GOP does not have a poverty plan.

[Linc]

I imagine so. I have more than enough on my plate that to branch out more than I am. Although since the 1st no one has given me anything to work with as far as new information or updates to take into consideration. So a 50-50 tie stands for now. I am hoping Gallup does another party affiliation poll before the end of the month. I tend to put more stock in that than any generic congressional poll. Although that later poll is fun to post as a stat.

I believe a 50-50 tie could add a new and even worse dysfunction than the GOP, with their world record use of the phillycheesebuster.
There are a number of issues where one DEM snot like Sanders or Manchin could hold Reid up for ransom.

 

[Linc]

Partisan BS. And you wonder why the level of animosity of the political rhetoric has been raised so much? There ya go.

Fair enough.
That's about the best I could do with the October surprise.
It would not have happened without Cantor's blessing.
Neither would the 2011 meltdown on the grand bargain.
Cantor must hate Boehner very much to drag him through this .

 

[Linc]

This is why Louisiana election law intrigued me. I would love to see just a list of names on the ballot come election day with no R or D or any party affiliation what so ever.

Let me know when someone who is not an R or a D runs in the open-primary in LA.
Until then, we all like the Rs or Ds from our states and districts .

 

[eohrnberger]

Fair enough.
That's about the best I could do with the October surprise.
It would not have happened without Cantor's blessing.
Neither would the 2011 meltdown on the grand bargain.
Cantor must hate Boehner very much to drag him through this .

Meh. Wasn't the Republicans that really wanted a shutdown. They had everything to lose and very little to gain. Look a little closer as to who had something to gain from it.

 

[Linc]

For me, it comes down to the GOP refusing to come up with a "clean" anything.
We see it now with unemployment and pay-fors, which we have not had in 45 years.
We saw it last decade, when pay-fors were not needed for Bush.
We saw the pay-for with Hurricane Sandy, and the ugliness amp back up.

Meh. Wasn't the Republicans that really wanted a shutdown.
They had everything to lose and very little to gain. Look a little closer as to who had something to gain from it.

We will have another crisis soon on raising the debt ceiling.
McConnell has to look tough because of his TEA-primary.
96 more working days with a blank agenda, Cantor's proven way, shows his smugness in hanging Boehner out to dry .

 

[eohrnberger]

For me, it comes down to the GOP refusing to come up with a "clean" anything.
We see it now with unemployment and pay-fors, which we have not had in 45 years.
We saw it last decade, when pay-fors were not needed for Bush.
We saw the pay-for with Hurricane Sandy, and the ugliness amp back up.

We will have another crisis soon on raising the debt ceiling.
McConnell has to look tough because of his TEA-primary.
96 more working days with a blank agenda, Cantor's proven way, shows his smugness in hanging Boehner out to dry .

Yeah, I have no affinity with pork stuffed legislation either. They are always disasters designed by committee.

OTOH, if you don't give on somethings you don't want to give on, you won't get the things that you really want.

 

[Perotista]

I believe a 50-50 tie could add a new and even worse dysfunction than the GOP, with their world record use of the phillycheesebuster.
There are a number of issues where one DEM snot like Sanders or Manchin could hold Reid up for ransom.

You will have Biden to break any ties. Manchin gives me the impression he is his own man. Holding Reid up for ransom might not be that bad of an idea. What I could see Manchin doing if by some chance the 50-50 split does occur come November is indeed some ransom. I do not know the man personally, so I do not know what it would take for him to switch parties. I do not think that is even a viable option to him. But I can see him using the threat on Reid say to get the EPA to relax it very stringent regulations on the use of coal. We have more coal in this country than any other country in the world and coal does produce energy and the proper use of it could definitely drop our reliance on oil or nuclear for that matter.

It sure would make for some interesting times.

 

[TurtleDude]

So why is it the right wing is against raising the minimum wage,unemployment,wefare and anything else that helps the poor. It is the fact they have painted themselves into a corner with all the slash and burn rhetoric over the last ten years.The refuse to admit their capitalist friends have laid waste to our economy by selling the American worker down the river for profit.That is why they scapegoat and blame the so called 47% the way they do.It is going to bite them in the butt.They are going to cave on the unemployment issue and are going aganst a strong majority on the minimum wage so it would be smart for them to cave but will they?

you mean the GOP does not have a plan to increase poverty while bamboozling the weak minded into thinking they are doing something to cure it

 

[TurtleDude]

You are right. They don't have a poverty plan. They have a success plan. It's much better for everyone. :lol:

if poverty were ever eradicated, what reason could the Dems run on?

 

[TurtleDude]

The longer people are unemployed, the less likely they are to get hired. This is a fact.

but the more likely they are to vote for handout pimps AKA Democrats

 

[TurtleDude]

You libertarians are even more selfish and extreme that the right wing hacks. Boy that is something to be proud of.

Leftwing definition of selfish--not wanting to have what you earned to be taken by assholes who use your money to gain power and wealth through public office while creating more and more voters who crave what you have

My definition of selfish-demanding others be forced to fund your quest for public office so you can pretend you are charitable with wealth taken from others

 

[Perotista]

Let me know when someone who is not an R or a D runs in the open-primary in LA.
Until then, we all like the Rs or Ds from our states and districts .

I wouldn't say that. Before Buchanan in 2000, my old reform party had elected a governor in Minnesota and around 100 state legislatures through out the country. I think there is a reason independent have grown from 32% during Perot's time to around 45% today. I think more and more people are becoming dissatisfied with the R's and the D's. Fed up with them, although they really do not have much of a choice in any general election. I also think this 13 point rise in independents, it is also a 13 point drop in the two major parties strength, is seen in the lost of the more moderate portions of both parties. So you have the hard nose radicals left with no one willing to compromise or do a little giving and taking.

Third Parties and independent candidate usually do not stand much of a chance anyway. The money is against them. Romney can spend a billion dollars trying to get elected president, Obama spent a billion dollars winning in 2012. Gary Johnson the next candidate in line as money goes was only able to spend 3 million. That is one heck of a huge difference. Johnson was drowned out in the battle for the air ways, he never had a chance.

Candidates for senate spend 20 million to a 100 million depending on the state. Any third party candidate is lucky to be able to spend 100,000 if that. Why the huge money difference? Who really owns the Republican and Democratic Parties? Its not the people. It is those special interests, mega millionaires, those corporations and wall street firms who give of their millions for political favors, legislation, tax breaks, subsidies, contracts etc. These special interests have no desire to donate to any third party or independent candidate, they figure their tens of millions and more being spent on buying the Republican and Democratic party is enough.

enough of the soap box, but one poll done by gallup I really find interesting. Back in 1992 only 39% of the electorate would consider voting for a third party candidate. Perot received 20% of the vote then. Today 81% of the electorate would consider voting for a third party candidate. But that third party candidate would have to be someone like Perot. Very rich and willing to spend his millions to be heard. He would have to be charismatic and have a couple of hot issues most independents believe in. I see no one on the horizon that fits that mode.

I know the Republicans and Democrats would holler whoever is that third party candidate is trying to buy the election with his own money. But hey, the Republicans and Democrats both try to buy elections with other peoples money, the money of special interests. At least a candidate who spent his own money wouldn't owe anyone for his election if elected. When ever a Republican or Democrat gets elected, they owe the corporations, those wall street firms, those super pac organizers and advocacy groups. They owe special interests for their election. Think about it.

 

[JayDubya]

How is bitching about money taken out of your pay when you have a good job while so many have been laid off thru no fault of their own not selfish. Those people paid tax's too. How is cutting food stamps and unemployment in the face of a bad economy a good thing? you can not force people to go to work when 4 people per evey job opening and 7%unemployment is a fact?It is just plain mean and yes the conservatives are going to cave because they know it is political suicide just like Romneys 47% BS.

Actually, no, you're misreprenting things.

Unemployment insurance is paid from the taxes you and your employer pay.

By the time the feds are backstopping it and extending it far beyond those taxes you paid for unemployment insurance, you're just in the realm of welfare called something else.

Eliminating food stamps is always a good thing, because food stamps are an evil as **** thing.

 

[Grant]

Actually, no, you're misreprenting things.

Unemployment insurance is paid from the taxes you and your employer pay.

By the time the feds are backstopping it and extending it far beyond those taxes you paid for unemployment insurance, you're just in the realm of welfare called something else.

Eliminating food stamps is always a good thing, because food stamps are an evil as **** thing.

Krauthammer nailed it. "And the fact is, if you subsidize apples, you get more apples; if you subsidize unemployment, you get more of it".

The sad part is that too many Americans have come to rely on government handouts, and the government is having to go deeply in debt to keep the payments going. It's a Ponzi scheme in which too many people have the simple faith that America has always been rich, is rich, and will always be rich. They feel the laws of economics don't apply to them.

 

[Steve Ja]

So why is it the right wing is against raising the minimum wage,unemployment,wefare and anything else that helps the poor. It is the fact they have painted themselves into a corner with all the slash and burn rhetoric over the last ten years.The refuse to admit their capitalist friends have laid waste to our economy by selling the American worker down the river for profit.That is why they scapegoat and blame the so called 47% the way they do.It is going to bite them in the butt.They are going to cave on the unemployment issue and are going aganst a strong majority on the minimum wage so it would be smart for them to cave but will they?

Where the evidence that this stuff actually helps the poor? Sure government subsidies are nice, but who is paying for them? The working people. Also if we keep giving more and more benefits to people to not work, what is the point in working? 47% becomes 57, 67, soon the economy collapses and everyone points fingers. I do agree the min. wage should be raised, it wont do much for poverty, but will take money the govt subsidizes and replace it with actual salary. Overall could boost confidence and productivity. Plus decrease spending by govt

 

[American]

Because it is the right thing to do.

That's highly debatable, and furthermore there are already too many poverty programs in place. We don't need anymore. A poverty plan would be redundant.

 

[American]

Leftwing definition of selfish--not wanting to have what you earned to be taken by assholes who use your money to gain power and wealth through public office while creating more and more voters who crave what you have

My definition of selfish-demanding others be forced to fund your quest for public office so you can pretend you are charitable with wealth taken from others

 

[TheNextEra]

you mean the GOP does not have a plan to increase poverty while bamboozling the weak minded into thinking they are doing something to cure it

Simple question, if you take away unemployment benefits, while the job market is in the toilet. What do you think will happen with people?

The problem is the GOP is taking a look at it from only one angle and in doing so this will actually hurt more people than help them. Until the job market is back up, cutting unemployment beneifts are just going to piss people off and get them voting for Dems more.

What the GOP really needs to focus on is relaxing regulations that are hindering jobs and THEN go after the unemployment benefits IMO. Without a good job market, by relaxing regulations, the GOP is going to be saving jack **** cause more people will vote Dems to get it back.

It's like the GOP wants to commit suicide. The GOP needs to pick and choose their battles, I would figure increasing the job market by relaxing regulations would be a fight the GOP should take the Dems to the mat on.

 

[eohrnberger]

Simple question, if you take away unemployment benefits, while the job market is in the toilet. What do you think will happen with people?

The problem is the GOP is taking a look at it from only one angle and in doing so this will actually hurt more people than help them. Until the job market is back up, cutting unemployment beneifts are just going to piss people off and get them voting for Dems more.

What the GOP really needs to focus on is relaxing regulations that are hindering jobs and THEN go after the unemployment benefits IMO. Without a good job market, by relaxing regulations, the GOP is going to be saving jack **** cause more people will vote Dems to get it back.

It's like the GOP wants to commit suicide. The GOP needs to pick and choose their battles, I would figure increasing the job market by relaxing regulations would be a fight the GOP should take the Dems to the mat on.

I agree very much with the bolded, however, it's an uphill swim with this president and his legislative / regulatory policies, which seem to be intent on destroying jobs as well as making the act of complying with the regulation more expensive for business, which puts the bit on expanding business, growing demand and hiring people.

 

[TheNextEra]

I agree very much with the bolded, however, it's an uphill swim with this president and his legislative / regulatory policies, which seem to be intent on destroying jobs as well as making the act of complying with the regulation more expensive for business, which puts the bit on expanding business, growing demand and hiring people.

I really do understand that, but I think going after unemployment benefits is just going to continue to play into the Dems hands as well. Until the job market increases, going after unemployment is just going to send more people to the Dems.

 

[upsideguy]

How Extending Unemployment Benefits Could Hurt Unemployed

The Heritage Foundation? Seriously? Author of the an economic model that turned out to be the biggest bust in human history (you know, their 2001 report telling us that the Bush tax cuts would not only pay off the national debt, but that we would have $1.8T in bank by 2011 - The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan)

Sorry, the Heritage Foundation is a political advocacy group. By definition, their so-called research is nothing more than political argument. You can not post anything by them and declare it evidence. The attached article throughout some claims, but none were backed by any research.

In the football game of argument and debate this post was stuffed at the line of scrimmage. Its 3rd and long.

 

[eohrnberger]

I really do understand that, but I think going after unemployment benefits is just going to continue to play into the Dems hands as well. Until the job market increases, going after unemployment is just going to send more people to the Dems.

Just saying 'No' would in fact lead to handing voters over to the Dems, and I'm sure that the Biased Lame Stream Media is simply more than glad to report it that way.

What if the position was reported as 'Sure we (Republicans) can and do support continuing unemployment benefits for those struggling to find jobs. We look forward working with our Democrat colleagues to find the funding from other budget items to fund this spending'.

If that position is reported, I'm convinced that it would gain some positive traction, not only among the Republican voters, but also the independents and perhaps even some do the Democrat voters.

Now, if in fact this is the Republican position, and if in fact this was provided to the media in a presser, but was reported as 'mean old Republicans want to deny unemployment benefit extension', how would you know? All you'd hear is 'mean old Republicans'.

I guess what I'm saying is that I really don't believe the Republicans to be as incompetent as they are being portrayed by the media, and that the media's agenda is to perform little more than character assassination on all those that they disagree with. Yes, my distrust of the Biased Lame Stream Media has grown to that extent.

 

[Grant]

Simple question, if you take away unemployment benefits, while the job market is in the toilet. What do you think will happen with people? The problem is the GOP is taking a look at it from only one angle and in doing so this will actually hurt more people than help them. Until the job market is back up, cutting unemployment beneifts are just going to piss people off and get them voting for Dems more.

Why do you think the job market is going to go back up? With O'care and higher taxes the fight for investors to create jobs will become tighter. As well there continues to be foreign competition.

What the GOP really needs to focus on is relaxing regulations that are hindering jobs and THEN go after the unemployment benefits IMO. Without a good job market, by relaxing regulations, the GOP is going to be saving jack **** cause more people will vote Dems to get it back.

If the American people vote the Democrats back into office they will once again be getting the government they deserve.

It's like the GOP wants to commit suicide. The GOP needs to pick and choose their battles, I would figure increasing the job market by relaxing regulations would be a fight the GOP should take the Dems to the mat on.

Given the rocketing debt, higher taxes, failed foreign policies, ongoing scandals at the highest levels, etc., it is not the Republican Party which is committing suicide. Political parties come and go. It is the American people who are responsible and no one else.

 

[Grant]

I really do understand that, but I think going after unemployment benefits is just going to continue to play into the Dems hands as well. Until the job market increases, going after unemployment is just going to send more people to the Dems.

When has giving away public money not been a successful way to get the vote out?

 

[TheNextEra]

When has giving away public money not been a successful way to get the vote out?

When the job market is good enough that people can get paid MORE than being on welfare.