SpicyLemons Fourm Uptime: 11 Years, 7 Months, 1 Week
Not logged in [Login ]
  Go To Bottom
Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites  Post new threadPoll:
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: What are the republicans costing us now?
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 2-9-09 at 10:02 AM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote
What are the republicans costing us now?



article on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/stimulus.cuts/index.html

A list of what pisses me off:
  • $2 billion for broadband
  • $16 billion in school construction
  • $3.5 billion for higher education construction
  • $50 million for NASA
  • $25 million for Fish and Wildlife
  • $100 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • $200 million for Environmental Protection Agency
  • half of the $7 billion set aside for energy-efficient federal buildings
  • over $8 billion in health-related provisions


There is a lot more that I still don't think should be cut, but at the same time is not as upsetting as what I have above. I do think they cut some good stuff out of it too. IE $600 million for no child left behind. But I just don't see how as a politician you can't see that is money that needs to be spent. Those really are programs that need to be supported for long term survival. And if we can help boost the economy when it needs it, at the same time support programs that will protect our environment, our health, our education and foundations in science....well to me it is two birds with one stone....

Sorry, not adding much I suppose. Just venting...


cheers,
jent d-_-b
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 2-9-09 at 04:40 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Is this a list of thing that the senate cut then? I just read an article from the AP that showed each section of the bill for both the house and senate and the money going towards internet spending was so close it was negligible imo. I do love how the GOP is all butt hurt that they aren't being given a voice in this legislation and how its unfair... just a few years ago they had similar power over the house/senate/WH and they were even less open to input from the Dems. and look and the mess were in now, wtf?

View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-10-09 at 03:29 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


first of all the rep. didnt have to "listen" to the dems because the democrats agreed with everything, iraq, military spending, patriot act... Now i say what is so wrong with cutting a bit from our budget. Take into account that we already have about a one trillion dollar deficit, i see no reason why we shouldnt try to save a bit of money. We cannot continue to spend at this pace, evidence of this should be seen with California who tried this on a smaller scale. Now California is falling apart, lets not repeat it on a national scale.

Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 2-10-09 at 04:23 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Well, considering that fact that we are discussing ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLANS and not military or civil liberties Danga your comment is almost entirely irrelevant. The bush stimulus plans/tax plans were not a bipartisian effort, PERIOD! As for the spending/deficit issue the whole point of this article was the GOP's impact on our collective wallets and guess what the almost doubling of our national deficit was a direct result of spend and pay later policies dictated by... the GOP! I would also like to add this: This is a STIMULUS plan, not our national budget so all the spending that will be taking place isnt permanant or long term. Additionally the whole point of the bill is to boost the national and international confidence in the U.S. economy and only a very large sum of money is capable of that, its better to spend 800 billion to a trillion now then to wait and let the situation get worse and spend proportionatly less when it will do almost no good. The U.S. has already done a period of half cocked-fully loaded policy and that is why we are in this mess, wtf good does it do us to keep doing that?

View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-10-09 at 11:24 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


First of all, think about how bush was required to work with congress, it couldnt possible not be a bipartisan effort (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/President_Bush,_Congress_agree_on_economic_stimulus_package here is your evidence) Also i am not commending the bush administration, even republicans hardly think of him as one. I want to go back to the clinton years when we had a conservative democrat working with a republican congress. That is when we had the surplus, the past two years we have had record deficits and we have had democratic control of congress so blaming this on a lame duck president isnt the best thing to do. Also a lot of obama's programs are long term, he wont be able to reduce welfare, unemployment benefits... we are still suffering from when FDR created social security during the great depression. I would also like to note that FDR never enacted a deficit until WWII, and right now we pay over 400 billion dollars a year on just interest to our debt and it will be increasing incredibly with our inability to negotiate for better loans and our increasing debt. I do not believe this will fix the problem, we already bailed out the banks and that is all we should do. You said the previous administration screwed up, so why would we continue deficit spending. All im saying is we are putting our sovereignty into the hands of our lenders, and unfortunately it is the chinese who arent exactly best friends with us.

Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 2-11-09 at 09:47 AM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally posted by danga
First of all, think about how bush was required to work with congress, it couldnt possible not be a bipartisan effort

I guess it all depends on what side of the fence you look at it from. Of course it could not be a bipartisan effort, nothing about bush has ever been bipartisan.
Quote:
he wont be able to reduce welfare, unemployment benefits...

Your so missing the point....that is exactly what we DON'T want to do.
Quote:
You said the previous administration screwed up, so why would we continue deficit spending.

It is a COMPLETELY different kind of spending. The reason bush had such a deficit is because of his stupid tax credits to the rich. And because of his war with no way out. He was not spending the money to make america stronger. Yes in the short term this increases the deficit a lot. But in the long term it can help make america stronger, put the money where it needs to be. If we don't do anything the american economy continuing to erode would cost us a lot more than this would. So IMO it is actually the cheapest of the two options....if we do it right.


cheers,
jent d-_-b
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 2-11-09 at 12:07 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


I second Jensen on all of his points. Also, the issue of deficits from the previous two years should also have afghanistan AND iraq taken into account. As a nation we boosted our presence inside of iraq by tens of thousands of troops while at the same time having to GO BACK and establish another foothold in afghanistan... all that aint cheep. Concerning bipartisanship and bush, if your memory only goes as far back as 2006 I can understand how one might think that bush was capable/incapable of being bipartisan. For the first 6 years that the GOP had control of the White House and the Congress it was nothing but partisan politics, fucking a Karl Rove created the modern form of fear politics: Democrats cant win the war on terror, therefor they cant protect the country, only the GOP can.

Out of curiosity, how does spending on schools and internet infrastructure hurt our country?


View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-11-09 at 04:43 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


First to Jenson
I am not commemorating bush's actions, but what i am saying is both bush did not have any opposition from the democrats (iraq, spending... check out earlier link) and unlike obama he had to actually be bipartisan because he didnt have the control obama did
Whether we like it or not we need to cut back on our spending, the problem with this stimulus package is it is not only going to spend almost a trillion dollars, but also it will establish programs that we will be tied to for a long long time. (if you want to talk about welfare and the likes open another thread)
The reason bush had deficit spending was not because of tax cuts but because spending grew from 1.8 trillion (when elected) to 2.9 trillion. Also please dont blame this on the war, first of all that WAS a bipartisan effort, with most of congress voting for it and public support at like 80%, now only difference among parties was how to get out. The war in Afghanistan was and still is a bipartisan effort because it was a required war. As for action, i believe that the bail out was the most important thing (in fact i believe we should have given more money to the banks as credit is still stagnant) and while a stimulus plan can be beneficial we need to spend much more efficiently than we are now.
Now to spank
Again Afghanistan was and still is a bipartisan effort so it should be null void, concerning iraq, while money is not being spent as efficiently as it should have been the total sum of the war and reconstruction is less than the stimulus and the annual cost of the war is only a small fraction of our budget. Also i support boosting our presence in iraq even though i am opposed to all wars that arent absolutely necessary (like ike). The surge reduced deaths and members of both parties congratulate Petraeus on its success, if we are going to do something we are going to do it well. For the first 6 years bush was in office he did have the majority, but since he didnt have the majority that obama has he required more bipartisan actions. It wasnt until Bush became a scapegoat for our nations problems that these dems started to vote against him, all other things (tax cuts, stimulus, iraq, patriot acts) we met warmly by democrats in congress. Also i do agree that the Dems cant win a war on terror is wrong, hell look at this election mccain wanted to cut defense spending and obama didnt yet obama was soft on terrorism.
About the schools and internet infrastructure they do benefit our country, but at what cost. Take military spending (which i oppose) for example, it helps our nation an extraordinary amount as defense is one of the biggest business in the US (thus why no politician can stand up to the military industrial complex and survive) yet the benefits do not out weight the cost, and right now the cost is deficit spending that puts our sovereignty in the hands of the chinese, opens ourselves to unfair loans, screws with the dollar, and causes us to pay enormous amounts of interest every year. (400 billion a year now, and future loans will be twice as bad b/c we have no bargaining.)


Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 2-11-09 at 06:14 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Danga, you have so many contradictions it makes my head spin sometimes.
Quote:
Originally posted by danga
...but also it will establish programs that we will be tied to for a long long time. (if you want to talk about welfare and the likes open another thread)

Without this the stimulus would not work....You need to have those long term projects otherwise we will just be looking at spending another trillion in a year or two. We are looking to cure the disease, not treat the symptoms.
Quote:

The reason bush had deficit spending was not because of tax cuts but because spending grew from 1.8 trillion (when elected) to 2.9 trillion. Also please dont blame this on the war....

Well you can pick and choose what you want to blame and not blame. But the matter of fact is that ALL Those things increased the deficit under bush. And ALL those things could have been prevented by a single man, bush. Yes he was not alone in his bad decisions, but he was the person who could have single handily prevented any of them. But instead of preventing, he encouraged. And that is why I choose to blame him for ALL of those things.
Quote:

(in fact i believe we should have given more money to the banks as credit is still stagnant)

Ya because we can see how well spent that money is. The money is falling through the cracks, and we are having no results. What's your solution, throw more money at it? Does that really make sense to you? Why do you think throwing more money at the banks would be spent any differently than it is now?
Quote:

Also i support boosting our presence in iraq [....] if we are going to do something we are going to do it well.

That's spank and I's whole complaint with cutting the stimulus...what's the point of doing this if we don't do it right. We need to go all in, do it once, and make it a solution that CURES the problem. Let's do it right now and not nickel and dime it into something that does not have the power to see any results.
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-11-09 at 07:22 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


according to dictionary.com stimulus is "something that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc" with that being said what your proposing is a long term spending increase instead of a quick shot to stimulate our economy. (Also i personally believe that welfare and unemployment in general add to the problem)
Yes bush could have stopped it, but so could the democrats, this problem was caused by our entire nation, so i dont an attack at the republicans is a fair distribution of the blame. You personally can continue to blame him in your mind, but i hope you recognize he wasnt the sole cause of this situation.
The bailout did have a result, our banks were all about to fail not just go south, that would destroyed our nation where everything runs on credit, even a companies payroll usually is through credit. And while i do not support their actions we must give them the confidence (through monetary support) to start loaning again. I have seen it first hand in Timnath where the developers have canceled many projects not because they lacked a market, but because they couldnt get funding from the banks. Think about how many businesses and business ventures are being stopped, which would pump billions and billions of dollars through our system.

There is nothing that can cure our problem. Right now we are trying to minimize the damages. I personally believe that we shouldnt dig a hole (the debt) just to fill another (economy) when we are doing very inefficiently. I do support a small stimulus to our education and infrastructure but that is it. If our nation was in a better fiscal situation, like it was during the great depression, i would support greater spending and projects, but the fact is that we are now in a different situation and we must approach it with a different solution. And i say solution liberally, as i recognize that we cannot fix this problem, all we can do is try to stop the bleeding.

Also sorry about the underlining, i just really like it


Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 2-12-09 at 06:25 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


In an effort to figure out how much the U.S. has spent in Iraq lots of things came up. Most notably was an article from the the NY TIMES (circa 2002), found HERE, that actually reinforces how/why jent and I feel/think the way we do concerning bush, war, and fiscal spending. Like you said, you can pick and choose who and what to blame for certain things. Hopefully its based on real time knowledge and experience; considering how long bush was in office and the age/temperament of jent and myself during that time I feel confident in meeting that criteria. Read that article and please pay attention to the projected costs of the war both in cash and impact on interest rates.

With regard to increased annual fiscal spending and welfare/unempoyment there are two things I have to say on the subject. First is that those sorts of expenditures are only long term and harmful if the unemployment rate does nothing but increases and does the same to demand of those services. So, because the stimulus package is so big the likelihood of that is proportionately reduced by allowing people to SURVIVE until the jobs get created, which in turn makes them not to need welfare anymore... get it? Secondly, and please dont take this as an insult, but Danga have you ever had to be fiscally independent? Worried that you wont be able to fill up the car and buy food? Ever been laid off with no other options for work or much in the way of savings? I had similar views on "government handouts" when I was in HS being supported by parents pulling in large figure salaries, but paradigm shifts can take place when you are "burdened" with the full load of maintaining your survival. I have said it before and will say it again: "I am one of the most selfish people you could meet, but I am also smart enough to realize that when my fellow man does better I do better as well." Being selfish/self oriented can be detrimental without the perspective of scale. If one cant look beyond the end of their own nose they will never truly see the world.

How can one argue that they want to see money spend better and at the same time say we need to give more $$$ to the banks? The received hundreds of billions in direct cash infusion and TRILLIONS in fed. backed loans yet they still aren't lending money... connect those dots for me would ya. The CEO's of the major banks just got belittled by congress the other day for not lending out the money they have been given and their response was almost the same as yours: " Think of how bad things would be if you hadn't given us the money. We wouldn't be able to lend out anything at all as opposed to now where we can only lend very little." BULLSHIT!!! They are the ones that choose to close credit lines once they're paid off so as not to be able to loan again.

Also, in one sentence you say that you support increasing our presence in Iraq whle in another you say that deficit defense spending is terrible... those two things just don't jive for me.


View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-12-09 at 07:35 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


First of all i just wanted to say nice find on the article, it is hard to find opposition from a reliable source before 2004. (if your still looking for the cost, here it is from a liberal source http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home). Again i want to emphasize that i never supported starting the war (at the time i was liberal, but will go into that later), and i do not support how bush has handled it, yet at the same time i do not support how the democrats handled it, and believe the blame belongs on both. Again both parties supported it (few apposed, reason obama beat hilary in the primaries). Also all our debt affects our interest rate because our credit decreases.

Unfortunately the unemployment rate will probably never drop below 4.5%, during times of prosperity it averaged about 10% in europe, so we will always have to be paying for these benefits sadly. And again, people can survive on very little, and i never said i was opposed to our current programs such as food stamps. Now on to whether i have ever suffered. No, i have never been financially independent, but i have gone through very hard times. In the third grade my dad lost his job and soon after a woman took all his money. This left us completely broke, forcing us to sell our house, for a large loss, and move in with some friends. There were 4 families (all single fathers) living in a two bedroom house. A total of 14 people, do you know what it is like to have to share a room with 3 people and even have to share a twin bed while going through puberty? To have a small plate of rice and butter as dinner/lunch when in a growth spurt? Again i just want to emphasize at this time a was a very very active democrat, because i believed that this would help me. Yet at the same time i started working harder (turned grades and such around, now i will be suprised if i have to pay more than 5000 a year for college), because i knew that there was no safety net and i would have to do something for myself. Let me add this is why both my dad and uncle are economically very conservative, because they saw first hand, while growing up in a communist country, that people will not work hard if they have such a safety blanket. Necessity is the biggest, and only consistent, cause of change. Again i want to help them out (and i still support disabilities and very limited welfare) but i recognize that a good parent must be tough on their kids.

Again the banks screwed up, in large part because both democrats and republicans removed the regulations placed on the banks by Bush Sr. so that "every american could own a home," while that sounds great we must be realistic (sorry about quick sidetrack). But back to the banks, our nation runs on credit, that is a fact whether good or bad, and in my belief the only thing that can boost our lifestyles back to what they used to be is placing more confidence in the banks. They can (and probably will) earn money giving out loans, so a little bit more monetary support (with possible oversight) would definitely help, and i personally believe that it is the only thing that will boost us back to where we used to be. And if you want to see the effects of whether the bailout passed our not compare Sweden and Japan, which one failed to act strong and swiftly, now which one suffered from "the lost decade?"

I said that i supported the surge (sorry should have clarified that) because (unfortunately) we needed to finish what we started (which again, i was apposed at start, hindsight im still apposed, yet i recognize that we need to fix it). However just because i support spending in that one example doesnt mean i approve every single idea that comes my way.


Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 2-12-09 at 11:31 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


When I mentioned fiscal independence I wasn't implying that you had or hadn't dealt w/ hard times, please dont take it that way. Life can be pretty shitty sometimes, lots of people in this country are figuring that out for the first time. I would like to put this one little thing out there: It is very true that mass social welfare can and in some places does lead to underachievement but one of the things that makes the U.S. different from most countries on earth is that if a person has half a head on their shoulders and works as hard as they can the chances of making something of yourself is very likely. The culture found in most places is what works against them, knowing that you can be a "servant" all your life and not get anywhere, or in communist countries not working because there is also no real way of getting ahead simply by working hard. This stimulus bill should be about enabling americans to get back to work while at the same time setting us up to be far more competitive and efficient in the future. That is at least my hopes for the outcome of this bill.

View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 2-12-09 at 11:48 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


is about to go to bed. Just had to say, giving more money to the banks is not gonna accomplish anything...We need to get over these labels and just go all in. If you want to ensure that companies can lend money, then the government needs to expand it's lending capabilities so that companies can be borrowing directly from the federal government. We threw money at them, they squandered it. Live and learn....

And not to take things too off topic, but I don't believe the democrats did have the power to stop the wars....All congress can do is control money, and that was all after the fact that we invaded. I would like to know what details your referring to when you say:
Quote:

Yes bush could have stopped it, but so could the democrats, this problem was caused by our entire nation, so i dont an attack at the republicans is a fair distribution of the blame.

How could have the dems prevented iraq?

As for your story about necessity you do make a good point. But I think in an issue like this it is not about extremes....Not about fully sink or swim, or a full safety net....it is about finding a balance between them. I think we can all agree to that, just not always agree on where that balance is. But I would just like to say, that people will always abuse programs they can. People are immoral lying bastards, and they will do anything they can to get ahead. And just because some abuse the system does not mean the system is broken or too lax.

I can tell you from only my small taste of dealing with unemployment, that it is not a system you want to have to use if you really need it. There are a number of issues with it, beyond the fact it is so under funded that they can't even afford to properly talk to and support the people in the system (with unemployment I seriously was on hold on average about 3 hours). Or the fact that it takes about 5 weeks (absolute minimum, assuming everything goes smooth) to look at your request to see if you even qualify.

If you were out of a job, living pay check to pay check, 5 weeks is a damn long time to go without any incoming money....It is just another example of an extremely underfunded system. I really strongly believe that the system needs to be improved because it really does not do what it was set to accomplish. It is supposed to be a short term solution after getting laid off till you can find a new job. But since it takes so long to even get into it, I had found another job about the time I got my first check. The system has been nicked and dimmed into a state where it is almost useless already....it needs improvements. And I think that anyone who has ever had to deal with it would agree.


cheers,
jent d-_-b
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-14-09 at 03:04 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Spank
I think we both have the same opinions on social welfare, that is it has to be used in balance. While i do think that the balance is a should lean a little bit more towards nothing than you do, i still fully support the requirements to give everyone a chance. This means things like food stamps and most importantly (probably my biggest problem with the republican party besides military stance (but then again that is a bipartisan stance pretty much)) giving every child an opportunity, this means education, because no matter how down i got i still got to attend one of the best schools in the nation, and intelligence is probably about as important as work ethic is in the game of success. And again i agree that the stimulus does have some high points that i approve (education for example) there are some parts that anger me a lot (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/02/13/ap6051484.html?partner=alerts) such as tax breaks for RV's.
Jent
I do agree with you about the banks, i believe that the government should have gone in taken over, and possibly made a buck or two. But unfortunately american people are so stuck in either the conservative mindset that the government cant take over or the liberal/populist mindset, i may be a bit bias here, but i think im accurate, that we should not bail out wall street.
And again you cant have a war without funding, and all (with a few exceptions) the democrats in congress supported the war, if Bush met this opposition our actions would have been stopped or at least minimized. Because although there was a republican majority, it was not nearly to the extent it is now/the extent that is required to ignore the opposition party.
And again as i stated before (to spank) i do believe that we need a small safety net (or a larger one for those that are actually handicapped) and this one is a bit too large. Your story is something i understand, and i believe here the government should intervene, but only if the unemployed offer something in return (such as returning to school and developing/acquiring skills, which is another part of the stimulus i support). Worst comes to worst the government should create programs (such as the CCC) that will take care of people during these hard times, if they are willing to work (because our local infrastructure shows that we need work in some places) It sounds cruel, but not only must we focus on whether or not it provides motivation to get a job, but we must also look at can our economy handle this burden, and right now we must try our hardest to limit this burden as much as possible.


Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 07:52 AM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Well it seems like no matter what is said or shown Danga your pretty certain that the Dems could have done something about the war in Iraq. You do know who Karl Rove is though... right? The whole of the democratic party DID appose the war and in FACT they did try and deny funding both before and during (to expedite our departure). In BOTH cases the dems. met w/ Rovean politics: your not behind America (aka bush) because you wont give votes for funding, therefor you cant protect america only the GOP can. If the dem's in congress had been so easily persuaded why did Colin Powell have to bet his reputation on it? The dems like the rest of the U.N. wasn't convinced that there was a legitimate reason for invading Iraq. Im sure your familiar w/ McCarthyism *sp and Rovean Politics is the modern equivalent and it was used w/ such success that most (including myself) will never fully know what went on behind the white house doors.

Now if you want to talk about how the Dems are a bunch of pussies for blindly approving the patriot act, I'm right there w/ ya. That is a topic for another thread though.


View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 12:42 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


The democrats DID support the war, again hilary (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/), kerry (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00EEDD1E3CF933A2575BC0A9629C8B63), many democrats voted for it, and continued to do so until it went south, so if you are going to say that the democrats opposed it can you please have some evidence.

Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 01:06 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


I don't have time to fully read, but spencer found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

resolution to invade iraq:
house yay nay
Democratic 82 126

senate yay nay
Democratic 29 21

The democrats did not support the invasion....they just did not have enough power at the time to stop anything.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.png/800px-H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_
Votes_October_2002.png

Just not enough dems to make a difference...even if they had voted 100% it would not have mattered


cheers,
jent d-_-b
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 01:13 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Danga, if this stimulus bill shows us anything is that if the congressional majority unilaterally votes for something even a united opposition has no chance of defeating legislation. How can this be spun then?

View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 02:01 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


democrats had the majority in congress, if they wanted to they could have stopped it.

Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 02:26 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


LOL... Im no math wiz but the last time I checked 208 was a smaller number than 223 but again I am no expert. The Dems did have a one member advantage in the senate but that is HARDLY a majority. You refuse to acknowledge facts while at the same time trying to inject opinion as a valid substitute... if you would just say that IN YOUR OPINION the Dems were a majority and could have stopped it I could let this go as nothing more than one misinformed persons blabbering but you keep asserting your opinion as fact, which it is not. Whenever a FACT is presented that hurts your opinion/argument you ignore it entirely, it makes it infinitely frustrating to have an intelligent discourse w/ you. When hard numbers are put on the screen you dont acknowledge them, why?

View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 04:50 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally posted by danga
democrats had the majority in congress, if they wanted to they could have stopped it.

Did you even look at the graphs I posted? That is exactly why I put hem there, to illustrate exactly how dwarfed the dems were in size. Look at them again
38% of the senate was dem, and only 27% of the house....THAT IS NOT A MAJORITY!

and if you think it is then for fuck sake you need to take some discrete logic courses so you can learn that 1 is less than 2 and true does not equal false.


cheers,
jent d-_-b
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 06:21 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


sorry i meant to say senate (was in hurry, thus short post), i apologize, the republicans did have a slight control in the house. Thus congress was split/
To Jent, that 38% was not the percent of dems in the senate. they had 51% as spank recognized. Learn how to read graphs and stop with the personal attacks please, to any unbiased person this would make you appear as an uneducated asshole, such as rush limbaugh.
To Spank, again i apologize i was in a hurry and wrote congress instead of house, congress was split as dems had the senate and the rep had the house. And if the bailout showed us something, it was that nothing can pass in a with a congress divided (or with only a slight majority). It took bipartisan work to pass the bailout just like it took bipartisan work to support this war. If the democrats were against the war it would not have happened. Now the stimulus is passed because the democrats have 59 members in the senate, that is just one away form 60, which is the number required to ignore the opposition party Again stop the personal attacks. Although i recognize that you know how to read a graph, unlike jent, and although you misinterpret it, it is still better than arguing with someone who cant read tehm.


Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 2-15-09 at 10:58 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally posted by danga
Learn how to read graphs and stop with the personal attacks please, to any unbiased person this would make you appear as an uneducated asshole, such as rush limbaugh

Dually noted, I did in fact read the graphs wrong. But it gets frustrating arguing you sometimes because you only pick and choose what to respond to. But I will take the fall for this one and just step out of the argument (don't really have any right or ground to hold my position any more), because you are in fact correct, I was accusing when I was in fact wrong myself.

+karma danga for pointing out facts
-karma jent for incorrect information and personal attacks


cheers,
jent d-_-b
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
danga
Forum Slut
*****




Posts: 263
Registered: 11-5-07
Location: Timnath
karma Rating: 5 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Wanna find out?

[*] posted on 2-16-09 at 01:03 AM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Thank you, it takes a man to apologize first, also im sorry that i compared you to rush limbaugh, that is just a low blow.

Romans 12:10
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
 Pages:  1  2
Post new threadPoll:


  Go To Top