• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

ItAin'tFree said:
What did you do, go back and read the article for the first? That's what it looks like to me.
Click to expand...
Oh christ, what a bunch of CYA! FFS, you have been going on for 2 days about how the article WAS NOT a comparison of cuts vs benefits. This is just weak and contemptible bs.

Next time you want to provide evidence that government spending (food stamps, whatever) is better stimulus than tax cuts don't post an article for all to see and read that doesn't agree with you.
Click to expand...
This is just a perfect example of you NEVER getting a thing correct. It was not presented for that purpose. It was to show what the effects are of each type of stimulus.

This was the question that started this tangent:

"What is the difference between deficits caused by decreases in revenue as a result of lower tax rates, and deficits caused by increases in government spending?"

You just won't read anything in front of you.
 
Conservative said:
It takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate, there were 55 Republicans.
Click to expand...
According to the Constitution it takes 50% plus one vote to pass. In case of ties the Senate president (the VP) gets to vote. The Contitution also allows each house to write its own rules. In the case of Senate rule 22, 60 votes are require if cloture is filed. This is a formal procedure and is logged. For anyone to say the Democrats threatened a filibuster is dog dung. Bull****. You like to talk about leadership, well if the Republicans didn't file a cloture motion on S.190 then it's poor leadership on their part.

I would have thought you would have known all this civics stuff. I guess not. :roll:

Edit: cloture motions filed

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh christ, what a bunch of CYA! FFS, you have been going on for 2 days about how the article WAS NOT a comparison of cuts vs benefits. This is just weak and contemptible bs.

This is just a perfect example of you NEVER getting a thing correct. It was not presented for that purpose. It was to show what the effects are of each type of stimulus.

This was the question that started this tangent:

"What is the difference between deficits caused by decreases in revenue as a result of lower tax rates, and deficits caused by increases in government spending?"

You just won't read anything in front of you.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one that said food stamps are stimulus. That would be you and the air head economist Madlow or whatever her name is. She can put a pencil on a piece of paper and put any kind of numbers she wants to on it, but the fact is, if food stamps were stimulus every nation in the world would be loaded down with them all the time. I realize she doesn't posses the common sense to grasp that, ist's never do.

Same goes with government spending in general. Pick a number, any number for government spending for stimulus. For sake of argument lets use the number 10. If 10 works very well, why not use 20 and do better? But then why stop there, go whole hog and use the number 100 and that way everybody is in high cotton. Why not? Because it doesn't and won't work. Government produce's practically nothing. And they have to take a dollar away from somebody before they can doll it out to their politically connected corrupt buddies (much of the time anyway).

The question with government spending is how willing are you to harm your nations economy for each dollar you take from a productive citizen. Don't get me wrong. We have to have government, we have to have government spending. But it's so far past the absurd point nowadays government jokes are not even funny anymore.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
I'm not the one that said food stamps are stimulus. That would be you and the air head economist Madlow or whatever her name is.
Click to expand...
yeah....she is an economist.

You are a complete waste of my time.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, would love to have it but using it in this forum just causes Obamabots to run never able to admit they are wrong. You can PM me through DP
Click to expand...

Nah, they need to hear it no matter how blinded they are. On another forum where I sort of took on that issue as a personal challenge I've converted a couple of people that were hard core Bush Blamers....well at least as far as the Sub-Prime issue goes, to accepting the complicity of the Democrats.
On top of that allot of Conservatives and/or Independents were exposed to the truth, and they started to pass it on whether on the forum or to their family and friends.

Whether these Obama-bots believe it or not the truth needs to be told. Imagine if the only resources we had to base our post on were what the Democrats wanted us to see ?

The Sub-Prime Collapse would be Bush's and the Banks fault in that order, Benghazi would be about a You-Tube Video, and the IRS scandal would be about a couple of "rogue agents " in Cincinnati who were just trying to make their job easier.

For a couple of years I researched the issue off and one and saved what I could to a hard drive and then to a drop box account. I believe the Sub-Prime Bubble is the largest Government caused financial disaster in History and no, it wasn't caused by the Republicans, or even perpetuated by the Republicans and the person the Democrats so ignorantly blame the most for it, did the most to try and avoid it.

By the time it was all said and done 16 to 18 TRILLION dollars in wealth was washed out, people lost their homes and their lively hood, and now our own Central Bank is loading up their books with worthless Mortgage Backed Securities.

People think we're out of the woods on the collapse. Nothing is further from the truth.

I'll start sending you some stuff that I think you'll find interesting.
 
pbrauer said:
According to the Constitution it takes 50% plus one vote to pass. In case of ties the Senate president (the VP) gets to vote. The Contitution also allows each house to write its own rules. In the case of Senate rule 22, 60 votes are require if cloture is filed. This is a formal procedure and is logged. For anyone to say the Democrats threatened a filibuster is dog dung. Bull****. You like to talk about leadership, well if the Republicans didn't file a cloture motion on S.190 then it's poor leadership on their part.

I would have thought you would have known all this civics stuff. I guess not. :roll:

Edit: cloture motions filed

U.S. Senate: Reference Home >.
Click to expand...


I assume your'e talking about the Senate bill. 55 votes is NOT a Filibuster proof Majority, which of-course the Democrats were threatening.

They wanted to run out the clock on the Senates session and stop any major reform of Fannie and Freddie from becoming law.

Well, I guess they succeeded.

BUT, in 2007 that bill was re-introduced to a Democrat chaired Committee.

What became of it ?
 
Fenton said:
I assume your'e talking about the Senate bill. 55 votes is NOT a Filibuster proof Majority, which of-course the Democrats were threatening.

They wanted to run out the clock on the Senates session and stop any major reform of Fannie and Freddie from becoming law.

Well, I guess they succeeded.

BUT, in 2007 that bill was re-introduced to a Democrat chaired Committee.

What became of it ?
Click to expand...
If a cloture motion wasn't filed, you can yell "THE DEMOCRATS THREATENED FILIBUSTER" all want, but it's only rhetoric and means NOTHING.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home >
 
pbrauer said:
If a cloture motion wasn't filed, you can yell "THE DEMOCRATS THREATENED FILIBUSTER" all want, but it's only rhetoric and means NOTHING.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home >
Click to expand...


Were you alive in 1995 ? I distinctly remember the push back from the Democrats on the Senate Bill, and have posted numerous resources to remind people like you.

Here's the reality. Throughout his entire Presidency, Bush attempted to push strict regulatory control over the growing Fannie and Freddie and throughout his entire Presidency was met with slimy, low life, lying Democrats who refused to allow any new regulations even when the collapse was imminent.

Iv'e even posted them for you.

They lied in Republican led committee's, they lied on Fannie Mae's website, in Commercials, in press appearances, you name it. All so they could do the one thing that has come to define the Democrat party in the last 20 years. Their innate ability to cover their corrupt asses.

After the collapse Democrats wen't into damage control, spun a new narrative to suck in the idiots and the ideologues that desperately needed a distraction from the obvious influence of the mortgage giants on the near collapse of the American economy.

It was the " banks fault ", the whole "too big to fail " narrative was pushed and hell, they even made a ridiculous movie. Blamed Bush which is even more pathetic since there is record of his numerous attempts to walk back the destruction.

Too bad they couldn't white wash the Internet and intimidate the dissenters and authors that have documented the collapse from start to finish.

I tell you what, you list ONE attempt, one bill, one IDEA put out by the Democrats from 2001 to 2008 that tried to address and stop the inevitable collapse of the housing Giants.
Name one initiative put forth by the Democrats to address the corruption, the massive buying up of crap loans by Fannie Mae, the massive purchases of TOXIC private Mortgage Backed Securities that are essentially worthless now and sitting on the books of our Central banks all because a group of criminals ran the Housing giants like ENRON....and worse.

List one Democrat attempt to get control over the Country-wide/ Fannie Mae corruption, the behind the scene deals that got Chris Dodd sweat heart deals on mortgages, that allowed Barrack Obama to be #3 on the list of lawmakers who received the Highest payout of Political Contributions from Fannie Mae, that allowed Fannie Mae to buy up over 70% of Country Wides crap loans.

I'm guessing all you've got is more Bush blame and Bank rhetoric.
 
Conservative said:
There was no vote on House bills passed that are sitting in Harry Reid's desk, is that Democrat stupidity?
Click to expand...

The Republican house has not passed a serious piece of original legislation in the last three congresses. Then again, the Republican legislative record over the past 100 years is pretty pathetic. They have almost NO noteworthy pieces of original legislation that did not involve a war or a tax cut. Its a party remarkably devoid of original ideas.

Perhaps the only book shorter than "Great Conservative Ideas" is "Great Moments in Astros Baseball".
 
upsideguy said:
The Republican house has not passed a serious piece of original legislation in the last three congresses. Then again, the Republican legislative record over the past 100 years is pretty pathetic. They have almost NO noteworthy pieces of original legislation that did not involve a war or a tax cut. Its a party remarkably devoid of original ideas.

Perhaps the only book shorter than "Great Conservative Ideas" is "Great Moments in Astros Baseball".
Click to expand...
Is that right? and you know that how? Have you gotten into Harry Reid's desk to see the legislation they have passed? Obama has been an economic disaster yet the best you can do is blame a GOP House that has passed legislation that Reid won't take to the floor.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
yeah....she is an economist.

You are a complete waste of my time.
Click to expand...

Remember that little quip you used a couple of pages back abut me and my time. Pot meet kettle.

And just in case you have never studied world history, just being an economist doesn't mean they have the right answers. Politicians following some economists advice have drug nation after nation down through out the years. Is there a reason why you chose to ignore that?
 
Here is an excellent tool for liberals to review so they stop making a fool of themselves assuming that Obama is a leader. The "do as I say, not as I do" President sets a poor personal example, doesn't adhere to two way communication, doesn't listen well but rather dictates vs. getting a consensus. With partisanship at an all time high leadership is needed to bring the two sides together and Obama's "my way or the highway" style just widens the gap.

We have high unemployment today and much malaise in this country. Obama needs to study this link and learn from it as do most here.

Concepts of Leadership
 
Fenton said:
Still reading the back of Cereal boxes huh ?

HR 1461, a Bill created by Republicans that made it through a Republican chaired Comitee never got to the Senate because the Democrats threatened to Fillibuster it until the session was out.

Rebublicans needed 5 DEMOCRATS to make it Fillibuster proof but not one stepped up.

R's only had a 55 majority in 2005.

That bill was re-introduced in 2007 into a Democrat chaired Comitee.

What happened to it ?

Go back to your Cheerios now, youve been informed.
Click to expand...
Congressional bills do not come from cereal boxes. Too bad you can't tell the difference. At any rate, there were no filibusters on any one of those 3 bills that Republican leaders refused to put up for a vote on the Senate floor. And whining about potential filibusters doesn't cut it. Had they put any one of those bill up for a vote in the full Senate, then Democrats would have been on record for blocking it. Too bad they didn't, so the record shows that Republican leaders chose not to pass that legislation.

Republicans were in charge, Republicans blew it.

Just as they always do.
 
Fenton said:
That bill was re-introduced in 2007 into a Democrat chaired Comitee.

What happened to it ?

Go back to your Cheerios now, youve been informed.
Click to expand...
Oops, I missed this part ... That bill was dropped in favor of one drafted by Democrats. And in 2008, though it was too late to fix the problem that Republicans allowed to explode years earlier when they had control, it was signed into law by the president. Democrats passed a bill where Republicans wouldn't for all those years.
 
Fenton said:
Cmon Libs, keep talking about the Sub-Prime Collapse, the Democrat mandated Bubble so I can thoroughly slap down your nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yeah, keep blaming the minority party Democrats. :roll:

Hey, lookie here ... weren't Republicans in charge during these years???

chart-subprime-loans.jpg

And what happened after Bush signed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act in 2002? Look at that chart.

Then he signed the American Dream Downpayment Act? Look at that chart.

Then the 2000 rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals. Look at that chart.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​
 
Fenton said:
Were you alive in 1995 ? I distinctly remember the push back from the Democrats on the Senate Bill, and have posted numerous resources to remind people like you.

Here's the reality. Throughout his entire Presidency, Bush attempted to push strict regulatory control over the growing Fannie and Freddie and throughout his entire Presidency was met with slimy, low life, lying Democrats who refused to allow any new regulations even when the collapse was imminent.

Iv'e even posted them for you.

They lied in Republican led committee's, they lied on Fannie Mae's website, in Commercials, in press appearances, you name it. All so they could do the one thing that has come to define the Democrat party in the last 20 years. Their innate ability to cover their corrupt asses.

After the collapse Democrats wen't into damage control, spun a new narrative to suck in the idiots and the ideologues that desperately needed a distraction from the obvious influence of the mortgage giants on the near collapse of the American economy.

It was the " banks fault ", the whole "too big to fail " narrative was pushed and hell, they even made a ridiculous movie. Blamed Bush which is even more pathetic since there is record of his numerous attempts to walk back the destruction.

Too bad they couldn't white wash the Internet and intimidate the dissenters and authors that have documented the collapse from start to finish.

I tell you what, you list ONE attempt, one bill, one IDEA put out by the Democrats from 2001 to 2008 that tried to address and stop the inevitable collapse of the housing Giants.
Name one initiative put forth by the Democrats to address the corruption, the massive buying up of crap loans by Fannie Mae, the massive purchases of TOXIC private Mortgage Backed Securities that are essentially worthless now and sitting on the books of our Central banks all because a group of criminals ran the Housing giants like ENRON....and worse.

List one Democrat attempt to get control over the Country-wide/ Fannie Mae corruption, the behind the scene deals that got Chris Dodd sweat heart deals on mortgages, that allowed Barrack Obama to be #3 on the list of lawmakers who received the Highest payout of Political Contributions from Fannie Mae, that allowed Fannie Mae to buy up over 70% of Country Wides crap loans.

I'm guessing all you've got is more Bush blame and Bank rhetoric.
Click to expand...

The Republicans controlled both houses in the 108 and 109th Congresses so the only reason something didnt get passed is because Bush didnt make it a priority. When the Dems took control of the House in January 2007.

House Financial Services Committee





For Immediate Release: September 8, 2008


Frank Statement on Congressional Action Regarding GSE Legislation



Washington, DC - House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) issued the following statement today in response to accusations from a White House spokesperson that Congress has been reluctant to move forward on GSE legislation for many years:


“The truth is when President Bush took office, and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he did not make any progress on comprehensive legislation to reform the regulation of the Government Sponsored Enterprises. It was not until 2005, when the House, on a bipartisan basis, and over the President’s objections finally passed a reform bill. It died in the Senate in part because the White House’s failure to make it a priority.


“In 2006, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, House Democrats made it one of our highest priorities, and passed a bill in May 2007. Finally, a full year later, as the financial crisis worsened, the Senate passed and the President signed GSE reform.


“It is unfortunate that ideologues in the White House who opposed common sense regulation did not join Congress early enough to help prevent the financial firestorm that now threatens the entire economy.”


​
 
Conservative said:
Here is an excellent tool for liberals to review so they stop making a fool of themselves assuming that Obama is a leader. The "do as I say, not as I do" President sets a poor personal example, doesn't adhere to two way communication, doesn't listen well but rather dictates vs. getting a consensus. With partisanship at an all time high leadership is needed to bring the two sides together and Obama's "my way or the highway" style just widens the gap.

We have high unemployment today and much malaise in this country. Obama needs to study this link and learn from it as do most here.

Concepts of Leadership
Click to expand...

Did you forget how to create a new thread, Con? I recommend you start one in General Political Discussion.
 
pbrauer said:
The Republicans controlled both houses in the 108 and 109th Congresses so the only reason something didnt get passed is because Bush didnt make it a priority. When the Dems took control of the House in January 2007.

House Financial Services Committee





For Immediate Release: September 8, 2008


Frank Statement on Congressional Action Regarding GSE Legislation



Washington, DC - House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) issued the following statement today in response to accusations from a White House spokesperson that Congress has been reluctant to move forward on GSE legislation for many years:


“The truth is when President Bush took office, and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he did not make any progress on comprehensive legislation to reform the regulation of the Government Sponsored Enterprises. It was not until 2005, when the House, on a bipartisan basis, and over the President’s objections finally passed a reform bill. It died in the Senate in part because the White House’s failure to make it a priority.


“In 2006, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, House Democrats made it one of our highest priorities, and passed a bill in May 2007. Finally, a full year later, as the financial crisis worsened, the Senate passed and the President signed GSE reform.


“It is unfortunate that ideologues in the White House who opposed common sense regulation did not join Congress early enough to help prevent the financial firestorm that now threatens the entire economy.”


​
Click to expand...

Keep hanging on to this bs argument that four years after the end of the recession and with stagnant economic growth, massive debt, and continued high unemployment that the responsibility for the numbers today are due to the housing crisis. Guess that must make you feel better even though it is out of touch with reality. Is that what you do in real life, blame someone else for your own performance results?
 
Conservative said:
Keep hanging on to this bs argument that four years after the end of the recession and with stagnant economic growth, massive debt, and continued high unemployment that the responsibility for the numbers today are due to the housing crisis. Guess that must make you feel better even though it is out of touch with reality. Is that what you do in real life, blame someone else for your own performance results?
Click to expand...
The reality is that Bush had plenty of time to fix the situation, but he chose not to. Worse, you call this leadership.
 
Fenton said:
I assume your'e talking about the Senate bill. 55 votes is NOT a Filibuster proof Majority, which of-course the Democrats were threatening.

They wanted to run out the clock on the Senates session and stop any major reform of Fannie and Freddie from becoming law.

Well, I guess they succeeded.

BUT, in 2007 that bill was re-introduced to a Democrat chaired Committee.

What became of it ?
Click to expand...

Stop pretending like Democrats dropped the ball, like their Republican counterparts did years earlier, merely because they wouldn't take up that bill.

Starting in 2007 when Democrats took charge, they started introducing their own bills.

H.R.1427: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007. Introduced in House by Barney Frank on March 9, 2007, 2 months after Democrats took charge. The guy you blame for much of the problems years earlier when he was but a single member of the minority party, pushed that bill through the House and got it passed. That bill died in the Senate in the same fashion that Republican bills died in the Senate when Republicans were in charge, but parts of it were used in a Bill that Nancy Pelosi would introduce a few months later.

Pelosi's bill, H.R.3221, would go on to be signed into law by Bush. Something Republicans failed to do when they had the opportunity to do something to possibly avert the financial meltdown. By the time Democrats took charge and got that bill to Bush -- it was too late. By then, Republicans thoroughly ****ed America.
 
pbrauer said:
The reality is that Bush had plenty of time to fix the situation, but he chose not to. Worse, you call this leadership.
Click to expand...

The reality is, Bush isn't in office and the Republicans were fired in 2006 and we are into the 5 year of the Obama Presidency. The economic result today are all Obama's. Why does it matter what I call the Bush term as he isn't around to fix the problems and you helped hire someone who claimed he could. He hasn't and the results show that failure.
 
pbrauer said:
The Republicans controlled both houses in the 108 and 109th Congresses so the only reason something didnt get passed is because Bush didnt make it a priority. When the Dems took control of the House in January 2007.

House Financial Services Committee





For Immediate Release: September 8, 2008


Frank Statement on Congressional Action Regarding GSE Legislation



Washington, DC - House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) issued the following statement today in response to accusations from a White House spokesperson that Congress has been reluctant to move forward on GSE legislation for many years:


“The truth is when President Bush took office, and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he did not make any progress on comprehensive legislation to reform the regulation of the Government Sponsored Enterprises. It was not until 2005, when the House, on a bipartisan basis, and over the President’s objections finally passed a reform bill. It died in the Senate in part because the White House’s failure to make it a priority.


“In 2006, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, House Democrats made it one of our highest priorities, and passed a bill in May 2007. Finally, a full year later, as the financial crisis worsened, the Senate passed and the President signed GSE reform.


“It is unfortunate that ideologues in the White House who opposed common sense regulation did not join Congress early enough to help prevent the financial firestorm that now threatens the entire economy.”


​
Click to expand...
Your facts fall on deaf ears.

Three_Monkeys_Wallpaper_wivzs.jpg
 
Conservative said:
Is that right? and you know that how? Have you gotten into Harry Reid's desk to see the legislation they have passed? Obama has been an economic disaster yet the best you can do is blame a GOP House that has passed legislation that Reid won't take to the floor.
Click to expand...

No, I blame the Bush administration. After all, they started with essentially a balanced budget and delivered continuing deficits in excess of a trillion. It was the most pathetic economic performance by any adminstration in US history.

When the house stops trying to appeal Obama care once a month and gets to serious legislation, then we can take them seriously. Meanwhile, they have treated the Immigration bill with the same distain that you accuse Harry Reid of having for house bills. It seems what's good for the goose....
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
No, I blame the Bush administration. After all, they started with essentially a balanced budget and delivered continuing deficits in excess of a trillion. It was the most pathetic economic performance by any adminstration in US history.

When the house stops trying to appeal Obama care once a month and gets to serious legislation, then we can take them seriously. Meanwhile, they have treated the Immigration bill with the same distain that you accuse Harry Reid of having for house bills. It seems what's good for the goose....
Click to expand...

. Of course you do, we all know that Bush gave Obama the authority to put Bush spending on steroids and that 6.2 trillion in 4 plus years is much less than 4.9 trillion in 8 years.

So those bills in Reid's desk are to repeal Obamacare? I cannot imagine how increasing business costs by forcing small businesses to provide healthcare will affect hiring. You really have that figured out well.
 
Conservative said:
. Of course you do, we all know that Bush gave Obama the authority to put Bush spending on steroids and that 6.2 trillion in 4 plus years is much less than 4.9 trillion in 8 years.

So those bills in Reid's desk are to repeal Obamacare? I cannot imagine how increasing business costs by forcing small businesses to provide healthcare will affect hiring. You really have that figured out well.
Click to expand...

... substantially all of the $6.2B was the run-out of the deficit infrastructure created by the previous administration. The wars, tax cuts and medicare expansion account for most of the deficits... they were in place before Obama showed up. Its much harder to reverse these things than create them. Yes, now Obama owns the tax cuts, as he advocated for them and they were passed. They account for $2T of our debt and the future cost of those cuts now fall on the Obama ledger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom