Conservative VS Liberal

[pattygreen 5]

Look, if the federal government is eventually going to address the budget deficit, policymakers are going to have to a) bring in more money; :thumbup: spend less money; or c) some combination of the two. There are no other choices. The commission would ostensibly create the conditions for some kind of grand bargain -- Democrats would have to accept spending cuts they would otherwise oppose, and Republicans would accept tax increases they would otherwise oppose.

Once again, you didn't answer the question. Why did 6 republicans who co-sponsored the bill vote against it after Obama supported it? They were for it until Obama was for it. Then they were against it. Not only is that hypocritical but shows their anti-Obama sentiment and they desire to have him fail.

And when bush entered into two wars that we couldn't pay for he did so while also enacting 2 tax cuts for the rich - which were pushed through congress by the republicans through reconciliation. NOW THIS IS UNHEARD OF, STUPID AND RIDICULOUS and contributed to the huge deficit bush created. But did you hear anything about this from the so-called liberal media? No, once again he got a pass. And I was paying attention, even if you weren't.

I did answer the question. When this bill was proposed, at the beginning of Obama's administartion, It seemed a good thing. But NOW it stands to reason that to impose taxes on the already financially suffering and jobless Americans would be stupid and ridiculous. BUT, to impose spending cuts would be wise. What don't you see about the logic in that? They were for it at one time, but as the economy got worse instead of better, and the people are complaining about being unemployed and the horrific spending the administration is doing, it would not be wise to negotiate with you spendthrifts.

My question to you is why wasn't Obama "all for it" before now? You know, before the economy sank into unemployment rates above 10%?

[pattygreen 5]

People turned against healthcare when the public option was removed.

WRONG!!! People turned against the public option and then the Healthcare bill was removed.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I did answer the question. When this bill was proposed, at the beginning of Obama's administartion, It seemed a good thing. But NOW it stands to reason that to impose taxes on the already financially suffering and jobless Americans would be stupid and ridiculous. BUT, to impose spending cuts would be wise. What don't you see about the logic in that? They were for it at one time, but as the economy got worse instead of better, and the people are complaining about being unemployed and the horrific spending the administration is doing, it would not be wise to negotiate with you spendthrifts.

My question to you is why wasn't Obama "all for it" before now? You know, before the economy sank into unemployment rates above 10%?

I have no idea what you are talking about. This wasn't about imposing taxes, it was about a bipartisan COMMISSION to investigate how to reduce the deficit.

From the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON (AP); The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year.

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea.

So, again, why did the 6 republicans who co-sponsored this commission vote against it when Obama said it was a good idea? It's about tax cuts and spending curbs - isn't that what the republicans (and you) have been yapping about?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

People turned against healthcare when the public option was removed.

WRONG!!! People turned against the public option and then the Healthcare bill was removed.

You're WRONG. The public option has always been a popular part of the bill. It was some of the other provisions that people didn't like, plus those who liked the public option withdrew their support of the bill when it was removed. So, healthcare became less popular after the public option was removed.

[pattygreen 5]

I have no idea what you are talking about. This wasn't about imposing taxes, it was about a bipartisan COMMISSION to investigate how to reduce the deficit.

From the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON (AP); The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year.

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea.

So, again, why did the 6 republicans who co-sponsored this commission vote against it when Obama said it was a good idea? It's about tax cuts and spending curbs - isn't that what the republicans (and you) have been yapping about?

I understand that it was a commisssion, composed of both parties, to investigate how to lower the deficit. I didn't say that it was a commission to impose taxes.

Now, Both parties ideas were known. But in order to come to any agreement and meet in the middle, dems would have to accept budget cuts, and reps would have to accept increased taxes.

Here's the part you don't seem to get... Why should the reps have a commission on how to lower the deficit with democrats who want to increase the taxes on people who are in a state of economic ruin due to the job losses this recession has brought and they are not willing to cut budget spending? It is stupid to raise the american peoples taxes at this time, AND it is stupid NOT to cut budget spending. This commission would accomplish nothing! You can't raise taxes now, and you need to stop the spending. If the reps went into this commission and compromised with the dems on either of those two things, it would be financial ruin for the country. Dems want to tax and spend. Both are detrimental to our economy right now! Reps want to stop spending and taxing. This is the better option.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I understand that it was a commisssion, composed of both parties, to investigate how to lower the deficit. I didn't say that it was a commission to impose taxes.

Now, Both parties ideas were known. But in order to come to any agreement and meet in the middle, dems would have to accept budget cuts, and reps would have to accept increased taxes.

Here's the part you don't seem to get... Why should the reps have a commission on how to lower the deficit with democrats who want to increase the taxes on people who are in a state of economic ruin due to the job losses this recession has brought and they are not willing to cut budget spending? It is stupid to raise the american peoples taxes at this time, AND it is stupid NOT to cut budget spending. This commission would accomplish nothing! You can't raise taxes now, and you need to stop the spending. If the reps went into this commission and compromised with the dems on either of those two things, it would be financial ruin for the country. Dems want to tax and spend. Both are detrimental to our economy right now! Reps want to stop spending and taxing. This is the better option.

Please quote your source for anyone on this commission proposing tax increases. And if the republicans thought that was what democrats were going to propose (and knowing they were against it) why would 6 republicans co-sponsor it and then vote against it?

You just won't admit that they voted against it just because Obama was for it. Period. End of story.

[pattygreen 5]

Please quote your source for anyone on this commission proposing tax increases. And if the republicans thought that was what democrats were going to propose (and knowing they were against it) why would 6 republicans co-sponsor it and then vote against it?

You just won't admit that they voted against it just because Obama was for it. Period. End of story.

Are you deaf? When it was proposed, it was a good idea. NOW it's not! The economy has worsened and unemployment has risen and it is CRAZY to consider taxing and spending and not cutting the buget.

Why should they even talk ata commission meeting? Dems want to tax and not cut spending. Reps want to cut taxes and stop spending. Which party makes more sense in this economy?

As for the tax increases: It goes without saying that if you are not going to cut expenses and and you're going to spend more, then you will have to get the money somewhere. Where does the government get their funds? Taxes.

Edited February 3, 2010 by pattygreen

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Are you deaf? When it was proposed, it was a good idea. NOW it's not! The economy has worsened and unemployment has risen and it is CRAZY to consider taxing and spending and not cutting the buget.

Why should they even talk ata commission meeting? Dems want to tax and not cut spending. Reps want to cut taxes and stop spending. Which party makes more sense in this economy?

As for the tax increases: It goes without saying that if you are not going to cut expenses and and you're going to spend more, then you will have to get the money somewhere. Where does the government get their funds? Taxes.

Are you dense or being deliberately obtuse? Please read the following slowly. Reposted since you obviously didn't read it the FIRST time:

WASHINGTON (AP); The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year.

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea.

Do you see that? Tax cuts and spending curbs. Please find a credible source that says that anyone on this committee proposed tax increases and that is why the republicans voted against it. And if that is the reason (which it isn't) then why not just approve the commission and then vote down all the tax increase ideas when offered?

But you just throw things out there without backing them up.

I stand by what I have posted. Those 6 republicans were for the commission until Obama was for it and then they were against it because they hate Obama and want him to fail.

Unless you find something credible to back up what you are saying, quit posting your opinion as fact.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Story Updated.

Morning Feature: Tea Party GOP - A Religious Movement

by NCrissieB

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:12:42 AM PST

now almost anyone who watches cable news has heard about this week's Research 2000/Daily Kos poll about the beliefs of the modern Republican Party. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas said the responses show Republicans are "insane," and variations on that theme seem to dominate the progressive media. On the conservative side, Bill O'Reilly called the poll, and DKos, "a fraud," and Brad Blakeman said R2K/DK haven't "divulged" the questions or sampling data. In fact, both the questions and complete crosstabs are here.

I don't think the poll shows the Tea Party GOP are "insane." It shows that what's left of the GOP are more a religious movement than a political party.

More below the fold....

• NCrissieB's diary :: ::
  

Tea Party GOP - A Religious Movement

The results of the R2K/DK poll on Republican beliefs were provocative, if not always surprising. Former Republican Bruce Bartlett compiled this table showing some of the results:

In a blog post titled Why I'm Not a Republican, Bartlett added: "I can only conclude from this new poll ... that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid." Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein hints that the results show "a substantial portion of the Republican base is completely divorced from reality." Mother Jones' Kevin Drum offers a "Cliff Notes version: Republicans are nuts." Yesterday's Abbreviated Pundit Round-up offered some other comments as well. As noted above, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas said the results show Republicans are "insane."

But "insane" misses the key to what remains of the Republican Party, and in so doing underestimates the political power of a movement that Gallup polling says represents only 28% of voters. Having purged their moderates, the Tea Party GOP are now as much a religious movement as a political party.

Two revealing questions

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world? YES 77%; NO 15%; NOT SURE 8%.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith? CHRIST 67%; OTHER 15%; NOT SURE 18%.

These questions and their responses explain both the rest of the poll and the surprising power that remains in the Tea Party GOP. With only two exceptions - whether marriage is an equal partnership and whether women should be allowed to work outside the home - the other responses mirror the teachings of contemporary American Christian fundamentalism. Simply, while Democrats worry whether government is doing enough to help Fred, our archetypal average American ...

... the Tea Party GOP worry whether government is doing enough to please God as they imagine Him.

I think this last sentence says it all. We see it here on these posts. They want their biblical interpretions to be the driving force behind government policies except when it comes to helping the poor.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

I've been saying this all along as have a few others in far stronger positions than I. The religious agenda of the extreme right wing faction of the Republican party is obvious and I am happy that there are more people openly calling them out on it. This is important if we are going to be able to actually debate the real issues.

The poll was quite revealing, and it's no wonder that people like Bartlett are angry. DailyKos' assessment that Republicans are "insane" is not really helpful. The extremists don't have to be insane to believe what they do, but we are insane if we allow them to disrupt the growth and well being of the United States of America.

We have to debate the issues and stop calling each other names. Not that I believe it is going to happen. I believe that the extremists are going to continue to promote their agenda any way they can - through dishonesty, misrepresentation, etc. But the news media must, absolutely MUST, make Americans aware of the truth.

[BJean 16]

And Cleo's, I want to thank you so much for bringing so many relevant pieces of information to us. When people continually rant and rave and it is the furthest thing from the truth, it is necessary to set the record straight. You're doing a great job! Keep up the good work.

P.S. I also commend you for clearly citing your sources!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

And Cleo's, I want to thank you so much for bringing so many relevant pieces of information to us. When people continually rant and rave and it is the furthest thing from the truth, it is necessary to set the record straight. You're doing a great job! Keep up the good work.

P.S. I also commend you for clearly citing your sources!

Thank you. But I have to say that after reading "Idiot America" I have come to see how we actually give idiots a platform these days when in days of old they would have been laughed at and run out of town on a rail. We legitimize them but allowing them to speak as if they know what they are talking about.

Why are we even interviewing the birthers? They are whackos. We've always had whackos in society but they were largely ignored, laughed at or dismissed.

We pay Hannity to speak about stem cell research at some gathering of conservatives. What credentials does he have to speak about this? We spend millions of dollars on a court case because some religious right people won a school board majority in Dover, PA and wanted the school to teach creationism and the town got divided and there was a lawsuit. The creationism people got blown away during the trial and they lost the next election. Reasonable people won but it cost the district money it could have used on real educational things.

We allow people who reject legitimate science in favor of their religious or political views to control the dialogue. And we listen to them on tv and the radio. Because it moves units and that's what it's about.

I would recommend that book for anyone who wants to see how all of this is happening in our world today.

[pattygreen 5]

Story Updated.

Morning Feature: Tea Party GOP - A Religious Movement

by NCrissieB

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:12:42 AM PST

now almost anyone who watches cable news has heard about this week's Research 2000/Daily Kos poll about the beliefs of the modern Republican Party. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas said the responses show Republicans are "insane," and variations on that theme seem to dominate the progressive media. On the conservative side, Bill O'Reilly called the poll, and DKos, "a fraud," and Brad Blakeman said R2K/DK haven't "divulged" the questions or sampling data. In fact, both the questions and complete crosstabs are here.

I don't think the poll shows the Tea Party GOP are "insane." It shows that what's left of the GOP are more a religious movement than a political party.

More below the fold....

• NCrissieB's diary :: ::
  

Tea Party GOP - A Religious Movement

The results of the R2K/DK poll on Republican beliefs were provocative, if not always surprising. Former Republican Bruce Bartlett compiled this table showing some of the results:

In a blog post titled Why I'm Not a Republican, Bartlett added: "I can only conclude from this new poll ... that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid." Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein hints that the results show "a substantial portion of the Republican base is completely divorced from reality." Mother Jones' Kevin Drum offers a "Cliff Notes version: Republicans are nuts." Yesterday's Abbreviated Pundit Round-up offered some other comments as well. As noted above, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas said the results show Republicans are "insane."

But "insane" misses the key to what remains of the Republican Party, and in so doing underestimates the political power of a movement that Gallup polling says represents only 28% of voters. Having purged their moderates, the Tea Party GOP are now as much a religious movement as a political party.

Two revealing questions

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world? YES 77%; NO 15%; NOT SURE 8%.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith? CHRIST 67%; OTHER 15%; NOT SURE 18%.

These questions and their responses explain both the rest of the poll and the surprising power that remains in the Tea Party GOP. With only two exceptions - whether marriage is an equal partnership and whether women should be allowed to work outside the home - the other responses mirror the teachings of contemporary American Christian fundamentalism. Simply, while Democrats worry whether government is doing enough to help Fred, our archetypal average American ...

... the Tea Party GOP worry whether government is doing enough to please God as they imagine Him.

I think this last sentence says it all. We see it here on these posts. They want their biblical interpretions to be the driving force behind government policies except when it comes to helping the poor.

It is true that we want the moral issues that arise in congress to be passed as laws to be alined with what is 'right' and 'good' and to reflect what God would say is right and good. What I don't get is why liberals don't want our laws to reflect what is 'good'. The only reason I can come up with is because they are blinded by their own sin, and can not 'see' what is right. They want to do the wrong deeds that they do and they don't want the laws to forbid them from doing them. As far as helping the poor, you are wrong about that. We help the poor all the time. We conservatives and Christians are among the top givers to the poor and the helpless. We just don't want the government to do our giving for us. It is okay to help people who are in a hard place "temporarily". But, we don't like the way our government is growing and is now getting out of hand with the spending and give aways. It's one thing to 'give' when you have the money to give, it's quite another when you are bankrupt. I believe God would say "Get yourself out of the financial hole first." I think this way because he exhorts us to be good stewards of our time, money, and talents.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It is true that we want the moral issues that arise in congress to be passed as laws to be alined with what is 'right' and 'good' and to reflect what God would say is right and good. What I don't get is why liberals don't want our laws to reflect what is 'good'. The only reason I can come up with is because they are blinded by their own sin, and can not 'see' what is right. They want to do the wrong deeds that they do and they don't want the laws to forbid them from doing them. As far as helping the poor, you are wrong about that. We help the poor all the time. We conservatives and Christians are among the top givers to the poor and the helpless. We just don't want the government to do our giving for us. It is okay to help people who are in a hard place "temporarily". But, we don't like the way our government is growing and is now getting out of hand with the spending and give aways. It's one thing to 'give' when you have the money to give, it's quite another when you are bankrupt. I believe God would say "Get yourself out of the financial hole first." I think this way because he exhorts us to be good stewards of our time, money, and talents.

How arrogant of you to decide what God would say about our government deficits. You speak for him now? I recall that he stayed out of local politics and said to give unto Caesar...

You post bible quotes all the time when they suit you. While you want the government to be involved in certain parts of what the bible says (like homosexuality and abortion) but you don't want the government to be involved in what it says about helping the poor. When anyone quotes those passages you are quick to point out that it doesn't mean government - oh, no - it means family.

Well, where does it say in the bible that our government should be involved in making laws against gays or abortion? It doesn't - you just decide that for these issues it's time for the government to step in. Then you're okay with government.

You're also okay with the government giving to corporations. Corporate welfare. Did you read my lengthy post about corporate welfare? Why don't you rail against THAT? At least with welfare to people you are helping the least among us, but with corporate welfare you are just making the rich richer.

You like to paint liberals out as sinners who just want to be free to continue to be immoral. I am very insulted by that. I am a very moral person. I have already pointed out the many, many republican/conservative leaders who have engaged in immoral behavior, while preaching the opposite. HYPOCRITES!

People have free will and a conscience and will have to live with both regarding their choices in life. You want to legislate what are sins and what is not. That's the job of the religious community, not the government.

[BJean 16]

Cleo's, I find it interesting that patty gives you (and others) a second opportunity to be read by posting all the quotes. Cool.

It seems to me that people who want the government to be involved in the control of our religious lives would do well to look at countries where they are ruled by a particular religious doctine. I can't name one where the people and country are better off because of it.

In fact, those are the countries where turmoil and repression are the norm. To me it hardly seems better to have a country ruled by Christian doctrine than one ruled by say, Islam. No, I certainly don't agree with Islamic relgious doctine, but I also do not agree with the fundamentalist Christian extremists who want to tell me or my fellow Americans how to conduct our lives.

We keep hearing about how we are a Christian nation because it was the intent of our founding fathers and further, that the only reason we don't want to have a theocracy is because we are immoral and want to continue living in sin. That's entirely incorrect on both counts. What we were founded on was freedom - freedom from religious oppression and persecution.

And like you Cleo's, calling me immoral is highly offensive and hypocritical. And it only serves to make me dig my heels in further in my opposition to the right wing religious fanatics in America.

And Cleo's... may you never run out of steam!

Edited February 4, 2010 by BJean