Jump to content

Reconciliation Karma...


DKW 86

Recommended Posts

This is too funny, i dont care who the hell you are...

Robert Reich warns America about the evils of...dun dun dun...RECONCILIATION.

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE BEHIND THE SCENES, BACKDOOR WAY PELOSI ET AL SHOVED ACA DOWN OUR THROATS.

And here's Bob to tell us about how evil those other guys are to be doing what we do...LMAO!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/21/robert_reich_warns_republican_senate_would_change_rules_to_get_agenda_passed.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites





As long as obama is in office he will not bargain or negotiate with a republican congress. He will just veto the bills. Today Harry Reid Protects him from even getting bills that he might have to veto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as obama is in office he will not bargain or negotiate with a republican congress. He will just veto the bills. Today Harry Reid Protects him from even getting bills that he might have to veto.

Thats good but step one is getting the republican majority so the bills can voted on. Let Obama veto the bills. Who is the real problem is will become obvious quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma indeed. The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation.

Why is it that, when a politician promotes legislation that helps the poor or middle class, he or she, is a socialist but, when they promote policy that aids the wealthy, he/she is pro-business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma indeed. The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation.

Why is it that, when a politician promotes legislation that helps the poor or middle class, he or she, is a socialist but, when they promote policy that aids the wealthy, he/she is pro-business?

Both (political parties) deserve to be reconciled and freedom should take their place. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma indeed. The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation.

Why is it that, when a politician promotes legislation that helps the poor or middle class, he or she, is a socialist but, when they promote policy that aids the wealthy, he/she is pro-business?

Both (political parties) deserve to be reconciled and freedom should take their place. ;)

I'm afraid the parties are nothing more than businesses that primarily serve their own interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma indeed. The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation.

Why is it that, when a politician promotes legislation that helps the poor or middle class, he or she, is a socialist but, when they promote policy that aids the wealthy, he/she is pro-business?

Both (political parties) deserve to be reconciled and freedom should take their place. ;)

I'm afraid the parties are nothing more than businesses that primarily serve their own interests.

By George, I think he's got it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma indeed. The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation.

Why is it that, when a politician promotes legislation that helps the poor or middle class, he or she, is a socialist but, when they promote policy that aids the wealthy, he/she is pro-business?

Both (political parties) deserve to be reconciled and freedom should take their place. ;)

The debate is what policies ACTUALLY help the poor and middle class. The left evidently thinks that giving away tax payer money is helping. Obviously, many argue that it doesn't promote a longer term solution but once the precedent is set it can never be taken it back. Being pro-business in some people's view better helps the poor and middle class because, in many cases, it promotes job creation which, most would agree, is a better solution than simply offering another entitlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma indeed. The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation.

Why is it that, when a politician promotes legislation that helps the poor or middle class, he or she, is a socialist but, when they promote policy that aids the wealthy, he/she is pro-business?

Both (political parties) deserve to be reconciled and freedom should take their place. ;)

The debate is what policies ACTUALLY help the poor and middle class. The left evidently thinks that giving away tax payer money is helping. Obviously, many argue that it doesn't promote a longer term solution but once the precedent is set it can never be taken it back. Being pro-business in some people's view better helps the poor and middle class because, in many cases, it promotes job creation which, most would agree, is a better solution than simply offering another entitlement.

The left knows that giving away taxpayer money doesn't help the poor. They get you hooked and dependent on that and then they've got you. You vote for them because they keep that government check coming each month.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma indeed. The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation.

Why is it that, when a politician promotes legislation that helps the poor or middle class, he or she, is a socialist but, when they promote policy that aids the wealthy, he/she is pro-business?

Both (political parties) deserve to be reconciled and freedom should take their place. ;)

The debate is what policies ACTUALLY help the poor and middle class. The left evidently thinks that giving away tax payer money is helping. Obviously, many argue that it doesn't promote a longer term solution but once the precedent is set it can never be taken it back. Being pro-business in some people's view better helps the poor and middle class because, in many cases, it promotes job creation which, most would agree, is a better solution than simply offering another entitlement.

Yes, the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and now the Kansas experiment are proof. We desperately need more tax cuts for the wealthy. :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...