LividBovine wrote:
How were both parties involved? From what I have seen it was a Democrat bill that they were trying to get the republicans to buy into.Varegg wrote:
So serious a situation I believe it was correct to involve both parties and they did ... normally I would agree with you but this can hardly be called a normal situation ... besides the work on this bill started before Obama took office.usmarine wrote:
wrong. the prez and his advisors would write it...not one man. you dont hand a blank check over to the nutters in congress.
you dig?http://www.rollcall.com/news/31650-1.htmlPelosi wrote:
Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes we won the election, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want sustainability or Republican support,” Pelosi said.
Wonder why only 3 Republicans in the Senate voted for it? Oh yeah, it wreaks of government program spending. I hate the fact that Obama has been calling on Republicans to put politics aside and vote for the bill. Isn't it a bit funny how left wing this bill is and he has the audacity to call out Republicans for not putting politics aside. A lot of conservatives don't want any kind of stimulus plan. Why in the world would they vote for one that is this heavy on spending programs they don't agree with?
I had the impression this was a bipartisan work, guess I was wrong then ... the news I have watched about the work on the stimulus bill it was clearly stated Obama invited the republicans to share their views on how to make this bill target the right issues to get the economy going, this was done so both parties would influence the outcome of the bill ...
That made me think it was bipartisan ... if totally a democratic bill I guess the reps passed on the opportunity and imo so much better for the US in the long run ... economic wise that is ...
That made me think it was bipartisan ... if totally a democratic bill I guess the reps passed on the opportunity and imo so much better for the US in the long run ... economic wise that is ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Obama called on all the republicans so he could try to sell his plan to them, he did not ask so much for input as for their buy-in. They didn't bite because the bill didn't contain more bias towards tax cuts than spending.
I strongly believe this is going to put us in the whole for a long time.
I strongly believe this is going to put us in the whole for a long time.
Coming from my far conservative viewpoint, this is not going to be good for the economy in the long run. This is a bad fiscal decision.Varegg wrote:
That made me think it was bipartisan ... if totally a democratic bill I guess the reps passed on the opportunity and imo so much better for the US in the long run ... economic wise that is ...
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Well ... history is on the democrats side when it comes to balance a budget ... but I get your point ...LividBovine wrote:
Obama called on all the republicans so he could try to sell his plan to them, he did not ask so much for input as for their buy-in. They didn't bite because the bill didn't contain more bias towards tax cuts than spending.
I strongly believe this is going to put us in the whole for a long time.Coming from my far conservative viewpoint, this is not going to be good for the economy in the long run. This is a bad fiscal decision.Varegg wrote:
That made me think it was bipartisan ... if totally a democratic bill I guess the reps passed on the opportunity and imo so much better for the US in the long run ... economic wise that is ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Yer right, and it only costs us a military and national defense.Varegg wrote:
Well ... history is on the democrats side when it comes to balance a budget ... but I get your point ...LividBovine wrote:
Obama called on all the republicans so he could try to sell his plan to them, he did not ask so much for input as for their buy-in. They didn't bite because the bill didn't contain more bias towards tax cuts than spending.
I strongly believe this is going to put us in the whole for a long time.Coming from my far conservative viewpoint, this is not going to be good for the economy in the long run. This is a bad fiscal decision.Varegg wrote:
That made me think it was bipartisan ... if totally a democratic bill I guess the reps passed on the opportunity and imo so much better for the US in the long run ... economic wise that is ...
Freedom isn't free, but I guess that is the problem, freedom isn't exactly high on the liberal priority list. Definitely not as high as say, govt. dependency.
Last edited by lowing (2009-02-16 03:50:16)
'Freedom' doesn't necessarily mean having a colossal military with all the latest toys, unless you enjoy paying lots of tax and a fiscal deficit of course.
Fuck Israel
And what do you base that assumption on ... you don't think we value freedom as much as you do lowing?lowing wrote:
Yer right, and it only costs us a military and national defense.Varegg wrote:
Well ... history is on the democrats side when it comes to balance a budget ... but I get your point ...LividBovine wrote:
Obama called on all the republicans so he could try to sell his plan to them, he did not ask so much for input as for their buy-in. They didn't bite because the bill didn't contain more bias towards tax cuts than spending.
I strongly believe this is going to put us in the whole for a long time.
Coming from my far conservative viewpoint, this is not going to be good for the economy in the long run. This is a bad fiscal decision.
Freedom isn't free, but I guess that is the problem, freedom isn't exactly high on the liberal priority list. Definitely not as high as say, govt. dependency.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Based on your beliefs in govt. control over our lives and private money, I can guarantee it.Varegg wrote:
And what do you base that assumption on ... you don't think we value freedom as much as you do lowing?lowing wrote:
Yer right, and it only costs us a military and national defense.Varegg wrote:
Well ... history is on the democrats side when it comes to balance a budget ... but I get your point ...
Freedom isn't free, but I guess that is the problem, freedom isn't exactly high on the liberal priority list. Definitely not as high as say, govt. dependency.
Maybe it is time to start warming up to the world you live in Dilbert. When jealousy is afoot, you need to protect and defend. Believe it or not, America is not liked in some parts of the world and it isn't because of Israel.Dilbert_X wrote:
'Freedom' doesn't necessarily mean having a colossal military with all the latest toys, unless you enjoy paying lots of tax and a fiscal deficit of course.
We may have different views of what freedom is lowing but we value freedom just the same ... or do you honestly think we love government regulation just for the fun of it?lowing wrote:
Based on your beliefs in govt. control over our lives and private money, I can guarantee it.Varegg wrote:
And what do you base that assumption on ... you don't think we value freedom as much as you do lowing?lowing wrote:
Yer right, and it only costs us a military and national defense.
Freedom isn't free, but I guess that is the problem, freedom isn't exactly high on the liberal priority list. Definitely not as high as say, govt. dependency.
When we accept a few regulations it's because the alternative you provide of total freedom can't work on a population of irresponsibles ... giving up a little control ensures a greater freedom for all ... both economic and millitary ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Correct ... it's because of America ...lowing wrote:
Maybe it is time to start warming up to the world you live in Dilbert. When jealousy is afoot, you need to protect and defend. Believe it or not, America is not liked in some parts of the world and it isn't because of Israel.Dilbert_X wrote:
'Freedom' doesn't necessarily mean having a colossal military with all the latest toys, unless you enjoy paying lots of tax and a fiscal deficit of course.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
nothing wrong with rule of law, that is not the issue. You want govt. control over our lives and money. You do not want responsibility for yourselves when you can shuck it off on someone else ( the taxpayers who you have wealth envy over) You want to make life "fair" through huge govt. that you want to decide, instead of its citizens, what is best for them and their money. No sir, you do not believe in freedom.Varegg wrote:
We may have different views of what freedom is lowing but we value freedom just the same ... or do you honestly think we love government regulation just for the fun of it?lowing wrote:
Based on your beliefs in govt. control over our lives and private money, I can guarantee it.Varegg wrote:
And what do you base that assumption on ... you don't think we value freedom as much as you do lowing?
When we accept a few regulations it's because the alternative you provide of total freedom can't work on a population of irresponsibles ... giving up a little control ensures a greater freedom for all ... both economic and millitary ...
Ehlowing wrote:
nothing wrong with rule of law, that is not the issue. You want govt. control over our lives and money. You do not want responsibility for yourselves when you can shuck it off on someone else ( the taxpayers who you have wealth envy over) You want to make life "fair" through huge govt. that you want to decide, instead of its citizens, what is best for them and their money. No sir, you do not believe in freedom.Varegg wrote:
We may have different views of what freedom is lowing but we value freedom just the same ... or do you honestly think we love government regulation just for the fun of it?lowing wrote:
Based on your beliefs in govt. control over our lives and private money, I can guarantee it.
When we accept a few regulations it's because the alternative you provide of total freedom can't work on a population of irresponsibles ... giving up a little control ensures a greater freedom for all ... both economic and millitary ...
I think I know a tad better than you what I believe in lowing ... we do want responsibility for ourselves and we have just that, the difference is we can also handle those that are not able to take responsibility for themselves for various reasons ... and mind you lowing those are very few in numbers ... while you don't give a flying fuck about them we take care of them and most get back to be productive members of society again while they increase in numbers in the US ...
We believe in freedom for everyone not the egosentric kind of freedom you believe in ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I wsn't talking about YOU, I was talking about American liberal ideology in general.Varegg wrote:
Ehlowing wrote:
nothing wrong with rule of law, that is not the issue. You want govt. control over our lives and money. You do not want responsibility for yourselves when you can shuck it off on someone else ( the taxpayers who you have wealth envy over) You want to make life "fair" through huge govt. that you want to decide, instead of its citizens, what is best for them and their money. No sir, you do not believe in freedom.Varegg wrote:
We may have different views of what freedom is lowing but we value freedom just the same ... or do you honestly think we love government regulation just for the fun of it?
When we accept a few regulations it's because the alternative you provide of total freedom can't work on a population of irresponsibles ... giving up a little control ensures a greater freedom for all ... both economic and millitary ...
I think I know a tad better than you what I believe in lowing ... we do want responsibility for ourselves and we have just that, the difference is we can also handle those that are not able to take responsibility for themselves for various reasons ... and mind you lowing those are very few in numbers ... while you don't give a flying fuck about them we take care of them and most get back to be productive members of society again while they increase in numbers in the US ...
We believe in freedom for everyone not the egosentric kind of freedom you believe in ...
I already help pay for programs that are in place to help people help themselves. Wheather they do or not, I really do not care. I have my own problems to worry about, I do not need to be burdoned by someone elses, especially when they refuse to burdon themselves.
but just like that liberal that begged Obama for a house instead of job so she could buy her own house, most would rather the rest of us pay for their existence. If you want to do this, then up your charitable donations and knock yourself out, do not tell me how I should spend my money that I earned for my family. I already give up a sizeable amount of my income for the " less fortunate"
damn!! I forgot, I was not supposed to mention the liberal that begged for material possessions and services instead of begging for a job so she could EARN it herself..WAIT VAREGG COME BACK, I WON'T MENTION IT AGAIN!!!!
lowing wrote:
damn!! I forgot, I was not supposed to mention the liberal that begged for material possessions and services instead of begging for a job so she could EARN it herself..WAIT VAREGG COME BACK, I WON'T MENTION IT AGAIN!!!!
Sweet irony, you can really be funny when you want to lowing .. I'll give you that
With that said you really can't blame people for having extreme wishes in extreme times ... of course she should not be handed a house for free, that is against all priciples for both conservatives, liberals or whatever ... quite ironic then that it was a rep that actually gave her a house
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I have my moments of humor I guessVaregg wrote:
lowing wrote:
damn!! I forgot, I was not supposed to mention the liberal that begged for material possessions and services instead of begging for a job so she could EARN it herself..WAIT VAREGG COME BACK, I WON'T MENTION IT AGAIN!!!!
Sweet irony, you can really be funny when you want to lowing .. I'll give you that
With that said you really can't blame people for having extreme wishes in extreme times ... of course she should not be handed a house for free, that is against all priciples for both conservatives, liberals or whatever ... quite ironic then that it was a rep that actually gave her a house
As for the topic, there is nothing ironic about after further thought. It is very typical for liberals to dictate what should be done with other peoples money, while they try to hold on to their own. It is a fact that conservatives are more generous than liberal anyway generally speaking. SO in this case, it is typical and predicable behavior, nothing strange about it.