Yes, but in the effort to gain that pittance, you change the entire nature of medicare and social security from an insurance program with progressive elements to something that more closely approximates welfare.
See, now that’s an argument against it, where “it’s not enough money” isn’t.
I would have thunk that argument was self evident.
Very few arguments actually are.
OK maybe its not that obvious but why else would a proponent of these programs be against means testing them?
The House just like the President desired has passed a payroll taxcut which also creates jobs by building a pipeline and makes affluent (note the adjective) Medicare beneficiaries pay more. Yet the President has vowed to veto it after railing against the GOP all along for opposing extending the payroll taxcut. :rolleyes::dubious:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he explicitly state he would veto a bill with unrelated conditions attached?
If the Republicans want the payroll taxcut extended they should provide it in a naked bill.
What would you think if the Dems gave a bill that legalized gay marriage nationally along with the Bush Tax cuts?
It’s called a poison pill.
I don’t remember him saying that but I’ve been busy lately so I probably missed it. But if so why? Why not grant the GOP a few trivialities for something that will help all Americans?
The pipeline is not a triviality. It’s a separate, important issue that should be addressed separately and on its own merits. The Republicans are, once again, putting the scoring of political points over the needs of Americans. They placed the pipeline in the legislation with full knowledge that Obama asked for a clean bill, hoping he would veto it so they can cast him as the reason the payroll tax cut extension didn’t get passed.
If the Republicans actually cared about passing the payroll tax cut extension they would have sent a clean bill, but that would be giving Obama something he wants, and we can’t have that. It’s better for the country to suffer than to actually work with the president on, well, anything.
Oh and what about all the other pork barrel stuff that happens every day, every year in Congress? :dubious:
This can also be seen as a test: if Obama is serious about creating jobs and acheiving energy independence he should not mind this.
Yeah, becuase that pipeline is going to make us energy independent:rolleyes:
Please. One could also say that the test has already been administered, and those who supported that proposal have shown that they can only support tax cuts for the working class if there’s something in it for Big Oil.
By the way, why is it that fiscal conservatives see building a single pipeline as a panacea for creating great jobs in the US, but see the stimulus bill which invested hundreds of billions of dollars into building and repairing roads and bridges, stopping massive layoffs of teachers around the country, and the biggest annual tax break in history, as not having created any jobs at all? Seriously, what sense does that make?
You answered the question in your first paragraph.
There are a lot of dollars floating around washing ton looking for politicians who will support the pipeline. I personally think that the environmentalists should go away if the pipeline avoids the Ogalala aquifer (which supplies freshwater to a big chunk of America). This is very expensive and inefficeint oil but it is STILL more efficient and cheaper than any alternative renewable source opf energy. This is a failure of the renewable energy industry’s ability to deliver an economically viable alternative to some fo the most expensive oil that this world has to produce.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. This is a good start.
Yes because something that creates 25,000 jobs and is supported by labour unions too is obviously all for the benefit of a few greedy CEOs.
I don’t oppose all infrastructure spending but the stimulus was excessive and bloated IMO.
Do you have a cite that President Obama wanted a bill mandating the creation of an oil pipeline from Texas to Canada?
Huh. And here I thought “come see the liberal hypocrisy” was Bricker’s battle cry. The kids must be picking up on it, like they did with saggy pants and gangsta rap and stuff.
No, it’s really not a good start. It won’t even help us be energy independent; it will just allows oil from Canada to reach the US (slightly) cheaper (maybe).
Cite? I know that my own labor union doesn’t support the idea.
A bill that creates (arguably) 25,000 jobs is to be preferred over a bill that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says created 3 million jobs? Who are you, the Economic Goldilocks? “3 million jobs created is too bloated, no jobs created is too obstructionist, but 25,000 jobs is just right!”