Republicans win tax cut (extention) for the rich

[Ldir]

LOL, you can't be serious! 😀

It's true. The poor spend their money. Higher sales means more jobs making more people with money to spend. That's how the value gets multiplied.

 

[theeedude]

Right... Where were all the rotting unemployed under the reign of Bush and the Republicans from 2000-2008? Oh, what is that you say? They doubled the size of govt in 8 years? kk

They sold out for political reasons. Same thing that's going to happen if they gain full power again. But ideologically they welcome higher unemployment and more desperate base for cheap labor.

 

[dmcowen674]

Republicans win tax cut (extention) for the rich

I told you all Republicans were in full control.

 

[Ldir]

What is wrong, cant answer the question? Do you honestly believe the crap you just spewed?

Yes. I don't believe many Republicans including party leaders give a crap what happens to the poor. If they did they wouldn't have held unemployment hostage for more tax cuts for the very rich.

 

[Genx87]

They sold out for political reasons. Same thing that's going to happen if they gain full power again. But ideologically they welcome higher unemployment and more desperate base for cheap labor.

It just amazes me you are certain Republicans desire people who are unemployed to rot in the streets. Yet when they have the power they never implement such a policy.

 

[Genx87]

Yes. I don't believe many Republicans including party leaders give a crap what happens to the poor. If they did they wouldn't have held unemployment hostage for more tax cuts for the very rich.

So I will take that as you dont believe the hyperbole you spew. Only you dont think they care as "much" as a democrat. Good to know.

 

[Craig234]

Is this now about the top 2% instead of the top 1%?

I believe that the > $200k-$250k range is approximately the top 4%. I'm so confused...the story keeps changing.

Last I checked, $250K was reportedly around the 2% mark. Do you have a point, or are you just nit-picking between 1% and 2% figures missing the point?

Like debating voting age at 17 1/2 or 18 or 18/12, or the speed limit at 53 or 55 or 57, or the age to run for president at 32 or 35 or 38, those hair-splits aren't the main issue.

You don't respond to 'should we remove all speed limits as violating human rights' with 'nyah nyah 55mph and 60mph aren't the same thing'.

 

[theeedude]

It just amazes me you are certain Republicans desire people who are unemployed to rot in the streets. Yet when they have the power they never implement such a policy.

Because they fear the political backlash. Just like they desire small government, but only grow it when they are in power. You have to watch for what GOP does when there is a Democrat president to pin the blame on to discern their real goals.

 

[Genx87]

Because they fear the political backlash. Just like they desire small government, but only grow it when they are in power. You have to watch for what GOP does when there is a Democrat president to pin the blame on to discern their real goals.

Are you trying to prove my point? A party that "desires" small govt yet doubles the size of it in 8 years? So after admitting they dont implement what they publicly desire, on what basis do you believe they want the unemployed to rot in the streets?

 

[Siddhartha]

So we're keeping taxes low, like the Republicans want, and spending more, like the Democrats want.

Anyone else see the problem with this grand compromise?

In the last 30 years, have the GOP ever cut spending?

 

[Craig234]

So I will take that as you dont believe the hyperbole you spew. Only you dont think they care as "much" as a democrat. Good to know.

I know I should not respond to a genx87 post as I almost never do. Sigh.

So genx, you take what Ldir said, and you misrepresent it as to saying something else, and then you claim he changed his position between your version and what he said.

The only person here who said Republicans "desire people who are unemployed to rot in the streets"is you, not Ldir, when you falsely claimed he said that.

Let's look at what he ACTUALLY said in his original post that started this:

"They're fine with the unemployed rotting in the streets."

Now, let's look at his latest restatement:

"I don't believe many Republicans including party leaders give a crap what happens to the poor. "

Now, in fact, those are pretty much identical.

Yet you say that there's a huge change showing he 'doesn't believe what he wrote' because of the difference from what you SAY he said, that he didn't.

In other words, as usual, your contributionin several posts was to provide dishonest content and waste everyone's time with a false non-point. As usual.

 

[Ldir]

Right... Where were all the rotting unemployed under the reign of Bush and the Republicans from 2000-2008? Oh, what is that you say? They doubled the size of govt in 8 years? kk

There was a big recession that hit in 2008. Huge. Worst unemployment since the great depression. Look it up. It was in the news.

Government hiring doesn't make up for millions of good jobs shipped overseas thanks to 30 years of Republican economics. That is a big reason we are recovering so slowly from this recession. Those jobs have not come back.

 

[Craig234]

In the last 30 years, have the GOP ever cut spending?

Yes, primarily social spending - welfare, education, and so on. The good spending. But the top 0.1% have gone up hundreds of percent in wealth with their policies.

 

[Ldir]

So I will take that as you dont believe the hyperbole you spew. Only you dont think they care as "much" as a democrat. Good to know.

Typical teabagger. Can not read. Can not accept reality.

 

[Genx87]

I know I should not respond to a genx87 post as I almost never do. Sigh.

So genx, you take what Ldir said, and you misrepresent it as to saying something else, and then you claim he changed his position between your version and what he said.

The only person here who said Republicans "desire people who are unemployed to rot in the streets"is you, not Ldir, when you falsely claimed he said that.

Let's look at what he ACTUALLY said in his original post that started this:

"They're fine with the unemployed rotting in the streets."

Now, let's look at his latest restatement:

"I don't believe many Republicans including party leaders give a crap what happens to the poor. "

Now, in fact, those are pretty much identical.

Yet you say that there's a huge change showing he 'doesn't believe what he wrote' because of the difference from what you SAY he said, that he didn't.

In other words, as usual, your contributionin several posts was to provide dishonest content and waste everyone's time with a false non-point. As usual.

I didnt bother reading past you claiming I am misrepresenting what he said. This is his exact quote.

Originally Posted by Ldir
Yes they do. Republicans know where their bread is buttered. They want to take care of the millionaires. They're fine with the unemployed rotting in the streets.

In what way am I misrepresenting what he said? Did he not say he thinks Republicans want the unemployed to rot in the streets?

 

[Genx87]

There was a big recession that hit in 2008. Huge. Worst unemployment since the great depression. Look it up. It was in the news.

Government hiring doesn't make up for millions of good jobs shipped overseas thanks to 30 years of Republican economics. That is a big reason we are recovering so slowly from this recession. Those jobs have not come back.

In what way does that have to do with what I wrote???? Are you just spewing talking points now?

 

[Atreus21]

Looks like Obama and the Republican controlled Senate are close to a deal that will extend tax cuts on the highest income earners.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/06/5595744-first-thoughts-done-deal

Obama had to capitulate after the Republicans threatened to filibuster the extention of unemployment benefits.

Republicans - Using subsistance payments to millions of out-of-work Americans as leverage to route gobs of money to their wealthy friends.

Extension.

 

[Genx87]

Typical teabagger. Can not read. Can not accept reality.

What reality? The one you cooked up in your head that claims Republicans "want" unemployed people to "rot" in the streets?

 

[theeedude]

Are you trying to prove my point? A party that "desires" small govt yet doubles the size of it in 8 years? So after admitting they dont implement what they publicly desire, on what basis do you believe they want the unemployed to rot in the streets?

They keep voting against unemployment extensions unless they get something for their rich donors.

 

[Craig234]

I didnt bother reading past you claiming I am misrepresenting what he said. This is his exact quote.



In what way am I misrepresenting what he said? Did he not say he thinks Republicans want the unemployed to rot in the streets?

I'll answer, and then you can go read the post.

"Fine with" is not "desire" or "want".

The fact is the Republicans voted against unemployment and against lowering taxes for the bottom 98% while demanding to lower taxes for the most wealthy.

They are holding the unemployment benefits hostage for their demand for billionares.

They aren't voting against unemployment for no reason, for meanness.

But they are voting against it, and they are doing it for one reason, to make the most rich even richer, showing they 'are fine with' the suffering they are causing.

You misrepresented what he said. Read the post if you want to discuss.

 

[Genx87]

They keep voting against unemployment extensions unless they get something for their rich donors.

Really? That is your basis for this? Were you born yesterday and discovered politics today?

 

[theeedude]

Really? That is your basis for this? Were you born yesterday and discovered politics today?

I am sure you have some nuanced explanation instead of seeing the obvious.

 

[Craig234]

What reality? The one you cooked up in your head that claims Republicans "want" unemployed people to "rot" in the streets?

Again, you double quoted "want". Now show where Ldir said the Republicans "want" the suffering of the unemployed.

What he said he "wants" has nothing to do with the unemployed, he said they "want" to get more for the most rich.

The word "want" was in his post, but about a different topic.

You are misrepresenting what he said.

 

[Bitek]

Obama is the worst poker player ever.

GOP: We have a pair of twos. All in. call.

Obama: Oh nose! We only have three aces! That's only worth three! We fold!

Fukhead. There's nothing that inspires voters more than loser pussy stink...

 

[Ldir]

I know I should not respond to a genx87 post as I almost never do. Sigh.

So genx, you take what Ldir said, and you misrepresent it as to saying something else, and then you claim he changed his position between your version and what he said.

The only person here who said Republicans "desire people who are unemployed to rot in the streets"is you, not Ldir, when you falsely claimed he said that.

Let's look at what he ACTUALLY said in his original post that started this:

"They're fine with the unemployed rotting in the streets."

Now, let's look at his latest restatement:

"I don't believe many Republicans including party leaders give a crap what happens to the poor. "

Now, in fact, those are pretty much identical.

Yet you say that there's a huge change showing he 'doesn't believe what he wrote' because of the difference from what you SAY he said, that he didn't.

In other words, as usual, your contributionin several posts was to provide dishonest content and waste everyone's time with a false non-point. As usual.

Thanks. That is exactly right.