Thread: Obama ends federal unemployment extensions for 1.3 million Americans

BoytonBrother - 12/28/2013 at 08:44 PM

Can we give some credit where credit is due? The White House even admitted that they chose not to extend the benefits because it will help our economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/27/news/economy/unemployment-benefits-expire/i ndex.html?hpt=hp_t3


tbomike - 12/28/2013 at 09:54 PM

quote:
Can we give some credit where credit is due? The White House even admitted that they chose not to extend the benefits because it will help our economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/27/news/economy/unemployment-benefits-expire/i ndex.html?hpt=hp_t3




Huh? The article you link most certainly does not " admit they chose not to extend benefits because it will help out economy".

The White House issued a statement on Friday saying senators have put forward bipartisan legislation to extend emergency unemployment insurance for three months, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring it to vote as soon as they are back from recess.
The Obama administration has said the end of extended benefits can have a major impact on the economy.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers and Department of Labor issued a joint report earlier this month touting how jobless benefits buoy the economy, while keeping 2.5 million workers out of poverty each year.

The White House pointed out in a separate report that the expiration of benefits could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.2 to 0.4 percentage point in 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office and a J.P. Morgan Chase economist.


BoytonBrother - 12/28/2013 at 11:06 PM

Maybe I misunderstood their meaning of "impact". It's a lot less government spending, that's for sure. I feel badly for the people losing their benefits, but I don't think unemployment should last for more than 6 monts to a year. At any rate, this seems like an attempt to cut spending, and reduce the "handouts" that the conservatives are so strongly against. I happen to agree with this particular cut, however.


tbomike - 12/28/2013 at 11:24 PM

Whatever your opinion or even mine is you clearly misunderstand the White House opinion as they most certainly want the benefits extended and do not agree that it is harmful to the economy and make the case for its benefit to the economy.


BillyBlastoff - 12/29/2013 at 12:09 AM

I'm a far Left Progressive and I think the unemployment benefits are lasting too long. Once people get off the dole they will no longer afford to be complacent. They will demand that Congress pass the jobs program. They will demand new programs that put our country back to work rebuilding our infrastructure.

We have done a pretty darn good job creating jobs rebuilding infrastructures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Japan, Europe, the Falklands, and more. Americans need to demand change.


Dan - 12/29/2013 at 12:50 AM

Get the facts straight ..the pachyderm party is the one to blame!!


Peachypetewi - 12/29/2013 at 02:45 PM

These utterly worthless House Republicans have done everything in their power to prevent an economic recovery. It is totally mystifying to me how poor and middle class people can vote for a group of people whose only agenda is to make billionaires even more wealthy at the expense of everyone else. I can't think of a single thing in the last 40 years Republicans have done to help the poor and middle class. You have to go all the way back to Eisenhower.


MartinD28 - 12/29/2013 at 04:17 PM

quote:
I'm a far Left Progressive and I think the unemployment benefits are lasting too long. Once people get off the dole they will no longer afford to be complacent. They will demand that Congress pass the jobs program. They will demand new programs that put our country back to work rebuilding our infrastructure.

We have done a pretty darn good job creating jobs rebuilding infrastructures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Japan, Europe, the Falklands, and more. Americans need to demand change.




For the most part I agree with you on this. The dependence on LT benefits cannot be a good thing & creates complacency. On the other hand the $'s doled out for benefits do find their way back into the economy. I'm guessing the net cost outweighs the benefit of this???? I'm heading out the door & don't have time to research this right now.

I do believe we have opportunities to parallel infrastructure enhancement throughout this country similar to what you have described in foreign countries. Lord knows many of the bridges & roads throughout this country are in horrible / unsafe condition. That would be a good place to begin for job programs.


geedub - 1/9/2014 at 07:38 AM

How can anyone say Obama is at fault for the Repubs failing to extend benefits? Even the article cited, which supposedly makes BoytonBrother's point does not say that, or anything similar. Not remotely similar.

BoytonBrother should apologize to everyone for posting an outright untruth.


Fujirich - 1/9/2014 at 04:05 PM

quote:
How can anyone say Obama is at fault for the Repubs failing to extend benefits?
Obama is not personally responsible, but as usual, he's not leading either. After preaching endlessly about changing the dynamic of Washington, he's done almost nothing to achieve it.

This unemployment benefits issue is easily solved. Congress just needs to find savings to offset the $6.5 billion cost. Can any sane and reasonable person believe that our legislators can't find a saving of 0.0017% out of our bloated $3.7 trillion budget?

Well, that's the current position of D's. Why should taxpayers have any sympathy towards a party that is so fiscally irresponsible that they can't even make this small effort to help the people they say they want to support? Is it so unreasonable for the other party to seek a compromise in order to cover this new spending request? It wouldn't seem so to rational men, but few of those exist in our political system.


Mike - 1/9/2014 at 09:41 PM

quote:
I'm a far Left Progressive and I think the unemployment benefits are lasting too long. Once people get off the dole they will no longer afford to be complacent. They will demand that Congress pass the jobs program. They will demand new programs that put our country back to work rebuilding our infrastructure.

We have done a pretty darn good job creating jobs rebuilding infrastructures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Japan, Europe, the Falklands, and more. Americans need to demand change.





Beautiful post.

I very well may be in the minority here, but I am sitting in my office and trying to think of all the people I know who are unemployed. I live in a mid-sized city on the east coast. I am in a career that requires me to deal with many, many people. I am fortunate to also have a large network of friends. I can honestly say I know about 5 able-bodied and capable, employable people who are currently out of work, and each of them is willfully unemployed for one reason or antoher.

We each form our opinions about things based on our own experiences. I try to balance what I read with what I experience. It's hard to be empathetic, though, when the people I know are wilfully unemployed and I see jobs out there all the time. I have a wife and daughter at home. I can guarantee you, decidedly, that if I were out of work suddenly, I would be employed doing something in much less than 6 months.

Just my thoughts....

Mike


bigann - 1/9/2014 at 10:45 PM

Instead of spending their time trying to regulate women's bodies and reproductive issues perhaps the right wing could focus on creating jobs that would enable people to find jobs rather than have to remain on unemployment payments. I can't imagine that any of the jobless are getting rich off of any unemployment check they might receive. We need jobs!


Mike - 1/9/2014 at 10:58 PM

What does abortion have to do with this? Many belive that abortion is murder. If you believed that someone had legalized a type of murder, wouldn't you do everything you could to stop it?

The right wing/left wing/any wing of government is not responsible for creating jobs. Their responsibility is to get the phuck out of the way so that our economy can function as it's supposed to. THAT is what will create jobs.


Mike


gina - 1/25/2014 at 07:33 PM

There is a political party called the Constitutional Party and it is amazing nobody has supported it. The idea, well none of their candidates can win just means things stay the same. When the Working Families Party started they were small, and still are compared to the Donkey and Elephant groups, but all disenchanted people need to band together and start their own party, and then do what our forefathers did, fight for your freedom, or die subjugated, oppressed and poor from over taxation, money that is not worth what they claim it is and is not even backed by anything tangible. If you don't want to live in a third world type country, you got to start thinking about these things.


MartinD28 - 1/25/2014 at 11:16 PM

quote:
Instead of spending their time trying to regulate women's bodies and reproductive issues perhaps the right wing could focus on creating jobs that would enable people to find jobs rather than have to remain on unemployment payments. I can't imagine that any of the jobless are getting rich off of any unemployment check they might receive. We need jobs!


X2
X3
X4
etc.

Just this week we heard from Mike Huckabee where he insulted women...again. Hope he runs for prez. And the GOP wonders why it doesn't appeal to women voters. Here's the exact quote from Mr. Huckabee.

“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”


alloak41 - 1/26/2014 at 02:16 AM

quote:
The right wing/left wing/any wing of government is not responsible for creating jobs. Their responsibility is to get the phuck out of the way so that our economy can function as it's supposed to. THAT is what will create jobs.


WORD

Although I wouldn't expect that for at least three more years. Expect more of the same Obamanomic approach -- Taxation, regulation, moving money around in the economy.


Jerry - 1/26/2014 at 03:39 AM

quote:
quote:
Instead of spending their time trying to regulate women's bodies and reproductive issues perhaps the right wing could focus on creating jobs that would enable people to find jobs rather than have to remain on unemployment payments. I can't imagine that any of the jobless are getting rich off of any unemployment check they might receive. We need jobs!


X2
X3
X4
etc.

Just this week we heard from Mike Huckabee where he insulted women...again. Hope he runs for prez. And the GOP wonders why it doesn't appeal to women voters. Here's the exact quote from Mr. Huckabee.

“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”


Just exactly WHERE in that quote does Huckabee insult women? I suggest you re-read what you quoted.


Jerry - 1/26/2014 at 03:47 AM

quote:
Maybe I misunderstood their meaning of "impact". It's a lot less government spending, that's for sure. I feel badly for the people losing their benefits, but I don't think unemployment should last for more than 6 monts to a year. At any rate, this seems like an attempt to cut spending, and reduce the "handouts" that the conservatives are so strongly against. I happen to agree with this particular cut, however.


You do realize that the article is a month old and several things have happened since then.


BoytonBrother - 1/26/2014 at 07:53 AM

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Maybe I misunderstood their meaning of "impact". It's a lot less government spending, that's for sure. I feel badly for the people losing their benefits, but I don't think unemployment should last for more than 6 monts to a year. At any rate, this seems like an attempt to cut spending, and reduce the "handouts" that the conservatives are so strongly against. I happen to agree with this particular cut, however.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


You do realize that the article is a month old and several things have happened since then.


You do realize that this thread and my quote above was from 12/28, correct?


BoytonBrother - 1/26/2014 at 08:15 AM

quote:
“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Just exactly WHERE in that quote does Huckabee insult women? I suggest you re-read what you quoted.



It's insulting to women because the only person to bring up "helpless women" who need Uncle Sugar to help control their libido is Rush Limbaugh, and now Huckabee. These were the words of Rush when he called that young woman a slut because she supported the idea. Democrats never said anything of the sort, nor would those thoughts ever enter their minds. So even though Huckabee is implying that Democrats believe this, those are his thoughts and his words only. He said them, so he must believe them. It's a Freudian slip.


MartinD28 - 1/26/2014 at 03:13 PM

quote:
quote:
“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Just exactly WHERE in that quote does Huckabee insult women? I suggest you re-read what you quoted.



It's insulting to women because the only person to bring up "helpless women" who need Uncle Sugar to help control their libido is Rush Limbaugh, and now Huckabee. These were the words of Rush when he called that young woman a slut because she supported the idea. Democrats never said anything of the sort, nor would those thoughts ever enter their minds. So even though Huckabee is implying that Democrats believe this, those are his thoughts and his words only. He said them, so he must believe them. It's a Freudian slip.


Good response, Boyton.

Let me add this. The entire paragraph by Huckabee is insulting & degrading to women. It's pretty much in your face rhetoric. But the words that stand out are "they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government" .

I'm wondering if Huckabee, the religious ideologue feels the same about men.

Just wondering if 100 women heard Huckabee's words, what percentage of these women would find the terminology insulting?


Slimzimm - 1/26/2014 at 04:03 PM

quote:
quote:

Just this week we heard from Mike Huckabee where he insulted women...again. Hope he runs for prez. And the GOP wonders why it doesn't appeal to women voters. Here's the exact quote from Mr. Huckabee.

“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”


Just exactly WHERE in that quote does Huckabee insult women? I suggest you re-read what you quoted.



I'm guessing some women might think Huckabee was telling the Republicans that the Democrats have brainwashed women into thinking their health insurance coverage for birth control prescriptions is because they can’t control their sex drives.


bigann - 1/26/2014 at 06:33 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Instead of spending their time trying to regulate women's bodies and reproductive issues perhaps the right wing could focus on creating jobs that would enable people to find jobs rather than have to remain on unemployment payments. I can't imagine that any of the jobless are getting rich off of any unemployment check they might receive. We need jobs!


X2
X3
X4
etc.

Just this week we heard from Mike Huckabee where he insulted women...again. Hope he runs for prez. And the GOP wonders why it doesn't appeal to women voters. Here's the exact quote from Mr. Huckabee.

“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”


Just exactly WHERE in that quote does Huckabee insult women? I suggest you re-read what you quoted.



How about not being able to control our libido and reproductive system without help from the government? I'm totally offended by his assumption that all women want is free birth control so they can go out and screw everything in sight. He obviously doesn't understand all the medical uses for birth control that have nothing to do with sex. If Viagra is covered under insurance there's no reason for women to not be covered under insurance for a medication that is beneficial to problems with their reproductive organs.

And by the way, the very fact that someone can't see why it's offensive to women says a lot about where they're coming from!!!

[Edited on 1/26/2014 by bigann]


pops42 - 1/26/2014 at 08:26 PM

I think Hackabee is an a$$hole and an imbicile, and I hope he makes a run for president.


Jerry - 1/27/2014 at 12:18 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Instead of spending their time trying to regulate women's bodies and reproductive issues perhaps the right wing could focus on creating jobs that would enable people to find jobs rather than have to remain on unemployment payments. I can't imagine that any of the jobless are getting rich off of any unemployment check they might receive. We need jobs!


X2
X3
X4
etc.

Just this week we heard from Mike Huckabee where he insulted women...again. Hope he runs for prez. And the GOP wonders why it doesn't appeal to women voters. Here's the exact quote from Mr. Huckabee.

“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”


Just exactly WHERE in that quote does Huckabee insult women? I suggest you re-read what you quoted.



How about not being able to control our libido and reproductive system without help from the government? I'm totally offended by his assumption that all women want is free birth control so they can go out and screw everything in sight. He obviously doesn't understand all the medical uses for birth control that have nothing to do with sex. If Viagra is covered under insurance there's no reason for women to not be covered under insurance for a medication that is beneficial to problems with their reproductive organs.

And by the way, the very fact that someone can't see why it's offensive to women says a lot about where they're coming from!!!

[Edited on 1/26/2014 by bigann]


Where in the hell are ya'll getting these things from his quote?
I see nothing of any type in the quote that you folks are getting in an uproar about.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but I read into it the quote what's actually said, not what I mistakenly believe what I want him to have said.


alloak41 - 1/27/2014 at 04:19 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Instead of spending their time trying to regulate women's bodies and reproductive issues perhaps the right wing could focus on creating jobs that would enable people to find jobs rather than have to remain on unemployment payments. I can't imagine that any of the jobless are getting rich off of any unemployment check they might receive. We need jobs!


X2
X3
X4
etc.

Just this week we heard from Mike Huckabee where he insulted women...again. Hope he runs for prez. And the GOP wonders why it doesn't appeal to women voters. Here's the exact quote from Mr. Huckabee.

“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”


Just exactly WHERE in that quote does Huckabee insult women? I suggest you re-read what you quoted.



How about not being able to control our libido and reproductive system without help from the government? I'm totally offended by his assumption that all women want is free birth control so they can go out and screw everything in sight. He obviously doesn't understand all the medical uses for birth control that have nothing to do with sex. If Viagra is covered under insurance there's no reason for women to not be covered under insurance for a medication that is beneficial to problems with their reproductive organs.

And by the way, the very fact that someone can't see why it's offensive to women says a lot about where they're coming from!!!

[Edited on 1/26/2014 by bigann]


Where in the hell are ya'll getting these things from his quote?
I see nothing of any type in the quote that you folks are getting in an uproar about.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but I read into it the quote what's actually said, not what I mistakenly believe what I want him to have said.


All we have here is a deliberate misinterpretation for the purpose of furthering an agenda. No more, no less same old song. And why were the first and last sentences of the quote left off?


Sang - 1/27/2014 at 05:05 AM

Entire quote:

"I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a ‘War on Women.’ Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women – for them to be empowered, to be something other than victims of their gender.

Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for their birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do.

Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war on them, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, then so be it. Let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, “Enough of that nonsense.”





So the GOP stands for equality? Like backing equal pay for women? For making it hard for them to vote in Texas if they changed their name for marriage? It would be nice to see where they actually practice this.....


bigann - 1/27/2014 at 05:19 AM

Interesting that some people can't see the outrage in his statement. As a democrat I resent his implication that we're the party of deadbeats and enslaved masses who can't think for themselves. Those would be the Teabaggers and Republicans, not the Democrats.


Peachypetewi - 1/27/2014 at 11:32 AM

quote:
Interesting that some people can't see the outrage in his statement. As a democrat I resent his implication that we're the party of deadbeats and enslaved masses who can't think for themselves. Those would be the Teabaggers and Republicans, not the Democrats.


Everyone knows women who use birth control can't control their libido's. The party of rich old white men knows what is best for all women.

[Edited on 1/27/2014 by Peachypetewi]


Slimzimm - 1/27/2014 at 01:09 PM

quote:
quote:
Interesting that some people can't see the outrage in his statement. As a democrat I resent his implication that we're the party of deadbeats and enslaved masses who can't think for themselves. Those would be the Teabaggers and Republicans, not the Democrats.


Everyone knows women who use birth control can't control their libido's. The party of rich old white men knows what is best for all women.

[Edited on 1/27/2014 by Peachypetewi]


Teapublican's "War for Women".....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/foster-friess-in-my-day-women-used-bayer-aspiri n-for-contraceptives/

Yes, the Republican party needs more supporters like this to get the message out and gain more empowered women voters....duhhh


alloak41 - 1/27/2014 at 03:55 PM

Is this kind of stuff you're going to depend on to win again? The so and so said such and such so don't vote for a Republican approach? None of this will create one job. We have some pretty serious problems to solve, yet the focus always lies on stuff like this.

What becomes apparent is a lack of confidence in your ability to win any other way and not much more than that.


Bhawk - 1/27/2014 at 04:38 PM

quote:
Is this kind of stuff you're going to depend on to win again? The so and so said such and such so don't vote for a Republican approach? None of this will create one job. We have some pretty serious problems to solve, yet the focus always lies on stuff like this.

What becomes apparent is a lack of confidence in your ability to win any other way and not much more than that.


The way you keep pretending that the far right social wing of the GOP doesn't exist is really cute.


MartinD28 - 1/27/2014 at 05:24 PM

quote:
Is this kind of stuff you're going to depend on to win again? The so and so said such and such so don't vote for a Republican approach? None of this will create one job. We have some pretty serious problems to solve, yet the focus always lies on stuff like this.

What becomes apparent is a lack of confidence in your ability to win any other way and not much more than that.


This has nothing to do with the Dems. nor lack of confidence. It has all to do with the GOP which needs to look in the mirror & take a reality check. I thought that's what your party did after the most recent loss in a prez. election. The GOP realizes where it went wrong & what it needs to do to broaden appeal. They say they will, but in the end it's same old same old. They are living in the past as the country moves forward socially. The concept of narrow minded comes to mind.

The economy & jobs is important. So are social issues - maybe not to you, but to many people they are. The GOP is to blame for the outdated postions that the party takes on social issues. The ideology is constanly reinforced on social issues every few weeks when someone (examples - Huckabee, Todd Akin, etc.) rear their ugly heads and step in it with their stupid comments.

Don't deflect the cause & the blame. Accept the perception = reality of the GOP.


BoytonBrother - 1/27/2014 at 06:08 PM

What's most amazing is that Republicans in Washington have their hands tied by the bible thumpers on these social issues. It's sad that they have to cater to archaic thinking to appeal to this core group, which ends up costing them elections because they can't get any minority voters or female voters. If Republicans were smart, they'd evolve on social issues, effectively sell their economic and job creation policies, and win in a landslide. But no, they continue to preach bigoted policies which keep them in the loss column.


alloak41 - 1/28/2014 at 01:50 AM

quote:
They are living in the past as the country moves forward socially.



Exactly how is the country moving forward socially?




[Edited on 1/28/2014 by alloak41]


BillyBlastoff - 1/28/2014 at 03:43 AM

quote:
Exactly how is the country moving forward socially?


You don't think America has moved forward on civil rights issues?


MartinD28 - 1/28/2014 at 01:06 PM

quote:
quote:
Exactly how is the country moving forward socially?


You don't think America has moved forward on civil rights issues?


Here's another - marriage equality. The country is moving forward on this social issue with the GOP resisting.


alloak41 - 1/28/2014 at 05:55 PM

quote:
What's most amazing is that Republicans in Washington have their hands tied by the bible thumpers on these social issues. It's sad that they have to cater to archaic thinking to appeal to this core group, which ends up costing them elections because they can't get any minority voters or female voters. If Republicans were smart, they'd evolve on social issues, effectively sell their economic and job creation policies, and win in a landslide. But no, they continue to preach bigoted policies which keep them in the loss column.


The loss column where? The Executive Branch? Two old and boring candidates who ran pitiful campaigns put them in the loss column there. Five million Conservatives stayed home rather than vote for Romney and you attribute that to "bigoted policies?"

The reality of the GOP? They control the House, State governorships and legislatures, and are a narrow minority in the Senate (for now.) Thanks, but I'll take the "loss column" over a powerless Presidency. The party needs improvement in certain areas, but to claim they're on some death march, or that they're in any more trouble than Democrats is nonsense.


BoytonBrother - 1/28/2014 at 06:15 PM

If the Presidency is powerless, and Republicans have the true power in Washington, then why all the doom and gloom outlook on the current and future state of our union?


MartinD28 - 1/28/2014 at 06:41 PM

quote:
quote:
What's most amazing is that Republicans in Washington have their hands tied by the bible thumpers on these social issues. It's sad that they have to cater to archaic thinking to appeal to this core group, which ends up costing them elections because they can't get any minority voters or female voters. If Republicans were smart, they'd evolve on social issues, effectively sell their economic and job creation policies, and win in a landslide. But no, they continue to preach bigoted policies which keep them in the loss column.


The loss column where? The Executive Branch? Two old and boring candidates who ran pitiful campaigns put them in the loss column there. Five million Conservatives stayed home rather than vote for Romney and you attribute that to "bigoted policies?"

The reality of the GOP? They control the House, State governorships and legislatures, and are a narrow minority in the Senate (for now.) Thanks, but I'll take the "loss column" over a powerless Presidency. The party needs improvement in certain areas, but to claim they're on some death march, or that they're in any more trouble than Democrats is nonsense.


Have to agree with BB on his post.

I hope for your sake that in the next prez. election the GOP runs the most conservative candidate they can find. Then when the results are another loss, you'll have to come up with another theory for consistent losses.

I believe the party platform and ideology of the GOP is the anchor regardless of who the candidate is.


alloak41 - 1/28/2014 at 06:58 PM

quote:
If the Presidency is powerless, and Republicans have the true power in Washington, then why all the doom and gloom outlook on the current and future state of our union?


I didn't say they had the true power in DC. But just guessing about the gloom and doom, probably from all the damage done before there was any check on the Executive Branch. Folks have realized the high price for electing someone who's totally unqualified.



I'm sure some will say it's due to all the polarization between the two parties...Where did much of this polarization come from?

Bush lied and people died
Bush started the war to steal oil
Bush ran up gas prices to help his rich oil buddies
The war is lost
Bush is an idiot
Bush is mean
Bush is a war criminal
The country is in a recession
Bush is creating burger flipper jobs
Bush stole the election
The homeless epidemic
Bush flooded NOLA because he hates blacks
Bush is a drunk
Bush snorts coke off Karl Rove's @ss

and so on.....

Then, once Obama won it didn't stop for four years. He spent his whole first term whining about the mess that Bush left him! I love it now when Democrats complain about polarization, partisanship, what have you and act like they have nothing to do with it.


BoytonBrother - 1/28/2014 at 07:37 PM

I agree 100% that the liberal Bush bashing was misguided and detrimental. I admit to being one of them and I regret it. The only valid criticism is the horrible job they did selling the war with bogus reasons. Looking back, I understand they had to lie because it's impossible to justify going into Iraq with any other reason. For the record, I fully support the decision to invade Iraq because I believe it was necessary to take out the "root" of the problem in the Middle East. It also sent the right message to other terrorists that if you attack us, we will occupy your prescious holy land, their biggest fear. I would also imagine that the Arabs in the ME are now putting pressure on terrorist groups to leave the US alone so we don't invade even more countries. I doubt they want to trade a terrorist attack for ownership of a country.

Bashing sides gets us nowhere, and I blame the politicians for being poor leaders for us citizens. Maybe we, the people, would stop bashing if we stopped seeing our elected officials doing it. If they show bipartisanship, so would we. That doesn't mean we can't oppose. It just means we should oppose and fight smart, fair, and mature.


Bhawk - 1/28/2014 at 07:41 PM

quote:
He spent his whole first term whining about the mess that Bush left him! I love it now when Democrats complain about polarization, partisanship, what have you and act like they have nothing to do with it.


quote:
I would be so moved, if in fact I viewed partisanship as a negative, or some kind or dirty word....I don't. Partisanship is being comfortable with your beliefs, standing up for them, being proud of them. Only Liberals ever seem to whine about it. -alloak41 11/9/2010


If you revel in partisanship, what does it matter to you what any Democrat or liberal believes or has to say?


alloak41 - 1/28/2014 at 08:38 PM

quote:
quote:
He spent his whole first term whining about the mess that Bush left him! I love it now when Democrats complain about polarization, partisanship, what have you and act like they have nothing to do with it.


quote:
I would be so moved, if in fact I viewed partisanship as a negative, or some kind or dirty word....I don't. Partisanship is being comfortable with your beliefs, standing up for them, being proud of them. Only Liberals ever seem to whine about it. -alloak41 11/9/2010


If you revel in partisanship, what does it matter to you what any Democrat or liberal believes or has to say?


It doesn't, really, and my post was an attempt to respond to the question of another poster. Taking the thought further, if you boil it down polarization is no more than a dislike of Republicans. It's always their fault and they're the ones that always have to try to fix it. If everybody would just agree with Obama and the Democrats and do what they want there would be no polarization, right?

Ask Chris Christie. I'm sure he thought he was inoculating himself against attacks from Democrats with his post-Sandy Obama love tussle. He thought he could ease some tensions right before the elections by reaching across the aisle? Wrong. Those same Liberals are now trying to take him apart over a traffic jam.

IMO complaints about the lack of partisanship are mainly just a Democrat tactic to get Republicans to agree with them, then Democrats will be nice to them. Only it never works and I don't expect it to any time soon. Perhaps John McCain would serve as another example. He was championed as a bi-partisan who would cross the aisle and work with Democrats. A real statesman, even tagged by the media as "The Maverick."

That all ended as soon as he ran against Obama. He went from hero to goat awful fast. Old and grouchy loose cannon who didn't even know how many houses he owned. He's out of touch and has a bad temper, would probably die in office, and so forth.

It never works. That's why I cast a dim view.


Bhawk - 1/28/2014 at 09:13 PM

quote:
It doesn't, really, and my post was an attempt to respond to the question of another poster. Taking the thought further, if you boil it down polarization is no more than a dislike of Republicans. It's always their fault and they're the ones that always have to try to fix it. If everybody would just agree with Obama and the Democrats and do what they want there would be no polarization, right?



No. This logic would only follow through if the dislike was only coming from one side to the other.

There will always be an extent of polarization. It has hardened to the point of stalemate, which a lot of people don't seem to be too fond of.

quote:
Ask Chris Christie. I'm sure he thought he was inoculating himself against attacks from Democrats with his post-Sandy Obama love tussle. He thought he could ease some tensions right before the elections by reaching across the aisle? Wrong. Those same Liberals are now trying to take him apart over a traffic jam.


By minimizing the incident into merely a traffic jam, you've completely rejected any notion that Christie could have done anything wrong. Why? You did the same thing above with Bush. You come across as totally rejecting even the slightest notion that any Republican has ever done anything wrong, ever. Why? Just because the liberals who you don't care about anyway say so?

quote:
IMO complaints about the lack of partisanship are mainly just a Democrat tactic to get Republicans to agree with them, then Democrats will be nice to them. Only it never works and I don't expect it to any time soon.


Republicans aren't going to agree with Democrats no matter what tactic is used by anyone. The current liberal-conservative divide is one of abject hatred.

quote:
It never works.


It never will, because of the Democrats and the liberals, right? All Republicans and conservatives offer their enemies is kisses, hugs and unicorns, right?


alloak41 - 1/28/2014 at 10:08 PM

quote:
quote:
It doesn't, really, and my post was an attempt to respond to the question of another poster. Taking the thought further, if you boil it down polarization is no more than a dislike of Republicans. It's always their fault and they're the ones that always have to try to fix it. If everybody would just agree with Obama and the Democrats and do what they want there would be no polarization, right?



No. This logic would only follow through if the dislike was only coming from one side to the other.

There will always be an extent of polarization. It has hardened to the point of stalemate, which a lot of people don't seem to be too fond of.

quote:
Ask Chris Christie. I'm sure he thought he was inoculating himself against attacks from Democrats with his post-Sandy Obama love tussle. He thought he could ease some tensions right before the elections by reaching across the aisle? Wrong. Those same Liberals are now trying to take him apart over a traffic jam.


By minimizing the incident into merely a traffic jam, you've completely rejected any notion that Christie could have done anything wrong. Why? You did the same thing above with Bush. You come across as totally rejecting even the slightest notion that any Republican has ever done anything wrong, ever. Why? Just because the liberals who you don't care about anyway say so?

quote:
IMO complaints about the lack of partisanship are mainly just a Democrat tactic to get Republicans to agree with them, then Democrats will be nice to them. Only it never works and I don't expect it to any time soon.


Republicans aren't going to agree with Democrats no matter what tactic is used by anyone. The current liberal-conservative divide is one of abject hatred.

quote:
It never works.


It never will, because of the Democrats and the liberals, right? All Republicans and conservatives offer their enemies is kisses, hugs and unicorns, right?



1. The system is working the way it was designed, even though some aren't pleased with it. If anyone has ignored established procedures, it's Obama

2. I haven't defended Christie. The staffers that hatched the idea are idiots and deserved to get fired. However, whether Christie was behind the whole thing won't change the fact we're talking about a traffic jam in New York/New Jersey. Tragic.

3. You're probably correct. There is no common ground between the GOP and this President.

4. I wouldn't go that far.


dougrhon - 1/29/2014 at 05:53 PM

quote:
I agree 100% that the liberal Bush bashing was misguided and detrimental. I admit to being one of them and I regret it. The only valid criticism is the horrible job they did selling the war with bogus reasons. Looking back, I understand they had to lie because it's impossible to justify going into Iraq with any other reason. For the record, I fully support the decision to invade Iraq because I believe it was necessary to take out the "root" of the problem in the Middle East. It also sent the right message to other terrorists that if you attack us, we will occupy your prescious holy land, their biggest fear. I would also imagine that the Arabs in the ME are now putting pressure on terrorist groups to leave the US alone so we don't invade even more countries. I doubt they want to trade a terrorist attack for ownership of a country.

Bashing sides gets us nowhere, and I blame the politicians for being poor leaders for us citizens. Maybe we, the people, would stop bashing if we stopped seeing our elected officials doing it. If they show bipartisanship, so would we. That doesn't mean we can't oppose. It just means we should oppose and fight smart, fair, and mature.


If the above was true during Bush's term, it no longer is. No nation fears us anymore.


OriginalGoober - 1/29/2014 at 06:00 PM

quote:

Ah, the good old days... Remember when the internet used to ask you what country you are from and United States was always numero Uno on top of the list. Now I have to hunt thru a huge list and make sure I dont click on Venezuela Yemen and Zimbabwae.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=132494