The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Riot]

oh, quit with the one sided, biased attacks, riot.

This forum has been heavy on the anti-Obama Muslim-Communist-Socialist-Birther hate for nearly three years. Once he was elected it was constant. Turn about's fair play.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

This forum has been heavy on the anti-Obama Muslim-Communist-Socialist-Birther hate for nearly three years. Once he was elected it was constant. Turn about's fair play.

Are Communists or Socialists in need of defense?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

This forum has been heavy on the anti-Obama Muslim-Communist-Socialist-Birther hate for nearly three years. Once he was elected it was constant. Turn about's fair play.

oh, the two wrongs make a right line of thinking. gotcha. funny thing is, you probably think you're progressive in your thinking that reps are evil, dems are good. it's no different than someone who thinks the opposite. it's the same (faulty) logic.

the system is broken. it's not 'we the people' anymore. the parties rule, with the members of congress either toeing the party line, or getting replaced-note lieberman a few years back when the dems produced another candidate, and he had to run as an indy. as long as the two parties rule, with their vying to hold power, nothing will change in d.c. it doesn't matter who is the majority, or who is the minority. no one has the spine to do what's needed, as the party needs to keep them in their seats to retain the parties power. if you don't back your party's play, they'll find someone who will. the thought that all that's wrong right now is due only to republicans refusing to be bipartisan is laughable. the opposite occurs when the dems are in the minority because that's how the game is played. your contention that all the gridlock and problems are due only to stonewalling by one side is ridiculous. it's your agenda, it's what you think-but the dems aren't all truth and light and reps the evil monster, or vice versa. a bi partisan commission has produced some ideas. how much do you suppose happens or changes? i'd wager not much at all.

[joeydb]

When the question is "should we spend more money, when we already owe $14,000,000,000,000?", "NO!" is the only correct (and sane) answer.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

When the question is "should we spend more money, when we already owe $14,000,000,000,000?", "NO!" is the only correct (and sane) answer.

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus.

If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus.

LOL....you believe that????

Ahem -- if it was REALLY stimulus, the unemployment rate would DROP.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

LOL....you believe that????

Ahem -- if it was REALLY stimulus, the unemployment rate would DROP.

It's not a matter of "belief", it's the truth. The only disagreement among economist is the amount of benefit you get per doller. Those funds DO keep the unemployment level lower. Unemployment money is immediately plowed right back into the economy - food, rent, gas, etc. That keeps those folks providing those services employed, keeps demand high there.

This isn't new or imaginary. There's plenty of economic history to show it's absolutely true.

If we were to kick out everyone off unemployment - millions of people - yes, the jobless rate will raise, and the economy will crash.

What doesn't work is, for example, continuing the tax cut for the top 2% of earners assuming they will spend it. They don't. They have enough money to purchase what they want in spite of the economy. That money tends to get saved. During the 10 years since that policy was first was initiated, we lost 800,000 jobs. Trickle down doesn't work. See Reagan, too.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What doesn't work is, for example, continuing the tax cut for the top 2% of earners assuming they will spend it. They don't. They have enough money to purchase what they want in spite of the economy. .

None of these 'rich' people you speak of hides their money under the matress. They invest in new business ventures, speculate and start businesses. The rest usually goes into stocks, REIT's (yea real estate) and T-bills and bonds mostly to save in tax liabilities.

Just because Pelosi speaks doesn't make it so.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's not a matter of "belief", it's the truth. The only disagreement among economist is the amount of benefit you get per doller. Those funds DO keep the unemployment level lower. Unemployment money is immediately plowed right back into the economy - food, rent, gas, etc. That keeps those folks providing those services employed, keeps demand high there.

No they dont. The jobs that service basic needs are not ones that are in jeopardy.

Unemployment benefits as economic stimulus and unemployment reducer.

You can't make this stuff up....

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus. If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

Why not fire EVERY government employee and give them a million per month in unemployment. Even if we get $1.50 back per $1 spent 500K times 1.5 million we get 750 billion back in return. Do that a year and we're at 9 Trillion plus what we've saved in payroll. Somehow there's a trick or CON to this. LOL

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus. If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

Magic?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, the two wrongs make a right line of thinking. gotcha.

If you don't like reading my posts because you think they are one-sided, don't read them. Nascar and Dell make posts that tend to have one view, too, you can read those or not, too. You can make the moral judgment that what others write here is "wrong" but that doesn't mean anybody else has to agree.

I completely agree with you that the system is broken. But you say, "your contention that all the gridlock and problems are due only to stonewalling by one side is ridiculous."

I'm sorry, but looking at the Senate over the past 2-3 years, that factually simply is not true. Most Congresses average 45-50 filibusters in the Senate per session. The GOP in the past two-three years have already hit over twice as many, over one hundred plus, and are still increasing.

The GOP has been completely and legendarily obstructionist with misuse of the filibuster this session. They have had an automatic hold on every single item! That means bills are not even getting to the floor to be discussed and there isn't even debate. That's unprecedented!

The filibuster doesn't require Senators to hold the floor talking. If the majority brings a bill to the floor for discussion, the minority GOP has immediately filibustered it - it is a procedural move - then the minority go back to their offices. It is then left to the majority to come up with enough votes 60 to invoke cloture to simply get the bill introduced to the floor so it can be discussed. That usually takes at least a week.

It's not votes the GOP are filibustering in record levels - it's the bringing of routine bills (funding bills, etc) to the floor. The GOP has blocked the routine introduction of bills in the first place! There can't even be debate, let alone votes.

The GOP isn't blocking votes - they have been unprecedented, in blocking every item - a blanket hold - from even being brought up for discussion and debate.