The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that are benifiical to the USA

1) You completely have disregarded my proof showing that the act would not cost jobs and that the increasing debt would only worsen the credibility rating of US currency. 2) A) Way to completely miss what I just said genius, i'm saying that job losses would occur due to the recession not because of this bill becoming law.... Maybe you dont know what a recession is, here is the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org... If we are already in a recession where jobs are being lost and then the bill is passed then any job losses would be because of the recession, not because of this one resolution... C) " The reason these countries are in a crises is because they're spending is restricted." The reason these nations are in a financial crisis is because they are no longer competitive in foreign markets, spending is off the charts, unemployment is reaching terrifying levels, and they are not making enough money to finance their expenses or trade deficits.... http://www.dailymarkets.com... http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com... http://www.economist.com... D) Both of our sources show that the rising deficit poses a large threat to the US economy, that medicare and social security are growing, but that neither will be cut if this were to become law, http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.govtrack.us... http://rsc.jordan.house.gov... E) Says you, they provide actual facts unlike your one source F) It doesnt provide any analysis of how this law will destroy 700,000 jobs, see for yourself http://www.cbpp.org... 3) A) Your analysis of what happened is absurd. Executive Order - The president decides if the law should be extended or not Law - An Act that no president can disregard or nullify This law seals that in the future public money will not fund abortions, the existing law does not do that. B) This law is beneficial to taxpayers against abortion, not the economy. The resolution is that the bill must be beneficial to the USA, not the economy. Taxpayers are part of the USA 4) No stupid Im just offering other examples, thats what im allowed to do because you said I could.... 5) Continue in this context is meant to continue the funding of this program because it was previously cancelled. The law was implemented in 2006, discontinued, this law would re-instate it. Therefore it does not maintain the status quo because the status quo would be that this program would be discontinued, so this is admissible for my argument. 6) The Bill continues funding but makes some important modifications to the already existing law, "H.R. 2883 would make numerous modifications to various federal child welfare programs. The bill would modify two programs (the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program and the Safe and Stable Families program) and reauthorize the programs for five years" http://www.congress-summary.com... (halfway down) Again maintaining the status quo would only to extend funding, but this makes some changes to the law for the better, so it is admissible. 7) Ok you got me there 8) "Amends the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to apply the limit on lead content in children's products" Are you blind????? It says this act gives the agency the authority to enforce the limit on how much lead can be in childrens products..... http://www.congress-summary.com... 9) .......... I dont know how i missed that... Con says I need to show 3 bills that would be beneficial to America, Ive shown 6, -Budget Control Act -Cut Cap and Balance Act -No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act -Combating Autism Re-authorization Act -Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act -"HR 2715"