I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

[Ame®icano]

No doubt it's going to be one of the key issues. There is a strong majority support for a MW increase. The demographics don't support the Repub position( on other issues as well), and allow for a win in 16'.

Now does matter what Americans want? Americans also want for example to present ID when voting, they also want traditional marriage, etc.

Poll: 60 percent of likely voters back gay marriage
Read more: Poll 60 percent of likely voters back gay marriage - Steven Shepard - POLITICO

And how those likely voters actually did on elections?

What about will of the people thru ballot box? 34 states voted on defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

No, that doesn't count. Polls are better.

We don't vote on civil rights.
Repubs as recently as last month tried to enact a very unpopular law in Indiana. The backlash was significant. With poll numbers like I showed, Repubs should choose their battles more wisely in the run up to 16'.

Backlash was from the very loud few. If law was discriminating, they should challenge it in court. Like civil people do.

 

[kaz]

So, why are Dems asking for minimum to be raised to $10 if that's not enough?!

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

I'm not going to explain basic history to you people other than to say Reagan traded 3-1 tax cuts to Tip for spending cuts. Tip suckered him and never gave him the spending cuts. Also, Reagan's priority was to bring down the Soviet Union. So he made deals with Tip.

Neither of those support the ridiculous assertion that Reagan is the one who spent the money. If you want to continue this discussion then you have to accurately portray basic history. You are free to disagree with me, but not knowing anything or your actually contradicting history I'm not interested in doing

 

[kaz]

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

Congress passes spending bills. Or did you forget that part?

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

So when Reagan negotiated his priorities and traded those to Tip and the Democratic congress and Tip wanted big domestic spending and his congress passed that, all that is Reagan spending the money.

He should have said defense spending and tax cuts and no domestic increases and refused to deal or sign anything else with the Democratic Congress? Tell me again how the Republicans now are the do nothing Congress? My reference is obvious, but admit it, you don't get it, do you?

 

[kaz]

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

Congress passes spending bills. Or did you forget that part?

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

Was there some point you are trying to make?

Yes, he's trying to make the point that when Democratic congresses spend money on Democratic priorities that is the Republicans spending money. Democrats are incapable of manning up to what they do

 

[Iceweasel]

We don't vote on civil rights.
Repubs as recently as last month tried to enact a very unpopular law in Indiana. The backlash was significant. With poll numbers like I showed, Repubs should choose their battles more wisely in the run up to 16'.

Very unpopular? WTF? Oh, you mean with corporate tycoons, leftists and media jackals. There's more to America than that. The real America showed their support and put money where there mouths weren't. Totally opposite of liberals.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So, why are Dems asking for minimum to be raised to $10 if that's not enough?!

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

I'm not going to explain basic history to you people other than to say Reagan traded 3-1 tax cuts to Tip for spending cuts. Tip suckered him and never gave him the spending cuts. Also, Reagan's priority was to bring down the Soviet Union. So he made deals with Tip.

Neither of those support the ridiculous assertion that Reagan is the one who spent the money. If you want to continue this discussion then you have to accurately portray basic history. You are free to disagree with me, but not knowing anything or your actually contradicting history I'm not interested in doing

Reagan didn't sign off on the spending?
There is a reason Obama never accepted the Ryan budget. If the Pres signs it, he agreed to it and then owns it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

Congress passes spending bills. Or did you forget that part?

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

Was there some point you are trying to make?

Yes, he's trying to make the point that when Democratic congresses spend money on Democratic priorities that is the Republicans spending money. Democrats are incapable of manning up to what they do

No! That's your assertion. You're trying to let Ronnie off the hook. If the Pres signs it , he owns it.

 

[Andylusion]

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

I'm not going to explain basic history to you people other than to say Reagan traded 3-1 tax cuts to Tip for spending cuts. Tip suckered him and never gave him the spending cuts. Also, Reagan's priority was to bring down the Soviet Union. So he made deals with Tip.

Neither of those support the ridiculous assertion that Reagan is the one who spent the money. If you want to continue this discussion then you have to accurately portray basic history. You are free to disagree with me, but not knowing anything or your actually contradicting history I'm not interested in doing

Reagan didn't sign off on the spending?
There is a reason Obama never accepted the Ryan budget. If the Pres signs it, he agreed to it and then owns it.

The Democrat congress over spent the Reagan budget, every single year. The president can give a suggested budget, but ultimately it's up to congress to spend the money. Just like under Clinton, the Republican congress UNDER spent the Clinton Budget every single year.

The Reagan administration tried to cut spending, and the government increased it every single time. Reagan even wrote about his frustration on this issue, in his personal journals.

 

[Andylusion]

So, why are Dems asking for minimum to be raised to $10 if that's not enough?!

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not cuuhhoncerned with truth so whatever.

d

Damn strange that the debt followed massive tax cuts for the rich

DUUHH

Tax cuts do not cause debt. And if you actually look at tax revenue from those years, it went UP not down.

DUUHH.

What causes debt is spending money you don't have. The tax rates have nothing to do with it. If you spend $2 Trillion, and only collect $1 Trillion, you end up with debt.

DUUUHHH.

Of course the left is more interested in making snarky remarks completely disconnected from fact.

DUUUUUUHHHHHHH.

 

[Andylusion]

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

Congress passes spending bills. Or did you forget that part?

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

Was there some point you are trying to make?

Yes, he's trying to make the point that when Democratic congresses spend money on Democratic priorities that is the Republicans spending money. Democrats are incapable of manning up to what they do

No! That's your assertion. You're trying to let Ronnie off the hook. If the Pres signs it , he owns it.

Do you not understand that Congress controls spending, not the president?

 

[paulitician]

You guys have a big problem. You lump Entitlement Moochers in with hard-working workers. You express the same level of disdain for people out working hard, as you do Entitlement Moochers. You've painted yourselves into an ugly corner. You're forcing American Workers to turn to the other Party.

I have nothing but respect for those who show up and work hard. They're not sitting around mooching on Entitlements. You guys need to start respecting them too. Otherwise, American Workers will go with the Democrats permanently.

No, you are completely wrong. But what's new?

There's a big difference between the moocher sitting home milking Entitlements, and the person showing up for work everyday trying to get by. But unfortunately, you guys lump the two together. You show equal disdain for both. And that's just not a winning message. Average workers see no reason to vote Republican. It is what it is.

Most low end workers say they support Democrats and don't bother to vote because they think their vote doesn't matter. I don't think they mostly react to the rhetoric, but they do view the Republican as the rich party. What do you think would reach them? I don't really have an answer to that. They don't see themselves as free, so freedom doesn't do it. It doesn't matter what the reality is, that's their perception

They see the Republican Party as a Party that truly doesn't give a shite about them. The GOP isn't giving em any reason to support it. Most Republicans i know, show absolute disdain for struggling workers who work at places like McDonalds and Walmarts. They look down on them. They truly believe they're worthless. And workers are getting that message loud & clear. The Democrats have a big advantage. It should put them over the top in the next Election.

No doubt it's going to be one of the key issues. There is a strong majority support for a MW increase. The demographics don't support the Repub position( on other issues as well), and allow for a win in 16'.

The GOP lost the Minimum Wage issue a long time ago. Most just don't realize it. Telling struggling workers to shut up and be happy making shite wages, isn't a winning message. I don't know how they think American Workers are gonna support them. They're completely clueless. They're living in a delusional Corporate-Bootlicking fantasy world. Out of touch for sure.

 

[The Rabbi]

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

I'm not going to explain basic history to you people other than to say Reagan traded 3-1 tax cuts to Tip for spending cuts. Tip suckered him and never gave him the spending cuts. Also, Reagan's priority was to bring down the Soviet Union. So he made deals with Tip.

Neither of those support the ridiculous assertion that Reagan is the one who spent the money. If you want to continue this discussion then you have to accurately portray basic history. You are free to disagree with me, but not knowing anything or your actually contradicting history I'm not interested in doing

Reagan didn't sign off on the spending?
There is a reason Obama never accepted the Ryan budget. If the Pres signs it, he agreed to it and then owns it.

Where in the COnstitution does it say that?
It does say spending bills originate in the House. It is absurd to put high levels of spending under Reagan at Reagan's feet and low levels of spending under Clinton at Clinton's feet, while ignoring high levels of spending under Bush wth a Democrat Congress or low levels of spending under Obama with a Republican Congress.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congress passes spending bills. Or did you forget that part?

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

Was there some point you are trying to make?

Yes, he's trying to make the point that when Democratic congresses spend money on Democratic priorities that is the Republicans spending money. Democrats are incapable of manning up to what they do

No! That's your assertion. You're trying to let Ronnie off the hook. If the Pres signs it , he owns it.

Do you not understand that Congress controls spending, not the president?

He thinks the president controls spending as long as high spending is attrubuted to Republicans and low spending to Democrats.
IOW he is a lying Dim scumbag.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

I'm not going to explain basic history to you people other than to say Reagan traded 3-1 tax cuts to Tip for spending cuts. Tip suckered him and never gave him the spending cuts. Also, Reagan's priority was to bring down the Soviet Union. So he made deals with Tip.

Neither of those support the ridiculous assertion that Reagan is the one who spent the money. If you want to continue this discussion then you have to accurately portray basic history. You are free to disagree with me, but not knowing anything or your actually contradicting history I'm not interested in doing

Reagan didn't sign off on the spending?
There is a reason Obama never accepted the Ryan budget. If the Pres signs it, he agreed to it and then owns it.

The Democrat congress over spent the Reagan budget, every single year. The president can give a suggested budget, but ultimately it's up to congress to spend the money. Just like under Clinton, the Republican congress UNDER spent the Clinton Budget every single year.

The Reagan administration tried to cut spending, and the government increased it every single time. Reagan even wrote about his frustration on this issue, in his personal journals.

Ultimately Ronnie signed it every time.
So with your logic, any bill the Repub congress passes and Obama signs, good, bad or otherwise, then the Repubs own it and Obama is not then responsible for what he signed into law?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Congress passes spending bills. Or did you forget that part?

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

Was there some point you are trying to make?

Yes, he's trying to make the point that when Democratic congresses spend money on Democratic priorities that is the Republicans spending money. Democrats are incapable of manning up to what they do

No! That's your assertion. You're trying to let Ronnie off the hook. If the Pres signs it , he owns it.

Do you not understand that Congress controls spending, not the president?

You do understand that the Pres controls what becomes law and not congress?

 

[The Rabbi]

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

Was there some point you are trying to make?

Yes, he's trying to make the point that when Democratic congresses spend money on Democratic priorities that is the Republicans spending money. Democrats are incapable of manning up to what they do

No! That's your assertion. You're trying to let Ronnie off the hook. If the Pres signs it , he owns it.

Do you not understand that Congress controls spending, not the president?

You do understand that the Pres controls what becomes law and not congress?

You understand that's wrong, right?

 

[kaz]

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

I'm not going to explain basic history to you people other than to say Reagan traded 3-1 tax cuts to Tip for spending cuts. Tip suckered him and never gave him the spending cuts. Also, Reagan's priority was to bring down the Soviet Union. So he made deals with Tip.

Neither of those support the ridiculous assertion that Reagan is the one who spent the money. If you want to continue this discussion then you have to accurately portray basic history. You are free to disagree with me, but not knowing anything or your actually contradicting history I'm not interested in doing

Reagan didn't sign off on the spending?
There is a reason Obama never accepted the Ryan budget. If the Pres signs it, he agreed to it and then owns it.

How do you figure that when congress passes a budget and the President signs it, that it's all on the President? So why can't the President just dictate the budget then? They don't even get a vote, did you know that? But congress passes a budget and the President signs it and now congress is Pontius Pilate? They are absolved? That's just stupid

So if Reagan said now and government shut down, you'd blame the Democrats, right?

 

[kaz]

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

Was there some point you are trying to make?

Yes, he's trying to make the point that when Democratic congresses spend money on Democratic priorities that is the Republicans spending money. Democrats are incapable of manning up to what they do

No! That's your assertion. You're trying to let Ronnie off the hook. If the Pres signs it , he owns it.

Do you not understand that Congress controls spending, not the president?

You do understand that the Pres controls what becomes law and not congress?

Bull, you failed civics, didn't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

When you re-write history you lose my interest. Tip O'Neill and the Democratic congress were the spenders, but you're obviously not concerned with truth so whatever.

How does congress spend when the Pres has to sign off on it ?

I'm not going to explain basic history to you people other than to say Reagan traded 3-1 tax cuts to Tip for spending cuts. Tip suckered him and never gave him the spending cuts. Also, Reagan's priority was to bring down the Soviet Union. So he made deals with Tip.

Neither of those support the ridiculous assertion that Reagan is the one who spent the money. If you want to continue this discussion then you have to accurately portray basic history. You are free to disagree with me, but not knowing anything or your actually contradicting history I'm not interested in doing

Reagan didn't sign off on the spending?
There is a reason Obama never accepted the Ryan budget. If the Pres signs it, he agreed to it and then owns it.

The Democrat congress over spent the Reagan budget, every single year. The president can give a suggested budget, but ultimately it's up to congress to spend the money. Just like under Clinton, the Republican congress UNDER spent the Clinton Budget every single year.

The Reagan administration tried to cut spending, and the government increased it every single time. Reagan even wrote about his frustration on this issue, in his personal journals.

Ultimately Ronnie signed it every time.
So with your logic, any bill the Repub congress passes and Obama signs, good, bad or otherwise, then the Repubs own it and Obama is not then responsible for what he signed into law?

Are you agreeing that Republicans nearly eliminated the deficit under Clinton?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Who signs the bill to make it a law Dr. Dumble?

Was there some point you are trying to make?

Yes, he's trying to make the point that when Democratic congresses spend money on Democratic priorities that is the Republicans spending money. Democrats are incapable of manning up to what they do

No! That's your assertion. You're trying to let Ronnie off the hook. If the Pres signs it , he owns it.

Do you not understand that Congress controls spending, not the president?

He thinks the president controls spending as long as high spending is attrubuted to Republicans and low spending to Democrats.
IOW he is a lying Dim scumbag.

NO! Stop assuming you know what I think.
I think EVERY Pres is responsible for spending during their term.