All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > FOR SHAME, REPUGS, FOR SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!
9/20/2012 7:36 PM
bad_luck
Game Rating: Prospect Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 3157 (0)
GD - 1

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2012 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/20/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2012 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/20/2012 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/20/2012 3:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):
So are you implying that the Republicans, in an election year, are simply spitting on Veteran job bills?

Are you stupid, drunk or both?   Do you understand the political process beyond cresten's funny pics?
I think the republicans have a strong incentive to do anything they can to block bills that could possibly help the economy right now. The average person isn't paying very close attention and a talking head or two can usually throw up the "this bill's full of pork" smokescreen and the story goes away. 

Do you honestly think that ANY bill passed today will have a profound effect on the economy before November?     Really?

No, but even a small improvement or the perception of coming improvement helps Obama. Romney is already a long shot, the Republicans can't allow jobs bills to pass with the election less than two months away.
Here's the problem with that theory:

Nothing will change, jobs-wise, over the next 6 weeks regardless of what bill passes.   So the thinking public sees this for what it is:
Liberal side:  "WE'RE TRYING BUT THE REPUBS ARE BLOCKING US!!!'
Conservative side:  "THE BILL WAS LOADED WITH PORK.   THE DEFICIT IS OUT OF CONTROL AND THAT BILL MAKES IT WORSE!!!"

There's no winner/loser in the passing or rejection of the bill.   Had it passed, here you go:
Libs:  "WE DID IT!!!!  JOBS FOR VETERANS!!!"
Cons:  "We let it go thru to help the Vets but it's full of pork.   We just passed it out of respect for our veterans."
I guess I just disagree. The economy (not the deficit) is the strongest argument against re-electing Obama. Doing anything at all that could possibly improve the economy (6 weeks is enough time to see a small improvement, especially coupled with QE3) is counterproductive to the goal of getting Romney in the White House.

Even if they truly believed that the bill wouldn't help, the chance that it might, or the chance that the economy will improve coincidentally (and allow Democrats to claim success with the bill), forced the Republicans to block it.
The deficit is a fine talking point/scare tactic.   "OMG, IT'S 16 TRILLION!!!!"

Over 8% is another.    It's countered with "1%" and "Multi-millionaire" on the other side.

People don't have to understand everything, they just need to understand enough.
Eh, talking points are bullshit. We all know the Republicans don't really care about the deficit and the Democrats don't really care about income inequality. The legislative records for both sides make that fairly clear.

The only thing both sides care about is staying in power. And, right now, doing anything at all to improve the economy helps the Democrats stay in the White House and hurts the Republicans.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
9/20/2012 8:46 PM
genghisxcon
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: All Star
Posts: 5285 (1)
HBD - 62 FCD - 11

Posted by edsortails on 9/20/2012 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 9/20/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by edsortails on 9/20/2012 3:47:00 PM (view original):
the pork appears to have been posted on page 2....did you skip that page or did you just not understand the tricky words?
I read that. It was pretty laughable. Basically, the government was funding work with the oil industry. The bill would withdraw the funding, and you guys want to claim that's "robbing" them? As if they were entitled to it? Hilarious. Talk about sucking on the government teat.
honestly, with this post it appears that you like to pick and choose where you apply your own logic


I get you want to support your side, but how is taking from X not robbing but taking from Y is?
Simply because you think Y is a more just cause? Isn't that the unfair, selective line of thinking that Dems claim is the GOP 'plan'?

Sigh. If I send you $50 a day for several years, then decide I'd rather give $50/day to cresty instead, am I actually robbing you?

On your honor, if this money were going to a green energy initiative rather than the fossil fuel industry, would you for one instant consider it robbery if it were discontinued?

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
9/20/2012 9:17 PM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25010 (8)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

Whether or not talking points are bullshit, they are the favorite tool of both sides.    And of course both sides want to keep their jobs.    It's rough out there. 
9/20/2012 9:34 PM
genghisxcon
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: All Star
Posts: 5285 (1)
HBD - 62 FCD - 11

Posted by antoncresten on 9/20/2012 8:51:00 PM (view original):
P.O. BOX 1262

BAYPORT, NY, 11705

TYVM!
PO Box?!

Don't you mean cardboard box?
9/20/2012 9:38 PM
mchalesarmy
Game Rating: Pro Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 683 (2)
HBD - 16

Here are the highlights:
2) There are already 6 other vet jobs programs in place, and they didn't have any numbers on how effective those 6 were
3) Planned spending for the program would violate an existing spending/budget agreement.

The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Research Program, launched by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), is a public/private partnership valued at $400 million over eight years that is designed to benefit consumers by developing technologies to increase America’s domestic oil and gas production and reduce the Nation’s dependency on foreign imports.

So while 6 vet job bills have already been enacted, and there isn't any data yet on the success or failure of these bills, we should take $ from the above project and claim it pays for another "jobs bill".

Even more ridiculous is that if we do a bit of math we can see that this was an 8 year partnership which began in 2005. So 2012 minus 2005 = 7 years. So basically we will take the last year of funding from this project (only 50 Million) and claim that it pays for an additional "jobs bill" that will cost 1 billion dollars?

If you want to claim the above program is not a worthy project, that is your opinion and your right. I don't know how worthy it is myself. Point is, no matter how you spin it, it is still taking jobs away from one group of people to supposedly pay for (when in fact it doesn't) a vet jobs bill when we already have SIX vet jobs bills out there.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to wait and see if the first six were successful before we throw another billion at the situation?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
9/21/2012 7:48 AM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25010 (8)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

Could we get him to cancel some fundraisers and save the American taxpayers some money?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
9/21/2012 11:27 AM
bad_luck
Game Rating: Prospect Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 3157 (0)
GD - 1

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2012 9:17:00 PM (view original):
Whether or not talking points are bullshit, they are the favorite tool of both sides.    And of course both sides want to keep their jobs.    It's rough out there. 
It's not a whether or not situation. They are. 100%. Bullshit.

They are for people who don't want to actually read or pay attention.


9/21/2012 2:15 PM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25010 (8)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

Repeating "We've been over 8% unemployment forever" or "Romney won't release his tax returns past two years" or "The national deficit is over 16 trillion" or "I pay a lower percentage in taxes than my secretary" are not bullshit statements.  They are actual facts.

They're turned into talking points because they resonate with the common man.   We're not a bright bunch. 

"ROMNEY'S RICH!!  HE ONLY CARES ABOUT RICH PEOPLE!!"
"OBAMA IS A SPEND AND TAX GUY!!   HE'S GOING TO TAX EVERYONE MORE!!!!"
9/21/2012 2:42 PM
antoncresten
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Hall of Famer
Posts: 7954 (12)
MLB - 257 HD - 3

9/21/2012 2:48 PM
bad_luck
Game Rating: Prospect Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 3157 (0)
GD - 1

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/21/2012 2:15:00 PM (view original):
Repeating "We've been over 8% unemployment forever" or "Romney won't release his tax returns past two years" or "The national deficit is over 16 trillion" or "I pay a lower percentage in taxes than my secretary" are not bullshit statements.  They are actual facts.

They're turned into talking points because they resonate with the common man.   We're not a bright bunch. 

"ROMNEY'S RICH!!  HE ONLY CARES ABOUT RICH PEOPLE!!"
"OBAMA IS A SPEND AND TAX GUY!!   HE'S GOING TO TAX EVERYONE MORE!!!!"
But we haven't been over 8% unemployment forever. And to assign blame to someone for that situation, you need context. Talking points don't allow for context.

Same with tax rates and secretaries. It may be factual that Romney only paid 13% in taxes on his $21 million in income, but you still need more information before you (not you personally) start yelling.

Context before outrage.


This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
of 8
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > FOR SHAME, REPUGS, FOR SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2013 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.