RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush?

RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 2:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk LOL.......you are delusional. baby boomer right? It shows. LOL, you are clueless. Under 30? it shows.

joether -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 2:32:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Uhhhhh both. to what extent depends on their relative power at the time. Presidents party controls both houses=President > both houses controlled by opposition party=Congress > split Congress=could be either depending on whether the issue is spending or taxes and the party of the President So, if what you say is true, then: Right now, the Republican Party has no power or say in goverment. Yeah, if that were true, the Health Care Act would have had a 'goverment option in it'. Our troops would be back home (about to return soon) from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our economy would be much better, thanks to having no stalling or filibusting tactics going on. And, oh yes, the propaganda machine known as 'Fox News', would be SCREAMING AT AMERICA, instead of the 'dull roar' we have now. We'd have conservatives, brandishing So, if both houses are controlled by the opposition party, Congress controls it? WHAT? That doesnt even make sense. Last I recall, Congress has two units: 1) The House and 2) The Senate. There are not two houses in Congress. Second, if both houses are in the opposition's control, it wouldn't be Congress that controls Congress....but.....drum roll......the opposition! And if the House/Senate is controlled by one but not the other, the balance of power still falls in to favor with the Office of the President's party. But noted, that location (House/Senate), are not directly controlled by the President (unless we were living under the Bush Administration). So, your attempt at political bullshit, by not explaining in depth is.....FAIL!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 2:44:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Uhhhhh both. to what extent depends on their relative power at the time. Presidents party controls both houses=President > both houses controlled by opposition party=Congress > split Congress=could be either depending on whether the issue is spending or taxes and the party of the President So, if what you say is true, then: Right now, the Republican Party has no power or say in goverment. nope, thats not what I said. Yeah, if that were true, the Health Care Act would have had a 'goverment option in it'. nope, some Dems actually want to get reelected Our troops would be back home (about to return soon) from Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, they will be coming home soon from Iraq, thanks to the surge that Blowboy opposed. Nope, they wont be returning soon from Afghanistan, because he has to try and save face on his misguided strategy. Our economy would be much better, thanks to having no stalling or filibusting tactics going on. No, it would be much better if a few Republicans didnt cave and there were actually filibuwters. And, oh yes, the propaganda machine known as 'Fox News', would be SCREAMING AT AMERICA, instead of the 'dull roar' we have now. We'd have conservatives, brandishing So, if both houses are controlled by the opposition party, Congress controls it? translate into English please WHAT? That doesnt even make sense. Last I recall, Congress has two units: 1) The House and 2) The Senate. There are not two houses in Congress. cool, you go edit virtually every history book published that calls them "houses". And if you want to be such a fucking nit, the word is "chamber" not "unit" Second, if both houses are in the opposition's control, it wouldn't be Congress that controls Congress....but.....drum roll......the opposition! Opposite of the POTUS, obviously. And if the House/Senate is controlled by one but not the other, the balance of power still falls in to favor with the Office of the President's party. Which is not in disagreement with what I wrote But noted, that location (House/Senate), are not directly controlled by the President (unless we were living under the Bush Administration). So, your attempt at political bullshit, by not explaining in depth is.....FAIL! Thank you for grading your own response.

joether -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 3:06:34 PM)
Since we should REALLY try to keep things ON TOPIC guys and gals.... quote: ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4 I was wondering how people would feel, if the GOP were to let go of the Bush Tax cuts? Would that make a big difference to you or not? The Bush tax cuts came about during the summer of 2000-2001. A listing of three tax cuts for Americans and a fourth, for the upper 5% of income earners. (its been ten years, cut me some slack). This was a result of President Bush's campagin promise to reduce taxes, now that the national debt was under control (and no thanks to the Clinton Administration). The economic plan under Clinton, would have kept the taxe percentages in place, for two years further (2002-2003 window). Thus, giving a surplus, by which tax cuts could be made, to keep spending down. This would have been the sane and wise steps to make, and people actually wanted the national debt to be eliminated. The tax cuts effects were not immediately noticed by the general populace. I dont think they started to even enter in to American's minds until 2005. By that time, the President had created the Department of Homeland Security, two wars (one of which he could justify or explain), and Hurricane Katrina had just hit the Gulf of Mexico. Likewise, the Republican party, was adding all the exess expenses on to the national debt, rather then making spending cuts in to things conservatives hate to have cuts taken in. The rate, at which the national debt was growing, alarmed many, but were geneally silenced for not being 'American'. Oh yes, fear of not being American, kept many people in line, from doing what should have been done: report the facts. And the actual change, to the upper 5%'s taxes from now, to what it was under Clinton? Just 1.9%. For example (as the percentage is unclear to most), if the upper 5% were paying 28% now, under Clinton, it was 29.9%. The conservatives would have us think, that this 1.9% leads to bankrupt and destruction on a national scale. That people will flee our country and go else where. If they do, I say "revoke their citizenship". But I believe the grand majority of this segment, regardless of being conservative or liberal, would pay the tax, because it goes to an important place: The United States of America! To the average American, the tax cut would not even be felt or noticed. The average American couldn't tell you, how much they paid in taxes last year. Not just state or federal taxes.....ALL....taxes. From all sources. Since the average taxpayer isn't an accountant, nor understands what constitutes a tax verse a fee. Most Americans, do not earn greater then $300,000/year. And if your making over $600,000/year, and can't handle a 1.9% increase to your taxes like an adult, fire your accountant! In fact, if your in debt, while making that kind of money, then it would be fair to say, the tax isn't the problem, but your understanding and handling of money. Sure, EVERYONE, grumbles about taxes each year, and most notiably April 15th. But, my money goes to America and the citzens. It builds bridges and commerce, cloths/feeds/equips our military, and even helps the poor deal with life. It goes towards the 50 states and territories. Yes, the picture isn't totally rosey: We have to pay Republicans that 'work' in Congress ('work' pretty broadly defined) and the US Supreme Court...

Musicmystery -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 3:13:15 PM)
The primary difference is the upper income levels. Their income has shot up, and they do pay more in taxes on it. The rich/poor gap, however, has widened even further, and the average middle class income has dropped around 2% in many parts of the country, particularly the mid-West. That we collect more revenue on the tax cuts is a misrepresentation, however. And three recessions later, they clearly aren't "stimulating the economy." Instead, deficit spending did that, until now we have a huge bill offsetting the short term benefit.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 3:45:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether And the actual change, to the upper 5%'s taxes from now, to what it was under Clinton? Just 1.9%. For example (as the percentage is unclear to most), if the upper 5% were paying 28% now, under Clinton, it was 29.9%. The conservatives would have us think, that this 1.9% leads to bankrupt and destruction on a national scale. That people will flee our country and go else where. If they do, I say "revoke their citizenship". But I believe the grand majority of this segment, regardless of being conservative or liberal, would pay the tax, because it goes to an important place: The United States of America! Dont know where you are getting your numbers but they are way off. In 2001 the top 5% of wage earners paid 53% of the total taxes. In 2006, with the Bush tax cuts in full effect, that had increased to over 60%. And Id love to see any quotes where conservatives claim that leads to "bankrupt and destruction on a national scale". (Hint: No one of any prominence says that.) What conservatives DO say is that tax rate cuts do not result in dollar for dollar increases in the deficit, and they do increase investment and lead to growth in the economy.

servantforuse -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 3:57:04 PM)
Obama needs to quit blaming Bush. It is getting very old.

Owner59 -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 4:06:17 PM)
Not when it`s true. We need to know what happened and who in order to prevent another major recession. If the GOP were doing anything different from bush, it wouldn`t come up as much. But they are doing and want to do everything bush did and more so it will come up,alot. Nothing more hilarious than cons defending bush tax cuts then complaining about bush`s name being brought up.[sm=rofl.gif]

Musicmystery -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 4:07:57 PM)
quote: Dont know where you are getting your numbers but they are way off. In 2001 the top 5% of wage earners paid 53% of the total taxes. In 2006, with the Bush tax cuts in full effect, that had increased to over 60%. What conservatives DO say is that tax rate cuts do not result in dollar for dollar increases in the deficit, and they do increase investment and lead to growth in the economy. For that top percentage, who have seen their incomes spike. They remain the sole beneficiaries.

joether -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 4:20:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: joether So, if what you say is true, then: Right now, the Republican Party has no power or say in goverment. nope, thats not what I said. No, that is indeed what you both said and implied. For if the Republican Party had power or a fair say in or goverment, would you really rant against the Democrats as much? Nope! quote: Yeah, if that were true, the Health Care Act would have had a 'goverment option in it'. nope, some Dems actually want to get reelected Really? I highly doubt it. If the more conservative leaning Democrats feared it, why did they side "FOR" the Health Care? Yes, the 'Blue Dog' Democrats got their cheer. But that simply showed their were being greedy and playing politics for selfish reasons. I'm sure, Mr. Obama had a few 'choice' words to say to them, over that sort of behavior. While, being 'in lock step' is a very Republican concept, doing what the 'Blue Dog' Democrats did, was rather disrespectful to whole process. But hey, not one Democrat said those guys couldn't speak their mind. But, the 'Blue Dog' Democrats understand, to bite the hand that feeds them (by donations to their warchest for re-election)....is political suicide. I know of one of these 'Blue Dog' Democrats this is 'retiring'. An no, I doubt its because he wants to 'spend more time with friends and family' bullshit either. Notice, this group didn't talk much on each bill to go through the House/Senate since? quote: Our troops would be back home (about to return soon) from Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, they will be coming home soon from Iraq, thanks to the surge that Blowboy opposed. Nope, they wont be returning soon from Afghanistan, because he has to try and save face on his misguided strategy. 'Blowboy'? You know, I may dislike Republicans in elected off. But I NEVER, insult them with petty nicknames. That is simple 'Junior High-ish'. And there are ALOT of conservatives, that behave this way; both on this forum and off it. I myself have no idea who, you refer to, led alone why your sentence should even be considered 'fair' and 'reasonable'. Yes, I don't like Dick Cheney, but you dont see me calling him 'Mr. Asmatic Jukebox in a Ninja Costume' (referring to one other evil overlord in pop culture). No, I say 'Dick Cheney', or 'Mr. Cheney', or 'Former Vice President, Dick Cheney'. The level of respect, coming out of conservative's mouths these days, is simply apalling towards our form of goverment, elected officals, and to the citizens. Would you have behaved this way back in 1950's (the era most Republicans wish things were right now)? How about 1980's? Your no youngster, willbeurdaddy. You can't claim to not know how things were 'back then'. So, please state to me, who the hell is 'blowboy', and WHY (more importantly), you can not call the person by their title and name like an adult? quote: Nope, they wont be returning soon from Afghanistan, because he has to try and save face on his misguided strategy. They HAVE been coming home from Iraq. We SHOULD HAVE, kept our 'eye on the ball' with Afghanistan during the Bush Administration, instead of going to Iraq. BTW, willbeurdaddy, just how many of those WMDs did we find in Iraq? Afghanistan, is the biggest grower of heroine that is sold through out the world (including here in the USA). It just 'breaks my heart', to see those fields being torched, and heroine becoming hard to aquire, or infect in to new persons. Unfortunately, most countries do not have the kind of treatment centers as the States, Canada and Europe hold. So the addicts, are just screwed (unfortunately); a level of suffering you or I, will never endure. Afghanistan presents an opportunity. And one thing us Americans are known for: We are Opportunists. We could have a good effect on the people there, giving them some resources to plant food and such, different from poppies. Staging areas for our special forces to....Kick Some Ass! And, gives Iran something to think about, when they start babbling they are all 'high and mighty' because they might have a nuclear weapon. quote: Our economy would be much better, thanks to having no stalling or filibusting tactics going on. No, it would be much better if a few Republicans didnt cave and there were actually filibuwters. Like Senator Scott Brown, from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? My state? Yeah, he knows, that if he behaves like a conservative, he isn't getting elected next time. He also knows the person the Democrats will push, will be well polished and financed for a real campaign. So, he has to walk the rope between being 'what he really is' and 'what will get him re-elected'. Maine Republicans, tend to be more 'old school' Republican, then 'new school'. As such, they are more prone to voting with New Englanders then with Texans. quote: And, oh yes, the propaganda machine known as 'Fox News', would be SCREAMING AT AMERICA, instead of the 'dull roar' we have now. We'd have conservatives, brandishing The part of 'we'd have conservatives, brandishing', sort of got cut off. I may have been distracted and simply thought I had completed the train of thought. I usually reread my posts to check for the though process. What do conservatives often brandish, when losing the arguement? quote: So, if both houses are controlled by the opposition party, Congress controls it? translate into English please You said it yourself: quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy both houses controlled by opposition party=Congress It just sounds little odd, EVEN for you! quote: WHAT? That doesnt even make sense. Last I recall, Congress has two units: 1) The House and 2) The Senate. There are not two houses in Congress. cool, you go edit virtually every history book published that calls them "houses". And if you want to be such a fucking nit, the word is "chamber" not "unit" I've always read/heard it as either being A) Congress or B) The House, The Senate, or 'The House and Senate agreed today....". But if others want to call it that way, that's the 1st Amendment in practice. I'll concede "Difference of Opinion" if you do? quote: Second, if both houses are in the opposition's control, it wouldn't be Congress that controls Congress....but.....drum roll......the opposition! Opposite of the POTUS, obviously. No, it would under the control of the opposition. If your the opponent of the President of the United States; are you then against the United States itself? As that REALLY was the concept under the Bush Administration form 2000-2006 (when Congress was voted in favor of the Democrats). And how many conservatives thought that concept was wrong? None of them. quote: And if the House/Senate is controlled by one but not the other, the balance of power still falls in to favor with the Office of the President's party. Which is not in disagreement with what I wrote I didn't want to leave that thought out of the original quote. Shows I was agreeing to something you said on the matter. I know, SHOCKING....that a liberal and conservative can actually agree on something during a political discussion...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 4:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: joether So, if what you say is true, then: Right now, the Republican Party has no power or say in goverment. nope, thats not what I said. No, that is indeed what you both said and implied. If youre going to lie Im done with you.

thornhappy -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/12/2010 6:56:31 PM)
Seconds the remark about "Blowboy". Back in the day (Reagan Administration), those who criticized the President were told that they lacked respect for the office. I'm talking legitimate, fact-driven critique. I thought that was kind of bogus. They had a point when he was being referred to as Bongo.

Moonhead -> RE: The GOP needs to let go of Bush? (8/13/2010 4:17:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Obama needs to quit blaming Bush. It is getting very old. Okay then. Shut up about Carter and Clinton.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875