• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Politics - They Play With People's Lives

jpccusa

Happy with this new hobby
Today the GOP announced they will keep doing what they have been doing since president Obama got elected

Rachel Maddow called it last night, before the official news (Look at minute 9:15 at least)

In the meantime, thousands of jobless Americans will start to lose their unemployment benefits

and gays and lesbians are still not allowed to serve in the military

I understand the Dems would play a similar game if the president and Congress were Republicans, but we are facing the worst recession since the 30's, a civil rights movement similar to the 60's, and many other serious issues that require immediate solutions and not political games (E.g. Immigration Reform, National Debt, etc).

To mention immigration reform is to talk about 11 million lives that currently depend on votes of Congressmen that, ludicrously, vowed to vote against their own legislation.

All this is so infuriating. Thanks for reading my political rant.
 
Yep obama is a one term president.

Immigration Reform is easy just put all the illegals back to their rightful countries.

Then the U.S would have jobs for the unemployed.


Love the Fatman
 
Yep obama is a one term president.

Immigration Reform is easy just put all the illegals back to their rightful countries.

Then the U.S would have jobs for the unemployed.


Love the Fatman

It's funny, because the Obama administration has been deporting illegals in record numbers. Just saying...
 
I think that he held up very well when our country was invaded and attacked.
sure, by returning the attacks, on the WRONG countries. add to that, he was attacking the countries at all rather than the organization that committed the crimes. Good job! (Sarcasm)
 
sure, by returning the attacks, on the WRONG countries. add to that, he was attacking the countries at all rather than the organization that committed the crimes. Good job! (Sarcasm)

Hmm.... I would like to know where you get your info. Iraq was based on something different than the attacks on America.

I know for a fact that we are in Afghanistan, hunting down the organization, not fighting the country. The reason I know this.... I have personally been over there doing the hunting. The few civilians that do end up getting killed are collateral damage or civilians that have backed up the coalition troops that the Al Qaida/ Taliban (its hard to tell those two groups apart anymore) have killed and claimed it was the coalition troops. I have seen that happen too.

I know that the people who attacked our country were Saudi Arabians, but when Bin Laden claimed he was the mastermind, It became a hunt for him.

I seriously doubt that you could have done any better, ALL of the US was angry and out for blood.
 
And now this deal extending tax benefits to 2% of rich Americans.
I really don't know if president Obama is doing the right thing here. I am kind of divided on this move. I heard good arguments pro and against the move (all of course, trying to find the best solution to deal with Republican's obstructionism and unfairness).
 
And now this deal extending tax benefits to 2% of rich Americans.
I really don't know if president Obama is doing the right thing here. I am kind of divided on this move. I heard good arguments pro and against the move (all of course, trying to find the best solution to deal with Republican's obstructionism and unfairness).

If no one is willing to compromise then they would not be getting anywhere. I do not agree with giving the upper class and extension, but if that is what has to happen in order for progress to be made.... That is politics...
 
That is crazy! Once again Republicans are being the obstructionist and blackmailing party while Democrats are being the wimp party while neither are acting in the citizens best interest.

And I am sorry Aaron, but "that is politics" sounds like a conformist answer to a serious problem.

No one wants that extension but the rich (2% of Americans) and the Republicans (42 people). The tax extension will expire once again in election year, and the political games that completely ignore people's wishes will be played again by both parties. The 2% will inject tons of money into the Republican party and that's how many will retain their seats.

Republicans constantly turn their backs to what voters want (the end of DADT, reform the immigration system, DON'T extend Bush taxes) and yet, they won back the majority in the House! It is baffling and frustrating that voters don't see that.

I often think how the US would change for better if the Republican party disappeared. Perhaps Libertarians, Greens, and other independent groups would offer different points of views and alternatives. I know we have always had 2 major parties, but unless people stop putting Republicans back into Congress, progress will continue to be painful and slow.

Well, that's my opinion anyway. :)
 
Hey jpccusa,

I feel the same way only towards the Democrats.

I think the only thing we will ever agree on is that America needs a third party.

Love the Fatman
 
I am generally not fond of any of the Republicrats...

The Republicans want to control what people do in their bedroom. But the Democrats make up most of the politicians on the payroll of the animal rights groups. They are the ones most likely to vote against our reptile hobby and industry.

I am on the fence about tax cuts for the rich. On one hand, seems like they shouldn't need it - although that is what everyone always says about somebody who has more than they do. OTOH, higher taxes for ANYONE are usually a de-motivating factor. There is a certain point beyond which it doesn't seem to make sense to work harder or to be more productive if one feels that too much of his or her effort will not benefit them and their family directly. And many of the rich are probably employers. If they suddenly get hit with higher taxes, they may not be willing to risk adding new employees, or even keeping all that they have right now.

I am no economist. But it seems dishonest that politicians go on tv and say that the tax cuts will cost $xxx. While I am sure the cuts must cost SOMETHING, I doubt that anyone ever tries to figure out how much is GAINED from higher productivity in a low tax situation. In fact, I read a few years ago that the U.S. was preaching exactly that tactic - low taxes - to some third world countries, telling them it would increase productivity. But then politicians tell US it will cost us a lot. Typical political double talk. Unfortunately, it has been too long and I can't remember the details.
 
To exemplify my point:

'Don't ask, don't tell' fails to make it to Senate floor
Republicans block a vote on a defense bill that includes the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' the policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military.

WASHINGTON — Despite Democratic efforts, Republicans on Thursday prevented a vote on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, putting the repeal of a ban on gays serving openly in the military in doubt.

Senate Democrats had been working to reach an agreement with Republicans to allow time to debate the broader defense authorization bill that would include the repeal of the ban. Republicans have vowed to block any votes until after resolving the unrelated issue of expiring tax cuts.

Nonetheless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday called for the vote that included an offer of limited debate on the authorization bill. The vote was 57-40, short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill for consideration.

With one week remaining until the scheduled end of this Congress, it is unclear whether lawmakers who have spent months pushing to end the ban will be able to revisit the issue.

A chief sponsor of repealing the ban on gays in the military, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said the Senate should remain in session through the Christmas holiday season to pass the bill, which he calls the civil-rights issue of this era.

Failing to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" before Congress adjourns would be a blow to a top Obama administration priority and end the effort for the foreseeable future. When the new Congress convenes in January, the effort would face opposition from an emboldened GOP in both the House and Senate.

Some Republicans do support a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy but objected to how Democrats proceeded in bringing the legislation to the floor.

Speaking at the White House on Thursday, press secretary Robert Gibbs urged lawmakers to act.

"The president strongly believes that one of two things is going to happen. Either Congress is going to solve this legislatively, or the courts are going to decide this," he said. "Congress has to ask themselves how they want to end it and what role they want to play in ensuring that it's done in an orderly way."

A Pentagon report has said that repealing the ban that had been installed during the Clinton administration would not substantially disrupt the military, even during wartime as troops are engaged in Afghanistan.

In the report, a majority of service members said they would not object to serving with gay troops, though the Marine commandant has expressed concerns about repealing the ban while troops are engaged in combat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/sc-dc-dont-ask-dont-tell-vote-20101209,0,5152102.story
 
Exactly! I find it disgusting that they often want to regulate what people do in private - not their concern!

But here is an except from a letter from US ARK about the HR 669 (anti exotic) bill concerning how the Dems vote on science and freedom vs political extreme environmental / animal rights agendas. The Dems will almost always come down on the side of humaniacs, no matter the science or loss of freedom. The Republicans only do that sometimes (big improvement, haha!):

(you can read the whole letter here - http://usark.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7&p=10&hilit=democrats#p10)

"...I just returned from a trip to Capitol Hill. Our lobbyist Tom Wolfe set up meetings with both sides of the Congressional Subcommittee considering HR669. We also did drop in visits to subcommittee member offices to make our case. Support was split down party lines. The Republicans support us and the Democrats oppose us. The Democrat side can win with a straight party line vote. The good news is that since meeting with USARK the Ranking Republican Rep Harry Brown, SC contacted me and has made this bill a priority. He has given us precise instructions on how to most effectively contact the subcommittee..."

This is not the first time the Dems have been against us. However, I do have to say that when our beloved Florida ex-governor forced the issue of banning big snakes (Reptiles of Concern) as pets, AFTER FWC and the private sector had already put LOTS of time and effort into coming up with a workable solution, EVERY Democrat AND Republican voted for the ban. Getting rid of scary snakes makes for lots of votes, even though the ban doesn't really make any difference - anyone in business can still keep, breed, or exhibit them. It was purely a vote and publicity stunt, and Republicans love it just as much as the Dems.
 
I can't understand that "dark side" of the Democrats. Usually they make sense, but like you said, the ban probably attracts voters hence is used for political stunts.

Another article from yesterday related to the OP (I wonder how people can defend this one... :headbang:)

Washington (CNN) -- Senate Democrats failed Thursday to win a procedural vote to open debate on a bill that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The motion for cloture, or to begin debate, needed 60 votes to pass due to a Republican filibuster, but fell short at 57-42 in favor.

While supporters said they would try to bring the bill up again, either on its own or as part of other legislation to be considered, the vote Thursday jeopardized the measure's chances for approval in the final weeks of the current congressional session.

The House previously passed the bill on a mostly partisan 268-160 vote.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reacted to Thursday's result by calling it "a tragic example of partisan politics trumping patriotism."

"I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their wrong-headed political strategy and allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote," Bloomberg said in a statement.

Republicans complained that the $7.4 billion price tag was too high, while Democrats said the government had an obligation to help the first responders to the deadliest terrorism attack in U.S. history.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health Bill -- named after a deceased New York Police Department detective who had worked in the toxic plume at ground zero -- seeks to provide free medical coverage for responders and survivors who were exposed to toxins after the attacks.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/09/senate.9.11.responders/
 
And just to be clear, see bold fonts.

From previous post:
Republicans complained that the $7.4 billion price tag was too high, while Democrats said the government had an obligation to help the first responders to the deadliest terrorism attack in U.S. history.

The temperature in Washington dipped into the 20s last week, and here in the capital, that seems to be the point when hell freezes over: President Obama reached an agreement on the Bush tax cuts with the Republican Senate leader who said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Sen. Bernard Sanders, a socialist from Vermont, and Sen. Jim DeMint, an arch-conservative from South Carolina, threatened to filibuster the agreement. Liberal Democrats said they'd prefer a permanent extension of most of the tax cuts, and the architect of those cuts said the country couldn't afford anything more than a temporary extension.

It's been a little confusing.

But it's also been clarifying. The tax-cut deal, in which the Republicans will give the White House about $300 billion in stimulus in return for the White House giving Republicans about $130 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, laid bare some old and new realities of how Washington works - and doesn't work - right now. It's worth going through them one by one.

1) No one really cares about the deficit. No sooner had Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles completed their work on the deficit reduction package than Democrats and Republicans reached a bipartisan accord to add $900 billion to the debt. Republicans wanted their unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich, Democrats wanted their unpaid-for stimulus measures and both sides wanted the unpaid-for tax cuts for income under $250,000. I think it's appropriate to spend while the economy is weak and then repay when it's strong, but then, I didn't just get elected to Congress by promising to rein in spending.

2) Obama is better at the inside game than the outside game. Sarah Palin likes to ask the president "how that hopey-changey stuff" is going. The answer, it seems, is that the changey stuff is going well, but the hopey stuff is proving more troublesome. Obama might have campaigned in 2008 as the inspirational newcomer who had no patience for the broken ways of Washington, but he has governed like a Washington veteran with little patience for inspired outsiders. In health-care reform, in the stimulus, in financial regulation and in the tax-cut deal, Obama has been a tough negotiator able to move his agenda through a gridlocked Congress - but he has not been able to enthuse Democrats or inspire popular support for his initiatives. He has been prickly when questioned about it.

3) And he's not over health-care reform. Among the president's most passionate moments during the post-deal news conference was his long, impromptu scolding of dissatisfied progressives who're making this into "the public option debate all over again." Obama went on to complain that liberals were so focused on the public option that they lost sight of the rest of the health-care bill - which was much larger. And he's right about that. But it's also time for him to get over it.

4) Republicans really, really, really care about tax cuts for rich people. Many Democrats had been operating under the theory that Republicans would simply obstruct everything Democrats attempted, as that was the best way to make Obama a one-termer. At least when it comes to tax cuts for very wealthy Americans, that's not true. Republicans agreed to far more in unemployment insurance and stimulus proposals than anyone expected, and sources who were involved in the negotiations agree that the mistake Democrats made going in was underestimating how much Republicans wanted the tax cuts for the rich extended.

5) It's still Ronald Reagan's world, at least when it comes to taxes. The Sturm und Drang over the tax cuts for the rich obscured the Democrats' massive capitulation on the tax cuts for everyone else. Even the party's liberals had accepted Obama's argument that the tax cuts for income of less than $250,000 - which includes the bulk of the Bush tax cuts - should be permanently extended. Another way of saying that is Democrats had agreed that the Clinton-era tax rates were too high. If you put it to most Democrats that way, they'd protest vigorously. The economy boomed under Clinton, and the Democratic Party is proud of the efforts it made to balance the budget. But Democrats are so terrified of being accused of raising taxes that they've conceded to the Bush tax rates for 98 percent of Americans.

6) We need tax reform, now more than ever. The end result of this deal is going to be an even weirder tax code than we have now - and the one we have now is pretty weird. We're extending old tax cuts and credits and adding new ones. Some of those may be extended further. Businesses won't want to see deductions for investments expire, and workers won't want to see the payroll-tax cut expire, and the super-rich won't want to see the tax exemption for estates up to $5 million expire. There are so many constituencies fighting for so many breaks that the only hope we're going to have when we actually do need to reduce the deficit - which isn't yet, but will be soon - is to start from square one on the tax code.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002242.html
 
Back
Top