Re: Stimulus

by Aaron Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:33 pm

sodbuster wrote:Well let me make a prediction ok.

After the Dems' recovery package is passed w/o any republicans putting principle over party (and being part of the solution instead of part of the problem), after Dems have to put it through on their own, and the economy recovers again you will hear all the republicans whine and moan about how they got left out.

Just remember where you heard it first.

Isn't that about the same line you took with the bailout money Sodbuster?

So how's that working out?

by sodbuster Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:54 pm

Nope I don't think so.

I was like you guys skeptical at first and said I would probably support it by the time it came to a vote.

But I was only a lukewarm supporter.

I guess you could say I am a little more than lukewarm now, since we obviously need to do something.

by ziggy Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:30 pm

Aaron wrote:So you think Americans don't deserve to keep the money they earn because politicians don't know how to budget revenue, cut wasteful and fraudulent spending and thus waste massive amounts of tax payer dollars?

Why I am not surprised?

You are talking theory, while I am talking the actual effect of the so-called "tax cuts" we've seen during our adult lifetimes. When there are "tax cuts" without comparable spending cuts, the effect is to transfer wealth from those who will eventually pay the government's debt and interest some other day to those who don't pay the government's spending bills today. And these are not the same people.

by Aaron Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:13 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:So you think Americans don't deserve to keep the money they earn because politicians don't know how to budget revenue, cut wasteful and fraudulent spending and thus waste massive amounts of tax payer dollars?

Why I am not surprised?

You are talking theory, while I am talking the actual effect of the so-called "tax cuts" we've seen during our adult lifetimes. When there are "tax cuts" without comparable spending cuts, the effect is to transfer wealth from those who will eventually pay the government's debt and interest some other day to those who don't pay the government's spending bills today. And these are not the same people.

You have no one to blame but your precious government.

by ziggy Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:14 pm

It may be "precious" to you, but it's not particularly precious to me.

by sodbuster Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:35 am

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/01/29/hollow_victory_republicans_deliver_slap_in_the_face_to_barack_obama

Well here you have it.

Even after Obama went to the republicans hat in hand and did his best to end the partisan gamesmanship not one single republican.

Not one.

by Aaron Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:39 am

For their to be bi-partisanship, there has to be give and take from both sides and both sides have to have input. It's called compromise.

This bill wasn't it. This tripe was written by Nancy Pelosi and Co. and is nothing more then a democratic spending bill imposed on America by democrats. The fact that Obama couldn't get even moderate Republicans to vote for it is proof of that. Your source understands that.

Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.

Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."

He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."

by Aaron Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:06 am

There were two positives for me from the vote on this bill.

SMC held her ground so we have a least one voice of reason in the WV delegation.

And with this type of partisan waste and pork spending imposed on America by Democrats, especially with so many blue dogs voting for it, the likelyhood of Democrats maintaining their majority after next years elections decreases as we slip further and further in debt.

by **ohio county** Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:39 am

Even after Obama went to the republicans hat in hand and did his best to end the partisan gamesmanship not one single republican.

That wasn't his hat.

by **ohio county** Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:44 am

Rush Limbaugh should not be allowed to disagree with President Obama.

The President knows what's best for us. He should make all decisions for all of us.

If the President thinks spending a bagillion dollars killing fetuses, fully funding future voter fraud efforts, and planting grass seeds on the National Mall who are we to question him?

He's getting his advice from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid so how can we possibly question his actions?

What is wrong with you people?

anonymous poster Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a5543a34c-af92-4736-b81b-4aad0ab02e2eDiscussion%3add4fb34f-881b-468d-9e0a-62210a31cbfb

by SamCogar Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:57 am

sodbuster wrote:Well here you have it.

Even after Obama went to the republicans hat in hand and did his best to end the partisan gamesmanship not one single republican.

Not one.

Obama didn't need any Republican votes to get that Bill passed, ..... not a single one.

Not one, ...... none.

So why in hell was he asking Republicans to vote for it?

Well "DUH", ... the Democrats know damn well it is going to be a MASSIVE FAILURE ........ and they don't want, didn't want, the Republicans bashing them over their frigging heads with it pre-2010 Election.

.

by Sponsored content