Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[JBond]

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

Obamacare (deemed a massive tax by SCOTUS) was passed into law with ZERO Republican votes. So, it seems to me the Democrat Congress WAS able to pass that without Republicans... ergo: They could ostensibly pass anything they pleased. What YOU need to do is stop lying and running away from the reality of that. Only really stupid people will buy your bullshit... but then, that's what you rely on, right?

Yeah. It passed the Senate December 24th, 2009. During the only 4 months that Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. You'll notice that during an entire two years, the only two pieces of legislation that you Republicans can find to bitch about is the Stimulus package, which only happened because three REPUBLICANS chose to break ranks, and break the filibuster, and the ACA, which only passed the Senate because it came to the floor during the only four months of that entire first two years when Democrats actually had a filibuster proof senate.

Why wasn't there a flood of other "socialist" legislation to come pouring out of the Obama administration? Because, contrary to the retarded narrative that just won't die, while Democrats had a majority in the Senate for those two years, for the majority of that two years they didn't have control of the Senate. That would have been the obstructionist Republicans with their ever-present filibuster.

Says that party of Harry Reid. Obstructionism was perfected by that loser.

Oh yay. The Peewee Herman "I know you, but what am I?" defense.

Toddle off into a corner to play with yourself, you sophomoric imbecile.

347 bills blocked by Harry obstructionist Reid.

 

[Czernobog]

That's just it. I don't trust you. You are clearly a partisan hack who only sees things in terms of "Us and Them", and is convinced that so does everyone else. It's that skewed world view that gave rise to Donald Trump, and has been the cause of the obstructionism that Republicans have employed to make sure nothing gets done in nearly a decade.

You're damn right. That's why we put Republicans in charge of Congress: to make sure Democrats don't get anything done.

They had two years to get things done, and what did they do? Ruin healthcare for many of us. Put us further and further into debt with these Socialist programs while at the same time, creating record government dependents. Attack our banks so that credit worthy customers have to pay more for services so that the lowlifes who generally vote Democrat don't get charged late fees on their loans and credit cards. Even cigarette smokers seen huge increases in the cost of their tobacco.

So Americans had about enough of that, and we put Republicans in charge TO stop DumBama--not work with him.

Socialist Programs?!?! Surely you're not talking about the ACA!!! That was one of the worst power grabs for private industry in the last century! There is nothing remotely socialist about the ACA. Why do you think so many progressives are so pissed off?! We had an opportunity for real reform; for true universal healthcare, and, in his zeal to "get along" with the very party that promised to do nothing but oppose him on the very eve of his inauguration, caved, and gave us the gift to Big Insurance that is the ACA.

And, by the way, "They had two years", isn't exactly true either. You guys keep wanting to rewrite history, as if Democrats had free reign for the first two years of Obama's administration. Except that isn't how it was.

Now, Democrats had total control of the House, of that there can be no argument. But the Senate? That's another story entirely. The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon. On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats. Except that's not really even accurate, as one of those seats was Ted Kennedy's, who collapsed on inauguration night, and never returned, and Al Franken, who wasn't confirmed, and didn't get seated until July of 2009. Meanwhile Arlen Specter changed parties, yay us! Unfortunately, a month later Robert Byrd got sick, and was also out until July. Now, paul Kirk did temporarily fill Kenedy's seat, but that wasn't until late Semptember.

Now for anyone keeping track, that makes it Democrats 59, Republicans 41. To demonstrate how important this was, this was when Obama's stimulus package was passed. Now, it is true that not a single Republican voted for it. However, it would never have gotten off the Senate floor, had not three Republicans broken ranks in the cloture vote; Specter, Snowe, and Collins. So you guys can actually thank Republicans for the existence of that stimulus package.

Now, Kirk did give Democrats the 60 votes they needed to break any Republican filibuster. Woohoo! Democrats had total control of Congress - for four fucking months! That was when Scott Brown - a Republican - took over Kennedy's seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

This tard thinks three votes equals all Republicans. Sigh...

This tard thinks those three Republicans made the stimulus package possible. And, guess what? They did.

How old are you? Your ability to reason is childlike. So the Voting Rights Act is solely the responsibility of Republicans. Got it.

Obama threatened his own party members to vote for the ACA or else. The entire plan was Democrat all the way. Obama and his minions understood the importance of creating yet another entitlement plan to increase dependency on the government. The three "Republicans" that voted for closure are liberals regardless of who they claim to caucus with.

The one with reasoning problems is you. First, you are conflating two different votes. The cloture vote was for the stimulus package, not the ACA. Second, yes, or no, could the Stimulus have gotten out of the Senate, had those three Republicans, I don't care how you want to characterize their ideologies, not have voted to break the filibuster?

 

[Czernobog]

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

Obamacare (deemed a massive tax by SCOTUS) was passed into law with ZERO Republican votes. So, it seems to me the Democrat Congress WAS able to pass that without Republicans... ergo: They could ostensibly pass anything they pleased. What YOU need to do is stop lying and running away from the reality of that. Only really stupid people will buy your bullshit... but then, that's what you rely on, right?

Yeah. It passed the Senate December 24th, 2009. During the only 4 months that Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. You'll notice that during an entire two years, the only two pieces of legislation that you Republicans can find to bitch about is the Stimulus package, which only happened because three REPUBLICANS chose to break ranks, and break the filibuster, and the ACA, which only passed the Senate because it came to the floor during the only four months of that entire first two years when Democrats actually had a filibuster proof senate.

Why wasn't there a flood of other "socialist" legislation to come pouring out of the Obama administration? Because, contrary to the retarded narrative that just won't die, while Democrats had a majority in the Senate for those two years, for the majority of that two years they didn't have control of the Senate. That would have been the obstructionist Republicans with their ever-present filibuster.

Says that party of Harry Reid. Obstructionism was perfected by that loser.

Oh yay. The Peewee Herman "I know you, but what am I?" defense.

Toddle off into a corner to play with yourself, you sophomoric imbecile.

347 bills blocked by Harry obstructionist Reid.

Who cares? The question wasn't about who is more obstructionist? It was a dispelling of the lie that Obama had free reign to do whatever he wanted during his first two years in office, as Ray, incorrectly, suggested.

 

[francoHFW]

And, yet, here's a "Democrat/Progressive" endorsing exactly that - that public service be a part of public assistance. However do you explain me, in light of your gross over-generalization? I think it's hilarious how you characterize the agenda. We support immigration reform, because we need illegals - who can't vote - to vote. We support women's issues, not because it's right, but because we secretly hate women, and think they are too stupid to use birth control, but we need their vote. We support public assistance, because we're buying poor people's vote with free stuff.

Do you see a pattern here? While we progressives perceive issues of morality, and ethics, all you fake conservatives see is ways to sway voting blocks. One of us is certainly more focused on identity politics, than serving the people...

It's like I've said over and over: Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats. When you are a victim of poverty, you need a Democrat. When Republicans waged this supposed War on Women, you are a victim of Republican sexism. When Republicans want to throw your illegal ass out of the country, you are a victim of Republican racism. The list goes on and on.

Nearly everything the Democrat party does is to gain or maintain power. Oh sure, make it not look that way, but with Democrats, there is always an ulterior motive behind everything they do. Sometimes it's right in front of your face, other times you have to look behind what they set in front of you, but it's there, trust me, it's there.

Yup, lots of GOP victims for the hater dupes to bitch about. Also the hater dupes...lol

 

[francoHFW]

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

Obamacare (deemed a massive tax by SCOTUS) was passed into law with ZERO Republican votes. So, it seems to me the Democrat Congress WAS able to pass that without Republicans... ergo: They could ostensibly pass anything they pleased. What YOU need to do is stop lying and running away from the reality of that. Only really stupid people will buy your bullshit... but then, that's what you rely on, right?

Yeah. It passed the Senate December 24th, 2009. During the only 4 months that Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. You'll notice that during an entire two years, the only two pieces of legislation that you Republicans can find to bitch about is the Stimulus package, which only happened because three REPUBLICANS chose to break ranks, and break the filibuster, and the ACA, which only passed the Senate because it came to the floor during the only four months of that entire first two years when Democrats actually had a filibuster proof senate.

Why wasn't there a flood of other "socialist" legislation to come pouring out of the Obama administration? Because, contrary to the retarded narrative that just won't die, while Democrats had a majority in the Senate for those two years, for the majority of that two years they didn't have control of the Senate. That would have been the obstructionist Republicans with their ever-present filibuster.

Says that party of Harry Reid. Obstructionism was perfected by that loser.

Oh yay. The Peewee Herman "I know you, but what am I?" defense.

Toddle off into a corner to play with yourself, you sophomoric imbecile.

347 bills blocked by Harry obstructionist Reid.

347 total POS designed to be DOA propaganda pieces for their BS propaganda machine and the ignoramuses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who cares? The question wasn't about who is more obstructionist? It was a dispelling of the lie that Obama had free reign to do whatever he wanted during his first two years in office, as Ray, incorrectly, suggested.

He did actually. Filibuster proof? No, but he couldn't get much closer. The last time the Senate had 60 seats or more was back in the early 80's which was well over 30 years ago. Yet Presidents (from both sides) were able to negotiate and pass legislation left and right. But DumBama didn't have that ability, did he?

 

[Czernobog]

Who cares? The question wasn't about who is more obstructionist? It was a dispelling of the lie that Obama had free reign to do whatever he wanted during his first two years in office, as Ray, incorrectly, suggested.

He did actually. Filibuster proof? No, but he couldn't get much closer. The last time the Senate had 60 seats or more was back in the early 80's which was well over 30 years ago. Yet Presidents (from both sides) were able to negotiate and pass legislation left and right. But DumBama didn't have that ability, did he?

Now, Obama got nothing done? And this was because he was so ineffectual as a leader? Okay. I find that debatable, but thank for at least acknowledging that he didn't bury us in social programs, like you first suggested.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[OnePercenter]

Riiight. Because, you know, the law would be so terrifying.

That's exactly it. People would sooner go back home and live in freedom instead of a prison cell here in the United States.

This is a great country, but not that great of a country to live like that.

Or they just keep living their lives, working their jobs, not breaking any laws, and say, "Come find me, biotch,"

My wife has a suggestion that would end that nicely: illegal aliens should be rounded up en masse and shot.

You'd have to include Brickbat and at least half of the USMB moderators.

 

[francoHFW]

Who cares? The question wasn't about who is more obstructionist? It was a dispelling of the lie that Obama had free reign to do whatever he wanted during his first two years in office, as Ray, incorrectly, suggested.

He did actually. Filibuster proof? No, but he couldn't get much closer. The last time the Senate had 60 seats or more was back in the early 80's which was well over 30 years ago. Yet Presidents (from both sides) were able to negotiate and pass legislation left and right. But DumBama didn't have that ability, did he?

That was before the New BS GOP, the "no compromise, un-American TP GOP"- TIME. And the hater dupes....duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[OnePercenter]

Is Walmart prosecuted when they artificially lowers prices to undercut and eniliate competitors?

Your kidding. As much as has been written about Walmart racketing you need a link? Sad.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Riiight. Because, you know, the law would be so terrifying.

That's exactly it. People would sooner go back home and live in freedom instead of a prison cell here in the United States.

This is a great country, but not that great of a country to live like that.

Or they just keep living their lives, working their jobs, not breaking any laws, and say, "Come find me, biotch,"

My wife has a suggestion that would end that nicely: illegal aliens should be rounded up en masse and shot.

You'd have to include Brickbat and at least half of the USMB moderators.

Are you baked?

 

[OnePercenter]

Wrong. A free market is free of business regulation. If there wasn't regulation AND a government to enforce regulation we'd have a 2007-2008 economic collapse.

Wrong. You are conflating free market principle with free market system. Government regulations inhibit free market principles but they are a necessary component of a free market (or any) system.

The economic collapse of 07-08 happened for the same reason the one in 29 did... Government regulations impeding free market capitalist principle too much. This always creates artificial bubbles in the market. If the principles of free market are allowed to work on their own, there are no bubbles. Winners and losers are determined by the market, not picked by the government.

Does it all mean we shouldn't have any government regulation? No... that would be great if it worked, but it doesn't work. There are some things free market principles can't resolve because the incentives are all wrong. Like keeping the environment clean... there is no incentive to do this in a free market. So your system has to allow some amount of government regulation in order to address specific things the free market can't. But these things should be fiercely limited.

Socialists don't want to limit government regulations because they ultimately want government regulation of everything. They oppose free market capitalism and need it to fail. This is why, even when their own Socialist anti-free-market policies cause economic crisis, they blame free market capitalism.

You are soooo full of shit. Capitalist racketeering caused ALL of the financial downturns in the US. I should know, I am one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your kidding. As much as has been written about Walmart racketing you need a link? Sad.

That is sad? I think what is sad is making a statement that the largest retailer in the country fixes prices which is strictly against the law in this country, and you can't prove anything you claim.

That's what's sad.

 

[OnePercenter]

Riiight. Because, you know, the law would be so terrifying.

That's exactly it. People would sooner go back home and live in freedom instead of a prison cell here in the United States.

This is a great country, but not that great of a country to live like that.

Or they just keep living their lives, working their jobs, not breaking any laws, and say, "Come find me, biotch,"

My wife has a suggestion that would end that nicely: illegal aliens should be rounded up en masse and shot.

You'd have to include Brickbat and at least half of the USMB moderators.

Are you baked?

No. Ask Bripat if he's a US citizen. He won't answer.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your kidding. As much as has been written about Walmart racketing you need a link? Sad.

That is sad? I think what is sad is making a statement that the largest retailer in the country fixes prices which is strictly against the law in this country, and you can't prove anything you claim.

That's what's sad.

So tell us what happened to the MOM and POP stores when Walmart opened?

In Vegas alone we had 13 grocery stores close when Walmart opened their neighborhood markets.

Try to convince anyone that isn't price fixing. Good luck.

 

[Ame®icano]

We "round up" people all the time... you don't pay your taxes, you get "rounded up!" Fail to pay your traffic ticket or appear in court... we "round you up!" Steal credit cards or write bad checks... we "round you up!" ...this idea that "rounding up people" isn't something we do, is just stupid. We do it all the time. It may be tedious or troublesome, we still do it. It may take resources... we still do it.

If you were President Czernobog (a frightening thought)... and 10 million taxpayers who make over $250k a year decided... you know what, I am not going to pay anymore taxes! ...Would you support "rounding them up" or would you dismiss it as something impossible to do? I suppose you'd demand they be rounded up... but... but... it is going to cost us so much in resources! We'll never be able to find them all... It's preposterous to even think we could do such a thing!

And why haven't you answered my question from earlier? What is your deal? Why are you starting a thread to whine about lack of public assistance funding then switching to this open-arms benevolence toward the poor of the world flooding over our borders? Do you not comprehend how they are soaking up resources that could be used for more public assistance to actual American citizens? How they are taking jobs in construction that "poor people" would love to have?

 

[Ame®icano]

If those kids (now adults) were born here then they are citizens. So they are not at issue in this discussion. We can debate whether its right that kids born here of illegals should be granted citizenship, but for now that's the law.

My second comment is merely taking your stated position to its ridiculous conclusion, which is something you libs never do because it reveals the flaws in your ideology.

 

[Boss]

Your kidding. As much as has been written about Walmart racketing you need a link? Sad.

Everything negative that has been written about Walmart over the past 10 years is part of a concerted campaign by the Marxist-Socialists to bring down America's largest retailer. It's the same mindless attack on free market capitalism seen in the Occupy Movement and the 1% vs. 99% crowd. You couldn't care less about "mom and pops" ...especially if they read the bible or own guns. You're on a mission to bring down the beast.

You want to know who Walmart has been more of an asset to than anyone? It's the working poor. They provide a source for both low price products as well as entry-level jobs in communities all across America. Not only that, but they are civic leaders in every town. Teaming with Partners in Education to build tennis courts and playgrounds, fund library projects and other community services. They make millions in contributions every year at the local level.

Yes... Certain businesses had to close because Walmart took their market share. That's how free market capitalism works. And this dynamic changes over time.... we're now seeing a trend of consumers seeking more than low prices, moving away from Walmart. Maybe they seek a more convenient store with fewer selections but still low price... like Dollar General? Or maybe they seek more customer service and locally-produced items, organic foods, etc.? Free market entrepreneurs are constantly trying to pinpoint the latest trends. This is how businesses grow in a free market capitalist system, it's how Walmart started.

 

[francoHFW]

Yeah, who cares about small businesses? lol

 

[Boss]

Yeah, who cares about small businesses? lol

Walmart BEGAN as a small business!