1. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausr View Post
    I'm pretty sure Bush/Congress were the ones who gave TARP money to the banks/auto industry only to make back a profit of 30$ billion. Also, the US Auto Industry is back to #1 in the world. We have job gains every month, the economy is surely but slowly reviving, and having 40 million more people receiving the medical attention they deserve is a pretty nice thing.

    Also, look at the things he wants to promote now for business and small business. He wants to punish the oversea job shippers, promote domestic products and raise taxes on the wealthy. However, what can you do with a Congress which anything that Obama proposes will just automatically reject? Heck, I laughed when the Republicans auto rejected the recent budget that wasn't even released yet. I laughed when they rejected a recent proposal that was originally a Republican idea and they rejected it. He's like Blizzard and it's customer base: Damned if you do.
    Republicans in congress initially voted down TARP, breaking ranks with Bush.

    Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even called Senate Republicans "irresponsible" for voting down the 2008 bailout.
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...sponsible.html

    It was the democrats that were all for it. Obama was elected in a landslide and the democrats had a supermajority in congress from 2009-2010. They had a blank check to do anything they wanted. They chose to stick with TARP and the massive debt spending. If they wanted to end the bailouts, they had all the power to do it.

    I'm not sure how we go from Pelosi called the republicans "irresponsible" for voting no to the bailout, to blaming the republicans for bailing out the banks.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-13 at 09:50 PM ----------

    As far as the auto industry, it was the democrats pushing for a massive bailout, with republicans holding the line on such spending.
    http://www.japantoday.com/category/w...out-automakers

    Democrats, White House clash on bailing out automakers

    WORLD NOV. 18, 2008 - 06:21AM JST ( 44 )WASHINGTON —

    Democrats in Congress Monday launched a new multi-billion dollar drive to save the US auto industry, but the White House warned against their plans to take funds from a huge finance industry bailout.

    Less than two weeks after Barack Obama’s presidential election victory, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill clashed in a new showdown over the reeling US economy, at the start of a “lame duck” session of Congress.

    Democrats unveiled a $25 billion plan to shore up the reeling car industry using funds drawn from the finance bailout, in the final congressional session of President George W Bush’s turbulent presidency.

    Senate Majority leader Harry Reid hit out at Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for refusing to adapt the huge bailout to aid the auto industry, on which millions of jobs depend.

    “All it would take is one stroke of a pen and that problem would be solved,” Reid said, as he opened the Senate lame duck session.

    “We are seeing a potential meltdown in the auto industry, with consequences that could directly impact millions of American workers and cause further devastation to our economy.”
    Last edited by Grummgug; 2012-02-14 at 05:50 AM.

  2. #282
    The democrats were pissed about the GOP blocking money for the auto industry not for banks.

  3. #283
    Quote Originally Posted by Grummgug View Post
    Republicans in congress initially voted down TARP, breaking ranks with Bush.

    Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even called Senate Republicans "irresponsible" for voting down the 2008 bailout.
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...sponsible.html

    It was the democrats that were all for it. Obama was elected in a landslide and the democrats had a supermajority in congress from 2009-2010. They had a blank check to do anything they wanted. They chose to stick with TARP and the massive debt spending. If they wanted to end the bailouts, they had all the power to do it.

    I'm not sure how we go from Pelosi called the republicans "irresponsible" for voting no to the bailout, to blaming the republicans for bailing out the banks.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-13 at 09:50 PM ----------

    As far as the auto industry, it was the democrats pushing for a massive bailout, with republicans holding the line on such spending.
    http://www.japantoday.com/category/w...out-automakers

    Democrats, White House clash on bailing out automakers

    WORLD NOV. 18, 2008 - 06:21AM JST ( 44 )WASHINGTON —

    Democrats in Congress Monday launched a new multi-billion dollar drive to save the US auto industry, but the White House warned against their plans to take funds from a huge finance industry bailout.

    Less than two weeks after Barack Obama’s presidential election victory, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill clashed in a new showdown over the reeling US economy, at the start of a “lame duck” session of Congress.

    Democrats unveiled a $25 billion plan to shore up the reeling car industry using funds drawn from the finance bailout, in the final congressional session of President George W Bush’s turbulent presidency.

    Senate Majority leader Harry Reid hit out at Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for refusing to adapt the huge bailout to aid the auto industry, on which millions of jobs depend.

    “All it would take is one stroke of a pen and that problem would be solved,” Reid said, as he opened the Senate lame duck session.

    “We are seeing a potential meltdown in the auto industry, with consequences that could directly impact millions of American workers and cause further devastation to our economy.”
    Either way, we made our money back and then some. While you may not think so, I think bailing out the auto industry had to have happened. And, look at them now, GM is #1 in the world again. (edit: Well, as of 2/16/12, GM just posted they made $7.6 billion in profit last year).

    As far as the so called super majority people love to bring up, I bring up filibusters. That bullshit rule that was so abused and overused. Unfortunately, and this is the one thing I hate my own party for, Democrat congressmen lack the balls to call them on it and they back off. I REALLY would've loved to have seen the Democrats say "You know what? Screw you, we're calling your bluff and we'll sit there and see if you do follow through" but, nope.
    Last edited by Ausr; 2012-02-16 at 11:33 PM.

  4. #284
    What about the HHS mandate? Which is not about women's right but more importantly freedom of religion. This guy is making some scary moves. Anyone who wants to
    take rights away should NOT be reelected.

  5. #285
    Pandaren Monk Willeonge's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Greyt Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by cochinojoe View Post
    What about the HHS mandate? Which is not about women's right but more importantly freedom of religion. This guy is making some scary moves. Anyone who wants to
    take rights away should NOT be reelected.
    except the compromise that was made is no longer that religious institutions must provide birth control, but its through the insurer.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...4Q_video.html#

    Also ignoring the fact there are several states that had THE SAME THING in effect, we should also be upset at the states that implemented the same thing.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...tives-20120216
    "Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding."

    “A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.”

    - King Stannis Baratheon

  6. #286
    Stood in the Fire TechnoKronic's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by cochinojoe View Post
    What about the HHS mandate? Which is not about women's right but more importantly freedom of religion. This guy is making some scary moves. Anyone who wants to
    take rights away should NOT be reelected.
    Clarify how this is more so about freedom of religion???
    They are not taking away anyone's right to worship, they are not persecution anyone, nor are they telling anyone how to live.
    He is merely providing inexpensive birth control to women through their insurance, same as a guy who get Viagra through their insurance.


    The only people who are determined to "take away rights" are republicans at this point.
    Propaganda is bad, you should actually look into women's health, not that you would bother.... seems most people would rather spout objections instead of asking why should we deny anyone easier access to protect from unwanted pregnancies.

  7. #287
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by cochinojoe View Post
    What about the HHS mandate? Which is not about women's right but more importantly freedom of religion. This guy is making some scary moves. Anyone who wants to
    take rights away should NOT be reelected.
    I guess you value the right of an employer, over the right of an individual. If the churches religious freedom was expressed to it's full extent, no one would be able to get contraception. What right does an institution have in forbidding an individual from buying a policy that covers contraception directly from the insurer? You want the government instead to back a ban on what an individual can purchase, based on their employment? Like MS banning it's employees from buying Apple products? you would support such a ban? That's freedom?

    In fact, and I know you will agree with me here, employers should not give full control of the salary to their employee. The employer should have the right to oversee an employees entire spending history, to make sure that none of the money provided by the employer, goes to spending on thing the employer finds to be against his morals. When you work at a health shop, they should have the right to stop you from buying Ben and Jerrie's. If you work for n oil company, they should be able to stop you from buying a hybrid...
    Last edited by Felya; 2012-02-19 at 05:47 AM.

  8. #288
    I'm just curious why catholic charities that receive so much money from the federal government think they get to be special.

    You don't get to play the separate from the government card when its convenient.

  9. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by xylophone View Post
    All we need now is a cheesy tag line and we can package it up as a Rom-Com.
    This time its personal - attacks...

    :3

  10. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I'm just curious why catholic charities that receive so much money from the federal government think they get to be special.

    You don't get to play the separate from the government card when its convenient.
    Not special. Just constitutionally protected. You'd be ok with Acorn workers being forced to quarter soldiers in their homes because they receive government funds?

  11. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by Merkava View Post
    Not special. Just constitutionally protected. You'd be ok with Acorn workers being forced to quarter soldiers in their homes because they receive government funds?
    Separation of church and state work both ways, it doesn't just keep the government out of church. The point was they seem to have no problem being involved with government when it gets them billions of dollars, but when it requires they don't impose their religious beliefs on their employees its not ok.

    Your analogy is a red herring because that amendment behaves entirely differently.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-19 at 11:24 PM ----------

    I mean we give church's exemption from taxes so they can stay separate from the government and in exchange they don't use the pulpit to push political goals (in theory).

    Yet despite the billions Catholic Charities get from the government they don't seem to think they should have to comply with employee protections everyone else does, despite the fact they're not even a church in nature. This country spends too much time giving religious groups everything they want.

  12. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Separation of church and state work both ways, it doesn't just keep the government out of church. The point was they seem to have no problem being involved with government when it gets them billions of dollars, but when it requires they don't impose their religious beliefs on their employees its not ok.
    .
    So they're required surrender their constitutionally protected rights because they're hypocrites? I must have missed that ruling. I'm guessing Obama did too, since he walked back the policy.

  13. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by Merkava View Post
    So they're required surrender their constitutionally protected rights because they're hypocrites? I must have missed that ruling. I'm guessing Obama did too, since he walked back the policy.
    No...I'm saying they can't have it both ways. If they want to take government money and get a 100% tax break then they sure as shit should be complying with federal employment law.

    You don't get to use the separation of church and state only when its convenient and buddy your religious group up to the same government when you want billions of dollars from them.

  14. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    No...I'm saying they can't have it both ways. If they want to take government money and get a 100% tax break then they sure as shit should be complying with federal employment law.

    You don't get to use the separation of church and state only when its convenient and buddy your religious group up to the same government when you want billions of dollars from them.
    So they're hypocrites? Big deal. That's your argument? They can, in fact, have it both ways. The constitution of the United States says they can. And Obama and HHS knows it too. So which federal law are they breaking?

  15. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by Merkava View Post
    So they're hypocrites? Big deal. That's your argument? They can, in fact, have it both ways. The constitution of the United States says they can. And Obama and HHS knows it too. So which federal law are they breaking?
    I never said they were breaking a law. Care to actually address the things I'm saying? Do you not have a problem with a group that takes billions from the government to operate a religious group then claiming its a breach of Separation to have to not impose their religious beliefs on their employees?

  16. #296
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I never said they were breaking a law. Care to actually address the things I'm saying?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    they sure as shit should be complying with federal employment law.
    Which federal law are they not complying with?

  17. #297
    they sure as shit should be complying with federal employment law.
    The ones Obama felt it necessary to compromise on? The one that requires they provide for contraception? Following the conversation much?

    You do see how I can say they should be complying with a law without saying they are breaking one right? That the compromise that was struck was wrong?

    Do you not have a problem with a group that takes billions from the government to operate a religious group then claiming its a breach of Separation to have to not impose their religious beliefs on their employees?
    Answer the question Merkava.

  18. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    The ones Obama felt it necessary to compromise on? The one that requires they provide for contraception? Following the conversation much? You do see how I can say they should be complying with a law without saying they are breaking one right? That the compromise that was struck was wrong?
    Do you have the background and preparation to make the argument that not complying with a law is different from breaking a law? If you do, please go ahead and make that case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Answer the question Merkava.
    Like Barack Obama and HHS I have no problem with it. If you have a problem with it, instead of complaining to a video game board, I know where you can send your letters.

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20500

    Guess who lives there? The guy who fired Shirley Sherrod. The guy who fired Elizabeth Birnbaum. The same guy who advised Weiner to resign. Your problems with him.

    PS see how I answered your question right away? I didn't make you ask it six times.
    Last edited by Merkava; 2012-02-20 at 01:23 AM.

  19. #299
    I have no problem with it.
    Do you think religious groups should be required to pay taxes?

    And I won't be following any red herrings, save the effort.

  20. #300
    I answered your question, now you answer one of mine. Let's review your statements.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    they sure as shit should be complying with federal employment law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I never said they were breaking a law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    You do see how I can say they should be complying with a law without saying they are breaking one right? .
    Are you saying that not complying with a law is different from breaking a law? If you are, please go ahead and make that case.

    Additionally if Catholic Charities are only recently in compliance with federal law because of a compromise that was struck, were they in violation of federal law from their inception until Feb 2012?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •