Oh Republicans, you're doing it again...

[Slyfox696]

Once again, Republicans claim one thing, and then try to do another. This week's gem.

President Barack Obama, eager to shift election-year attention away from the nation's lackluster jobs market, called on Congress Monday to extend tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year while allowing taxes to rise for households making more.

Romney supports extending the tax cuts for all income earners.

Republican lawmakers immediately balked at Obama's call for a partial extension.

Extending the tax cuts only for households making below $250,000 costs the government about $800 billion less over 10 years than extending them for everyone. The full cuts cost the government about $4.5 trillion over a decade.

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/politics...a_to_push_extension_of_middle_class_tax_cuts/

So the party which complains about wanting to control spending and balance the budget are complaining once again when Obama tries to balance the budget. First they complained about the cuts to the hyper-inflated defense budget, and now they're complaining that wealthy people can't do without the tax cuts.

Once again, the Republicans prove they are okay with cutting programs that aid people who need help, but not okay with cutting programs for people who make a lot of money. And they accuse Obama of engaging in class warfare.


Simply amusing.

 

[Loveless]

Do US Republicans even take notice of the details or is it just a case of "If Obama said it, it must be wrong", because this is just stupid.
They want to cost the government an extra $800 billion helping people who already have the means to help themselves and if the rich can't have it, well fuck everyone else too. As usual, acting like children throwing their toys out of the pram.

 

[klunderbunker]

McConnell, the Senate GOP leader has said that their top priority is getting rid of Obama. Not doing what the best thing for the country at the time is. Not helping to create jobs. Working on one goal that the majority of voting Americans decided isn't what they want want. Instead it's one thing and whatever the consequences are or how much it costs, that's the answer period.

 

[Moon Knight]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47063487/ns/business-personal_finance/?ocid=ansmsnbcrel1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4811850...s-us-passport-most-taxes-too/?ocid=ansmsnbc11



A Facebook Co-Founder did this too. Republicans use things like to support not raising taxes on the rich.

 

[UndertakerForever]

^ Anyone using MSNBC as a source is obviously a hopeless liberal.

 

[Remix]

Why the hell do they hate Obama so much anyway? Surely there have been 'worse' Democrats than him.

 

[Moon Knight]

Why the hell do they hate Obama so much anyway? Surely there have been 'worse' Democrats than him.

He is a Democrat? They did the same to Clinton, only they tried to impeach him.

 

[Slyfox696]

^ Anyone using MSNBC as a source is obviously a hopeless liberal.

And why is that? Do you even know what it means to be liberal?

 

[Moon Knight]

And why is that? Do you even know what it means to be liberal?

I'm not even a Liberal...

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not even a Liberal...

And most Republicans aren't conservative, at least not fiscally.

 

[Moon Knight]

And most Republicans aren't conservative, at least not fiscally.

Alright.......

 

[Slyfox696]

Alright.......

I can't tell...is that agreement or disagreement?

 

[Moon Knight]

I can't tell...is that agreement or disagreement?

Agreement, I was just confused with what that had to do with me not being a Liberal. (I am not a Conservative either)

 

[Slyfox696]

Agreement, I was just confused with what that had to do with me not being a Liberal. (I am not a Conservative either)

It was more for the other person who accused you of being liberal.

 

[LigerBomb]

…a "hopeless" liberal, to be exact.

 

[Slyfox696]

What amazes me is how Republicans have turned being "liberal" into a bad thing.

 

[LigerBomb]

A bad thing? It's a genetic disorder to some of them –or maybe not, people aren't born liberal they choose to be liberal. I especially love the term 'libtard', a portmanteau of liberal and ******, that I see thrown about on conservative sites/posts. Who talks like that? Demeaning the mentally handicapped and equating a simple viewpoint with said mental ******ation? *slow clap* Nice job GOP.

 

[Nate DaMac]

I usually lean towards labeling myself as a liberal, but I disagree with too many liberal ideas to really call myself liberal.

Namely the ******ed smoking laws.

 

[Барбоса]

Namely the ******ed smoking laws.

For fear of treading over old Cigar Lounge ground, I will refrain from asking which smoking laws you find "******ed."

 

[Nate DaMac]

For fear of treading over old Cigar Lounge ground, I will refrain from asking which smoking laws you find "******ed."

So we're clear though, I'm not some idiot who thinks that smokers should be allowed to smoke wherever they please. I understand the necessity of enforcing most of these laws.

Perhaps it's just because I haven't heard the other side, but I have yet to hear a legit rebuttal to this: If I want to open a bar in my city and I want to allow smoking in my bar, why can't I? There's a market for both smoking and non-smoking facilities.

 

[Барбоса]

Perhaps it's just because I haven't heard the other side, but I have yet to hear a legit rebuttal to this: If I want to open a bar in my city and I want to allow smoking in my bar, why can't I? There's a market for both smoking and non-smoking facilities.

I suppose the "legit" argument behind that is that it is far easier to police a blanket ban than individual cases. Smoking is not a right and therefore receives no special protection.

Not sure about the US but there are certain kinds of private clubs that in the UK can allow smoking indoors; however, as smokers are, to varying levels, slaves to their habit, they will go outside to smoke no matter how much they grumble (or how little for the smoking ban has been met with rather surprising acceptance).

For that very reason, I would argue that there is no market for smoking facilities, other than a shelter outside to shield them from adverse weather.

 

[Slyfox696]

So we're clear though, I'm not some idiot who thinks that smokers should be allowed to smoke wherever they please. I understand the necessity of enforcing most of these laws.

Perhaps it's just because I haven't heard the other side, but I have yet to hear a legit rebuttal to this: If I want to open a bar in my city and I want to allow smoking in my bar, why can't I? There's a market for both smoking and non-smoking facilities.

It's a matter of health. Constant exposure to secondhand smoke can be more dangerous than the actual smoking, especially in a place like a bar where the smoke just lingers in the air. And it's not just related to the customers, but the employees as well. And when smoking develops medical complications, it raises the cost of healthcare for everyone.

Furthermore, you run into issues with places like a Buffalo Wild Wings, which is a sports bar, but also a restaurant. And in that restaurant, children enter and have to breathe the secondhand smoke.

As the old saying goes, your rights end where mine begin. And when your decisions affect the cost of healthcare/health insurance and potentially my health, you're adversely affecting me.


That would be a legitimate argument.

 

[Барбоса]

It's a matter of health. Constant exposure to secondhand smoke can be more dangerous than the actual smoking, especially in a place like a bar where the smoke just lingers in the air. And it's not just related to the customers, but the employees as well. And when smoking develops medical complications, it raises the cost of healthcare for everyone.

Furthermore, you run into issues with places like a Buffalo Wild Wings, which is a sports bar, but also a restaurant. And in that restaurant, children enter and have to breathe the secondhand smoke.

As the old saying goes, your rights end where mine begin. And when your decisions affect the cost of healthcare/health insurance and potentially my health, you're adversely affecting me.


That would be a legitimate argument.

I think what Nate is getting at is that in such an establishment that has chosen to allow smoking, any non-smoking customer that enters will be choosing to expose themselves to that kind of environment.

Virtually all my friends smoke and at times I choose to stand outside with them whilst they smoke because we were chatting about something.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think what Nate is getting at is that in such an establishment that has chosen to allow smoking, any non-smoking customer that enters will be choosing to expose themselves to that kind of environment.

I understand what Nate was saying, what I said dealt with the consequences of the choices those people make. It's not just the people who make that decision who pay the price. That was what I was getting at.

 

[Loveless]

Virtually all my friends smoke and at times I choose to stand outside with them whilst they smoke because we were chatting about something.

The employees don't have the same choice and forcing them to work in that environment or be unemployed isn't acceptable under the law.