|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jan 27, 2009 16:51:17 GMT -5
What do you guys think about this one?
I believe i heard alot of crying about bush's spending...is it ok for Obama now?
And no, we are not included in this stimulus package,no checks coming your way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 29, 2009 10:46:42 GMT -5
What do you guys think about this one? I believe i heard alot of crying about bush's spending...is it ok for Obama now? And no, we are not included in this stimulus package,no checks coming your way. OK, so then you must be making more than $250,000. a year. You must be doing great. Why "would you" complain? As for the rest of us poor folk, we will be getting checks. And, why is it that Republicans only cry when the government wants to give money to the middle class, but don't cry when they gave all that money to Wall Street or to the Big Oil Companies who were making record breaking multi-billion dollar profits while the price of oil was sky high and our country was in a recession? Why is it so wrong to give to the poor and working class, but not to the Wall Street Brokers who lost all the money of their investors? That logic is backwards. It works against the majority of Americans in this country (the working class) and it's set up to benefit only the wealthy. For 8 years, Bush was President. For 6 of those 8 years, he had full control of the Congress and the Senate (both with Republican majorities). We are were we are today "because" of The Republicans and Bush. But, now that we have a Democrat back in The White House, it's going to be years of prosperity all over again (like it was under out last successful President who was coincidentally, a Democrat who's wife is currently now the Secretary of State). Question: Not one Republican voted for President Obama's Stimulus Package. When was the last time that this happened? The last time that this happened (that Republicans failed to support a plan that was set forth by a President) was when President Clinton was in office. And what happened then? Without The Republicans' support, the plan went ahead and gave us the best 8 years that this country had seen in centuries with the greatest expansion of job growth, with the greatest period of peace and with the elimination of our national debt & creation of a multi-billion dollar surplus. Democrats left our country in excellent fiscal and financial condition. Then America voted for an alcoholic that they could "have a beer with" and what happened? He sunk the country the same way he sunk the state of Texas and left The U.S. in the same condition that he left Texas...in shambles and at the bottom of the pile. But, that's over with now and we not only have an intelligent President back in The White House, but we have almost the same team that the previous successful President utilized to bring our country back from the miserable failures of another President Bush (Bush Senior). Face it, under the Bush's we were put into a horrible condition. Under Democrats, we were successful. Who doesn't want to be successful again? That's unAmerican if you ask me.  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jan 29, 2009 17:18:46 GMT -5
What do you guys think about this one? I believe i heard alot of crying about bush's spending...is it ok for Obama now? And no, we are not included in this stimulus package,no checks coming your way. OK, so then you must be making more than $250,000. a year. You must be doing great. Why "would you" complain? As for the rest of us poor folk, we will be getting checks. And, why is it that Republicans only cry when the government wants to give money to the middle class, but don't cry when they gave all that money to Wall Street or to the Big Oil Companies who were making record breaking multi-billion dollar profits while the price of oil was sky high and our country was in a recession? Why is it so wrong to give to the poor and working class, but not to the Wall Street Brokers who lost all the money of their investors? That logic is backwards. It works against the majority of Americans in this country (the working class) and it's set up to benefit only the wealthy. For 8 years, Bush was President. For 6 of those 8 years, he had full control of the Congress and the Senate (both with Republican majorities). We are were we are today "because" of The Republicans and Bush. But, now that we have a Democrat back in The White House, it's going to be years of prosperity all over again (like it was under out last successful President who was coincidentally, a Democrat who's wife is currently now the Secretary of State). Question: Not one Republican voted for President Obama's Stimulus Package. When was the last time that this happened? The last time that this happened (that Republicans failed to support a plan that was set forth by a President) was when President Clinton was in office. And what happened then? Without The Republicans' support, the plan went ahead and gave us the best 8 years that this country had seen in centuries with the greatest expansion of job growth, with the greatest period of peace and with the elimination of our national debt & creation of a multi-billion dollar surplus. Democrats left our country in excellent fiscal and financial condition. Then America voted for an alcoholic that they could "have a beer with" and what happened? He sunk the country the same way he sunk the state of Texas and left The U.S. in the same condition that he left Texas...in shambles and at the bottom of the pile. But, that's over with now and we not only have an intelligent President back in The White House, but we have almost the same team that the previous successful President utilized to bring our country back from the miserable failures of another President Bush (Bush Senior). Face it, under the Bush's we were put into a horrible condition. Under Democrats, we were successful. Who doesn't want to be successful again? That's unAmerican if you ask me. Not only did the republicans vote against it, but 11 dems voted against it too. But anyhow...would you please find a site that has the stimulus package in detail. I want to read it, confirm some things and just educate myself on what it has in it,not just what i hear on the news. I cant find any copy of it... I mean how can we support something we know nothing about? Please help me find a copy |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jan 29, 2009 17:53:13 GMT -5
Hey we only make 50,000yr so im poor too  But its not 250,000 its 150,000. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jan 29, 2009 21:14:07 GMT -5
I watched this and laughed so hard, first of all this lady looked pissed from the start then at the end cavuto makes her look stupid. Neil cavuto is not a right wing nut either, he calls it like it is on either side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 30, 2009 10:46:14 GMT -5
Not only did the republicans vote against it, but 11 dems voted against it too. But anyhow...would you please find a site that has the stimulus package in detail. I want to read it, confirm some things and just educate myself on what it has in it,not just what i hear on the news. I cant find any copy of it... I mean how can we support something we know nothing about? Please help me find a copy Yep...and the majority of the elected officials still won. Again, the last time the Republicans failed to support a bill like this was when President Clinton passed his bill that turned our country around. Republicans only want to help Big Corporations and Wall Street and they helped pass the Bush Era Packages, but won't pass a bill that's made to help the common working man with massive social program funding. They were ready to give Wall Street almost a trillion dollars, but fought to "not" give Blue Collar companies like GM/Chrysler help and tried to insist that The Unions give up a lot more than the Executives (in fact, they offered no provisions for the Executives to have to give up anything...only the working man). Here's an analysis from The New York Times (hardly a friend to President Obama): www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?_r=1&ref=politicsAnd honestly, I'm glad you want to read it for yourself to make up your own mind! Well done CC! Read it and decide for yourself. Not that I'm anybody to judge, but I'm proud of you. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 30, 2009 11:14:18 GMT -5
Hey we only make 50,000yr so im poor too But its not 250,000 its 150,000. So, under President Obama's plan, you will actually get a substantial tax "cut" and you will have a lot more money in your pockets beginning with the Stimulus Package and next year with your tax returns. You guys might even get a huge tax break this year with your tax returns and would get more money back than what you actually put in. Supposedly, you guys should get back at least $500. ($1,000. if you both work). Here's his plan from his own website: Under the Obama Plan:• Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.
The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan.
According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Indeed, according to the National Review, McCain’s plan “offers
very little in the way of direct benefits to Americans in the middle of the income scale.”
• Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.
But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
• Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP).
The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000.
Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while
bringing down the budget deficit.www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 30, 2009 11:18:43 GMT -5
I watched this and laughed so hard, first of all this lady looked pissed from the start then at the end cavuto makes her look stupid. Neil cavuto is not a right wing nut either, he calls it like it is on either side.
who ended up looking foolish for not supporting a plan that helps The American People in the end? ;D   |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 3, 2009 22:27:12 GMT -5
President Obama slams the brakes on the pork... Wow!  Obama rounds up his Dems into a private meeting throwing out the press and literally ripped them a "new one" for loading up the Stimulus Package with all that pork! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 3, 2009 22:34:38 GMT -5
At the White House Monday evening Obama met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Party Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs later issued a statement saying they had a "productive meeting" and agreed to work for a "bipartisan consensus" on the measure.
What Gibbs didn't say is that Obama told the Democratic leaders to strip away some spending provisions of the massive bill that are not likely to create new jobs, and to increase some tax credits. The president urged the House and Senate leaders to accept some Republican suggestions.
Republicans have objected that the bill is loaded with spending programs that will not boost the economy. The Republicans have also sought more tax breaks to stimulate spending by taxpayers and businesses. abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/story?id=6793019&page=1And THAT'S why America chose President Obama! 
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 4, 2009 0:18:38 GMT -5
Thats great! But why did he get the bill passed with all the pork in it the first place? Did he not know what was in HIS stimulus package? I think he is taking out the hidden pork because he is catching alot of flack for it. But im glad he is manning up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 4, 2009 1:12:20 GMT -5
Thats great! But why did he get the bill passed with all the pork in it the first place? The bill hasn't been passed yet. No...he proposed a bill, then stuff was added onto it by Congressmen. When he got the draft they sent back to him, he put a stop to it... ...but, a lot of the stuff were considered good programs by both Republicans and Democrats (The Repubs just didn't want to agree to it because they weren't part of the Stimulus package and they didn't include any tax breaks for big corporations and they said that the package gave too much assistance out to needy families). Why do you think that? He said as far back as January (before he got the bill) that he wasn't going to allow any earmarks to be added to this bill. So, he keeps his word and you still don't believe him? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 4, 2009 13:11:15 GMT -5
I guess we will see when the bill passes, i know it made it past one point not sure if it was the senate or congres. But, it was his democratic congress that added all the pork right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 4, 2009 23:58:57 GMT -5
I guess we will see when the bill passes, i know it made it past one point not sure if it was the senate or congres. But, it was his democratic congress that added all the pork right? Yeah...and it was "him" who told them to take it out. So if your beef is with them, why are you trying to lay it on the man who is stopping it? You should be applauding him. He did the right thing. So which is it? The Dems who did it? Or Obama who stopped it? And, did you actually see what was in that so-called pork? A massive amount of help for the poor. And that's bad? The issues Catholics have problems with are birth control and aids education (I believe)...but that's only like .4 % of the entire funds. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 5, 2009 0:44:05 GMT -5
I guess we will see when the bill passes, i know it made it past one point not sure if it was the senate or congres. But, it was his democratic congress that added all the pork right? Yeah...and it was "him" who told them to take it out. So if your beef is with them, why are you trying to lay it on the man who is stopping it? You should be applauding him. He did the right thing. So which is it? The Dems who did it? Or Obama who stopped it? And, did you actually see what was in that so-called pork? A massive amount of help for the poor. And that's bad? The issues Catholics have problems with are birth control and aids education (I believe)...but that's only like .4 % of the entire funds. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! ;D Actually if you read two posts up i said "thats great" that he found something redicules in the package. Yes i do know of some, Like billions for the Honey Bees, Billions for the Fish Barriors, Millions for ATV trails, and Billions for STD research or whatever. Not a bad thing, the std deal,just not gunna stimulate the economy. And like i said earlier that you did not respond to, DO YOU KNOW WHATS IN THE BILL? Cause you seem to be all for it, but prolly dont know whats in it. I cant seem to find a copy anywhere over the internet, and i mean a list of how much money goes to who. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 0:53:03 GMT -5
Yeah...and it was "him" who told them to take it out. So if your beef is with them, why are you trying to lay it on the man who is stopping it? You should be applauding him. He did the right thing. So which is it? The Dems who did it? Or Obama who stopped it? And, did you actually see what was in that so-called pork? A massive amount of help for the poor. And that's bad? The issues Catholics have problems with are birth control and aids education (I believe)...but that's only like .4 % of the entire funds. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! ;D Actually if you read two posts up i said "thats great" that he found something redicules in the package. Yes i do know of some, Like billions for the Honey Bees, Billions for the Fish Barriors, Millions for ATV trails, and Billions for STD research or whatever. Not a bad thing, the std deal,just not gunna stimulate the economy. And like i said earlier that you did not respond to, DO YOU KNOW WHATS IN THE BILL? Cause you seem to be all for it, but prolly dont know whats in it. I cant seem to find a copy anywhere over the internet, and i mean a list of how much money goes to who. As soon as I heard what was in the bill, the only thing that I disagreed with was with the birth control stuff. Besides that, feeding the hungry, social programs, etc...all the things that were ignored before were good things. However, I don't like it how the Dems thought they could just have it their way completely contradicting what Obama said in January when he said that there'd be no more of this manure. I was personally angry at them. But my faith in Obama was proven justified again...he let them have it like he did to the Republicans. I love that he isn't a mouthpiece for the RWE's or the Liberals. He is a centrist. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 0:54:24 GMT -5
PS...hard to get copy of the bill because it's still being drafted and changed even as we speak.
I tried, and you know I'm the Google King!
LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 5, 2009 1:06:44 GMT -5
Yeah, well we cant exactly support something we dont know whats in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 1:12:02 GMT -5
Yeah, well we cant exactly support something we dont know whats in it. Right...we can't support it or criticize it. When it's out, then it's out. There are some "so-called" Christians who are furious that he wants to actually give money to the lesser fortunate who are on the verge of losing everything, but it was ok for the big Wall Street Fat Cats to get a ton of money no questions asked. Do you see the hypocrisy of such people? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 5, 2009 1:20:16 GMT -5
I dont feel like anyone should be "given" any money without earning it. I also dont think the government should be able to tell us "how" much money we can make either. These wall street guys are getting big money from who, and why?
|
|
