Quantcast

Rave this if You think CONGRESS HAS FAILED!

Foxhound BN0 2012/06/15 13:07:31
Related Topics: Congress
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • littleb... CODE 11 2012/06/15 19:02:03
    littlebuffalo55TBA
    +3
    Exactly! He cannot lead congress to a practical long range solution so he subverts that and goes for the cheap votes!
  • intolerantrwj 2012/06/15 18:19:19
  • Firefly intoler... 2012/06/15 18:33:50 (edited)
    Firefly
    +2
    I wonder if Geico house insurance

    would cover THIS mayhem ?!?

    geico mayhem
  • intoler... Firefly 2012/06/15 19:16:49
    intolerantrwj
    +1
    .... should you ever have the opportunity to hear Mr. Cox in person, you will likely be pleased you took the time + effort.
  • Firefly intoler... 2012/06/15 19:25:43
    Firefly
    +1
    I will make it a point to search him out...

    Thanks a bunch for your insights ;0 )

    you rock
  • Firefly intoler... 2012/06/15 19:32:17
    Firefly
    +1
    I just found that book on Amazon...

    Gonna order it ~ Thanks again for your insights !

    Will see if I can find him somewhere, in person, as well ~

    I'm ready for a roadtrip, and fresh perspectives from folks like that ;0 )
  • intoler... Firefly 2012/06/15 19:40:56
    intolerantrwj
    +1
    .... met him in The Lonestar .... Lohn to be precise
  • Firefly intoler... 2012/06/15 19:49:20
    Firefly
    +1
    Nice !

    Must have been cool,

    meeting him in such a small town ~

    Were you there for that particular reason ?!?
  • intoler... Firefly 2012/06/15 20:54:08
    intolerantrwj
    +1
    .... no, some farming biz and he visited the seminar
  • Firefly intoler... 2012/06/15 21:13:16
    Firefly
    +1
    Very Cool ~

    Funny how things work that way huh ?

    Jus'pluggin' away, workin'each day, an'BAM,

    you run into somebody like that, while you're doin'it !
  • kar 2012/06/15 17:58:05
    kar
    +8
    Well the Republicans said they would shut down the President and they have done their best to do so. No one gets to have things 100% their way, but they will not vote yes for anything unless they do get 100% of what they want. Even when the plans offered have incorporated what they said they wanted, they decide it is not what they want. We would be in a much better place if Congress and the President could work together, but they can't. I am sorry but when I need to balance a budget in my household, I cut spending and if that is not enough you look for ways to earn more. You have to do both if the debt is large enough. I am tired of the government benefiting the wealthy big business who just want more and more, it is time we remember the rest of the people who have made them wealthy in the first place. CONGRESS IS A BIG FAIL. We need to restructure what motivates their decisions, because I am the people and they certainly are not listening to me unless I have million dollars to contribute.
  • Lady Wh... kar 2012/06/15 18:40:29
    Lady Whitewolf
    +4
    "Well the Republicans said they would shut down the President and they have done their best to do so...."

    No kidding.... they said that form DAY ONE Obama took office. It's sad none of the Conservatives / GOP / Republicans seem to REMEMBER that. They would rather TANK the whole country rather than see Obama succeed.
  • Flash,aka,Mr.Lightning 2012/06/15 17:54:39
    Flash,aka,Mr.Lightning
    +1
    Yes the Senate has failed us.
  • lee 2012/06/15 17:47:55
    lee
    +8
    Karl Rove and the Tea Party sent a bunch of corporate shills in there who couldn't legislate their way out of a wet paper bag... and now we have nothing to show for all the JOBS they were going to unleash....

    WHERE ARE THE JOBS MR. SPEAKER?
  • marcuss... lee 2012/06/15 18:14:14
    marcuss LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS
    +3
    Where are the 5 million jobs in the 'green' energy sector you promised when you were campaigning MR 0WEbama?

  • Turings... lee 2012/06/15 21:21:53
    TuringsChild
    +1
    Obama snuffed them.
  • bob 2012/06/15 17:45:43
    bob
    +9
    congress has failed bigtime. they are lost in all the big money from corporations
  • Hawkeye 2012/06/15 17:37:01
    Hawkeye
    +5
    I LAUGH when I hear Obama supporters say that BUSH didn't ctreate as many jobs as Obama when the unemployment rate under Bush and the Republicans was under 5%..

    I laugh when they say that Romney didn't create as many jobs as Governor of Massachusettes as Obama has as president when the unemployment rate under Romney's leadership was 4%..

    The Democrats took over the Congress in 2007 when that rate was 5% and it went up to 7.5% in less then a YEAR and then shot past 9% under Obama for 22 straight months..

    The Obamabots think that they are making points about this job creation thing.. I think it's BS..

    The Republicans took back the House in 2010 and almost overnight the unemployment rate dropped to a tad over 8% again.. Of course.. THAT isn't the REAL rate because it doesn't take into acount the people who gave UP looking for jobs because Obama's Policies have created the longest running recession in modern history but hey,, as little as it IS.. It's STILL an improvement of sorts..

    THINK about it folks.. When a President has to brag about how many jobs he's created he's ALREADY admitting to being a total failure as a President..

    WHY..

    Because THIS country doesn't NEED a Government that creates jobs.. This country needs a Government that does NOT cause UNEMPLOYMENT....
  • Jeremiah Hawkeye 2012/06/15 18:05:15
    Jeremiah
    +5
    You continue to suppose the recession began January 20, 2009. It began well before that, and the unemployment rate was just starting to rise by then. When Bush left office, we were losing jobs at the rate of 800,000 per month, and the unemployment rate was beginning to skyrocket. This after we were told the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the rich would create jobs.

    We are now in the 29th consecutive month of job growth. The numbers are not always where we would like them to be, but they are always positive.

    The Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, but Bush still had his veto pen until 2009, and he broke all records for vetoes in a two-year period. He even vetoed stem-cell research, for Pete's sake.

    Now the Republicans control the House, and they talk a lot about jobs, but where are they? All they know how to do is pass the Ryan budget, which is unacceptable to the more reasonable Senate, and has no provisions for job growth.

    Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?
  • Hawkeye Jeremiah 2012/06/15 18:39:34
    Hawkeye
    +1
    YOU claim that we went through 29 months of consecutive job growth and STILL the unemployment rate is higher then it was when Obama took office in 2009 and WAY higher then it was when the Democrats,, including Obama,, took over the Congress in 2007 when that unemployment rate was under 5%...

    YEARS after the Bush Tax Cuts went into effect..

    THEN,,, HERE you are claiming that Bush's TAX CUTS caused the recession THEN turn around and claim that these 22 consecutive job growth months occurred while those tax cuts are STILL IN EFFECT.. Obviously.. Those tac cuts had NOTHING to DO with the current state of economic affairs..

    And you're a BALDFACED LIAR when you say that Bush vetoed Stem Cell research.. THIS isn't even close enough to be called a mistake.. Itis a BALDFACED LIE..

    First of all.. Bush didn't HAVE to veto Stem Cell research because there was NEVER any bill that had anything to DO with stopping ANY type of Stem Cell Research.... The controversy involved EMBRIONIC Stem Cell Research ONLY and it involved GOVERNMENT FUNDING ONLY and that bill NEVER passed through Congress to BE vetoed because the American People overwhelmingly opposed it..

    And MOST Americans have NO Idea that EMPORER Obama turned around and DEFIED the will of the people by making that funding the LAW of the la...



    YOU claim that we went through 29 months of consecutive job growth and STILL the unemployment rate is higher then it was when Obama took office in 2009 and WAY higher then it was when the Democrats,, including Obama,, took over the Congress in 2007 when that unemployment rate was under 5%...

    YEARS after the Bush Tax Cuts went into effect..

    THEN,,, HERE you are claiming that Bush's TAX CUTS caused the recession THEN turn around and claim that these 22 consecutive job growth months occurred while those tax cuts are STILL IN EFFECT.. Obviously.. Those tac cuts had NOTHING to DO with the current state of economic affairs..

    And you're a BALDFACED LIAR when you say that Bush vetoed Stem Cell research.. THIS isn't even close enough to be called a mistake.. Itis a BALDFACED LIE..

    First of all.. Bush didn't HAVE to veto Stem Cell research because there was NEVER any bill that had anything to DO with stopping ANY type of Stem Cell Research.... The controversy involved EMBRIONIC Stem Cell Research ONLY and it involved GOVERNMENT FUNDING ONLY and that bill NEVER passed through Congress to BE vetoed because the American People overwhelmingly opposed it..

    And MOST Americans have NO Idea that EMPORER Obama turned around and DEFIED the will of the people by making that funding the LAW of the land through one of his unconstitutional executive orders..

    Not even embrionic stem cell research was EVER in danger of being "vetoed" and certaining none of the other types were even in the controversy..

    Don't ask Boehner where the jobs are.. Ask the Democrats.. Ask Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama.. THOSE jobs were LOST while THEY held control over the Congress..
    (more)
  • Jeremiah Hawkeye 2012/06/15 20:59:52
    Jeremiah
    +4
    By Charles Babington
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, July 20, 2006

    President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections.

    The bill, which the Senate passed Tuesday, 63-37, would have loosened the restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research.

    House Republican leaders tried Wednesday evening to override the veto, but that vote was 235 to 193, short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com...

    I believe that makes you a liar who owes someone an apology. It also destroys whatever shred of credibility you had left, rending the rest of your post worthless.
  • Hawkeye Jeremiah 2012/06/15 21:22:52
    Hawkeye
    +1
    Did you even READ you own article or are you just plain ILLITERATE as well as a LIAR..

    NOWHERE in your OWN article does it say that ANY kind of stem cell research was in danger of "Being Votoed" as YOU said..

    Bush vetoed the GOVERNMENT FUNDING of ONE type of Stem Cell research,, Embrionic Stem Cell Research.. NONE of the other types of STR were even part of the controversy so my observation that: " He ( as in Bush ) even vetoed stem-cell research, for Pete's sake." is a BALDFACED LIE is STILL valid and true..


    Embrionic Stem Cell research was 100% privately funded BEFORE this came up and continued AFTER the whole controversy was laid to rest..

    It missed not a SINGLE day of research.. It lost not a SINGLE dime of funding that it had before the vote came up and continues,, UNABATED,, to THIS day and you know what??

    Superman STILL ain't gonna get out of that Wheechair...
    \You want an apology??

    I'm SORRY that you're SOOO wrng so often..But then again.. I'm really NOT sorry at all..
  • Jeremiah Hawkeye 2012/06/16 01:26:01
    Jeremiah
    +4
    You are blind as well as ignorant. Bush vetoed all federal funding of stem-cell research, as I said, which made it almost impossible to do research on stem cells, since so few were available. Very little private money was available at the time, so most of the research was done in Europe, where they didn't have the kinds of quasi-moral hangups people like Bush had.

    Even when you are wrong, you are right. Is that the way it works? That is called spin, and I am growing weary of your act. Have a nice weekend.
  • Lady Wh... Jeremiah 2012/06/15 18:42:43
    Lady Whitewolf
    +5
    "Now the Republicans control the House, and they talk a lot about jobs, but where are they?"

    MY question exactly
  • Hawkeye Lady Wh... 2012/06/15 19:03:16
    Hawkeye
    +1
    There's THREE YEARS of Republican ideas about creating jobs sitting on Harry Reid's desk..

    Ask HIM....
  • Jeremiah Hawkeye 2012/06/15 21:02:23
    Jeremiah
    +5
    Every one of them includes more tax cuts for the rich. They still believe in the trickle-down theory of supply-side economics.
  • Hawkeye Jeremiah 2012/06/15 21:26:32
    Hawkeye
    +1
    Yeah.. Well.. The Obama Class Warfare schtick ain't exactly filling the employment roles now ARE they?? Unfortunately for YOU and your argument,, that UR was 5% or LESS before Obama decided to be the greatest divider in American history..
  • Jeremiah Hawkeye 2012/06/16 01:34:26
    Jeremiah
    +4
    More tax cuts for the rich won't add to employment either. That is the shopworn trickle-down mantra of the right, which has never worked and never will.

    The idea is for the tax breaks to encourage the corporations and billionaires to create new jobs, which will trickle down to the lower levels of society. They tried this during the Bush years, and the net result was a loss of 14 million jobs.

    Billionaires have no immediate needs, so they stuff the money into bank accounts or personal portfolios, while they send their jobs to Asian countries, where they can pay starvation wages and no benefits while they make their new slaves work 12-hour shifts with no breaks.

    There is little unemployment in those towns. Their biggest problem is replacing the workers who commit suicide.
  • aneed2know Hawkeye 2012/06/16 08:34:04 (edited)
    aneed2know
    +2
    Tax cuts do not create jobs, neither does laying off teachers or policemen. While we are at it, lets talk about the cuts that are suppose to go into effect that all three branches agreed on. Now there is a problem with those cuts agreed on ( renigging on the deal), so that military contractors dont loose all that money. Now i ask you if it is okay to cut the size of government workers ( all public workers) in order to make the cuts that were agreed upon, why are they now talking about trying to find a way to keep the military budget as it is or spend more? And just how are they going to do this or what are their plans, as espoused by the Ryan Budget and Mitt the twit. By cutting more social programs, like college grants, COPs program, Social Security programs, food programs and medical care. How is that moral, cut the things that benefit this country, in favor of defense contractors?
  • Jeremiah Lady Wh... 2012/06/15 21:01:29
    Jeremiah
    +5
    They still believe tax cuts for the rich will result in jobs. Or maybe they don't really believe it. Maybe they really are that cynical.
  • jere.chievres 2012/06/15 17:30:25
    jere.chievres
    +5
    In mah best redneckese Hayell Yayus!
  • jimmy d 2012/06/15 17:25:17
    jimmy d
    +4
    Let's use 1994 as an example. Clinton had a change of heart and started WORKING WITH congress by MOVING TO THE CENTER. Newt Gingrich was the speaker at that time. They literally "reached across the aisle" (didn't just talk about it like obama did when he campaigned) and accomplished a great deal. The economy thrived and budget was pretty much balanced. Now instead of the far left obummer choosing to move to the center in 2010 when we threw out Pe"lousy" and company obummer doubled down on staying way left on the political spectrum. The decision he made in 2010 will cost him dearly in November 2012!!!!
  • Charge 2012/06/15 17:23:11
    Charge
    +2
    Obama has FAILED to lead... and Obama's Senate has blocked all but the far left actions. Obama prefers executive actions where he bypasses congress and still blames them.
    obama zero
  • jimmy d Charge 2012/06/15 17:27:16 (edited)
    jimmy d
    +3
    He didn't garner one vote on the budget he proposed. Meanwhile, $16,000,000,000,000 and counting. He wants to destroy the dollar.
    www.usdebtclock.org/
  • Charge jimmy d 2012/06/15 17:40:42
    Charge
    +3
    The only reason the dollar is hanging on is because other countries money is doing worse.
  • Jeremiah Charge 2012/06/15 18:07:04
    Jeremiah
    +6
    Everything that comes from the House includes more tax cuts for the rich, which would blow a hole in the deficit and is a non-starter in the Senate.
  • Lady Wh... Jeremiah 2012/06/15 18:43:17
    Lady Whitewolf
    +4
    agreed
  • Charge Jeremiah 2012/06/15 19:32:14
    Charge
    +1
    OK, if you collect ALL the income of "the wealthy" it would only pay the interest on our debt for three days; this crap about higher taxes being the answer is Liberal BS.
  • Jeremiah Charge 2012/06/15 21:04:16
    Jeremiah
    +4
    I would be interested in where you get your information. It seems to disagree with what most economists are saying.
  • Charge Jeremiah 2012/06/16 14:25:33
    Charge
    Please show me ONE economist that says taxing the rich will solve our problem.
    It’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.
    Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. Some of Maryland’s rich just left the state. When New York state hiked its income tax on millionaires, billionaire Tom Golisano moved to Florida, which has no personal income tax. “[M]y personal income tax last year would’ve been $13,800 a day,” he told us. “Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state?”
    We see the folly of trying to raise revenue with high taxes by looking at tax receipts over time. Before 1963, when Reagan rode his horse, every single dollar after $400,000 (in today’s dollars) was taxed at more than 90 percent. And government revenues equaled about 18 percent of gross domestic product. Then the top rate was lowered to 70 percent, then to 50 percent, and then to as low as 30 percent, before it was raised back to 40 perce...
    Please show me ONE economist that says taxing the rich will solve our problem.
    It’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.
    Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. Some of Maryland’s rich just left the state. When New York state hiked its income tax on millionaires, billionaire Tom Golisano moved to Florida, which has no personal income tax. “[M]y personal income tax last year would’ve been $13,800 a day,” he told us. “Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state?”
    We see the folly of trying to raise revenue with high taxes by looking at tax receipts over time. Before 1963, when Reagan rode his horse, every single dollar after $400,000 (in today’s dollars) was taxed at more than 90 percent. And government revenues equaled about 18 percent of gross domestic product. Then the top rate was lowered to 70 percent, then to 50 percent, and then to as low as 30 percent, before it was raised back to 40 percent in the 1990s. Despite those sharp changes, the chart below shows that tax revenue seldom exceeded 20 percent or fell below 17 percent of GDP.
    sharp chart tax revenue exceeded 20 percent 17 percent gdp
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/16 00:54:43

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals