• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate Republicans block 60 Billion dollar infrastructure bill

The US is broke, how are we supposed to pay for that?

No new taxes, period. Taxes are not the answer.

Maybe if we stopped sending so much foreign aid overseas, we could afford to build new bridges and roads.

Maybe if we ended free trade and brought our jobs back, we could afford to pay for bridges and roads.

Maybe if we stopped giving social services to illegal immigrants,,,,,,.
 
Creating jobs is an easy thing, Ausm.

Creating jobs that actually stick around is not. Not for the government at least.
 
Atreus21 said:
Creating jobs is an easy thing, Ausm.

Creating jobs that actually stick around is not. Not for the government at least.
Click to expand...

SO your ok with people without work to stay that way even though our Nation's infrastructure is for shit?
 
Texashiker said:
The US is broke, how are we supposed to pay for that?

No new taxes, period. Taxes are not the answer.

Maybe if we stopped sending so much foreign aid overseas, we could afford to build new bridges and roads.

Maybe if we ended free trade and brought our jobs back, we could afford to pay for bridges and roads.

Maybe if we stopped giving social services to illegal immigrants,,,,,,.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you said 'how are we supposed to pay for that?' And then ruled out paying for it.

1.) As for foreign aid:
budgetforeignaid.jpg


2.) Eliminating free trade would cause GDP contraction. That's not a good way to get more tax money.

3.) I guess we could save some money that way, although that seems awfully short sighted.
 
Texashiker said:
The US is broke, how are we supposed to pay for that?

No new taxes, period. Taxes are not the answer.

Maybe if we stopped sending so much foreign aid overseas, we could afford to build new bridges and roads.

Maybe if we ended free trade and brought our jobs back, we could afford to pay for bridges and roads.

Maybe if we stopped giving social services to illegal immigrants,,,,,,.
Click to expand...

How about stop pacifying the Neocons in your party and bring those dollars back home?
 
Ausm said:
No it isn't if the 2 Bluedogs Dem's were on board the bill still would have not been passed.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the bill had a majority of votes but since basically every bill that goes to the Senate is now subject to a Republican filibuster, it didn't have the supermajority required. That is directly due to the Republicans.

Period.
 
eskimospy said:
Interesting that you said 'how are we supposed to pay for that?' And then ruled out paying for it.

1.) As for foreign aid:
budgetforeignaid.jpg
Click to expand...

How much have we spent rebuilding Iraq?

Bringing our factories back would increase revenue, especially through fuel taxes.

Trucks have to buy fuel to transport goods and raw materials. Would you rather that fuel be bought in china, or in the states?
 
Ausm said:
Senate Republicans and 2 Bluedog Democrats blocked President Obama's third attempt to create American jobs. The Bill was rejected by Senate Republicans because of a .7% additional tax to any income AFTER 1 million dollars which would affect .2% of all Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-gop-blocks-obama-infrastructure-plan-195413661.html
Click to expand...

The American voting public is watching the GOP implode right in front of their eyes all the while still clinging on to the nutsacks of the wealthiest members of our country.

Fuck off GOP and bye bye.
 
Ausm said:
SO your ok with people without work to stay that way even though our Nation's infrastructure is for shit?
Click to expand...

I just got back from the Dominican Republic - not a trip for pleasure either... Our infrastructure may have issues, but I invite you to go to a 3rd world country... Where you will learn how for granted you take our "for shit" infrastructure.
 
Texashiker said:
How much have we spent rebuilding Iraq?

Bringing our factories back would increase revenue, especially through fuel taxes.

Trucks have to buy fuel to transport goods and raw materials. Would you rather that fuel be bought in china, or in the states?
Click to expand...

To call the money spent in Iraq foreign aid is to disguise its purpose. Now I didn't support the war in Iraq, and I certainly have many times complained about how much better that money could have been spent, but it's not really foreign aid. It was foreign military operation support.

Bringing back manufacturing would increase revenue, but we would suffer losses in export markets, higher prices for goods, etc.
 
WackyDan said:
I just got back from the Dominican Republic - not a trip for pleasure either... Our infrastructure may have issues, but I invite you to go to a 3rd world country... Where you will learn how for granted you take our "for shit" infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Um...I am not a Taxpayer in a third world shithole but I am a United States Taxpayer and I don't think we are getting our monies worth with 30+ year old infrastructure. How can we expect to compete with other Nations this way??
 
eskimospy said:
Exactly, the bill had a majority of votes but since basically every bill that goes to the Senate is now subject to a Republican filibuster, it didn't have the supermajority required. That is directly due to the Republicans.

Period.
Click to expand...

You had your chance to remove the filibuster when you were minority. Instead you wanted it, now you get exactly what you deserve.
 
Ausm said:
Um...I am not a Taxpayer in a third world shithole but I am a United States Taxpayer and I don't think we are getting our monies worth with 30+ year old infrastructure. How can we expect to compete with other Nations this way??
Click to expand...

So what happens in 30 years when the taxpayers of this country cannot pay the debts caused by creating jobs at $287,000 per job?

You want infrastructure improvements? Create a business friendly environment particularly for the small employer (who provides half the jobs). More workers earning income = more tax revenue.

The Republicans wanted to increase domestic energy production (more jobs) and prior to that reduce regulations in an effort to spur job growth.. particularly among those small employers. Along with using revenues from this energy production to pay for infrastructure improvements. All these initiatives killed by democrats. Job killers!
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
You had your chance to remove the filibuster when you were minority. Instead you wanted it, now you get exactly what you deserve.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The Republicans were not trying to remove the entire filibuster, only the filibuster of judicial nominees. As an interesting aside, the Republicans have embraced the judicial filibuster to a greater degree than the Democrats ever did, despite their repeated claims that it is unconstitutional.

Secondly, I have already said in the past that circumstances have changed my mind on the filibuster in general. It is being used now in a way that is unprecedented in all of American history, and it is seriously fucking up the basic functions of government. No matter who controls the Senate next fall (and it very well could be the Republicans), the filibuster needs to go. The Republicans have been so totally irresponsible with its use that they leave America with no choice.
 
eskimospy said:
Exactly, the bill had a majority of votes but since basically every bill that goes to the Senate is now subject to a Republican filibuster, it didn't have the supermajority required. That is directly due to the Republicans.

Period.
Click to expand...

Oh please both sides play partisan games. Within this very article Democrats stopped a Republican infrastructure plan worth 40 billion because it used unspent money from other domestic programs. They couldnt support the idea of cutting spending to pay for something. In this case Democrats couldnt fathom cutting money that hasnt been spent.
 
Genx87 said:
Oh please both sides play partisan games. Within this very article Democrats stopped a Republican infrastructure plan worth 40 billion because it used unspent money from other domestic programs. They couldnt fathom the idea of cutting spending to pay for something. In this case Democrats couldnt fathom cutting money that hasnt been spent.
Click to expand...

Come on.

The Democrats had two purposes here. One was to stimulate job creation through additional federal spending, the other was to repair infrastructure. If you pass the bill that cuts other spending, you defeat one of your primary purposes. Of course both sides play games, but it's pretty obvious why the Democrats would reject such a bill.
 
Ausm said:
Senate Republicans and 2 Bluedog Democrats blocked President Obama's third attempt to create American jobs. The Bill was rejected by Senate Republicans because of a .7% additional tax to any income AFTER 1 million dollars which would affect .2% of all Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-gop-blocks-obama-infrastructure-plan-195413661.html
Click to expand...

So, since it only affects .2% of Americans it's ok right? So laws treating a group unfairly are fine if it's only a small percentage? Idiot.

This bill had no chance of passage, and obummer knew it. There was absolutely no intent to do anything positive, just as the article says
is nothing more than a bare-knuckle attempt to gain a political edge by invoking the mantra of jobs but doing little to seek compromise"
Click to expand...
. That's pretty much the truth. Just more attempts to spend money we don't have and lying by obummer and his minions.
 
rudder said:
So what happens in 30 years when the taxpayers of this country cannot pay the debts caused by creating jobs at $287,000 per job?

You want infrastructure improvements? Create a business friendly environment particularly for the small employer (who provides half the jobs). More workers earning income = more tax revenue.

The Republicans wanted to increase domestic energy production (more jobs) and prior to that reduce regulations in an effort to spur job growth.. particularly among those small employers. Along with using revenues from this energy production to pay for infrastructure improvements. All these initiatives killed by democrats. Job killers!
Click to expand...

Could you please list the Regulations stifling job growth? Because big biz is SWIMMING in cash right now.
 
eskimospy said:
Wrong.

The Republicans were not trying to remove the entire filibuster, only the filibuster of judicial nominees. As an interesting aside, the Republicans have embraced the judicial filibuster to a greater degree than the Democrats ever did, despite their repeated claims that it is unconstitutional.

Secondly, I have already said in the past that circumstances have changed my mind on the filibuster in general. It is being used now in a way that is unprecedented in all of American history, and it is seriously fucking up the basic functions of government. No matter who controls the Senate next fall (and it very well could be the Republicans), the filibuster needs to go. The Republicans have been so totally irresponsible with its use that they leave America with no choice.
Click to expand...

The filibuster is fine. If both sides would sit down and talk instead of ramming ideology down our throats the filibuster wouldnt be an issue. When republicans hold a majority you will welcome the filibuster again. Your mind will change when you see democrat filibustering a pro-life bill.
 
eskimospy said:
Come on.

The Democrats had two purposes here. One was to stimulate job creation through additional federal spending, the other was to repair infrastructure. If you pass the bill that cuts other spending, you defeat one of your primary purposes. Of course both sides play games, but it's pretty obvious why the Democrats would reject such a bill.
Click to expand...

Not to that frick'ing Moran!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top