The Cellar
Page 8 of 14 1234567 8 91011121314
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Congress has lost its mind... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5891)

Clodfobble 08-22-2010 08:26 AM
*snicker* Griff is far less party-affiliated than you, good sir.

classicman 08-22-2010 01:48 PM
took the post right outta my keyboard, Clod.

Shawnee123 08-26-2010 08:47 AM
:lol2:

Ramahkable.

classicman 08-26-2010 11:00 PM
Quote:
At a forum Monday, Rangel popped off over an Obama comment last month that the 80-year-old congressman should "end his career with dignity."

The President spoke after Rangel was slapped with ethics charges. "Frankly, he has not been around long enough to determine what my dignity is," Rangel said Monday.

"In the next few years, I will be more likely to protect his dignity."

Rangel said last night his retort wasn't meant as a slap but admitted, "Obviously, it didn't go over big." As for Powell's argument: "I think that Obama would say that I'm one of his best friends. And certainly one of his strongest supporters — I admire him. I respect him."

He said Obama's remark had rankled because "I just thought dignity was an individual thing other people can't really describe."

But, he conceded, "You don't zing the President of the United States if you're interested in working with him."
From the Daily News

TheMercenary 08-28-2010 07:57 AM
Quote:
Paul Krugman's New York Times column for August 23 on extending the Bush tax cuts is not merely misleading; it is an outright and deliberate fabrication. For more than a decade, Krugman has been writing two columns a week for the New York Times opinion pages. Opinion pieces are designed to express a point of view, but the argument is supposed to be supported by facts.

Krugman is a Princeton economics professor who won a Nobel Prize in Economics. So the alternative explanation for Krugman's column today -- that he is just stupid, and very bad with numbers -- would seem far less likely than that he lies in order to deliberately mislead Times readers and the general public.

Krugman never liked the Bush tax cuts of 2001. The economy was in recession at the time the cuts were passed, and Krugman, who is a Keynesian, generally supports lots of stimulus to address weak economies. However, he prefers massive injections of government spending to tax cuts, and if tax cuts are a part of any stimulus package, he thinks the cuts should not include any tax reductions for wealthy people. The Bush tax cuts included cuts for all taxpayers, and they were set to expire at the end of 2010.

Krugman, who seems utterly unconcerned with deficits today -- he wants much more government spending and an extension of most of the Bush tax cuts -- railed at the Bush tax cuts in 2001 for their impact on the deficit (estimated revenue loss of $1.2 trillion for ten years when passed). He admits in his column today that extending the Bush tax cuts that President Obama wants to continue for another ten years is expensive. Those tax cuts are for individuals earning less than $200,000 a year, or families earning less than $250,000. In his article, Krugman does not provide any numbers for the cost of extending the tax cuts for those earning less than the target amounts. Those tax cuts are by far the biggest share of the cost of extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts. Despite that, Krugman lets loose this whopper in relation to the cost of extending the 2001 tax cuts to the highest earners:

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that's the least of it: the policy center's estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he's going to get the majority of that group's tax break.

Quite simply, if you take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans and pick the one with the highest income, he is not likely to get a majority of the tax benefit of that group. Far from it.

The article Krugman links to in order to support his conclusion was written by Adam Looney for the purportedly non-partisan Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute (about as non-partisan on tax matters as the Cato Institute and Grover Norquist). But even this liberal analysis does not support Krugman's lie. Krugman provides data that the total cost for extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts to the top one tenth of one percent of Americans, the 120,000 with the highest annual incomes, would be $360 billion over ten years. But this number is the result of extending not only the 2001 Bush cuts on income tax rates, but also extending the 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. This is a common game for Krugman -- mix and match, and hope nobody notices. In his article, Krugman never mentions the 2003 tax cuts, but instead focuses exclusively on the income tax rates in the 2001 tax cuts.

The Tax Policy Center lays out these numbers for extending the Bush 2001 income tax rate cuts to the top two brackets -- $36 billion a year on average for ten years. But these brackets account for far more than the top 0.1% of earners, the group Krugman singles out. In fact, the group in the 33% and 35% tax brackets impacted by the Obama proposal is twenty times as large -- over two million taxpayers (or as the president commonly states, 2% of all Americans). The Tax Policy Center analysis indicates that extending all the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Extending only the tax rate cuts from the 2001 Bush tax cuts would cost $1.57 trillion over ten years -- more than 77% of which, $1.21 billion, would be the cost for extending the 10%, 15%, and 28% rates. The cost of extending the tax cuts for the two top brackets is $360 billion over that period, less than 25% of that total. Part of the $360 billion cost is attributable to the top 0.1%, the 120,000 highest earners. How much? It is not clear from the Tax Policy Center study. But let us assume it is 50% of the total. Then the total cost of extending the 2001 tax cut to the top 0.1% of earners would be just over 10% of the total cost of extending all the tax cuts. So if you take a group of a thousand randomly selected Americans, there is no way that the highest earner in the group would get a majority of the total tax savings from that group.

The Tax Policy Center also estimates that the total cost of extending all the 2001 and 2003 cuts for all taxpayers would be $680 billion more than the cost of just following the Obama recommendations and raising some of the rates. In other words, Obama's proposals call for extending 82% of the $3.7 trillion in tax cuts from these years, at a cost of over $3 trillion to the Treasury. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 0.1% would receive an average of $310,000 a year in extra tax cuts over ten years if all 2001 and 2003 cuts were extended. Krugman summarizes this as 120,000 taxpayers receiving on average $3 million over ten years, or $360 billion in total. Again, it does not take a Nobel Prize-winner to see that 360 billion is less than 10% of $3.7 trillion in total tax cuts. So if one were more honest than Krugman, and looked at a thousand randomly selected Americans and picked the highest earner, and looked at his total tax savings over the next ten years from extending all the 2001 and 2003 cuts, the highest-income individual's share would be less than 10% of the total, hardly a majority of the group's tax savings.

I have no problem with the National Tax Center arguing that the cuts for the highest earners are wrong or unfair or too much. At least they provide honest numbers to make their case. But why does Krugman feel the need to lie and argue that the share for his group is more than five times its real share of total tax savings?

A close look at the National Tax Center numbers shows that the biggest costs by far from extending all the tax cuts are for retaining the lower rates for the lowest three tax brackets and for Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief. You won't find this in a Paul Krugman column.

Of course, other articles are needed to discuss the fact that lowering tax rates in 2001 was considered deficit expansion, but raising rates in 2011 is considered deficit neutral, or analyzing whether government spending or tax cuts does more to produce economic growth and create jobs. In the real world, any rise in tax rates is anti-stimulative. Krugman has argued for trillions more in stimulus spending (and an enormous increase in deficits and national debt) because the economy remains weak. So his push for raising some tax rates has nothing to do with his concern about deficits, or a concern with the state of the economy and economic growth. It can be explained only by the desire to spread wealth around -- to redistribute.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...r_does_th.html

Griff 08-28-2010 08:19 AM
Yesterday, there was a candidates forum for the 30th District Congressional seat, which is now held by embattled Rep. Charles Rangel. Even though his rivals discussed his "years and years of corruption" and "The corruption that Congressman Rangel is a part of is being in Congress for 40 years," the NY Times reports that the crowd was pro-Rangel, booing and jeering his challengers. And Rangel took President Obama to task for suggesting he should retire and "end his career with dignity." The 80-year-old said, "Frankly, he has not been around long enough to determine what my dignity is. For the next two years, I will be more likely to protect his dignity."

Whatever happened to dignity? NSFW

busterb 08-30-2010 07:56 PM
The American Legion mag has a thing about Congress, by the numbers. I guess it came from here
Anyway. There's 168 representatives and 57 senators with law degrees. Any wonder that they've lost their mind? Nuff said.

classicman 08-31-2010 03:37 PM
First there was Charlie Rangel then Maxine Waters, now I introduce Eddie Bernice...
Quote:
U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson awarded eight scholarships last year to her grandsons and a top aide's children – bringing to 23 the number of awards she handed out since 2005 in violation of Congressional Black Caucus Foundation eligibility rules.

The Dallas Morning News reported Sunday that over the last five years, the Dallas Democrat has awarded up to $20,000 in 15 scholarships to two grandsons, two great-nephews, and aide Rod Givens' children between 2005 and 2008. The 2009 awards – reflected in a previously undisclosed list provided Monday by the foundation – push that above $25,000.
of course once caught ...
Quote:
"While I am not ashamed of helping, I did not intentionally mean to violate any rules in the process," Johnson said in a written statement issued Monday night, after two days of national scrutiny and sniping from critics, including her campaign opponent. "To rectify this matter immediately, I will reimburse the funds by the end of this week."
However ....
Quote:
Sloan said it might be politically dicey for the ethics committee to target another black lawmaker, now that two – Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California – face rare ethics hearings in coming months. "There's just too many issues with African-American members," she said.

Baran disagreed. "If a member is committing fraud and getting money for relatives in improper ways, I don't think that's going to stop the ethics committee from taking a look as to what actually transpired," he said.
All from dallasnews.com
Wow really? If there were three white people would they not investigate the fourth?
Thats a pretty outlandish thing to say.

Clodfobble 08-31-2010 05:10 PM
Sloan (whoever that is, I admit I didn't read the link) didn't say that the committee shouldn't investigate a third black legislator, simply that it would be "politically dicey" for them to do so, which I think has a reasonable possibility of being true. I'd like to hope that, say, Al Sharpton wouldn't jump up and shout "racism!" over such a pattern, but I wouldn't hold my breath over it.

Redux 08-31-2010 05:31 PM
Sloan also said in the same article " she doubts any crimes were committed, because "as unethical as it sounds, it's not done with taxpayer money or campaign money."

And also suggested that any investigation should begin with the Congressional Black Caucus since it was CBC Foundation money....and other ethics experts agree.

And yes, I think it is unethtical, even if there is no evidence of unknowingly violating CBC Foundation rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 679638)
Wow really? If there were three white people would they not investigate the fourth?
Thats a pretty outlandish thing to say.
IMO, its pretty outlandish to start screaming for an Ethics Committee investigation and raising questions of race without looking objectively at the fact that perhaps it should first be addressed, as Sloan suggested, within the CBC Foundation. .

xoxoxoBruce 08-31-2010 08:22 PM
Yeah, nobody reads EULAs.

Redux 08-31-2010 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 679686)
Yeah, nobody reads EULAs.
Its more a jurisdictional issue than understand the CBCF rules regarding awarding scholarships.

The House Ethics Committee has two primary functions: to investigate violations of law regarding use of public (taxpayer) funds or campaign funds and to investigate the conduct of members that may violate the Code of Conduct which may occur most often when a member is charged with a crime not related to the above (eg when a Senator is charged with soliciting sex in an airport mens room).

This should be subject to an internal CBCF investigation and if the finding is a crime has been committed and she is charged, an Ethics Committee investigation may then be appropriate.

I dont condone her actions.

And I dont claim to be an expert on Congressional ethics laws.

But I do recognize racially charged remarks ("if there were three white people would they not investigate the fourth") from one who knows even less about how the Congressional ethics process works.

xoxoxoBruce 08-31-2010 11:39 PM
CBC Foundation EULA, not congressional committee EULA.

classicman 09-08-2010 02:32 PM
on another note...
Quote:
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. John Spratt will debate his Republican challenger Mick Mulvaney on Tuesday, but the only people who will get to see any of it have already bought tickets to the sold out dinner at a South Carolina Lions Club.

Reporters will be allowed, Spratt's campaign asked for no audio or video recording of the debate between the candidates.

Mulvaney's campaign protested the request when agreeing to the debate, then sent out a news release Monday slamming Spratt saying "in this country, we have open debates."
Bold mine. from here

Why would he not want as many people as possible to know what his positions are?

classicman 09-10-2010 12:40 PM
Step right up....
Quote:
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) awarded three scholarships from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to his stepdaughter and wife’s niece between 2003 and 2005, according to records from the nonprofit group.

Bishop is the second Democrat found to have funneled CBC Foundation scholarship funds to relatives, threatening to turn the program into a larger political problem for the party. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) recently paid back $31,000 to the foundation for scholarships that she improperly awarded to various relatives and children of a top staffer.
Read more:

Redux 09-10-2010 01:44 PM
One of the most effective features of the ethic reforms that the Democrats enacted in 2007 (with no Republican support) was the creation of the quasi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

As a result, for the first time ever, ethics charges could be raised and investigated without having to rely on the Ethics Committee itself to initiate an action, which if one looks back throughout history rarely occurred (most recently, many of the Republicans who were charged with crimes in the Abramoff scandal never faced an Ethics Committee investigation).

What will happen to the OCE, if Boehner were to become Speaker:
Quote:
The Republican minority leader, John Boehner, said he wants to “take a look” at the office if his party regains majority power — a reminder that his members fiercely opposed the quasi-independent office when it was created two years ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Boehner wondered aloud how effective the office really is, ignoring its considerable record for discreetly investigating alleged misbehavior on both sides of the aisle and letting the chips fall where they may.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu3.html

and

House Republican leaders won’t say whether they will scrap an ethics office if they regain the majority this fall.

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), established by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2008, has attracted criticism from Republicans and Democrats during the last couple of years. Most GOP lawmakers voted against the creation of the OCE, and many political observers believe the OCE will be disbanded should Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) become Speaker next year.

Pressed for comment, GOP leadership aides declined to directly answer the OCE question, presumably seeking to avoid politically damaging headlines about how Republicans want to strip away a new layer of ethics scrutiny.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...-ethics-office

TheMercenary 09-10-2010 01:45 PM
Who cares, as long as the Republickins gain control of either the House or Senate, some one has to stop this run away train of spend, spend, spend, spend.... oppps and then tax.

Redux 09-10-2010 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 681679)
Who cares, as long as the Republickins gain control of either the House or Senate, some one has to stop this run away train of spend, spend, spend, spend.... oppps and then tax.
Oh, I get it.

WHO CARES about big $100 million donors on the right attempting to influence elections...only Soros matters.

And WHO CARES when the most effective ethics reform initiative ever enacted might be gutted.

After all, you would then need to be more even handed in your outrage.

TheMercenary 09-13-2010 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 681684)
Oh, I get it.

WHO CARES about big $100 million donors on the right attempting to influence elections...only Soros matters.

And WHO CARES when the most effective ethics reform initiative ever enacted might be gutted.

After all, you would then need to be more even handed in your outrage.
I only care that the Demoncrats are thrown out all costs, they have completely failed this country in every aspect. They have had 4 years and screwed it up. See you in Nov. My dream is Obama as president and the Repubs own both the House and the Senate. Only then they might have a chance in hell of getting a damm thing done, and even then I am not hopeful. The mantra for the Nov elections are now, Anyone but the Demoncrats! :lol2:

Undertoad 09-13-2010 10:39 PM
Quote:
They have had 4 years and screwed it up
A year and nine months sir

xoxoxoBruce 09-14-2010 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 682233)
I only care that the Demoncrats are thrown out all costs, they have completely failed this country in every aspect.
Right, because the Republicans did so well by us the previous 8 years. :rolleyes:
Oh that's right, they took good care of you wealthy people. Well until the end there, with that little global meltdown and all. But really, the wealthy are bouncing back nicely, even with the hand wringing, they aren't worried about trivial shit like Doctor bills, car payments or food, just about the pudginess of their portfolios.

And who cares about the middle class, they were just a relic from the days when the wealthy needed managers for their mills and factories. But since the wealthy found out they could outsource stuff to countries that make cheap shit, that can't be repaired and must be replaced, they're in clover.

Since the middle class is expendable, we can hardly worry about the rest of the country who are well and truly fucked for many years to come... if not for good.
Yes sir, bring back the rich man's friend, that way the rich man won't have to spend so much on lobbyists, and live happily ever after.

classicman 09-14-2010 07:39 AM
Whats the third option. I don't like either of the first two.

xoxoxoBruce 09-14-2010 12:47 PM
Offshore.

classicman 09-14-2010 01:38 PM
Oh that Island we were gonna buy a few years back... Damn - that still available?

TheMercenary 09-14-2010 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 682246)
A year and nine months sir
Not in Congress. Dems have been in control of Congress and the purse strings for 2 years more than that... They own all of the failures since 2006. All of them.... The electorate will show them this Nov...

TheMercenary 09-14-2010 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 682252)
Right, because the Republicans did so well by us the previous 8 years.
No not at all. Because they have steam rolled BS through the process and now I hope they get it all shoved down their collective throats through the electoral process. We need to end this two party system of back and forth of pendulum swings and stop the bleeding of the economy while we ask the top 10 percent to pay all the bills and create a system of dependency on big government to solve all of our problems. A minority of the income earners pay all the bills while the rest get a pass with no investment or incentive in their own future, this must stop. This country must bleed before it heals. And everyone must do so to make it happen, not just some narrow few as the Socialist Government of the Obama Administration wants us to do....

TheMercenary 09-14-2010 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 682456)
You mean minority?
Correct. I miss typed. Thank you.

Redux 09-14-2010 10:24 PM
McConnell unveiled the Senate Republican tax plan today.

It would make permanent all of the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire this year and limit the estate tax to those over $5 million ($10 million/couple).

The CBO hasnt scored it yet, but a somewhat similar proposal scored by the CBO would mean $4 trillion in lost revenue over ten years......four times the projected deficit impact of the health care reform and stimulus bill combined.

Deficits result not only from increased spending, but equally from reducing revenue.

Yet, the Republicans argue with a straight fact that cutting $4 trillion in revenue wont result in significant deficits.

TheMercenary 09-14-2010 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 682494)
McConnell unveiled the Senate Republican tax plan today.

It would make permanent all of the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire this year and limit the estate tax to those over $5 million ($10 million/couple).

The CBO hasnt scored it yet, but a somewhat similar proposal scored by the CBO would mean $4 trillion in lost revenue over ten years......four times the projected deficit impact of the health care reform and stimulus bill combined.

Deficits result not only from increased spending, but equally from reducing revenue.

Yet, the Republicans argue with a straight fact that cutting $4 trillion in revenue wont result in significant deficits.
Obama and your party lied to the electorate. See you in Nov.

Redux 09-14-2010 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 682499)
Obama and your party lied to the electorate. See you in Nov.
Aw. man....I was expecting you to say WHO CARES about $4 trillion in lost revenue (increased debt) over the next ten years.

classicman 09-14-2010 11:00 PM
Quote:
suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain

classicman 09-15-2010 12:41 PM
Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he will add the DREAM Act, a controversial immigration measure, to a defense policy bill the Senate will take up next week.

The decision means the defense bill, which often passes with bipartisan support, will be home to two major, thorny political issues – the other being the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Reid called the DREAM Act "really important" and said it should be passed because it provides a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military. DREAM is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act.

"I know we can't do comprehensive immigration reform," Reid said at a news conference. "But those Republicans we had in the last Congress have left us."

Many Hispanic voters are angry with Democratic leaders for not doing more to pass an immigration overhaul. The decision by Reid to add the DREAM Act now could help soothe that anger.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called Reid's decision "needlessly controversial."
The Senate will need 60 votes to take up the bill next week, and Reid said Tuesday he doesn't know if he has enough votes.
from CNN

This sets the table for a bill that normally would pass with bipartisan support to now be a major issue where both parties can point fingers at the other. This is the type of thing that needs to stop. If, as Reid said, "it should be passed because it provides a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military."
Then put it on the table on its own. Let it pass or fail on its own merit and let them justify their vote on this issue. When issues that have virtually nothing to do with each other constantly get mixed into bills it does nothing but muddy the water as to where these people stand.

TheMercenary 09-15-2010 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 682509)
Aw. man....I was expecting you to say WHO CARES about $4 trillion in lost revenue (increased debt) over the next ten years.
See you in Nov.

classicman 09-17-2010 02:34 PM
Where to start? Lot of interesting things always seem to come up when the election cycle gets close. Wonder why that is? - yes, rhetorical question.

First we have this: Waters aides expelled from Pelosi event
You remember Maxine Waters - the black representative under ethics charges...
Quote:
Three staffers working for embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) were asked by security officers to leave an event in downtown Washington on Thursday after they tried to display large campaign signs just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was about to speak.

Waters told The Hill afterward that the staffers had been displaying the signs at the annual legislative conference for the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation, which was held at the Washington Convention Center a few blocks away. “It ain’t about Nancy. It’s about black people,” Waters said.
from here
Not that it matters apparently, but I thought it was about ALL Americans - not just the black ones. WTF?

classicman 09-17-2010 02:38 PM
Then we have this ...
Doesn't matter which party she is from - What matters is that this is the norm in our Gov't.
Quote:
This is Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. I noticed that you have given to other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a senior member, a twenty year veteran and am Chair of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on the old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with fifteen other sites here for, that are part of the stimulus.

I was, frankly surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my long and deep work. In fact, it’s been my major work on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector.

I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the committee and a subcommittee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly need contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

TheMercenary 09-19-2010 04:58 PM
Shakedown Street
Nancy Pelosi and House Dems hit up lobbyists in a sleazy scramble for cash.

Quote:
Chris Van Hollen, the head of the party's House campaign committee, has written members asking each to raise $30,000 for the committee. Other members have been told privately that their chances of getting or keeping plum committee assignments partly hinge on their ability to bring money in.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...DDLETopOpinion

Griff 09-19-2010 05:45 PM
Bloomberg Pushes Moderates in National Races

Mr. Bloomberg described the Tea Party movement as a fad, comparing it to the short-lived burst of support for Ross Perot in 1992. The mayor suggested that the fury it had unleashed was not a foundation for leadership.

“Look, people are angry,” he said. “Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. Government seems to be paralyzed and unable to solve all of our problems.”

“Anger, however, is not a government strategy,” he said. “It’s not a way to govern.”

First John Stewart, now Mayor Bloomberg, let's hope the move to a governing center has legs.

classicman 09-19-2010 09:05 PM
I'm all in with that plan. What really brought it home for me was O'Donnell winning in Delaware. What a farce. If the wheels of justice moved fast enough she'd probably be in jail before the election even took place.
Since that isn't going to happen, one can only hope the reality of her views keeps her out.

Lamplighter 09-25-2010 11:16 PM
Not exactly Congress... but these are the people running our military !

CNN News article


Pentagon destroys thousands of copies of Army officer's memoir
By Chris Lawrence and Padma Rama, CNN
September 25, 2010 -- Updated 2227 GMT (0627 HKT)

Quote:
Washington (CNN) -- The Department of Defense recently purchased and destroyed
thousands of copies of an Army Reserve officer's memoir in an effort to safeguard
state secrets, a spokeswoman said Saturday.

"DoD decided to purchase copies of the first printing because they contained
information which could cause damage to national security,"
Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham said.

In a statement to CNN, Cunningham said defense officials observed
the September 20 destruction of about 9,500 copies of Army Reserve
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's new memoir "Operation Dark Heart."
Do they really believe that got every copy ?

Quote:
"The whole premise smacks of retaliation," Shaffer told CNN on Saturday.
"Someone buying 10,000 books to suppress a story in this digital age is ludicrous."

xoxoxoBruce 09-25-2010 11:31 PM
Yes they do, they made a deal with the publisher to buy the entire first run before distribution. The redacted second edition will go out normally.

Lamplighter 09-26-2010 12:36 AM
Ummm... the last paragraph in the article reads:

Quote:
At least one seller on the online auction site eBay claiming to have a first-edition printing is selling it for an asking price of nearly $2,000. The listed retail price for the second printing is $25.99.
But even if the eBay thing is false, it's likely there are digital copies around somewhere.

ZenGum 09-26-2010 12:48 AM
Does the guy actually get the royalties from those 10,000 sales? Not to mention free publicity?
When I was a boy, you betrayed state secrets, you got an lead injection. Or a vertically tensioned neck tourniquet.

xoxoxoBruce 09-26-2010 12:56 AM
But that's so passé, being a traitor is the in thing, especially in Washington.

If someone has a first edition, even digital, it's stolen. I imagine the seller, and possibly buyer, would be prosecuted.

Or maybe it's the FBI/Homeland Security on a fishing expedition.

ZenGum 09-26-2010 02:21 AM
[Flip] Traitor? What's good for sales is good for Milo and Minderbinder. And what's good for Milo and Minderbinder is good for America. Why do you hate America? [/side]

classicman 09-26-2010 09:17 AM
snicker@ zen.

tw 09-26-2010 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 683418)
Shakedown Street
Nancy Pelosi and House Dems hit up lobbyists in a sleazy scramble for cash.
Some people have this long list of wacko extremist publications. You know by his name that he will only quote another wacko extremist agenda.

Meanwhile, a reality you will never see TheMercenary discuss. Republican sleaze balls doing it for even larger cash. What he routinely forgets to post due to a poltiical agenda - due to being an enemy of moderates:
Quote:
Already a prominent presence as an analyst on Fox News Channel and a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rove is also playing a leading role in building what amounts to a shadow Republican Party, a network of donors and operatives that is among the most aggressive in the Republican effort to capture control of the House and the Senate.

He has had a major hand in helping to summon the old coalition of millionaires and billionaires who supported Mr. Bush and have huge financial stakes in regulatory and tax policy, like Harold C. Simmons, a Texas billionaire whose holdings include a major waste management company that handles some radioactive materials; Carl H. Lindner Jr., a Cincinnati businessman whose American Financial Group includes several property and casualty insurance concerns; and Robert B. Rowling, whose TRT Holdings owns Omni Hotels and Gold’s Gym.

Their personal and corporate money — as well as that of other donors who have not been identified — has gone to a collection of outside groups Mr. Rove helped form with Mr. Gillespie, including American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, which in turn are loosely affiliated with similar groups staffed or backed by other operatives and donors with ties to Mr. Rove.

TheMercenary 09-28-2010 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 685020)
Does the guy actually get the royalties from those 10,000 sales? Not to mention free publicity?
Man I hope so!:D

xoxoxoBruce 09-28-2010 10:41 PM
He should, the books were sold. Probably for list price, too.

classicman 11-04-2010 09:12 PM

classicman 11-11-2010 08:43 PM
Pelosi Barricades Self in Office, Refuses to Hand Over the Gavel
Quote:
WASHINGTON – Events took a strange turn Thursday when Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the soon-to-be former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, barricaded herself and small number of her staff in her office in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C. It remains unclear whether the staff members inside the office with her are active participants in the action, or whether they are being held by Pelosi against their will. Crying and shouts of “Never!” and “My blog will always be called ‘The Gavel!’” could be heard coming through the wall in the hallway outside the blocked door.

Capitol police say that Pelosi began blocking the door to her office shortly after dawn Thursday morning. It’s unclear exactly what sparked Pelosi’s move, but Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley was reportedly seen leaving her office a few minutes before the sound of furniture moving and hammers were heard to echo from inside her office. Quigley is among a growing number of Democrats seeking a new direction, or just some sign of a grasp of reality, in his party leadership after its defeats last week. He had reportedly met with Pelosi to urge her to step aside, or at least stop referring to herself with the pronoun “we.”

“That time of morning it’s usually quiet in the building,” said Capitol police spokesman Sgt. Dan Hillen. “But we started getting reports of what sounded like someone remodeling their office so we went to check it out. We found that Speaker Pelosi’s office doors were locked from the inside. Our officers knocked, but no one answered or opened the door. We did hear someone inside, who we now believe to be Pelosi, whisper, ‘Cheese it, it’s the cops!’ before uttering a long, loud shush. There were also sounds of muffled crying. We retrieved the keys to unlock the door, but met resistance from inside. Those inside have apparently moved quite a bit of furniture and at least one sculpture into the doorway, and something large and wooden has been nailed across the doors to keep them from opening.”

Hillen speculated that the object nailed across the door might be the giant gavel that Pelosi famously toted across Capitol Hill when she became speaker.
Link

Read the rest - Its hilarious - Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

TheMercenary 11-15-2010 07:51 PM
What if we burn her out?

TheMercenary 12-15-2010 08:01 AM
THE LAST FEAST: 6,488 EARMARKS
Tue Dec 14 2010 19:40:02 ET

Washington, D.C. *– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

“Mr. President, at 12:15 p.m. this afternoon, my office received a copy of the omnibus appropriations bill. It is 1,924 pages long and contains the funding for all 12 of the annual appropriations bills for a grand total of over $1.1 Trillion. It is important to note that the 1,924 pages is only the legislative language and does not include the thousands of pages of report language which contain the details of the billions of dollars in earmarks and, I’m sure, countless policy riders.

“While we continue to uncover which earmarks the appropriators decided to fund – thanks to a new online database – we at least know what earmarks were requested by Members and how much those projects would cost the American people if they were all funded. Taxpayers against Earmarks, www.washingtonwatch.com and Taxpayers for Common Sense joined forces to create this database. According to the data they compiled – for fiscal year 2011 Members requested over 39,000 earmarks totaling over $130 billion. Absolutely disgraceful. I encourage every American to go to the website www.endingspending.com study it, and make yourselves aware of how your elected officials seek to spend your money.

“In the short time I’ve had to review this massive piece of legislation – I’ve identified approximately 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion. Here is a small sample:

$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin
$246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota
$522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey
$500,000 for oyster safety in Florida
$349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina
$413,000 for peanut research in Alabama
$247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington
$208,000 beaver management in North Carolina
$94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana
$165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont
$235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada
$100,000 for the Edgar Allen Poe Cottage Visitor’s Center in New York
$300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii
$400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas

“Additionally, the bill earmarks $727,000 to compensate ranchers in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan whenever endangered wolves eat their cattle. As my colleagues know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Gray Wolf program is under intense scrutiny for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars every year to ‘recover’ endangered wolves that are now overpopulating the West and Midwest. My State of Arizona has a similar wolf program but ranchers in my state aren’t getting $727,000 in this bill.

“Mr. President, I will have much more to say about this bill later this week. I assure my colleagues – we will spend a great deal of time talking about this bill and the outrageous number of earmarks it contains. But for now let me just say this: it is December 14th – we are 22 days away from the beginning of a new Congress and nearly three full months into fiscal year 2011 – and yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered any amendments to cut costs or get our debt under control. Furthermore, the majority decided that they just didn’t feel like doing a budget this year. How is that responsible leadership?

“This is the ninth omnibus appropriations bill we have considered in this body since 2000. That is shameful and we should be embarrassed by the fact that we care so little about doing the people’s business that we continuously put off fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities until the very last minute.

“One thing is abundantly clear to me – that the majority has not learned the lessons of last month’s election. The American people could not have been more clear. They are tired of wasteful spending. They are tired of big government. They are tired of sweetheart deals for special interests. They are tired of business as usual in Washington. And they are tired of massive bills – just like this one - put together behind closed doors, and rammed through the Congress at the last moment so that no one has the opportunity to read them and no one really knows what kind of waste is in them.

“Let me be clear about one thing – if the Majority Leader insists on proceeding to this monstrosity - the American people will know what’s in it. I will be joined by many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to ensure that every single word of this bill is read aloud here on the Senate floor.

“I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to rethink their strategy and move forward with a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government into next year when a new Congress takes over – a Congress that was elected by the American people on November 2nd. “The majority may be able to strong arm enough members into voting for this omnibus – but they will not win in the end. The American people will remember – and I predict that we will see a repeat of November 2nd in the very near future.”

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2n.htm

TheMercenary 12-15-2010 08:48 PM
OOps.....

Yep, they lost their minds.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=3751

skysidhe 12-17-2010 09:19 AM
So, the bill passed without the pet projects and earmarks? If it's really true, how did that happen. You'd think they'd be stalling for more, as usual. I can't believe my eyes, or maybe I am hoping for some measure of fiscal responsibility that I am not reading correctly. I do understand that an across the board tax cut isn't fiscally responsible to some, but to lighten the load by dropping earmarks would be something I haven't seen.

TheMercenary 01-04-2011 09:50 PM
Nice.... God I am so glad she is out as speaker.

Quote:
Nancy Pelosi’s final days as Speaker of the House were spent at the exotic Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona on the island of Hawaii.
Escorted throughout her trip by a mini security motorcade that included Secret Service and Hawaii County Police officers, Pelosi was seen at St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Kailua-Kona, where she received Communion. Parishioners greeted her warmly, Hawaii Reporter was told. Two police SUVs were on guard outside the hotel during her week long stay.
Pelosi, who traveled to Hawaii by private plane, spent the holidays in Kona last year at the same hotel in an elaborate suite that reportedly rents for $10,000 a night.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/pelosi...-with-the-bill

ZenGum 01-05-2011 06:10 AM
An opinion piece on the ABC.

The US Senate is a complete joke (and what to do about it)

Quote:
...But just in case the filibuster isn’t enough to grind the Senate to a halt, some clever geezer also invented “holds”. Thankfully, like most old-time senators, he was probably shot in a duel....

Shawnee123 01-05-2011 08:31 AM
I don't get it. Republicans want to get rid of filibustering? I'll admit ignorance, but didn't it serve them well? I'm not starting an argument here, I am just curious as to why all of a sudden they're concerned about it? Any of you political-knowledgeable folks out there able to explain it?

Quote:
Filibuster reform

In the Senate, a move is under way to change the filibuster -- the procedure in which 60 votes are needed to move a bill from debate to a final vote. Changing the filibuster rule has drawn both support and ire. Many wonder, why change it now?

Julian Zelizer, a historian and CNN.com contributor, says changing the rules is not necessarily a bad thing.

"Some opponents of reform will certainly ask, given the recent coverage of the historic 111th Congress, whether procedural changes are really needed. Shouldn't senators just leave things alone?" he said in a recent CNN.com commentary. "The answer is no. The past three decades of congressional history have been marked by a filibuster frenzy."

He added: "Whereas senators once reserved filibusters for big issues such as civil rights, now they are willing to filibuster, or threaten to filibuster, everything that comes their way. In short, the filibuster has become a normalized tool of partisan conflict."

That partisan conflict was on full display in the last Congress with Republicans filibustering a number of Democrats' legislative items, such as the health care reform bill.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...ess/index.html

TheMercenary 01-05-2011 08:56 AM
No, the current Demoncrats want to get rid of it to stop the Republickins from preventing legislation from moving to a vote that would otherwise require debate (simple majority), but to stifle the debate process and move to straight up or down vote on legislation they require 2/3rds majority to do that. Hence, Republickins filibuster to prevent a up or down vote without debate and no opportunity to propose amendments. If they have no filibuster the simple majority in the Senate will pass everything they want by a simple majority vote, a margin of 51 or greater. The problem is that if the Dems lose the next election and lose the control of the Senate the Repubs will hammer a bunch of stuff through, like judges, etc, and other things that are only handled in the Senate and the Dems will not be able to stop them. It seems that the last 20 + years have been nothing more than sticking it to the other guys when one party or the other gets in power.

glatt 01-05-2011 10:19 AM
The filibuster is generally a good thing. It's a form of power sharing. The Republicans have been abusing it, but that reflects more on them than on the filibuster itself. I think the Senate would be worse off if it didn't exist.

Any majority party that bans the filibuster would be very foolish and short sighted. In this political climate, majority parties don't stay in that position for very long. The electorate hates them both and isn't giving anyone much time to fix anything.

Lamplighter 01-06-2011 08:14 PM
Looks like a trend is starting...

Reuters
By David Lawder, Andy Sullivan and Glen Somerville
WASHINGTON | Thu Jan 6, 2011 7:52pm EST

Republicans acknowledge debt limit should rise
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans acknowledged on Thursday they will have to sign off
on more deficit spending to avoid a debt default that would roil financial markets
and bring the government to a grinding halt.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70113W20110107
Reuters

Republican bid to scrap healthcare hits snag
Republican efforts to scrap President Barack Obama's healthcare reform took a hit
on Thursday when budget analysts said repeal would add billions of dollars
to the federal budget deficit.

And I heard a TV talking head say that Speaker Boenher stated
today that President Obama was, indeed, and American citizen !!!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.
Page 8 of 14 1234567 8 91011121314
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.