Aren't those two of the cornerstones of Republicans? Then why:[quote]NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- After months of debate and significant pressure from the..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Fiscal Responsibility and Free Enterprise

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, September 17, 2010 12:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 586
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Aren't those two of the cornerstones of Republicans? Then why:
Quote:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- After months of debate and significant pressure from the White House, the Senate on Thursday passed a $42 billion bill aimed at helping small businesses.

The House passed its own version of the bill about 3 months ago. The Senate's version of the Small Business Jobs Act will now have to go back to the House, where it's expected to pass, before President Obama can sign it into law.

"It should not have taken this long to pass this bill. At a time when small-business owners are still struggling to make payroll and they're still holding off hiring, we put together a plan that would give them some tax relief and make it easier for them to take out loans," Obama said before Wednesday's votes.

The 61 to 38 vote in favor of the small business bill largely came down along party lines, with only two Republicans Senators, George Voinovich of Ohio and George LeMieux of Florida, joining with Democrats to pass the bill.

So why'd the Republicans vote AGAINST it?
Quote:

President Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthier people while preserving cuts for everyone else appears increasingly likely to founder before Election Day.

Senate GOP leaders declared on Monday that Republicans are, to a person, opposed to legislation that would extend only middle-class tax relief - which Obama has repeatedly promised to deliver - if Democrats follow through on plans to let tax rates rise for the wealthiest Americans. The GOP senators forcefully made their case one day after House Republican leader John Boehner suggested he might vote for Obama's plan if that ends up the only option.

It would take numerous Democratic defectors to pass the Republicans' version - extending all the Bush tax cuts - or the issue could be left for a postelection congressional session if Republicans block the measure with a filibuster.

Wealthy Americans have the price of a BMW convertible riding on the outcome of the Congressional battle over tax cuts set to expire this year.

The tax cuts for the rich plan being pushed by Republicans would add $4 TRILLION to the deficit. That's more than the stimulus AND health-care bill did.

I thought they were all for fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit? How do we explain these apparently contradictory stands, I wonder? It couldn't be that

a) They'll fight anything the Dems and Obama put up, no matter what; or

b) As per earlier suggestion, they really DO want the country to fail.

Take your pick. Doesn't make sense otherwise.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:36 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


It's needless spending, that's why.

The private sector has a trillion $$ just waiting to be loaned, but isn't , because of this administration's horrific policies.

So, what do we get ? Another stimulus gimmick, backed by the US Gov, that's broke, and will fail miserably.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:55 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


But a trillion dollar gift to the rich ISN'T needless spending, right? 'Cause after all, they'll go out and create millions of jobs, just like they did during the Bush years. (Except they didn't)

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


5% unemployment vs 10 % unemployment.

Do the math, stupid.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2010 1:19 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Yup, Bush took us from 5% unemployment to 10% unemployment, all right. He sure did. Eight years, and fewer than a million jobs created. That doesn't even keep up with population growth. Some payoff for a trillion dollar tax cut!

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:02 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Uh, Mike, from what I gleaned, it would add FOUR trillion to the deficit, not one.

And yes, Raptor, whatever disagreements you may have with the small-business lending bill, what do you have to explain why the Republicans will FILIBUSTER the tax cuts being extended if they're only extended to those under $250,000, when it would add that much to the deficit which they've been screaming about and would represent about as much as a fancy new car for each of them? I'd like to hear your rationale on that one.

And do NOT tell me they'd invest in new businesses with it, or I'll have to post all kinds of FACTS showing that's not what they do, they invest it outside the country, put it in tax shelters, etc. I'd really rather not take the time. Also the fact of how much we "make" as a country off tax cuts to the rich, which is something like $!.06 for every dollar spent.

Instead, give us a good, valid reason why they are determined to stop the extension of the tax cuts unless the rich get them too, please...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:09 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


By the way, re: Bush and unemployment? This has no date, but I'm guessing it was around when Bush was running for a second term...
Quote:

With President Bush pushing forward with his economic policy that has helped create a massive unemployment crisis, a closer analysis of the employment data shows that this crisis has now spread to almost every corner of the nation. Specifically, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is possible to see how many jobs have been lost by city and state since Bush took office. Here are some highlights from those findings:

TWENTY-FOUR CITIES LOST OVER 4% OF THEIR WORKFORCE SINCE BUSH TOOK OFFICE: According to BLS data, more than 24 major cities in America have lost more than 4% of their entire workforce since Bush took office. Among the worst hit are Boulder, CO which has lost 16.7% of its workforce; San Jose, CA which has lost 15.9% of its workforce; San Francisco, CA which has lost 10.2% of its workforce; Flint, MI which has lost 7.7% of its workforce; and Greenville, SC which has lost 6.8% of its workforce.

37 STATES AND 173 CITIES HAVE LOST JOBS SINCE BUSH TOOK OFFICE: Out of 300 city/metropolitan areas and 50 states surveyed, 173 cities and 37 states have seen their workforces reduced since Bush took office.

MORE THAN 2 MILLION JOBS LOST SINCE BUSH TOOK OFFICE: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), total non-farm employment in January 2001 was 132,413,900. The latest data from January 2003 shows that total non-farm employment is now 130,089,400 - a loss of more than 2.3 million jobs in just two years.

EMPLOYMENT WAS STILL RISING WHEN BUSH TOOK OFFICE: During the months of Oct, Nov, Dec of 2000, the three months prior to the Bush inauguration, nearly 300,000 jobs were added to the economy. Even in January of 2001, employers hired 63,000 more workers and in February 75,000 more people were hired. In other words, the recession started under Bush.

UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS STARTED AFTER BUSH TAX CUT AND BEFORE 9/11: In February, Bush introduced his first tax cut proposal, saying "today, I am sending to Congress my plan to provide relief to all income taxpayers, which I believe will help jump-start the American economy...Americans are hearing, and some feeling, the economic slowdown...A warning light is flashing on the dashboard of our economy. And we just can't drive on and hope for the best; we must act without delay" [Bush, 2/28/01]. Instead, the opposite happened. In the six months between the introduction of the tax cut and the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Labor Department data show that almost 500,000 jobs were lost. While the White House has claimed that the unemployment crisis was due to September 11th, this data proves that that clearly is not the case.

BUSH LOSING MORE THAN 73,000 JOBS PER MONTH - THE WORST IN LAST TWO DECADES: Overall, the economy has shed an average of 73,400 jobs per month since Bush was inaugurated - the worst rate for any Administration in the last two decades. The President would have to create 141,000 jobs per month in order not to have the worst 4-year job record of any President in the last 60 years.

I guess you forgot the famous "bikini graph":



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 17, 2010 6:07 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


That's a good graph, here's a continuation of it into this year: 'Job recovery hits a wall'

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/02/news/economy/jobs_june/index.htm

The U.S economy is no longer haemorrhaging jobs as it was when Obama took office, now it's just struggling to create them.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 17, 2010 7:24 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Which responds to my refutation of the previous post, but does nothing to answer the questions posed. Please? Why are the Repubs holding the tax cuts hostage unless they include the richest 2% of the country, which would increase the deficit they scream about by 4 TRILLION, more than stimulus AND health-care bill put together, if they're for fiscal responsibility and bringing down the debt?

Still trying to understand that one. OR the small-business bill, which they voted against almost uniformly.

Unless they actually DO want the country to fail, so they can get power in 2012.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 17, 2010 7:41 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Why are the Repubs holding the tax cuts hostage unless they include the richest 2% of the country, which would increase the deficit they scream about by 4 TRILLION, more than stimulus AND health-care bill put together, if they're for fiscal responsibility and bringing down the debt?


That argument is pure b.s. Extending the tax cuts will not add one dime to the deficit on its' own. As Obama was piling on the trillions in new debt, he was counting on saving that money when the tax cuts expired. Unfortunately for him, the Stimulus failed, and the economy is worse than ever and so is unemployment. Now he can't get the money he counted on. TFB!

Quote:


Unless they actually DO want the country to fail, so they can get power in 2012.



With 15% real unemployment 20 months into Obama's term, and record spending by Democrats leading us off the financial cliff, the country has already failed. Republicans will get back SOME power in a few weeks and try to stop the bleeding. Then they will get it all back by 2012.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 17, 2010 11:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ahh, I see. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think whatEVER anyone ELSE did, thought, planned, etc., it's their responsibility in the end. It matters not what Obama might have thought, the fact remains that it WOULD add 4 trillion to the deficit. To give the richest 2% of the country 4 trillion dollars is just plain INSANE when the country is suffering. Your rationalizing it by blaming Obama blows my mind.

No, unemployment is NOT "worse than ever". It's nothing like it was toward the end of Bush's term. As to the economy itself, I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet IT's not as bad as it was then, either. Check the updated "bikini graph" posted; it's STILL nowhere near where it was under Bush at the end.

I get where you're coming from, but I reject your arguments.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 17, 2010 12:47 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

That argument is pure b.s. Extending the tax cuts will not add one dime to the deficit on its' own.

??? It certainly added plenty during the Bush years, more than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Quote:

As Obama was piling on the trillions in new debt, he was counting on saving that money when the tax cuts expired. Unfortunately for him, the Stimulus failed, and the economy is worse than ever and so is unemployment.

See Niki's graph above.

Quote:

With 15% real unemployment 20 months into Obama's term, and record spending by Democrats leading us off the financial cliff

Well, Obama's first job was to stop the economic freefall from his predecessor leading us off the financial cliff... and then to try to climb back up the cliff. If there's a way to do either of those things without increasing the deficit and government spending I'd like to hear it (preferably from a real economist).

Yes increasing the deficit is not healthy for the future of the economy, and not sustainable in the long term - but what's the alternative? A second great depression? That's not good for the future economy either, not to mention a political and humanitarian disaster...

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 17, 2010 12:58 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Which responds to my refutation of the previous post, but does nothing to answer the questions posed. Please? Why are the Repubs holding the tax cuts hostage unless they include the richest 2% of the country, which would increase the deficit they scream about by 4 TRILLION, more than stimulus AND health-care bill put together, if they're for fiscal responsibility and bringing down the debt?

They seem to be pro-tax cuts more than they are pro-fiscal conservatism.

As for Republican obstructionism, the way I see it they're riding the wave of right wing anti-Obama fervour, for the sake of their own careers. Opposing Obama on everything is politically very safe (even if it means being hypocrites, e.g on the stimulus), joining hands with Obama on anything is potential political suicide.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Sat, December 21, 2024 19:06 - 256 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:55 - 69 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:29 - 4989 posts
Music II
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:22 - 135 posts
WMD proliferation the spread of chemical and bio weapons, as of the collapse of Syria
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:15 - 3 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:11 - 6965 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, December 21, 2024 17:58 - 4901 posts
TERRORISM EXPANDS TO GERMANY ... and the USA, Hungary, and Sweden
Sat, December 21, 2024 15:20 - 36 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Sat, December 21, 2024 15:00 - 242 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sat, December 21, 2024 14:48 - 978 posts
Who hates Israel?
Sat, December 21, 2024 13:45 - 81 posts
French elections, and France in general
Sat, December 21, 2024 13:43 - 187 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL