• 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

It looks to me like your personal health problems are affecting your judgment when it comes to the massive expansion of govt. and its involvment in almost all aspects of individual life. I have sympathy for your personal situation but none for how you are letting that health affect any research ability that you used to have for if it wasn't for your health problems you would find that all govt. social programs are failures and only expand dependency on the govt.


Hello Sherlock my personal health problems are affecting your life and your financial well being. Odds are health problems will knock on your front door at some point in your life.
 
Hello Sherlock my personal health problems are affecting your life and your financial well being. Odds are health problems will knock on your front door at some point in your life.

I stand by my statement as this is just another example of your poor logic and responses. Doubt that your health problems created the 3 trillion debt in the last two years or much of the 10.5 trillion throughout history. If you need some financial help, then go to your church, your community, or state agencies. Doubt that someone in NY could care less about you. We don't need Obamacare to provide you the help you need.
 
I stand by my statement as this is just another example of your poor logic and responses. Doubt that your health problems created the 3 trillion debt in the last two years or much of the 10.5 trillion throughout history. If you need some financial help, then go to your church, your community, or state agencies. Doubt that someone in NY could care less about you. We don't need Obamacare to provide you the help you need.


Where you beating your chest like King Kong while you were typing that tripe?
 
Where you beating your chest like King Kong while you were typing that tripe?

What does that have to do with my response. You seem to think it is the Federal Taxpayers's responsibility to pay for your healthcare problems when the reality is it is the people of yours first and if you cannot afford it then the people of your community and the people of TX. We don't need a Federal Mandated Healthcare program for the people of TX.
 
What happened to your gun store?

I have represented gun stores at certain times in my 25+ year career but have never owned or run or had a partnership interest in a gun store though some would say my collection is sufficient to start one:mrgreen:
 
I have represented gun stores at certain times in my 25+ year career but have never owned or run or had a partnership interest in a gun store though some would say my collection is sufficient to start one:mrgreen:


Oh wait my bad you said you and your wife had a sporting goods store, correct?
 
Then pay for them damn it! It's not your freaking money. Cut the freaking budget, or does that much common sense evade you?

And where do you want to cut?

The military?

Medicare?

Social Security?

VA benefits?
 
And where do you want to cut?

The military?

Medicare?

Social Security?

VA benefits?

See if there is anything in here that you can cut

Budget line items and 2009/2008 years

2009 2008

Defense 662.8 616.1
International Affairs 38.6 28.9
Gen. Science, Space 29.9 27.8
Energy 4.6 ..5
Natural resources/env 45.7 31.9
Agriculture 14.0 18.4
Commerce 292.5 27.7
Transportation 84.4 77.6
Community Dev 26.2 23.9
Education/Train/Social 78.2 90.9
Health 334.3 280.7
Medicare 430.1 390.8
Income Security 533.9 427.4
Social Security 683.0 617.0
Veterans Benefits 95.5 84.6
Justice 53.4 47.1
General Govt. 17.6 20.3
Net Interest 190.9 252.8


Total 3615.6 3063.9

First off take SS and Medicare off budget and put it where it belongs the compare Federal and State responsibilities and find out where there are duplications. Eliminate the Dept of Education and Energy. Cut back International Affairs, Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, Health, Community Development, and income Security. Fund defense, VA, and the reduced size of all the depts listed which should take the size of govt. down to around 1.7 trillion dollars. Reducing the size of govt. affects lobbyists and outside influenced by deminishing the power of our elected officials.

Defense 662.8
International Affairs 20
Gen. Science, Space 15
Energy 0
Natural resources/env 15
Agriculture
Commerce 30
Transportation 40
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health 200
Medicare
Income Security 300
Social Security
Veterans Benefits 95.5
Justice 53.4
General Govt. 17.6
Net Interest 190.9


Total 1640.2
 
Last edited:
See if there is anything in here that you can cut

Budget line items and 2009/2008 years

2009 2008

Defense 662.8 616.1
International Affairs 38.6 28.9
Gen. Science, Space 29.9 27.8
Energy 4.6 ..5
Natural resources/env 45.7 31.9
Agriculture 14.0 18.4
Commerce 292.5 27.7
Transportation 84.4 77.6
Community Dev 26.2 23.9
Education/Train/Social 78.2 90.9
Health 334.3 280.7
Medicare 430.1 390.8
Income Security 533.9 427.4
Social Security 683.0 617.0
Veterans Benefits 95.5 84.6
Justice 53.4 47.1
General Govt. 17.6 20.3
Net Interest 190.9 252.8


Total 3615.6 3063.9

First off take SS and Medicare off budget and put it where it belongs the compare Federal and State responsibilities and find out where there are duplications. Eliminate the Dept of Education and Energy. Cut back International Affairs, Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, Health, Community Development, and income Security. Fund defense, VA, and the reduced size of all the depts listed which should take the size of govt. down to around 1.7 trillion dollars. Reducing the size of govt. affects lobbyists and outside influenced by deminishing the power of our elected officials.

Defense 662.8
International Affairs 20
Gen. Science, Space 15
Energy 0
Natural resources/env 15
Agriculture
Commerce 30
Transportation 40
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health 200
Medicare
Income Security 300
Social Security
Veterans Benefits 95.5
Justice 53.4
General Govt. 17.6
Net Interest 190.9


Total 1640.2

Putting SS and medicare onto the states would also require the states collecting the taxes for those programs. As at least SS is funded fully through its own tax, that will not help the current deficit of the federal government
 
Putting SS and medicare onto the states would also require the states collecting the taxes for those programs. As at least SS is funded fully through its own tax, that will not help the current deficit of the federal government

I didn't say Medicare and SS should be state responsiblities, I said they should be where they belong, off budget and in a lock box. They are paid for separately thus shouldn't be on budget. Originally SS was put on budget by LBJ to pay for his Great Society and the Vietnam War.
 
See if there is anything in here that you can cut

Budget line items and 2009/2008 years

2009 2008

Defense 662.8 616.1
International Affairs 38.6 28.9
Gen. Science, Space 29.9 27.8
Energy 4.6 ..5
Natural resources/env 45.7 31.9
Agriculture 14.0 18.4
Commerce 292.5 27.7
Transportation 84.4 77.6
Community Dev 26.2 23.9
Education/Train/Social 78.2 90.9
Health 334.3 280.7
Medicare 430.1 390.8
Income Security 533.9 427.4
Social Security 683.0 617.0
Veterans Benefits 95.5 84.6
Justice 53.4 47.1
General Govt. 17.6 20.3
Net Interest 190.9 252.8


Total 3615.6 3063.9

First off take SS and Medicare off budget and put it where it belongs the compare Federal and State responsibilities and find out where there are duplications. Eliminate the Dept of Education and Energy. Cut back International Affairs, Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, Health, Community Development, and income Security. Fund defense, VA, and the reduced size of all the depts listed which should take the size of govt. down to around 1.7 trillion dollars. Reducing the size of govt. affects lobbyists and outside influenced by deminishing the power of our elected officials.

Defense 662.8
International Affairs 20
Gen. Science, Space 15
Energy 0
Natural resources/env 15
Agriculture
Commerce 30
Transportation 40
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health 200
Medicare
Income Security 300
Social Security
Veterans Benefits 95.5
Justice 53.4
General Govt. 17.6
Net Interest 190.9


Total 1640.2

Good luck with eliminating all those jobs. That should correct the unemployment numbers. :rofl
 
Good luck with eliminating all those jobs. That should correct the unemployment numbers. :rofl

Those Federal jobs are non productive anyway and actually produce very little. If any are worth their weight then the private sector awaits. Not surprising you believe it is the Federal Govt's role to create jobs. That is what got us in this mess in the first place, an overreaching Federal Govt. promoted by people who want a big Central Govt. and people dependent on that govt.

By the way, here is what is going to happen if something drastic isn't done

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...tary-nominee-us-economy-unsustainable-track-1
 
Those Federal jobs are non productive anyway and actually produce very little. If any are worth their weight then the private sector awaits. Not surprising you believe it is the Federal Govt's role to create jobs. That is what got us in this mess in the first place, an overreaching Federal Govt. promoted by people who want a big Central Govt. and people dependent on that govt.

By the way, here is what is going to happen if something drastic isn't done

Obama

Like the private sector has a major demand for new employees. That's the problem. You just want to spin everything to bash other ideologies but you only offer up more disasters. That's what I got from the election. It was a tsunami. A disaster. :2razz:

Unemployed people don't stimulate the economy.
 
Like the private sector has a major demand for new employees. That's the problem. You just want to spin everything to bash other ideologies but you only offer up more disasters. That's what I got from the election. It was a tsunami. A disaster. :2razz:

Unemployed people don't stimulate the economy.

Neither does "this" President and that is the problem. The only ideology that makes any sense is a pro growth, free enterprise, capitalistic economic policy that promotes incentive and individual wealth creation. To do that tax rates have to be cut and govt. programs cut back. Obama has grown the size of govt.and added govt. programs thus the results we have now. Had he promoted the private sector wouldn't be this bad 17 months after the end of a recession. His goal is to make things worse so that he can complete his efforts to transform American into that Socialist utopia that he believes in. Problem is this is liberal arrogance as there is no socialist utopia.
 
Neither does "this" President and that is the problem. The only ideology that makes any sense is a pro growth, free enterprise, capitalistic economic policy that promotes incentive and individual wealth creation. To do that tax rates have to be cut and govt. programs cut back. Obama has grown the size of govt.and added govt. programs thus the results we have now. Had he promoted the private sector wouldn't be this bad 17 months after the end of a recession. His goal is to make things worse so that he can complete his efforts to transform American into that Socialist utopia that he believes in. Problem is this is liberal arrogance as there is no socialist utopia.

Yes, just like when we were a socialist country in the Clinton years. :roll:
 
Yes, just like when we were a socialist country in the Clinton years. :roll:

In case you missed it, Clinton had a GOP Congress and signed GOP legislation. Our economy is private sector, not public sector, something Obama doesn't understand. Obama is no Clinton, he is too arrogant.
 
In case you missed it, Clinton had a GOP Congress and signed GOP legislation. Our economy is private sector, not public sector, something Obama doesn't understand. Obama is no Clinton, he is too arrogant.

So you are saying that the GOP Congress was socialist? That is what the tax rates are returning to, those GOP legislated rates. :2razz:
 
So you are saying that the GOP Congress was socialist? That is what the tax rates are returning to, those GOP legislated rates. :2razz:

oops big mistake

those rates were enacted between 93 and 95 when the dems ran congress. with clinton's veto the GOP couldn't overturn them
 
So you are saying that the GOP Congress was socialist? That is what the tax rates are returning to, those GOP legislated rates. :2razz:

You need to go back to your new home where you can go off topic and do whatever you want. Your posts don't make any sense. There was nothing socialist with the GOP Congress and Contract with America. Sounds like you might have been a little young to understand what happened during the Clinton years. Obama is too arrogant to learn.
 
You need to go back to your new home where you can go off topic and do whatever you want. Your posts don't make any sense. There was nothing socialist with the GOP Congress and Contract with America. Sounds like you might have been a little young to understand what happened during the Clinton years. Obama is too arrogant to learn.

You are the one saying that Clinton signed GOP legislation. Turtledude disagrees with you though. I was just using your logic. By Turtle's logic it wasn't the Dems fault because Bush could veto their Bills. You two figure it out and let me know what you two agree on.

I do agree with you though, The Contract on America and Newt Gingrich weren't socialist. Neither is Obama for letting the tax rates go back to what they were under Clinton. Neither were Eisenhower or Nixon. Look up the tax rates during their administrations.
 
You are the one saying that Clinton signed GOP legislation. Turtledude disagrees with you though. I was just using your logic. By Turtle's logic it wasn't the Dems fault because Bush could veto their Bills. You two figure it out and let me know what you two agree on.

I do agree with you though, The Contract on America and Newt Gingrich weren't socialist. Neither is Obama for letting the tax rates go back to what they were under Clinton. Neither were Eisenhower or Nixon. Look up the tax rates during their administrations.

what was the effective tax rate on the top 2% in those eras versus what it will be with the clinton-Obama tax hike (if imposed)?

I think you might be surprised

did you figure out your gaping error about the clinton tax hikes
 
You are the one saying that Clinton signed GOP legislation. Turtledude disagrees with you though. I was just using your logic. By Turtle's logic it wasn't the Dems fault because Bush could veto their Bills. You two figure it out and let me know what you two agree on.

I do agree with you though, The Contract on America and Newt Gingrich weren't socialist. Neither is Obama for letting the tax rates go back to what they were under Clinton. Neither were Eisenhower or Nixon. Look up the tax rates during their administrations.

Obama's policies are more than just letting the tax rates expire, he has implemented the largest expansion of Govt. probably in history. His goal was to transform America and the American people weren't on the same page as to what that transformation meant. Obama and the majority in this country are on a different page thus the elections on Nov. 2. Obamacare, bailout of unions, targeted tax cuts, wealth redistribution, tax transfers from taxpayers to non taxpayers, etc, is all about transforming this country into a more socialistic economy based upon social justice.
 
You know, it's funny; Congress is still controlled by Democrats who don't need Republican help to pass this thing. It failed, so . . .

From the article:

Democrats brought the measure to the floor under fast-track rules that required a two-thirds vote to pass, so the measure fell despite winning a 258-154 majority.

Use of the fast track procedure in the lame duck session was nothing more than a political stunt designed to make leftists look good. The Democrats knew the proposed legislation was doomed, but brought it up anyway in a lame duck session where time is of the essence. This is nothing more than guerrilla theatre.

The House of Reps has 435 members of which the Dems currently hold 255 seats. Two-thirds vote would mean a minimum of 290 votes. As such, without 35 votes from the Reps, it's impossible for the Dems to pass any House bill on their own using the fast-track rule. So, which one is it? "Guerrilla theatre by the Dems or stonewalling by the GOP yet again?
 
Last edited:
The House of Reps has 435 members of which the Dems hold 255 seats. Two-thirds vote would mean a minimum of 290 votes. As such, it's impossible for them to pass any House bill on their own using the fast-track rule. So, which one is it? "Guerrilla theatre or the GOP stonewalling yet again?

why did the dems fast track it?
 
Back
Top Bottom