-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
House Passes $819B Stimulus Package
- Thread starter Enoch
- Start date
- Status
Great news ... the president who promised bi-partisanship failed spectacularly. Among the big spending Republicans he could not even garner one single vote. And some of his own party didn't vote for him.
What a shameful act by the president to ram this through with such opposition. He failed to listen. Another broken promise, and he is only a week into his presidency.
At this rate, he will run out of promises to break by mid March at the latest.
What a shameful act by the president to ram this through with such opposition. He failed to listen. Another broken promise, and he is only a week into his presidency.
At this rate, he will run out of promises to break by mid March at the latest.
Pastor Larry said:
Actually he didn't fail, he has been seen meeting with the GOP, to them to recommend changes an, invited them to the white house and is right not treating them to cocktails. It is again the GOP who appears to not working with the democrats... The GOP vote today went on the same level as Cantor saying they voted down the bailout package because of Pelosi speech. I am starting to think they really don't know what time of day it is...
Pastor Larry said:
He did fail, huge. Saying "I won" does not lend to bi-partisanship.
He did fail. He said he wanted to be bipartisan. He wasn't. It doesn't matter why ... He wasn't. Bipartisanship is not ramming through your ideas. It is compromise. Obama didn't. It's a sign of bad leadership and broken promises.
Here is the problem America see's with the GOP. They can throw stones but they can't take a punch.
Your only proof or statement against Obama's bipartisanship is the two words "I won". Of all the things said against Obama, "I won"...
Again I say, it wreaks of the same stink of when the house republican's voted down the original bail out plan blaming Pelosi's speech. Two things I will say, don't dish it out of you can't take it and if you can't take criticism them perhaps politics isn't your cup of tea. Ether way what we need it grown men and women on the hill who will do what's best for the nation even if their feelings get hurt. Don't penalize the citizens you represent because someone said something you didn't like... Come on...
Your only proof or statement against Obama's bipartisanship is the two words "I won". Of all the things said against Obama, "I won"...
Again I say, it wreaks of the same stink of when the house republican's voted down the original bail out plan blaming Pelosi's speech. Two things I will say, don't dish it out of you can't take it and if you can't take criticism them perhaps politics isn't your cup of tea. Ether way what we need it grown men and women on the hill who will do what's best for the nation even if their feelings get hurt. Don't penalize the citizens you represent because someone said something you didn't like... Come on...
LeBuick said:
Right you are. Congress should come to me with guns drawn and take my hard-earned money, so that the National Mall can be reseeded...and so that contraceptives can be given to folks, perpetrating irresponsible behavior.
Do you even know what's in the bill, or are you just capitalizing on an opportunity to laud the party you revere?
Like I said, with 11 democrats voting along with every republican, the bi-partisanship was AGAINST the bill.
I can't speak for the GOP since I am not a member and don't even like the GOP, but the proof of Obama's lack of bipartisanship has little to do with "I won" and much to do with actions. He didn't get any Republican votes. By definition, that is not bipartisan.
You say, "Don't penalize the citizens you represent because someone said something you didn't like... Come on...[/quote] How about if we don't penalize citizens by voting for a bad bill? And while we're here, how about if we don't penalize citizens for having a mom or dad that's an idiot.
BigBossman
Active Member
I know I posted this in another thread, but it needs mentioning here too:
While there are some parts of Obama's stimulus plan I could remotely understand, there are a alot of parts I completely don't understand. For one, why is $400 million going toward global warming research? Second, what about the $2.4 billion that is supposed to go toward carbon capture projects. Third, why do we need $650 million to go toward digital TV conversion?
My question is: How does any of that stimulate our economy?
While there are some parts of Obama's stimulus plan I could remotely understand, there are a alot of parts I completely don't understand. For one, why is $400 million going toward global warming research? Second, what about the $2.4 billion that is supposed to go toward carbon capture projects. Third, why do we need $650 million to go toward digital TV conversion?
My question is: How does any of that stimulate our economy?
d
If you will notice, it's always the conservatives who lose in political "compromise".
Consider JFK. He was more conservative in his day, than today's R "conservative".
The only way this could happen is for the "center" to constantly shift left; and if the shift is constantly left, what does that say about sho' nuff "COMPROMISE"?
Incidentally, Walter Williams has a great quote re: this stimulating (ha!) package: rough paraphrase - "It's akin to dipping water from the deep end of the pool & pouring into the shallow end to make the shallow end deeper."
That about sums it up! Even the most fiscal challenged can understand it (not that they will though)!
Bolded minePastor Larry said:
If you will notice, it's always the conservatives who lose in political "compromise".
Consider JFK. He was more conservative in his day, than today's R "conservative".
The only way this could happen is for the "center" to constantly shift left; and if the shift is constantly left, what does that say about sho' nuff "COMPROMISE"?
Incidentally, Walter Williams has a great quote re: this stimulating (ha!) package: rough paraphrase - "It's akin to dipping water from the deep end of the pool & pouring into the shallow end to make the shallow end deeper."
That about sums it up! Even the most fiscal challenged can understand it (not that they will though)!
Don't know where this came from, but here tis:
Age old tribal wisdom dictates that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to get off."
The new-age approach to solving it:
Today, in the corporate world (and especially in government) more advanced strategies are employed. These include:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing the rider.
3. Appointing a committee to study the dead horse.
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
5. Lowering the standards, so that dead horses can also be included.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse to living-impaired.
7. Hiring an outside contractor to ride the dead horse.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to gain increase power & speed.
9. Providing additional funding and training to increase dead horse performance.
10. Commissioning a study to see if a lighter rider would improve the dead horse's performance.
11. Revising the accounting rules to recognize that since a dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, and therefore contributes substantially more to the corporate bottom line than do living horses.
12. Recalculating the standard performance output requirement for all horses by averaging the output of both dead and live horses.
13. Promoting dead horses to supervisory positions.
Age old tribal wisdom dictates that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to get off."
The new-age approach to solving it:
Today, in the corporate world (and especially in government) more advanced strategies are employed. These include:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing the rider.
3. Appointing a committee to study the dead horse.
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
5. Lowering the standards, so that dead horses can also be included.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse to living-impaired.
7. Hiring an outside contractor to ride the dead horse.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to gain increase power & speed.
9. Providing additional funding and training to increase dead horse performance.
10. Commissioning a study to see if a lighter rider would improve the dead horse's performance.
11. Revising the accounting rules to recognize that since a dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, and therefore contributes substantially more to the corporate bottom line than do living horses.
12. Recalculating the standard performance output requirement for all horses by averaging the output of both dead and live horses.
13. Promoting dead horses to supervisory positions.
Joshua Rhodes
<img src=/jrhodes.jpg>
hillclimber -
I'd laugh, but the problem is, because you're right, I can't.
I'd laugh, but the problem is, because you're right, I can't.
Carolina Baptist
Active Member
How far in debt can a nation go and still claim to have a stable economy?
Our national debt is over $10 trillion. That is more than $34 thousand for each citizen. How much more can we withstand?
Our national debt is over $10 trillion. That is more than $34 thousand for each citizen. How much more can we withstand?
I hope yer grandkids are able to thank you.dragonfly said:
BTW, can anyone tell me why they are glad this passed ? How will America's future be better if we print more worthless money ? And please, be specific.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status