Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I really don't have time to teach you basic civics here, but you should take a course or something, and stop listening to your radio." I've said this to you before- why you continue to engage dishonest jackasses is beyond me. I mean, I know why, but just the same, why? He doesn't listen, doesn't comprehend, or worse, refuses to, and keeps spewing the same redundant, wrong crap. He's pointless. It's pointless.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <The Republicans have voted to raise the debt ceiling every other time it has needed to be done. The only reason they were balking this time was because they are hell bent on doing the exact opposite of whatever Obama wants to do, and they really do not care what the consequences to the country are. They were willing to bankrupt the country to win their political game. That is disgusting.> Just like what Tommy Boy is doing here. Being contrary purely for the sake of it.
Originally Posted By dshyates "The largest 500 Christmas Tree distrubutors collectively go to the Federal Government and successfully get a Federal tax imposed on everyone to fund the 500 largest Christmas Tree distributors "marketing campaign" and you are trying to say JUST conservatives had a problem with this?" Well, um , yeah. This has been going on since 1965. No one got their panties in a bunch over "Got Milk", "The Incredible Edible Egg", "Beef, It's What's For Dinner", etc. So why Christmas Trees?Because the right wing noise machine told all the Ditto Heads to be mad. They said it was Obama's fault, which it is not. They said it was a tax, which it is not. And used it as proof the Obama is a Muslim terrorist at war with Christians. Which I won't even dignify with a comment.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I've said this to you before- why you continue to engage dishonest jackasses is beyond me.> Yeah, I know, I know. You can kick my butt in a couple of weeks in person. I had held out hope that KT was better than that, as I thought I had seen so in other threads, but perhaps not. Perhaps he's just being contrary for the sake of it, or maybe he just actually believes what his radio tells him and doesn't care to investigate what he's being fed.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Umm, the same congress that voted in favor of the war appropriated the funds for the Halliburton contract. And president elect Obama was pushing for the bank bail out. Has no bid contracting ended? Did it end during the super majority Obama had when becoming President? (Obama-care) Typical left wind dodge. Same old 2D denial coming Fantasyland lefties! ;-)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Umm, the same congress that voted in favor of the war appropriated the funds for the Halliburton contract.> It was a no-bid contract. Try to keep up. Congress had a choice of: Halliburton.
Originally Posted By patrickegan It's still is funded by congress, and they can defund contracts too.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The Congress at the start of the Iraq war was Republican majority. They weren't about to defund Cheney's company. After that, it was simply easier to stay with who was already there (although I agree that Obama could have done better there and not just taken the path of least resistance. He may have taken the attitude "well, I'm winding this thing down so who needs the headache?" but I wish he'd done more there too.)
Originally Posted By patrickegan I guess the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee was preoccupied with handing out contracts to hubby?? <a href="http://www.bohemian.com/feinstein/" target="_blank">http://www.bohemian.com/feinstein/</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I notice that story is from 2007. And I further notice that google brings up breathless stories from the likes of freerepublic and worldnewsdaily, but I'm not seeing anything from less rabid sources. If there was anything to it, don't you think it would have come out? (And don't pretend Democrats are never subject to such things - hello, Charlie Rangel.) And even if it was crooked, "the other guys" do it too is not a defense - it's the sort of thing you do when you can't defend the ridiculous level of no-bid contracts given to Halliburton by Bush-Cheney.
Originally Posted By HongKongFoooy ###There's obviously a lot you don't get. ### interesting, because i was thinking the same about you. ###Of course no one forced Obama to choose Immelt.### exactly so he should have gone with another. ###But that's irrelevant to how GE got its tax breaks### aahh ya, i think that part is obvious to most of us. it is to me. but that isn't what is ticking a few of us off now is it. my{{our}} concerns are that obama selected someone for jobs czar who heads up a huge corp that doesn't play an ethical game..
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <interesting, because i was thinking the same about you.> What an awesome comeback! All the intellectual heft of "I know you are, but what am I?" ###Of course no one forced Obama to choose Immelt.### <exactly so he should have gone with another.> But he didn't. The point is that there's no connection between that choice and GE paying little tax, as the OP implied. ###But that's irrelevant to how GE got its tax breaks### <aahh ya, i think that part is obvious to most of us. it is to me.> Not to the OP. <but that isn't what is ticking a few of us off now is it. my{{our}} concerns are that obama selected someone for jobs czar who heads up a huge corp that doesn't play an ethical game.. > That's my concern too, as I said very clearly. Believe it or not, some of us don't see the world in black and white and are quite willing to criticize someone we normally like when he makes a dodgy decision.
Originally Posted By HongKongFoooy ###The uncertainty that the Republicans created, just for the fun of trying to screw Obama, is what led to the credit rating being lowered.### wait, wait this definitely needs further discussion. that is one way, the short or immediate way, to look at it. but another way to see this is the usa owes money, way too much in relation to its assets and ability to pay it back. this would concern any credit bureau, stalling or no stalling. we can dissect this any which way but there is far more going on to a lowered credit rating than just to say it's because repubs stalled and sabotaged{{which they did and i give a level 9 foooy on them}} like katrina. did so many people float or sink to a watery grave because of the very poor infrastructure or because of last minute haste, waste or greed.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Yes and no. Yes the national debt is too high, and that did contribute to the decision to lower the credit score, but it was the uncertainty caused by the Republicans that was the deciding factor in that decision. They waited until the last possible second to vote to raise the debt ceiling and that really caused concern that they would be willing to default on the debt. They repeatedly warned congress that if they delayed in raising the debt ceiling the credit rating would be in jeopardy. The Republicans did not care.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "{{which they did and i give a level 9 foooy on them}}" A level 9 fooey on them! I love that!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<but another way to see this is the usa owes money, way too much in relation to its assets and ability to pay it back.>> Actually, that's not exactly true. According to the CBO, if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire as originally planned, the deficit would disappear in less than a decade.
Originally Posted By HongKongFoooy ###but it was the uncertainty caused by the Republicans that was the deciding factor in that decision.### would it be ok with you if we could just call it the straw that broke the us's high credit rating's back? certainly there were some straws, muddy and heavy ones at that, that were piled on the us's financial back prior to republican sabotage. is that fair to say?
Originally Posted By HongKongFoooy ###What an awesome comeback! All the intellectual heft of "I know you are, but what am I?"### i wasn't looking to 1 up you, mr. bob; may i call you mr. bob? please take it at face value when i basically said that, coincidentally, i think that there is a lot that you don't get also. none of us monopolize ignorance nor knowledge. now, if we're through playing the defensive game i'd like to move back to the topic at hand which has pretty much evolved into two: a rich general electric who doesn't contribute to uncle sam fairly and the inappropriate positioning to jobs czar of that company's c.e.o..
Originally Posted By dshyates Back to the "Christmas Tree Tax" thing, I just wanted to address a few things. KT had said he didn't mind the "Got Milk" ad campain because it was paid for by the milk industry. The "Got Milk" ad campaign was funded through the exact same USDA Promotion and Research Progam the the Christmas Tree growers applied for. The USDA Promotion and Research Program was started in 1965. At the moment there are 18 different commodities running ad campaigns funded through the program. Some of the more famous ones are "Got Milk", "Beef: It's Whats For Dinner", and "The Incrdible Edible Egg". What really makes my head spin is that this fee was to pay for a "Buy American" ad campain designed to help American farmers and their families. And the conservative noise machine spun it 180 degrees to Obama is a socialist Christmas therefor CHRISTIAN hating Islamic terrorist. And their base ate it up. AMAZING!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ###What an awesome comeback! All the intellectual heft of "I know you are, but what am I?"### <i wasn't looking to 1 up you, mr. bob; may i call you mr. bob?> My name isn't Bob. "Mr. Dabob2, King of All He Surveys™" will do. <please take it at face value when i basically said that, coincidentally, i think that there is a lot that you don't get also. none of us monopolize ignorance nor knowledge.> Well, of course. But my saying that to you was in regard to a very specific things in the course of the conversation itself, chiefly the (non-existent) relationship between Immelt being jobs czar and the tax breaks GE took advantage of which were in place long before that happened. <now, if we're through playing the defensive game i'd like to move back to the topic at hand which has pretty much evolved into two: a rich general electric who doesn't contribute to uncle sam fairly and the inappropriate positioning to jobs czar of that company's c.e.o..> We got here because the OP implied a relationship between Immelts being jobs czar and GE getting tax breaks, where there is none. In the far more general sense, corporations get tax breaks because of their cozy relationships with pols of both parties, but there's no direct correlation, because the breaks were put in place years before. And I've already said I think there were better choices for current jobs czar.
