I don't see how any of this disproves my point that "spending" for the sake of "spending" is idiotic.
You're point is without merit, no one is spending for the sake of spending. That's just make believe republican talking points.
RightinNYC said:
Right, and those are the only two possible choices - pass the Democrat's bill, or kill Americans.
Seems to be what you're suggesting isn't it? Just a thought but I wouldn't go about trying to sell such an economic stimulus to the public at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent life on a pointless war to the public anymore.
AS for "only two possibly choices" I never made that argument. My argument was that spending stimulates. Yes even war spending stimulates.
But keep on trying to put words in my mouth with hyperbole.
RightinNYC said:
I don't particularly care for that whole shtick either, I just think its amusing how party leaders (from either side) start pushing a message and then you see people parroting it back a couple days later.
Then I suggest you not use it to lambast when it serves nothing other than to show you as a kookaid drinker as well.
RightinNYC said:
So don't bitch when the Republicans in Congress hold up your bill. After all, the people voted them in there to do just that, right?
WHo said anything about not bitching? Has anyone called for a censor of or silence of? You were the one saying if it was voted on in november, yet the very topic at the time was economy and it's not a stretch to say it's one of the primary reasons that obama and democrats won.
If the republicans were holding on to the bill for any legitimate reason I've no problem. But you guys just are not. You're being obstructionist for the sole sake of obstructionism. For crying out loud republicans are still bitching about family planning being in the bill when one of the first things taken out was family planning.
Great you need to sell to your base, I get that, that's fine we can include that another day.
But after all the back and forth and even praise by house minority leaders of Obama's sincerity willing to work bipartisan what do they do? not a single one votes for it.
So you wanted all that inclusion and it's still not enough - then bringing absolutely nothing concrete to the table except to say.
We have a bill, we think it's a better bill, we think your bill needs to be tossed out.
That's not bipartisan, that's "you're either with us or against us" all over again.
RightinNYC said:
lol. TWO!? You mean they won TWO elections in a row?! Unprecedented. ****, the Republicans should just give it up and announce their dissolution tomorrow. TWO election IN A MOTHER****IN ROW. Damn.
Becoming a minority that was unseen in a quarter century? Yeah I'd say you guys lost pretty badly. It's not as if you didn't see the writing on the wall though.
RightinNYC said:
So wait - you acknowledge that the people who voted Obama and the Dems in are dumb and that they did it by accident, but then you turn around and try to use that as justification for enacting whatever policies the Dems want without opposition? Good one.
Yes, dumb, I think the american public is generally dumb and apathetic.
I've never said anything about "without opposition" you're putting words in my mouth again. Now if you didn't edit the response to the second part you would've seen why I said they got it right with dumb luck.
RightinNYC said:
You're obviously intelligent enough to recognize the converse argument to that, so I won't bother going into it here.
I think you're obtusly missing the point.
The spending is to increase demand - it is the demand which is lacking now because the public is not spending.
You know, the whole supply and demand thing?
RightinNYC said:
You're right. And as you earlier pointed out, the public is so brilliant that they totally anticipated that by endorsing a generic Democratic platform of change, they were in actuality voting to spend $900b on condoms and solar panels.
Well it's still better money spent than 10billion monthly to build the infrastructure of another nation.
RightinNYC said:
Q: When Bush won in 04 on his "tough talk, continue the war in Iraq" platform, did you consider that an endorsement to expand that policy, say, by invading Iran?
You probably missed the part where I said a dumb apathetic public.
But on that, people normally don't vote to change out the commander in chief during war time.
RightinNYC said:
Somehow I think that if we'd done that and I came on here and said "well who won the election HMMMMM?????," you'd be a lil aggravated at my idiocy, and rightfully so.
That's what this is about? You're a lil aggravated?
RightinNYC said:
Finally, in all seriousness, if you actually want to consider the will of the people on this (not that I think it really matters), then why don't you
ask the people what they want rather than simply try to divine their desires by looking at their generic ballots from November. Oh, wait,
someone already did that.
Like I said a dumb apathetic public.
Let me add with an attention span of 5 second sound bites.
RightinNYC said:
So what do you say, jfuh? I mean, based on your earlier comments, I have to assume that you think this is a bold refutation of the Democrat's failed proposals (or something like that, right?)
For if the public was wtf are those 20%? The public seems to have forgotten how tax cuts were a completely failed policy and have been just that for the last 8 years. They're now just drinking from the republican koolaid because Obama didn't vet properly and spent his time defending a lobbiest, and tax evaders. During which time republicans were stepping up the same old bogus rhetoric all over again.
Spending is proven economic policy that stimulates economy.
FDR succeeded partially but had his spending been as big as it was during WWII the depression would've ended far sooner.
If he didn't bother to listen to conservative opinions of cutting back spending there wouldn't have been that recession in '37 either.
Again, how do you benefit from a taxcut, or specifically as republican's are proposing, payroll tax cut, when you're not on a payroll?
Trickle down does not work.
