• 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 Shut Out of Stimulus Conference Negotiations

One would think these rabid left wingers would be less rabid now that they won. apparently it just makes them morer rabid.



So much for change.
 
This is a lie on your part. I already corrected you on this in another thread. He indeed had a teleprompter.

The president made opening remarks, a short speech which was on a prompter. We were speaking about the press conference, which could not be on a prompter unless the whole thing was scripted. Do you have evidence of that, or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass, as usual?
 
For me, I feel like I don't have to defend anything, particularly when he has been in office for only 3 weeks!

Three weeks has been plenty long for him to show his true colors. that whole address he gave was arrogant, disingenuous, and pointless. It's going to be fun watching the next four years.
 
The president made opening remarks, a short speech which was on a prompter. We were speaking about the press conference, which could not be on a prompter unless the whole thing was scripted. Do you have evidence of that, or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass, as usual?



So you are admitting you lied? thank you.


:2wave:
 
One would think these rabid left wingers would be less rabid now that they won. apparently it just makes them morer rabid.



So much for change.
Because they know, in their heart of hearts, that they are wrong. So they have to destroy all their enemies because their ideology cannot stand the long term light of debate. Liberalism is not common sense or intellectual. It is emotional, and relies on pulling heart strings to achieve agreement. Look at the way liberals live, they vote liberal but live like conservatives. They don't allow their children to practice free sex under their own roofs or smoke pot while watching TV with Mom and Dad, or moving into ghettos with the poor. Look at our elected officials that deny the ordinary citizens school choice, but send their own children to private schools. They give away public moneys as charity, but give less than conservatives of their own money. In fact I suggest that liberals aren't even about solving problems with real solutions; but about the accumulation of power, using the Welfare state as a means to power with only the appearance of helping the poor. If it weren't so, they wouldn't despise religious people, because the Bible says to give to the poor which conservatives do privately. The liberals who don't realize this are just brainwashed zombies who run around promoting policies with consequences they don't understand.
 
At least a tax cut for the [so-called] "rich" is a true tax cut, no welfare like Obama's plan to give taxes back to those who have never paid any. Liberals have trouble admitting the obvious fact: When true middle class and more wealthy taxpayers get a break in lower taxes, they often invest it in business ventures that can produce legitimate jobs and economic growth!

Perhaps if our country survives Obama and the Democrats' attempt to socialize, then one day Democrats will have to take a back seat as they should have been forced to do in the mid-'90s.
Considering that the only way you get a refund is to pay taxes then please explain how someone who doesn't pay taxes gets a tax break? :roll: You must have gotten grannys 45 point hot pink text email...:doh
 
I'll tell you why Repub didn't vote for it... here's why... its full of pork, special interest, and other NON-STIMULUS ****. That's right, BILLIONS of dollars in NON-ESSENTIALS that in no way STIMULATE the economy. Its the Dems setting up for elections by pandering under the disguise of STIMULUS.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...aders-deem-wasteful-senate-stimulus-bill.html


Check your TPS report next time.
Please quote the first two of these pork projects that you can find in the current bill that don't stimulate the economy. Unless you'd rather admit that you don't have a clue and are just repeating the vitriol from your ditto-master.
 
Because they know, in their heart of hearts, that they are wrong. So they have to destroy all their enemies because their ideology cannot stand the long term light of debate. Liberalism is not common sense or intellectual. It is emotional, and relies on pulling heart strings to achieve agreement. Look at the way liberals live, they vote liberal but live like conservatives. They don't allow their children to practice free sex under their own roofs or smoke pot while watching TV with Mom and Dad, or moving into ghettos with the poor. Look at our elected officials that deny the ordinary citizens school choice, but send their own children to private schools. They give away public moneys as charity, but give less than conservatives of their own money. In fact I suggest that liberals aren't even about solving problems with real solutions; but about the accumulation of power, using the Welfare state as a means to power with only the appearance of helping the poor. If it weren't so, they wouldn't despise religious people, because the Bible says to give to the poor which conservatives do privately. The liberals who don't realize this are just brainwashed zombies who run around promoting policies with consequences they don't understand.
Wow, this is the longest response I've ever seen you make. Too bad it was nothing but a hyperbolic tirade lacking anything of substance nor adding anything but more puke to the discussion. At least now we KNOW you can put together more than a couple sentences at a time. :applaud
 
Considering that the only way you get a refund is to pay taxes then please explain how someone who doesn't pay taxes gets a tax break? :roll: You must have gotten grannys 45 point hot pink text email...:doh

Your arrogant condescension aside, if you had READ what is contained in the Obama tax giveaway, you would have read that it contains what is called a REFUNDABLE Tax Credit. What this means for those who wallow in convenient denial, is that even if you have NO tax liability, which is usually a family making less than $42,000 per year, you will get a check from Uncle Sam.

Therefore, explains the comment from some who call it a tax giveaway.

But that isn't the real issue; Obama's plan not only is silent about how to pay for all the largess, but his tax rebates don't even apply to those who pay most of the taxes in the nation.

It is flagrant in its class envy populist message. I am still waiting for a Liberal to explain to me what societies ever taxed, spent and printed (money) their nations into prosperity.
 
I am still waiting for a Liberal to explain to me what societies ever taxed, spent and printed (money) their nations into prosperity.

Difficult to explain basic economics to someone who refuses to think. Basically, EVERY civilized nation from Rome onward TAXED its citizens to build revenue, SPENT that revenue on public works and the military, and PRINTED money out of usually worthless metal to create a single barter system. And they became prosperous. There is your answer, but I'm sure you still refuse to get it, it's way too much fun to disconnect your brain and pretend you know everything, isn't it?
 
I say good.


Because when porkzilla passes, then causes the recession to become much worse, The Democrats and there new spirit of hostility will have no one to point a finger at to blame.


What idiots.


So much for this new tone Obama was going to bring to Washington. :roll:

At this point, it's probably the best course of action. Most of the Republicans have made it pretty clear that they aren't going to vote for the bill under any circumstances. So if they aren't going to vote for it anyway, why should they be a part of the negotiating? What can they possibly bring to the table?

Hopefully the moderate Republicans who have indicated support for a sensible course of action (Snowe, Collins, Specter) will be a part of the final negotiations.
 
Please quote the first two of these pork projects that you can find in the current bill that don't stimulate the economy. Unless you'd rather admit that you don't have a clue and are just repeating the vitriol from your ditto-master.

Pelosi"s funds for bird sanctuary, hybrid vehicles for gov't cars, smoking cessation activities, indian alcohol rehab program, 75 million tax cut for movie producers.... Shall I go on or can you go find the bill all by your big boy self? That's just the stuff off the top of my head.


Once again, since I'm sure your memory didn't catch this: all of these things are good to have during normal economic times, but NOT, I repeat NOT, during a crisis as part of a economic stimulus bill. Is that clear enough for you Pancho? Now go read the fine print in the bill before you make such ignorant accusations.
 
Please quote the first two of these pork projects that you can find in the current bill that don't stimulate the economy. Unless you'd rather admit that you don't have a clue and are just repeating the vitriol from your ditto-master.

Ok, now we have it...this guy is just cribbing Obama's statements.

According to this poster and Obama...all government spending is stimulative, duh!!! :roll:

I mean, if we're going to follow that logic, then why even have private business at all?

And it looks like he's taking cues from Chuck Schumer, too. Hell, even if the spending is porky, Americans don't care anyway. LMAO!

So we have Obama denying there's any pork at all in the bill.

Then we have Schumer telling us that there is, but we mere common folk don't care.

This is the hope and change I expected.... :rofl
 
Ok, now we have it...this guy is just cribbing Obama's statements.

According to this poster and Obama...all government spending is stimulative, duh!!! :roll:

I mean, if we're going to follow that logic, then why even have private business at all?

And it looks like he's taking cues from Chuck Schumer, too. Hell, even if the spending is porky, Americans don't care anyway. LMAO!

So we have Obama denying there's any pork at all in the bill.

Then we have Schumer telling us that there is, but we mere common folk don't care.

This is the hope and change I expected.... :rofl

Stop stalling and just pass the bill, if we don't then the terrorists win....errr... I mean the economy will fail. Why do you hate America... I mean errr... Why do you want the economy/Obama to fail?

Same politics, different words. That's change, right?
 
Stop stalling and just pass the bill, if we don't then the terrorists win....errr... I mean the economy will fail. Why do you hate America... I mean errr... Why do you want the economy/Obama to fail?

Same politics, different words. That's change, right?

I see you workin on some kind of equivalency, but, no, I don't see it.

Maybe I just don't subscribe to the idea that the Bush administration slammed through legislation with the hyperbole and hysteria that you falsely attribute to it.
 
Your arrogant condescension aside, if you had READ what is contained in the Obama tax giveaway, you would have read that it contains what is called a REFUNDABLE Tax Credit. What this means for those who wallow in convenient denial, is that even if you have NO tax liability, which is usually a family making less than $42,000 per year, you will get a check from Uncle Sam.
That is what Bush called a "stimulus check". Which is not the same as a "refund". You cons just make up your own conversations so you can argue with yourself.

Therefore, explains the comment from some who call it a tax giveaway.
I wasn't responding to "some" I was responding to rebelduc. Nice try though.

But that isn't the real issue; Obama's plan not only is silent about how to pay for all the largess, but his tax rebates don't even apply to those who pay most of the taxes in the nation.
He's not silent about it, we are going to borrow the money to get us out of the problems that Bush borrowed money to get us into.

It is flagrant in its class envy populist message. I am still waiting for a Liberal to explain to me what societies ever taxed, spent and printed (money) their nations into prosperity.
Yours is flagrant in it's class warfare corporatist message. I am still waiting for a con to explain to me what society ever prospered via laissez faire economics.
 
Pelosi"s funds for bird sanctuary, hybrid vehicles for gov't cars, smoking cessation activities, indian alcohol rehab program, 75 million tax cut for movie producers.... Shall I go on or can you go find the bill all by your big boy self? That's just the stuff off the top of my head.


Once again, since I'm sure your memory didn't catch this: all of these things are good to have during normal economic times, but NOT, I repeat NOT, during a crisis as part of a economic stimulus bill. Is that clear enough for you Pancho? Now go read the fine print in the bill before you make such ignorant accusations.
In other words, you didn't read squat and can't quote the first two as I asked because all you've done is repeat what your ditto-master spoon fed you. When you're ready to quote the first two in the bill, then we'll continue the discussion. Until then we can just recognize that you're full of it.
 
That is what Bush called a "stimulus check". Which is not the same as a "refund". You cons just make up your own conversations so you can argue with yourself.

Pay attention, would you.

The so-called stimulus plan includes refundable tax credits. That means that people without any federal income tax liability are eligible to receive the tax credit.

The Earned income Tax Credit works precisely the same way.

The stimulus checks sent out during the Bush administration was not a tax credit.

He's not silent about it, we are going to borrow the money to get us out of the problems that Bush borrowed money to get us into.

Isn't it ironic how these Obamabots have no problem condemning Bush for deficit spending but then propose even greater deficit spending to fix it?

Where's the sense in arguing that deficit spending in bad, therefore, we're going to engage in even more deficit spending to fix it?

This is whathappens when people suspend their reason in order to kneel at the feet of The One.

Yours is flagrant in it's class warfare corporatist message. I am still waiting for a con to explain to me what society ever prospered via laissez faire economics.

Corporatist message, :rofl...

And the answer, clown, is, of course, the United States. Unless, of course, like a good little liberal, you're gonna simply start redefining what words mean...

Well?
 
In other words, you didn't read squat and can't quote the first two as I asked because all you've done is repeat what your ditto-master spoon fed you. When you're ready to quote the first two in the bill, then we'll continue the discussion. Until then we can just recognize that you're full of it.

So your complaint is that he didn't list the first two in the bill?

Obamabot, please. You're conceding the argument even if you don't know it.

If you're going to argue that all government spending is stimulative, then make that argument.

So lets have it.
 
Frankly, as obnoxious as "We won" sounds, it's TRUE! The Republicans passed bills during Bush's term that allowed all these tax cuts. By voting for Democrats and kicking out the Republicans in massive numbers, the voters are saying to the Republicans, "Your tax cuts haven't worked. We want to try something else."

Why the Republicans keep pushing their own agenda when it was rejected in November 2008 is beyond me. :confused:

Why shouldn't they? Are you saying the Democrats shouldn't have tried to pursue their own agenda when they were in the minority and Bush was in the White House? If you are, I sure didn't see much complaining from you at the time.
 
For this Obama supporter, it's been enjoyable watching the anti-Obama people yell and scream about how horrible he is. I read their posts and think, "Now they know how I felt for the last 8 years." I don't care to respond because, in my opinion, many of the complaints are bogus and aren't worth responding to. Seriously.

Here are a few places you can chime in:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...l-platforms/43716-what-s-review-consider.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...tforms/43753-why-does-obama-continue-lie.html
 
Considering that the only way you get a refund is to pay taxes then please explain how someone who doesn't pay taxes gets a tax break? :roll: You must have gotten grannys 45 point hot pink text email...:doh

If there's a sufficient Earned Income Credit, yes, you can get a refund if you never paid taxes. Now, you're right; it's not a "refund" in any real sense; it's taking someone else's money and giving it to you.

But you obviously need to learn more about the world around you if you think people who don't pay taxes don't get what's called a "refund."
 
At this point, it's probably the best course of action. Most of the Republicans have made it pretty clear that they aren't going to vote for the bill under any circumstances. So if they aren't going to vote for it anyway, why should they be a part of the negotiating? What can they possibly bring to the table?

That may be. But they apparently were not even informed that the meeting was happening. That's not transparency in government.
 
So your complaint is that he didn't list the first two in the bill?

Obamabot, please. You're conceding the argument even if you don't know it.

If you're going to argue that all government spending is stimulative, then make that argument.

So lets have it.
He can't because he knows that dog won't hunt.
 
Back
Top Bottom