• 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!

GOP 'Pledge' makes closing argument to voters

oh my god. if small business owners are too ****ing lazy to read a bill that they THINK affects them negatively, maybe their businesses will fail because they are both stupid and lazy.

such condescension is crass

YouTube - John Conyers on Reading the Healthcare Bill

conyers---what good is reading the bill if its 1000 pages and you don't have 2 lawyers to find out what it means?

conyers, by the way, in 2006 admitted to illegally using staff members for campaign and personal business

he promised never to do it again

last year his wife, detroit city councilwoman, pleaded guilty to felonious taking of bribes

Conyers's wife pleads guilty - Alex Isenstadt and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

where's crew?
 
this republican pledge is a CAMPAIGN PIECE

the suggestion that it might be subject to CBO SCORING is absurd

as ECONIMICS it is a strong and certain indication of the DIRECTION the NEW house leadership will be heading

as such, it's a radical and restorative redirection

if you think that TODAY's electorate is NOT going to distinguish dramatically, direly, between the refreshing flavor of TEA philosophy and the socialistic SANCTIMONY of the washington-knows-best cabal, then you are as poor a JUDGE OF CHARACTER as the assemblage of aliens currently occupying the white house

ON THE STUMP how are progressives to rebut this pledge?

we CRAMMED obamacare? we passed the STIMULUS which we can no longer call by that name, today considered obscene?

we bankrolled beaucoup bailouts and bonuses to bloated bigwigs and their bogus bagmen---to the tune of billions?

we favor FURTHER underfunding of f & f?

elect us so we can DEEM cap and trade, massive tax hikes on ENERGY---both production and consumption---in the midst of our deep, dark DEPRESSION?

we'll ameliorate the mosque, move ksm to manhattan, prosecute the cia, BAN drilling in the gulf and SUE the PEOPLE of arizona?

i think you're GOT

checkmate

seeya at the polls!
 
Last edited:
House-Republicans-leader--006.jpg




LINK

While long, (8000 words), familiar and with obvious holes - this is a first step of "getting back to basics" by the GOP they're selling to voters. Critics on the Right however, are seeing it as watered down beltway business as usual.

Redstate says:

"At a time when America needs a bold, simple, fresh plan for putting America on the path to fiscal and constitutional sanity - we get instead an almost 8000 word term paper of inside-the-beltway regurgitation that lacks the one thing the American people seem to be dying to have… actual leadership. Harsh? Hardly."
I give credit to the GOP for seeing the writing on the wall left by the Tea Party: get back to basics or else. The GOP isn't jumping into that pool head first... they're wading in and they should. A vast swing to the right with some "bold" plan espousing cutting Social Security, Medicare and the Dept. of Ed. is a sure fire loser. The missing parts like a pledge to cut earmarks, to pass term limits, or to cut corporate tax to the levels the rest of the world uses is missing. Republicans need to understand however, they can't wade in the pool forever. This is a nice first step but it needs some concrete follow up and not on November 3rd --- sooner. We don't need a bold "let's change Washington into Conservative Utopia" - that's what Obama campaigned with a "Progressive Utopia" and we all know that hope and change went down the toilet quick.

Pledge to America - full text.

Where in the pledge does it say "We will not ship our jobs to China"? This doesn't look like a Pledge to America. It looks more like a Pledge to Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, and Chevron-Texaco.
 
Liblady, your party has been in charge since January 2007 and what do we have to show for it? "Your" President took over in January 2009 and today, 2010, we have 4 million more unemployed than we had when he took office, 3 trillion added to the debt, and 1.6% economic growth. Unemployment this year by month is higher than it was by month in 2009 so he has made things worse. Is that the record you are proud of? Obviously that is the record you want to ignore so it is attack everyone else.

I'm just going to throw out some graphs to find out what you (or anyone else) think about them.

Keep in mind the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed in February of 2009.


Jobs Lost/Gained Per Month:
us-unemployment-august-2010.jpg


U.S. Unemployment Rate:
us%20unemployment%20rate%201980%20to%20Sep%202010.gif


UnemploymentEducationAug2010.jpg




Two comments from me before I hope you respond in kind...

1. The unemployment rate was increasing dramatically as Obama came into office. I find it hard to believe it's possible to go from losing 700,000 jobs a month to losing none or even gaining jobs per month in a one, two or three month period without spending a lot of money. I have just as much reason as anyone else to be pissed off at the government, wall street, the banks and everyone else responsible for this mess -- I'm unemployed myself -- but it's hard for me to believe that what has been described as the worst recession since the Great Depression could be completely turned around in a one or two year period.

2. It appears to me that the stimulus program halted the severely increasing unemployment rate. There was a huge jump in unemployment in just one year, then the AR&R act was passed and soon after... the unemployment rate leveled out and the number of jobs lost per month dropped.

Thoughts?

Obviously more needs to be done to help speed up the recovery of the economy and of course the spending needs to be brought under control, but though the unemployment didn't remain at 8%-ish as we were told it would and though the recovery is still slow... from what appears to me to be an economy turning around right around the time that the stimulus package was passed and an improvement in the economy since, at this point I have to assume the stimulus helped.

I am of course always open for discussion on this. And please, let's keep this civil.


P.S. I'm not sure what you meant by "your", but Obama's your president too. Just like Bush was my president even though I didn't vote for him and hated his guts. Just saying...
:2wave:
 
Last edited:
You eventually run out of jobs to lose. The unemployment rate it close to 10%.
It was less than that when we were losing more jobs per month.

When we start gaining jobs in the private sector each month, then I'd say things are looking up.
We need to lose jobs in the public sector to cut the deficit.
 
Where in the pledge does it say "We will not ship our jobs to China"? This doesn't look like a Pledge to America. It looks more like a Pledge to Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, and Chevron-Texaco.

Where in the pledge does it identify Pfizer, Goldman Sachs and Chevron-Texaco?
 
I'm just going to throw out some graphs to find out what you (or anyone else) think about them.

Keep in mind the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed in February of 2009.


Jobs Lost/Gained Per Month:
us-unemployment-august-2010.jpg


U.S. Unemployment Rate:
us%20unemployment%20rate%201980%20to%20Sep%202010.gif


UnemploymentEducationAug2010.jpg




Two comments from me before I hope you respond in kind...

1. The unemployment rate was increasing dramatically as Obama came into office. I find it hard to believe it's possible to go from losing 700,000 jobs a month to losing none or even gaining jobs per month in a one, two or three month period without spending a lot of money. I have just as much reason as anyone else to be pissed off at the government, wall street, the banks and everyone else responsible for this mess -- I'm unemployed myself -- but it's hard for me to believe that what has been described as the worst recession since the Great Depression could be completely turned around in a one or two year period.

2. It appears to me that the stimulus program halted the severely increasing unemployment rate. There was a huge jump in unemployment in just one year, then the AR&R act was passed and soon after... the unemployment rate leveled out and the number of jobs lost per month dropped.

Thoughts?

Obviously more needs to be done to help speed up the recovery of the economy and of course the spending needs to be brought under control, but though the unemployment didn't remain at 8%-ish as we were told it would and though the recovery is still slow... from what appears to me to be an economy turning around right around the time that the stimulus package was passed and an improvement in the economy since, at this point I have to assume the stimulus helped.

I am of course always open for discussion on this. And please, let's keep this civil.


P.S. I'm not sure what you meant by "your", but Obama's your president too. Just like Bush was my president even though I didn't vote for him and hated his guts. Just saying...
:2wave:

The bump and then falloff of jobs identifies the public sector jobs created by using tax money to create those jobs - ie. stimulus. You can't throw 800 billion dollars into the economy and not see it happen. But the falloff in your bar graph identifies it all... temporary jobs used for political gains and speeches... then the decline again. Talk to me when Obama has taken the 4 million jobs lost back to zero. Then we can have a meaningful discussion about job creation. Until then, he's still digging in the same hole he's been in since the start.
 
So what you're saying is that the GOP is promising to use Democrat spending and tax practices? I'm sure that will go over well. Would you also agree that 2008 taxes and 2008 spending would not be particularly "fiscally responsible," especially when revenues are down due to the recession?

Besides, Bush still had the veto pen and the Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority. If the GOP had really wanted to take a stand on spending they could have. I don't see why anyone would take this Contract Pledge With To America seriously.

The 2010 elections are going to focus on the results of this Congress and Barack Obama. Haven't seen any Obama supporter even talking about the Obama results and that speaks volumes. Please name for me one economic prediction made by Obama or his Administration that has been accurate?

It has been stated that Obama inherited quite a mess from Bush yet no one actually reviews the numbers and simply states talking points. Since Obama took office 4 million more Americans are unemployed and every month this year unemployment has risen vs. last year thus the claim that jobs have been created for 8 months in a row means nothing since more jobs were lost than created and that is the bottom line.
 
The bump and then falloff of jobs identifies the public sector jobs created by using tax money to create those jobs - ie. stimulus. You can't throw 800 billion dollars into the economy and not see it happen. But the falloff in your bar graph identifies it all... temporary jobs used for political gains and speeches... then the decline again. Talk to me when Obama has taken the 4 million jobs lost back to zero. Then we can have a meaningful discussion about job creation. Until then, he's still digging in the same hole he's been in since the start.

Or, it was a tempory solution, as stumulus are, and that long term solutions take more time. We can discuss this honestly, or not. The choice is ours, but no president controls the economy. At best, he and congress can help lessen the pain, but the economy is separate and not under the control of government.
 
Or, it was a tempory solution, as stumulus are, and that long term solutions take more time. We can discuss this honestly, or not. The choice is ours, but no president controls the economy. At best, he and congress can help lessen the pain, but the economy is separate and not under the control of government.

Yet Obama blames Bush, Obama supporters blame Bush and continue to blame Bush for the "inherited" Problems two years after Bush left office. The results of the Stimulus and the first two years of the Obama Administration will be the issues judged on Nov. 2, 2010. The most radical leftwing President in U.S. History has made things worse in his first two years of office and yet the Obama supporters continue to blame Bush. Congress and the President make economic policy that affects the country and it is the Obama economic policies that have led to the results we have today.

Still waiting for you to name for me one Obama economic policy that has made things better? The GOP Pledge is a step in the right direction.
 
Yet Obama blames Bush, Obama supporters blame Bush and continue to blame Bush for the "inherited" Problems two years after Bush left office. The results of the Stimulus and the first two years of the Obama Administration will be the issues judged on Nov. 2, 2010. The most radical leftwing President in U.S. History has made things worse in his first two years of office and yet the Obama supporters continue to blame Bush. Congress and the President make economic policy that affects the country and it is the Obama economic policies that have led to the results we have today.

Still waiting for you to name for me one Obama economic policy that has made things better? The GOP Pledge is a step in the right direction.

Mostly that is a proper way to note your side's hypocracy. If Obama and the democrats have blame, then so do Bush and the republicans. And as far as the debt goes, you can't argue fighting two needless wars without any effrot to pay for them isn't part of that problem. Only a idiot would argue Bush didn't contribute heavily to the debt.
 
Mostly that is a proper way to note your side's hypocracy. If Obama and the democrats have blame, then so do Bush and the republicans. And as far as the debt goes, you can't argue fighting two needless wars without any effrot to pay for them isn't part of that problem. Only a idiot would argue Bush didn't contribute heavily to the debt.

Absolutely and I have made that statement many times but you are too busy being partisan. Bush made a lot of mistakes as President but Bush is out of office and Obama has made things worse yet he continues to blame Bush. Bush spending HELPED create the debt but Obama has put Bush spending on steroids yet is ignored.

The President of the U.S. is Barack Obama and anyone that views his results as positive is out of touch with reality. The recession began in December 2007 almost a year after Democrats took control of Congress and implemented the 2008 budget and economic policies. Democrats have been in control of the legislative process since January 2007. Even with that Congress Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit.
 
Absolutely and I have made that statement many times but you are too busy being partisan. Bush made a lot of mistakes as President but Bush is out of office and Obama has made things worse yet he continues to blame Bush. Bush spending HELPED create the debt but Obama has put Bush spending on steroids yet is ignored.

The President of the U.S. is Barack Obama and anyone that views his results as positive is out of touch with reality. The recession began in December 2007 almost a year after Democrats took control of Congress and implemented the 2008 budget and economic policies. Democrats have been in control of the legislative process since January 2007. Even with that Congress Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit.

I'm afraid not. You've excused bush in the apst. I have consistently said no president controls the economy. You argue tax cuts grow the economy with no evidence to support it. Not to mention Bush cut taxes and the economy went south anyway.

No, your hypocrracy is what we see here.

:lamo
 
Closing Argument = they've had 2 years to fix what we did in 8. Isn't it time we go back to doing things our way?
 
I'm afraid not. You've excused bush in the apst. I have consistently said no president controls the economy. You argue tax cuts grow the economy with no evidence to support it. Not to mention Bush cut taxes and the economy went south anyway.

No, your hypocrracy is what we see here.

:lamo

I understand, Boo, in the liberal world results don't really matter and are trumped by rhetoric. I posted GDP numbers as well as income tax revenue numbers. Your silence is deafening but your defense of the liberal agenda tells it all. Dependence is what you seem to want and liberals continue to deliver those kind of results.
 
I understand, Boo, in the liberal world results don't really matter and are trumped by rhetoric. I posted GDP numbers as well as income tax revenue numbers. Your silence is deafening but your defense of the liberal agenda tells it all. Dependence is what you seem to want and liberals continue to deliver those kind of results.

As I and others keep pointing out, you misread your numbers and they don't say what you think they say.

This has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives. It's more about me and you. :neener
 
Closing Argument = they've had 2 years to fix what we did in 8. Isn't it time we go back to doing things our way?

LOL, the numbers apparently don't matter to you nor do the facts, the recession began in December 2007 a year after Democrats won control of Congress. Prior to December the numbers look pretty darn good. Keep running from the Democrat record which shows the economy worse this year than in 2009. That to a Democrat is progress?
 
I really like Jon Stewart's perspective most of the time:

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/postcards-from-the-pledge[/video]
 
Yet Obama blames Bush, Obama supporters blame Bush and continue to blame Bush for the "inherited" Problems two years after Bush left office. The results of the Stimulus and the first two years of the Obama Administration will be the issues judged on Nov. 2, 2010. The most radical leftwing President in U.S. History has made things worse in his first two years of office and yet the Obama supporters continue to blame Bush. Congress and the President make economic policy that affects the country and it is the Obama economic policies that have led to the results we have today.

Still waiting for you to name for me one Obama economic policy that has made things better? The GOP Pledge is a step in the right direction.

Maybe I'm being to simplistic or just wrong headed. Howevere, Bush was responsible for TARP right?
TARP was paid back wasn't it? Shouldn't that take the blame off Bush, since what he spent was re-paid, or am I looking at it all wrong?
 
As I and others keep pointing out, you misread your numbers and they don't say what you think they say.

This has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives. It's more about me and you. :neener

Liberal translation, "growing numbers don't really matter as perception means more"

GDP by Year in trillions

2000 9,951.50
2001 10,286.20
2002 10,642.30
2003 11,142.10
2004 11,867.80
2005 12,638.40
2006 13,398.90
2007 14,077.60
2008 14,441.40
2009 14,256.30
 
I'm afraid not. You've excused bush in the apst. I have consistently said no president controls the economy. You argue tax cuts grow the economy with no evidence to support it. Not to mention Bush cut taxes and the economy went south anyway.

No, your hypocrracy is what we see here.

:lamo

You can't cut taxes and increase spending at the same time. The Republicans blew it, they know it, and they have promised to change.
 
You can't cut taxes and increase spending at the same time. The Republicans blew it, they know it, and they have promised to change.

A promise they've made before. Why would you trust them now?

And sure, you can cut taxes and increase spending. Bush and republicans did just that. And you cut spending and raise taxes. No one has done that yet. And republicans won't likely. But regardless of which not likely group we elect, they won't do **** as long as we hold to party stupidity over consistent demand for action.
 
A promise they've made before. Why would you trust them now?

And sure, you can cut taxes and increase spending. Bush and republicans did just that. And you cut spending and raise taxes. No one has done that yet. And republicans won't likely. But regardless of which not likely group we elect, they won't do **** as long as we hold to party stupidity over consistent demand for action.

Because what we have in power now hasn't worked. The results of the last two years speak for themselves. still waiting for you to name the economic policies and predictions made by Obama that have been successful or accurate?
 
LOL, the numbers apparently don't matter to you nor do the facts, the recession began in December 2007 a year after Democrats won control of Congress. Prior to December the numbers look pretty darn good. Keep running from the Democrat record which shows the economy worse this year than in 2009. That to a Democrat is progress?

Economic principles are apparently over your head. The policies that lead to the recession were in place way before 2007.

'looked pretty darn good' ??? Are you ****ing serious. The entire country was living on credit!!! We were fighting two unfunded wars!

Funds were leveraged 30 to 1!!!???!!!:roll::roll:

Things looked pretty good on the titanic, even after they hit the iceberg, most people thought it was just a delay...
 
Because what we have in power now hasn't worked. The results of the last two years speak for themselves. still waiting for you to name the economic policies and predictions made by Obama that have been successful or accurate?

two years in? How long were you willing to give republcians, who clearly lied to you (remember that contract thingie?).
 
Back
Top Bottom