It's been a change from the previous three years of sheer incompetence

What great change can any American leader effect when handicapped by such flagrant bipartisanship?

>>120887
It's been a change from the previous three years of sheer incompetence

(goddamn john stewarts cock is so delicious)

>>120906
It's spelt "Jon", Republifriend

Spoiler tags don't work here, bro. Go back to trolling /v/.

>>120888

>implying republicans would ever compromise with a nigger

>>120911
How did he imply that?

Seriously, /v/ that away.
<----

"Change" just means no more stupid Republican douchebags in the White House.

Mission accomplished.

Bush's largest deficit - $400 billion

Obama deficit 2009 - $1.4 Trillion
Obama deficit 2010 - $1.3 Trillion pace

Obama proposed 2011 deficit - $1.3 Trillion and dropping to $700 billion for the next ten years

He promised he'd "cut the deficit in half in his first term" looks like he'll keep this promise. Can you believe how many fools fell for this line and voted for Trollbama.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/83393.html

>>120908
>>120929
Stop telling your retards to go to /v/, we don't want them there. Moot brought back /new/ to keep the retards to one board.

But Dick Cheney said that Reagan proved that deficits don't matter!

Are you saying he was lying and that Obama isn't doing the right thing?

>>120972
BURN!

>>120961
/v/ is long past the point of saving. This board is looking that way too, shame that.

>>120972
Actually, it's the Democrat Congress' deficits from the start of the recession and bank bailouts, since Bush pretty much handed over the reins to the Dems after Obama won the election and let them shape all the legislation from November 08 to January 09. It's a simple mistake you can make if you don't know what you're talking about.

You morons just don't understand. By borrowing money, and then feeding it into the economy, Obama is HEALING AMERICA and not spending a dime to do it.

>Implying the TARP wasn't devised by the Bush administration

>>120955

Been pointed out above, but Bush left a $1.3 Trillion annual deficit and a $9 Trillion national debt. I do get a chuckle though watching you guys walk back the number. Last week one of you tried to say it was $800 Billion, and now it's down to $400 Billion. Next week it'll be a SURPLUS! lmao.

>Try to help the country through extensive use of expertise-led governance.
>right-wing media brainwashes millions of stupid people
>stupid people call congressmen and get them nervous
>congressmen decide that doing nothing is their duty
>Obama can't get major legislation passed
>Right-wing blames Obama, when it's really their fault

>>120984

HAH! You guys took credit for the uptick in the recession because of "Bush's bailout" JUST LAST WEEK.

Dammit. I've been troll'd, I just know it >:\

>>120972

FY 09 goes from OCT 08 - OCT 09

Bush approved $699 billion in TARP in Dec 08, he committed half, left the other half for Obama to commit.

Obama did the $800 billion Porkulous bill in FEB 09.

Blame everything on Bush, say if you're elected, you'll fix everything. Get elected, make everything even worse, blame it on Bush. Being full of shit only gets you so far.

>>121000
Is that an Akira Toriyama depiction of a troll?

>>121007
Obama never blamed everything on Bush. He usually says that he came into power during a recession, which is left open to interpretation of weather or not the president causes economic downturn, or the global economy as a whole.

Yeah, thanks a bunch, Karl Joseph Hussein Obongo.

>>121007

Wait, so the recession is Obama's fault? Or would the recession be over by now if Bush were still in office? Tell me this chart is wrong. And tell me CBO's claim that the Stimulus created or saved 1.6 million jobs that would have otherwise been lost is wrong.

Or are you just reading talking points off you hand?

>>121019
>Obama never blamed everything on Bush.

Bush: spending 800bn on things the country desperately needs

Obama: spending 3.2tn nobody fucking wants

Hey, let's ignore this graph showing how much of the national debt and projected deficits is Bush's okay? Because we don't want to "blame" people. This shit coming from the "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, NOT HAND OUTS" crowd makes me rage.

>>121028
He hasn't. If you listen to his speeches he never directly faults the previous administration. He always phrases it as "due to economic downturn" or "as a result of poor government policy". He never mentions Bush or the Bush administration as being the only ones at fault. Now his supporters, on the other hand, are a different story.

>>121029
>things the country desperately needs

You mean like wars? Yeah, wars make great TV.

>>121024 created or saved 1.6 million jobs

The cbo stopped giving figures on "jobs created or saved" after they were shown to be heavily skewed for the second or third time.

>>121029

Let's have another look at a graph, shall we?

>>121038
>. If you listen to his speeches he never directly faults the previous administration

Semantics trick. He never directly faults the previous administration, except when he says he INHERITED all these problems and hey he's not really magic black jesus like the new york times and newsweek and olbermann told you he was but hey, give him a break!

Give ME a break.

Ooh, look at this one showing Bush increase deficit as percentage of GDP from 32 to 43 percent, and Obama raise it from 43 to 46 percent. TAX AND SPENDER!

>ITT: Charts prove things LOOK I HAVE A CHART TOO

>>121040

Bullshit. They're STILL projecting numbers because only HALF the Stimulus has even been spent. I do enjoy your graph though, showing a net job lose to disprove job creation is a wonderful trick that works with republicans. Don't mind the fact that without the Stimulus, those 1.6 jobs would NOT have been created or saved. Just ignore that part.

>>121048
It's not his fault you have a victim complex. What he is saying is true, the economic problems were there before he came into office. Now it's up to you to decide if this is Bush's fault, or the congress/senate's fault, or due to broader economic issues, or a mixture of all three.

What he is saying isn't a lie, and it about as nicely he can put it. The facts are he didn't cause the economic collapse, its up to you to make up your own mind as to what did.

>>120984
Here's the problem with your statement. That's not what you originally said.

>>120955
>Bush's largest deficit - $400 billion
>Obama deficit 2009 - $1.4 Trillion

If you meant to say "Democrat Congress" then don't say Obama when it was clearly Bush. Scapegoating a failed second term is wearing extremely thin.

Besides, it's not as if you were really here to do anything other than smear. In doing so you made a mistake and refuse to own up to it. Just save yourself further the embarrassment and close this tab.

>>121054

Aw, butthurt the facts don't jive with your talking points so you lambaste graphs proving you wrong?

That chart you posted is PERFECT though. See that projected '09 deficit? Bush's. That's how it works. And see how the projected deficit DROPS each year under Obama? That's Obama taking the steps to correct the economy and then lowering spending. You fail at even making a convincing argument using your own hand-picked charts lol.

>>121056
How much money per job "saved or created"? Also, wasn't there something about if someone got a one dollar raise their job was created or saved by the porkulous?

>>121059
>It's not his fault you have a victim complex

Ah that's pretty funny.

The man says what he says. You want to pretend the words mean something less than what they do. Not me.

>What he is saying is true, the economic problems were there before he came into office.

Actually, not true. You see he was part of the Democrat Senate voting to spend that money. His vote, like it or not, was more important than the President's signature on anything, because it's both Houses of Congress which make financial policy for the nation.

>What he is saying isn't a lie

Nope it's a blame game. And it doesn't work anymore.

>>121059
Stormfront = Automatically Obama's fault
Judgement Decided. ;_;

>>121063
I doubt administration projections.

>>121063
>See that projected '09 deficit? Bush's.

Wrong because that budget wasn't passed until the Democrats held both houses and the Presidency.

Like it or not they passed that bill, no one else. It's all on their shoulders

>>121074
Oh and in case you forgot, they also wrote that budget because Republicans lost control of both houses in the fall.

So, hate to break it to you bro, but that budget is the Democrats, made, sold and labeled

But again
>It's a simple mistake you can make if you don't know what you're talking about.

>>121070
Basically. It makes debates here extremely tiring. No matter how many valid points you bring up there's a deluge of bullshit to counter.

>>121049

Obama's new budget adds to the current 99 week unemployment benefit.

If you can't find a job in 99 weeks, you have to be a liberal faggot.

>>121067
No, I take his words at face value, you are the one assigning more meaning to them than is actually there.

His vote caused the housing bubble? Wow, it's a good thing we elected him president, because apparently he can drastically change the mortgage market by voting yes on a bill. And the stimulus you are bitching about? Republicans voted for it too. And Bush didn't Veto it, if Obama is to blame, they are just as responsible.

Again, he never assigns blame to anyone, he is making a point that the problems our nation faces didn't start when he took office, and if you are intelligent enough to realize this, this also means they didn't start when Bush took office either.

Political football FTL.

>>121089
>he thinks his points are valid

>it wears him out to post here

>do you need some tissues to wipe your vagina little man?

>>121084
Hey. This guy here. >>121074

Isn't me. >>120972

I know it's very strange being out of /v/ but, you might just want to quit while you're behind.

Your points are useless, most of 4chan's oldfags have moved to a different board.

>>121089

Kinda like Obama's job in office olol

>>121115
Jesus Christ, I can only imagine.

>>121065
>dollar raise

Not that I know of, but feel free to post a link. CBO doesn't fuck around with numbers for political reasons, they know they'd lose their position of authority if they did. You must be getting desperate when you have to resort to rumors read on drugde, though.

And the "dollars per job creation" only makes sense if you don't consider that the money earned by that worker is then put back into the system by spending money on purchases that then stimulate more GDP growth.

GDP is growing, and very well. It's just that businesses are hording the profits instead of hiring more workers.

>>121073

Sure, but point me to a single conservative that projected the economy would worsen the way it did. All the data hadn't come in yet. See, we were stilling finding out how badly Bush had fucked up the economy (I know, that's partisan, but whatever). Both sides underestimated how bad things really were.

>>121074

Wrong again. That was Obama spending to meet the unfunded liabilities. Bush hadn't appropriated the money to the projects left on the books. You just wanted Obama to slash those programs and leave them underfunded/unfunded to meet your political philosophy. Still, it's stuff from Bush's administration (plus the Congress, durr). Not Obama's.

$800 billion stimulus money is enough to pay 4 million people $50,000 per year each for 4 years.

Obama managed to loose 3 million jobs in one year instead.

>>121101
>His vote caused the housing bubble?

Strawman, we're talking about the spending the Congress has been doing since 06 when the Democrats took control of it

>And the stimulus you are bitching about? >Republicans voted for it too.

Lolno. You're a fucking idiot

>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123487951033799545.html

>FEBRUARY 18, 2009, 4:07 P.M. ET

>Congressional Republicans, who were largely united in their opposition to the bill, said they were disappointed by the final outcome. "The flawed bill the president will sign today is a missed opportunity, one for which our children and grandchildren will pay a hefty price," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said in a statement.

>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/obama-im-confident-stimul_n_161654.html

>A nearly $820 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives Wednesday without a single Republican vote. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it stands a better chance of picking up at least a modicum of bipartisan support.

>Approval of the bill is a victory for President Barack Obama and comes only eight days after his inauguration -- the swiftest passage of such a massive package in American history. The vote was 244-188, with 11 Democrats crossing party lines and opposing the measure.

Eat a fucking dick you uneducated little shit

Time to actually go learn what you're talking about for once huh?

>>121091
>If you can't find a job in 99 weeks, you have to be a liberal faggot.

Businesses aren't hiring. Their hording their new-found wealth from the growth in GDP. Get your head out of your ass. It has nothing to do with being lazzy or liberal.

>>121084

Bullshit. Dems didn't have a 60 vote majority. Republicans voted for the bailouts and their pet projects hoping they could blame it on the Dems.

>>121138
>Dems didn't have a 60 vote majority

They did in Feb 09 when the bill passed

>>121120
Except that it's not put back in to the economy. The multiplier is a myth. The debt exists, there has been more of a focus on saving since the recession started. The Bush tax checks went largely unspent.

You'll see how bitter the koolaid is in a few years.

Also, government spending is inherently inefficient. Every dollar spent has to be taken from someone else, so effectively those jobs "saved or created" by porkulous funds will be "paying for themselves" via higher taxes. Also, bureaucrats. Also, how do we audit these numbers, Obama kept preaching "transparency" didn't he?

>>121104
>I green text because I can't talk like a normal person.

Think when your parents are totally jerks, they've taken away your allowance for playing video games instead of doing homework. You scream at them to let you play your Halos and to no avail, their mind is decided.

This is what it is like to talk to you.

I'm giving you a situation you can relate to. You are a child you see. If not that, a man-child.

>>121138
This is true, the teen unemployment rate has been increasing even as the unemployment rate decreased. People are underemployed because unemployment benefits don't cover their living expenses (their fault- imho, too many people were financing unsustainable lifestyles on credit, much like the country at large). This isn't over, and things aren't getting better yet.

>>121127
Sure is civics 101 in here.

>>121126
>$800 billion stimulus money is enough to pay 4 million people $50,000 per year each for 4 years.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Who decides who gets the money?

1/3 of Stimulus was tax cuts for 90% of American workers
1/3 of Stimulus was unemployment insurance and other aid for States to keep them from laying off firefighters, cops, teachers, etc.
1/3 of Stimulus was for construction projects to get people back to work and fix our infrastructure

>Obama managed to loose 3 million jobs in one year instead

I guess Obama is responsible for the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, too, right? Doesn't have anything to do with Bush starting the wars and shoving them off onto Obama with zero exit strategy. Stop being a pussy and accept what a failure Bush and you governing philosophy have proved to be.

>>121168
that if we called a spade a spade and paid 4 million people (that's more than the "recognized" unemployment 10%) $50k, it would make more sense than paying 300m people $18 a paycheck and fabricating numbers about jobs "saved or created"

>>121164
SHHH! No, no... It's still the democrats fault! REAGANOMICS 4 EVER.

>>121142

I wasn't talking about the Stimulus, I was talking about the deficits you blamed on Obama. The ones from '08 - '09.

>>121144
>The multiplier is a myth

Well, we'll see.

>government spending is inherently inefficient.

True, that's why they're going out of their way to streamline spending and cut redtape without allowing for corruption and malfeasance.

>so effectively those jobs "saved or created" by porkulous funds will be "paying for themselves" via higher taxes

You're conflating two things: getting us out of a recession and future tax raises that will affect the economy in the long run. The former is what Obama is addressing with this program. The latter is what his fiscal commission will be looking at.

>>121168 1/3 of Stimulus was for construction projects to get people back to work and fix our infrastructure

6% is 1/3 now? Fuck I need to re-learn math. I wonder if I can score a fat stimulus check for that?

>>121184
>that if we called a spade a spade and paid 4 million people (that's more than the "recognized" unemployment 10%) $50k, it would make more sense than paying 300m people $18 a paycheck and fabricating numbers about jobs "saved or created"

I'll give you that, but how is that politically feasible? Imagine all those tea baggers running around screaming about "why you give the money to barkies or fags instead of me?!" That wouldn't end well.

>>121127
>durp

The pres didn't use his veto power and the senate passed it with bi-partisan support. Back to your tea party.

>>121160
>Online advertised vacancies rose by 382,000 to 4,024,000 in January, according to The Conference Board Help Wanted OnLine™ (HWOL) Data Series released today

if you can't find a job in 99 weeks you must be a liberal faggot

>>121190
>Well, we'll see.
When has it worked in history, and when is this debt going to hit? What happens if the next round of housing bubble bursts (set for this year or the next) come to fruition? Are we going to see, or is it going to be some kind of sewage slurry that we have to try to pluck numbers from?
>streamline spending and cut redtape without allowing for corruption and malfeasance.
The one thing that Obama said in his campaign that I actually had hope for change about was transparency, I haven't seen it yet. I'm getting tired of waiting.

>>121197

6% was for infrastructure ONLY and not the other odd programs to get people working on projects immediately. I should have made that more clear. Here's the sauce:

>>121202
It's not, which is why we're in the situation we're in. I for one wish that the government would stop throwing money at problems, figure out a plan and implement it rather than dragging this out with payoffs, penalties and uncertainty which hobbles the market.

>>121207

If it's anything my the local online classifieds where I live, at least 75% of those are for "you can work at home" or "get a government job" scams and not real openings.

>>121214
>When has it worked in history

I don't know how to respond to that other than to point you to Reagan's own economist that claimed republicans were full of shit for opposing the Stimulus:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/20/opponents-stimulus-conservatives-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett
.html

>transparency

There is no doubt he's the most transparent President in modern history, just not anywhere close to what those that voted for him expected. There's still time.

>>121205
>enate passed it with bi-partisan support

It's not bipartisan when two liberal republicans cross lines and vote for it. That's what we call a fucking sham

butthurt all you want about it, that bill is entirely Democrats responsibility and entirely Obama's signature

>>121236
I'm not a republican, and no president talked more about small government while doing more to make it bigger than Reagan.

>>121242
>no true scotsman

I see you are just grasping at straws to save face. I enjoyed this, lets do it again sometime.

>>121330
Whatever it takes to make you feel better bro.

Two Senators voting for a bill does not a bipartisan bill make.

>>121339
Are you actually that fucking retarded that you don't know what bi-partisan means?

>>121355
>Two Senators voting for a bill does not a bipartisan bill make.

I think he's got it pretty well sorted out.

>>121355
Bi partisan does not mean "Hey we got TWO Senators and LOST 11 CONGRESSMEN to a vote on a bill" you dumb shit

Bipartisan means that both parties worked to craft the bill, both parties voted on it in fairly equivalent proportions, and you're also continuously wrong on the fact that it was OBAMA not BUSH that SIGNED THE FUCKING STIMULUS PACKAGE into effect.

You are triple fucking dipped retarded.

>>121365
Actually, it is exactly what it means, when a bill passes with bi-partisan support, it is a bi-partisan bill. 2 republicans, you yourself admitted, gave the bill their support.
It's kind of funny how you scramble to change the definitions of words when they don't suit your political agenda, typical conservatard rhetoric, but it just doesn't fly with people who know what they are talking about.

>>121392
I see you trollan.

>bawww Republicans don't want to spend $1 trillion on my 2500 page piece of shit bill. They being meanie heads :(

>>120888
Its called leadership and Obama lacks it.

>>121422
>lose an argument
>cry troll

>>121392
>Actually, it is exactly what it means

Ah no. What it means is that you feel you have sufficient cover because two Republican Senators crossed the aisles after being handed huge pork handouts in the bill to cry bipartisanship when no such thing is possible.

The opposition, having taken 11 Democrats off, was actually MORE bipartisan than the stimulus package.

And I notice you're still afraid to admit it was Obama's signature on the bill.

>>121463
Which bill? There was a stimulus bill passed during Bush's presidency as well.

>>121489
There was Troubled Assets Relief Package Part 1 and 2, and then the stimulus

TARP 1 was done by Bush, Tarp 2 and stimulus were done under OBAMA. Goddamn

Obama will be one of the worst presidents ever but who cares about Mr. Black Bush.

If current trends don't change, lets think of how bad the successor will be!

>>121448
troll status confirmed

>>121509
So its a democrat bill when Bush signs it too? Yeah, its time to settle down there Timmy, you are way off the original topic of Obama blaming Bush for everything anyway.

A nigger will always be a nigger, I hope the people who voted for him kick themselves in the teeth for there stupidity.

>>121529
>So its a democrat bill when Bush signs it too?

Bush signed Tarp 1, but it was formed entirely by Democrats in the House and Senate and so he basically had his arms tied. We all remember how the winds were blowing at that time, after the election Bush pretty much stopped running anything and let Congress take the reins while Obama thumped McCain.

And Obama signed and spent Tarp 2 and the Stimulus package. And signed onto the Budget bill. And has since signed 4 major expansions to the national debt limit totaling 5 trillion dollars

>>121589 kick themselves in the teeth for there stupidity.
where?

>>121524
Hardly. He beat me to posing this. Like I said, close this thread and move along. You're out of your league, /v/irgin.

>>121607
I don't know why you're still trying to bait people. Going post for post isn't trolling. It's pretty clear that you were wrong.

>>121635
Not the guy you were talking with. Still know you lost.

Just to make it clear

My posts:

>>121599
>>121463
>>121509
>>121365
>>121339
>>121242

And no others

So you're all idiots

>>121655
argument by repetition fallacy
even webster knows you're wrong:
"marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties"

>>121674
>pretending 2 Senators being for a bill makes it bipartisan

>ignoring that 11 Democrat congressmen were against the bill, thus by your own definition, taking the dictionary version of the language completely 100% literally like any retard trying to play semantics to cover up for how fucking wrong and ignorant and shit sniffing stupid they are would try to do, you are still wrong.

>the opposition was MORE bipartisan than those who crossed over to vote for the bill

>thank you retard

>try again

>>121683
you're replying to the wrong fag, fag

>>121663
I was the person you were replying to. You still lost because you tried to change the definition of the word to suit your own agenda. regardless, my original point to posting in this thread was to dispel the belief that Obama is blaming the economy on Bush, when in reality he has never directly faulted the Bush administration in any speech. You can stretch his words to make an implication. but that doesn't mean jack shit.

Also, Bush could have Veto'd Tarp 1, he didn't the bill still passed with bi-partisan support. (Republican pres and democrat legislature).

>>121674
It's funny when you're out of /v/ and still think by their logic of opinion = fact. Fail harder.

>>121695
>You still lost because you tried to change the definition of the word to suit your own agenda

Wrong. There is no bipartisanship when one party writes the bill and uses money to convince two members of the other party to pass the bill, and again.

Bush signed Tarp 1. That bill WAS bipartisan. But Tarp 2 and the Stimulus bill were not.

The only person trying to change definitions here is you, by trying to stuff the definition into a box where it applies to anything you want it to but not in any way to anything that fits reality.

Bipartisanship is both parties coming to the table, working together to craft the bill, voting for it not barely 60 to 40 with two senators switching sides but rather 80 or 90 to 20 or 10 opposing, and then having a President sign it.

In no way can Tarp 2 or the stimulus package OR the spending bill be described in that manner.

And your original point is more sticking your head in the dirt and pretending to plausible deniability and semantics games to defend your indefensible position. Obama blames Bush for everything, he does it clearly and repeatedly, and you're assertions "Well...well he didn't SAY GEORGE BUSH so he's all good" is fucking pathetic. Kill yourself

>Also, Bush could have Veto'd Tarp 1, he didn't the bill still passed with bi-partisan support. (Republican pres and democrat legislature).

And Obama could have not spent Tarp 2, could have not pushed stimulus, could have not spent 5 trillion his first year in office, not expanded the national debt ceiling by that much in one year, could have not passed the budget bill.

No matter how you cut it, NONE OF THOSE BILLS were bipartisan and you're pretty dumb. You should just stop posting now

>>121695
Weasel words, thinly veiled accusations are politics. Claiming that he hasn't suggested it, and more importantly- that the left hasn't gobbled it up is laughably incorrect.

>>121719
>It's funny when you're out of /v/ and still think by their logic of opinion

is this a new forced meme one moron is pushing on /new/?

That everyone he doesn't like posts in /v/ regularly?

pic related

>>121720
One republican giving their support, be they the president or a liberal republican; makes the bill bi-partisan, I don't know how I can explain this to you any clearer. You can say that it was mostly supported by the dems, but your can't just change the definition of bi-partisan to suit your argument and expect not to get called on it. Just drop it, really, you were wrong, it's not the end of the world.

Also, the reason Obama never mentions Bush is because of morons such as yourself who think of political parties like they do football teams. He could do it, but to do so would only give ammuntion to dumbasses waiting to jump on him for being partisan. Like I said earlier, it's not Obama's fault you have a victim complex and take any ambiguity to mean a direct attack on the previous administration or their policies. In fact, Obama has supported a lot of what Bush & co. did while in power.

You're still wrong about the bipartisan thing too, yelling it at the top of your lungs won't make you any less incorrect about it.

>>121792
bipartisan means that the parties worked together, one person does not a party make.

fuck dude, give it up already

>>121792
>One republican giving their support, be they the president or a liberal republican; makes the bill bi-partisan

No. It does not. Not by any definition, literal or not.

But hey, let's take your premise. Okay. Then everything from the housing bubble burst to the Iraq War were Democrats fault, because they signed onto all those bills. Guess those were bipartisan too, huh?

Just stop trying bro. You're not only beat. You're just dumb. Bipartisanship means both parties came to the table, crafted the bill together, there wasn't just a buyoff of a couple of opposition members with nice fat pork payouts, there was actual compromise made.

And that's not what happened.

You can keep saying "NO YOU WRONG ME RIGHT BLAH BLAH BLAH" all day but it's clear to see you're playing semantics games to try and cram the definition of the word into a region where you can call anything you want bipartisan when it's clearly not the case.

Bipartisanship means both parties were major players in crafting the legislation, it was a mutually agreed upon decision.

>>121823
stop getting mad, you're making his obvious troll work

>>121823
You keep talking like that makes you right, it doesn't. Read a fucking dictionary, it doesn't say that it has to be broad support accross both parties, only that both parties support it. You can cry about how the liberal republicans aren't "true" republicans (no true scotsman) or make up your own definitions, but you are still wrong.

>>121850 read a dictionary
>even webster knows you're wrong:
>"marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties"

i'm not sure that you can be wrong harder than you're being wrong right now

>>121850
Two outliers do not a party make

>You can cry about how the liberal republicans aren't "true" republicans

More strawmen. They are Republicans but they were not representative of the whole party and thus did not speak for the whole party and you can't have bipartisanship without support from both parties so yes, actually, you do need the legislation written by both parties and agreed upon by both parties to have a bipartisan bill

More importantly, and you continue to ignore it, Obama signed it, and 11 Democrat Congressmen were against it.

Not that you want to address that. You have no point. Your assertion means that every single bill Bush passed was Bipartisan in nature and thus Democrats are equally and moreso culpable in everything. You hang your own noose with your position

>>121863
How do you think they got the republicans to vote for the bill? An agreement. An agreement between Democrats and Republicans. That clearly fits the definition.

It's almost as if you have a mental block about this. It isn't a big deal, you just need to move past it like a grown up.

>>121897
>play a semantics game

>think anyone takes it seriously

You can't think I'm going to seriously try to argue this sort of stupidity do you?

An agreement between two individual members does not equal an agreement with the party. And it does not equal

> involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties
>compromise between two major political parties

Two Senators =/= Agreement, compromise or cooperation between

>two major political parties

The only mental block here is you. Because you are trolling with arguments this weak.

He did bring change that is spending until we are dead.

Have super-majority in both houses and presidency, claim opposition party is holding you back.

>>121920
I'm not the one playing a game, you are. I'm keeping to the definition, while you are mincing words in order to look like you aren't wrong.

>>121024
Why are there so many obamafags here? It's already been said the stimulus job creation is impossible to know. Also adding government jobs hurts the private sector not help fucking retard.

>>121954
I know why are there so many dumbass liberals here? Wake up morons your party is shit.

>>121957
>I'm keeping to the definition

Ah no, you're hacking off the entire premise of the majority of two parties reaching a compromise and leaving in only the agreement part

>>121968
The def. says nothing about a majority. It only says two parties (which the president/senators represent) coming to an agreement. One agreeing to the bill is essentially the "party" agreeing to the bill, because that is what they represent, the party.
Also >Lose the argument
>cry troll

>>121999
lol, no, you're wrong

>>121999
>which the president/senators represent

president yes
senators no not singly, only en masse do they represent the party. To say that 2 senators from the Republican side voting for the bill means that the whole Republican party was for it is just plain blatant playing stupid. So two out of 40 is a majority? Are you fucking high?

>>122021
no he's trolling, and it's still working

>>122024
>my face when I realized someone doesn't get that every post on this board is a troll trolling a troll trolling a troll

>>122029
my faces when someone claims that good conversations never occur when everyone ignores or sages trolls.

>>122040
>my face when I realized I using trolling and being trolled to avoid writing shit for class I don't wanna write

>>122021
Never said that. I was just pointing out that they represent their party, by agreeing to vote for it, or not veto, they are putting bi-partisan support forward. Jesus christ, stop being so dense.

>>122068
>t. I was just pointing out that they represent their party

no, they don't. Unless a large portion of them side with one party, they don't. In this case you had 36 Republican Senators vote against the bill, two vote for it. Therefore in no way can you say that the bill involved bipartisan support. Furthermore, because on the House side, NO REPUBLICANS (or maybe 1 did I think that Louisiana Congressman maybe) voted for it and in fact 11 Democrats did vote for it, you really can't claim bipartisanship was on the side of the bill in the issue. It was in fact AGAINST the bill.

>>122090
Yes they fucking do. I think you are the first person who tried to argue that a republican doesn't represent the republican party. All for the sake of not losing one inconsequential point on fucking /new/ of all places. It did have bi-partisan support, not a lot of it, but it was clearly there, plain as day. you lose, good day sir.

>>122106
no you're wrong

>>122106
>Yes they fucking do

No. They don't. They are not "representative" of the entire parties' view and thus they do not represent it.

The 36 who voted against the bill, and the 111 in the House which didn't vote for the bill, are the representatives of their parties' actual wishes. The two outliers are just that. Outliers. They do not represent the majority view of the party, thus they do not and are not able to speak for the majority view of the party and thus you cannot call the bill bipartisan.

Why this is so hard for you to get I dunno. I think maybe you have a serious case of the dumbs.

>>122119
Sorry, but the facts do not support your opinion. I hate to tell you this but you are just wrong. You are wrong about what bi-partisan means and it is causing you to draw incorrect conclusions about the topic. No other way to say it, but you are just ignorant.

>>122130 wrongfag here, just being wrong, feel free to ignore me

>>120888
>flagrant bipartisanship
1. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2. He must be the only president in history who couldn't accomplish a single thing with a yearlong 60-39 majority in Congress.

Too bad buckos, maybe you should have worshiped someone with ANY leadership experience AT ALL. Enjoy your fail.

>>122136
>I know I lost the argument, might as well keep replying until he leaves so I can claim victory.
Conservatard logic 101.

>>122130
Yes yes, the "Facts" like 11 Democrats and 111 Republicans in the House voting against the bill and 36 out of 38 Republicans in the Senate not voting for the bill and Barack Obama signing the measure don't support my conclusion, but YOUR conclusion, which asserts that 2 out of 150 people represent that 150 people's point of view even though those 2 voted directly opposing all the rest is the definition of bipartisanship, is TOTALLY RIGHT

Or you've just lost the debate and look pretty dumb and know it

>>122150 just repeating myself like the other guy so that I can claim victory when he leaves
othertard logic 101
>implying that i'm conservative

>>122151
blah blah blah.

The argument is if the bill was bi-partisan. 2 republicans voted for it, Bush signed the first part into law. That is clearly bi-partisan legislation. The only way it could not be would be if no republicans voted on any part of it and Bush didn't sign the first part into law. You can cry all you want about it, you're still wrong.

>>122165
new to discussion fag here,

so what you're saying is that if someone in politics does something it's like everyone who was associated with that person did that as well?

So the Democrats did this?

>>122176
nope, I am saying that their definition of bi-partisan is wrong. they are asserting that in order for something to be bi-partisan, it has to meet some impossible standards that they make up on the fly. I am saying for something to be bi-partisan, it has to fit the definition, and that the bill they are referencing did.

Now I'm not saying that it wasn't mostly the dems that got it passed, all I am saying is that it took an agreement between the two parties to pass it, which it did.

And for the record, a republican elected official represents his party. If they didn't want to give the bill bi-partisan support, they should not have voted for it.

obama sucks

>>122165
>2 republicans voted for it, Bush signed the first part into law. That is clearly bi-partisan legislation.

Wrong. So clearly wrong I shouldn't have to explain it. Two Senators versus 150. It's clear which represents the majority view of the party and which doesn't. You can't have bipartisanship with those sorts of numbers.

Secondly, two Republicans voted for the Stimulus package. Tarp 1 was the only part of the entire set of bills plus the spending bill which had any Republicans voting for it beyond 2. You can't even get your basic facts right.

Hmmmm...
Economic downturn?
TRIPLE THE DEFICIT!

>>122195
>they are asserting that in order for something to be bi-partisan, it has to meet some impossible standards that they make up on the fly

Wrong again. You really can't deal without a strawman a post huh? We are arguing that bipartisanship requires an agreement or compromise between two parties. Parties are represented by the majority view within the party, not by the most fringe elements. 2 people can not overrule 36. Therefore your definition, that 2 people CAN overrule 36, IS making rules up on the fly to meet your definition when you need it to. Our definition of parties can only be represented by their majority view is the real definition you want to ignore.

>>122165
The Democrats did this?

>>122215
well one Democrat did THAT

With a cigar

In the Oval Orifice

>>122214
If that were the case, the party as a whole would vote, not the individual senators. And I am really sorry to have to repeat myself, but one representative of either party supporting a bill by voting for it makes the bill bi-partisan. You just can't seem to wrap your head around it because like most Republicans, you are incapable of admitting you are wrong.

The "majority" opinon of your party means jack shit when we are talking about a bill two republicans voted for (and one signed into fucking law).

>>122237
no it doesn't.

>>122237
>If that were the case, the party as a whole would vote

They do.

And it's clear where the majority of them voted, against the bill.

You really gotta find a better argument at this point bro

>but one representative of either party supporting a bill by voting for it makes the bill bi-partisan

Oh well if that's the case Barack is responsible for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Democrats are responsible for every single piece of legislation that has passed in the past two decades.

>>122237
>The "majority" opinon of your party means jack shit when we are talking about a bill two republicans voted for (and one signed into fucking law).

>He still thinks Bush signed the stimulus package into law.

>>122253
Well, they are at least partially responsible. I don't know how your can think otherwise when they voted in support of it.

>>122214
>thinks parties are important

Political parties in America exist out of the unnecessary belief that you need to divide two needed elements to keep the balance in America in check. If you actually look in the past up till about 40 years ago, parties weren't that important. Most of our founding fathers were even opposed to it, hell Washington refused to align himself with any political party for his 8 years because he believed it went against the needs of the people.

Most of the other founding fathers, while in political parties, used them more as schools of focus rather than dominant policy creating forces. You had guys that focused on the federal government. You had guys that focused on states rights. And they didn't enforce one view point but rather compromised on middle ground.

Now it just so happens this middle ground was soon obliterated and states rights trampled on (and the Civil War) and this divisional ideology in American politics has only harmed us ever since.

>>122258
The TARP 1 bill, dumbass.

>>122265
The two Republicans who voted for it are responsible. But they don't represent their party, thus they cannot negotiate a compromise or agreement between their party and the Democrats which would make the bill bipartisan.

Thus tagging the whole Republican party as signing the Stimulus or spending bills for this past year isn't possible, though the Dems right now sure wish it would be.

>>122268
this for gods sake

well fucking said anon.

>>122271
Tarp 1 is not the Stimulus package, the spending bill or Tarp 2.

So so what the Republicans signed onto one out of 4 major spending initiatives? The Democrats then went on to pass 3 more double the size of the original one. And then they raised the debt limit 5 trillion dollars and tried to spend almost as much as they'd already spent in 3 spending packages again in two more, health care and cap and trade.

>>122273
Again, all I am trying to say is that the dumbass said the bill wasn't bi-partisan, when it was. If you want to split hairs about it be my guess, but don't act like the votes aren't there for anyone to see.

>>122268
>he thinks political parties never mattered before 40 years ago

I don't think so Tim. Some founding fathers didn't like political parties. Others fucking founded some.

Trying to appeal to their authority on the matter is pointless, and it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether two people can speak for 36 others when the 36 voted directly opposite the 2. They can't. Get over it

The rest of your moralizing and soap boxing is just irrelevant strawmen to the discussion as well.

>>122278
>Again, all I am trying to say is that the dumbass said the bill wasn't bi-partisan, when it was.

It wasn't bipartisan and you are wrong

>>122165
Regardless of what your technical definition of "Bi-partisan" is, we accept a common cultural definition which implies equitable and mutual support in the creation and voting process for a given bill.

Though everyone is in a heated argument over this at this point, the fact remains that the majority of Republicans opposed the bill. I would hardly call the two who crossed the lines Republican, they're much better considered RINOs, or Republicans In Name Only.

I suggest you read the analysis on Bipartisanship at http://www.answers.com/topic/bipartisanship, which is what the first result I got for a definition was. The definition may be technical, but the political canon of Bipartisanship implies far, FAR more than what was done.

>>122276
Then don't be a retard when saying something isn't bipartisan when it is. If the original idiot gave details about what parts he was referencing, I wouldn't have to correct him for being wrong about what Bipartisanship means.

>>122294
>saying something isn't bipartisan when it is

It's not, the only retard here is you. You are legally fucking dysfunctional and need to go the fuck back to grade school and learn how sentences work. Bipartisanship is denoted as an agreement between two MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES and TWO PEOPLE that voted AGAINST THE MAJORITY of their MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY are not negotiating an agreement or compromise between one major party and the other major party.

>>122293
There is a long and great tradition of Bipartisan compromises in our political history, beginning with the Great Compromise of the creation of the House and Senate, arguably the greatest bipartisan success in history.

Compared to the that, the stimulus pales and is very much partisan.

>>122303
>bipartisan only means what I say it means! Damn the actualy definition of the word!

You are so dumb its funny.

ITT: one troll repeats him self so much that it actually starts to work

>>122294
In addition, regardless of whether we argue semantics over "bipartisan", the Democrats own the bill by virtue of their vast majority of yeas and the Republicans' vast majority of neas.

>>122319
The semantics were all I was correcting. I just don't like it when someone is so ignorant that they can't even be corrected as to what a word means without flying off on a tangent.

>>122317
>butthurt no response detected in this sector captain

>>122292

Hey, guys! Lets look at the record for what was said:

>parties weren't that important.

What he is putting in my mouth

>Parties were never important

Is this what was said? In your words, "I don't think so Tim".

Get over your majority rule bullshit belief, and learn what a straw man is too, by the way.

Your majority rule bullshit is fucking lunacy considering we don't LIVE in a majority rule system, we live in a system of COMPROMISE. You know, when two opposing beliefs reconcile together and create something that works for both?

Majority rule harms the American citizen. Majority rule basically negates the minorities voice, which last I checked isn't what America is about. Remember folks, democracy is not a form of government but rather a general political philosophy in which DOZENS of political systems are constructed off of; and We, AMERICA, happen to live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. A system for The People, voted by The People. But apparently with how much we disregard the constitution in America's history, that doesn't matter to much anymore.

>>122327
>Thinks he corrected semantics when he got them completely wrong

>>122339
why do you think people always qualify a bill as "broad bipartisan" support when more than a few senators/congressmen from both sides vote for it? Because Bipartisanship is acheived at the first vote. Its extremely narrow bipartisan support, but bipartisan nonetheless. You're unable to accept this because you are wrong.

>>122327
The point is that you know as well as I do that he was following a commonly held definition of bipartisanship, which implies an actual substantial amount of both parties supporting a bill. This is the cultural definition I mentioned.

Regardless of what the technical definition is, you need to be able to read the context of an argument. To continue to argue that it was bipartisan accomplished nothing but to make you look like a negative nanny.

The bipartisanship that he and I speak of is that of the political canon, which, as I've noted, is a long and great tradition that I have much respect for. It's also the diametric opposite of a bill passing with only two votes coming across party lines.

>>122340
>Political parties weren't that important
I suggest you take an American History course again, son.

>>122340
Parties were important from almost the start of the nation, which is what I said. That some founders were against them, some founders actually started political parties.

And your rant about majority rule is lolworthy. Man, get a fucking towel and wipe yourself off after that shit. A party is not represented by what one member does. Or two. It's represented by where the majority chooses to sit on an issue. that's why it's a POLITICAL PARTY, ie. AN ORGANIZED GROUP THAT EXPRESSES ITSELF POLITICALLY. They didn't come together for anarchy, they came together to express a common front on similar issues. So when two go off and vote directly opposite the vast overwhelming 10 to one and better majority, they BY DEFINITION DO NOT REPRESENT THE PARTY'S VIEWPOINT AND THUS CAN NOT AND ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE A COMPROMISE on the behalf of the party as a whole.

So everything you said is just basically blather, froth and madness. Sorry to break it to ya

>>122358
>Telling me to read American History
>Blindly ignorant that American History actually supports what I'm talking about

Sure is ignorant sheeple in here

>>122351
"cultural definition" has no meaning, it's basically a cop-out to say "I said this but I really MEANT this ect. ect." Either use the words correctly, or not at all. Yeah, I can argue pretty much everything if I'm allowed to make up what my words mean on the fly. Unfortunately, I live in a world where doing so would have me ridiculed for being so illogical.

>>122350
>why do you think people always qualify a bill as "broad bipartisan" support when more than a few senators/congressmen from both sides vote for it?

For propaganda purposes

It has no relevance to the discussion, it's just trumpet blaring, like the King starving 40000 people and claiming he fed 20000 others. Bipartisanship BY TECHNICAL DEFINITION, REQUIRES the compromise or agreement from the majority of two parties, they have to write the bill, they have to compromise on what is in it, then they have to vote in fairly substantial majorities for it to acquire a bipartisanship.

Everything you're trumpeting is shitting all over the definition to morph it into whatever the hell you want to fit it to. But it's a double edged sword. By your definition Democrats are fully culpable for the Iraq War, for just one example.

You're wrong. And ignorant.

And you fuck goats. Goat fucker

>>122364
The worst part of all this is that although someone could accuse you of trolling, it's pretty obvious you're not.

All the bipartisan compromises I was referencing came about because parties existed with very different objectives. See the entire issue of Abolition in the 19th century; the Republicans and Democrats were never so divided as they were then, given that an actual war came about over that divide.

Before you respond, I call citation needed on whatever assertions you make. That doesn't mean cite a website, just provide historical support for your argument.

>>122372
I guess it's a good thing I didn't make any arguments about the Iraq war then.
I accept your apology, just try to make sense in future postings, don't use a word if you do not fully understand what it means.

>>122382
Actually, by very right of your argument, every single bill passed with just one person from the other party voting for it is not totally and entirely the responsibility of the party which magically created bipartisanship by having 1 person from their side vote for the measure.

So once again, you attempt to run away because you know you're wrong. Well, too bad. I'm here to once again assert that you can not have bipartisanship without the support of the majority of both parties voting for the compromise which was reached as a mutual agreement between the two parties.

Something you can't claim. Because you're wrong.

>>122392
I'll agree if you can show me where in the definition of bipartisan ship it say there needs to be a majority from one side or another in order for it to work. Because essentially you are changing the definition, not following it.

>>122415
Already shown that. You can't have an agreement between two parties without the majority being represented in both groups. For instance. You can't have two corporations where 10 out of 60 shareholders in each corporation decide upon a financial partnership, without majority representation and acceptance of the conditions through a vote.

You cannot say that the REPUBLICAN PARTY was on board for a bill when 36 Republicans in the Senate out of 38 vote against it and 2 vote for it. Because 2 people cannot represent the majority viewpoint.

And the definition is clear. It's an agreement BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES to a compromise. So if you have majority of one party and a tiny fractional minority of the other party, you do not have bipartisanship.

>>122434
that isn't the definition of the word, dumbass.

>>122447
yeah it is, as found in this thread multiple times

Wikipedia
>In a two-party system, bipartisan refers to any bill, act, resolution, or any other action of a political body in which both of the major political parties are in agreement.

Merriam Webster
>marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

It's okay bro. You can go ahead and stop posting now.