PDA

View Full Version : Mitch McConnell on CNN's State of the Union



Qtec
10-25-2011, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitch McConnell hilariously claims Republicans aren't sabotaging the economy to hurt Obama in 2012

by Jed Lewison

So Mitch McConnell went on CNN's State of the Union yesterday and claimed Republicans haven't been obstructing efforts by Democrats and the Obama administration to take action on the jobs crisis. Either he was lying through his teeth, or there's a really good Mitch McConnell impersonator on YouTube who's been saying the exact opposite for the past three years: </div></div>

watch it (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/24/1029535/-Mitch-McConnell-hilariously-claims-Republicans-arent-sabotaging-the-economy-to-hurt-Obama-in-2012?via=blog_1)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Crowley <u>Cites Stats Showing Govt. Regulation Not A Top Business Concern</u>, Asks McConnell, "Are You Focusing On The Wrong Problem?" </div></div>

watch it (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201110230001)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> McConnell: Police, Firefighter Layoffs Not My Problem
</div></div>

watch it (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/mcconnell-police-firefighter-layoffs-not-my-)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday that saving the jobs of police and firefighters was not the role of the federal government.

CNN's Candy Crowley reminded the Kentucky Republican that a recent Gallup/USA Today poll found that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>75 percent of Americans supported President Barack Obama's plan to provide additional money for teachers, police and firefighters.
</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Republicans <u>helped not break a filibuster</u>, if you will, in a procedural vote," Crowley explained.</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">BS. Simple fact is it was Republicans who fillibustered this bill, like they always do. Why would they 'help' break their own fillibuster???? </span>

"You basically got rid of that jobs bill which would have given money to the states, designed to hire or retain fireman, policeman and teachers. When we look at the polling,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> 75 percent of Americans supported that and yet, the Republicans were against it. So, how do you justify that in your mind?"</span>

"Well, Candy, I'm sure that Americans do," McConnell remarked. "I certainly do approve of firefighters and police. The question is whether the federal government ought to be raising taxes on 300,000 small businesses in order to send money down to bail out states for whom firefighters and police work. They're local and state employees."

"The question is whether the federal government can afford to be bailing out states. I think the answer is no."

"The fact is that when you do ask people about this surtax on millionaires, and small businesses as you put it but millionaires in general, people support that, when it comes to not just firemen, policemen and teachers but also the infrastructure bill that's coming up, which you're also opposed to, as I understand it, which would help put people back to work on roads and bridges and rebuilding and that sort of thing," Crowley noted. "It seems to me that politicians are always talking about doing the will of the American people, and that the Republican Party can be seen at least politically as going against that."

"Yeah, these bills are designed on purpose not to pass," McConnell asserted. "I mean, the president is deliberately trying to create an issue here. Look, the American people don't think, I'm sure, that it's a good idea. Four out of five of the so-called millionaires are business owners, over 300,000 small businesses in our country that hire people. I don't think the American people think that raising taxes on business, small business in the middle of this economic situation we find ourselves in is a particularly good idea." </div></div>

eg8r
10-25-2011, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Well, Candy, I'm sure that Americans do," McConnell remarked. "I certainly do approve of firefighters and police. The question is whether the federal government ought to be raising taxes on 300,000 small businesses in order to send money down to bail out states for whom firefighters and police work. They're local and state employees."

"The question is whether the federal government can afford to be bailing out states. I think the answer is no."</div></div>Being the partisan hack that you are you did not bold this section. This is the whole deal right here. You like to paint this broad picture that Reps don't care about anyone but it is common sense that proves you wrong every single time.

You are making this out to be a Rep vs Firemen/policemen but it isn't. It is the Reps against bailing out states when the Government cannot afford it. He says it in black and white and you choose to twist the story into something it is not.

eg8r

Qtec
10-25-2011, 05:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the Reps against bailing out states <span style='font-size: 17pt'>when the Government cannot afford it.</span> </div></div>

Once again you show your ignorance of the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>facts.</span>

This bill was PAID for. It didn't increase the debt by 1ct.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Obama’s broad $447 billion bill to pay for infrastructure spending, expand last year’s payroll tax cut and transfer federal money to states to fund public teachers and first responders failed in a Senate filibuster last week <span style='font-size: 20pt'>after lawmakers<u> balked</u> at the surtax Democrats used to pay for it.</span>

Democratic leaders and Mr. Obama had vowed to try to carve the bill up piece-by-piece and send them through Congress to <span style='font-size: 17pt'>force lawmakers to weigh individual elements such as teacher funding against <u>increases taxes on the wealthy.</u></span>

But Thursday’s vote showed there is no more appetite for the bill in pieces than there was for it in its entirety.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who crafted Democrats’ strategy, lost three members of his caucus on the teachers bill. Afterwards, though, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>he focused on the GOP, which voted unanimously against his plan.</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>“Unfortunately, protecting millionaires and defeating President Obama are more important to my Republican colleagues than creating jobs and getting our economy back on track,” </span>he said. “Democrats agree with the overwhelming majority of Americans that teachers and first responder jobs are worth defending, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>while lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires are not.”</span> </div></div>

Its the GOP protecting the 1% at all costs.

Q

Soflasnapper
10-25-2011, 05:10 PM
But if we are so broke, how can he support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, which will cost the treasury some $800 BILLION just over the next 10 years?

For that matter, how can he support the plan to make those tax cuts extended permanently? Using the 75-year scoring some are so fond of, that would be $6 trillion added to the debt from that alone. We can afford THAT largesse, but not a temporary year or two support for the vital state employees? Really? Using what arithmetic or economic assumptions?

Qtec
10-25-2011, 06:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But if we are so broke, how can he support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, which will cost the treasury some $800 BILLION just over the next 10 years?

For that matter, how can he support the plan to make those tax cuts extended permanently? Using the 75-year scoring some are so fond of, that would be $6 trillion added to the debt from that alone. We can afford THAT largesse, but not a temporary year or two support for the vital state employees? Really? Using what arithmetic or economic assumptions? </div></div>

Even although Bush doubled the debt, it wasn't on the news.
As soon as Obama took over it<u> was</u> a big deal! How come?

When you headlines like.

'Senate blocks Jobs Bill'

instead of

'Republicans block Jobs Bill' then you what time it is.



One of the main problems is that politicians can go on TV, spout any crap they want and never be challenged by the interviewer!

One actually does this time and Mitch almost faints!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CANDY CROWLEY (host): Let me show you -- because I know that Republicans have always said, and continue to say, that regulation is stifling business, stifling jobs growth. But there are a couple of figures out there that we found from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. One of them is when -- on the reasons for initial unemployment claims, this is for the first and the second quarter, government regulation,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> a little over 2,000 claims for unemployment were blamed on government regulation. Insufficient demand, 55,000. The National Federation of Independent Businesses did a survey. They asked small business owners, the very people you're talking to, what's the single most important problem? They said poor sales.</span> Government regulation was at 18 percent, taxes was at 18 percent. Poor sales, 28 percent of people said that's what the problem is. So are you focusing on the wrong problem? </div></div>

worth watching (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201110230001)

Mitch first claims that the #1 job killer is regulations and everybody tells him so. When confronted with the facts, he gasps like a fish out of water and precedes to ignore what he just heard.

Mitch flapping about (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201110230001)

Q

nAz
10-25-2011, 07:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But if we are so broke, how can he support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, which will cost the treasury some $800 BILLION just over the next 10 years?

For that matter, how can he support the plan to make those tax cuts extended permanently? </div></div>


Why do you hate Job creators so much. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
10-25-2011, 08:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But if we are so broke, how can he support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, which will cost the treasury some $800 BILLION just over the next 10 years?

For that matter, how can he support the plan to make those tax cuts extended permanently? </div></div>


Why do you hate Job creators so much. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>

LMAO!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

eg8r
10-25-2011, 09:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But if we are so broke, how can he support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, which will cost the treasury some $800 BILLION just over the next 10 years?
</div></div>Let's be honest now. You have said you have a decent net worth. Let's say the govenrment changes the way they tax and they are coming at all your money no matter how you have it sitting right now. They want more and more of it, will you continue to look for tax breaks or will you cave and just pay the extra they are looking for and additionally include all the deductions you have taken your entire working life since you really were not paying your fair share?

Let's take a look at this $800 billion? The CBO forcasts using static models. They look at revenue coming in now and the recent past, and include whatever increase might already be on the dock for the near future to come up with $800 billion in lost income. Now, come back to reality and tell me what do you think that real number will actually be? Do you think the rich will bow and pay the money or will they look to avoid these new taxes at all costs? Will they begin diverting more money overseas?

Now, you are arguing over something Obama pushed to continue, he caved and accepted the extension so that is in place. We are moving forward and we don't have access to that $800 billion dollar fake guestimation. That leaves us in the current predicament of still not having the money. If we did not have the money then, and we went the route of taking in $800 billion less then we surely don't have the money now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but not a temporary year or two support for the vital state employees? </div></div>You know just as well as I do, the number of police and firemen laid off will be less that the "sky is falling" whiners claim it will be. They will find real budget inefficiencies first and knock them down before actually laying people off. They will be looking for early retirement type offers first, then they will move to getting rid of the dead weight, you know, the ones that shouldn't have the job anyways. We have a town here in Central Florida that is about to go bankrupt and their first options is to lay off their local police and fire departments. Those operations are expensive to run and they can get the same coverage using the local sheriff's department and the county firemen. qtip was all in favor or firing public servants working in the jail to save $1 million, I am sure he would not have a problem letting go some poor performing police and firemen.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-25-2011, 10:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But if we are so broke, how can he support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, which will cost the treasury some $800 BILLION just over the next 10 years?
</div></div>Let's be honest now. You have said you have a decent net worth. Let's say the govenrment changes the way they tax and they are coming at all your money no matter how you have it sitting right now. They want more and more of it, will you continue to look for tax breaks or will you cave and just pay the extra they are looking for and additionally include all the deductions you have taken your entire working life since you really were not paying your fair share?

Let's take a look at this $800 billion? The CBO forcasts using static models. They look at revenue coming in now and the recent past, and include whatever increase might already be on the dock for the near future to come up with $800 billion in lost income. Now, come back to reality and tell me what do you think that real number will actually be? Do you think the rich will bow and pay the money or will they look to avoid these new taxes at all costs? Will they begin diverting more money overseas?

Now, you are arguing over something Obama pushed to continue, he caved and accepted the extension so that is in place. We are moving forward and we don't have access to that $800 billion dollar fake guestimation. That leaves us in the current predicament of still not having the money. If we did not have the money then, and we went the route of taking in $800 billion less then we surely don't have the money now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but not a temporary year or two support for the vital state employees? </div></div>You know just as well as I do, the number of police and firemen laid off will be less that the "sky is falling" whiners claim it will be. They will find real budget inefficiencies first and knock them down before actually laying people off. They will be looking for early retirement type offers first, then they will move to getting rid of the dead weight, you know, the ones that shouldn't have the job anyways. We have a town here in Central Florida that is about to go bankrupt and their first options is to lay off their local police and fire departments. Those operations are expensive to run and they can get the same coverage using the local sheriff's department and the county firemen. qtip was all in favor or firing public servants working in the jail to save $1 million, I am sure he would not have a problem letting go some poor performing police and firemen.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">qtip was all in favor or firing public servants working in the jail to save $1 million, I am sure he would not have a problem letting go some poor performing police and firemen.

</div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Do you ever stop spinning and lying????

The thread you have referenced, was NOT about firing PUBLIC SERVANTS!!!! It was about saving money, by firing PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES!!!! Senility setting in already, Eg?

You can now apologize to Q for lying about him, AGAIN!</span> </span>


http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=364367&fpart=1

eg8r
10-26-2011, 07:05 AM
When the government took over they became public servants and it was at that point that they were fired. Looks like your common sense is backfiring. You guys were fine with firing public servants for a $1 million dollars and it solidified your stature as the biggest hypocrites on this board.

eg8r

Qtec
10-26-2011, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the government took over they became public servants </div></div>


Pathetic BS.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> G caught you out</span> now you won't admit it and are now slithering about trying to save face.

Q

Soflasnapper
10-26-2011, 09:30 AM
Let's be honest now. You have said you have a decent net worth. Let's say the govenrment changes the way they tax and they are coming at all your money no matter how you have it sitting right now. They want more and more of it, will you continue to look for tax breaks or will you cave and just pay the extra they are looking for and additionally include all the deductions you have taken your entire working life since you really were not paying your fair share?

The way deductions work, I could not game the system with more deductible expenditures to not pay the additional tax, without being MORE out of pocket on a net basis. Let's say imposing the prior Clinton rates would cost me $60,000 a year in extra taxes as a fair estimate. I could pump up my charitable giving, already my largest expense last year, to $150,000 a year, and save that amount of money in taxes. But then I'd have $90,000 less than if I just paid the extra taxes. I'd have to be aggressively stupid about paying taxes to think being $90,000 out of pocket to avoid additional taxes made sense.

Obama did NOT extend the Bush tax cuts for 10 years; he extended them for TWO years. They are expiring (again) at the end of 2012, or early in 2013. So it is not a done deal, already decided.

Lack of dynamic scoring can actually work both ways. Even if there is some legal tax avoidance that reduces the yield of that increased tax, it might very well be off-set by that income cohort receiving a considerably larger amount of money than forecast. (Not sure if CBO or the Joint Tax Committee accounts for the increasing level of the income going to the top earners, as has been the trendline for decades, or not.)

eg8r
10-26-2011, 10:10 AM
Actually, my post shows her inept ability to comprehend what really happened. If they were private employees when they were fired then the government would have demanded they be fired before the take over. That did not happen. Once the government takes over and the employee is paid with taxpayer money they become a public servant. What I really find funny is that I gave you credit for recognizing this in the beginning and now I find out that you were too stupid to comprehend it. I gave you too much credit. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
10-26-2011, 10:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The way deductions work, I could not game the system with more deductible expenditures to not pay the additional tax, without being MORE out of pocket on a net basis. Let's say imposing the prior Clinton rates would cost me $60,000 a year in extra taxes as a fair estimate. I could pump up my charitable giving, already my largest expense last year, to $150,000 a year, and save that amount of money in taxes. But then I'd have $90,000 less than if I just paid the extra taxes. I'd have to be aggressively stupid about paying taxes to think being $90,000 out of pocket to avoid additional taxes made sense.
</div></div>So basically you are saying that you don't have the "know how" of the rest of your rich counterparts who legally find more loopholes to keep more of their money.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama did NOT extend the Bush tax cuts for 10 years; he extended them for TWO years. They are expiring (again) at the end of 2012, or early in 2013. So it is not a done deal, already decided.
</div></div>Actually these two years are a done deal and they are on his head. He extended them so they are his.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lack of dynamic scoring can actually work both ways.</div></div>Yep, if the rich somehow got dumb with their money and started paying in more taxes it could go the other way. You and I both know that won't happen though.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-27-2011, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the government took over they became public servants </div></div>


Pathetic BS.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> G caught you out</span> now you won't admit it and are now slithering about trying to save face.

Q </div></div>


Three words Eg never says regardless of how obviously he has been proven wrong: "I was wrong"...

He'a really so much like George Bush, and the Repiglican Party....LMAO!

He's our forum Chubby Checker...let's do the twist!

G.

Gayle in MD
10-27-2011, 08:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitch McConnell hilariously claims Republicans aren't sabotaging the economy to hurt Obama in 2012

by Jed Lewison

So Mitch McConnell went on CNN's State of the Union yesterday and claimed Republicans haven't been obstructing efforts by Democrats and the Obama administration to take action on the jobs crisis. Either he was lying through his teeth, or there's a really good Mitch McConnell impersonator on YouTube who's been saying the exact opposite for the past three years: </div></div>

watch it (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/24/1029535/-Mitch-McConnell-hilariously-claims-Republicans-arent-sabotaging-the-economy-to-hurt-Obama-in-2012?via=blog_1)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Crowley <u>Cites Stats Showing Govt. Regulation Not A Top Business Concern</u>, Asks McConnell, "Are You Focusing On The Wrong Problem?" </div></div>

watch it (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201110230001)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> McConnell: Police, Firefighter Layoffs Not My Problem
</div></div>

watch it (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/mcconnell-police-firefighter-layoffs-not-my-)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday that saving the jobs of police and firefighters was not the role of the federal government.

CNN's Candy Crowley reminded the Kentucky Republican that a recent Gallup/USA Today poll found that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>75 percent of Americans supported President Barack Obama's plan to provide additional money for teachers, police and firefighters.
</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Republicans <u>helped not break a filibuster</u>, if you will, in a procedural vote," Crowley explained.</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">BS. Simple fact is it was Republicans who fillibustered this bill, like they always do. Why would they 'help' break their own fillibuster???? </span>

"You basically got rid of that jobs bill which would have given money to the states, designed to hire or retain fireman, policeman and teachers. When we look at the polling,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> 75 percent of Americans supported that and yet, the Republicans were against it. So, how do you justify that in your mind?"</span>

"Well, Candy, I'm sure that Americans do," McConnell remarked. "I certainly do approve of firefighters and police. The question is whether the federal government ought to be raising taxes on 300,000 small businesses in order to send money down to bail out states for whom firefighters and police work. They're local and state employees."

"The question is whether the federal government can afford to be bailing out states. I think the answer is no."

"The fact is that when you do ask people about this surtax on millionaires, and small businesses as you put it but millionaires in general, people support that, when it comes to not just firemen, policemen and teachers but also the infrastructure bill that's coming up, which you're also opposed to, as I understand it, which would help put people back to work on roads and bridges and rebuilding and that sort of thing," Crowley noted. "It seems to me that politicians are always talking about doing the will of the American people, and that the Republican Party can be seen at least politically as going against that."

"Yeah, these bills are designed on purpose not to pass," McConnell asserted. "I mean, the president is deliberately trying to create an issue here. Look, the American people don't think, I'm sure, that it's a good idea. Four out of five of the so-called millionaires are business owners, over 300,000 small businesses in our country that hire people. I don't think the American people think that raising taxes on business, small business in the middle of this economic situation we find ourselves in is a particularly good idea." </div></div> </div></div>

McConnell is what he's always been, a lying POS!

G.