-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
- Status
DeletedUser34
I have lots of stuff, but politics like religion is subjective. We can go on and on and on. I disagree with how you guys interpret the various things. Arguing that is rather pointless.
And ultimately, the only thing that speaks is my vote...so there you have it
And ultimately, the only thing that speaks is my vote...so there you have it
DeletedUser
The slippery slope argument is usually fallacious, but not always: it is not a fallacy if there is an actual logical connection between the proposed events, and I clearly explained what what that connection was, why such a slope would indeed be slippery. I never said it was inevitable, only that it was potentially problematic. Right now the line is drawn at adult citizen. This is a clear line. Moving it would be, at best, difficult to justify and define clearly enough to make sure it does not move further than intended.
DeletedUser34
I don't know.....about anything in regards to anything
I do know I am still waiting on a dang budget......
I do know I am still waiting on a dang budget......
DeletedUser3
Wait a minute. So we went through all the points only to have you hinge on a Congressional budget approval? Because if that's all you're putting your bets on, perhaps if you examined the absolutely ludicrous budget proposals posed by the Republican assemblymen you would oil that hinge sufficiently to realize exactly why there is no approval.
Hell, even the Republicans voted against their own budget proposals (in some cases unanimously against... wth is that?!?)
After initial efforts to present a budget, the Democrats in Congress realized that the Republicans in Congress were going to vote against "any" budget proposal, INCLUDING their own. So yes, the Democrats are waiting for a new Congress, one that isn't so heavily focused on trying to make Obama look bad.
But seriously, and a very important point here is --- approving a budget is the purview of Congress, not the office of the President. The Republican controlled House is blocking a budget approval, among many other things.
So, if you really want a budget on record, when you get to a voting booth on election day, remember to vote out all those Republican Representatives in your respective districts, because they're the ones playing games with our Nation's government budget.
Hell, even the Republicans voted against their own budget proposals (in some cases unanimously against... wth is that?!?)
After initial efforts to present a budget, the Democrats in Congress realized that the Republicans in Congress were going to vote against "any" budget proposal, INCLUDING their own. So yes, the Democrats are waiting for a new Congress, one that isn't so heavily focused on trying to make Obama look bad.
But seriously, and a very important point here is --- approving a budget is the purview of Congress, not the office of the President. The Republican controlled House is blocking a budget approval, among many other things.
So, if you really want a budget on record, when you get to a voting booth on election day, remember to vote out all those Republican Representatives in your respective districts, because they're the ones playing games with our Nation's government budget.
DeletedUser
66 days my friends...66 days.
The most important of the 10 elections I will have voted in. A line must be drawn. A Governmental "out of bounds" if you will. America will throw a penalty flag at this Administration. They'll be charged with - Roughing the Economy - and be penalized 4 years.
The most important of the 10 elections I will have voted in. A line must be drawn. A Governmental "out of bounds" if you will. America will throw a penalty flag at this Administration. They'll be charged with - Roughing the Economy - and be penalized 4 years.
DeletedUser34
That is crap and you know it.
The Senate doesn't need republicans to pass any bill. Matter of point a democraticly written bill was presented, and Reid said he would not let it go to the floor. Senate passes one, it goes to committee. Not such a hard thing, I mean after all, the senate heathcare bill was vastly different from the Houses, and magically, something got done. How is a budget any different.
And the budget wasn't my sticking point, but yes economics was. And, I want the democrats out, I don't like their platform. I don't like their logic, I don't like their game. So there you go.....
DeletedUser3
But the House does and then a compromise has to be made between both the House & Senate. This is the sticking point, which I will address below.
Nope, not true. A budget was written by the Republicans that outlined an earlier budget proposal from Obama. However, that budget proposal was superceded by a new deficit-reduction plan that Obama proposed in April. Thus, the Republicans grabbed an old Obama proposal and put it for a vote as a means to embarrass Obama, because they knew the Democrats weren't going to approve an old proposal, particularly when a better proposal was pending from Obama (he detailed the new proposal in a speech, but did not yet deliver it to Congress, for reasons I will address below). <Click Here>
Respectfully, a few things need to be understood:
- The Senate Healthcare bill passed when both the House & Senate were held by the Democrats.
- In 1999, 2005 and 2007, the Republicans held both chambers of Congress, yet failed to pass a Budget, yet this is conveniently not mentioned by Republicans. <Click Here>
- Regardless, budget resolutions are plans, not laws. In the absence of a plan, appropriations and spending bills are voted upon to address budgetary concerns, so there is no hardship to governance.
- The process is as such: the President poses a budget. The House and Senate sit down and review the President's proposal. The House proposes a budget, the Senate proposes a budget. They then review each other's budget and come to a compromise. However, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid made it clear the futility of such an effort when he stated, "Republicans were threatening to hijack the budget process and waste the American people’s time with pointless political votes. <...> Faced with this obstruction, we decided it would be a more productive use of the American people’s time to move on and address other issues critical to middle-class families." Add the information previously presented, regarding the President's new budget plans, and things start to make sense.
- In truth, the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was signed into law on August 2, 2011, does provide discretionary spending limits (essentially a budget for 2012 and 2013) based on the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline as posed in section 106, Public Law 112-25. <Click Here>
In other words, the Republicans are playing a shell game, using the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as a point of chastisement whilst conveniently ignoring the Budget Control Act of 2011. Further, they reworded and then posed an old proposal by the President just weeks after the President announced a new budget proposal. This prompted the President not to pose his new budget proposal until after the election precisely because it was quite evident the Republicans were merely going to play more games. So, it is the choice of the Senate Majority not to propose a budget precisely because the entire process would be used as a utility to throw Congress into a gridlock. This is because budget issues cannot be filibustered and must be acted upon when presented. This allows the Republicans to repeatedly throw the budget issue on the table to flood Congress with sticking points, thus preventing any other bills from being heard.
Let's see, I addressed your economic concerns through the Budget Control Act of 2011, I have not yet heard what you define as the Democrat's platform, and I pointed out where the game really is, which is that it's with the Republicans.
The Democrats are attempting to deny them the ball, thereby preventing the Republicans from playing more games. And while at face value such a tactic by both parties may seem appalling, in the bigger picture it's actually quite logical. After all, the Democrats are attempting to ensure they can get things done, while the Republicans are attempting to ensure nothing gets done. Why? Because if things get done, the Democrats & the Obama administration look good. If nothing gets done, Obama and the Democratic party look incompetent. All banal and superficial, of course. But such is the nature of politics, particularly as we head into another election.
DeletedUser2082
If most voters were as passionate about their constitutional republic as most fans are passionate about their football, the polls would be completely different. After a few weeks, we are ready to throw out every replacement ref without debate. After 4 years, citizens are still debating another 4 years. Amazing!
DeletedUser34
I agree, but I have to say, in defense, with the way society is a rather disposable society, (and by disposable, I mean when the going gets tough, people bail) I think, people who expected a rapid change, without drastic measures were delusional. In truth, with all the opposition that Obama faced with such a polarized Congress, his chances of producing much change is rather slim. If Romney were to win, it would be the same situation. Sadly rather than people voting on the issues that are important to them, they vote on what constitutes the quickest fix, and when they don't get it, they move on to the next.
I think that is the stupidest thing in the world. As if issues that are YEARS in the making are going to go away overnight....I would totally lose respect for people who voted for Obama this last election based on one thing, and bail on him simply because he faced opposition to get it done.
I think that is the stupidest thing in the world. As if issues that are YEARS in the making are going to go away overnight....I would totally lose respect for people who voted for Obama this last election based on one thing, and bail on him simply because he faced opposition to get it done.
DeletedUser2082
Also in defense of Obama ( if there is one ), this didn't start with him. In 2007 when the Democrats took power in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi promised to "fix" the "Busheconomy." What she meant by the "Busheconomy" was an economy not run according to principles of wealth redistribution. Before Nancy Pelosi took over the purse strings, the unemployment rate was 5.4%. The national average price for a gallon of gas was $2.18. US economic growth plummeted from 2.7% in the last quarter of 2006 under a GOP majority to 0.5% for the first three quarters of 2007 under a Pelosi-led Congress.
The problem is MOST people don't understand 9th grade civics. The economy has little to do with the Executive Branch. Congress controls the economy. Clinton had a great economy during his second term thanks to Newt Gingrich and conservative, capitalists, and free market policies. This had nothing to do with the "D" and the end of Clinton's name. Bush enjoyed a similar economy (even after 9/11 ) thanks to a conservative congress.
If you want the Bush/Clinton economy back, you need conservative, capitalist, free market politicians in control of Congress.
The problem is MOST people don't understand 9th grade civics. The economy has little to do with the Executive Branch. Congress controls the economy. Clinton had a great economy during his second term thanks to Newt Gingrich and conservative, capitalists, and free market policies. This had nothing to do with the "D" and the end of Clinton's name. Bush enjoyed a similar economy (even after 9/11 ) thanks to a conservative congress.
If you want the Bush/Clinton economy back, you need conservative, capitalist, free market politicians in control of Congress.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser34
JUST TO CLARIFY.....I am STILL voting for Romney!!!!
DeletedUser3
Steveaux, your interpretation of facts is interesting, but incorrect. Economics of such magnitude occurs due to dramatic changes over extended periods of time. You are attributing events to the persons who are in office at the time the events occurred, but it is in fact the persons in earlier times that initiated the events. It was Clinton and the Democratic-held Congress at the early stages of Clinton's office that resulted in the economic boost you seem to be attributing to the Republicans who held Congress during the latter half of Clinton's last term in office. Likewise, You are in gross error by blaming Pelosi and the Democratic-held Congress for what was clearly initiated and largely (but not wholly) the result of Bush Jr and the Republican-held Congress during his initial term and the first half of his second term. At the time of Pelosi's comments, and before the Democrats gained control of Congress, the economic impact of Bush's war and his policies (tax breaks for the wealthy, etc) was starting to rear its ugly head.
Now, if you wish to provide evidence in support of your claims (the community loves pretty charts), I would encourage it. But this thread is on its 10th page and is soon to be locked, so perhaps it would be more prudent to create a new thread focusing on the economy, congress and presidential scapegoats.
Now, if you wish to provide evidence in support of your claims (the community loves pretty charts), I would encourage it. But this thread is on its 10th page and is soon to be locked, so perhaps it would be more prudent to create a new thread focusing on the economy, congress and presidential scapegoats.
DeletedUser34
Of course HE would remember THAT rule.....
*sigh*
*sigh*
DeletedUser2082
I concede as I have misplaced my pretty gas receipts during Bush's second term.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser34
No, sorry... No change.
A) your airplane windows....wrong...it isn't always that disasterous
Southwest Airlines
B) Obama supporters....sadly I didn't watch it, I have heard it before, I can't say I much disagree with the point he was making, even if it didn't come out quite right.
DeletedUser
Yes, Steveaux, Congress sets many of the policies that drive the economy, notably through budgets. (And EVERY member of Congress should have been held in contempt for failing to pass a budget during the past few years...oops, Congress issues contempt charges, oh well). But the executive branch is far more responsible for the economy, through the federal reserve system. Obama's policy is to avoid short-term problems by increasing the M1, which is inflationary, and I fear that we will see the negative effects of this in the next two-three years, regardless of who is elected.
Obama made it clear when he was elected that we would see clear and positive results by the end of his first term. The economy is not where he said it would be, the job market is not where he said it would be, etc., etc., etc. If Obama were true to his word, even he wouldn't vote for himself (he said he shouldn't be reelected if he didn't have things the way he said they would be). While I don't particularly support Romney, I can't vote for Obama in good conscience. I might vote Libertarian, or I might vote for Romney; I haven't made a firm decision. (I am definitely NOT voting for any congressional incumbents!)
Obama made it clear when he was elected that we would see clear and positive results by the end of his first term. The economy is not where he said it would be, the job market is not where he said it would be, etc., etc., etc. If Obama were true to his word, even he wouldn't vote for himself (he said he shouldn't be reelected if he didn't have things the way he said they would be). While I don't particularly support Romney, I can't vote for Obama in good conscience. I might vote Libertarian, or I might vote for Romney; I haven't made a firm decision. (I am definitely NOT voting for any congressional incumbents!)
DeletedUser
Before we get to far into the blame game and people start pointing fingers at which president did what to the economy we need to recognize a few things... Correct some errors in thinking, if you will.
1) The president does not control the price of Oil. The market's supply and demand does. When OPEC decides to cut back on drilling and production the investors jump on the commodities train and start buying. That drives the price of oil up. This is a simple explanation. Of course oil spills, military and the price of the dollar all have an impact.
2) The economy didn't crash under Obama. Obama wasn't President when the stock market crashed and the unemployment rate soared, George W. Bush was our Commander and Chief.
3) Health care is a very complicated issue. While I've had the pleasure of reading all 1,156 pages of it (Sarcasm) it has been changed many time over due to public displeasure of "Misinterpretations" of the text. Like Sarah Palin's comment about Death Camps over the Seek a Second Opinion section giving the right to seek out another doctor's opinion when a person is told they're going to die. While Health Care reform is not a popular issue it is filled with misnomers and fabrications.
4) We do not live in a Democracy, in the U.S. Our form of government is called a Republic. A Republic, by an easy definition, is one where you vote for people to represent you and your interests. It's also a mixture of many forms of government styles such as socialism (Social Security, FEMA, Disability, etc..).
5) The country should not, can not, be run like a business. A business cares about the bottom line, making money. A governments job is to care about its people. Lets never loose sight of that fact.
6) Our fore-fathers were deists. The reason why our fore-fathers came to this country was to get away from religious persecution and a country run by King who makes all of your daily decisions. Basically, they wanted freedom to do as they please when they please, within reason, of course. Religion has no place in government nor should it have an impact on his/hers decisions when it comes to it's people and it's well being. The two tend to collide when it comes to running the state.
7) Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have two very different ideas on how to run the country... Umm... This is a false statement. Both of these men have very similar ideas on how to run this country.
8) Before making any judgements always read and investigate the so-called-facts. Because it's my job to to do so, I understand the propaganda that both sides (Democrats and Republicans) put out for you to feast on. The old adage, "Believe non of what you hear, half of what you read and all of what you see" needs to be applied when it comes to politics.
1) The president does not control the price of Oil. The market's supply and demand does. When OPEC decides to cut back on drilling and production the investors jump on the commodities train and start buying. That drives the price of oil up. This is a simple explanation. Of course oil spills, military and the price of the dollar all have an impact.
2) The economy didn't crash under Obama. Obama wasn't President when the stock market crashed and the unemployment rate soared, George W. Bush was our Commander and Chief.
3) Health care is a very complicated issue. While I've had the pleasure of reading all 1,156 pages of it (Sarcasm) it has been changed many time over due to public displeasure of "Misinterpretations" of the text. Like Sarah Palin's comment about Death Camps over the Seek a Second Opinion section giving the right to seek out another doctor's opinion when a person is told they're going to die. While Health Care reform is not a popular issue it is filled with misnomers and fabrications.
4) We do not live in a Democracy, in the U.S. Our form of government is called a Republic. A Republic, by an easy definition, is one where you vote for people to represent you and your interests. It's also a mixture of many forms of government styles such as socialism (Social Security, FEMA, Disability, etc..).
5) The country should not, can not, be run like a business. A business cares about the bottom line, making money. A governments job is to care about its people. Lets never loose sight of that fact.
6) Our fore-fathers were deists. The reason why our fore-fathers came to this country was to get away from religious persecution and a country run by King who makes all of your daily decisions. Basically, they wanted freedom to do as they please when they please, within reason, of course. Religion has no place in government nor should it have an impact on his/hers decisions when it comes to it's people and it's well being. The two tend to collide when it comes to running the state.
7) Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have two very different ideas on how to run the country... Umm... This is a false statement. Both of these men have very similar ideas on how to run this country.
8) Before making any judgements always read and investigate the so-called-facts. Because it's my job to to do so, I understand the propaganda that both sides (Democrats and Republicans) put out for you to feast on. The old adage, "Believe non of what you hear, half of what you read and all of what you see" needs to be applied when it comes to politics.
DeletedUser
SavageGun, well said.
- Status