When the jobless needed help, what were Republicans doing?

[Guns Guns Guns]

The House passed a resolution reaffirming that the nation’s motto remains “In God We Trust”.

The resolution does not change existing law. Instead, it expresses the sense of the House that the motto remains the same and should be displayed in public places. “In God We Trust” has been the nation’s motto since 1957.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), who sponsored the bill, said it was needed “to firmly declare our trust in God, believing that it will sustain us for generations to come.”

Although the resolution does not create any binding law, its consideration cost more than $215,000 in Members’ salaries and floor operation costs...



http://www.rollcall.com/news/house_passes_in_god_we_trust_measure-209949-1.html

 

[Rune]

Don't forget the year the house spent trying to repeal National Romney-Care, or the next year they spent trying to lower our national credit rating by threatening to default the country.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

and what did the dems do? oh yeah..........they ALSO voted for the bill...legion "conveniently" DELETED this part of the FIRST sentence:

The House passed a resolution reaffirming that the nation’s motto remains “In God We Trust” on a 396-9 vote today.

another dunegion fail. LOL.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i see the troll is too cowardly to address his intentional lie.

 

[Rune]

i see the troll is too cowardly to address his intentional lie.

Who would vote against such a bill, yurthack?
Who sponsered the bill? Stop being a douche.

 

[Damocles]

What were they doing? Offering a 52 week extension with more jobs... What were the Dems doing? Insisting that 2 months is better than 12 and jobs...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

What were they doing? Offering a 52 week extension with more jobs... What were the Dems doing? Insisting that 2 months is better than 12 and jobs...

You mean the 52 week extension with poison pills attached that they knew would never get passed by the Senate?

How would the House bill rejected by the Senate have created "more jobs"?

 

[Damocles]

You mean the 52 week extension with poison pills attached that they knew would never get passed by the Senate?

How would the House bill rejected by the Senate have created "more jobs"?

Yeah, because infrastructure like pipelines just are born there! Stupid Damocles, thinking making stuff employs people!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yeah, because infrastructure like pipelines just are born there! Stupid Damocles, thinking making stuff employs people!

So you think the House Republicans support Obamas' request for infrastructure spending?

 

[Damocles]

So you think the House Republicans support Obamas' request for infrastructure spending?

I think they offered a solution that would create infrastructure without spending a dime of government money and Obama rejected it, insisting that 8 weeks is better than 52...

 

[Onceler]

I think they offered a solution that would create infrastructure without spending a dime of government money and Obama rejected it, insisting that 8 weeks is better than 52...

You think?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I think they offered a solution that would create infrastructure without spending a dime of government money and Obama rejected it, insisting that 8 weeks is better than 52...

Have you read the bill they passed?

 

[Damocles]

Have you read the bill they passed?

Are you now admitting they passed something other than a reaffirmation of "In God We Trust"?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Are you now admitting they passed something other than a reaffirmation of "In God We Trust"?

Their bill was rejected by the Senate, as they knew it would be, and the 'reaffirmation' they wasted time and money on was a nonbinding resolution, not a law.

 

[Damocles]

Their bill was rejected by the Senate, as they knew it would be, and the 'reaffirmation' they wasted time and money on was a nonbinding resolution, not a law.

So you are admitting that they passed something other than the "In God We Trust" legislation with massive bipartisan support?

What do you think about the fact that Democrats voted for the bill in the OP in droves?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The procedural wizards in the House Republican caucus stayed up late to concoct this scheme, a way to dispose of the Senate’s payroll tax deal by voting affirmatively.

They think this helps insulate their members from charges of rejecting the deal, and causing a tax increase of on average $1,000 a year.

Here’s how it’ll go down:

Instead of putting the deal up for a vote, they will vote to call a conference committee with Senate negotiators to reconcile their poison pill-laden bill with the Senate bill that received 89 votes.

Then they will pass a “motion to instruct conferees” that will essentially tell them to pass their version of the bill. The minority will have the opportunity to enter their own motion to instruct conferees, but in all likelihood that will be voted down.

Remember, these are the same Republicans that cried holy hell during the “deem and pass” era, when Democrats tried to pass the health care bill without actually passing it.

Now they’re trying the same thing, so that when their members are confronted over this vote, they can have this exchange:

Democrat: You voted to increase taxes on the middle class.


Republican: No I didn’t, I voted to send our bill to conference. It’s not my fault that the Senate didn’t show up! (flash toothy grin).


http://www.opencongress.org/article...-Paints-Itself-Into-a-Corner-on-Payroll-Taxes
​

 

[Damocles]

The procedural wizards in the House Republican caucus stayed up late to concoct this scheme, a way to dispose of the Senate’s payroll tax deal by voting affirmatively.

They think this helps insulate their members from charges of rejecting the deal, and causing a tax increase of on average $1,000 a year.


Here’s how it’ll go down:

Instead of putting the deal up for a vote, they will vote to call a conference committee with Senate negotiators to reconcile their poison pill-laden bill with the Senate bill that received 89 votes.

Then they will pass a “motion to instruct conferees” that will essentially tell them to pass their version of the bill. The minority will have the opportunity to enter their own motion to instruct conferees, but in all likelihood that will be voted down.

Remember, these are the same Republicans that cried holy hell during the “deem and pass” era, when Democrats tried to pass the health care bill without actually passing it.

Now they’re trying the same thing, so that when their members are confronted over this vote, they can have this exchange:

Democrat: You voted to increase taxes on the middle class.


Republican: No I didn’t, I voted to send our bill to conference. It’s not my fault that the Senate didn’t show up! (flash toothy grin).


http://www.opencongress.org/article...-Paints-Itself-Into-a-Corner-on-Payroll-Taxes
​

So you are admitting that they sought further solutions other than "In God We Trust" (supported and voted for overwhelmingly by the Democrats)?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So you are admitting that they sought further solutions other than "In God We Trust" (supported and voted for overwhelmingly by the Democrats)?

LOL, yes, they sought further "solutions", knowing they would never be accepted.

Here's a list:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/rss/presentedtopresident.html

 

[Damocles]

LOL, yes, they sought further "solutions", knowing they would never be accepted.

Here's a list:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/rss/presentedtopresident.html

So this thread is total nonsense and a waste of our time?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So this thread is total nonsense and a waste of our time?

Not at all. If you felt that way, why are you reading it and posting in it? Looking for a Buddhist 'gotcha'?

I'm still waiting for you answer to my question, BTW.

Have you read the bill the House passed?