Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Now Dixie,,,, Come on.
That's not a very Christian tone.
The truth is, you're more socialist than I am.
MAD AS HELL: This Party Ain't About Jobs!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Now Dixie,,,, Come on.
That's not a very Christian tone.
The truth is, you're more socialist than I am.
Right, Congress Critters should focus on eliniminating ObamaCare, even though they are facing a democratic majority in the senate and a president who would veto their bill anyhow.
Much better that they grandstand and acomplish nothing, than; reverse tax benefits for companies that ship jobs overseas, start a modern WPA, provide incentives to companies that open manufacturing start ups here, enable funding needed by small businesses still ignored by wall street goons, provide tarrif protections ofr domestic manufacturers, recind the $7500 tax credit on entirely Korean made cars bought by americans. Nope, there is nothing they can do to help the economy. Shut the fuck up fool.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
but repealing Obama Care WILL improve the economy.....
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
Not all jobs are worth getting. You see Gov (paid by tax payers) jobs going through the roof---but we need jobs from industry that makes profit--if those public union "workers" can expect to get those pensions they were promised. Their well being depends on the profits of the private secotr---and progressivly thinking (which I am not)--it is the union labors turn to decline---as planned. Progressivly thinking--the more fighting, the better. You will not see the public union decline faster then the semi private union sectors. They will decline in small incriments, and stay real close to eachother for the next 20 years--but they wilol be reduced. If one union sector declines much faster than the other union sector---we would have unions fighting unions--and the progressives can't have that. They can't have their tools fighting eachother. Keep voting left union workers---and you will simply be the last American employees to go broke.
The trade agreements have to be changed. In 1978, China decided to give "semi private capitasism" a try (that is communisum or Naziism folks--when gov interviens with business).
Ever since 1978, neither party cared about creating jobs that were based on profit in the USA. Bush said he created millions of jobs---he just did not specify where--not here. We have been redistributing our wealth making capabilites over seas for over 30 years now, lost 45% of our manufacturikng---and nobody asks the question "Why does China now have all this money to buy our massive debt?"
So far as I see for 2012--Donald Trump is the only person talking about growth--and not more managed decline. We have 2 progressive parties, who have been screwing our citizenry for decades---and a American thinking TEA party. You have never had a better choice in your life.
Production comes before the dividend. If you work at a factory, you still take home a pay check even if the stock goes down, as long as people want, and can pay for your products. Now we have a 56% increrase in welfare since obama got elected---and those people have neither production, or the dividend.
Produce or cry. I make 6 figures now out of my one car garage making things China can not do (modification of existing products). What are you going to do to make money? Get a government job, and steal from your neighbors?
The trade agreements have to be changed. In 1978, China decided to give "semi private capitasism" a try (that is communisum or Naziism folks--when gov interviens with business).
Ever since 1978, neither party cared about creating jobs that were based on profit in the USA. Bush said he created millions of jobs---he just did not specify where--not here. We have been redistributing our wealth making capabilites over seas for over 30 years now, lost 45% of our manufacturikng---and nobody asks the question "Why does China now have all this money to buy our massive debt?"
So far as I see for 2012--Donald Trump is the only person talking about growth--and not more managed decline. We have 2 progressive parties, who have been screwing our citizenry for decades---and a American thinking TEA party. You have never had a better choice in your life.
Production comes before the dividend. If you work at a factory, you still take home a pay check even if the stock goes down, as long as people want, and can pay for your products. Now we have a 56% increrase in welfare since obama got elected---and those people have neither production, or the dividend.
Produce or cry. I make 6 figures now out of my one car garage making things China can not do (modification of existing products). What are you going to do to make money? Get a government job, and steal from your neighbors?
Last edited:
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
First off, it's no longer Obamacare. It's Bainercare!
Second, all the things you mentioned, besides Bainercare, the house could get to as they're two different issues. Bainercare has nothing to do with slowing these things down. The things you mention.
Thirdly, The Republicans could come up with a budget that would keep the gov't running, with all the things you mention, excluding funding for the healthcare bill, and then send it to the Senate. Then it would be in the Senates hands to pass, or send it back. Meaning, if the Dems want to keep the govt running, they could pass what the house has given the senate, and keep the govt running.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's that easy.
But NO!!!!!
Bainer, the total and complete failure that he is, has no intension of doing what the Republicans promised, and were voted into office to do.
Your comments suggest that you don't see Obama/Bainercare as that big of a threat to Americans and our prosperity, but a bunch of people, just like me,,,,,,, do. Wake up dude! It's that big of a deal.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
First off, who the hell is "Bainer?" And when did it stop being Obamacare? Is "Bainer" supposed to be John Boener, the Speaker of the House? How about learning to spell the man's name, if you are going to plaster his name all over the board and dishonestly try to credit him for Socialized Medicine? At least you wouldn't appear so fucking ignorant.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Hey Voltaire, what about this sentence do you disagree with?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) a repeal of Obama care WOULD improve the economy.
2) The Dems still control the Senate and White House.... or are we back to the Dems fall back of 'well, no matter how much power we have, the Reps are always too smart for us and thwart our every move'
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Republicans come up with a budget that would keep the gov't running, with cuts or no cuts, excluding funding for the healthcare bill, and then send it to the Senate. Then it would be in the Senates hands to pass, or send it back with the chance the govt would shut down. Meaning, if the Dems want to keep the govt running, they could pass what the house has given the senate, and keep the govt running.
Any thoughts Superfreak, or anyone?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Are you expecting an intelligent solution from Congress?
apple0154
MEOW
Simple solution. Let's promote cigarette smoking, fast and careless driving, get rid of those folks who check the cleanliness of food handlers and before we know it we'll have millions of sick and injured. The medical dollars will start to roll in and they'll be plenty of jobs.
Let's see the sick and injured selling their homes and going into debt so we can get that money circulating through the medical profession. There's yachts to be bought and vacations to go on. Fine restaurants to frequent. Then there's jobs for the pool boys and lawn crews.
It's time for the middle class to "pay or suffer". Besides, they say a little suffering is good for the soul.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Is that like FDR's calculation that very few Americans would live long enough to actually collect Social Security benefits?
apple0154
MEOW
MAD AS HELL: This Party Ain't About Jobs!
What did you think the 2010 elections were about? If you listened to John Boehner in the weeks prior to the election, you might have thought the midterms were about jobs. When it came to mentioning jobs, he sounded like a veritable Mynah bird with Tourette’s Syndrome. “The American people are asking ‘Where are the jobs?’” “This election will be about jobs.”Jobs, jobs, jobs! Here-a job. There-a job. Everywhere a job-job.
But the self-proclaimed “small government”majority in the House have already made one thing crystal clear. Since taking over in January, the pursuit of creating and finding jobs for millions of unemployed Americans is no where to be found on their radar screen. If you were actually thinking jobs were going to trump The Great Culture Wars —well, consider yourself punk’d. It just doesn’t work that way in Tea-publican Land.
Tea Party Republicans who got elected in such overwhelming numbers have demonstrated they don’t think job creation was the reason they were elected at all. They have devoted their time to arguing, debating, giving speeches and writing bills on the subjects they believe are the most pressing issues facing the country: the defunding National Public Radio, which required an “emergency” meeting by House members; the declaring of English to be the country’s official language; and investigations of whether or not American Muslims are being “radicalized.”
The Defense of Marriage Act has been up for discussion, and later this week, the House of Representatives will vote on the very urgent crisis of whether or not to reaffirm the motto of “In God We Trust”!
But the one concern that reigns supreme, that is paramount in importance above all others is — are you ready? — the monitoring of every last pregnancy in America. From the bunch who claimed to be in such a rush to work on job creation, Tea-publicans have spent most of their time for the last three months focusing on human creation. Obviously, instead of studying economic incentives, wage rates, and manufacturing proposals, they have been devoting their hours on The Hill to studying wombs, ovaries, and fallopian tubes.
The amount of time invested by Republicans on women’s reproductive rights is so obsessive, it appears they may have established a new congressional tradition of writing an “Anti-Abortion Bill-of-the-Month”—— for in their three shorts months of governance they have drafted the same number of anti-abortion bills.
Although the Hyde Amendment, which barred the use of any federal funds for abortion, was passed in 1976, the GOP has written The“Protect Life Act” (HR 358) which would basically seek to doubly, triply, quadruply reaffirm the Hyde Amendment. The bill would also offer protection for anti-abortion healthcare workers who choose, on religious grounds, to refuse reproductive healthcare to women — including filling prescriptions for contraceptives.
Although the majority of families seeking the services of Planned Parenthood are there for birth control counseling, which actually prevents unplanned pregnancies that could lead to abortion, the Boehner led House has spent weeks drafting the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (HR 217) which will cut all funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning services.
But the Motherlode of all anti-abortion legislation is the recently written No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR-3). It is yet another declaration of the denial of federal funding for abortion services, but this bill would require IRS agents to ask citizens undergoing a tax audit whether or not any woman in their family had been raped or had suffered incest which could have resulted in an abortion. Think about that for a second. Wrap your mind around the idea of having to describe your rape or a family member’s incest or an abortion to an IRS auditor.
Still thinking the election back in November was about jobs? Still thinking there is going to be “smaller government”?
Wherever they have taken over — whether in statehouses or in our nation’s Capitol — Tea Party Republicans have made it clear their concern is not jobs. They haven’t spent a single moment on one piece of legislation regarding jobs. To no one’s surprise, the Tea Party is not in power to fulfill voter mandates. They are in power to fulfill their mandate. And their mission. From God.
"...this bill would require IRS agents to ask citizens undergoing a tax audit whether or not any woman in their family had been raped or had suffered incest which could have resulted in an abortion. Think about that for a second. Wrap your mind around the idea of having to describe your rape or a family member’s incest or an abortion to an IRS auditor."
There's sick and then there's SICK.
apple0154
MEOW
No health care would help there, too. As older individuals get laid off and unable to find work their health coverage would end resulting in less medical care at the time most needed. Less health care. Dying at or before pension eligibility. Looks like a Republican win-win situation.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
"In 1936, because of the 25% unemployment rate, the primary goal of Social Security was to get older workers out of the work force so those jobs would go to younger men. It didn't even cover women or farm workers at first. The retirement date was set at 65, which was considered actuarially sound, since, at the time, the average life expectancy in America was 61. By making the retirement date four years later than the average life expectancy, it was thought the proposed social security tax of ½ of 1% each for employer and employee was adequate. Since the first retirees would put no funds, or practically no funds into the treasury, it was assumed that the retirees would be paid with deficit financing and the contributions of their children's generation.
It was set up that way because the goal was actually twofold in 1936 — (1) to get older workers out of the job market so younger workers could take their jobs and (2) to help the retirees children who would have the burden of raising their children while helping to care for their parents.
It worked fairly well in the early days of Social Security since about half the people did not live long enough to collect any money. My mother paid into the system for 18 years, but never collected a dime, since she died at age 51. My former mother-in-law paid into the system for less than one year, prior to reaching age 65, then collected social security for 32 years. Neither my father, who was not a citizen of the United States, nor my husband's father, who also died young, ever collected Social Security.
So, the system worked. But, as the President said, things have changed. The life expectancy increased to its present 74.63 years for males and 80.36 years for women, while people are allowed to retire and collect Social Security as young as 62 years.
If Social Security used the same actuarial charts used in 2005 that were used in 1936 when the retirement date was pegged to the life-expectancy rate, the ages of becoming eligible for Social Security for men would be approximately age 79 and for women it would be age 85.
This would probably not be widely popular."
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/050204
It was set up that way because the goal was actually twofold in 1936 — (1) to get older workers out of the job market so younger workers could take their jobs and (2) to help the retirees children who would have the burden of raising their children while helping to care for their parents.
It worked fairly well in the early days of Social Security since about half the people did not live long enough to collect any money. My mother paid into the system for 18 years, but never collected a dime, since she died at age 51. My former mother-in-law paid into the system for less than one year, prior to reaching age 65, then collected social security for 32 years. Neither my father, who was not a citizen of the United States, nor my husband's father, who also died young, ever collected Social Security.
So, the system worked. But, as the President said, things have changed. The life expectancy increased to its present 74.63 years for males and 80.36 years for women, while people are allowed to retire and collect Social Security as young as 62 years.
If Social Security used the same actuarial charts used in 2005 that were used in 1936 when the retirement date was pegged to the life-expectancy rate, the ages of becoming eligible for Social Security for men would be approximately age 79 and for women it would be age 85.
This would probably not be widely popular."
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/050204
