Savage Beatings Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Look, I can't stand Obamacare, but this repeal effort has been a waste of time and money. They know it won't actually pass, but the Republicans are trying to score points with their base while at the same time getting other Politicians to (once again) go on record as to how they would vote, so they can use it against them in the next election cycle. I really would rather that they concentrate on something that's actually possible instead of treating us to this political reach around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I know! 26 states are suing it, 64 Congressmen just were elected because of it, and next year 12 R Senators will be added. Have fun, we're coming for you. And the thread immediately got dumber . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Look, I can't stand Obamacare, but this repeal effort has been a waste of time and money. They know it won't actually pass, but the Republicans are trying to score points with their base while at the same time getting other Politicians to (once again) go on record as to how they would vote, so they can use it against them in the next election cycle. I really would rather that they concentrate on something that's actually possible instead of treating us to this political reach around. well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Look, I can't stand Obamacare, but this repeal effort has been a waste of time and money. They know it won't actually pass, but the Republicans are trying to score points with their base while at the same time getting other Politicians to (once again) go on record as to how they would vote, so they can use it against them in the next election cycle. I really would rather that they concentrate on something that's actually possible instead of treating us to this political reach around. The Republican strategy was supposed to be "repeal and replace". Repeal isn't going to happen within the next two years, minimum, and by that time many of the benefits will have kicked in so the chance of it being the lightning rod it was are low. I'd be more than happy to hear the "replace" part of the strategy, if there is one. And for those who say it'll cost a trillion dollars over ten years, you may be right. If you are, knock $100b off the $700b annual defense budget and voila! problem solved. Edited January 20, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 getting other Politicians to (once again) go on record as to how they would vote If it was so popular and everyone loved it, then why would they have to worry? The only way it passed the first time was a buncha backroom lies and shakedowns, which you declare you don't like until you like it. Bottom line, the D's are scared to death of it, they know it is a loser for them. Time to reap what you sow, bishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth. Change you can believe in indeed. Six more states joined a lawsuit in Florida against President Obama's health care overhaul on Tuesday, meaning more than half of the country is challenging the law. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/18.../#ixzz1BXNowABe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Nope. Reconciliation is intended to "reconcile" differences between an initial budget resolution and a subsequent but related resolution. The biggest impacts of reconciliation are that: (1) Senate debate is limited to 20 hours; and (2) amendments to the bill are limited. Big whoop. And even if "reconciliation" was about reconciling the budget, Bush II's tax cuts added $2.3 Trillion (that's with a t) to the national debt over the last 10 years. I hope to God that's not anyone's idea of reconciling the federal budget. 2.3 trillion is a direct line number and does not take into account offsets like increased economic activity. You are stating that if the taxes where in place and GDP remained the same then that's what it "cost". Its not that simple. Cost is a farce since the money is not the governments in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Cost is a farce since the money is not the governments in the first place. Yes it is. As citizens, we hand it over to the representatives we elect in order to keep the country running. Like it or not, it isn't yours any more, it's gone off to join the pool. If it really IS yours, ask for it back and see what they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 http://www.c-span.org/Events/House-Passes-...89/10737418994/ WOW! This bill was "passed" BARELY through a procedural GIMMICK called reconciliation!!! Then gets voted DOWN by a nice majority in the house, and Harry Reid and Obama still will not repeal. It is a very sad day in America. The people have spoken and been ignored. I do not care if you are a liberal or conservative this is/was an absolute abuse of the system. Not as sad as December 23, 1913. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 2.3 trillion is a direct line number and does not take into account offsets like increased economic activity. You are stating that if the taxes where in place and GDP remained the same then that's what it "cost". Its not that simple. Cost is a farce since the money is not the governments in the first place. So it's your position that, all things considered, Bush II's tax cuts reduced our federal debt and/or deficit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 So it's your position that, all things considered, Bush II's tax cuts reduced our federal debt and/or deficit? See yo, no matter what, you keep screaming about taxes. You ignore the waste, gripe about SS and medicare, yet whine about taxes. Listen. They have PLENTY of money, they are wasting it. Do yourself a favor and quit crying about taxes and tax cuts. Get on board with CUTTING the SPENDING. You can make no argument against spending, so do what the feeble do, attack me ala bear fatty and che. Your side lost. The election cycle will make you irrelevant. The economy will continue to tank, the country is going down the schiter, and you whine about taxes. Give up already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 half the people who are against the bill know only what Fox News and talk radio have told them. its mob rule encited by fear and lies. If somebody suggested a bill that would hand 100k to every American - does anybody think that the majority of Americans would be for it? If the majority of Americans were for it - does that me it should be done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 half the people who are against the bill know only what Fox News and talk radio have told them. its mob rule encited by fear and lies. If somebody suggested a bill that would hand 100k to every American - does anybody think that the majority of Americans would be for it? If the majority of Americans were for it - does that me it should be done? you have to have sound policies within the budget/reason..... if the people were to vote on policies rather than politicians, we'd have a much better system provided all the information was readily available... for instance, voting on handing 100k to each person would have to be followed with cutting that money elsewhere and then it would be considered uneconomical to do and would result in a veto almost immediately... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Your side lost. The election cycle will make you irrelevant. Republicans and just as big of politicians as the Democrats. I wouldn't count on them not making a huge mistake between now and 2012 because ALL politicians are out of touch and live in a fantasy world. If you agree with them - its because they are saying want you want to hear - not what they mean or intend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 half the people who are against the bill know only what Fox News and talk radio have told them. its mob rule encited by fear and lies. If somebody suggested a bill that would hand 100k to every American - does anybody think that the majority of Americans would be for it? If the majority of Americans were for it - does that me it should be done? Great general statements there. Faux News and then cap it of with a fictional bill...? I think you would be quite surprised at the amount of disapproval there would be for your fake bill. Most Americans aren't as stupid as you think they are. They would realize how devastating your fantasy land bill is. "its mob rule enticed by fear and lies"....that is exactly the way I feel about who is pushing this bill.... Esp when you hear congress members say "Killing this bill means we are we going to let our children DIE?".....that was from a member of congress yesterday.....and it is an utter and complete LIE... Is this really all you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 half the people who are against the bill know only what Fox News and talk radio have told them. its mob rule encited by fear and lies. If somebody suggested a bill that would hand 100k to every American - does anybody think that the majority of Americans would be for it? If the majority of Americans were for it - does that me it should be done? Did I not hear a dem yesterday compare the repeal to Nazi's and even mention the holocaust? I guess that was not intended encite any fear??? Who are the people making up lies about this Arizona shooter and blaming it on the far right media??? Both sides are a bunch of frickin losers and it is disgusting how these people can screw over every US citizen for selfish gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I would like to receive $100k. I support that bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I would like to receive $100k. I support that bill. I agree! Unta is All Wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Methinks you misunderestimate how much the Bush Tax Cuts affected our country. Is that why income tax revenues to the federal government increased from 2002 through 2007 and tax revenues in 2009 were still higher than they were in 2002? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Is this really all you have? Apparently all YOU have is repeal. Please let us know what the "replace" portion of the Republican strategy consists of. TIA. Is that why income tax revenues to the federal government increased from 2002 through 2007 and tax revenues in 2009 were still higher than they were in 2002? Link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Apparently all YOU have is repeal. Please let us know what the "replace" portion of the Republican strategy consists of. TIA. Link? Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Link Thanks........but that's not exactly impressive. From 2000 through 2008 there appears to be an overall loss from 2000 levels. The later bump is insufficient to fill in the earlier dip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Thanks........but that's not exactly impressive. From 2000 through 2008 there appears to be an overall loss from 2000 levels. The later bump is insufficient to fill in the earlier dip. Had taxes not been cut would we have seen the increase in economic activity in the US from 2003-2008? Further, had spending not have ballooned from 2000 - today we probably wouldn't be in the predicament that we are in with regard to the deficit. We were running in deficit mode at the height of tax revenues to the govt., why, because of spending. Or, you would probably say due to lower taxation rates. I can prove that total income tax receipts increased following the tax cuts and economic activity increased. Were lower income taxes part of the reason why this occurred, well that's what some economists said would occur and it did. What you can't prove is that we would have seen this increased economic activity and tax revenue had income taxes stayed the same. I can assure you of one thing, though, had the income to the US govt remained flat, spending would have still increased at very much the same clip. The problem is more with the manner in which the government spends, squanders if you will, our tax dollars rather than the amount that they take in. You could increase tax revenues by 30% and these jackals would find a way to spend us into further deficits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Thanks........but that's not exactly impressive. From 2000 through 2008 there appears to be an overall loss from 2000 levels. The later bump is insufficient to fill in the earlier dip. There were tax cuts in both 2001 and 2003. I believe the larger cut was in 2003. Based on the graph that was linked it appears as though revenue has increased each year after 2003. Between 2000 and 2003 there were several factors that would negatively affect revenue such as the tech bubble, and 9/11. Regardless revenue has increased since the 2003 tax cuts, and did so until the housing crisis hit, which appears to have had the same type of impact as the tech bubble and 9/11 had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Obama needs to use some of that free healthcare on himself. Jeebus, he's looking like a starving Kenyan lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.