Obama's Best Moment

[Peace]

Read my initial post again, and then see if you have the common sense to correct yourself.

 

Here are a couple of clues to help since you were so challenged the first time:

 

Clue number 1: "...it's really time to give Obama the credit he deserves for finally working with the GOP to get some important things accomplished."

 

Clue number 2: "In fact, this isn't about the specifics of the deal at all."

 

But hey, if you read that and equate it to my considering the specifics of the deal as a great accomplishment, then I suggest you let the adults continue the conversation and you return to last month's Highlights magazine. I'm sure there's a puzzle there that will keep you occupied until we're done.

 

And what part of the above emphasized make what I said wrong. This is a TERRIBLE accomplishment. Not a great accomplishment nor a good harbinger of things to come.

 

You can retreat from your initial post now that people are on you about it but you see this as "Obama's best moment" and you didn't mean it tongue in cheek.

 

As ever, resort to name-calling when called out.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Peace

[Booster4324]

And yet LABillzfan sees this as a great accomplishment.

 

What you may be missing is he sees this as a great conservative Republican moment. Since this is considered a victory by the regular media, he is happy.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Booster4324

[PastaJoe]

The only part of this Bill that makes sense is the business R&D tax incentives- everything else sucks- they do need to help the unemployed but after a year on unemployment you have to say your job ain't coming back and switch to a work/training program which would probably cost more than unemployment in the short term but you need to stop the deterioration of basic job skills in the long term.

 

Just because someone is unemployed, it doesn't mean they're just trying to get their same type of job back. It's difficult to get a different type of job than what you have experience in because you're competing with others who have more experience, or if you're older they prefer younger hires because they are perceived to be easier to mold to their philosophy, or if you're overqualified they figure you'll leave if a job similar to your old one becomes available. And how can you spend your time and money getting retrained if you don't have any income to pay the bills during that time, and at the end of the day you're still not guaranteed a job at the end of the training. I went through all of that a few years ago, and we only got by after my unemployment ran out because my wife was working and a friend of mine hired me part-time cutting lawns for his landscaping business, but he allowed me to take off whenever I had a chance to interview. Alot of people don't have that flexibility. I had an MBA and 21 years of experience, and I was interviewing for all sorts of jobs, like working the stockroom at Toys-R-Us or doing telemarketing, where I was competing with high school grads for an entry level job. So I say give the unemployed whatever help they need to survive until they can find a job they can survive on. I'm working now, but I'm making less than half what I made at my last job, so I can't spend like I used to, which means my ability to contribute to economic recovery has decreased, as it has for millions of Americans, which factors into the slow recovery.

[IDBillzFan]

And what part of the above emphasized make what I said wrong. This is a TERRIBLE accomplishment. Not a great accomplishment nor a good harbinger of things to come.

 

You can retreat from your initial post now that people are on you about it but you see this as "Obama's best moment" and you didn't mean it tongue in cheek.

 

As ever, resort to name-calling when called out.

Gee, if only you had the ability to to tell the difference between "great" and "important."

 

9/11 was an important day. I guess in your world that means I believe it was great.

 

The fact remains that Obama accomplished some very important things in the last 24 hours, and if you would have paid more attention to his comments and less attention to finding ways to be critical of mine, you would realize the reason behind his intent is spot on: he's screwed, and he knows it. He had two years, and a full majority in both houses, to address the Bush tax cuts, and neither Pelosi nor Reid chose to do so. Following the November asskicking, he was staring down the barrel of having to raise taxes on the middle class because he couldn't get extensions for one group and not the other, even within his own party, and that meant breaking a MASSIVE campaign promise. You have to be a king-sized ideologic dolt not to see that reality.

 

So he recognized that what he would lose on the merry-go-round he could make up on the carousel. He compromised, yes, but what were his options? Explain to me what better options he had to get unemployment extended for up to three freaking years and not raise taxes on the middle class?

 

Can you explain that to me? Can you?

 

You can't, and you know you can't.

 

Jesus. I'm freaking defending Obama's actions to you and Booster, for crying out loud. But I'm the partisan hack. :lol:

[Magox]

So for how long should the unemployment benefits continue? 3, 4 or 5 years? Or until the unemployment rate gets below 9,8 or 7%?

 

or what other metric would you use?

 

Or do you just extend them permanently?

 

And if you don't and let's say you stop giving extended unemployment benefits once the unemployment rate hits 7%, what about all those other people that are unemployed, shouldn't there still be unemployment benefits for them? Don't they suffer, and doesn't your reasoning still apply no matter how low the unemployment rate reaches?

 

At what point is enough enough? RIght now the extended unemployment benefits is at 99 weeks, which means people can be unemployed for nearly two years receiving these checks. The president just struck a deal to extend them for another 60 weeks, which means that you can recieve these checks for 3 years.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Magox

[/dev/null]

Then it's the perfect publication for a person who clearly has no reading comprehension skills.

 

Which is why he reads it with his 3 year old son. Read to the kid at an early age and then have them start reading back to you. That will help the kid learn reading comprehension better than any public school teacher, TV show, or DVD box set.

[LeviF]

Jesus. I'm freaking defending Obama's actions to you and Booster, for crying out loud. But I'm the partisan hack. :lol:

That's what I found most funny about that little exchange.

[Peace]

Gee, if only you had the ability to to tell the difference between "great" and "important."

 

9/11 was an important day. I guess in your world that means I believe it was great.

 

 

So now you're trying to say that this wasn't a "great moment," but instead an "important" one? That's a funny retreat and ALMOST makes sense...except you called it his "best" moment. Again, you are clearly a fan of this #$%^ed compromise and still don't seem to even begin to grasp why it is so awful for our country.

 

 

So he recognized that what he would lose on the merry-go-round he could make up on the carousel. He compromised, yes, but what were his options? Explain to me what better options he had to get unemployment extended for up to three freaking years and not raise taxes on the middle class?

 

Can you explain that to me? Can you?

 

You can't, and you know you can't.

 

Why would I? I am against extending the unemployment benefits. Whups. Guess you were off base there weren't you? How does it feel to have your high horse up your ass?

 

 

 

Jesus. I'm freaking defending Obama's actions to you and Booster, for crying out loud. But I'm the partisan hack. :lol:

Booster and I have nothing in common. Not that you could comprehend that.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Peace

[IDBillzFan]

So now you're trying to say that this wasn't a "great moment," but instead an "important" one? That's a funny retreat and ALMOST makes sense...except you called it his "best" moment. Again, you are clearly a fan of this #$%^ed compromise and still don't seem to even begin to grasp why it is so awful for our country.

His best moment. Obama's best moment. Jesus, can you really be THIS stupid?

 

Please show me where I specifically said the deal was "great." You can't. So there is no retreat, I made perfect sense, and you got caught showing off your lack of reading comprehension skills.

 

Why would I? I am against extending the unemployment benefits. Whups. Guess you were off base there weren't you? How does it feel to have your high horse up your ass?

 

Jesus, you really are unable to comprehend anything. I wasn't talking about what YOU want. I was talking about what Obama and his base wants, which is to extend unemployment benefits and not raise taxes on those under the $250K threshhold. Could he accomplish just those things right now? Not on your life. So how does he get them accomplished? By being the bipartisan president he promised to be and cutting a deal. For the first time the president chose NOT to force his agenda through both houses, al a Obamacare, and began the process of focusing on what he wanted and eliminating objections to reach his goal. How can anyone NOT give him credit for taking this stance for what he believes is best for the country, regardless of whether it actually is?

 

Is it really that hard for you to give Obama credit for getting what he wanted while also being bipartisan? Apparently so.

 

Booster and I have nothing in common. Not that you could comprehend that.

You all sound alike to me. Blah, blah, partisan hack, even when I'm giving the president kudos, blah, blah, partisan hack.

[Peace]

You all sound alike to me. Blah, blah, partisan hack, even when I'm giving the president kudos, blah, blah, partisan hack.

 

Tell me where I partisan-hack supported Obama and then maybe I'll consider responding to the other drivel where you claim you started this thread as a tribute to Obama, based on Obama's own criteria (sounds funny to even rewrite your own "reasoning").

[IDBillzFan]

Tell me where I partisan-hack supported Obama and then maybe I'll consider responding to the other drivel where you claim you started this thread as a tribute to Obama, based on Obama's own criteria (sounds funny to even rewrite your own "reasoning").

We've successfully taken this discussion to a pretty childish level, and I'm really tired of responding to your rabbit-hole logic. I never said you were a partisan hack who supported Obama. I said you sound like Booster in that you simply see what you want to see (that I'm a partisan hack) and no matter what I do or what I say, you can not get off that bridge. The simple fact that I actually have to explain this to you is all the evidence you need for this.

 

Consequently, discussing this any further with you is akin to the old adage about teaching a pig to sing, so let's just agree that either you have no ability to understand what I was saying or I didn't use the correct color crayon for you to understand it, and leave it at that because anything else is a waste of bandwidth, time and energy and nothing will be gained by anyone in furthering this childish dialogue.

[Rob's House]

So for how long should the unemployment benefits continue? 3, 4 or 5 years? Or until the unemployment rate gets below 9,8 or 7%?

 

or what other metric would you use?

 

Or do you just extend them permanently?

 

And if you don't and let's say you stop giving extended unemployment benefits once the unemployment rate hits 7%, what about all those other people that are unemployed, shouldn't there still be unemployment benefits for them? Don't they suffer, and doesn't your reasoning still apply no matter how low the unemployment rate reaches?

 

At what point is enough enough? RIght now the extended unemployment benefits is at 99 weeks, which means people can be unemployed for nearly two years receiving these checks. The president just struck a deal to extend them for another 60 weeks, which means that you can recieve these checks for 3 years.

Damn it!!

Every time I get that warm self-rightous glow of vicarious satisfaction radiating about my being atop a comfortable perch on my cloud in the sky, feeling especially virtuous due to my willing generosity with the public coffers and indignant scorn toward those who lack my magnanimity, some !@#$ has to come in and ask a reasonable question. You just popped the compassion balloon up in which Joe Spaghetti's post lifted me. Thanks a lot pal.

[Peace]

Consequently, discussing this any further with you is akin to the old adage about teaching a pig to sing, so let's just agree that either you have no ability to understand what I was saying or I didn't use the correct color crayon for you to understand it, and leave it at that because anything else is a waste of bandwidth, time and energy and nothing will be gained by anyone in furthering this childish dialogue.

 

Run and hide because you're getting whipped using your own words...that's a good boy.

[IDBillzFan]

Run and hide because you're getting whipped using your own words...that's a good boy.

What would you have us do? Continue this style of dialogue? Let's recap:

 

Me: This isn't a commentary on the deal, but good for Obama for working toward the middle.

 

You: Hey, everyone! He thinks it's a great plan!

 

Me: That's not what I said. In fact, I specifically said it was not about the plan.

 

You: Hey, everyone! He used the word important, and important is the same as great!

 

Me: Important is not the same as great.

 

You: Hey, everyone! He's backtracking from not saying it's great because he said this is Obama's best moment, which obviously means he thinks the plan is great!

 

Me: Seriously, that's not what I said. Read what I said and you'll realize you're wrong.

 

You: Hey, everyone! He said I'm a partisan hack!

 

Me: What the hell are you talking about?

 

You: Oh, boo hoo. Give me your milk money.

 

Only a lawyer on retainer would want to continue a conversation like this.

[Magox]

Oh, I know this game very well.. It's called whoever responds last....

 

WINS!!!

[TPS]

So for how long should the unemployment benefits continue? 3, 4 or 5 years? Or until the unemployment rate gets below 9,8 or 7%?

 

or what other metric would you use?

 

Or do you just extend them permanently?

As soon as we spend an equivalent amount spent by the Fed/Treasury to bailout the global financial system--so, I think we have a few years left...

[Booster4324]

As soon as we spend an equivalent amount spent by the Fed/Treasury to bailout the global financial system--so, I think we have a few years left...

 

Excuse me, I have to go quit my job.

[Magox]

As soon as we spend an equivalent amount spent by the Fed/Treasury to bailout the global financial system--so, I think we have a few years left...

Yaaayyy for incentives

[GG]

As soon as we spend an equivalent amount spent by the Fed/Treasury to bailout the global financial system--so, I think we have a few years left...

 

You mean the majority of the funds that have been repaid within 2 yrs? Especially the profits made by the government from the repayments by the evil bankers? So what's that total amount spent again?

[Rob's House]

As soon as we spend an equivalent amount spent by the Fed/Treasury to bailout the global financial system--so, I think we have a few years left...

You mean the majority of the funds that have been repaid within 2 yrs? Especially the profits made by the government from the repayments by the evil bankers? So what's that total amount spent again?

 

Had none of that money ever been paid back the initial argument would be weaker still. Throwing money into something means you have less to throw into something else regardless of whether you deem the latter more worthy. It's very basic common sense.