Most read -last 24 hours

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
That is just fiction. It is almost funny. Obama did not try to be bi-partisan? How do you define it. He extended the Bush Tax Cuts. The Republicans refuse to budge yet this clown blames Obama.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
That is just fiction. It is almost funny. Obama did not try to be bi-partisan? How do you define it. He extended the Bush Tax Cuts. The Republicans refuse to budge yet this clown blames Obama.

Ah Stevie i didn't even read the article. when he said the money went into the unions that was enuf for me. Forget about extending the tax cuts or unemployment and go after the rights favorite whipping boy the union, because the neocons know that when u make unions the whipping boy this country has just enuf jackasses to believe it, while they steal with other hand. At least unemployment and creating union jobs stimulates the economy. Those tax breaks for the rich did nothing. Pathetic really.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,901
133
63
16
L.A.
Why does Bush's $ trillion bailout/stimulus not even exist to partisan assholes like DTB? It did happen, didn't it?

There is essentially no difference between these two administrations. It's sad to see people still entrenched in partisan rhetoric.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Why does Bush's $ trillion bailout/stimulus not even exist to partisan assholes like DTB? It did happen, didn't it?

There is essentially no difference between these two administrations. It's sad to see people still entrenched in partisan rhetoric.

I am not sure. I think everything was running great until about two years ago when Obama got in. Those two crazy wars should of ended the day he took office because any earlier than that these pricks thought they were the greatest thing since Bush's tax cuts and all the jobs they created.:facepalm:
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,922
125
0
Jefferson City, Missouri
That is just fiction. It is almost funny. Obama did not try to be bi-partisan? How do you define it. He extended the Bush Tax Cuts. The Republicans refuse to budge yet this clown blames Obama.

Are you SERIOUS? Obama says he's bi-partisan with his fingers crossed, saying you're bi-partisan and being bi-partisan are two different things.

Pity Really

jmho

:facepalm:
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Are you SERIOUS? Obama says he's bi-partisan with his fingers crossed, saying you're bi-partisan and being bi-partisan are two different things.

Pity Really

jmho

:facepalm:

Saying no new taxes or else is not being bipartisan.
Extending the Bush tax cuts was not only stupid by bipartisan.:facepalm:
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,922
125
0
Jefferson City, Missouri
Saying no new taxes or else is not being bipartisan.
Extending the Bush tax cuts was not only stupid by bipartisan.:facepalm:

Bringing a JOBS Bill over 2 1/2 years LATE with an all or NONE attitude isn't Bi-Partisan.

This IDIOT of a President didn't have a JOBS Plan until he had to have one, he had to put one together over the August recess, then after he SCRAPES one together, it's PASS IT NOW, total FRAUD.


JMHO

Pity Really

:facepalm:
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Bringing a JOBS Bill over 2 1/2 years LATE with an all or NONE attitude isn't Bi-Partisan.

This IDIOT of a President didn't have a JOBS Plan until he had to have one, he had to put one together over the August recess, then after he SCRAPES one together, it's PASS IT NOW, total FRAUD.


JMHO

Pity Really

:facepalm:

Do you even know you are arguing? Are you calling the Tea Bagging Republicans who are holding everything up partisan?
It is guys like you that is killing America. You have to see that both sides are wrong. Please tell me you do?
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,922
125
0
Jefferson City, Missouri
Do you even know you are arguing? Are you calling the Tea Bagging Republicans who are holding everything up partisan?
It is guys like you that is killing America. You have to see that both sides are wrong. Please tell me you do?

How many Democrats voted against Obams Jobs Bill the other day?

Senate Democrats Join with GOP in Voting Against Obama's Jobs Bill

By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press
October 11, 2011


check-small.png
check-small.png
check-small.png
check-small.png

In this Sept. 14, 2011, file photo, President Barack Obama holds up the American Jobs Act as he speaks at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, N.C. In Obama?s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington. When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

WASHINGTON (AP) - United against Barack Obama, Senate Republicans voted Tuesday night to kill the jobs package the president had spent weeks campaigning for across the country, a stinging loss at the hands of lawmakers opposed to stimulus-style spending and a tax increase on the very wealthy.
The $447 billion plan died on a 50-49 tally that garnered a majority of the 100-member Senate but fell well short of the 60 votes needed to keep the bill alive. The tally had been 51-48, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., switched his vote to "nay" so that he could force a future revote.
The demise of Obama's jobs package was expected, despite his campaign-style efforts to swing the public behind it. The White House and leaders in Congress were already moving on to alternative ways to address the nation's painful 9.1 percent unemployment, including breaking the legislation into smaller, more digestible pieces and approving long-stalled trade bills.
"Tonight's vote is by no means the end of this fight," Obama said in a statement after the vote. "Because with so many Americans out of work and so many families struggling, we can't take 'no' for an answer."
The White House appears most confident that it will be able to continue a 2-percentage-point Social Security payroll tax cut through 2012 and to extend emergency unemployment benefits to millions of people ? if only because, in the White House view, Republicans won't want to accept the political harm of letting those provisions expire.
White House officials are also hopeful of ultimately garnering votes for the approval of infrastructure spending and tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed veterans.
"Now it's time for both parties to work together and find common ground on removing government barriers to private-sector job growth," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after the vote.
Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana ? both up for re-election next year in states where Obama figures to lose ? broke with their party on Tuesday night's vote. Every Republican present opposed the plan.
Earlier in the day, Obama capped his weekslong campaign for the measure in an appearance typical of the effort ? a tough-talking speech in a swing state crucial to his re-election. Like earlier appearances, it seemed aimed more at rallying his core political supporters heading into the election than changing minds on Capitol Hill.
"Any senator who votes no should have to look you in the eye and tell you what exactly they're opposed to," Obama said to a union audience in Pittsburgh. "I think they'll have a hard time explaining why they voted no on this bill ? other than the fact that I proposed it."
Democrats were not wholly united behind the measure. In addition to Nelson and Tester, Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said they oppose the underlying measure despite voting to choke off the filibuster.
Obama's plan would combine Social Security payroll tax cuts for workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270 billion with $175 billion in new spending on roads, school repairs and other infrastructure, as well as unemployment assistance and help to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers.
Obama said that the plan ? more than half the size of his 2009 economic stimulus measure ? would be an insurance policy against a double-dip recession and that continued economic intervention was essential given slower-than-hoped job growth.
"Right now, our economy needs a jolt," Obama said. "Right now."
Unlike the 2009 legislation, the current plan would be paid for with a 5.6 percent surcharge on income exceeding $1 million. That would be expected to raise about $450 billion over the coming decade.
"Democrats' sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn't worked ? along with a massive tax hike that we know won't create jobs," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday, saying there are 1.5 million fewer jobs than when Obama's 2009 economic package became law. "Why on earth would you support an approach that we already know won't work?" McConnell said.
The White House and Democratic leaders, however, were pleased that the great majority of Democrats voted for the plan. Support among Democrats was shored up by replacing Obama's tax increases ? particularly a proposal to limit the value of itemized deductions for families making more than $250,000 ? with the surcharge on annual income over $1 million.
That millionaires proposal would hit about 392,000 households, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. In 2013, the first year the tax would take effect, those wealthy households would see their taxes increase by an average of $110,500, according to the analysis.
Just before the vote on Obama's jobs plan, the Senate passed legislation aimed at punishing China for keeping its currency undervalued against the dollar. Lower-valued currency helps Chinese exports at the expense, bill supporters say, of American jobs.
Next, both the House and Senate will turn Wednesday to approving trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that could create tens of thousands of jobs, one of the few areas of agreement between Republicans and the administration on boosting the economy.
In coming weeks and months, Democrats promise further votes on jobs. But it remains to be seen how much of that effort will involve more campaign-stoked battles with Republicans and how much will include seeking common ground in hopes of passing legislation.
Leaders of the GOP-controlled House have signaled they support tax cuts for small businesses and changes to jobless insurance to allow states to use unemployment funds for on-the-job training. And they've indicated they'll be willing to accept an extension of cuts to the Social Security payroll tax. But stimulus-style spending is a nonstarter with the tea party-infused chamber.
Tuesday's vote played out as disaffected crowds continued to occupy Wall Street, a square in Washington and parts of other cities around the country in protest of income inequality and related issues.
Obama advisers said they were working with Senate Democratic leaders on how and when to break out separate aspects of the overall jobs bill for votes.
Even before Tuesday's defeat, the White House was casting the Senate vote as but the first act in what one Obama adviser called a long-term play ? essentially, an autumn full of action to force Congress to take action on jobs. Senior Obama officials said it was important for the Senate to act to keep pressure on the Republican-led House.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was recuperating from surgery and did not vote.
Associated Press writers Darlene Superville in Pittsburgh and Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright ? 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 

kcwolf

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 1, 2000
7,224
21
0
Iowa City
Most read on the AP was the Fox News scandal and the Board wanting the annointed out, Ruppert. That was followed by the Wall Street protests.

DTB, you really need to get a life away from Matt Fudge. I hinted about how much you embarass yourself.

Keep up the good work. :0074 :0074
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,424
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
Most read on the AP was the Fox News scandal and the Board wanting the annointed out, Ruppert. That was followed by the Wall Street protests.

DTB, you really need to get a life away from Matt Fudge. I hinted about how much you embarass yourself.

Keep up the good work. :0074 :0074

Only person I've seen embarrassed here was you trying to rip forum members off on paying for picks to support your habit-- Would you like me to go into detail--again
:popcorn2

--on Drudge Report--I've never seen article he wrote--all Drudge report is --is a link to other news outlets-

-this one being from Wall St Journal --I thought you were smart enough to know that--or at least able to read the links--apparently not -soyou learned something today.

keep up the good work :0074
 

kcwolf

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 1, 2000
7,224
21
0
Iowa City
DTB

And the slander needs to stop immediately, seriously.

I've already told you of the pay back of all my clients.

Thanks in advance to the one who still thinks 4349 Vegas Drive is not a house and a place I never lived.

:lol:
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
DTB

And the slander needs to stop immediately, seriously.

I've already told you of the pay back of all my clients.

Thanks in advance to the one who still thinks 4349 Vegas Drive is not a house and a place I never lived.

:lol:

I wouldn't worry about doggie dogshit. Nobody listens to him anyway.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I guess this is the most important thing YOU want to bring forth in this article:

At that time he supported Mr. Obama's call for heavy spending on infrastructure. "But if you look at the make-up of the stimulus program," says Mr. Zuckerman, "roughly half of it went to state and local municipalities, which is in effect to the municipal unions which are at the core of the Democratic Party."

My question is this: How else could a stimulus package work to get the money into local and state infrastructure projects without earmarking specific funds to state and local municipalities?

How else would you propose getting money into the state and local marketplace to take care of infrastructure projects, which helps local and state communities and puts people to work? You and Mort highlight that much of this money is going to Unions - and making that sound like a bad thing. How is spending in local projects that are not built around pork projects and special interest projects a bad thing for our country? How does this not help the economies of local and state entities, and subsequently the local and state populations, and subsequently the local and state job creators (that you and others always worry so much about)?

Don't worry. I don't expect any real answers to my questions. I'm getting used to that. Carry on...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,424
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
DTB

And the slander needs to stop immediately, seriously.

I've already told you of the pay back of all my clients.

Thanks in advance to the one who still thinks 4349 Vegas Drive is not a house and a place I never lived.



:lol:

"Clients" :facepalm:



The bottom line is -
for some reason you brought up subject I should be embarrassed for posting article link from WSJ --

--Not very smart idea for someone with your history--
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top