Senate passes 800 billion dollar stimulus without 1 member readind the actual bill!!!

[02dodgeram 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif I have a DEMOCRAT cousin who has a masters degree in political science that disagrees with you totally. There is nothing in that stimulus bill that provides long term jobs for the most part.

It's not intended to provide long term jobs. That's the entire point of "temporary". It's a band-aid to get us away from this nose dive the economy has been on for the last year. The good news is that we'll come out of it with energy transmission lines that open up all sorts of avenues for energy independence, healthcare premiums that I can afford, a high speed rail system that gets us back in the game with China, and back on the road to prosperity for the middle class.

umm no. this is why they had to pull off from saying this bill would create 3-4 million jobs to saying it will create or SAVE 3.5 million jobs. BIG difference:laugh:Just as saying he will cut the deficit in half by 2012...he already increased it by 33% within a month.

Saving jobs at this point is better than creating new ones. The cost of educating a new worker for nearly any middle class job is the person's salary for 2 years. If we can keep them in their current industry, we don't have to make that extra investment. I totally agree that he's backed off his original statement, but you have to get over that to see the net benefit. He's not an idealogue who will force himself to be right at any cost. He's flexible to achieve the best outcome. You can play the words game all day, and score political points for one party of the other, but at the end of the day, who gives a crap? It's about getting things fixed. Plus, when he was making those statements, we didn't know what the stock market was doing. Now that everyone's lost half their retirement and layoffs are bouncing off the red line at 160 mph, he had to change the phrasing. I'll also admit that he slid into "create or save" with his politician hat on, but if he hadn't, right wing news sources like Fox would have murdered him, and people wouldn't have understood why he was backtracking and default to the 2004 chant of "flip flopper, flip flopper!" like bafoons.

Even if it creates only 500,000 jobs, how much of a % is that of unemployed Americans?
This is straight from the BLS's website:

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)

was little changed at 2.6 million in January. Over the past 12 months, the

number of long-term unemployed was up by 1.3 million. The number of persons

unemployed less than 5 weeks rose to 3.7 million in January.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Kef

...and sadly, those numbers aren't even realistic if you ask the simply question, "How many people don't have jobs that want them?" After UI runs out, people are no longer considered "unemployed". I know people that have been working odd jobs for 2 years just to be able to eat. Once very proud and productive people that lost their jobs in industries that are valid and necessary (not elevator operators or wagon wheel craftsman).

that would be an enormous amount of money spent to create 500K jobs. He is looking into spending over a trillion more dollars over 10 years for his health care bs. I am starting to think he is wanting to double the deficit so when he cuts it in half by 2012 he would just have to go on vacation for a year.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

It's no doubt an enormous amount of money, and I'll be around a long time paying it back, but unfortunately it's necessary. I wish it weren't, but it is. The healthcare system will pay for itself with the amount of money it saves private industry. If you free up the union's healthcare obligations, and medium to large business's stake in paying for healthcare, they can turn that around in the form of investment, and it also creates a much more level playing field for global competition. One big reason that the larger firms outsource is to avoid having to pay for insurance for their workers. The government gets taxes based on those investments in the form of sales tax and capitol gains. In the long term forecast, it will hurt the federal budget for about 10 years as the immediate shock to the deficit evens out with the unquantifiable amount of extra collections in tax from tons of sources. It's basically the entire economic strategy of the republican party. Trickle down. It's not tax cuts, so it's more obscure, and much harder to point out in the yearly budget, but it's real and will go a long way to stemming the tide of outsourcing.

I believe his pledge about cutting the deficit is based on this year's number, the fiscal year 2009. But, I'll totally admit that I don't see that happening if he does what I'd like to see him do (and I think I see him doing so far). He's building the 21st century interstate highway system that Eisenhower did, which laid the groundwork for the prosperity and rise of the middle class in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The only difference is that it's in the form of broadband internet lines, energy grid nationalization, and healthcare. All three of those are going to be big dirty fights on capitol hill, and I'd love to see a few more republicans bounced out of the senate so we can stop the abuse of senate rules that makes them require 60 votes to pass something, which is constitutionally retarded.

I enjoy going back and forth about politics, so don't take anything I say as a shot at you personally. You're totally free to disagree with everything I say, and I don't expect to change your mind. Anybody that cares, probably already has their mind made up, so we're all just fighting for the idiots in the middle that don't even bother watching the evening news.

 

[w00tah 10+ year member]

that would be an enormous amount of money spent to create 500K jobs. He is looking into spending over a trillion more dollars over 10 years for his health care bs. I am starting to think he is wanting to double the deficit so when he cuts it in half by 2012 he would just have to go on vacation for a year.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Now, notice what you said.

Yes, 500k would be a small amount of jobs, in terms of the money spent. HOWEVER, with the number of people who would be off unemployment, that would be a windfall for the states who are shelling out TONS of money for the workers that have been laid-off or whatnot. Imagine what all that money being spent on unemployment could be used for if unemployment wasn't an issue anymore.

Add in the taxes that would be taken out of the new workers, and you can see the POSSIBLE upside to it. Can it fail? Surely, as nothing is set in stone. But could it WORK, even if it's not perfect? Yep.

Glad this turned into an actual discussion, instead of just a fun, free-for-all namefest. There's only so many iterations of douche that can be used //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Kef

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

It's not intended to provide long term jobs. That's the entire point of "temporary". It's a band-aid to get us away from this nose dive the economy has been on for the last year. The good news is that we'll come out of it with energy transmission lines that open up all sorts of avenues for energy independence, healthcare premiums that I can afford, a high speed rail system that gets us back in the game with China, and back on the road to prosperity for the middle class.

If you crunch the numbers that what 300k per job created (you will say lower I have actually seen higher)? Makes no sense to dump that kind of money into this for what we will get back out.

Saving jobs at this point is better than creating new ones. The cost of educating a new worker for nearly any middle class job is the person's salary for 2 years. If we can keep them in their current industry, we don't have to make that extra investment. I totally agree that he's backed off his original statement, but you have to get over that to see the net benefit. He's not an idealogue who will force himself to be right at any cost. He's flexible to achieve the best outcome. You can play the words game all day, and score political points for one party of the other, but at the end of the day, who gives a crap? It's about getting things fixed. Plus, when he was making those statements, we didn't know what the stock market was doing. Now that everyone's lost half their retirement and layoffs are bouncing off the red line at 160 mph, he had to change the phrasing. I'll also admit that he slid into "create or save" with his politician hat on, but if he hadn't, right wing news sources like Fox would have murdered him, and people wouldn't have understood why he was backtracking and default to the 2004 chant of "flip flopper, flip flopper!" like bafoons.

net benifit 300k per job is less than 2 years salary?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

...and sadly, those numbers aren't even realistic if you ask the simply question, "How many people don't have jobs that want them?" After UI runs out, people are no longer considered "unemployed". I know people that have been working odd jobs for 2 years just to be able to eat. Once very proud and productive people that lost their jobs in industries that are valid and necessary (not elevator operators or wagon wheel craftsman).

No but he and his party sure want to make 13 million illegal aliens American citizens....

It's no doubt an enormous amount of money, and I'll be around a long time paying it back, but unfortunately it's necessary. I wish it weren't, but it is. The healthcare system will pay for itself with the amount of money it saves private industry. If you free up the union's healthcare obligations, and medium to large business's stake in paying for healthcare, they can turn that around in the form of investment, and it also creates a much more level playing field for global competition. One big reason that the larger firms outsource is to avoid having to pay for insurance for their workers. The government gets taxes based on those investments in the form of sales tax and capitol gains. In the long term forecast, it will hurt the federal budget for about 10 years as the immediate shock to the deficit evens out with the unquantifiable amount of extra collections in tax from tons of sources. It's basically the entire economic strategy of the republican party. Trickle down. It's not tax cuts, so it's more obscure, and much harder to point out in the yearly budget, but it's real and will go a long way to stemming the tide of outsourcing.

Government can't fix health care, government sure the heck ignored the banking crisis for 5 years. The same people who said it was not broken are running the ship. Just like with global warming , health care is just another way for the government to weasel in on your everyday lives. We do not need a nanny state.

I believe his pledge about cutting the deficit is based on this year's number, the fiscal year 2009. But, I'll totally admit that I don't see that happening if he does what I'd like to see him do (and I think I see him doing so far). He's building the 21st century interstate highway system that Eisenhower did, which laid the groundwork for the prosperity and rise of the middle class in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The only difference is that it's in the form of broadband internet lines, energy grid nationalization, and healthcare. All three of those are going to be big dirty fights on capitol hill, and I'd love to see a few more republicans bounced out of the senate so we can stop the abuse of senate rules that makes them require 60 votes to pass something, which is constitutionally retarded.

Umm no he said by 2012 he will have the deficit cut in half. That is not saying anything will be paid off or even starting to be paid off. It technecally means he will only be in the red half as bad THAT year.

I enjoy going back and forth about politics, so don't take anything I say as a shot at you personally. You're totally free to disagree with everything I say, and I don't expect to change your mind. Anybody that cares, probably already has their mind made up, so we're all just fighting for the idiots in the middle that don't even bother watching the evening news.

LOL I watch cnn, msnbc and FOX. What is histerical is you are more than likely not old enough to know what the news used to be like. It never used to be kiss *** to either party or politician.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Now, notice what you said.

Yes, 500k would be a small amount of jobs, in terms of the money spent. HOWEVER, with the number of people who would be off unemployment, that would be a windfall for the states who are shelling out TONS of money for the workers that have been laid-off or whatnot. Imagine what all that money being spent on unemployment could be used for if unemployment wasn't an issue anymore.

Add in the taxes that would be taken out of the new workers, and you can see the POSSIBLE upside to it. Can it fail? Surely, as nothing is set in stone. But could it WORK, even if it's not perfect? Yep.

Glad this turned into an actual discussion, instead of just a fun, free-for-all namefest. There's only so many iterations of douche that can be used //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Kef

I think you should recrunch some numbers:laugh:

 

[w00tah 10+ year member]

I think you should recrunch some numbers:laugh:

And on that note, I'm out, I've said what I've wanted to say.

Kef

 

[Rashaddd 5,000+ posts]

and? Out of a whole economic system there are going to be things some people don't "like", notice I did say I realized it was smart business...
I just don't like that I don't have an answer to the outsourcing conundrum, companies need to do it to compete, but we need jobs here too....not knowing the answer to fix that situation is what I don't like

There is no way around it, that's like trying to find a way around profits, anything you do would be non-capitalism.

People need to realize and come to terms with the fact that as long as we are a capitalist country with capitalist businesses, we will never get to live to higher standards than unskilled workers, by doing jobs that unskilled workers can do.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

There is no way around it, that's like trying to find a way around profits, anything you do would be non-capitalism.
People need to realize and come to terms with the fact that as long as we are a capitalist country with capitalist businesses, we will never get to live to higher standards than unskilled workers, by doing jobs that unskilled workers can do.

And think our unskilled workers live better than most of the worlds unskilled workers. Heck in most of the socialist countries in Europe they are protesting because of the economy. Some odd reason that doesn't get much news play LOL

 

[Rashaddd 5,000+ posts]

And think our unskilled workers live better than most of the worlds unskilled workers. Heck in most of the socialist countries in Europe they are protesting because of the economy. Some odd reason that doesn't get much news play LOL

Yes, people need to realize how lucky they have been to have had that, and accept that it's coming to an end. With capitalism and the free market, everything will even out. If someone can do the same thing as you for cheaper, it is not worth paying you to do it. Period. Nobody cares that you're an American and nobody cares about the notion that Americans "need" jobs. Apparently other people need them more and/or are more qualified to do them (and I don't think that's the case...lol), otherwise they wouldn't be able to take them from you.

Unless you people honestly think you need the job more than some guy in china who won't be eating, clothed, or sheltered without it.

 

[02dodgeram 10+ year member]

If you crunch the numbers that what 300k per job created (you will say lower I have actually seen higher)? Makes no sense to dump that kind of money into this for what we will get back out.

In the short term you are right. BUT, the things they construct will be another value added. Plus, that number does not account for the expected cost of materials and other such "inputs". That's just adding up the stimulus tab and dividing by the number of jobs he expects to create, and it assumes the worst case scenario in every instance. Take the number $800 billion and divide that by the low guess of the president's estimate (3.5 million jobs created or saved). I come up with roughly $225k per worker without counting concrete, high speed rail cars, etc. The point is, they're treating it just like they treated union autoworkers. If you add up healthcare and pensions, sure it looks like they make good money. If the average middle class person added up all their benefits it might look like they make $55 an hour too. It's one of those logic jumps I described earlier. You can make numbers say something they don't if you go into it with an outright bias and skip details, especially when you have a trumpet on the cable channels. You can argue whether or not it's worth it, but the false logic demonization has to stop. Get to the hard data, and debate it openly.

And "earmark" and "pork" are two different things and a necessary part of government. That's what we elect congressmen for. To bring home the bacon. There's this big pie chart that we call the federal budget, and it's our representative's job to get as much of it as they can for us.

I'm purposely leaving out the economic track record of both parties because it skews the logic when you start with your loathing goggles on.

net benifit 300k per job is less than 2 years salary?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Training, plus a very low efficiency for the first year or two. Someone that's worked 30 years in an industry is going to have the system down, and work at what can be considered as 100% productivity. Someone with 5 years on the job isn't going to be as good as someone 30 years on the job. That's what that estimate includes, and it's widely accepted in the human resources industry for "middle class" jobs.

No but he and his party sure want to make 13 million illegal aliens American citizens....

Another problem that's gone unaddressed for far too long. Walls haven't stopped illegal immigration, and mass deportations cause all kinds of problems in the court system for families that had children after they got here, so do you have a better solution? I'm not a big fan of rewarding bad behavior, but again, I don't see a better answer being presented that has any chance at actually working. Even Bush pushed for amnesty. The right's argument is basically just angry populism, and one of the primary reasons that Obama won. The demographics are shifting.

Government can't fix health care, government sure the heck ignored the banking crisis for 5 years. The same people who said it was not broken are running the ship. Just like with global warming , health care is just another way for the government to weasel in on your everyday lives. We do not need a nanny state.

It'd be nice to be able to go see a doctor. I suppose you've got healthcare through your employer, but for the 47 million plus citizens that can't afford it, I'd sure like to see something done. Europe and Canada's systems are by no means perfect, BUT if you polled all of the citizens of all of those countries if they'd rather have America's system, you'd get a resounding "Are you crazy?" There's a strong argument that America invents all of the new drugs because of our overly expensive system, but they're still coming up with new drugs in Europe. All it would do is spread the cost around, instead of having us pay for all of the innovation. I could go on and on about healthcare, but the long story short is again, what's the better solution? Is it NOT a problem?

And yes, government ignored the banking crisis for 5 years. Fiscally conservative and Laissez Faire philosophy basically "did it", and democrats went along for political purposes so they could come out later and say "I told you so". That explains the last 5 years in a nutshell. I don't much care for Pelosi or Reid, but they're not the antichrist people make them out to be either. Being speaker of the house is a very political position and she was playing the chess game with peoples lives by allowing fiscal conservativism to play itself out more than I would have liked. They're smart people, as are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (the other two demons if you believe what you hear). Conservatives have latched onto them because they are in politically safe seats and are sure to be around for a long time, and they always need a "bad guy". Number one in the backs of every congressperson's mind is "don't kill your next election". That's how dems picked off three republican senators to pass the stimulus. It's a bipartisan problem, and it would be great to put in term limits, but guess who gets to decide if they vote on that. Fox, meet henhouse. Too bad our founders didn't think of term limits when they were drawing up that most sacred of documents.

Umm no he said by 2012 he will have the deficit cut in half. That is not saying anything will be paid off or even starting to be paid off. It technecally means he will only be in the red half as bad THAT year.

I don't really know what you're disagreeing with me on with this one. I said the same thing you did in my first sentence you quoted. I even went one further and said I doubt he can deliver on it. I fully expect this 1.2 trillion dollar deficit to go up for fiscal 2010, and hopefully it can start coming back down in fiscal 2011. A 2012 deficit of only 600B is pandering to fiscal conservatives and blue dogs. If he can do it, fantastic. I don't want to run deficit spending any more than we need to.

LOL I watch cnn, msnbc and FOX. What is histerical is you are more than likely not old enough to know what the news used to be like. It never used to be kiss *** to either party or politician.

I do remember it, but you've got me pegged about right. I didn't pay much attention to it back in the "good old days", when news stations were actually fair and balanced. The 2000 clusterf*** was when I first started paying attention. If you're a "good old days" kind of person, then unfortunately it sounds like the times have left you behind. It also didn't used to jump down the back of any politicians either. Either way, it doesn't really matter. We can look back fondly all we want, it doesn't have anything to do with our current problems. Are you alluding to the possibility that you'd like to see the ....... dun dun DUUN ..... Fairness Doctrine? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

That'd shut down both Fox and MSNBC overnight. CSPAN is my favorite channel. I like to stay up late watching senate committee meetings, interviews with authors, and "summits" (I don't get out much). I don't think anybody can accuse CSPAN of bias. They hardly even have a staff.

Campaign finance reform is the number one thing needed in federal politics. I think Obama just showed us a fantastic model to go by. I'm sure some Europeans probably paid for part of his campaign, but the model is worth investigating and regulating. Something like a website that lists all candidates for each race that can be monitored and followed up on. Fix campaign finance, and you'll start seeing "wasteful spending" drop dramatically.

 

[02dodgeram 10+ year member]

And think our unskilled workers live better than most of the worlds unskilled workers. Heck in most of the socialist countries in Europe they are protesting because of the economy. Some odd reason that doesn't get much news play LOL

And I'd really love it if we started wearing our feelings on our sleeves and taking to the streets when something we didn't like happened. It's part of having an informed citizenry. Back in the 60s the right demonized these people as "hippies". Instead we hear about the silent majority. Well nobody can really say what the silent majority thinks until the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November every 2 years.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

If there is one thing I hate...its a hippy

 

[02dodgeram 10+ year member]

If there is one thing I hate...its a hippy

**** straight. ****in' hippies.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

In the short term you are right. BUT, the things they construct will be another value added. Plus, that number does not account for the expected cost of materials and other such "inputs". That's just adding up the stimulus tab and dividing by the number of jobs he expects to create, and it assumes the worst case scenario in every instance. Take the number $800 billion and divide that by the low guess of the president's estimate (3.5 million jobs created or saved). I come up with roughly $225k per worker without counting concrete, high speed rail cars, etc. The point is, they're treating it just like they treated union autoworkers. If you add up healthcare and pensions, sure it looks like they make good money. If the average middle class person added up all their benefits it might look like they make $55 an hour too. It's one of those logic jumps I described earlier. You can make numbers say something they don't if you go into it with an outright bias and skip details, especially when you have a trumpet on the cable channels. You can argue whether or not it's worth it, but the false logic demonization has to stop. Get to the hard data, and debate it openly.
And "earmark" and "pork" are two different things and a necessary part of government. That's what we elect congressmen for. To bring home the bacon. There's this big pie chart that we call the federal budget, and it's our representative's job to get as much of it as they can for us.

I'm purposely leaving out the economic track record of both parties because it skews the logic when you start with your loathing goggles on.

Training, plus a very low efficiency for the first year or two. Someone that's worked 30 years in an industry is going to have the system down, and work at what can be considered as 100% productivity. Someone with 5 years on the job isn't going to be as good as someone 30 years on the job. That's what that estimate includes, and it's widely accepted in the human resources industry for "middle class" jobs.

Another problem that's gone unaddressed for far too long. Walls haven't stopped illegal immigration, and mass deportations cause all kinds of problems in the court system for families that had children after they got here, so do you have a better solution? I'm not a big fan of rewarding bad behavior, but again, I don't see a better answer being presented that has any chance at actually working. Even Bush pushed for amnesty. The right's argument is basically just angry populism, and one of the primary reasons that Obama won. The demographics are shifting.

It'd be nice to be able to go see a doctor. I suppose you've got healthcare through your employer, but for the 47 million plus citizens that can't afford it, I'd sure like to see something done. Europe and Canada's systems are by no means perfect, BUT if you polled all of the citizens of all of those countries if they'd rather have America's system, you'd get a resounding "Are you crazy?" There's a strong argument that America invents all of the new drugs because of our overly expensive system, but they're still coming up with new drugs in Europe. All it would do is spread the cost around, instead of having us pay for all of the innovation. I could go on and on about healthcare, but the long story short is again, what's the better solution? Is it NOT a problem?

And yes, government ignored the banking crisis for 5 years. Fiscally conservative and Laissez Faire philosophy basically "did it", and democrats went along for political purposes so they could come out later and say "I told you so". That explains the last 5 years in a nutshell. I don't much care for Pelosi or Reid, but they're not the antichrist people make them out to be either. Being speaker of the house is a very political position and she was playing the chess game with peoples lives by allowing fiscal conservativism to play itself out more than I would have liked. They're smart people, as are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (the other two demons if you believe what you hear). Conservatives have latched onto them because they are in politically safe seats and are sure to be around for a long time, and they always need a "bad guy". Number one in the backs of every congressperson's mind is "don't kill your next election". That's how dems picked off three republican senators to pass the stimulus. It's a bipartisan problem, and it would be great to put in term limits, but guess who gets to decide if they vote on that. Fox, meet henhouse. Too bad our founders didn't think of term limits when they were drawing up that most sacred of documents.

I don't really know what you're disagreeing with me on with this one. I said the same thing you did in my first sentence you quoted. I even went one further and said I doubt he can deliver on it. I fully expect this 1.2 trillion dollar deficit to go up for fiscal 2010, and hopefully it can start coming back down in fiscal 2011. A 2012 deficit of only 600B is pandering to fiscal conservatives and blue dogs. If he can do it, fantastic. I don't want to run deficit spending any more than we need to.

I do remember it, but you've got me pegged about right. I didn't pay much attention to it back in the "good old days", when news stations were actually fair and balanced. The 2000 clusterf*** was when I first started paying attention. If you're a "good old days" kind of person, then unfortunately it sounds like the times have left you behind. It also didn't used to jump down the back of any politicians either. Either way, it doesn't really matter. We can look back fondly all we want, it doesn't have anything to do with our current problems. Are you alluding to the possibility that you'd like to see the ....... dun dun DUUN ..... Fairness Doctrine? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

That'd shut down both Fox and MSNBC overnight. CSPAN is my favorite channel. I like to stay up late watching senate committee meetings, interviews with authors, and "summits" (I don't get out much). I don't think anybody can accuse CSPAN of bias. They hardly even have a staff.

Campaign finance reform is the number one thing needed in federal politics. I think Obama just showed us a fantastic model to go by. I'm sure some Europeans probably paid for part of his campaign, but the model is worth investigating and regulating. Something like a website that lists all candidates for each race that can be monitored and followed up on. Fix campaign finance, and you'll start seeing "wasteful spending" drop dramatically.

Thank you you just provenn this governments inefficientcy beyond all recignition:laugh: good ole times is good ole times Barack O'jimmy carter:laugh: typical left wing cocksmack..as a democrat it is easy as hell to sniff out. There will be democrats losing their seats as well over this crap and not by an election. Of course Pelosi will fight it like everything even if there is 100% guilt proven

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

also the dems won't touch the fairness doctrin with a 50 foot pole main reason if conservitive radio does it then TV will have to as well so that means CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and PBS would have to fire about 50% of their news team/writters and hire conservitives...same way with news papers.

 

[02dodgeram 10+ year member]

Thank you you just provenn this governments inefficientcy beyond all recignition:laugh: good ole times is good ole times Barack O'jimmy carter:laugh: typical left wing cocksmack..as a democrat it is easy as hell to sniff out. There will be democrats losing their seats as well over this crap and not by an election. Of course Pelosi will fight it like everything even if there is 100% guilt proven

I'd make a distinction between "this" government and "that government". It's interesting that you can read my points and get something totally different than my meaning. I figured I wrote enough to get the point across.

Jimmy Carter isn't to blame for half of the stuff he gets piled on him. The main culprit that led to hard times during Jimmy Carter was the Iran/Iraq war shooting oil prices up through the roof and creating false scarcity. It's virtually the same way this more recent problem started dominoing. The good news is that oil prices have come down recently, exactly when we need it the most, but it's going back up soon. Another great reason to invest in alternative energy and battery technology as soon as possible.

Pelosi will fight anything that goes after democrats, just like Boehner would fight for any republican. It's politics and every member you lose hurts your cause. They make a calculation about whether the damage done to the party is worth saving one member. Both sides will do it on a case by case basis.

You're trying to invalidate my points with emoticons and attacks, without addressing anything with logic. Again, I'd say that I'm not trying to personally attack you, but your logic on these particular points you've brought up.

If you're a democrat, who's your political hero? From your statement "typical left wing cocksmack..as a democrat it is easy as hell to sniff out. There will be democrats losing their seats as well over this crap and not by an election." I find it pretty hard to figure your political stance out. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

It doesn't matter how many photoshops of obama's head on an infamous person's body I see. It's not debating logical points. If you carry things out to their final conclusion, you'll get to a point where what he's doing starts to make sense. Now as Joe "footinthemouth" Biden just said a little while ago, there's still a chance that this doesn't work. We're just starting to slow down the dominos, and if we let something big go bankrupt, they'll start falling again. CEOs making tons of money and corporate junkets are perfect examples of unrestrained capitolism. Even sports have salary caps. That's total socialism. Joe's problem is he's way to honest and doesn't elaborate on his statements ENOUGH. My advice to him would be to either drop some of the blatant honesty or talk even faster so the news channels don't chop it up into sound bites. He was my first pick in the primaries, but I'm glad it worked out like it did.