Derby Trail Forums
Page 14 of 15 « First < 41213 14 15 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39808)

Riot 12-08-2010 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731678)
Surely Riot will find fault with this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_AboveLEFTTop

An opinion piece that doesnt "favor" Wall Street in the WSJ

She will still disagree i'm sure
No, actually I agree with alot of that. I even read the WSJ regularly all by myself :D

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731768)
The President has always been for business and job stimulus. You miss that? :D
Yeah everybody is "for" business and jobs (not sure what job stimulus is?) but he hasnt done much until "forced" by the GOP especially considering the state of the economy

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731776)
There you go again, misstating what I said. Giving massive tax cuts isn't spending. It's income reduction. Two wars and the largest Medicare entitlement program ever is spending.

BTW, the Dems of the past 60 years are not the party of spending. You might do a reality check on some of your assumptions.
I didnt misstate anything. As I said the tax cuts arent the reason there is a deficit, it was spending. Did you miss the part where i said Bush spent a lot?

The Democrats of the last 2 years have spent at a record smashing pace.

What happened 60 years ago is hardly relevant

Riot 12-08-2010 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731813)
Yeah everybody is "for" business and jobs (not sure what job stimulus is?) but he hasnt done much until "forced" by the GOP especially considering the state of the economy
:D Do tell how the GOP has "forced" Obama to address jobs, the recovery, the recession.

SOREHOOF 12-08-2010 02:39 PM
Congress does the spending, not the Prez. For the last 2 years it has gotten completely out of control. The Dem led Congress has spent like drunken shopaholics with a stolen credit card on Black Friday.

Riot 12-08-2010 02:50 PM
Quote:
I didnt misstate anything. As I said the tax cuts arent the reason there is a deficit, it was spending. Did you miss the part where i said Bush spent a lot?
The majority of our deficit is clearly due to the tax cuts. It's money we had to borrow, with interest, to pay for the routine things we were paying for before the tax cuts. With no additional spending, Bush put us in the hole with the tax cuts.

Reagan created a deficit. Bush I created a deficit. Bush II put us in the poorhouse. My eyes have been opened regarding the GOP and their false "economic responsibility" rep.

That was before the additional spending of the two unfunded wars, before the largest Medicare entitlement. Yeah, the Republicans are spendy buggars, and the worse thing is they used the credit card and ran it up to limit.

You are the one getting specific and detailed about semantics, so let's be specific.

Quote:
The Democrats of the last 2 years have spent at a record smashing pace. What happened 60 years ago is hardly relevant
It would be so helpful if you would not casually change my words and meaning. I am not referring to what happened 60 years ago, I said look at the entire past 60 years, and yes, the GOP is the party of deficits and spending, and the Democrats are clearly not.

Yes, it matters, when people such as yourself continue to misstate the factual truth about who is the party of spending. And then worry about semantics.

Yes, the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of Obamas was a huge spend - kind of necessary due to this little looming depression, don't you think?

I wouldn't blame Obama for continuing what Bush initiated regarding stimulus spending. Most of what has been "spent" by the "Democrats" (in reality both Bush and Obama) is being repaid, and a great majority of the stimulus funds remain unspent. The true cost is only about 1/3 of budgeted initially, with most of the loans to business anticipated to be repaid with interest to 85 or 90%

I realize that you boil everything down to "Democrats Suck, It's Always Their Fault" but that gets really tiresome when it's not remotely reality-based.

Riot 12-08-2010 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOREHOOF (Post 731823)
Congress does the spending, not the Prez. For the last 2 years it has gotten completely out of control. The Dem led Congress has spent like drunken shopaholics with a stolen credit card on Black Friday.
Really? Care to itemize that? I think you'll find the reality different than the right-wing screaming talking points.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731784)
I think I'll start labeling what I say as "anti-Chuck" opinion. Because, you know, it's not a thread talking about, or disagreeing about, the politics, it's a thread about other posters :D

Let's talk about this: what do you think about this deal that Obama and the GOP cut? What do you like about it, what do you dislike about it? Do you think it has any chance of passing intact?
You should take it as a compliment. Few posters are so rigid in their views that they can be described as a noun, verb and adverb.

I don't know that we know what the deal actually is. I know what has been given but there may be a sacrificial lamb or two in there.

For certain I believe the continuation of the tax cuts are a positive step. The payroll tax holiday was something I was asking for 2 years ago, glad that made it. The estate tax compromise was ok I guess but the reality is it is grossly unfair to tax someone for dying. The expensing provision was good too but extending it further would have help as it appears like most of the deal to be Obama trying to stimulate the economy on the way to reelection. Extending the unemployment benefits 13 months is fine with me. The other mostly symbolic things are immaterial to me.

I dont know if it will pass intact but I would think that the democrats wont risk messing with it too much. Regardless of how much you or they hate it, a deal has been made that directly benefits most Americans (except those whose u/e benefits ran out). The head democrat has signed on. If they block or signifigantly mess with it, the blame will squarely fall on them.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731821)
:D Do tell how the GOP has "forced" Obama to address jobs, the recovery, the recession.
Do you really think that anything would have been done except an extention of the cuts for under 250k and extending unemployent benefits without the GOP standing firm?

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731827)
The majority of our deficit is clearly due to the tax cuts. It's money we had to borrow, with interest, to pay for the routine things we were paying for before the tax cuts. With no additional spending, Bush put us in the hole with the tax cuts.

Reagan created a deficit. Bush I created a deficit. Bush II put us in the poorhouse. My eyes have been opened regarding the GOP and their false "economic responsibility" rep.

That was before the additional spending of the two unfunded wars, before the largest Medicare entitlement. Yeah, the Republicans are spendy buggars, and the worse thing is they used the credit card and ran it up to limit.

You are the one getting specific and detailed about semantics, so let's be specific.



It would be so helpful if you would not casually change my words and meaning. I am not referring to what happened 60 years ago, I said look at the entire past 60 years, and yes, the GOP is the party of deficits and spending, and the Democrats are clearly not.

Yes, it matters, when people such as yourself continue to misstate the factual truth about who is the party of spending. And then worry about semantics.

Yes, the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of Obamas was a huge spend - kind of necessary due to this little looming depression, don't you think?

I wouldn't blame Obama for continuing what Bush initiated regarding stimulus spending. Most of what has been "spent" by the "Democrats" (in reality both Bush and Obama) is being repaid, and a great majority of the stimulus funds remain unspent. The true cost is only about 1/3 of budgeted initially, with most of the loans to business anticipated to be repaid with interest to 85 or 90%

I realize that you boil everything down to "Democrats Suck, It's Always Their Fault" but that gets really tiresome when it's not remotely reality-based.
Talk about lack of reality...

Riot 12-08-2010 03:10 PM
Quote:
You should take it as a compliment. Few posters are so rigid in their views that they can be described as a noun, verb and adverb.
It's easier to make up my own mind, than have to wait for Hannity, Beck and Breitbach to tell me what to think ;)

Quote:
For certain I believe the continuation of the tax cuts are a positive step. The payroll tax holiday was something I was asking for 2 years ago, glad that made it.
I agree it's good to put money in people's pockets, and it's a reasonably generous amount considering, but I don't like that he's taken it out of employee's social security contribution. Bad precedent, as it risks permanence.

Quote:
The estate tax compromise was ok I guess but the reality is it is grossly unfair to tax someone for dying.
I agree. I think the estate tax should be zero.

Quote:
The expensing provision was good too but extending it further would have help as it appears like most of the deal to be Obama trying to stimulate the economy on the way to reelection.
Or stimulating the economy because people are homeless, out of work, starving, and unemployment is still raging. But hey, details, right? It would be nice if that were a three year plan, agreed.

Quote:
I dont know if it will pass intact but I would think that the democrats wont risk messing with it too much. Regardless of how much you or they hate it, a deal has been made that directly benefits most Americans (except those whose u/e benefits ran out). The head democrat has signed on. If they block or signifigantly mess with it, the blame will squarely fall on them.
I think that the trillions Obama got are true stimulus and very helpful, and the lesser amount the GOP got isn't stimulating and is clearly simply budget busting. At this point as a trade off I think the benefit outweighs the bad. Vote for it.

However - that none of it is funded is outrageous to me, and I do have a big problem with that, especially for the tax cuts for the wealthy. We could cut the cost of this thing by half by eliminating that one thing, that is supported by the public. Or even just eliminate tax cuts for dollars over 2 million - that would still pay for nearly half this. I think that would pass the House, and I think it would pass the Senate, too.

But to hold the whole thing up with no votes, and wait for the next Congress, is absurd, because of the real unemployed that will suffer.

Riot 12-08-2010 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731833)
Do you really think that anything would have been done except an extention of the cuts for under 250k and extending unemployent benefits without the GOP standing firm?
The GOP has been "standing firm" and blocking much of that with filibuster all year.

Yes, acting like 3-year-olds in serious need of Supernanny and a time-out for their temper tantrums has worked very successfully for them.

With the last two House votes, the GOP clearly declared that the hill they die on are the financial interests of those making over 1 million dollars a year. Duly noted.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731839)
It's easier to make up my own mind, than have to wait for Hannity, Beck and Breitbach to tell me what to think ;)
I have never watched more than a few minutes of either Beck or Hannity. Didn't even know Breitbach had a show.

Cannon Shell 12-08-2010 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731846)
The GOP has been "standing firm" and blocking much of that with filibuster all year.

Yes, acting like 3-year-olds in serious need of Supernanny and a time-out for their temper tantrums has worked very successfully for them.

With the last two House votes, the GOP clearly declared that the hill they die on are the financial interests of those making over 1 million dollars a year. Duly noted.
and all the lefty whining the last few days is very mature. Even the head lefty had to slap their wrist.

Coach Pants 12-08-2010 03:28 PM
She's feeling guilty for being a dedicated HuffPo participant.

Antitrust32 12-08-2010 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 731839)
I agree it's good to put money in people's pockets, and it's a reasonably generous amount considering, but I don't like that he's taken it out of employee's social security contribution. Bad precedent, as it risks permanence.
.
please please please please please be true!!

Riot 12-08-2010 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731853)
and all the lefty whining the last few days is very mature. Even the head lefty had to slap their wrist.
The far left is the party of whine. Did you see any GOP on the press yesterday? Justifying standing up for the wealthy? Hell no, they quietly were holed up at the bars in Washington waiting for the rightous indignation to pass, watching the left eat into it's middle.

Riot 12-08-2010 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 731852)
I have never watched more than a few minutes of either Beck or Hannity. Didn't even know Breitbach had a show.
Breitbach doesn't have a show, he has a blog. You can catch Beck on the radio airwaves or in your local grocery fast-book aisle.

Antitrust32 12-08-2010 04:00 PM
Beck is very smart and entertaining.

though i think even the far right takes what he says with a grain of salt. its pure entertainment.

the only one worth actually listening to and taking information from, IMO, is BO (Bill O'Reilly, not B Obama)

Riot 12-08-2010 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 731866)
please please please please please be true!!
That you want permanence, or do not? (don't understand what you are saying)

Social Security is completely fine, as it is, for everyone up to 40 years from now. It's had tweeks in the past, it needs another one or two for that time. Like Keith Richards during the late 70's, the predictions of it's impending doom are usually greatly exaggerated.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 PM.
Page 14 of 15 « First < 41213 14 15 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.