|
Quote:
The guys in power don't care about either the RR or TP's agendas, they just want their votes to continue on doing the same ole, same ole. This is why I laugh my ass off @ the tea party as well as the religious right, because both are too stupid to realize they are getting used for the next fix so the big boys in Washington can play big boy games with their big business buddys. The democrats are much the same, but at the very least the average Joe gets a bit more out of them. |
dayumn ............. have to back to training ;)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The republicans are set to pass their third bill from the house today, which the democrats who control the senate say they will kill in the senate. That's part of the problem, that democrats won't even put a bill up for vote, and Obama, who is supposed to be the leader, hasn't put out a specific plan. All they have done is said "no" to everything the republicans propose. Of course we're in this mess because the dems didn't take care of it before the election like they were supposed to. They controlled the house, senate, and white house and still couldn't do their job. If the democrats in senate would follow the standard procedure and change the house bill to their liking, it could then go to conference committee for the final compromise version to be worked out. So far the dems have refused to introduce any bill, to amend the republican bills, or to pass anything. |
Quote:
Why put a bill up if it's going to get shot down? Why put it up when the other party already told you they would shoot it down? Why would the Reps put one up, even though the Dems said they would shoot it down and Obama said he would veto it? Do you think it's good for our country to waste time voting on bills everyone knows wont pass when they should be working on bills that should pass, thus giving people a reason to rail if it doesn't? Why in hell would you want what they did plan to pass? Do you like being fucked in the ass? How about this... one party, I don't care which, actually put something together that makes real cuts in areas that really need it, doesn't strip away what is ours, and doesn't play politics with the future. Until that happens, both sides are playing us all for fools. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think you're dead on right with the above statement... but I think the person who said the Dems didn't do shit when they were "in power" is also right. Which means, which you kind of hinted at, the Dems controlling things (like Obama and Reid) aren't that much different than the other side... at least where business and financial issues are concerned. Which is what pisses me off. The only difference there is which side gets to funnel money to their friends. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
And don't think that this makes no sense, since the Democrats seem to do things against business. The fact is that when Democrats do things that are going to make things harder on businesses in the US, like more regulations and taxes, they are STILL doing it as a favor to their large corporate buddies. The fact is, that the largest corporations can MUCH more easily cope with higher taxes and more regulations than the middle, small and start ups can. Those large corporations have the infrastructure, and international resources to deal with any of those issues. What they pay their Democrat buddies to do is to kill off any possible competition by raising taxes and regulations that those small companies can't cope with nearly as well. .:2 cents: |
Here is your explanation:
Obama was groomed and funded by people who hate the idea of strong nation states. Oh by the way they also have the Republicans bought off or blackmailed as well. Regardless of what party is in the majority or in the white house the results will be the same: our culture is destroyed, kids are dumbed down, our economy is fleeced, and 3rd world immigrants pour in by the hundreds of thousands every year. Everytime a Congressman or Senator decides to make a stand and fight for their country they are set up in a scandal or put out of office in the next election because their opponent mysteriously gets a mountain of extra funding. Now you know so you don't need to ever ask again or complain about the farce of Republican vs Democrat politics. YOU ARE WELCOME:thumbsup It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed the average business person is about politics. Sure I can understand how the average consumer is a complete idiot but I expect more from people who are entrepreneurs. Turn off Fox News, CNN, ABC, etc and WAKE THE FUCK UP! |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While I didn't deal with this part of the business directly, our Canadian company had/has to use nafta rules, I assume for the tax benefit. We purchased distro/manufacturing parts, ship them into Canada, add our flavor to them, and ship them back. I really can't find the raw deal in not getting double taxed. :thumbsup |
Quote:
Quote:
I truly feel that if they cared, at all, about the people or this Country, we wouldn't be having this debate, at any level. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Under Clinton, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts also. There a TONS of corporations and unions getting HUGE amounts of government help/money in return for their support during elections under this regime. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the favors that are done from and for each side. Try scratching even a tiny bit past your own personal preferences for party and you will find the truth of what I'm saying. . |
Quote:
Isn't it interesting that 50+ years ago a middle class family with a single income in America (and I'm assuming Canada too) could meet the basic necessities of life, and even grow a savings account and enjoy the occasional vacation. Now, you can accomplish the same with two incomes. That's not a horrible fate, especially given houses are better now and we have more comforts, but it's still a step back -- and it requires people in that position to depend on someone other than themselves. But unchecked free trade, I believe, threatens to put even that situation in jeopardy. If I am competing with someone in another under-developed country for the same job, and that person shares a house with 8 other people in his family -- who can afford to accept the lowest wage, him or me? So my only response then is to downgrade my quality of life, unless I'm one of the fortunate who get to live an elite life of power afforded by the corporations who are pursuing all this shit. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The GOP has been doing shit since day 1 when they took the house that was the 'same ole shit.' From day 1 it was all abortion, planned parenthood, abortion, and did i mention abortion? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even Hilary when running for president said it needs to be rewritten |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And if we didn't have a trade agreement with them, the labor costs are so vastly different that it would still be beneficial to setup labor shops in Mexico, even more so when they have all the parts coming to them. Logistically, Mexico is much more central, thus much cheaper shipping costs per unit. Now you can ship each part directly, costing you more per part + tax, or send it to a much more central place that is cheaper, put it together cheaper, ship in larger containers cheaper, and save yourself a f'in ton of money. |
Quote:
Overall I think we need some labor rules, but I'm not sure if I'm up for more regulations. That isn't to say some other trade agreements don't need to be changed or simply just burned. |
Quote:
I don't give two fucks if Obama gets re-elected or not....But don't be the moronic ostrich who puts his head in the sand... |
Quote:
Quote:
To me, life is simply too different today to compare to back then. Quote:
That's why I feel the green technology field, whatever directly it may go, is the best bet for our Country. New tech has always created jobs, improved the eco, etc... to me it's the only real solution to jobs. |
Quote:
|
I am, and have been for many years, a registered Libertarian; I vote in every election; I have no potential solutions to offer, but I hope somehow a magic wand appears and make my next paragraph happen.
I wish politicians would stop being political and making everything they do be intended to help their Re-election. Instead, they should work hard for the best thing for America, not a political party or their re-election:-(. I wish we had 2-5 year term limits for ALL offices at ALL levels, thus letting us get real "work" out of those elected, instead of subjective politics. Heck, with the aforementioned, we might even entice more qualified candidates to run for office, work hard for the good of America, and chuck politics/lobbying/re-election subjectivity/etc aside!? |
Quote:
I can't remember which Country it is... but one of them do one term on and one off. The off term you campaign in, based on how well you did on your on term. |
Quote:
Obamas 2012 Budget From Wikipedia: The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. Thus, President George W. Bush submitted the FY2007 budget in February 2006. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications. |
Quote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2e1_1273440915 |
Quote:
I am pretty sure though the Constitution some place says; any act/bill, etc raising revenue must originate in the House of Reps, which normally does the budget, because of that. After that Congress passes the actual budget, then it must be authorized to give out the money, by them again, then it's ready go. So I took that as Congress doing the budget..... Does this mean Obama actually did submit a budget, and it was rejected? |
A quick google answered my own question... I see both sides kicked it back.
Obama's 2011 Budget Proposal http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html Edit: I see now the link Dvae shared has the 2012 budget on it as well. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You can thank Reagan for that, NAFTA has nothing to do with it. |
Quote:
And wasn't THE ONLY THING HAPPENING IN THE WORLD according to the nightly newscasts, the big "immigration problem" a few months ago? It was like EVERYTHING hinged on stopping those evil Mexicans from coming to the U.S. to get jobs. Now why would they come here to get jobs if all of our jobs are down in Mexico? :helpme |
Quote:
|
Quote:
For all intents and purposes it is a proposal until it passes both houses of Congress and the POTUS signs it. |
Quote:
Btw, found what I was thinking about: Article 1 - The Legislative Branch - Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto. All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. I guess they would make the bill that would raise the revenue, however the budget itself isn't a bill. |
Quote:
|
I think everyone here will love this....
Dennis Kucinich |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So where the fuck do you think Reagan had anything to do with Pickups being assembled in Mexico? Or are you talking about the Illegal Alien Amnesty he did, too bad ever POTUS since hasn't enforced the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Or Are you just a moron? I await your answer |
Quote:
|
The government, today, announced that it will be changing the nations emblem from a Bald Eagle, to a condom, because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed.
|
Quote:
|
Most of you guys complaining about Obama will just vote for the next crop of puppets anyway:2 cents:
|
|
Quote:
In fact Presidents have been giving awards and props Haluburton since 1963 because when you need 700 oil well fires extinguished NOW or you need a prison built in a few weeks nobody else can do it like they can. I've watched them work so I se what Gore was taking about. Contrary to popular belief among the lefties, other companies DID bid on the Iraq contingency contracts. Those other companies needed several months and billions of dollars to hire people and aquire large equipment. Haliburton was ready to go because that's what they do. They handle big projects right and they are always ready to go. Need a refinery? Haliburton can build you one quicker than any government agency can approve the paint color. |
Quote:
They ALL will, not most. (on both sides, sadly) Obama is a disaster, the worst possible presdient at the worst possible time. He has set the dems back decades, even if he MIGHT have kept us from a bushite economic collapse for the moment, I will grudgingly stipulate. But you know the anti-obamites will manage to vote in somebody even worse. So hang on, buy tools and useful supplies and get practical skills, because what is coming is going to be bad. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123