I didn't assume that's why anyone was against him. This isn't even about Obama but about the tea party which supposedly claims it's concerned about the deficit. Yet they support the guys that chose the option that adds the most to the deficit with the least stimulus to the economy. Apparently you do to. Please explain why you support the option that has the least benefit to the economy, and adds the most to the debt? I'm waiting for your answer. TIA. Edit: I wasn't trying to make the racist argument. I was just pointing out the response to the racist argument that gets made has been shown to be BS.
I don't disagree with your overall point, but I think what tea party people want is less spending and less taxes. I very much doubt that you'd find tea party supporters that would have said yes to raising taxes to solve the debt they complained about. So really it's not surprising that you don't hear a lot of complaints from them about the Republicans support for keeping the Bush tax cuts. It would make much more sense for them to complain about the unemployment benefits added as part of the compromise, since that is actual spending.
Yes, I understand they want less spending and taxes. But the reason supposedly is less debt and deficit. If they ignore the reason for wanting the less spending and less taxes, while applauding or remaining silent on something that increases the deficit makes them seem hypocritical.
I don't think the tea party arguments were all that convincing or even terribly rational, but the reason they want less spending and less taxes is not the debt and the deficit. It's because they want less government overall. They just pointed to the deficit and the debt as indicators of the size and and scope of the problem because those were the most obvious and simple. So I agree they seem hypocritical, but I think that's because they too often pointed to the deficit and debt in their previous arguments, and the lack of complaints now are because the true goal is still served by the Republican's support for extending the tax cuts.
Perhaps I read it wrong then. I thought there was a whole line of argument from the tea party about how they were upset when Bush was running up the deficit and debt, but that now it was even worse.
Tells you all you need to know right there. If they're happy about something this POTUS is planning to sign, you know they got over.
Interesting development. Maybe some adults will finally start to take over in Washington for a change. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6024043465537706.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t
Not really. Great victory for rich folk(Republican victory), the unemployed (Democrat victory) and those that were a part of the earmarks on the bill (Democrat victory). Score is 2 to 1 in favor of the Ds.
I'm waiting for you to explain the reasons why you support the option that has the least benefit for the economy, and adds the most to the debt? Your credibility is about to go over the edge.
lol I wasn't going to invest time in replying to your amateurish statements you passed off as fact. Do you believe paying unemployment benefits are sustainable, long-term?
I think is pretty spot on. I also agree that I don't think the Tea Party's arguments are that well thought out. Then again as even self-proclaimed Tea Partiers have said they really don't have a coherent organization so why should we expect a coherent message.
They aren't being extended long term. I'm talking about the options that were on the table regarding this. Unemployment benefits have a greater stimulus for the economy than tax cuts, by a margin of almost 4:1. The tax cuts also add far more to the debt. Those are facts. I'm asking you why that is the option you support. If you can't answer it, that will say all that needs to be said.
I'm loving the payroll tax reduction. That's going to end up being close to $1,000 additional cash in my pocket next year. :grin:
Here are my facts. Feel free to find others if you can. But you pretending they just can't be real because you don't want to believe them isn't going to fly. There has been research done, and I'm presenting it. If you have different facts bring them. You simply disbelieving well researched facts and making a wise crack about the speaker of the house isn't really much of an argument.
Isn't it encouraging to know this man will be writing our budgets. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sHcXtG_C3qM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sHcXtG_C3qM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
