Republican Vs Democrat

by Bangalore 63 Replies latest social humour

  • designs
    designs

    There are Federal programs available creating and supporting jobs and businesses everyday. Farm Grants for installing Solar and Wind generation. Grants, Rebates, and New Market Tax Credit zones in nearly every city in the US for capital improvements to a business and multi-family housing for meeting Title 24 codes and LEED certification and installing Solar, Thermal, and Wind generation. Feed In Tariff Solar and Wind Farms to meet the future energy needs. Look for the American Recovery Act signs in your city, roads and bridges are being repaired and upgraded employing skilled workers.

    But my R. Congressman's big opus for the next two years is to file legal briefs to bring this president down, ok if he has done something truly illegal, but when I asked what has he done in the past two years to help out in his District....silence, he doesn't even post the above mentioned resources for businesses to avail themselves of funding.

  • moshe
    moshe

    Republicans don't worry about the votes from poor people- but once the masses decide the Republicans=Plutocracy it might become hard for them to get their candidates elected.

  • leavingwt
  • DaCheech
    DaCheech

    the whole thread's joke was based on charity, and republican citizens give more to charity......... prooven!

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    "and republican citizens give more to charity......... prooven!"

    Where is it proven? I hope you're not referring to the flawed and biased Arthur Brooks book? Giving to your church equals charity?? XJW's should know better than that. The main criteria was religious affiliation, not politics.

    A quote from the book

    "So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer."

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    The whole joke was about a Republican being charitable to a single homeless person. It was a damned lie and not only a lie a STUPID LIE that no one would believe. NO Republican would EVER take a homeless person off the street and have them come to their business and give them a job. And I doubt any Republican Right Winger would give a $20 spot to a homeless person, for that matter. Anyone who says otherwise is a freaking piece of shit liar!

    I have more Republican friends than Democrat and I love them dearly but not a single one of them would EVER give a $20 spot to a homeless person. In their own minds they would think (and probably say out loud), "For what? Let him get a job like I have. Let him stop drinking. Probably an ex-con drug addict....."

    Yeah, they "tithe" to their churches. Big F'ing deal! And when their husbands get laid off they collect unemployment. And when unemployment gets extended NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN UNEMPLOYED PERSON would dream of turning down the money. But those same people when they or their husbands go back to work are in an uproar at any subsequent extensions of unemployment.

    Or here's another one: Husband works for the government (defense engineer/designs weapons) and makes a ton of money. Gets pissed off when Obama wins because "Democrats always reduce the spending on military." Well, that means a certain someone could lose their great government job. So it's ok when the government spends a load of cash on THOSE jobs. Just don't spend any money on middle income type jobs. That is "socialistic."

    HA! Here's one more for ya. Friend is totally giddy that Prop 19 lost in Cali (Marijuana legalized). Why? Well the following day her husband who works for law enforcement participated in a huge raid of pot ring. Tons of cash spent investigating, arresting, paying salaries for cops, lawyers, clerks, judges.... God forbid we get rid of that government cash cow!

    Republicans are hypocrites. All the way around.

  • DaCheech
    DaCheech
    Tons of cash spent investigating, arresting, paying salaries for cops, lawyers, clerks, judges.... God forbid we get rid of that government cash cow!

    I've been screaming for years on making our goverment smaller, and your "friends" here are against me. I detest cops' salaries and pensions.

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    You missed my point. The reason you are not "heard" is because the people you are talking to are hypocrites. Out of one side of their mouths they want "smaller government" but out of the other side they are happy taking all that benefits them from the same overgrown government.

    Take all the Republican politicians who take subsidies and whose spouses collect unemployment or the ones who are so happy taking stimulus money to their districts while at the same time saying the stimulus didn't work! Pathetic.

  • coolhandluke
    coolhandluke

    With your gigantic font so impressed with yourself, you did not take into account that Huff Post was the ONLy organization that put this story out. Good job.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_129.html

    The Morning Plum

    By Greg Sargent

    UPDATE: White House denies giving in on Bush tax cuts: The White House is sharply denying the Huffington Post story I noted below claiming that David Axelrod signaled a willingness to accept a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts, claiming that their position remains unchanged.

    Axelrod emails:

    There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what POTUS and Robert have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

    And White House comm director Dan Pfeiffer adds:

    The story is overwritten. Nothing has changed from what the President said last week. We believe we need to extend the middle class tax cuts, we cannot afford to borrow 700 billion to pay for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we are open to compromise and are looking forward to talking to the Congressional leadership next week to discuss how to move forward. Full Stop, period, end of sentence.

    The question remains, though, whether the White House will hold fast to Obama's demand last week that the extension of the tax cuts for the middle class remain permanent while extending the high end ones temporarily. The main sticking point is that Republicans won't allow the two categories to be extended for different durations, because that would force them to push for just an extension of the cuts for the rich later.

    ORIGINAL POST:

    * White House giving in on the Bush tax cuts? The Huffington Post is reporting that David Axelrod signaled in an interview that a temporary extension of all the cuts, including those for the rich, is the only way to prevent taxes from going up on the middle class:

    "We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in his office, steps away from the Oval Office. "The world of what it takes to get this done."

    "There are concerns," he added, that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point."

    I'm not sure this amounts to the White House giving in quite yet, but it seems to suggest that's where things are headed. The White House wanted a permanent extension for the middle class cuts and a temporary extension of the high end ones. But Republicans have refused any effort to "decouple" the two categories, insisting on extending both for the same duration, in order to avoid having to push for extending just the tax cuts for the rich later.

    Also: Axelrod's acknowledgment that this solution amounts to merely kicking the can down the road is another indication that this would not represent a compromise in any meaningful sense. It would mean doing it the GOP's way for now, on the understanding that we'll have the exact same conversation again in a few years. It would mean temporary capitulation, pure and simple.

  • superpunk
    superpunk

    They are two sides of the same coin, that appear to have mutually untenable convictions about almost everything.

    In fact they are remarkably unified in their message, IMO.

    "Reduce the deficit, cut government spending, reduce waste....

    ....oh, no...I didn't mean THAT waste. Don't take away from that program that I benefit from, oh and don't you effing DARE raise taxes."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit