Politics

[tadman95]

Yeah they still have not gotten over it yet.

Easy there. You just stepped on a lot of toes, including mine.

 

[Grahambo]

Easy there. You just stepped on a lot of toes, including mine.

North Beats South, Rees fumbles

 

[Irish Houstonian]

FYI, NPR ran an article today supposedly outlining 6 economic proposals backed by "economists of all stripes":

One: Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. Gone. After all, big houses get bigger tax breaks, driving up prices for everyone. Why distort the housing market and subsidize people buying expensive houses?

Two: End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. Neither employees nor employers pay taxes on workplace health insurance benefits. That encourages fancier insurance coverage, driving up usage and, therefore, health costs overall. Eliminating the deduction will drive up costs for people with workplace healthcare, but makes the health-care market fairer.

Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.

Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.

Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting.

Six: Legalize marijuana. Stop spending so much trying to put pot users and dealers in jail — it costs a lot of money to catch them, prosecute them, and then put them up in jail. Criminalizing drugs also drives drug prices up, making gang leaders rich.

Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate) : Planet Money : NPR

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I am thinking it would be best named, "The War of Northern Corporate Domination." What do you think? Funny how for once moment in history humanity was better off following the demands of large corporate interests. Do you think it will ever happen again, that growing Northern Corporate interest (what is corporate), and anti-slavery (what is moral) will ever be so alligned?

ag·gres·sion
noun \ə-ˈgre-shən\

Definition of AGGRESSION
1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially: unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another

3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration



dom·i·na·tion
noun \ˌdä-mə-ˈnā-shən\

1: supremacy or preeminence over another

2: exercise of mastery or ruling power

3: exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence

 

[tommyIRISH23]

FYI, NPR ran an article today supposedly outlining 6 economic proposals backed by "economists of all stripes":



Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate) : Planet Money : NPR

This is too balanced. Right wing nutjobs and radical left socialists would never agree to this. Personally, I'm all for it. On the surface it seems like a highly effective proposal. I'd also try to reduce the size of our government, way too many overlapping bureaucracies that are held unaccountable for their expenses, they are a drain on $$.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This is too balanced. Right wing nutjobs and radical left socialists would never agree to this. Personally, I'm all for it. On the surface it seems like a highly effective proposal. I'd also try to reduce the size of our government, way too many overlapping bureaucracies that are held unaccountable for their expenses, they are a drain on $$.

Sitting around smoking dope under the stars, with an open campfire. Dude, we could make s'mores! Oh, dude, those melted liquidy marshmallows, oh and that chocloate, on graham crackers, dude I am soo stoked!

 

[Redbar]

Which of Romney's policies "work"?
As far as I can see, he is adopting the policies of the W administration that took us from a surplus to a record deficit. Apparently you work closely with the Romney campaign, because that small group of people are the only ones who know what Romney's policies are. He certainly hasn't shared them with the press or American citizens. Unless you are talking about his record as govenor of Mass. There, his claim to fame was Romneycare, which he now disassociates himself with at every turn. So, tell us, which policies are you talking about?

Paul Ryan is policy driven?
Really? I've seen him interviewed several times since being chosen as the VP candidate and I find his answers about his own budget simply unbelievable. "We haven't run the numbers on that yet." It's a f***ing budget. How can you prepare a budget without running numbers? What policy is driving this idiotic response to a simple question?

Obama has zero character?
Oh, the guy who turned down high-paying jobs out of law school to become a community organizer that might help people at the grassroots level has no character? The guy who immediately after taking office began working toward universal healthcare millions could gain access to a basic human need ... he has no character? I suppose Romney has lots of character. He's the guy who bought up companies, stripped them of assets, and essentially ruined people's lives for his own enrichment. He's got character. They guy won't even show his tax returns because he's afraid of what may be discovered about his personal finances. But he's got character? You'll have to take his word for it that he's paid at least 13 percent in income taxes for the past 10 years. What a f***ing saint. My tax rate is higher than that and I didn't make anywhere close to $20 million in any of those years. This guy is just oozing character.

Obama's policies destroy jobs?
Well, I would have agreed with you if you would have made a reasonable assertion. But, as many are apt to do, you've gone too far. He may not be responsible for creating jobs at a quick enough pace, but it is simply not factual that his policies have "destroyed jobs." You know whose policies HAVE destroyed jobs? Romney's!!!!! He made his living of shipping jobs overseas and leaving American workers to fend for themselves.

I would have repped you but it says I gotta spread them around, maybe if you could stop making so much d@mned sense.

 

[magogian]

Which of Romney's policies "work"?
As far as I can see, he is adopting the policies of the W administration that took us from a surplus to a record deficit. Apparently you work closely with the Romney campaign, because that small group of people are the only ones who know what Romney's policies are. He certainly hasn't shared them with the press or American citizens. Unless you are talking about his record as govenor of Mass. There, his claim to fame was Romneycare, which he now disassociates himself with at every turn. So, tell us, which policies are you talking about?

Paul Ryan is policy driven?
Really? I've seen him interviewed several times since being chosen as the VP candidate and I find his answers about his own budget simply unbelievable. "We haven't run the numbers on that yet." It's a f***ing budget. How can you prepare a budget without running numbers? What policy is driving this idiotic response to a simple question?

The issue is not particular to Ryan. Mainstream Presidential candidates simply do not create budgets with the specificity across the multitude of topics that must be included for it to be exactly determined. And this is opposed to the Democractic controlled Senate which has not produced a budget in nearly 3 YEARS despite being obligated by law to do so. And this is opposed to President Obama whose budget has been UNANIMOUSLY rejected by the House and Senate multiple times I believe.

Obama has zero character?
Oh, the guy who turned down high-paying jobs out of law school to become a community organizer that might help people at the grassroots level has no character?

Obama was a community organizer after college, not law school. And he did not become a community organizer straight out of college. After graduating with a degree in Pol. Sci, he drifted through a couple of jobs at consulting firms and only then went to Chicago and organizing to find himself. After law school, he started teaching at the U of C and entered private practice where he was able to make some decent dough.

The guy who immediately after taking office began working toward universal healthcare millions could gain access to a basic human need ... he has no character?

Pretty easy to flip this around. The guy who wants government to exert ever and ever greater government control over healthcare, stiffling invention and innovation, having an unelected and unaccountable board decide which medical procedures people can and can't have, and otherwise create a system that envisions drastically cutting payments to doctors while vastly increasing the bureacracy and enforcing impossible standards that will likely lead to a collapse of our healthcare system. He is the better guy?

I suppose Romney has lots of character. He's the guy who bought up companies, stripped them of assets, and essentially ruined people's lives for his own enrichment. He's got character.

It is pretty uncontroversial that free trade and the outsourcing of jobs that necessarily occcurs is a net benefit to the economy. Relatedly, Bain Capital generally acquired companies that were failing and breathed new life into them. Without companies like Bain, those acquired companies would likely enter bankruptcy and probably liquidate rather than reorganize. How many jobs would be lost then? Try all of them. Not all of Bain's investments worked, but many did. That is why even many intelligent Dems decried the Obama campaigns attacks on Bain as economically illiterate.

They guy won't even show his tax returns because he's afraid of what may be discovered about his personal finances. But he's got character? You'll have to take his word for it that he's paid at least 13 percent in income taxes for the past 10 years. What a f***ing saint. My tax rate is higher than that and I didn't make anywhere close to $20 million in any of those years. This guy is just oozing character

.

Much/most of Romney's income comes from investment income, which is subject to double taxation (the corporate tax rate plus the capital gains rate). So, the income you see has already been significantly taxed. And most economists agree that a low capital gains rate is essential to capital formation.

Obama's policies destroy jobs?
Well, I would have agreed with you if you would have made a reasonable assertion. But, as many are apt to do, you've gone too far. He may not be responsible for creating jobs at a quick enough pace, but it is simply not factual that his policies have "destroyed jobs." You know whose policies HAVE destroyed jobs? Romney's!!!!! He made his living of shipping jobs overseas and leaving American workers to fend for themselves.

See above. Obama has destroyed many jobs. The unnecessary moratorium that the Obama administration put into effect in an overreaction to the BP spill costed tens of thousands of jobs. Or lets talk about the numerous jobs in the coal mining and the related power producing industry that are lost because of the ridiculous regs the EPA is initiating. Obama did promise to "bankrupt them."

More importantly, the issue isn't really whether is making jobs "at a quick enough pace." As I understand your point, it is laudable that he is making at least some jobs. Well, sure, something is better than nothing. But, in the American economy, the "zero point" in job growth isn't 0 but rather around 120,000 a month because that is roughly the number of jobs that need to be created to accomodate new entrants into the work force. Only a job growth figure higher than that actually improves the job situation.

Or we can talk about how the 2009 Recovery Act spends tons of American dollars funding jobs overseas. It is quite one thing to outsource a job overseas to create an economically efficient effect, but it is quite another to spend US tax dollars to literally fund overseas jobs. So, yes, Obama is destroying American jobs, funding our economic competitors with federal dollars, and has not been "creating jobs a quick enough pace."

And I'm spent.

 

[Grimm]

Much/most of Romney's income comes from investment income, which is subject to double taxation (the corporate tax rate plus the capital gains rate). So, the income you see has already been significantly taxed. And most economists agree that a low capital gains rate is essential to capital formation.

Good posts on both sides.

Just wanted to nitpick the couple sentences above because it really bothers me that Romney won't provide his tax returns. Romney made almost all of his money from carried interest, not invest income. There is no double taxation, corporate profits issue at play. Carried interest (performance fees) comes from sharing in the profits of OTHER people's money that he invested on there behalf. It is a loophole in the tax code created by the private equity industry. He received capital gains treatment on services he performed. For every one not in his industry, this is called income.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think he did anything wrong (although I'm willing to bet that his firm has played a role in the lobbying effort to keep this loophole from being closed). But the bottom line is the had tax advantages that 99.9% of the American people don't have. He just needs to disclose everything and defend it.

 

[magogian]

Good posts on both sides.

Just wanted to nitpick the couple sentences above because it really bothers me that Romney won't provide his tax returns. Romney made almost all of his money from carried interest, not invest income. There is no double taxation, corporate profits issue at play.

Interesting. I wasn't aware. Thanks for the info.

 

[phgreek]

In the end billions of dollars will be spent to make this entire race be about a non-christian blackman failing the american dream with a doofus sidekick named the "Mouth" versus a flip-flop felon and "i don't even know ny own policies" you betcha guy

We r fukked.

Who is a felon on either ticket...the closest would be admitting to doing cocaine...wouldn't it?

 

[DSully1995]

Who is a felon on either ticket...the closest would be admitting to doing cocaine...wouldn't it?

According to the law of politics, making profit is a felony

 

[Rizzophil]

The whole Tax return thing is getting out of control. You guys have to understand, politics is based on perceived power (like foreign policy too). If Obama starts calling for more tax returns, and Romney caves, Romney is perceived weak by the whole world.

If Obama is called out for his birth certificate, and caves, he is perceived to be weak by the whole world.

Just saying, there are tons of examples on both sides, by ways. The whole point is to not let other people frame the debate. Obama wants the whole campaign to be about Romney and not Obama's failed policies. Romney wants to blow the whistle on the President's error's and repeated debacles.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The whole Tax return thing is getting out of control. You guys have to understand, politics is based on perceived power (like foreign policy too). If Obama starts calling for more tax returns, and Romney caves, Romney is perceived weak by the whole world.

If Obama is called out for his birth certificate, and caves, he is perceived to be weak by the whole world.

Just saying, there are tons of examples on both sides, by ways. The whole point is to not let other people frame the debate. Obama wants the whole campaign to be about Romney and not Obama's failed policies. Romney wants to blow the whistle on the President's error's and repeated debacles.

What is out of control is this conversation. NOTHING of what is proported to be fact in over half of the posts is. For example above, with the double taxation issue. Not understanding a thing like passive income; or that the kind of investment, and income return being discussed never creates more jobs than it takes, and routinely strips benefits of existing employees among other strategies, to produce a "profit and return."

With this return: Obama's birth certificate, news paper announcement, and all kinds of ancilary evidence have been there since the beginning. Private investigators have pored over the details and found nothing. So there is no basis for analogy.

As far as tax returns, it has been customary for presidential candidated to release their tax returns openly, for longer than you or I have been on the scene. I think it is a good idea. McCain did it, Bush did it, as did his father, Kerry did it. Gore and Clinton did it . . . . Get the idea? If you want the spot do it. How do you want me to consider voting for a candidate that is already stonewalling?

Obama's long form birth certificate has been released.

<iframe src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/7751154" width="479" height="511" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border:1px solid #CCC;border-width:1px 1px 0;margin-bottom:5px" allowfullscreen> </iframe> <div style="margin-bottom:5px"> <strong> <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/birth-certificatelongform" title="President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate" target="_blank">President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate</a> </strong> from <strong><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse" target="_blank">White House</a></strong> </div>

So now we can stop talking about that. I am not much of an Obama fan, but when I hear someone who obviously voted for Bush, talking about mistakes Obama made, with a post like this; well frankly it makes me want to volunteer to walk door to door for his campaign!

 

[Grimm]

The whole Tax return thing is getting out of control. You guys have to understand, politics is based on perceived power (like foreign policy too). If Obama starts calling for more tax returns, and Romney caves, Romney is perceived weak by the whole world.

If Obama is called out for his birth certificate, and caves, he is perceived to be weak by the whole world.

Just saying, there are tons of examples on both sides, by ways. The whole point is to not let other people frame the debate. Obama wants the whole campaign to be about Romney and not Obama's failed policies. Romney wants to blow the whistle on the President's error's and repeated debacles.

Taking aside my opinion that every candidate should provide tax returns, it's just plain bad politics that he didn't just release his returns. Romney is getting killed on this - much more than if he had released them, taken the hit and then moved on. He is letting Obama keep running with this instead of talking about issues. "what's he hiding" just keeps creeping into the populous.

Despite a ridiculous Republican primary (what a circus that was), I really thought that things would stabilize once Romney got the nod. But it just seems like a really poorly run campaign so far - from VP choice, to this tax issue, to just not finding a way to connect. I realize it is early still, but I think you should start mentally preparing yourself for 4 more years of Obama. Based on your posts, I think this is going to be painful for you!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The issue is not particular to Ryan. Mainstream Presidential candidates simply do not create budgets with the specificity across the multitude of topics that must be included for it to be exactly determined. And this is opposed to the Democractic controlled Senate which has not produced a budget in nearly 3 YEARS despite being obligated by law to do so. And this is opposed to President Obama whose budget has been UNANIMOUSLY rejected by the House and Senate multiple times I believe.


Obama was a community organizer after college, not law school. And he did not become a community organizer straight out of college. After graduating with a degree in Pol. Sci, he drifted through a couple of jobs at consulting firms and only then went to Chicago and organizing to find himself. After law school, he started teaching at the U of C and entered private practice where he was able to make some decent dough.

. . .


And I'm spent.

Much of this post has been refuted, either before it was even posted, or just after. Some of it is the tea party conservative mantra, which doesn't need to be addressed. But to the first two issues, I took time to look things up.

The problem with the buget is congress. A budget has been put forth by the White House, and signed into law by the President when passed by Congress. But the real problem in the house is with the obstructionist Republicans (many and enough), and Blue Dog Democrats (fewer but pesky), the former who are led by guess who? All of the above mentioned cannot claim to put the country ahead of their own selfish interest.

The Senate is another issue. Simply put, with 50 votes, the democrats don't control anything. Harry Ried hasn't learned that, which provides comic relief, all why our business goes wanting. But Mitch McConnel is actually far worse, (of a political hack, and clown, than Ried). When both of them go, America will be better off.

Yup. Barack Obama went for the money, as a civil rights attorney. The whole paragraph above quoted is ripe with inunedo and not accurate. I checked, and the Wickipedia article gives the most concise, readable, yet accurate listing: Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College. In February 1981, he made his first public speech, calling for Occidental to divest from South Africa in response to its policy of apartheid.[32] In mid-1981, Obama traveled to Indonesia to visit his mother and sister Maya, and visited the families of college friends in Pakistan and India for three weeks.[32] Later in 1981, he transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialty in international relations[33] and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1983. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation,[34] then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.[35][36]

Two years after graduating, Obama was hired in Chicago as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale on Chicago's South Side. He worked there as a community organizer from June 1985 to May 1988.[36][37] He helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[38] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[39] In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time in Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his paternal relatives for the first time.[40][41] He returned to Kenya in 1992 with his fiancée Michelle and his sister Auma.[40][42] He returned to Kenya in August 2006 for a visit to his father's birthplace, a village near Kisumu in rural western Kenya.[43]

 

[Cackalacky]

Easy there. You just stepped on a lot of toes, including mine.

sorry, missing italics....

 

[BGIF]

What is out of control is this conversation. NOTHING of what is proported to be fact in over half of the posts is. For example above, with the double taxation issue. Not understanding a thing like passive income; or that the kind of investment, and income return being discussed never creates more jobs than it takes, and routinely strips benefits of existing employees among other strategies, to produce a "profit and return."

With this return: Obama's birth certificate, news paper announcement, and all kinds of ancilary evidence have been there since the beginning. Private investigators have pored over the details and found nothing. So there is no basis for analogy.

As far as tax returns, it has been customary for presidential candidated to release their tax returns openly, for longer than you or I have been on the scene. I think it is a good idea. McCain did it, Bush did it, as did his father, Kerry did it. Gore and Clinton did it . . . . Get the idea? If you want the spot do it. How do you want me to consider voting for a candidate that is already stonewalling?

Obama's long form birth certificate has been released.

...

So now we can stop talking about that. I am not much of an Obama fan, but when I hear someone who obviously voted for Bush, talking about mistakes Obama made, with a post like this; well frankly it makes me want to volunteer to walk door to door for his campaign!

Don't you get tired posting this disengenuine crap, bogs? You post it with the acumen of a politicial operative.

Being a U.S. citizen is a constitutional requirement for President. Furnishing tax returns isn't. To the contrary U.S. Law protects taxpayers from having to make their information public and the IRS is prohibited from making it public.

FDR never released his tax returns. He refused. His estate eventually made them public.

Ever see JFK's, or Eisenhower, Truman, or LBJ's? LBJ issued an audited statement.

It's not until Nixon (of all people) that taxes were revealed.

Gerald Ford only released Summary Reports of Tax Returns.

George McGovern only released a net worth statement.

John McCain would only release partial returns for his wife.

John Kerry would only release a partial return of 1 year for his wife.

 

[Cackalacky]

Who is a felon on either ticket...the closest would be admitting to doing cocaine...wouldn't it?

I will assume that maybe my sincere sarcasm just does not translate well in text.

Who cares who is the felon. My point is that what each camp will paint the other as, while spending shittons of money doing so. These races are not about fixing problems or moving the country forward...its about special interests and who can get their guy in the highest office of the country to "play ball," the people of this Union be damned.

Are you surprised that companies are dumping money to both candidates? Why would they do that? Why play both sides of the aisle? Look at what happended to Mr."Change" in 2008,when his biggest donor was Goldman Sachs. Not a damn thing has happened to them. No charges, they got 100% of every dollar they lost paid to them by the US tax payer but other companies got less than 10% of thier shar price and collapsed? Why.... ?

Our government is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporations.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Don't you get tired posting this disengenuine crap, bogs? You post it with the acumen of a politicial operative.

"Disengenuine," or disingenuous, which is the word. I will provide the definition for you.


dis·in·gen·u·ous [ dìssin jénnyoo əss ]

1.withholding information: withholding or not taking account of known information
2.not genuinely sincere: giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity

Synonyms: dishonestly, insincerely, untruthfully, deceitfully, hypocritically, misleadingly, duplicitously

Franky BGIF, I have never had a problem with you, but this post looks to me like a bully on his best game. If that is true, don't ever infer I post dishonest "crap" again. It won't be worth either one of our whiles.

Being a U.S. citizen is a constitutional requirement for President. Furnishing tax returns isn't. To the contrary U.S. Law protects taxpayers from having to make their information public and the IRS is prohibited from making it public.

What does this have to do with my post? I mean really? A poster stated that Obama had not released his birth certificate; so I posted it.

There were other lies about Obama, that only work because most people do not have the wherewithal to find the correct information, oh yeah, and a whole lot of people have a lot of deep seated racist indoctrination to overcome.

I only stated that post-Watergate candidates had released their taxes. I said, from the time I was around, meaning cognizant of politics, or of voting age, because that is the era of candidate I listed. I feel it would be disingenuous of me to list candidates before that time because there were a whole different set of rules. We could go on for hours with what transpired behind closed doors, previously to Gerald Ford.

I would also be disingenuous to say that the custom of producing tax returns is not an important threshold for a candidate for president, in this day and age.

Presidential candidates began releasing their returns consistently starting in the early 1970's according to Thorndike, and in 1978, all presidential and vice presidential candidates were required to release certain financial documents as a result of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which mandates all candidates running for office of President of the United States to file a Public Financial Disclosure Report with the Federal Election Commission.

Please note that this changes regularly at the whim of congress.

Also please note that any of you who think your tax returns are private or privileged, are mistaken. In civil litigation it is almost customary to require tax returns and other financial information, if no more than as a tactic to control the other party in litigation.

 

[BGIF]

...

The problem with the buget is congress. A budget has been put forth by the White House, and signed into law by the President when passed by Congress. But the real problem in the house is with the obstructionist Republicans (many and enough), and Blue Dog Democrats (fewer but pesky), the former who are led by guess who? All of the above mentioned cannot claim to put the country ahead of their own selfish interest.

Republicans (they're ALL "obstructionists?) and the Blue Dog Democrats "don't put the country ahead of of their own selfish interest". So from your description that leaves only the Yellow Dog Democrats left to act with the country ahead of their own selfish interest? Isn't it the Blue Dogs who try more than anyone to build consensus between left and right? Isn't it the Blue Dogs who advocate Fiscal Responsibility?

Yet what did Speaker Pelosi do to those Blue Dogs with Committee Assignments?

...
The Senate is another issue. Simply put, with 50 votes, the democrats don't control anything. ...

Basic political math 50 votes IS a majority especially when the President of The Senate is in the same party.

But that doesn't matter does it as the Democrats had 51 Senators in the 112th Congress while the Republicans only had 47. Oh and about those 2 independents, Sanders and Lieberman.

Sanders is a self described Democratic Socialist BUT he caucuses with the Democrats AND is counted as a Democrat for committee assignments.

Lieberman is a REGISTERED Democrat and also caucuses with the Democrats AND is counted as a Democrat for committee assignments. Interesting that the Senate Majority Leader let Lieberman keep his Chairmanship of the Senate Committe on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Bogs, the Dems controlled the Senate 53% to 47% with the tie breaking vote in their pocket at the Start of the 112th Congress. Also the Majority Leader (a Democrat) move things in the Senate and The Senate President also a Democrat holds the gavel.

So stop with the woe is me, "but Obama didn't have control" BS.

And in the 111th Congress he had a 16 vote edge in The Senate and a 76 vote edge in The House.

Yeah, how could anyone expect Obama to get anything done controlling the White House, The House, and The Senate.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I will assume that maybe my sincere sarcasm just does not translate well in text.

Who cares who is the felon. My point is that what each camp will paint the other as, while spending shittons of money doing so. These races are not about fixing problems or moving the country forward...its about special interests and who can get their guy in the highest office of the country to "play ball," the people of this Union be damned.

Are you surprised that companies are dumping money to both candidates? Why would they do that? Why play both sides of the aisle? Look at what happended to Mr."Change" in 2008,when his biggest donor was Goldman Sachs. Not a damn thing has happened to them. No charges, they got 100% of every dollar they lost paid to them by the US tax payer but other companies got less than 10% of thier shar price and collapsed? Why.... ?

Our government is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporations.

Bought and paid for!

 

[Grahambo]

Scrap it all..I proclaim myself King!!

 

[BGIF]

Scrap it all..I proclaim myself King!!

Well that might be a possibility.

The 112th Congress was the first in something like 65 years not to have a member of the Kennedy Dynasty in it. The King is dead.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

BGIF - 51 is technically a majority. You're right, of course. But, the fact is that the republican majority, in lock step, voted for more filibusters than any Senate in history. That lines up with McConnell's call to make Obama a one term president.

If we take the republicans at their word, they truly believed that blocking every one of those pieces of legislation was best for the country.

I happen to think that there was something a bit more nefarious going on. I think the evidence backs that perspective. That's the only way I can wrap my brain around the number of republicans who would not allow votes on items that they had previously supported and, in some cases, on bills for which they were original co-sponsors.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Republicans (they're ALL "obstructionists?) and the Blue Dog Democrats "don't put the country ahead of of their own selfish interest". So from your description that leaves only the Yellow Dog Democrats left to act with the country ahead of their own selfish interest? Isn't it the Blue Dogs who try more than anyone to build consensus between left and right? Isn't it the Blue Dogs who advocate Fiscal Responsibility?

Yet what did Speaker Pelosi do to those Blue Dogs with Committee Assignments?


Pelosi, Ried, McConnel, Ryan, etc., and etc, all need to be eliminated. I thought I made that clear. Sorry if I didn't!

Basic political math 50 votes IS a majority especially when the President of The Senate is in the same party.

But that doesn't matter does it as the Democrats had 51 Senators in the 112th Congress while the Republicans only had 47. Oh and about those 2 independents, Sanders and Lieberman.

Sanders is a self described Democratic Socialist BUT he caucuses with the Democrats AND is counted as a Democrat for committee assignments.

Lieberman is a REGISTERED Democrat and also caucuses with the Democrats AND is counted as a Democrat for committee assignments. Interesting that the Senate Majority Leader let Lieberman keep his Chairmanship of the Senate Committe on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Bogs, the Dems controlled the Senate 53% to 47% with the tie breaking vote in their pocket at the Start of the 112th Congress. Also the Majority Leader (a Democrat) move things in the Senate and The Senate President also a Democrat holds the gavel.

So stop with the woe is me, "but Obama didn't have control" BS.

Don't forget about the Vice President having a vote to break ties! Since you are obviously not disengenuine or disingenuous, you must be naive, so I will explain; you now need a 60 precent majority (60 votes out of a hundred) to get a vote on most issues with our current obstructionist politics, [everybody but Bernie Sanders]. And by the way, show me where I ever offered Obama, or any other politician an excuse. To me that would be as pointless and tasteless as serenading a mosquito lighting on me to drink its fill.

And in the 111th Congress he had a 16 vote edge in The Senate and a 76 vote edge in The House.

Yeah, how could anyone expect Obama to get anything done controlling the White House, The House, and The Senate.

See above notes posted in bold and italic within your text for organization purposes, for the first part of your statement. As to everything below my last comment, no president other than FDR and maybe Truman have taken office with a greater looming crisis, and more going against them. As much as I am willing to criticise Obama, and he is a stooge of GS, he had to get a lot done FAST, and that is the difference. It is either the height of stupidity or disingenuity to say because he didn't do better with the financial Chernobyl that he was left by the previous administration and its corporate owner, pirates.

 

[Grahambo]

Well that might be a possibility.

The 112th Congress was the first in something like 65 years not to have a member of the Kennedy Dynasty in it. The King is dead.

Would be great if we could start an IE dynasty in Congress.

 

[Grahambo]

I also give a ton of props to a lot of you guys that understand this stuff.

 

[tadman95]

An article about voter id law initiatives. From NBC so each of you can take with as much salt as necessary, Just FYI

Flurry of Voter ID laws tied to conservative group ALEC - Open Channel

 

[Cackalacky]

An article about voter id law initiatives. From NBC so each of you can take with as much salt as necessary, Just FYI

Flurry of Voter ID laws tied to conservative group ALEC - Open Channel

WoW. No surprise there. They write so much legislation for the republicans that they actualy forgot to take their name off of the bill before it was introduced into legislation. OOPS = FAIL.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9Dx2d446dsU?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


I, know, its a Paul Krugman article in the NY times,
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html