Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
one posting, we need more government spending to boost the economy
Tea Partiers stopped the increase spending
Unemployment applications are a 5 year low
your response, thats destroying the country.
How exactly does wanting to lower debt, keep the money in the economy, eliminate the need to lower the GDP in the future by lowering the obligations, and allowing more people go back to work = destroying the country?
one posting, we need more government spending to boost the economy
Tea Partiers stopped the increase spending
Unemployment applications are a 5 year low
your response, thats destroying the country.
How exactly does wanting to lower debt, keep the money in the economy, eliminate the need to lower the GDP in the future by lowering the obligations, and allowing more people go back to work = destroying the country?
This nation was hemorrhaging, until word that the TEA Party was going to take the House back.
There very much is a haha, because my very first posting to you was to show you have 46 + 5 = 51, enough needed to get the bill to a vote, now you're moving the goal post into whining because if they had followed normal procedures, the Republicans would have added to the bill..
Yeah, we wouldnt want that, would we? And your reply, yes, blame the Republicans because Democrats had a "my way or the highway" that they couldnt even get 1/2 of the Senate to vote for..
Which bill--one that actually requires a background check for private sales (that's pretty noncontroversial and 90% of the country supports it) or the one that would have been loaded with amendments by the gun lobby and done nothing if they'd left it at 51%? That's not "my way or the highway." Of course they had over 50%--they had 54 in favor (50 democrats out of 55, plus 4 R votes) with 5 democrats joining the R's to save face in rural districts after they realized that even if every D voted for it, they were only going to get 4 R votes, leaving the total at 59. They needed 60.
I'm not scared to talk about race when it is relevant to the discussion. We saw all the thinly veiled racism during the Tea Party's initial hoopla. You can't pretend it wasn't there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course they had over 50%--they had 54 in favor (50 democrats out of 55, plus 4 R votes) with 5 democrats joining the R's to save face in rural districts after they realized that even if every D voted for it, they were only going to get 4 R votes, leaving the total at 59. They needed 60.
