Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos: A politics thread

by **phdave** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 17:39:40

jerseyhoya wrote:I think DADT repeal would be a great case study in the absolute inanity of the United States Senate. It had enough votes and still failed.

(Is inanity a word?)

yes it is a word

by **Trent Steele** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 17:45:48

— Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and residents of New York City who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke from ground zero.

Whatever the reasons, that's a tough one to spin

by **drsmooth** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 17:52:41

Trent Steele wrote:
— Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and residents of New York City who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke from ground zero.

Whatever the reasons, that's a tough one to spin

[Kirstin] Gillibrand, the chief sponsor in the Senate, even reached out to former President George W. Bush. But her aides say Mr. Bush did not respond to her entreaties.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 17:57:03

Apparently Reid has pledged to bring Collins/Lieberman's stand alone DADT repeal up before the end of the session. Maybe that's why he called for a vote today when he didn't have the votes to pass it? I dunno.

by **dajafi** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 18:13:30

jerseyhoya wrote:Apparently Reid has pledged to bring Collins/Lieberman's stand alone DADT repeal up before the end of the session. Maybe that's why he called for a vote today when he didn't have the votes to pass it? I dunno.

I hope so. It's really vile that they can't get this done.

Though I suspect that there are some Republicans smart enough, and many cynical enough, to conclude that blocking this improves the chances of Obama getting a primary challenge from his left. If we're bleeding skilled soldiers and perpetuating a despicable and outmoded bigoted policy in meanwhile, oh well.

by **allentown** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 19:49:26

cshort wrote:
pacino wrote:government investment in infrastructure would've gone much further, and provided a more solid base for future development of the economy.

these did nothing. our two stupid checks did very little. putting money out there is an aimless way of trying to put good use to said money

Yep, can't forget about all those shovel ready projects

Yep, the world has changed since FDR. There are now so many legal mechanisms for so many people to tie up any project for a very long time. If you through half a $trillion into the hopper for infrastructure projects today, you might see money being spent for construction starting three years down the road and peaking half a dozen or more years into the future. There will be some short-term spending, but that will be going to the lawyers. You just can't do more construction spending as an economic stimulus now. It won't kick in until the economy is humming again and the problem of the day is inflation. Of been reading some articles of late about stimulus projects that have run over and waived 'environmental safeguards'. Read more closely and you find that there are no shovels in the ground, what was waived was the need for an environmental impact statement covering the 'planning' phase of the project. That's right, these projects are still in the planning phase and others are screaming that the planning activity has been allowed to escape the red tape. No fast stimulus to be found down this road. Sad, but true.

by **swishnicholson** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 21:47:15

jerseyhoya wrote:I think DADT repeal would be a great case study in the absolute inanity of the United States Senate. It had enough votes and still failed.

(Is inanity a word?)

If only they could symbolically have don't vote/don't tell anonymous vote.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 23:28:49

dajafi wrote:It's still going to pass. This was purely symbolic, and a bit pouty--though, as the do-nothing #$&! Senate tables the DREAM Act, is near-certain to fail to repeal the odious DADT, and might not even ratify the nuke treaty, it's hard to blame the House for standing on, what's the word, "principle."

But the point is Pelosi won't kneecap Obama. She'll push it through and deal with the fallout later.

As for the Dem caucus "growing some balls" and obstructing, there's really no way to do that in the House. The bare majority there is as all-powerful as the Senate majority < 60 votes is impotent.

What if the House sent the bill they passed to the Senate (no tax cuts for those over 250k) and have Reid let the Republicans actually filibuster it, as opposed to just threatening to.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 23:31:17

Warszawa wrote:
dajafi wrote:It's still going to pass. This was purely symbolic, and a bit pouty--though, as the do-nothing #$&! Senate tables the DREAM Act, is near-certain to fail to repeal the odious DADT, and might not even ratify the nuke treaty, it's hard to blame the House for standing on, what's the word, "principle."

But the point is Pelosi won't kneecap Obama. She'll push it through and deal with the fallout later.

As for the Dem caucus "growing some balls" and obstructing, there's really no way to do that in the House. The bare majority there is as all-powerful as the Senate majority < 60 votes is impotent.

What if the House sent the bill they passed to the Senate (no tax cuts for those over 250k) and have Reid let the Republicans actually filibuster it, as opposed to just threatening to.

Republicans voted against the bills in the Senate last weekend. They only got 53 votes for cloture, GOP and a handful of Dems voted against them.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 01:29:23

I can has

by **Bucky** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 09:13:00

Ya know, I'll never be affected by it in any way, but I don't believe that any kind of estate tax, in any way or form, is moral. Someone makes a lot of money- which was presumably taxed when it was earned- and then when they kick, the government wants a big chunk instead of it all going to your heirs? Seems pretty oppressive to me.

by **Swiggers** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:26:43

Bucky wrote:Ya know, I'll never be affected by it in any way, but I don't believe that any kind of estate tax, in any way or form, is moral. Someone makes a lot of money- which was presumably taxed when it was earned- and then when they kick, the government wants a big chunk instead of it all going to your heirs? Seems pretty oppressive to me.

It's a vestige of our founding. The founders didn't want there to become a permanent nobility like the European countries had, and this was one of the things they did to address that.

But we sort of have one anyway, just not in title.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:30:12

Swiggers wrote:
Bucky wrote:Ya know, I'll never be affected by it in any way, but I don't believe that any kind of estate tax, in any way or form, is moral. Someone makes a lot of money- which was presumably taxed when it was earned- and then when they kick, the government wants a big chunk instead of it all going to your heirs? Seems pretty oppressive to me.

It's a vestige of our founding. The founders didn't want there to become a permanent nobility like the European countries had, and this was one of the things they did to address that.

But we sort of have one anyway, just not in title.

smart fellows, the founders, realizing that outsized (that is, not almost entirely directly generated by personal sweat) commercial success is almost as dependent on luck as "success" by birthright

by **drsmooth** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 13:25:52

This isn't really politics per se, but it is a cool map of a peculiar institution that had lots to do with how things are here in the US of A.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 13:45:18

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 13:47:54

drsmooth wrote:This isn't really politics per se, but it is a cool map of a peculiar institution that had lots to do with how things are here in the US of A.

I thought that somehow you discovered some secret Illuminati map

by **Bucky** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 13:49:02

drsmooth wrote:This isn't really politics per se, but it is a cool map of a peculiar institution that had lots to do with how things are here in the US of A.

now i'm not sure, but i think they're implying that Lincoln was illiterate

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 13:49:40

I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

by **WheelsFellOff** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 13:51:23

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

Democrats are cotton golems made by the Jooz.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 13:56:53

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

Areas where the most cotton was harvested had the highest concentration of slaves and remain heavily African American to this day. The counties vote for Democrats even as the states have gone heavily Republican.

Archived

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos: A politics thread