only thing that resonates with a liberal even though they are ignored. They are results that will be on the ballot in 2012

3. Actually think about the questions poised to you..... wouldn't you at least like to have a conversation that drives somewhere rather that merely just cutting and pasting the same tired data over and over again?

Been here a long time and have responded to every question raised, how about responding to the data posted and tell me how they are out of context almost 3 years after Obama took office?

4. Be willing to admit the deficiencies of what you support.... I guarantee that most lefties here are more than willing to expose the potential problems with ideologies with what they espouse... its how solutions are discovered. Nothing is perfect.

I have admitted when I am wrong many times over the past year or so but when I post data, give the location of that data, then never gets that data refuted but instead distorted, what is their to admit. When someone posts that there has been a job gain in the private sector that is a lie or misstatement. There have been jobs created in the private sector but not enough to generate a net job gain as more have been lost than created. That is shown at BLS but someone here wants to distort that reality

I have yet to find a liberal willing to admit they are wrong as their ideology trumps reality thus the question what is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?

5. Be open to opinions that are different than yours. Quite often human beings come upon information they did not have before which necessitates inclusion into their current world view. Unfortunately, this is not an immediate process... even for those of us on the left

My entire principles are based upon logic, common sense, and actual results. Provide data that meets those standards and I will agree with them. There is nothing logical about demonizing individual wealth creation, private business, and promoting a welfare state

6. IF you are sure you are right.... I mean absolutely sure. Figure out other ways to present the concept. Repeating the same concept in the same way ad nauseum typically never achieves the desired result. If they didn't understand it the 1st time chances are they won't understand it the 5th, or 6th, or 7th times either\

For someone that has been here over a year and if you have followed my posts then you will realize that there aren't many here that will admit they are wrong, they just ignore what is presented that refutes their OPINIONS. The data posted is what it is which isn't open to interpretation. Not understanding data is a problem the left has which shows their ideology trumps reality

7. LOGIC, LOGIC, LOGIC... Learn it... Live it... Know it... (yeah yeah I'm old.... It's a 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' reference)

Logic is what I use all the time, if you spend over 842 billion dollars to stimulate job creation and over two years later you have more unemployed and greater debt that is a failure.

And above anything else IF ANY PIECE OF INFORMATION EVER MAKES YOU PAUSE AND THINK ABOUT IT PAY EXTRA SPECIAL ATTENTION TO IT... this is typically where learning is done

That is why I always post data and the source of that data. No one has refuted that data and in fact have even proven the data correct yet no one has acknowledged that thus I have to continue to post it.

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

GreenvilleGrows said:
Example: the linked graph shows the Dow Jones Average since 1900. Obviously, the DOW is not the only indicator of economic or Presidential success, but it's part of the picture. In 1980 Reagan inherited about 15 years of going nowhere. Then, 3/4's of the way through his first term, things started climbing rapidly and didn't stop until the tech stock bubble burst in the last year or so of the Clinton administration (followed shortly by 9/11). So, Reagan gets credit for incredible financial gain. Bush1 didn't last long in office, but nobody blames him for much economically because prosperity continued. Clinton is credited, too, because growth continued under his watch (again, until the last year). Then, starting in Clinton's last year it trended downward severely until 2002 when it headed up again.

So, the DOW turned around under Bush2's 1st term and he was re-elected. Things tanked the last year of his term (similar to Clinton's), and now it's turning around again.

The problem is that it takes awhile for prosperity to return even after the DOW recovers. President Reagan, Bush, and Clinton are all ok with everyone because they prospered (despite the downward trend starting under Clinton). Bush gets bashed because people didn't really get back to prosperity, and Obama will get bashed too if the DOW doesn't get back up to where it was when he took office and continue to sustain growth.

Well this is a very narrow view of our national economy.... Its like looking through a pinhole trying to see the big picture

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Conservatives don't believe that allowing people to keep more of their own money is an expense to the govt. but it is class warfare. Conservatives believe that healthcare insurance is a personal responsibility and know that the single payer system has failed all over the world.....

shortened post as to just give a general reference

Well, I tried... Conservative you are hopeless

Eighty Deuce · Oct 23, 2011

Swit said:
shortened post as to just give a general reference

Well, I tried... Conservative you are hopeless

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

Eighty Deuce said:
Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

what door?

Conservative · Oct 23, 2011

Swit said:
shortened post as to just give a general reference

Well, I tried... Conservative you are hopeless

Do you believe keeping more of your own money is an expense to the govt? How is asking that question making me hopeless? Name for me one country in the world where a single payer has reduced healthcare costs, improved the question of healthcare, and thus successful?

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you believe keeping more of your own money is an expense to the govt? How is asking that question making me hopeless? Name for me one country in the world where a single payer has reduced healthcare costs, improved the question of healthcare, and thus successful?

1. No.
2. it doesn't, you not recognizing that I was describing debate strategy does.
3 Taiwan

Conservative · Oct 23, 2011

Swit said:
1. No.
2. it doesn't, you not recognizing that I was describing debate strategy does.
3 Taiwan

So if you keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt. then why do tax cuts have to be paid for? That is the liberal spin and you only have to pay for expenses

My debate style is to confuse liberals with facts, logic, and common sense

Taiwan? Does Taiwan have over 310 million people with the geography we have in this country today as well as the choices we have that affect individual health? Healthcare is a personal responsibility best handled in the individual state, not a one size fits all which a single payer promotes. There is no way that a bureaucrat in D.C. can manage a healthcare program in Chicago for example and that is the issue nationwide

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

Conservative said:
So if you keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt. then why do tax cuts have to be paid for? That is the liberal spin and you only have to pay for expenses

My debate style is to confuse liberals with facts, logic, and common sense

Taiwan? Does Taiwan have over 310 million people with the geography we have in this country today as well as the choices we have that affect individual health? Healthcare is a personal responsibility best handled in the individual state, not a one size fits all which a single payer promotes. There is no way that a bureaucrat in D.C. can manage a healthcare program in Chicago for example and that is the issue nationwide

Fine I will play your silly game...

1. They don't technically nether do government expenditures, your boy Cheney said it best Debt doesn't matter
2. What you just described is deception not debate..... they are mutually exclusive
3. Can you please point to the population requirement in you original question.... oh wait you can't it wasn't there.... can you point to the requirement that it must have the same geography.... no that's right you cant it wasn't there.

your exact quote:

Do you believe keeping more of your own money is an expense to the govt? How is asking that question making me hopeless? Name for me one country in the world where a single payer has reduced healthcare costs, improved the question of healthcare, and thus successful?

See population requirement.... no.
See geographical requirement.... no.

Are you a retard.... yes.

Eighty Deuce · Oct 23, 2011

Swit said:
Fine I will play your silly game...

1. They don't technically nether do government expenditures, your boy Cheney said it best Debt doesn't matter
2. What you just described is deception not debate..... they are mutually exclusive
3. Can you please point to the population requirement in you original question.... oh wait you can't it wasn't there.... can you point to the requirement that it must have the same geography.... no that's right you cant it wasn't there.

your exact quote:

See population requirement.... no.
See geographical requirement.... no.

Are you a retard.... yes.

Earlier you were attempting to lecture others on how to debate. Apparently you left "insult" off your list.

Eighty Deuce · Oct 23, 2011

Swit said:
1. No.
2. it doesn't, you not recognizing that I was describing debate strategy does.
3 Taiwan

Taiwan does not have the huge largesse class that we do, looking always for more free stuff.

Conservative · Oct 23, 2011

Swit;1059897620]Fine I will play your silly game...

1. They don't technically nether do government expenditures, your boy Cheney said it best Debt doesn't matter

What does Cheney have to do with the question I raised that you again dodged which shows the problem with liberalism. You don't remember hearing "your" President claim that tax cuts have to be paid for? why does someone else keeping more of their money create an expense to the govt. when as you stated you keeping more of your own money isn't an expense?

2. What you just described is deception not debate..... they are mutually exclusive

Only in the liberal world is providing facts, logic, and common sense deception. You see, I used logic to defeat the liberal claims that tax cuts are an expense. If you keeping more of your own money isn't an expense then why is someone else keeping more of theirs an expense?

3. Can you please point to the population requirement in you original question.... oh wait you can't it wasn't there.... can you point to the requirement that it must have the same geography.... no that's right you cant it wasn't there.

Prove that Taiwan single payer system has lowered costs and improved quality? Population and geography are a huge part of any single payer system.

your exact quote:

See population requirement.... no.
See geographical requirement.... no.

Are you a retard.... yes.

Aw, see what I mean, when confused with facts, logic, and common sense you resort to name calling. That is why you can never have an honest debate with a liberal. Liberals can never admit when wrong which obviously I just proved you wrong

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

Eighty Deuce said:
Earlier you were attempting to lecture others on how to debate. Apparently you left "insult" off your list.

Look I am assuming he is a grown up.... if I am mistaken then fine.... He is not debating... he is trolling... please explain why I should extend him any more courtesy than I already have.

Jryan · Oct 23, 2011

Swit said:
Look I am assuming he is a grown up.... if I am mistaken then fine.... He is not debating... he is trolling... please explain why I should extend him any more courtesy than I already have.

Don't feed the trolls man.

Conservative · Oct 23, 2011

Swit said:
Look I am assuming he is a grown up.... if I am mistaken then fine.... He is not debating... he is trolling... please explain why I should extend him any more courtesy than I already have.

Liberal definition of trolling= providing facts, logic, and common sense that refute those liberal feelings and opinions. Obviously you don't like being challenged but you are gong to have to learn to accept verifiable facts that destroy those liberal feelings and opinions

Jryan · Oct 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Liberal definition of trolling= providing facts, logic, and common sense that refute those liberal feelings and opinions. Obviously you don't like being challenged but you are gong to have to learn to accept verifiable facts that destroy those liberal feelings and opinions

If you read this post and don't analyze it, what good has this post done? If you read data and don't analyze it, what good has reading that data done?

Conservative · Oct 23, 2011

Jryan said:
If you read this post and don't analyze it, what good has this post done? If you read data and don't analyze it, what good has reading that data done?

Data has been analyzed, how do you analyze 25 million unemployed and under Employed Americans? Is that more or less than anything Bush had? How do you analyze 2.6 million fewer jobs today thus a declining labor force? How do you analyze 4.2 trillion added to the debt in 3 years? How do you analyze a rising misery index and all this 3 years after taking office?

Jryan · Oct 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Data has been analyzed, how do you analyze 25 million unemployed and under Employed Americans? Is that more or less than anything Bush had? How do you analyze 2.6 million fewer jobs today thus a declining labor force? How do you analyze 4.2 trillion added to the debt in 3 years? How do you analyze a rising misery index and all this 3 years after taking office?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...n-obama-grows-strongly-59.html#post1059891740

(Its in my sig)

1) Cut
2) Paste
3) Get Debunked
4) Sssspppppiiiiiinnnnnnn
5) Personal Insult

winston53660 · Oct 23, 2011

Conservative said:
WYou don't remember hearing "your" President claim that tax cuts have to be paid for? why does someone else keeping more of their money create an expense to the govt. when as you stated you keeping more of your own money isn't an expense?

RE:

H.R. 2 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

[h=1]ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT[/h] The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2 is shown in following table. Most of the budgetary effects of the legislation are reductions in revenues. However, the bill also would increase outlays by making various changes to the income tax brackets and rates of taxation. By reducing the amount of taxes owed, those changes would result in a larger portion of tax credits being refundable--and thus recorded as outlays rather than reductions in revenues. The act also would increase the child credit, which is refundable under the tax code and counted as outlays in the budget to the extent that it results in "refunds" of income taxes not actually paid. In addition, H.R. 2 would increase outlays by increasing the federal share of Medicaid spending in 2003 and 2004 and by providing funds directly to states.

[h=2]Direct Spending[/h] Outlays from Refundable Tax Credits. JCT provided the outlay effects resulting from the refundable tax credits contained in titles I and III of the bill. JCT estimates that enacting those provisions would increase outlays by $3.6 billion in 2003 and by $9.5 billion over the 2003-2009 period (with no effects after 2009).
Fiscal Relief for States. Section 401 of the act would increase the federal share of Medicaid spending in 2003 and 2004 and provide a total of $10 billion in funds for states to use on government services. CBO estimates that these provisions would increase spending by a total of $7.7 billion in 2003 and $12.3 billion in 2004.
Increase in Medicaid match rate. The federal government pays a portion of the costs for each state's Medicaid program. The federal government's share, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), varies for each state and is based on each state's per capita income. Under current law, FMAPs are updated annually to reflect new data on per capita income in each state. The act would change the FMAPs in three ways:

The FMAP for the last two quarters of 2003 would equal the higher of the FMAPs (as determined under current law) for 2002 or 2003;
The FMAP for the first three quarters of 2004 would equal the higher of the FMAPs (as determined under current law) for 2003 or 2004; and
The FMAP for all states would increase by 2.95 percentage points for the last two quarters of 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004.

These provisions are not mutually exclusive; states could potentially qualify for all three increases. CBO estimates that these provisions would increase federal Medicaid spending by $2.7 billion in 2003 and $7.3 billion in 2004.
Aid to states. The act would provide $5 billion in each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for states to use on maintaining essential government services or to cover the cost of complying with unfunded federal intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Under H.R. 2, payments would be made to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Such payments would be based on the population of each state, except that the provision would establish minimum payment levels. CBO estimates that this provision would result in outlays of $5 billion in 2003 and $5 billion in 2004.

H.R. 2, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

Eighty Deuce · Oct 23, 2011

Swit said:
Look I am assuming he is a grown up.... if I am mistaken then fine.... He is not debating... he is trolling... please explain why I should extend him any more courtesy than I already have.

Is there no room for you to post between "courtesy" and "insult" ? Frankly, I find your posts grossly uninformative. I see you posting in a manner that I refer to as "my **** don't stink, but yours does".

As to all this crap about how "Repubnlicans won't compromise", etc., it is all a crock of ****. We oppose the complete economic direction that Obama has taken, and wants to continue taking, the country. Obama did not need the GOP to get all that he wanted for two years anyway, and he got all that he wanted, and it has all been a massive fail.

Now he is on the campaign trail as the most partisan President in recent history. Just wanting to give more money to municipal unions via JOBS. We got Biden lecturing fourth graders about how ts all the Republican's fault. We also have Biden claiming rape has gone up 150% because of the GOP (it is down close to 10% actually), and that rape and murder will go higher because of the GOP. The Democrats are going insane in fomenting class warfare and other follies, and we're supposed to meet that halfway ?

Not just "No", but "Hell NO".

Swit · Oct 23, 2011

Conservative said:
What does Cheney have to do with the question I raised that you again dodged which shows the problem with liberalism. You don't remember hearing "your" President claim that tax cuts have to be paid for? why does someone else keeping more of their money create an expense to the govt. when as you stated you keeping more of your own money isn't an expense?

I didn't vote for him... how is he mine.... and fine.... I will give you $1,000,000 if you can show a single post of mine where I made the claim that somehow individuals keeping money is a government expense.

Conservative said:
Only in the liberal world is providing facts, logic, and common sense deception. You see, I used logic to defeat the liberal claims that tax cuts are an expense. If you keeping more of your own money isn't an expense then why is someone else keeping more of theirs an expense?

Ahh but this is clearly not what my response was to.... you said... and I quote:

My debate style is to confuse liberals with facts, logic, and common sense

how is adding confusion to a conversation anything other than an attempt at deception?

Conservative said:
Prove that Taiwan single payer system has lowered costs and improved quality? Population and geography are a huge part of any single payer system.

bold part irrelevant as it was not part of the original request for information further attempts at moving this goal post will be ignored.
proof
and if you don't like Taiwan here is Canada's

Conservative said:
Aw, see what I mean, when confused with facts, logic, and common sense you resort to name calling. That is why you can never have an honest debate with a liberal. Liberals can never admit when wrong which obviously I just proved you wrong

Can you please explain what I was wrong about? k, thnx

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Well-known member