jjamie12 Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 You have to bee willing to listen to, and sometimes accept things you don't agree with. That's a price of democracy Yes, but can't we all agree that we should agree with the things we agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Here's the thing, guys. If you can't get on board with President Obama saying (essentially) "We've got to start being fiscally responsible", then what can you get on board with? And I ask the question sincerely because you guys will never, ever agree with him more than when he calls for fiscal restraint. There are reasonable, intelligent people out there who believe that the stimulus bill wasn't big enough; that we'd all be better off if it had been far larger. There are reasonable, intelligent people who think that tax rates at the top of the income scale should rise significantly; that we'll all be better off with a higher marginal tax rate at the top. The reason I bring this up is: Why should he even try to listen to the other side of those arguments if all he's going to get is criticism, even when the other side agrees with him?!? If we want the political nonsense to stop, then don't we (who aren't even politicians) have to stop the political nonsense, too? Honestly, if billsfan1 (and by 'billsfan1', I mean all of us)is playing 'politics' rather than applauding or disapproving ideas on their merits, how is it even remotely possible that a politician will? Their main aim is to stay in the job. If we (voters) won't get past 'politics' in order to get to 'policy' then how can they? Simple. What Obama says and what he does are two different things. If he were serious about fiscal responsibility, he wouldn't have just unveiled his $3.8 trillion budget. He's actually be making big cuts. While you might call the people who feel the stimulis bill was too small "intelligent" and "reasonible", there was never a chance that the bill as it was designed would have produced favorable results regardless of the size. It is/was a piece of garbage that did little to "stimulate" the economy. It did, however, provide for the hiring of hundreds of thousands of new federal employees, the cost of which will burden taxpayers for a long tme. The government cannot save an economy through spending money it doesn't have. The numbers don't lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Yes, but can't we all agree that we should agree with the things we agree with? Yes...er, no. Maybe. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Yes...er, no. Maybe. What? Sort of reminds me of a sig. you once quoted from another poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 But that's the thing... How is it logical to boo the things you want?!? You'll only get less of what you want, right? You've got to agree with the things you agree with, don't you? You never answered my question, so I'll ask you once again... How is it possible that a man who's flying in celebrity chefs on the taxpayers dime, while the economy is in the tank, we're trillions of dollars in debt, and there are approximately 17 million people out of work, have the audacity to lecture anyone about fiscal responsibility? But it's ok for him to lecture congress because it's the right message? Obama has no ground to stand on. That's like wondering why people would criticize a John Edwards lecture to congress on why politicians should be morally responsible and hold true to their marriage vows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 ...off the backs of the people. First you put a hit on Vegas and talk to Americans like they're your children who need a scolding... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/02...hits-nashua-nh/ "Finally, shouldn't we all agree that we have got to do something about our deficits? These deficits won't just burden our kids and grandkids decades from now - they could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates now, and jeopardize our recovery right now. This isn't how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. And it's time your government did the same." Then you tell them to eat cake... http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...g_zZqP-tMM3DCFw "Think of it as take-out, but at the presidential level. Since bringing their well-documented high-end appetites to the White House, U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have broken new gourmet ground by inviting in a steady stream of the nation's top culinary talents." It's so good to live like kings and queens... http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/...enhagen/?hpt=T2 "Hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's how much it cost for a delegation of 59 people - led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with members of Congress, staff and in some cases spouses and kids - to go to Copenhagen, site of the Climate Summit, just before Christmas. House Speaker Pelosi attends a press conference at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. CBS News reports that for 21 Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,400; and the Total hotel bill - including meeting rooms - was more than $400,000. Pelosi used two military jets for herself and her party at a cost of more than $100,000 dollars in flight time." Another waste of time post. Really our government hasn't spending money on lavish meeting rooms, travel expenses and food/drink or years. Well I guess the light bulb just came on for some of you... must be JUST NOW their doing on the hill. Morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Yes...er, no. Maybe. What? Apparently, we can't agree with the things we agree with if someone we don't like is the one agreeing with us. So we've got that going for us, which is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 You never answered my question, so I'll ask you once again... How is it possible that a man who's flying in celebrity chefs on the taxpayers dime, while the economy is in the tank, we're trillions of dollars in debt, and there are approximately 17 million people out of work, have the audacity to lecture anyone about fiscal responsibility? But it's ok for him to lecture congress because it's the right message? Obama has no ground to stand on. That's like wondering why people would criticize a John Edwards lecture to congress on why politicians should be morally responsible and hold true to their marriage vows. What's the question here? How is it possible? Well... he's the President, he opens up his mouth, his vocal chords vibrate, sound waves are created... I understand your point. You think it's hypocritical. Fine. I get that; I've always gotten it. My point is that if you agree with him, why not say it? If all you do is B word about everything he says, even when you agree with it, how is that helpful, in any way? If Trent Edwards finally throws a deep ball for a touchdown, do you stand up and boo that because he was unwilling to do it before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 What's the question here? How is it possible? Well... he's the President, he opens up his mouth, his vocal chords vibrate, sound waves are created... I understand your point. You think it's hypocritical. Fine. I get that; I've always gotten it. My point is that if you agree with him, why not say it? If all you do is B word about everything he says, even when you agree with it, how is that helpful, in any way? If Trent Edwards finally throws a deep ball for a touchdown, do you stand up and boo that because he was unwilling to do it before? ...and you are instantly transformed into a quivering bowl of jello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 ...and you are instantly transformed into a quivering bowl of jello. It's plain as day that no matter what Obama and the Dems do you will be pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 It's plain as day that no matter what Obama and the Dems do you will be pissed. The same can inversely be said for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 The same can inversely be said for you. You think so, however, I am like a lot of people fed up with government as a whole. With that being said I am willing to give the Obama Administration more than a year to get things done. Not to simply attack him and their plans every step of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 It's plain as day that no matter what Obama and the Dems do you will be pissed. That's not true, I applaud Obama for finally owning up to the fact that he needs to work across the isle to tackle true bipartisan health care reforms. Obama and the Dems have only themselves to blame after promising "hope" and "change" ad nauseum for a full year, only to get in office and give America the middle finger. A heaping deep dish of Chicago style politics of just ramming things threw while bribing congressmen for votes, and having the backs of unions and trial lawyers. Hope and change became fear and loathing for good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 ...and you are instantly transformed into a quivering bowl of jello. Did you read the rest of the post? Have YOU responded to any of the questions I've asked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 You think so, however, I am like a lot of people fed up with government as a whole. With that being said I am willing to give the Obama Administration more than a year to get things done. Not to simply attack him and their plans every step of the way. It's always funny to me when I hear the argument of "It's only been a year" or "It's been less than a year" and "You need to give him more time," as if we agree with his policies, just not the speed in which they will work successfully. You need not be a conservative to realize that the administration's understanding on how to fix the economy and unemployment is, at best, ridiculous. Yes, it may give that occasional bump that makes things appear like they're working. I mean, how great is it that unemployment is at 9.7%, even though we shed another 20,000 jobs? Even Obama came out and said this was "encouraging!" So we should be encouraged that more people are giving up? Awesome! The reason you hear people groaning about this administration is not solely because we're eager to piss and moan (though, admittedly, many of us WILL piss and moan for the sake of pissing and moaning). We're groaning because funding pet projects to people who supported your campaign is NOT a way to stimulate the economy and put it on firmer ground. We're groaning because you don't need a degree from Harvard to understand that offering small businesses a $5,000 credit to hire someone is NOT how you address the unemployment rate. If fact, it should be embarrassing to EVERYONE in government who thinks this is a good idea in the current climate. It's like watching a horror B movie where the scantily-clad coed is walking toward a room where she just heard her girfriend screaming bloody murder. The right is yelling at the screen " Don't go in that room! Don't do it!" and the left is sitting back saying "Y'know, you need to be patient and see what happens when the door opens." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 A heaping deep dish of Chicago style politics of just ramming things threw while bribing congressmen for votes, and having the backs of unions and trial lawyers. The irony here is just... I don't know. It's in the air, I guess. Part of the reason for the 'ramming' and 'bribing' 'having the backs of' is that no matter what the President says, people like you in Congress kill him for it, rather than standing up and saying "Hey, that makes sense, I agree with this". I mean, that just makes sense, right? You buy that, don't you? Right now, here, today (ok yesterday), you're killing the President for saying "Hey, we need to tackle the deficit". By doing so, you're giving your own leaders political cover for voting 'No' on things like creating a bi-partisan commission to make recommendations on potentially raising taxes and lowering spending in an effort to tackle the very problem that has you so fired up that you'll go to a message board and start a topic and reply several times in a thread about. Don't you find that odd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 We're groaning because you don't need a degree from Harvard to understand that offering small businesses a $5,000 credit to hire someone is NOT how you address the unemployment rate. If fact, it should be embarrassing to EVERYONE in government who thinks this is a good idea in the current climate. This is just insane, LA. How can you possibly be against this? Tax cuts for small businesses. This is what I'm talking about... My sense is that you're against this solely because it came from President Obama's mouth. This type of thing is exactly what you're looking for, isn't it? Can you explain to me why you're against this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 What, in his quote, is objectionable, though? Everybody who feels like you do about fiscal restraint should be praising the hell out of a President talking about being fiscally responsible, right? What is objectionable is that he pays lip service to 'fiscal restraint' to fool people while in reality he has been horribly irresponsible on the issue.* * See the new $3.8T budget and the amounts needed to be borrowed from China. Now, let's hear him talk about 'jobs' while his party raises taxes on anything and everything related to running a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 This is just insane, LA. How can you possibly be against this? Tax cuts for small businesses. This is what I'm talking about... My sense is that you're against this solely because it came from President Obama's mouth. This type of thing is exactly what you're looking for, isn't it? Can you explain to me why you're against this? First of all, it's not a tax cut for small business, it's a tax credit to hire someone. Employers add staff for one reason: to expand. Employers expand to meet demands for their products or services. If there is no demand for products and services, as you see in the current economic landscape, then you're not in a position to expand. If you're not in a position to expand, why in the hell would you take on the added costs and liability of another employee? It's stupid. So this is just like Cash For Clunkers: the majority of the small businesses that are going to take advantage of this are either already going to hire, or are replacing someone who quit. You're throwing good money after bad, just like Clunkers. It's just that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Employers add staff for one reason: to expand. Employers expand to meet demands for their products or services. If there is no demand for products and services, as you see in the current economic landscape, then you're not in a position to expand. If you're not in a position to expand, why in the hell would you take on the added costs and liability of another employee? It's stupid. So this is just like Cash For Clunkers: the majority of the small businesses that are going to take advantage of this are either already going to hire, or are replacing someone who quit. You're throwing good money after bad, just like Clunkers. It's just that simple. Well... that's not really how it works, is it? You don't just expand to expand, or contract to contract. You only expand if the marginal contribution of that one employee is worth more than their cost to you, but whatever. This is like pointing out that something is a tax credit and not a tax cut when the difference in meaning related to the conversation is minimal, if at all. This will help many small businesses that are on the margins. You are correct (imo) in saying that if you definitely aren't going to expand, then this does nothing. However, if you're one of these companies that thinks 'maybe it's a good idea, I'm not sure, maybe it's not' then this tax credit might be the thing to put them over the top on hiring someone. Or do you think that there are no companies out there in this position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts