• 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!

House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

from Conservative

What tax cut? Do you always parrot the party line? There are no tax cuts only extension of the current rates!
Sorry but the current rates have already been raised in the original Bush plan which was adopted by Congress and will soon go into effect.
Sometimes, language is just what it is despite the desire to nitpick. I plead guilty myself. I absolutely loathe the term "Tea Party" because there is no Tea Party. There is a Republican Party. There is a Democratic Party. There is a Libertarian Party. There is a Socialist Party. But there is not a Tea Party. There is a tea party movement within the Republican Party. But I realize that I fight a losing battle in the larger world on this fine point and it does no good to keep harping on it. Although I must give proper kudos to the good Reverend here since I brought it up he has dropped the caps from the term in his usage. Bravo to him for that.

The term "deregulation" is another such case in point. Very few industries have actually been deregulated to the point where there is no regulation at all and thus true to the term. But 'deregulation' has come to mean a decrease in regulation and the name has stuck and is with us no matter what a grammarian may think.

I think you will just have to accept that 'tax cuts' mean cutting back on the scheduled raises that go into effect in 2011. Or you can get in line with me on my Tea Party crusade with one of your own.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence which demonstrates that voters were voting GOP because they wanted taxes cut on the top 2% or this just speculation on your part? I would be happy to read it and see some actual evidence supporting your claims.

True of False...Republicans were campaigning in part on extending the Bush Tax cuts for everyone?

Love your spin though with the "tax cut on the top 2%".

Republicans campaigned on certain things - outright hate of Obama being the most obvious.

Funny, I don't remember a single solitary republican campaigning on "I hate Obama".

Some gave lip service to the debt and deficit.

Translation: "I dislike republicans, so I belittle what they actually campaigned on and then make outrageous childish claims like the one I did before this"

It is the old bait and switch and the GOP are experts at it.

Actually, its exactly what they campaigned on. Extending the Bush Tax cuts for everyone and rolling back government spending in part by reducing or stopping entitlements.
 
The tax rate has always been irrelevant in making business decisions. Demand is always the key.

What is your experience in running a business thus how would you know? You don't think that the cost of hiring an employee much of which is tax liability affects hiring decisions?
 
True of False...Republicans were campaigning in part on extending the Bush Tax cuts for everyone?

Love your spin though with the "tax cut on the top 2%".



Funny, I don't remember a single solitary republican campaigning on "I hate Obama".



Translation: "I dislike republicans, so I belittle what they actually campaigned on and then make outrageous childish claims like the one I did before this"



Actually, its exactly what they campaigned on. Extending the Bush Tax cuts for everyone and rolling back government spending in part by reducing or stopping entitlements.


So you do not have any objective evidence that supports your claims. thank you.

Zyphlin - I see you posted in the thread about the CNN poll showing there was no mandate for the GOP and most of the people were angry at Obama or the Dems in general. Nothing in that poll supports your analysis.
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking, I think it can probably be proven that the longer the benefits last, the longer the beneficiaries take to find gainful employment. I would bet a dollar to a donut that if the teat went dry the unemployment percentages would drop.

I know that I was reading something a while back about how one country, I'm wanting to say Norway, cut unemployment extensions and people went back to work much faster than they did when they had years and years of unemployment benefits. I'll try to find that link.

One thing for sure, it's just human nature to try and ride the cash cow when/if you can. A poor guy working all week just to bring home 500.00 bucks probably wouldn't mind taking a two year vacation, making only 150.00 bucks a week less than he would make busting his ass. Got no link for that but it's just common sense to me. I don't need a link to tell me it's raining outside.

I'm all for helping out a man down on his luck. But this is just freakin' rediculous.

Agreed! It's unemployment "insurance"........ "Insurance"........ "Insurance"..

Just wanna make sure people are getting it. :)


Tim-
 
from Zyphlin



The most important words in that sentence have been noted by me.

Do you have any evidence which demonstrates that voters were voting GOP because they wanted taxes cut on the top 2% or this just speculation on your part? I would be happy to read it and see some actual evidence supporting your claims.



Republicans campaigned on certain things - outright hate of Obama being the most obvious. Some gave lip service to the debt and deficit. If they adopt a program of getting rid of hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue which is scheduled to go into the Treasury, and this only increases the deficit, they most certainly are NOT delivering on what they campaigned on. Just the opposite. It is the old bait and switch and the GOP are experts at it.

Correcct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a Democrat, that shot the Obamacare Bill, with a gun?
 
Correcct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a Democrat, that shot the Obamacare Bill, with a gun?

one man as opposed to an entire party, media conglomerates and an outright two year campaign of "lets get the bastard".
 
one man as opposed to an entire party, media conglomerates and an outright two year campaign of "lets get the bastard".

So, it's not that Obama is the worst president this country has ever had, it's that we're all racists and haters and can't get past our prejudices, to see how wonderful he really is?
 
So, it's not that Obama is the worst president this country has ever had, it's that we're all racists and haters and can't get past our prejudices, to see how wonderful he really is?

Generally we await the end of the game before pronouncing the final score.

The prejudices of those on the right who have announced their intent with Obama from Day One has been long established and unmistakable.
 
Last edited:
Generally we await the end of the game before pronouncing the final score.

The prejudices of those on the right who have announced their intent with Obama from Day One has been long established and unmistakable.

Any team that is losing at half-time and doesn't change it's game, will lose. I don't see Obama changing his game.

This clown insists that the American people aren't opposed to his policies and the real problem is that we just don't understand him.

I mean, we're talking about an administration that wants to strip search nuns, but is considering exempting Muslim women from any searches, at all. It's a ****ing joke!
 
Generally we await the end of the game before pronouncing the final score.

The prejudices of those on the right who have announced their intent with Obama from Day One has been long established and unmistakable.

So it is prejudice to report the Obama results, 4 million added to the unemployment roles and 3 trillion added to the debt? The thread topic is about unemployment benefits and you failed to answer the question posed, how long should anyone be granted taxpayer assistance for being unemployed? Isn't two years enough? If not how long?
 
Alright. Here you go. Evidence that the general platform of the Republicans running for congress included not allowing taxes to raise from what they CURRENTLY are for all:

You have the Pledge to America, which was a GOP put out document detailing the parties platform for the 2010 election. Included in it:

"Permanently Stop All Job-Killing
Tax Hikes

We will help the economy by permanently
stopping all tax increases, currently
scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.
That means protecting middle-class
families, seniors worried about their
retirement, and the entrepreneurs and
family-owned small businesses on which
we depend to create jobs in America."

Underlined word is my emphasis. As shown, they were against the tax rate increase for ALL citizens that would be coming with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring. LINK

You also have the Contract From America which over 250 individual candidates running for office signed onto. That states:

Stop the Tax Hikes: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38 percent)

Again, the underlining is my emphasis. Once more we see the stated objective clearly being to stop the Bush Tax Cuts from expiring for EVERYONE. LINK

I'm pretty sure "all" includes even the "top 2%".

So how about proof that their agenda was against wasteful spending and entitlements:

From the Pledge's introduction summary

If we’ve learned anything over the last two
years, it’s that we cannot spend our way to
prosperity. We offer a plan to stop out-ofcontrol
spending and reduce the size of
government.

One of its chapters is "Stop out of control spending and reduce the size of government" which includes the provision to start cutting spending immedietely. Its clear from the Pledge that reducing spending and reducing the size of government, which would include welfare type things such as jobless benefits, was something that was part of the platform.

Shall we look back at the Contract? It had ideals such as demanding a balanced budget, restoring fiscal responsability and constitutionally limited government, and ending excessive government spending. All of this as they further explain them touches on things like entitlements, government provided welfare, etc.

So the notion that not allowing the tax rates to raise for ANY americans and that spending and government assistance would be reigned back was not part of the platform majorly heralded by the majority of Republicans in 2010 is ridiculous.

As far as voter attitude? Ballot initiatives that either reduced the size of government or lowered taxes won more than 50% of the time this election Link.

Forty-six percent of Republicans said the issue positions were the most important reason they voted for their candidate, which would suggest reasonably "issues" being their platform they campaigned on. 40% of indepdent voters also voted as issues being their most important requirement.

But here's the meat. With regards to Indepdents and Republicans, a majority of them wanted to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for EVERYONE. Independents felt that way 51 to 40 with Republicans 74 to 21. Overall, including Democrats, extending it all still won 49 to 45.

In regards to the general mentality of voters as well, which would lead you to believe what issues they most likely were supporting of, the Tea Party movement was as popular as the Democratic Party overall to voters (both lagging a bit behind the Republican Party). Additionally it was more popular than EITHER political party for Independents, being so by almost 15 percentage points over the Democrats.

People in general had a 18 point more trust about the Republicans plan and ability to cut government spending. That number was even higher, at 27 points, amongst indepdents. Same goes with regards to the federal budget, with a 17 overall margin and a 36 point margin amongst indepdents. How about who they trust more with regards to doing right by taxes? 16 point margin for Republicans, 31 poitns when asked just of indpendents.

64% of Republicans feel that their party needs to be adamant about their core principles rather than moving to the center. 40% of independents feel the same way.

This information can be found from in a joint bipartisan effort report between Democracy Corps and Resurgent Republic LINK.

So, there. You have your evidence. Please provide your own evidence now that the Republican Agenda was "I hate Obama", that voters didn't know that Republicans were infavor of keeping the tax rates as they are for EVERYONE, and that voters were untrusting or against the notion of Republicans reducing spending.

I'm eagerly awaiting your post.
 
from Conservative


Sorry but the current rates have already been raised in the original Bush plan which was adopted by Congress and will soon go into effect.

Uh, no.

The tax cuts were set to expire, which is not the same thing as "raising" them, and it's exceptionally dishonest to say so.
 
"Permanently Stop All Job-Killing
Tax Hikes
We will help the economy by permanently
stopping all tax increases, currently
scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.
That means protecting middle-class
families, seniors worried about their
retirement, and the entrepreneurs and
family-owned small businesses on which
we depend to create jobs in America."

That's just, "code", for, "we hate Obama becuse he's black". Don't you know that?
 
That's just, "code", for, "we hate Obama becuse he's black". Don't you know that?

That liberal argument is getting old, results matter not race and the results are what the November 2 elections were all about. The American people are sick of the race baiting and shirking of responsibility by Obama and all liberals.

Obama supporters that have nothing to run on always divert to race when they don't have anything they can defend.
 
Any team that is losing at half-time and doesn't change it's game, will lose. I don't see Obama changing his game.

This clown insists that the American people aren't opposed to his policies and the real problem is that we just don't understand him.

I mean, we're talking about an administration that wants to strip search nuns, but is considering exempting Muslim women from any searches, at all. It's a ****ing joke!

Winning or losing has nothing to do with a historical expert evaluation as to the standing of Barack Obama as one of the best or worst presidents of all time as you claimed he was.

I have seen hundreds of games where the team was losing at half time and came back and simply played their game and won. You should read any of John Woodens books or by any of his players. Bill Walton is famous for saying UCLA never changed either their preparation for a game or their strategy within a game for an opponent. They simply played every game the same way with the same strategy and it was up to the opponent to beat them. I grant you that such a philosophy has fallen out of style with teams of coaches trying to justify their position and making adjustments almost on every play or series of plays. But it does not have to be that way.

Now getting away from sports - I would agree that Obama needs to do some things differently although I strongly suspect you and I would be miles apart on what that would be.
 
That liberal argument is getting old, results matter not race and the results are what the November 2 elections were all about. The American people are sick of the race baiting and shirking of responsibility by Obama and all liberals.

Obama supporters that have nothing to run on always divert to race when they don't have anything they can defend.

Show me a single person who's been doing that?

Seems when you have nothing to add, you start adding that Liberals add race when they don't so you can make them look bad.

So basically you guys are the ones that add race.
 
Zyphlin - certainly you do understand that the type of GOP press release you are pointing to does not reach the vast majority of actual voters and is only intended for the washington talkign heads and politico types like us here? That Pledge is irrelevant at best.

The polls have said that the election was a repudiation of Democrats and Obama. I suspect that is because the GOP did a wonderful job of putting an evil Halloween costume on both and selling that idea to their core base while much of the Obama base stayed home.
 
Show me a single person who's been doing that?

Seems when you have nothing to add, you start adding that Liberals add race when they don't so you can make them look bad.

So basically you guys are the ones that add race.

Looks like and just confirms that you have selective reading skills. You don't think Obama supporters have been playing the race card?
 
from Harshaw

Uh, no.

The tax cuts were set to expire, which is not the same thing as "raising" them, and it's exceptionally dishonest to say so.

Perhaps reprinting the rest of my post will offer a more complete explanation that the cherry picked line you selected.



Sorry but the current rates have already been raised in the original Bush plan which was adopted by Congress and will soon go into effect.
Sometimes, language is just what it is despite the desire to nitpick. I plead guilty myself. I absolutely loathe the term "Tea Party" because there is no Tea Party. There is a Republican Party. There is a Democratic Party. There is a Libertarian Party. There is a Socialist Party. But there is not a Tea Party. There is a tea party movement within the Republican Party. But I realize that I fight a losing battle in the larger world on this fine point and it does no good to keep harping on it. Although I must give proper kudos to the good Reverend here since I brought it up he has dropped the caps from the term in his usage. Bravo to him for that.

The term "deregulation" is another such case in point. Very few industries have actually been deregulated to the point where there is no regulation at all and thus true to the term. But 'deregulation' has come to mean a decrease in regulation and the name has stuck and is with us no matter what a grammarian may think.

I think you will just have to accept that 'tax cuts' mean cutting back on the scheduled raises that go into effect in 2011. Or you can get in line with me on my Tea Party crusade with one of your own.


And one cannot help but notice that many GOP spokesperson have waxed for speech after speech about the tax cuts and have used those exact words. Perhaps they did not get the new talking points memo that seems to have circulated in right wing circles of late?
 
from Harshaw



Perhaps reprinting the rest of my post will offer a more complete explanation that the cherry picked line you selected.

No. It actually accentuates my point, because you actually explain your own dishonesty within it.
 
So liberals think 99 weeks of unemployment benefits - almost TWO YEARS - is justified?

If you can't find a job in two years, you aren't even trying in the least.
 
So liberals think 99 weeks of unemployment benefits - almost TWO YEARS - is justified?

If you can't find a job in two years, you aren't even trying in the least.

Actually that was extended another 26 weeks earlier this year so it is now over two years. Supporters will not answer the question as to how long the taxpayer should fund the unemployed since apparently two years isn't enough.
 
Show me a single person who's been doing that?

Seems when you have nothing to add, you start adding that Liberals add race when they don't so you can make them look bad.

So basically you guys are the ones that add race.

Janeanne Garofallo, Haymarket, for starters.

You're being very obtuse. I can't blame you, though, since the, "yooz-a-racist", strategy has blown up ya'll faces.
 
Zyphlin - certainly you do understand that the type of GOP press release you are pointing to does not reach the vast majority of actual voters and is only intended for the washington talkign heads and politico types like us here? That Pledge is irrelevant at best.

The Pledge and the Contract both highlight what the Republicans were campaigning on. This directly correlates to the later part of my post speaking about voter trust on various issues. You can't say that when a majority of voters trust and prefer the Republicans for the economy and for taxes and I clearly show you what the Republicans platform is that somehow those people don't actually support the Republican positions on those issues.

The polls have said that the election was a repudiation of Democrats and Obama. I suspect that is because the GOP did a wonderful job of putting an evil Halloween costume on both and selling that idea to their core base while much of the Obama base stayed home.

You're ****ing kidding me right?

I give you poll data. SPECIFIC poll data. Detailing SPECIFICALLY that voters SPECIFICALLY prefered that ALL the tax cuts remain in place conducted by a bipartisan polling group consisting on one side of substantial Democratic figures...and you give me this horse**** without anything to back up your assertions, show how your assertion counters the information I posted, or even comment on what I actually did post?

Give me a break. Stay on with your childish conspiracy theories and notions about halloween costumes and whatever other BS. I'm actually here to talk to people that want to have a real debate, not someone whose responses may as well be coming out of a robot that looks for keywords and spits back out generic responses based on those rather than what's actually being said.

This highlights exactly why I generally refrain from actually taking the time, effort, and energy to make detailed and research posts aimed at hyper partisans because they do nothing as anything that interacts negatively with thier fragile and manufactured worldview of talking points and blind ideology is immedietely ignored or responded back with unthinking regurgitation of blog notes and lines.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom