• 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!

Boehner demands Senate cancel its vacation

Ockham said:
Can't say I'm surprised. Pass it for another year, 2 months is B.S. political fodder for the Obama campaign.... make it for another year, put the pipeline in it, put it on Obama's desk and watch his veto go poof like a fart in the wind.
Click to expand...

Obama has already said that he's not going to axe the deal over the pipeline inclusion. For you on the right, that's a thing called "compromise".

The upshot of that is that the permit will be denied, but let's be honest -- Republicans don't give a **** about that anyway. It's just another opportunity to try and stick it to Obama.
 
TheLastIndepent said:
John Boehner (I prefer to pronounce it "Boner") has sickened me. He is asking the president to show leadership when he has yet to show one glimpse of leadership. I will tell you that Obama is far from the strongest leader our nation has seen, but to point fingers and still do nothing is absurd. I am sixteen years old and I am smarter than Boehner in that I can at least see that one person cannot control what over six hundred people do. As the body guard to the TEA Party, I'm pretty sure Boehner does not want the political consequence of allowing payroll taxes to hike. Even worse is the pipeline issues. You cannot tell me that the pipeline is neccesary. All that is needed is to branch it off at the end, there is no reasonable need for that middle portion. It's like asking for a Bugatti for Christmas if you already have a Ferrari; it is the epitome of wasteful, something the GOP has been harping Obama on since day one.
Click to expand...

wth is an indepent?
 
tessaesque said:
I didn't say identical....I didn't even say the bills were the exact same. I said they do the exact same thing regarding extension of tax cuts and unemployment. Reading comprehension is your friend, kiddo.

And you're right: the house bill cuts the length of continuous unemployment from 99 weeks to 79 weeks. That kind of makes sense if we're to believe we're coming out of the recession and jobs are coming back. And the drug testing thing? It authorizes states to do it if they so choose; it isn't a mandate.

So again, where's that "extraneous crap" you're referring to, Adam?
Click to expand...
No doubt the Dems want to save some kind of political play for the election, instead of just passing something for the entire year.
 
American said:
No doubt the Dems want to save some kind of political play for the election, instead of just passing something for the entire year.
Click to expand...

What? Say it is not so. A Democrat playing politcs with the middle class, and being more concerned about reelection? :mrgreen:

I believe you are correct. Also I don't see them addressing the shortfall to SS that will occur.
 
American said:
No doubt the Dems want to save some kind of political play for the election, instead of just passing something for the entire year.
Click to expand...

Hence the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate?
 
AdamT said:
Hence the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate?
Click to expand...

So the Senate lead by Democrats would rather play politcs (both sides) than do what is right. got it.
 
mike2810 said:
So the Senate lead by Democrats would rather play politcs (both sides) than do what is right. got it.
Click to expand...

You do know what bipartisan means, right?
 
AdamT said:
You do know what bipartisan means, right?
Click to expand...
A two month extension of a tax cut is about as idiotic as renting a car for 30 seconds. I don’t care if it’s bipartisan or not…stupid is stupid.

It is good to see you, AdamT, going on the record as an opponent of tax hikes and claiming that the economy will fail if the working middle class pays $20 to $60 more a month for their social security benefits.
 
GPS_Flex said:
A two month extension of a tax cut is about as idiotic as renting a car for 30 seconds. I don’t care if it’s bipartisan or not…stupid is stupid.

It is good to see you, AdamT, going on the record as an opponent of tax hikes and claiming that the economy will fail if the working middle class pays $20 to $60 more a month for their social security benefits.
Click to expand...

I'm opposed to withdrawing the only effective stimulus we're likely to get, when the economy really needs stimulus to avoid a Japan-style lost decade. While $60 to $125 (not $20 to $60) per month may not sound like much, it means a lot to people who are struggling to pay their bills, and economists estimate that it will boost GDP by .5 to 1.5% ... which is pretty damned signifanct when we're only at 2% GDP growth *with* the tax cut.
 
mike2810 said:
and what do the middle class do with the money? Mostly spend it. by spending they help the economy. So with no guarentees after two month, you think that people who drive the economy have confidence? The Senate Dems who are so concerned about the middle class should have worked and passed a long term fix. This patchwork type approuch shows their inability to lead or function (and that is on both sides).
Click to expand...

I both agree and commend you sir.... your comment also applies to the poor, not just middle class. So, when you see middle class (where I quote you) please consider this as an implicit "and the lower classes". I will bold it to show it is my insertion.

So, lets extend this thought....

1. Unemployment benefits are generally given to the middle and lower classes....
mike2810 said:
and what do the middle class and lower classes do with the money? Mostly spend it. by spending they help the economy
Click to expand...
2. Welfare is generally given to the lower classes.....
mike2810 said:
and what do the middle class and lower classes do with the money? Mostly spend it. by spending they help the economy
Click to expand...
3. Food stamps (which cost actual money) are generally given to the lower classes....
mike2810 said:
and what do the middle class and lower classes do with the money? Mostly spend it. by spending they help the economy
Click to expand...
4. Educational grants and assistance are generally given to the middle and lower classes....
mike2810 said:
and what do the middle class and lower classes do with the money? Mostly spend it. by spending they help the economy
Click to expand...
5. Housing assistance is generally given to the lower classes....
mike2810 said:
and what do the middle class and lower classes do with the money? Mostly spend it. by spending they help the economy
Click to expand...
6. Medical assistance is generally given to the lower classes....
mike2810 said:
and what do the middle class and lower classes do with the money? Mostly spend it. by spending they help the economy
Click to expand...


Now, given the fact the spending money is good for the economy, and I agree, care to analyze how those persons in the top 1% spend their money in relation to what they have earned? Also, it should be noted that the ability to save money is also good for the economy, but only in so much as those savings allow you to have the ability to spend when you are no longer able to earn, for whatever reason. In short, money hoarded (saved without eventually being spent) inhibits economic progress.

Thank you for liking mike2810's comment Tess, that shows courage.
 
American said:
No doubt the Dems want to save some kind of political play for the election, instead of just passing something for the entire year.
Click to expand...

I agree they should have passed something for the entire year, but the bill should have stood on its own. Its the Repubs that refused to pass the straight bill, but chose to poison it with the controversial rider. While its fair game for the Repubs to insist on spending cuts; coupling the bill with the Keystone pipeline was not a serious attempt to address the issue, it was pure politics. This failure and this tax HIKE is on the Regressives.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
I'm opposed to withdrawing the only effective stimulus we're likely to get, when the economy really needs stimulus to avoid a Japan-style lost decade. While $60 to $125 (not $20 to $60) per month may not sound like much, it means a lot to people who are struggling to pay their bills, and economists estimate that it will boost GDP by .5 to 1.5% ... which is pretty damned signifanct when we're only at 2% GDP growth *with* the tax cut.
Click to expand...
The economy doesn’t need a stimulus, but even if it did, you can’t be serious about this 2 month extension being a stimulus. This is about politics rather than what is best for the nation.

The problem with your logic is you don’t take into account the impossible task such a stupid law requires of the private sector, the social security admin and all the pencil pushers who must plan, calculate, adjust and adapt to changes in the tax law.

The democrats and republicans (this includes Obama) are more interested in the political game of painting the opposition into a corner than they are in doing what is best for the American people or the country.

Try to spin your 2 month tax bill as anything but that AdamT.


Get real! A two month tax bill? Seriously???
 
Last edited:
So why can't they modify the Senate bill so that it has a one year term instead of 2-month term, wouldn't everyone be happy then? Or would it still not pass the House and Senate?
 
I don't know what all the whining is about. The Senate and Congress are comprised mostly of people 45+ in age. They deserve a break just like anyone else - they aren't slaves.
 
Opteron said:
So why can't they modify the Senate bill so that it has a one year term instead of 2-month term, wouldn't everyone be happy then? Or would it still not pass the House and Senate?
Click to expand...
It's all smoke and mirrors on both sides.... they could easily pass the 2 month extension with an amendment that no one (in congress) is allowed to leave until a 12 month extension is passed... its all (on both sides) political pandering.
 
misterman said:
The Senate finished its work already. Boehner just doesn't like it. Doesn't mean they didn't.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't finish anything.

Here's the way it works:

The House passes a bill.

The Senate passes a slightly different bill.

The House and Senate meet in Conference to iron out the differences and get a bill both will support.

Reid passed a bill and sent the Senate home knowing the House would not approve of it.

Reid needs to call the Senate back into session and go into Conference with the House, work out a compromise, and pass a bill.
 
Swit said:
Now, given the fact the spending money is good for the economy, and I agree, care to analyze how those persons in the top 1% spend their money in relation to what they have earned?
Click to expand...

They invest it into companies that use the money to grow. I am sure they put some into commodities, but I would think investing would be the right answer.
 
If its good for 2 months why isnt it good for a year? Just pass it.
 
upsideguy said:
I agree they should have passed something for the entire year, but the bill should have stood on its own. Its the Repubs that refused to pass the straight bill, but chose to poison it with the controversial rider. While its fair game for the Repubs to insist on spending cuts; coupling the bill with the Keystone pipeline was not a serious attempt to address the issue, it was pure politics. This failure and this tax HIKE is on the Regressives.
Click to expand...

The senate put that rider in the bill, too.
 
AdamT said:
You do know what bipartisan means, right?
Click to expand...

yes, that is why I said both sides. but you seem to place more blame on the Repubs. I mearly pointed out the dems control the Senate.
 
misterman said:
The Senate finished its work already. Boehner just doesn't like it. Doesn't mean they didn't.
Click to expand...
The Senate hasnt passed a budget in how many years now? and you believe passing a two month measure is 'doing its job'? Holy mindless partisanship Batman...this **** never ends!!!

ANYONE that says EITHER SIDE has "done their job" is a partisan hack and a moron. Good lord...
 
VanceMack said:
The Senate hasnt passed a budget in how many years now? and you believe passing a two month measure is 'doing its job'? Holy mindless partisanship Batman...this **** never ends!!!

ANYONE that says EITHER SIDE has "done their job" is a partisan hack and a moron. Good lord...
Click to expand...

Congress hasn't done their job in over 20 years, why would you expect them to now? This is the reason I've been saying it doesn't matter WHO the president is as long as congress isn't doing their jobs.
 
TheNextEra said:
Congress hasn't done their job in over 20 years, why would you expect them to now? This is the reason I've been saying it doesn't matter WHO the president is as long as congress isn't doing their jobs.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Congress worked with Clinton in many cases to pass important legislation. They fell down on some occasions like when they shut down the government over a dispute, but it was one of the most productive and prosperous periods in history.

Congress was able to cut back on welfare and produce an economy that had a budgetary surplus.
 
Does it seem like the Senate runs over the House.
 
Gill said:
No, they didn't finish anything.

Here's the way it works:

The House passes a bill.

The Senate passes a slightly different bill.

The House and Senate meet in Conference to iron out the differences and get a bill both will support.
Click to expand...

No, that's not always how it works. But thanks for the lesson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom