It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans Remind Obama: Democrats Are Blocking House-Passed Jobs Bills

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by centurion1211
In other countries, such as china, or the more developed middle eastern countries, you can watch them building new infrastructure all the time. They want a new high-speed rail system, they just build it. They want to build the world's tallest building, they just build it.


Because those are ROYAL DICTATORSHIPS and COMMUNIST REGIMES. They build on the farmers land and if he complains they lock him up.

Wow...Democracy just too messy for you?...advocating Dictatorial Regimes? ...be like China...?
edit on 8-9-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


OK, check out what's being built in Europe then. Like the new CERN facility making all the physics news these days while the competing facility in the U.S. (Texas) was CANCELLED.

Here's information on what they thought the Texas facility would do for jobs and the economy before it was cancelled:

source


Edging out six other states competing for the $4.5 billion particle accelerator, Texas stands to gain 4,500 construction jobs, 3,500 permanent jobs and an estimated $20 billion boost to its economy over 25 years.




And this is an example of regulations stopping infrastructure in what way????

Desertron ( Texas CERN)


Congress officially canceled the project October 21, 1993.[8] Many factors contributed to the cancellation: rising cost estimates; poor management by physicists and Department of Energy officials; the end of the need to prove the supremacy of American science with the collapse of the Soviet Union; belief that many smaller scientific experiments of equal merit could be funded for the same cost; Congress's desire to generally reduce spending; the reluctance of Texas Governor Ann Richards;[9] and President Bill Clinton's initial lack of support for a project begun during the administrations of Richards's predecessor, Bill Clements, and Clinton's predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. However, in 1993, Clinton tried to prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because "abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science".[10] The closing of the SSC had adverse consequences for the southern part of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, and resulted in a mild recession, most evident in those parts of Dallas which lay south of the Trinity River.[11] When the project was canceled, 22.5 km (14.0 mi) of tunnel and 17 shafts to the surface were already dug, and nearly two billion dollars had already been spent on the massive facility.[12]


Fail again........at least pick a proper example.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
The debate was never even had with these bills to discuss any potential whatsoever.


This was the first thing you discussed in this OP, refering them as "viable". "Opportunities". If this had little to do about the potential of these bills, why argue their potential in the first place? And we've had the same old bills come back and forth over the last what? 20 or 30 years. What on earth distinguishes these bills from previous GOP bills? Really? What's new??


The Senate blocked them without offering any alternatives


Excuse me? Democrats have been offering alternative bills since Obama came into office, but of course the GOP being the party of no, simple said "no". But GOPers should be treated differently when it's the other way around, right? You seem to be highly sympathetic to the GOP, considering they're of the same political ilk.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


so lets see 75 million ameircans generating their own income instead of getting paid by other people


75 million? A moment ago it was 50 million. And what exactly is the GOP plan to eliminate minimum wage again? You're basing assumptions on the results. Americans generating their own income, who could disagree with this? But what do those on the right intend to do when they remove welfare? And I'm talking about medicare. I'm talking about medicaid, I'm talking about assistance to get kids into schools. What's the alternative? How do you intend to privatize medicare? Really?

It's all about the buzz words neo. "Taxes", "entitlements". You seem to be following the talking points of those GOP debaters rather well. All talk, no substance.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by centurion1211
In other countries, such as china, or the more developed middle eastern countries, you can watch them building new infrastructure all the time. They want a new high-speed rail system, they just build it. They want to build the world's tallest building, they just build it.


Because those are ROYAL DICTATORSHIPS and COMMUNIST REGIMES. They build on the farmers land and if he complains they lock him up.

Wow...Democracy just too messy for you?...advocating Dictatorial Regimes? ...be like China...?
edit on 8-9-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


OK, check out what's being built in Europe then. Like the new CERN facility making all the physics news these days while the competing facility in the U.S. (Texas) was CANCELLED.



Seriously?? Now you are advocating scientific expenditures? I am all for it, but your idealogical bretheren still think the world is 5k years old and that scientists are bible-hating liars who invented Global Warming.

Good luck with that. If you are advocating scientific funding, I am right behind you, but your conservative friends won't feel the same way.

The final cost was estimated at 10 Billion dollars, you convince the GOP that the earth didn't look like "Land of the Lost" a few thousand years ago with people running in a comedic fashion from T-Rex and then we can figure out where we find the 10 Billion.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


all talk no substance eh

like one government welfare check called social security paying for another government program called medicare and then that other government program called medicaid all paid for by people who dont use it.

i would end them all because private insurance will always be far better than anything the government "gives:" people.

and the talking point was 25 million americans getting paid for nothing and those 50 million on their free food checks.

the no substance here is the fact we are 14 trillion dollars in debt with another 115 trillion cost for the "promises" made by the government and cheerleaded more more more by all those gop detractors.

it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the government has made promises its ass cant keep and never can keep even if they taxed aka stole every dollar americans make.

www.usdebtclock.org...

look at all those little red numbers at the bottom


edit on 8-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
i would end them all because private insurance will always be far better than anything the government "gives:" people.


Obviously private healthcare is better than public healthcare for good reasons. Private insurance however is unreliable for many american citizens. If you're elderly, you're going to have a tough time finding an insurance company that will cover you. If you've got pre-existing conditions, you're going to have a tough time finding one as well. Once again you argue based on this assumption that folks could just be covered by private healthcare, this is far from reality.

Not all folks are on medicare or medicaid because they want to be, this is a delusion, and generalization from those people who can't bring up a good argument against welfare in the first place. Private insurers are simply not interested. They maximize profit by covering the young and healthy, well atleast upon application, and they keep out those who are of an age, who do hold a history of health issues, most whom is beyond their control, because by rationing healthcare and excluding folks out, businesses make a tonne. It's not hard to understand, infact I'm sure you're aware of this.



the no substance here is the fact we are 14 trillion dollars in debt with another 115 trillion cost for the "promises" made by the government and cheerleaded more more more by all those gop detractors.


115 trillion?? What the heck? And you're talking about GOP detractors while discussing this 14 trillion debt? How much of the debt do you believe the GOP are responsible for? Just out of curiousity? 20% 14%? 5%?


it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the government has made promises


The government consists of both republicans and democrats, but you waste no time in talking about "GOP detractors." I'm well aware of the debt, I'm well aware of this broken government, but this doesn't explain exactly how productive the GOP are, or what their plans are to eliminate welfare. It's another strawman from you.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sevensight
Not seeing one job in this entire thread proposed that would have been created by any of those bills. How about instead of lying about who is blocking what, you Repubs get on your people to ACTUALLY create some jobs bills that create actual jobs.


I'm sure the Republicans would be happy to do just that ...

If only the democrat controlled White House and senate weren't standing in the way.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Seriously?? Now you are advocating scientific expenditures? I am all for it, but your idealogical bretheren still think the world is 5k years old and that scientists are bible-hating liars who invented Global Warming.


Seriously, got anything besides personal insults - you know, like intellectual content?


Good luck with that. If you are advocating scientific funding, I am right behind you, but your conservative friends won't feel the same way.


And there you go painting people with a mile wide brush again.


Some conservatives (wrongly) thought stem cell research could lead to human embryos being "harvested", but I along with many others didn't believe that. The medical benefits seemed to many to far outweigh the risk.


The final cost was estimated at 10 Billion dollars, you convince the GOP that the earth didn't look like "Land of the Lost" a few thousand years ago with people running in a comedic fashion from T-Rex and then we can figure out where we find the 10 Billion.


Again, put down your broad brush, do some research and then try thinking instead of feeling. The world - no universe - is hardly as black and white as you seem to perceive it.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Just a little bit of research totally proves this OP is true...

The democrats have been cutting the throat of business for quite a long time now... Recently in Washington state, former governor Locke rejected Boeings requests to ease the ef up on all the business taxes and ultra regulations, but locke told them to forget it, so they folded up camp with their huge 20,000 person administration complex and moved the whole kit and kaboodle to Chicago of all places... You know it must be bad for business somewhere to have it be much better in Chicago...

And Gov. Locke has always been just a left wing rubber stamp patsy boy, so this was no surprise.. Funny how the Boeing unions spam their members with pro liberal democrat propaganda non-stop too... Ooops, guess it really backfired..

Although I am niether a democrat or a republican, I can clearly see a long established pattern of the disregard for business by the so called democrat party (both parties have done plenty of damage however) .

eta: All of these things really kills jobs (ya think?)
edit on 8-9-2011 by alienreality because: eta



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





115 trillion?? What the heck? And you're talking about GOP detractors while discussing this 14 trillion debt? How much of the debt do you believe the GOP are responsible for?


yeah well last time i check the gop didnt create:

social security,medicare and medicaid oh and that thing called the federal reserve wasnt the gop who created fanny and freddy with those 2 democratic shills named frank and dodd.

wasnt the gop who have taxed and regulated business and finance out of the country.


so blame? squarely where it belongs on the lefts failed socio economic policies that have led us off the cliff

and anyone who thinks he the government is the problem here gets labeled "no substance"

plenty of substance in this thread.

the only thing the left is good at is growing government tax and spending and going oh crap we ran out of money lets steal more money because they already blew what they had already stolen.,

elminating welfare is a strawman that is laughable government is responsible for the citizen instead of themselves.

those programs right there destroy trillions of wealth and job creation.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by jibeho
The debate was never even had with these bills to discuss any potential whatsoever.


This was the first thing you discussed in this OP, refering them as "viable". "Opportunities". If this had little to do about the potential of these bills, why argue their potential in the first place? And we've had the same old bills come back and forth over the last what? 20 or 30 years. What on earth distinguishes these bills from previous GOP bills? Really? What's new??


The Senate blocked them without offering any alternatives


Excuse me? Democrats have been offering alternative bills since Obama came into office, but of course the GOP being the party of no, simple said "no". But GOPers should be treated differently when it's the other way around, right? You seem to be highly sympathetic to the GOP, considering they're of the same political ilk.



Clearly you didn't read the article which is why you didn't get the point. Hence the semantics games.

Please detail the ideas from the Dems and Obama that DO NOT involve MORE spending and more regulations. All they have done is more deficit spending. They had the majority in congress for two years and did nothing for the economy and for jobs.

Have you seen the latest job numbers?? Those numbers are falling in direct correlation with Obama's approval ratings.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
yeah well last time i check the gop didnt create:

social security,medicare and medicaid


Obviously they didn't. Unlike the democrats, who do get things right at times, the modern republicans are in it for big businesses as well as their constituents are. And what is the GOP plan for these prgrammes again? The last time I checked, republicans from all sides were promising that they wouldn't touch the prescious medicare that many of their tea party constituents ironically rely on. Even Ron Paul had gone dead silent on it (even though this had always been his agenda). So much for the GOP not supporting it, they know that it's political suicide.


oh and that thing called the federal reserve


What is this with the federal reserve? Here's an interesting read on the federal reserve:

Sometimes, in order to understand why you need something, it helps to find out what it was like before that "something" was created. Before the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there were over 30,000 different currencies

money.howstuffworks.com...

You're probably not going to bother clicking on that link, but I figured I'd give you a try. I'd bet my bottom dollar that even with the removal of the federal reserve, it'd just be replaced by some other sugar coated agency I assure ya. And yes, I well aware that those incharge of the federal reserve have part to blame for this mess we're in, but broken government stems all four corners of the government.


wasnt the gop who have taxed and regulated business and finance out of the country.


Oh yes, the Democrats failed businesses by refusing the eliminate minimum wage and taxes in this country. Goodness forbid we ensure that americans get paid a livable wage in this country. Let's compete with $2 per hour jobs in India! Gotcha! That's the rightwings plan that us dumb liberals failed to follow through!


Keep on talking, I'm enjoying this.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





The last time I checked, republicans from all sides were promising that they wouldn't touch the prescious medicare that many of their tea party constituents ironically rely on. Even Ron Paul had gone dead silent on it (even though this had always been his agenda). So much for the GOP not supporting it, they know that it's political suicide.


i personal do not support corruption 2 failed government programs the fact is those who receive their must have got to have checks then enters that other failed government program called medicare go talk to anyone on social security how much medicare is deducted from that first government check.

people need to wise up to those facts that "Free medicare" aint free and to make up the difference what do they do? go steal money from other people who are already paying for their own stuff.

it may very well be poltical suicide but the current state of the union dictates the status quo is wrong and has been wrong since the creation of those halfazz programs that serve noone but has become a detriment to them and the rest of us.

i know plenty about the federal reserve like in 1913 the value of the dollar woud have over 22 of todays.

1000 =22,000 1 million 22 million today 10 million = 220,000 millon of todays dollars.

pretty damn big difference that too many people today just turn a blind eye to.


as to minmum wage yeah getting paid 100k thousand a year pushing a button and sitting on their ass getting double time triple time and holday pay and the 8 weeks of vacations and their yearly automatic raises regardless if they deserve it or not.

pushes jobs to india and china.

the only thing i agree with you about is "dumb liberals" if they acted like that word they use "liberal" when they are anything but.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Please detail the ideas from the Dems and Obama that DO NOT involve MORE spending


You will not get an effective bill that will completely exclude spending, this is not going to happen, sorry. Infact, in the eyes of those to the right, this idea that cutting taxes only in the hopes that the money hoarding wealthy will distribute it voluntarly is beyond deluded, and of little difference. You cannot expect to merely decrease the revenue coming into the government that could pay down this debt and those public projects that some many folks rely on to work.

There are examples of Democratic bills that included a combination of tax cuts and public projects. not perfect bills, but jobs bills never the less that the GOP decided to say no to:

Bipartisan, in supported by afew republicans
www.foxnews.com...

And there's a very good point from the link about that you may want to listen to:

Business groups and economist Zandi of Moody's Economy.com say companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. That means most of the tax benefits would go to companies that would have hired new workers anyway.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Another jobs bill here:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

More here:
thehill.com...

There are plenty of examples of jobs bills being introduced, and threads being made about them right here in this forum. You'd have us assume the democrats never produced any plans, only the GOP has, but then you turn around and argue that the democrats only provide tax raising, regulating increase, plans. Hypocritical much?

These bills introduced by the democrats in my opinion were not perfect, no more unsuitable than those from the republicans. This delusion that we should just cut taxes and cut programmes in the hopes the corporations of this country will provide more is outdated, it's a delusion that has gone on since the Reagan era.

Just cutting taxes? Cutting? That's it? Cutting down stuff?

What are tax cuts going to do for a struggling small business? It's going to help them financially, that's for sure, but where the hell does this idea come from that it automatically creates more jobs? I recently moved to working for a small business employer. He's a good guy, he deserves a tax cut, his business deserves a tax cut because it's people like him, businesses like his, who fuel the jobs in the community. I am well aware that he received tax cuts for his business, but has this caused him to hire more people? On the contrary, he had to let one go.

Do you know how costly it is to maintain an employee? Mere tax cuts are change to what it costs to maintain an employee believe you me, I've seen the accounts files. Part of the fundamental projects keeping my employers business afloat is ironically a government funded project. It brings in the majority of work at our company and without it, this company wouldn't be where is, especially during this financial crises. You want to talk about cutting taxes and cutting programmes, projects? That's the only solution people like you on the rightwing have, it's this little square you're so afraid to venture out of. This is all the GOP appears to have. Democrats? I'm aware of their faults, but this is about recognizing where these problems are. You do a good job at promoting the GOP agenda and that's it.

Reaganomics is alive and well among the conservative masses even though this mindset started this avalanche of debt.

Regulations? Corporations need not worry about regulations, half their businesses are overseas already. If it was up to me, I'd regulate and tax the hell out of businesses that ship jobs abroad. Ya damn right.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sevensight
Not seeing one job in this entire thread proposed that would have been created by any of those bills. How about instead of lying about who is blocking what, you Repubs get on your people to ACTUALLY create some jobs bills that create actual jobs.

the first step im in fixing a problem is admitting you have a problem:.
"the Govt doesn't create "self sustaining jobs.
Any"stimulus" "job" is like a short lived cocoa cola suger high that lasts aslong as the govt money or current administration. No govt job ever payed for itself.So "Ol' bummah" dishes out 3 or 400billion$ most is wasted; eventually the program ends; or is cut to fund other political paybacks..
edit on 8-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The very items you site are all related to regulations!

Healthcare? Its the regulation of the individual mandate and what the regulation will cost the employeer, not "health care" itself. You make it sound as if having someone go to a doctor is cause for a business to not hire. Its what they will be forced to do, via regulation and the associated costs thats the issue

Uncertainty? Economic uncertainty is due to the overall economic environment which is tied to the competetiveness of businesses which is tied to regulation. Regulation causes business to have lower margins, act more slowly, add more useless staff rather than staff in areas that improve the business. With over 4 hundered new regulations hitting the books in July alone, there is a bit of uncertainty out there.

Lack of sales? Well first of all saying that lack of sales is bad for business is like saying ice is bad for keeping warm. There is a lack of sales - folks are not working and don't have jobs! Folks are also thinking that they are going to lose their company provided health care and have to fork out of pocket, keeping their money in their pockets.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
As i said in another post:
Of course the overregulated US ranks 61st among 163 states according to the environmental performance index.
Pretty much all industrialized countries surpass the US.
epi.yale.edu...




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join