Someone on a form tells you he filibusters the right way, now he's one of the best politicians in Washington! LOL
GOP senators block top Obama jobs initiativeBy Ted Barrett, CNN
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
actually 2 of the most moral ethical and patriotic democrats were Evan Bayh and Bart Stupak. Both retired because of the poison, deceptive, and corrupt way Obama's administrative team went about enacting policies like the stimulus and healthcare bills.
ftr, they did not blame Obama personally but Emanuel and Pelosi were strongly pointed at. All Obama was at this point, like any new president, was a salesman whose initial popularity was used to sell us a used Yugo and make us think it was a Bentley.
You'll see Evan Bayh back on the national democratic stage when the Chicago style ethics are gone. He could be a rock star. You'll never see Stupak again, he'll forever be the guy that sold his soul so his party could win. According to him it wasn't sold, it was stolen, but still...
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
You actually need to look into who Bernie Sanders is
he is like Ron Paul in many ways sans the racism
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
that could lead to the unfortunatre consequence of having to actually fili your own busters when the shoe inevitably winds up on the other foot.
i said it before and it's still true, party politics is now professional wrestling, and the filibuster is their take on the Irish Whip. if both sides dont play along it just doesnt work, and it all looks fake. you wouldnt want the rubes to start thinking the matches are staged would you?
No, I don't actually need to look who Bernie Sanders is, I'm already aware of that fruitcake.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Sanders' lifetime legislative score from the AFL-CIO is 100%. As of 2006[SUP][update][/SUP], he has a grade of "C-" from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Sanders voted against the Brady Bill and in favor of an NRA-supported bill to restrict lawsuits against gun manufacturers in 2005.[SUP][18][/SUP] Sanders voted to abolish the so-called "marriage penalty" for income taxes and also voted for a bill that sought to ban human cloning. Sanders has endorsed every Democratic nominee for president of the United States since 1992. Sanders is a co-founder of the House Progressive Caucus and chaired the grouping of mostly liberal Democrats for its first eight years.
Sanders voted against the resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 1991 and 2002 and opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But he later joined almost all of his colleagues in voting for a non-binding resolution expressing support for U.S. troops at the outset of the invasion, although he gave a floor speech criticizing the partisan nature of the resolution and the Bush administration's actions in the run-up to the war. On April 7, 2006, in regard to the investigation of the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, Sanders said, "The revelation that the president authorized the release of classified information in order to discredit an Iraq war critic should tell every member of Congress that the time is now for a serious investigation of how we got into the war in Iraq and why Congress can no longer act as a rubber stamp for the president."[SUP][19][/SUP] Sanders supports universal health care and opposes what he terms "unfettered" free trade,[SUP][20][/SUP] which he argues deprives American workers of their jobs while exploiting foreign workers in sweatshop factories.
In June 2005, Sanders proposed an amendment to limit provisions that allow the government to obtain individuals' library and book-buying records. The amendment passed the House by a bipartisan majority but was removed on November 4 that year by House-Senate negotiators and never became law.[SUP][21][/SUP] Sanders followed this vote on November 5, 2005, by voting against the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which would have exempted the Internet from the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold Bill.
In March 2006, after a series of resolutions calling for him to bring articles of impeachment against the president passed in various towns in Vermont, Sanders stated it would be impractical to impeach George W. Bush, given the "reality that the Republicans control the House and the Senate." Still, Sanders made no secret of his opposition to the Bush Administration, which he regularly attacked for cuts in social programs he supports.[SUP][22][/SUP][SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP]
Sanders is a critic of Alan Greenspan. In June 2003, during a question-and-answer discussion with the then-Federal Reserve chairman, Sanders told Greenspan that he was concerned that Greenspan was "way out of touch" and "that you see your major function in your position as the need to represent the wealthy and large corporations."[SUP][25][/SUP] Sanders said in 1998 that investment banks and commercial banks should remain as separate entities.[SUP][26][/SUP]
Republicans have attacked Sanders as "an ineffective extremist" for successfully sponsoring only one law and fifteen amendments in his eight terms in the House.[SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP] Sanders responded by saying that he had gotten "the most floor amendments of any member of the House since 1996 [passed]."[SUP][29][/SUP] Former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean has stated that "Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time."[SUP][30][/SUP]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you just laid out numerous reasons to NOT give a fuck about bernie sanders.
i'd sooner vote for bernie madoff. at least madoff has proved he can make a ponzi scheme work, maybe he has a few insights on how social security might be "reformed"
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am for raising the retirement age with the option for lower payout to take at the same age. life expectancy has gone up enormously since SS was implemented.
but americans don't want that. that leaves us the other solution: raise the cap. it's easy, harmless, and would make SS solvent forever.
the biggest failure of bush was not privatizing SS. if he had managed to do that with all his fake town hall meetings after reelection, no republican would ever sit in the oval office for 30+ years. imagine him convincing us to put SS into private hands and then seeing nearly half fall out of it.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The talk of privatizing SS funds got strangely quiet after the stock market tanked
Dont think wall street will ever get the chance again of bringing up privatizing SS after that
Are you saying you can't make more money investing privately in security bonds than with SS.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Yet again we have the "well they do it too so it is acceptable" or "well they do it too so it is justified that we do it". This is that perception or argument that both sides are symetrical and therefore the right is perfectly within its rights and obligations to act in any partisan and destructive way it wishes because.... both sides are guilty. In fact the right is far more guilty than the left of this obstructionism and has been for many decades. Now it becomes a partisan matter if someone points out the realities of GOP behavior. The GOP claims that it is the party of personal responsibility and yet it is always the first to claim that someone else, some other body, some situation, some external actor is the cause of their action or inaction.
canndo
Well-Known Member
If just one of these companies actually makes it then we will have at least some parity with all of the countries that are strongly backing their own alternative energy plans and policies. You don't think it at least a bit harmful that all of our wind turbines are made in Germany or some other european country rather than in the U.S.? If China is pumping billions into their various incursions into alternative fuel and in so doing possibly triggering a new revolution of power generation don't you think that maybe it would be a good idea for us to do the same? Or do you believe that the only competition between countries that make any difference is defense?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Wow, you actually believe this Beenthere? Now who has their partisan blinders on? It is quite clear that the right doesn't care about he welfare of the country so much as it does about making Obama look bad or keeping him from doing anything at all - up to and including their willingness to reverse his polices and his accomplishments the moment they gain office again. Somehow you still see parity between the two parties but you rarely if ever see Dems voting as a block (interestingly the right claims this is evidence of their wishy washy nature). You do not see Dems signing pledges en mass to act and vote a certain way regardless of the circumstances ala Grover Nordquist.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Did you take into account Bush's tax cuts, two wars and medicare changes?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Not unless you can figure a way to stop ageism in hiring practices. It is fine to say "people can work longer" but that doesn't work if corporations are unwilling to carry oldsters on their payroll because they may become a liability to their health insurance policies. If those same companies, as they so often do, practice age discrimination in their hiring practices or do the same with regard to those with age related but controled "diseases" such as high blood pressure or cholesterol are not dealt with then raising retirement ages will bring on even more unemployment. OF course the right won't even acknowlege that SCOTUS has gutted current law regarding this subject.
canndo
Well-Known Member
And there is always this. Perhaps one can make more but that "more" is far from guaranteed. A rather large contingent of America would have been in tough shape had they been forced to retire during the nastiest days of the last burst bubble.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
yes, even turtle tunnels, ball washing and tatoo removal.
Did you know the CBO projected hundreds of billions in revenue loss because of the tax cuts but instead we had hundreds of billion in increase? It's almost like what they claimed the cuts would do really happened.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I have seen nothing indicating that the Bush Tax cuts resulted in ongoing increased revenue for the Fed. Show me please.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
the sources I've found to back up this claim are biased. I'm rethinking this position until I find a neutral source. If I don't trust the sources no doubt you wouldn't either. I'll take the beating on that claim because the tax increases can easily be attributed to full employment during those years.
I could make the argument those tax cuts led to full employment but that wasn't my claim so I'm waving the white flag on that.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I have yet to see where tax cuts during the Bush years lead to any sustained employment either. Much of that could be as easily attributed to the housing bubble.