Republicans kick some Democrat butt

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, Right, you'll stick with a PROVEN lie over facts then go on about commies. Typical right wing extremists who supports the GOPers

A couple of observations;

1.) This entire line of bullshit has not a thing to do with the thread or general topic. You post this because you are not able to formulate a thought - you just cut & pasted random idiocy from the hate sites.

2.) Nonsense in talking points over at the hate sites is not "proven" anything. George Soros does your thinking for you, we get it - but the fact that you unquestioningly spew anything Soros posts on his hate sites is far from the burden of "truth."

If McDonald's were to pay $20 an hour, they would be out of business within a year.

Unless they were to automate all of their systems and simply get rid of all of their low end workers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Costs NEVER increase for Biz right? *shaking head*

In business there is a concept, which you will never be exposed to on the hate sites that you cut & paste from;

"what the market will bear."

You are a communist, you don't grasp the concept of value. Americans are not willing to pay $30 for a Big Mac.

Where do they sell $30 Big Mac's?

How Much Would A Big Mac Cost If McDonald s Workers Were Paid 15 Per Hour Updated Corrected - Forbes

No one will buy a Big Mac for $7.25 - assuming the math used at Forbes is correct. Notice how the initial bullshit of $4.67 had to be corrected in your own article.

 

[kaz]

Still not jiving with the question, are you? The question was not why do you blame Republicans, which is just finger pointing. The question was to show how Democrats act in the way you want Republicans to act. Try to focus.

You mean like compromising on ACA, tax increases on the richest, smaller stimulus, etc? Nah, the Dems don't compromise *shaking head*

Compromising on the ACA? The Democrats gave Republicans nothing. What are you talking about?

And tax increases on the richest? We got no tax break, the W tax cuts were only continued because taxes on job creators, or as you call us "the richest," was stripped out. There was no compromise.

And no idea what you are talking about on the so called "stimulus" pork bill, what was the compromise?

 

[kaz]

I need you to be specific about what you are arguing. I am not really interested in answering random questions where you don't commit to anything. Are you saying Obama doesn't want to spend money? He isn't interested in regulations? Make your position clear or this isn't interesting.

It's not a random question.

Peach174 makes an overgeneralized statement on welfare programs creating dependency but does not define which ones, how or why. It's very vague and intentionally so. What this means is that the primary issues are not resolved. Hell, they aren't even addressed.

Let me show you something:
Federal funds spent on day centers for homeless people. They are only open during the day. Some have a night time shelter (limited) but many do not. There are limited services offered.......during the day. Many of them have opened not because they will actually help the homeless but because they remove the homeless people during the day time from the sight of people that have homes. Specifically from places like libraries where some homeless people go to read or because they have no place else to go.
Now, some of them offer mental health counseling but because of the short falls in the lack of long term mental health care facilities it's pretty much dismal. While it may provide an address for mail, it may not be enough of a legitimate address in some states to qualify for an ID or license. This was supposed to be a crack down on illegal immigrants but the result was that the homeless couldn't get an ID to be used for getting a job or anything else. While some offer aid in acquiring documentation there are many accounts of acquiring the paperwork and getting the holy crap beat out of them and having it stolen when they return at night to wherever they are staying.
If the goal was simply to keep them from annoying all the civilized folks and keep them out of sight then it has the capacity to achieve the desired goal. I'm sure lots of people pat themselves on the back at black tie affairs geared towards fundraising. I'm sure that they mean well.

Is it successful? You won't know because records are kept for a limited time. So, where is the accountability? You have demanded none. Where and why does it not work? Be specific.I'm not asking you to be specific with my example but yours.

Repeating the socialist mantra is not an answer.

I am not peach, so when you ask me a question where you're assuming I know what she said and that you're referring to that, I'm not likely to actually make that connection.

What I said was when you asked what bigger government meant, I was referring to spending and regulation. Homeless shelters are a tiny, tiny portion of the government. So you blew of Obamacare as not being specific enough, which makes no sense, then you dived into the weeds and went to homeless shelters. Obamacare is massive spending and regulation. And regulation is a tax because companies have to spend to comply. Homeless shelters is such a tiny portion of the budget I am not clear what debating that establishes.

So, other than homeless shelters, what are you actually claiming?

Regulation: Retaliation towards an employee, by either the insurance group or the employer, once you have found out that the individual has been diagnosed with an illness.

OK...and?

Exactly, and? It's not enough to say the ACA or say regulations and imply that as big government.
So what is the problem?

I still have no idea what you are arguing. You started talking about homeless shelters and said something about individuals with illnesses. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[kaz]

Yes, the Republicans suck. Which is why I always say the Republicans suck. That doesn't remotely address the question, which is about Obama, not W.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "big government" means to a right winger. I lean left on most issues, but to me, big oppressive government is big intrusive government agencies that spy on their own citizens. Big spending, to me, is wasting trillions of dollars on useless unnecessary wars. Just trying to break the code.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

 

[peach174]

Tell us the last time a two term democrat president had a follow up democrat president, Job. Tell us all about it.

Yes, AmeriKa people ARE dumb. I guess we can't fix stupid with soooo many red staters voting against their best interests?

As far as they are concerned they are voting for their best interests. Freedom from Big government.

 

[Redfish]

why? give us 5 reasons, no talking points, no bullshit, give us 5 real reasons why you think more dem leadership would have been better.

Well I wouldn't say I like the dem's leadership. I think they are pussies. I like the policies that they push however. Repubs have nothing to offer this country while dems do. Part of the problem is that repubs won't compromise on anything the dems put out:

1) Raising the minimum wage
2) Extending unemployment benefits
3) Jobs training programs in community colleges
4) SNAP benefits for those who truly need it (not me)
5) Consumer protection laws

1. 1% of american workers make minimum wage, most of them are part time teens flipping burgers, minimum wage is a non-issue
2. why should unemployment go on for 99 weeks? would you extend it forever? when is enough?
3. good, republicans support that
4. good, republicans support that
5. good, republicans support that.

got anything else? the real reason is the D behind your name, we understand, and thats just fine. But admit it and then we can discuss these things reasonably.

1) 1% make 7.25 an hour. 16.5 million people make less than $10 an hour. That's the problem I am getting at. If raised to 10.10, anyone under that wage would see theirs go up. I don't understand why you cons can't grasp this. Oh and the average fast food worker is 29 years old.
2) Not everyone who is unemployed is even on it. It's a win win for everyone. The Benefits gives money to people who would otherwise not be spending money. This increases economic demand which creates jobs. And no, not forever.
3) No they don't. Obama proposed that early in his second term and republicans blocked it.
4) are you kidding me? They cut the funding for it.
5) Um name one.

1. if minimum wage is raised McDonalds has three choices, raise prices, lay off workers, use more electronics and lay off workers. Which of those is good for the part time teens working at McDonalds?

2. where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits? do you have any idea?

3. being in favor of something but not being able to afford it are two different things.

4. same as 3

5. lemon laws, hazardous substance laws, anti pollution laws. there are 3 for ya

1) Actually the McDonald's CEO has said he would support the raise. What you fail to understand is the actual wage proposal. If raised to 10.10, the raise would be gradual over 3 years. This would give the market time to prepare. That proposed raise would only raise prices pennies on the dollar. Like I said, more and more adults are working at McDonalds. The economy is not like it was
2) Nowadays it wouldn't be paid for based on how low the revenue as percentage of GDP is, but tax cuts aren't paid for either now are they? Where's your outrage over that? I propose we cut defense spending to pay for it.
3) Do you even know how much this country spends on food stamps? Less than 75 billion. How many billions do you think we give to our allies? Way more than that.
4) Give me proof republicans support that. Better yet, tell me how many.

I can only speak for myself, if you want to know what the republicans in congress intend to do ask them.

I would cut the federal budget by 30% across the board, all agencies, all budget items, including SS, medicare, DOD, foodstamps, foreign aid, and congressional salaries and staffs. I would revise the tax code so that every working american paid something, not a flat % but we should all have some skin in the game.

I would also allow the billions in corporate profits that is sitting in foreign banks to come back into this country tax free. We are the only country that taxes profits made in foreign countries.

I would pass a immigration act that allowed the illegals here today to stay, after paying a fine and getting at the end of the line behind those who immigrated legally.

As to your lie about tax cuts, when the bush tax cuts (continued by obama) took affect, federal revenues increased, because the economy expanded.

 

[Redfish]

why? give us 5 reasons, no talking points, no bullshit, give us 5 real reasons why you think more dem leadership would have been better.

Well I wouldn't say I like the dem's leadership. I think they are pussies. I like the policies that they push however. Repubs have nothing to offer this country while dems do. Part of the problem is that repubs won't compromise on anything the dems put out:

1) Raising the minimum wage
2) Extending unemployment benefits
3) Jobs training programs in community colleges
4) SNAP benefits for those who truly need it (not me)
5) Consumer protection laws

1. 1% of american workers make minimum wage, most of them are part time teens flipping burgers, minimum wage is a non-issue
2. why should unemployment go on for 99 weeks? would you extend it forever? when is enough?
3. good, republicans support that
4. good, republicans support that
5. good, republicans support that.

got anything else? the real reason is the D behind your name, we understand, and thats just fine. But admit it and then we can discuss these things reasonably.

1) 1% make 7.25 an hour. 16.5 million people make less than $10 an hour. That's the problem I am getting at. If raised to 10.10, anyone under that wage would see theirs go up. I don't understand why you cons can't grasp this. Oh and the average fast food worker is 29 years old.
2) Not everyone who is unemployed is even on it. It's a win win for everyone. The Benefits gives money to people who would otherwise not be spending money. This increases economic demand which creates jobs. And no, not forever.
3) No they don't. Obama proposed that early in his second term and republicans blocked it.
4) are you kidding me? They cut the funding for it.
5) Um name one.

1. if minimum wage is raised McDonalds has three choices, raise prices, lay off workers, use more electronics and lay off workers. Which of those is good for the part time teens working at McDonalds?

2. where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits? do you have any idea?

3. being in favor of something but not being able to afford it are two different things.

4. same as 3

5. lemon laws, hazardous substance laws, anti pollution laws. there are 3 for ya

1) Actually the McDonald's CEO has said he would support the raise. What you fail to understand is the actual wage proposal. If raised to 10.10, the raise would be gradual over 3 years. This would give the market time to prepare. That proposed raise would only raise prices pennies on the dollar. Like I said, more and more adults are working at McDonalds. The economy is not like it was
2) Nowadays it wouldn't be paid for based on how low the revenue as percentage of GDP is, but tax cuts aren't paid for either now are they? Where's your outrage over that? I propose we cut defense spending to pay for it.
3) Do you even know how much this country spends on food stamps? Less than 75 billion. How many billions do you think we give to our allies? Way more than that.
4) Give me proof republicans support that. Better yet, tell me how many.

I missed your minimum wage rant. Here in NOLA not a single fast food worker is making minimum wage. Why? supply and demand. They have to pay more than minimum go get workers.

the entire minimum wage rhetoric is nothing but a dem/lib talking point aimed at dividing the country.

 

[westwall]

Tell us the last time a two term democrat president had a follow up democrat president, Job. Tell us all about it.

Yes, AmeriKa people ARE dumb. I guess we can't fix stupid with soooo many red staters voting against their best interests?

Your policies have seen the net wealth of the average American plummet dumb ass. They DID vote for their best interests. You're just too fucking stupid to understand that.

PLEASE tell me which policies cause that? Pretty please?

Bushs documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

OBAMA has been the POTUS for 6 years asshat. Blaming Bush for Obama's mistakes and ineptitudes is just simply stupid. As are you.

 

[KingOfCars]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

Well, RW, I pretty much disagree with you politically straight across the board. I will, however, give you serious props for being stand-up about your post, as much as I'm sure it might hurt to post what you did.

 

[Redfish]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

Well, RW, I pretty much disagree with you politically straight across the board. I will, however, give you serious props for being stand-up about your post, as much as I'm sure it might hurt to post what you did.

don't be fooled, he is not being straight or stand-up. he is just as disengenuous on this as every other topic he or his sock jake post on. He is trying to spin you up, don't fall for it.

 

[peach174]

The stock market is high because the fed kept printing money.

They stopped quantitative easing and the market is now at record levels

What do you blame now?

No they did not stop.
The official Quantitative Easing has ended, but the Federal Reserve isn’t stopping its interventions as the MBS purchases will continue at the same pace. It only wants you to believe it did.

 

[peach174]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

 

[rightwinger]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

Well, RW, I pretty much disagree with you politically straight across the board. I will, however, give you serious props for being stand-up about your post, as much as I'm sure it might hurt to post what you did.

don't be fooled, he is not being straight or stand-up. he is just as disengenuous on this as every other topic he or his sock jake post on. He is trying to spin you up, don't fall for it.

Shit....never realized you guys were such sore winners

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's a couple of articles that explain what I see as a positive move for the GOP.

Why the GOP Blowout Is So Scary for Democrats
It's not just that the GOP won key races across the board. It's that the party showed a new hunger to cross over to moderates and win.
<snip>
In 2008 and 2012, Republicans couldn’t pull this off. Party elites backed John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom had records of bipartisan achievement and ideological independence that might have made them attractive to swing voters. But McCain and Romney faced so much hostility from the GOP’s conservative base that in order to win the nomination, and then ensure a decent base turnout in November, they had to repudiate the very aspects of their political identity that might have impressed independents. McCain, who had once called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance,” made another such agent, Sarah Palin, his running mate. Romney, who given his druthers would likely have supported comprehensive immigration reform, instead demonized illegal immigrants to curry favor with the GOP base.
This year has been different: GOP activists have given their candidates more space to craft the centrist personas they need to win. First, in senate races in North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alaska, Tennessee, Georgia, Kansas and Texas, comparatively moderate Republicans triumphed over Tea Party-backed challengers. Then many of those Republicans downplayed their opposition to gay marriage and highlighted their support for greater access to contraception in an effort to win over the young and women voters who in past elections spurned the GOP as too extreme. “On social issues,” wrote Slate’s Will Saletan, “Republicans are mumbling, cringing, and ducking. They don’t want the election to be about these issues, even in red states.”
Why the GOP Blowout Is So Scary for Democrats - The Atlantic

The sobering message for Obama
<snip>
Conservatives will likely disagree, but one takeaway for Republicans is that they were well served this year by recruiting conservatives whom voters saw as less hard right than the tea party. Look at Cory Gardner of Colorado: The GOP establishment intentionally promoted him as an alternative in Colorado who -- unlike Ken Buck, a tea partyer who lost a few years ago (but won the conservative 4th Congressional District this year) -- would appeal to moderates as well as conservatives. Even The Denver Post endorsed him -- just as The Boston Globe endorsed Republican Charlie Baker, who wrested the Massachusetts State House from Democrats.
Midterms The sobering message for Obama Opinion - CNN.com
========================================================
This sure makes a lot of sense. The Tea Party had very little influence on this election. "The Establishment' of the GOP made efforts to broaden the appeal for the GOP label by attracting more moderate/centralist candidates and the Tea Party challengers didn't fare well in the primaries.
The Democrats really didn't offer up many moderately liberal candidates and stayed hard left. On the other hand the GOP moved somewhat more to the center and attracted voters they had been losing when the GOP veered too far to the right.

 

[asterism]

Newsflash!!!! Dodd-Frank and EPA regs were negotiated by the GOP house in order to pass spending bills. Affordable care act (not called Obamacare) is good for the country. I have seen with my own eyes octogenarians still working minimum jobs to buy medications and afford their Drs. The Affordable care act now allows them to retire as they should. The CEO of Bank of America received a bonus of 11.3 million after the 2nd quarter. I am sure he deserved it while middle income families struggle to meet monthly expenses..

Please show us where the Affordable Care Act allows seniors to retire.

Specifically, what were the changes to Medicare that lowered costs for seniors?

 

[Borillar]

Yes, the Republicans suck. Which is why I always say the Republicans suck. That doesn't remotely address the question, which is about Obama, not W.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "big government" means to a right winger. I lean left on most issues, but to me, big oppressive government is big intrusive government agencies that spy on their own citizens. Big spending, to me, is wasting trillions of dollars on useless unnecessary wars. Just trying to break the code.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

Sorry. I had you pegged as one. But what is "big government" to you?

 

[kaz]

Yes, the Republicans suck. Which is why I always say the Republicans suck. That doesn't remotely address the question, which is about Obama, not W.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "big government" means to a right winger. I lean left on most issues, but to me, big oppressive government is big intrusive government agencies that spy on their own citizens. Big spending, to me, is wasting trillions of dollars on useless unnecessary wars. Just trying to break the code.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

Sorry. I had you pegged as one. But what is "big government" to you?

I'm a libertarian. It's sad that you have to ask that. Big government is more spending and more regulations. What is it that confuses liberals about that? What else would it be?

 

[Borillar]

Yes, the Republicans suck. Which is why I always say the Republicans suck. That doesn't remotely address the question, which is about Obama, not W.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "big government" means to a right winger. I lean left on most issues, but to me, big oppressive government is big intrusive government agencies that spy on their own citizens. Big spending, to me, is wasting trillions of dollars on useless unnecessary wars. Just trying to break the code.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

Sorry. I had you pegged as one. But what is "big government" to you?

I'm a libertarian. It's sad that you have to ask that. Big government is more spending and more regulations. What is it that confuses liberals about that? What else would it be?

How much is too much? Should there be any regulation at all? Should people and businesses be allowed to do anything they wish and damn the consequences? Where do you draw the line or do you even draw a line?

 

[kaz]

How much is too much? Should there be any regulation at all? Should people and businesses be allowed to do anything they wish and damn the consequences? Where do you draw the line or do you even draw a line?

Right, there are Marxists and anarchists, there's nothing in the middle. Liberals are so interesting to debate.

Here you go, all your questions answered:

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum