jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Antonin Scalia makes me ashamed to be human.

His superior intellect causes you feelings of inadequacy?

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Antonin Scalia makes me ashamed to be human.

His superior intellect causes you feelings of inadequacy?

nah, more like his blatant racism

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Antonin Scalia makes me ashamed to be human.

His superior intellect causes you feelings of inadequacy?

nah, more like his blatant racism

Do you support the federal government mandating the drawing of majority minority districts?

jerseyhoya wrote:Republicans want to make the sequester better. Why won’t Obama let them?

The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.

But that’s not the White House’s real problem. The real problem is that the sequester remains the sequester. “It’s still 85 billion in cuts in [fiscal year] 13,” says one White House staffer. “There’s no way around us having an economic opposition to taking out $85 billion in the next seven months. If the bill said you have to cut $85 billion but you have flexibility such that the cuts can be phased in, I don’t know what we’d do.“

...

If the White House is given authority for making the sequester’s cuts, then it owns those cuts. Republicans who fought to keep the sequester in place could then have it both ways: They get the sequester, but they also get to attack the White House for the cuts made by the sequester.

...

At this point, Republicans basically support the sequester because it’s all spending cuts, but they want the cuts allocated more intelligently. The White House opposes the sequester because it hits the economy too hard in 2013 and because it doesn’t include tax increases, and so they want it replaced with a compromise proposal. And so Republicans want to make the sequester a bit better and a lot more permanent while the White House opposes efforts to make the sequester better precisely because it would make it more permanent.

slugsrbad wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Antonin Scalia makes me ashamed to be human.

His superior intellect causes you feelings of inadequacy?

nah, more like his blatant racism

Do you support the federal government mandating the drawing of majority minority districts?

Do you support states being allowed to put in ridiculous requirements to vote? There's a reason section 5 was created, and a reason why a plurality (with Kennedy curious) of the court questions whether or not Shelby County has been injured since regardless of the formula Congress uses (e.g. whether they use section 4 as is, or a less strict formula to allow more counties to not fall under section 5's umbrella) the county would still have to have their requirements approved by the government.

I hate how Justice Scalia's answer to "institutionalized race favoritism" is allowing states to institutionalize racial discrimination. GG America.

td11 wrote:seems pretty clear to me, from a dem viewpoint, why the pres doesn't want to "let" the Rs make the sequester "better." it's a pretty underhanded ploy by the Rs but of course it will be sold as, "why doesn't the WH take responsibility!??!?!" but really should have "for doing our jobs" attached at the end

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:seems pretty clear to me, from a dem viewpoint, why the pres doesn't want to "let" the Rs make the sequester "better." it's a pretty underhanded ploy by the Rs but of course it will be sold as, "why doesn't the WH take responsibility!??!?!" but really should have "for doing our jobs" attached at the end

What do you think the Senate's role in the governing process? To evaluate House bills and then vote on them? I understand the politics involved in the sequester with regards to the battle between House Republicans (who really don't mind cuts, in general, but would prefer them to be differently allocated) and the administration (who don't want unilateral cuts at all). However, I can't understand why the Senate, and the Democrats in the Senate in particular, have taken little heat here. Pass a budget? Show thought leadership? I don't really follow the details closely of daily Senate goings-on, but to quote Office Space, "What exactly is it... you do here?" it sounds like their answer might be "We talk to the House Republicans so that the administration doesn't have to. We have people skills!"

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:seems pretty clear to me, from a dem viewpoint, why the pres doesn't want to "let" the Rs make the sequester "better." it's a pretty underhanded ploy by the Rs but of course it will be sold as, "why doesn't the WH take responsibility!??!?!" but really should have "for doing our jobs" attached at the end

What do you think the Senate's role in the governing process? To evaluate House bills and then vote on them? I understand the politics involved in the sequester with regards to the battle between House Republicans (who really don't mind cuts, in general, but would prefer them to be differently allocated) and the administration (who don't want unilateral cuts at all). However, I can't understand why the Senate, and the Democrats in the Senate in particular, have taken little heat here. Pass a budget? Show thought leadership? I don't really follow the details closely of daily Senate goings-on, but to quote Office Space, "What exactly is it... you do here?" it sounds like their answer might be "We talk to the House Republicans so that the administration doesn't have to. We have people skills!"

feel free to put heat on the senate. that's fine. but it doesn't change the fact that Rs want the sequester because it is basically all cuts but also want to defer all blame and responsibility onto the WH. you didn't really address my point, which was that i don't see at all, from that ezra klein article, why the pres should "help" or "let" the Rs make the sequester "better"

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Republicans want to make the sequester better. Why won’t Obama let them?

jerz, did you, uh, read this thing? the headline is kind of dumb, imo.

The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.

But that’s not the White House’s real problem. The real problem is that the sequester remains the sequester. “It’s still 85 billion in cuts in [fiscal year] 13,” says one White House staffer. “There’s no way around us having an economic opposition to taking out $85 billion in the next seven months. If the bill said you have to cut $85 billion but you have flexibility such that the cuts can be phased in, I don’t know what we’d do.“

...

If the White House is given authority for making the sequester’s cuts, then it owns those cuts. Republicans who fought to keep the sequester in place could then have it both ways: They get the sequester, but they also get to attack the White House for the cuts made by the sequester.

...

At this point, Republicans basically support the sequester because it’s all spending cuts, but they want the cuts allocated more intelligently. The White House opposes the sequester because it hits the economy too hard in 2013 and because it doesn’t include tax increases, and so they want it replaced with a compromise proposal. And so Republicans want to make the sequester a bit better and a lot more permanent while the White House opposes efforts to make the sequester better precisely because it would make it more permanent.

seems pretty clear to me, from a dem viewpoint, why the pres doesn't want to "let" the Rs make the sequester "better." it's a pretty underhanded ploy by the Rs but of course it will be sold as, "why doesn't the WH take responsibility!??!?!" but really should have "for doing our jobs" attached at the end

slugsrbad wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Antonin Scalia makes me ashamed to be human.

His superior intellect causes you feelings of inadequacy?

nah, more like his blatant racism

Do you support the federal government mandating the drawing of majority minority districts?

Do you support states being allowed to put in ridiculous requirements to vote? There's a reason section 5 was created, and a reason why a plurality (with Kennedy curious) of the court questions whether or not Shelby County has been injured since regardless of the formula Congress uses (e.g. whether they use section 4 as is, or a less strict formula to allow more counties to not fall under section 5's umbrella) the county would still have to have their requirements approved by the government.

I hate how Justice Scalia's answer to "institutionalized race favoritism" is allowing states to institutionalize racial discrimination. GG America.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Antonin Scalia makes me ashamed to be human.

His superior intellect causes you feelings of inadequacy?

nah, more like his blatant racism

Do you support the federal government mandating the drawing of majority minority districts?