Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

You're free to link "evidence" showing how Michigan, Minnesota, etc are not successful public schools by any criteria you wish to defend. This ought to be real amusing, so please do answer this one.

Your second point is stupid, even for you. The President isn't running Medicaid either, its being subsidized. Same thing with the Air Traffic Controllers or the FDA. So, once again we're back to the original question about you, which is: are you really this stupid or just playing a character out here.

Beyond all this though, I am amused by your average teabagger / knuckledraggers' rant about Social Security. I welcome Republicans running on an elimination of Social Security platform, but they never seem to for some reason. I also never see hard core righties refusing it when they're eligible. The word 'hyprocrites' comes to mind. However, lets look at the facts. SoS will remain solvent for the first 100 years of its life by all accounts. Its kept hundreds of millions out of poverty, all the while paying for itself. While nobody at its inception could have anticipated the demographic event that will primarily make up the future problem (the Baby Boom from the end of a war that had yet to occur when the program started in the mid 30's), the fix is a fairly simple means test to extend its solvency.

People are entitled to their opinion of course, but I'll say again - for all the whiners about SoS, how many of these same people refuse its benefits???

I'm still waiting for you to show more proof that they are successful than you just saying they are. Again, you made the claim first.

You do seems to be saying that what the gov't spends its money on it controls. I think that answers the previous debate on whether we are moving towards socialism when the gov't now spend 43% of the GDP.

I didn't mention SS in any of this so perhaps you should direct your rant elsewhere. I also didn't say that the President controls medicare. Perhaps you should get back on your meds.

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Minnfan and Rover get stuck on an irrelevant tangent. What else is new?

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I'm still waiting for you to show more proof that they are successful than you just saying they are. Again, you made the claim first.

You do seems to be saying that what the gov't spends its money on it controls. I think that answers the previous debate on whether we are moving towards socialism when the gov't now spend 43% of the GDP.

I didn't mention SS in any of this so perhaps you should direct your rant elsewhere. I also didn't say that the President controls medicare. Perhaps you should get back on your meds.

Hey, perhaps you should be pounding the pavement looking for a job instead of living off my tax dollars, so its all good.

Regarding public universities, you'll have to define "success" as you see it, as if I go through the trouble of posting say an academic ranking or average salary after graduation etc - only to find out Glenn Beck viewership per student population is what you consider to be the truest sense of a school's worth I would have wasted my time....

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Minnfan and Rover get stuck on an irrelevant tangent. What else is new?

And who says "cheap entertainment" is dead?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Ok, maybe not "profitable"... let's say for this debate use the word "successful" instead. Do you condiser Social Security and Amtrak successful government entities? The government's intent when starting these programs was one clear mission, and not they've evolved into something completely different: the former an entitlement for those who do not have commonsense to samve for retirement, and the later a rail system that is on par with the CCCP rail system of 1974.

Given the constraints that Amtrak has to operate under and the political mandates to maintain certain money-losing services, yes, I would consider Amtrak to be successful.

In areas where policy has given rail a decent shot (i.e. the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak actually controls most of the track rights and therefore can make the schedule rather than waiting for slow freight trains), Amtrak runs profitable services with strong mode share along those corridors. If we put half of the capital investments into rail that we've put into our heavily subsidized freeways, we'd see a massive improvement in demand.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Abuse of Power

The use of Budget Reconciliation to pass Obamacare is essentially the end of our "Republic" and pushes us into a pure Democracy. The whole purpose of the Senate is to cool the passions of the House.

How are the Dems going to react when the GOP gains complete control down the road and wants to outlaw abortion using the same tactic?

The Dems should really listen to their own words against reconciliation back in 2005.

Was it an abuse of power when the Repubs used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts?

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I don't know if what I read is true but if somebody on here is unemployed and somebody else keeps bringing it up in a smug manner then I call BS. I don't care what your political persuasion is...that is out of line.

If you want to be a smartass and chide people about not working then join the Republican party. Or just be a low class hypocrite.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I wish these senators would just quit whining about the use of reconciliation.

1. “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

2.“So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.

3. “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.

4. “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

5. "... if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority."

6."....is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab."

7. "...That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority."

8. “You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient -- well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so.”

9. “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”

10. “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”

Wait a minute, they did.
1. Obama
2. H. Clinton
3. Schumer
4. Reid
5. Feinstein
6. Biden
7. Dodd
8. Clinton
9. Schumer
10. Clinton

Neither of these groups of dooshbags are lacking for hypocrisy.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I wish these senators would just quit whining about the use of reconciliation.








Wait a minute, they did.
1. Obama
2. H. Clinton
3. Schumer
4. Reid
5. Feinstein
6. Biden
7. Dodd
8. Clinton
9. Schumer
10. Clinton

Neither of these groups of dooshbags are lacking for hypocrisy.

They're not talking about reconciliation, they're talking about the nuclear option.

Of course, the nuclear option, which is what these quotes reference, is not reconciliation. Reconciliation is a recognized procedure of the Senate. The nuclear option wasn't even going to change Senate rules via the 3/4 majority that is required, it was going to be a simple point of order by the majority to declare the filibuster unconstitutional.

Reconciliation is already part of the Senate rules.

The larger issue here, however, is that the reason both parties have resorted to such tactics is because the rule reforms for Congress in the 70s have largely made the institution unworkable.

David Frum - not exactly a liberal - explains:

http://www.frumforum.com/blame-yesterdays-reforms-for-todays-gridlocked-congress

Leave aside whether you are liberal or conservative, whether you approve the measures mentioned above or disapprove. It’s hard to dispute: Congress just got a lot more done in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s than in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

Why?

You hear many grand, sweeping explanations. Let’s try just one simple one.

Congress in the first period was controlled by a handful of committee chairmen, who owed their positions to seniority. The committees did their work in secret. Bills written in committee typically could not be amended on the floor of Congress. The institution was authoritarian, hierarchical, opaque. And stuff passed.

In the mid-1970s, Congress underwent a revolution. The power of the committee chairmen was broken. The number of subcommittees proliferated. The committees met in public. Amendments multiplied. Congress become more open, more egalitarian, more responsive. And stuff ceased to pass.

Again and again, today’s gridlock can be traced to yesterday’s reform.

Example - The filibuster:

Is the filibuster grinding Congress to a halt? Before the 1970s, filibusters were both very rare and very difficult. But when Congress took action to make filibusters easier to break, it inadvertently made them easier to use. Back in the 1950s, a filibuster would bring the entire Senate to a halt, as the filibustering Senator talked and talked and talked.

A filibuster was both spectacularly visible and personally exhausting: it exacted a high price from the filibustering senator. Then Congress took action to make filibusters easier to break, requiring only 60 votes instead of 67. But that same deal made them much easier to start. No need to speechify all night; no colleagues enraged that the filibustering senator has paralyzed the chamber.

Today, a filibustering senator need only notify the majority leader of his intention. The filibustered legislation is sidetracked until 60 votes are found to enact it, while other business continues as normal. The price of the filibuster has been drastically cut. No surprise we get more of them.

How about special interest money and fundraising?

Candidates consumed by fundraising? Two generations ago, candidates barely raised money at all. Once nominated, a candidate would turn to his party apparatus to provide the money and expertise needed to contest an election. But the maximum contribution by a party organization was capped in the 1940s, and it has not been raised significantly since.

This cap was supposed to clean up politics by weakening party bosses. Instead, it has forced every individual member of Congress to spend the bulk of his or her time begging for funds — the very opposite of clean politics.

Or lobbyists?

Lobbyists everywhere? In 1950, a lobbyist who wanted a tax measure would have very few targets. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee could help, ditto the ranking member of the opposition party. The senior members of the Senate Finance Committee would likewise be worth talking to. Maybe some of the upper level officials at Treasury. The days of concentrated power have ended. Today, almost any one of the 535 members of Congress could help — and so of course the interests must employ many more lobbyists to woo them all.

Or polarization amongst the parties?

Congress utterly polarized? Once upon a time, members of Congress did their business mostly in secret. They struck quiet deals with each other. A Republican might support a Democratic labor measure in return for some discreet help with a farm bill.

Today, everything happens in the bright glare of sunshine, policed by hundreds of ideological interest groups. Deviate one step from the party line, and you are a traitor, a sell-out, an enemy. Just ask Scott Brown, yesterday’s Republican hero, today a villain for voting against the filibuster of a jobs bill.

We have an ideology that more publicity, more transparency, more openness must improve Congress. And when each successive wave of openness makes things worse, we tell ourselves that the answer is even more publicity, transparency and openness still.

No contrary evidence makes any impression. Seems like everything’s open — except our minds.

Obama is right to try and tackle a big issue like health care that requires long term vision. The problem is that changes to the Senate rules and congressional regulations in general have made it increasingly less likely that such broad legislation can pass. This is disappointing, because many of these problems (like health care) simply cannot be tackled on a piecemeal legislative basis.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I don't know if what I read is true but if somebody on here is unemployed and somebody else keeps bringing it up in a smug manner then I call BS. I don't care what your political persuasion is...that is out of line.

If you want to be a smartass and chide people about not working then join the Republican party. Or just be a low class hypocrite.

Oh cry me a river already. If some poster wants to trot out stupid, 8th grade right wing talking points and idiocy on a regular basis, they can expect to take some heat. I have no idea of MinnFan's employment status but seeing that he's out here constantly he's obviously idle for some reason or another.

Its always the same with people. They don't mind dishing it out but they can't take it. Its an internet message board with random posters. If you take it seriously you're a grade "A" nimrod.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I don't know if what I read is true but if somebody on here is unemployed and somebody else keeps bringing it up in a smug manner then I call BS. I don't care what your political persuasion is...that is out of line.

If you want to be a smartass and chide people about not working then join the Republican party. Or just be a low class hypocrite.

If Rover actually had some credibility I might be a bit more concerned. It simply shows that he can't win the argument on its own merits.

I just need to stop wasting my time with him.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

If Rover actually had some credibility I might be a bit more concerned. It simply shows that he can't win the argument on its own merits.

I just need to stop wasting my time with him.

Seems you have an awful lot of time on your hands to waste there MinnFan. However, and this isn't necessarily directed at you, but one has to wonder how many anti-big government conservatives actually are receiving funding from the very government they bleat about, in the form of unemployment, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing...

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I have no idea of MinnFan's employment status but seeing that he's out here constantly he's obviously idle for some reason or another.

says the guy with twice as many posts

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

http://www.frumforum.com/blame-yesterdays-reforms-for-todays-gridlocked-congress

The Frum article is great, thank you for posting it.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

They're not talking about reconciliation, they're talking about the nuclear option.

Of course, the nuclear option, which is what these quotes reference, is not reconciliation. Reconciliation is a recognized procedure of the Senate. The nuclear option wasn't even going to change Senate rules via the 3/4 majority that is required, it was going to be a simple point of order by the majority to declare the filibuster unconstitutional.

Reconciliation is already part of the Senate rules.

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since.

VS.

Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster

A rose by any other name.....(or in this case, the bull dung)
I certainly no expert on the legislative process, but this seems to be little more than different means to the same end.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I certainly no expert on the legislative process...

This much is quite clear.

...but this seems to be little more than different means to the same end.

If the end is to avoid a filibuster, that's true. But the means matters. Reconciliation is a procedure that's already in place. Furthermore, the indication is that the Democratic plan is to 1. pass the current Senate bill in the house (the one that already received 60 votes), and then proceed to modify that bill's financial and budgetary components using reconciliation, with only 50+ votes needed in the Senate and a majority in the House.

The situations are completely different. The nuclear option was indeed a true end-run around all Senate rules. The Dem plan works within the existing rules to bypass the filibuster.

And if you think it's all the same, perhaps you should actually read what I posted from Mr. Frum as to why bypassing a filibuster is even necessary. The current state of the filibuster is not some manifest tradition of the Senate, it's a creature of recent creation.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

:

http://www.frumforum.com/blame-yesterdays-reforms-for-todays-gridlocked-congress


Obama is right to try and tackle a big issue like health care that requires long term vision. The problem is that changes to the Senate rules and congressional regulations in general have made it increasingly less likely that such broad legislation can pass. This is disappointing, because many of these problems (like health care) simply cannot be tackled on a piecemeal legislative basis.

Thanks. I saw similar comments on PBS about the filibuster and rules of house/senate.

I think the problem is more of lobbiest and corrupt congress. We can't even pass a simple legislation that adds consumer protection agency and regulation to control the CDS markets after the WORST financial crisis since the great depression. Banking is simple compared to the health care debate.

And B F U Republican senators for thinking about the best interest of the country and the people you supposedly represent NOT. they seem to have been totally corrupted by corporations to the bone.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/03/89805/long-after-wall-streets-crisis.html

WASHINGTON — Eighteen months after the near-collapse of the U.S. financial system, lawmakers in the nation's capital still can't agree on how to fix what went wrong, despite the abundant evidence of the economic devastation the crisis has caused.

The House of Representatives passed a sweeping overhaul of financial regulation in December, but the legislation is now tied in knots in the Senate. There, Democrats and Republicans have argued fruitlessly for months

"Things continue to move very well," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., one of two GOP senators negotiating with Dodd on compromise language, said Wednesday. "We're closer on a couple issues, but I'm not going to say any more."

Another influential Republican was more direct.

"There will be a bill, but it will be very much cut back from what the House passed," said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "There will be consumer protection, but probably not under a separate agency. I don't know where it could be housed."

Those comments, however, reflect a fight over an address and not the more substantive question of what the agency's consumer-protection powers would be. That's the issue on which lines are being drawn in the sand. Neither Democrats nor Republicans appear ready to blink, and the impasse could doom the legislation.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

says the guy with twice as many posts

Generally on hockey related subjects.

Here's a good example of the hyprocisy I'm talking about....

http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html

I have no problem with people objecting to gay marriage legislation on religious grounds or whatever. But, if you are a strident opponent, don't engage in the very activity you seek to condemn. What is so hard about that concept?

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

And B F U Republican senators for thinking about the best interest of the country and the people you supposedly represent NOT.

Really, someone pulled out a Wayne's World line?

Did I just enter a timewarp back to 1990?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

This was said by the most frequent visitor to the White House and new member of the Deficit Reduction Panel, Andy Stern, yesterday...

We now have a new metric. The president says he wants to judge the new economy whether it increases the number of people in the middle class. Whether we have shared prosperity, not just growth. Which is a fundamental different philosophy then what we've seen in this country to date. Now how do we distribute wealth in this country ... clearly government has a major opportunity to distribute wealth - from the EITC, from tax policies, from minimum wages, from living wages - the government has a role in distributing wealth and social benefits. We are at historic crossroads ... in terms of what our new president is trying to do and a different way we are going to try and evaluate the economy. And so all of sudden we are witnessing the first new American economic plan led by the government, not necessarily by the private sector.

This is some scary stuff

link