The Shrine

PostPosted:**Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:15 am**

One of the few truly great senators in out there.

PostPosted:**Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:25 pm**

He's no ones senator.

But yeah, passionate stuff and repubs are idiots for voting down a health care bill for 9-11 rescue squads, regardless of what procedure was used to get it passed.

PostPosted:**Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:14 pm**

Congressman, not senator: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... index.html

PostPosted:**Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:34 pm**

My bad. The man is so prominent in politics that I thought he was a senator.

PostPosted:**Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:45 am**

Does he ever rip into Democrats as well?

PostPosted:**Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:27 pm**

Zeus wrote:Does he ever rip into Democrats as well?

He is a dem, so no. He was just worked up over this one bill in particular.

PostPosted:**Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:51 pm**

Zeus wrote:Does he ever rip into Democrats as well?

Democrats haven't voted against 9-11 medicare bills, bills against child labor in foreign countries, or bills preventing the exclusion of rape in legal contracts. Republicans have been so anti-Democrat that they have practically voted against every single measure they've try to bring on the table, even the ones that make complete sense, even the ones they supported and/or co-sponsored, just for political gain.

Republicans have always been politically selfish, but it's never been so blatant than it has since Obama got elected. It's like they truly hate the man and hate anything related to him. It's going to backfire on them, though. Voting against basic bills that make sense will haunt you in the elections.

PostPosted:**Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:49 am**

SineSwiper wrote:Voting against basic bills that make sense will haunt you in the elections.

You're making a few assumptions there:

a) the people will actually hold their politicians accountable for their actions. History is severely against this theory
b) those who voted for the Republicans to put them in a position to vote have a chance in hell of switching to the other side. See a) re: history against this idea
c) the people will even remember any of this come election time. See a) re: history against this idea
d) a few months before the elections, the Republican think-tank wouldn't have completely shifted focus to other, far less important topics everyone will forget about 3 days after the elections

Sorry, bud, your theory is completely debunked by historical trends

PostPosted:**Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:52 am**

Well, you're forgetting a few things. One, political commercials, which the idiot public watch and believe. Though, in the case of some of these bills, the commercials might actually be accurate this time. And if the Democrats aren't publicizing Republicans' failures with bills like these, then they deserve to fucking lose.

Two, the general craziness of the Tea Party is going to affect the voting patterns in the following way:

1. The Tea Party, extreme right voting bloc (extreme 10% or so) will vote in high numbers
2. The Democrats (about a 1/3rd of the population), scared of the crazies trying to take over the White House, will vote in high numbers.
3. The moderate right-wingers (about a 1/4th of the population), disenfranchised by the Tea Party, extremist voting patterns, economy fallout, and their own party's embracement of the extremist views, will sit this one out.

So, the Tea Party will have a backfiring effect, since it's cause the larger base of voters to mobilize against them, and has also caused the more moderate side to not vote at all in protest.

It's surprising that Rand Paul even has a lead at all in the polls, with all of the gaffs involving his extremist views, but he's gone from an anti-govt favorite to a crazy Libertarian in the span of a few months. All of that energy riding from his name (being the son of Ron Paul) got him the lead, but his stupid month on ideals like civil rights and extremist deregulation have really brought him down. Though, Conway need to try to step up his image to be more recognized as somebody besides "that guy other than Rand Paul".

And Harry Reid's opponent keeps getting crazier and crazier every time you talk to her.

PostPosted:**Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:16 am**

Just my two cents to add here:

1) Its not just Republicans that will use congressional procedure to bog things down.
2) Right now, Democrats have control of the House and Senate, which means they set the agenda. They have probably been using this to their advantage for quite sometime and the Republicans are using other procedural tactics to get what they want. One side having clear control means they can set what bills come up for discussion and have a clear majority when votes come up (even votes to adjourn for the day).
3) This is how the American congress works. Its procedure that has been in place for two hundred years and I doubt it will ever change.
4) If you are as outnumbered and backed into a corner as congressional Republicans are right now, you are going to do whatever you can to balance the power.

PostPosted:**Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:09 am**

Louis wrote:1) Its not just Republicans that will use congressional procedure to bog things down.

True, but Democrats generally pick their battles with the filibuster, not block every single bill. We've never seen filibusters in these record numbers. Nor has Democrats blocked basic bills that generally everybody votes for. Making the filibuster a simple blocking vote, instead of actually using that time to talk and talk and talk (like you had to in the past), was a huge mistake, and I hope the Senate corrects that.

Louis wrote:2) Right now, Democrats have control of the House and Senate, which means they set the agenda. They have probably been using this to their advantage for quite sometime and the Republicans are using other procedural tactics to get what they want. One side having clear control means they can set what bills come up for discussion and have a clear majority when votes come up (even votes to adjourn for the day).

Democrats and Republicans in Congress just act differently. You can't really say that one party is just like the other party, except with different ideals. They have different backgrounds, and how they respond in Congress is different.

Democrats are generally willing to work with Republicans, no matter how battered they have been with them in the past. After all, those "tree-hugging hippies" are all about co-operation, etc. They just want to get good laws passed. Republicans typically don't care about compromise, unless they have to. Most are better tied to the business sector and wall street, and live by the ideals of "survival of the fittest". They view the Democrats as their opponent, and the goal of Congress is to win.

Hell, Obama has been suffering from that problem since the beginning. He's been overwilling to try to compromise and work with Republicans. The guy is closer to a centralist than the whole "socialist liberal pinko" that Fox News tries to paint him as.

Democrats are also generally more fragmented among their own party, because they come from a bunch of different ideals. This makes it harder to get universal votes like the Republicans can. Republicans' ideals are pretty basic: cut taxes, less government, gun rights, and religion. There is some differences in ideals, some aren't religious and some are further into that "less government" thing (read: Libertarians). But, for the most part, they have no problem voting as a group to defeat their opponent.

So, a Democratic Party in majority or minority is going to be radically different than the Republican version. In a way, it's the weakness of the Democratic party. They are always accused of having no backbone because they are too willing to try to work with their other half of Congress, and sometimes that means that they can't just use the same tricks to get things done.

Louis wrote:3) This is how the American congress works. Its procedure that has been in place for two hundred years and I doubt it will ever change.

It changes all the time, especially the Senate. Hell, it's the Senate that is the problem right now. The House has no problem passing laws, because it's a simple majority. No arcane Senate rules to block their vote or screw up the law. Frankly, I don't understand the Senate. Just make it a majority vote, and maybe throw in the old school filibuster, you know, the one you have to work for. None of this "I'm going to vote to filibuster, but I can leave any time I want" bullshit.

That's not to say that the cycle won't continue. Democrats will hold Congress and the presidency for a time, and Republicans will do the same after a while. But, again, both parties in the majority/minority are just different.

Louis wrote:4) If you are as outnumbered and backed into a corner as congressional Republicans are right now, you are going to do whatever you can to balance the power.

True, but I don't think this strategy will work. Voting down laws like some of the ones that have come up on the floor just makes them like rape-loving, child-labor-supporting, 911-responder-hating politicians.

PostPosted:**Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:14 am**

SineSwiper wrote:True, but Democrats generally pick their battles with the filibuster, not block every single bill. We've never seen filibusters in these record numbers. Nor has Democrats blocked basic bills that generally everybody votes for. Making the filibuster a simple blocking vote, instead of actually using that time to talk and talk and talk (like you had to in the past), was a huge mistake, and I hope the Senate corrects that.

A filibuster is only available to the Senate. In the House, you either have to create issues in committee, add ridiculous bill amendments, or straight vote it down. And if I recall correctly, when a bill actually hits the floor for discussion, there are strict time limits imposed. I agree, that it is not a great idea blocking common sense legislation, but sometimes in politics you have to make unpopular decisions to prove a point.

SineSwiper wrote:Democrats and Republicans in Congress just act differently. You can't really say that one party is just like the other party, except with different ideals. They have different backgrounds, and how they respond in Congress is different.

I agree.

SineSwiper wrote:Democrats are generally willing to work with Republicans, no matter how battered they have been with them in the past. After all, those "tree-hugging hippies" are all about co-operation, etc. They just want to get good laws passed. Republicans typically don't care about compromise, unless they have to. Most are better tied to the business sector and wall street, and live by the ideals of "survival of the fittest". They view the Democrats as their opponent, and the goal of Congress is to win.

That is how most governments work. Ever watch British Parliament? Its pure entertainment. I'm not saying its right, but it is politics. And I guess being the conservative that I am, I tend to lean toward this view point. It is what it is and its been working.

SineSwiper wrote:Hell, Obama has been suffering from that problem since the beginning. He's been overwilling to try to compromise and work with Republicans. The guy is closer to a centralist than the whole "socialist liberal pinko" that Fox News tries to paint him as.

Isn't it pretty socialist when the government is giving money out? Sounds like they are trying to create economic equality when they put income limits, etc. on who gets it and how much. He was for the housing tax credits. He was for a government option for health care. I even disagreed with George W. Bush when he was giving those extra tax refunds a few years ago. Obama should be working on creating more jobs. Granted, I have the Reagan view point that money will trickle down, but didn't that work much better than what we have now? Bill Clinton even held some of the Reagan ideals through most of the 90s. Let companies grow. Let them hire more people. Let them make more money. In the end, their employees will probably make more. If they have more money, they'll spend more money.

SineSwiper wrote:Democrats are also generally more fragmented among their own party, because they come from a bunch of different ideals. This makes it harder to get universal votes like the Republicans can. Republicans' ideals are pretty basic: cut taxes, less government, gun rights, and religion. There is some differences in ideals, some aren't religious and some are further into that "less government" thing (read: Libertarians). But, for the most part, they have no problem voting as a group to defeat their opponent.

I agree with this up except for "religion." Not all republicans hold to that. Who wouldn't want less taxes and less government? And I think most people on here know I'm one of those "gun toting freaks." If I'm not at work, I'm probably well armed. I do want that right protected.

SineSwiper wrote:True, but I don't think this strategy will work. Voting down laws like some of the ones that have come up on the floor just makes them like rape-loving, child-labor-supporting, 911-responder-hating politicians.

Yes, it does paint a bad image on the current conservative leadership, and at some point they are going to have to let go. Honestly, I smell something brewing that isn't being reported in the media. There is something they want. I'm sure it will surface soon. And I'm almost willing to bet its something even I am unwilling to back them on.

PostPosted:**Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:45 pm**

Oh, and if it wasn't for the fact Kentucky has closed primaries and a very small number of Libertarian candidates/voters, I would register Libertarian.

PostPosted:**Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:01 am**

Weiner is great. It's good to see someone on the left with conviction in their beliefs for a change.

PostPosted:**Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:20 am**

ManaMan wrote:Weiner is great

PostPosted:**Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:21 am**

Eric wrote:
ManaMan wrote:Weiner is great

Hahaha, sometimes we are still 13 year olds here and i love it.

PostPosted:**Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:05 pm**

I couldn't resist. ^_^

PostPosted:**Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:09 pm**

Louis wrote:
SineSwiper wrote:Hell, Obama has been suffering from that problem since the beginning. He's been overwilling to try to compromise and work with Republicans. The guy is closer to a centralist than the whole "socialist liberal pinko" that Fox News tries to paint him as.
Isn't it pretty socialist when the government is giving money out? Sounds like they are trying to create economic equality when they put income limits, etc. on who gets it and how much. He was for the housing tax credits. He was for a government option for health care. I even disagreed with George W. Bush when he was giving those extra tax refunds a few years ago. Obama should be working on creating more jobs. Granted, I have the Reagan view point that money will trickle down, but didn't that work much better than what we have now? Bill Clinton even held some of the Reagan ideals through most of the 90s. Let companies grow. Let them hire more people. Let them make more money. In the end, their employees will probably make more. If they have more money, they'll spend more money.

Well, one, the bailouts were the only solution worth considering. The alternative was already tried out in the 1930's (not doing anything), and we didn't recover until after WWII jump started our economy. Bailouts have been the norm for years. Bush Sr. did it for the banks during the early 90's, and his son did it for the airline industry. We've been doing it since the 70's.

Two, I haven't seen any bills involving "income limits". I'm okay with the housing tax credits and govt option. Actually, the whole government healthcare thing illustrates my point nicely. Single-payer health insurance was on the table for a very brief time before it was already gone. Why? Because Obama wanted a bi-partisan bill. Again, he is overwilling to try to compromise with Republicans.

Also, trickle down doesn't work, and it never works. Every time I think of that theory, this picture comes to mind:

Louis wrote:I agree with this up except for "religion." Not all republicans hold to that. Who wouldn't want less taxes and less government? And I think most people on here know I'm one of those "gun toting freaks." If I'm not at work, I'm probably well armed. I do want that right protected.

Religion: Yeah, like I said, not everybody is religious, but (currently) the religious outnumber the agnostic/atheists, and it's been a good source of Republican votes for their party.

Less taxes and less government?: I don't want less taxes and less government. If a program works, keep it. Obviously, any large organization is going to have a lot of waste, and I'm all in favor of trying to make government smarter, by getting rid of that waste. Government exists to benefit their people, through military, through police/fire/EMS, through the post office, through regulation of industries, etc. And usually the programs that people want to cut are the ones that "don't matter to them", but they suddenly appreciate it when a government program helps them out. Just look at the number of Tea Party nuts that are living on Medicare and welfare, holding signs that say "Keep government out of my Medicare".

Taxes should managed properly. However, less taxes just for the purpose of less taxes is simple a tool for political gain, and it does nothing but create a huge government debt that the next guy has to deal with. Bush Sr. lost his second term because of Reagan's arrogant cuts in taxes. Bush Jr. followed the same idea, killing the surplus that Clinton created, and making the national debt bigger than the nation has ever seen, something that Obama has to deal with now. Hell, the tax cuts create more debt than both of the wars, which is staggering.

Guns: Yeah, I don't understand the Democrat's stance on that one, just like I don't understand the Republicans stance on the 1st Amendment. I'm a pretty strict Constitutionalist. If it's in the Constitution, it should be followed and protected. (Except that dumb alcohol amendment... man, that was a stupid idea.)

Louis wrote:Yes, it does paint a bad image on the current conservative leadership, and at some point they are going to have to let go. Honestly, I smell something brewing that isn't being reported in the media. There is something they want. I'm sure it will surface soon. And I'm almost willing to bet its something even I am unwilling to back them on.

Hell, just look at Rachel's analysis of Republicans contradicting themselves with their own bills. (Seriously, watch it, even if it's 7 minutes and you're not a liberal.)

Do these people realize that they are being recorded on video? It's like they expect people won't see their flip-flop. Democrats really need to use footage like this to prove that their opponents are crazy.

PostPosted:**Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:25 am**

SineSwiper wrote:Well, one, the bailouts were the only solution worth considering. The alternative was already tried out in the 1930's (not doing anything), and we didn't recover until after WWII jump started our economy. Bailouts have been the norm for years. Bush Sr. did it for the banks during the early 90's, and his son did it for the airline industry. We've been doing it since the 70's.

Actually, the late 1933-8 was when the "New Deal" economic programs passed. While I agree with some of those programs (for example, putting money into infrastructure programs to create jobs was a good thing), there are others that I have issues with (the anti-deflation scheme among businesses to try and stabilize prices). World World II did contribute to the nation's economic recovery, but I don't think it was nearly as important as the "New Deal."

SineSwiper wrote:Two, I haven't seen any bills involving "income limits". I'm okay with the housing tax credits and govt option. Actually, the whole government healthcare thing illustrates my point nicely. Single-payer health insurance was on the table for a very brief time before it was already gone. Why? Because Obama wanted a bi-partisan bill. Again, he is overwilling to try to compromise with Republicans.

I can think of one right off the top of my head. The tax credits for first time home buyers.

http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/faq1.php#4 wrote:Are there any income limits for claiming the tax credit?
Yes. For sales occuring after November 6, 2009, the income limit for single taxpayers is $125,000; the limit is $225,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return. The tax credit amount is reduced for buyers with a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of more than $125,000 for single taxpayers and $225,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return. The phaseout range for the tax credit program is equal to $20,000. That is, the tax credit amount is reduced to zero for taxpayers with MAGI of more than $145,000 (single) or $245,000 (married) and is reduced proportionally for taxpayers with MAGIs between these amounts.

EDIT
Health Insurance: I think the government health program was too broad in scope. As long as I have been employed regular full-time (well, even part time back when I was at UPS) I have been offered free or significantly discounted health insurance. I don't need a government option so why does Obama want me to have the option?

SineSwiper wrote:I don't want less taxes and less government. If a program works, keep it. Obviously, any large organization is going to have a lot of waste, and I'm all in favor of trying to make government smarter, by getting rid of that waste.

I agree. There are government programs that are required for the greater good.

SineSwiper wrote:Government exists to benefit their people, through military, through police/fire/EMS, through the post office, through regulation of industries, etc.

Well, we contract out quite a bit of military functions now. Whether it be training and security (see Blackwater, the largest mercenary unit in the world), logistics, or food preparation.

Police and fire, yes. EMS has actually become privatized in quite a few areas. Even Louisville has several small private EMS companies.

In case you missed it, the United States Postal Service has been failing for some time now.

Regulation for health and safety of people is good. Keeping companies honest about their financial reports is a plus. Trying to do much more than that starts to make me wary.

SineSwiper wrote:Taxes should managed properly. However, less taxes just for the purpose of less taxes is simple a tool for political gain, and it does nothing but create a huge government debt that the next guy has to deal with.

That is why you have to reduce spending (less government) when reducing taxes.

I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but I have to admit, the Reaganomics picture did make me laugh.

The Shrine

I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator

Re: I wish Anthony Weiner was my senator