|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 03 2013 17:27 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 16:52 HunterX11 wrote:On January 03 2013 13:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 13:00 Adreme wrote:On January 03 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 11:39 Sermokala wrote:
$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.
$197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program.
The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.
Most of these things aren't pork at all they're basic things that the government wants to pay for and groups into other bills to simplify things. I see a ton of cash for ecological things that probably sustained a ton of damage from hurricane sandy and certinly should be qualified as disaster relief. These are real damages that someone is going to have to pay for and at the very least the federal government can pay for that instead of the state which is already in trouble.
Most "budget watchdog" groups tend to be fiscal extremists and have an axe to grind about any sort of government spending trying to find fault in anything that the government does to get people more angry. That's very questionable. Basic things the government wants to pay for are typically paid for within the appropriate budgets. Completely unrelated earmarks are generally inserted into popular bills (as is the case here) because that's the only way they'll pass. All of those seem related to the issue at hand except for the last one which isnt properly explained. Its not like they are asking for money to build a bridge in montana (well I think they tried but it was stripped out). A few items seem questionable to me. Apparently to some in congress as well. It is a huge bill - $60B - so delaying its passage by a couple weeks to get it right might not be a bad idea. It has nothing to do with ideology. It's really just a big Fuck You to Eric Cantor (hence telling everyone to refer all questions on the matter to him) and all the ingrates among the House Republicans. Boehner's career in any kind of leadership role is pretty much toast at this point, so he might as well flip the bird to as many of his "fellow" Republicans (oh and incidentally millions of disaster victims) while he can. He even unilaterally adjourned the House despite the fact that the vote was overwhelmingly against it. I know I risk sounding really wrong in 12 hours but I dont see a way in which he isnt speaker of the house tommorow after the vote. There is really no one to take his place besides Cantor and im not even sure he wants the job.
Looks like you were right and I was wrong. It was fairly close. I wonder what deals he made to get the Northeast Republicans to vote for him? And yeah, it is an unenviable job right now, and he was booed immediately after winning.
|
Easy hunter. Northeast republicans lost the election. The last thing they need is them being made the reason why the party got hurt hard twice in a row.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
mike bloomberg or hillary. tough choice for me. :D
|
On January 04 2013 04:22 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 21:32 Derez wrote:On January 03 2013 13:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 13:00 Adreme wrote:On January 03 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 11:39 Sermokala wrote:
$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.
$197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program.
The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.
Most of these things aren't pork at all they're basic things that the government wants to pay for and groups into other bills to simplify things. I see a ton of cash for ecological things that probably sustained a ton of damage from hurricane sandy and certinly should be qualified as disaster relief. These are real damages that someone is going to have to pay for and at the very least the federal government can pay for that instead of the state which is already in trouble.
Most "budget watchdog" groups tend to be fiscal extremists and have an axe to grind about any sort of government spending trying to find fault in anything that the government does to get people more angry. That's very questionable. Basic things the government wants to pay for are typically paid for within the appropriate budgets. Completely unrelated earmarks are generally inserted into popular bills (as is the case here) because that's the only way they'll pass. All of those seem related to the issue at hand except for the last one which isnt properly explained. Its not like they are asking for money to build a bridge in montana (well I think they tried but it was stripped out). A few items seem questionable to me. Apparently to some in congress as well. It is a huge bill - $60B - so delaying its passage by a couple weeks to get it right might not be a bad idea. It's why it was already stripped down to two parts, a 27 B part with storm relief and a 33 B part with the rest of it. Boehner could have called a vote on the first part. Christie isn't getting mad for no reason. Sure, passing that part first makes sense. But there's still no reason to rush. There's already disaster relief money out there and reconstruction will take a long time and won't really begin until spring for many areas. It's not "rushing". Sandy happened in late October.
And since then the area has received normal disaster relief funding. The bulk of the bill in question is reconstruction not relief - almost 2/3 of the money won't be spent for 2 years (source).
This is long-term stuff and big numbers - it should take months to get it right.
|
On January 04 2013 07:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 04:22 kwizach wrote:On January 04 2013 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 21:32 Derez wrote:On January 03 2013 13:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 13:00 Adreme wrote:On January 03 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 11:39 Sermokala wrote:
$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.
$197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program.
The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.
Most of these things aren't pork at all they're basic things that the government wants to pay for and groups into other bills to simplify things. I see a ton of cash for ecological things that probably sustained a ton of damage from hurricane sandy and certinly should be qualified as disaster relief. These are real damages that someone is going to have to pay for and at the very least the federal government can pay for that instead of the state which is already in trouble.
Most "budget watchdog" groups tend to be fiscal extremists and have an axe to grind about any sort of government spending trying to find fault in anything that the government does to get people more angry. That's very questionable. Basic things the government wants to pay for are typically paid for within the appropriate budgets. Completely unrelated earmarks are generally inserted into popular bills (as is the case here) because that's the only way they'll pass. All of those seem related to the issue at hand except for the last one which isnt properly explained. Its not like they are asking for money to build a bridge in montana (well I think they tried but it was stripped out). A few items seem questionable to me. Apparently to some in congress as well. It is a huge bill - $60B - so delaying its passage by a couple weeks to get it right might not be a bad idea. It's why it was already stripped down to two parts, a 27 B part with storm relief and a 33 B part with the rest of it. Boehner could have called a vote on the first part. Christie isn't getting mad for no reason. Sure, passing that part first makes sense. But there's still no reason to rush. There's already disaster relief money out there and reconstruction will take a long time and won't really begin until spring for many areas. It's not "rushing". Sandy happened in late October. And since then the area has received normal disaster relief funding. The bulk of the bill in question is reconstruction not relief - almost 2/3 of the money won't be spent for 2 years ( source). This is long-term stuff and big numbers - it should take months to get it right.
Explain which part hasn't been gotten right as of now?
|
Think it is telling how Boehner kept the speakership by just TWO votes. The great political what if if a few had voted for someone who wasn't already leaving Congress.
|
On January 04 2013 07:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 07:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 04 2013 04:22 kwizach wrote:On January 04 2013 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 21:32 Derez wrote:On January 03 2013 13:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 13:00 Adreme wrote:On January 03 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 03 2013 11:39 Sermokala wrote:
$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.
$197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program.
The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.
Most of these things aren't pork at all they're basic things that the government wants to pay for and groups into other bills to simplify things. I see a ton of cash for ecological things that probably sustained a ton of damage from hurricane sandy and certinly should be qualified as disaster relief. These are real damages that someone is going to have to pay for and at the very least the federal government can pay for that instead of the state which is already in trouble.
Most "budget watchdog" groups tend to be fiscal extremists and have an axe to grind about any sort of government spending trying to find fault in anything that the government does to get people more angry. That's very questionable. Basic things the government wants to pay for are typically paid for within the appropriate budgets. Completely unrelated earmarks are generally inserted into popular bills (as is the case here) because that's the only way they'll pass. All of those seem related to the issue at hand except for the last one which isnt properly explained. Its not like they are asking for money to build a bridge in montana (well I think they tried but it was stripped out). A few items seem questionable to me. Apparently to some in congress as well. It is a huge bill - $60B - so delaying its passage by a couple weeks to get it right might not be a bad idea. It's why it was already stripped down to two parts, a 27 B part with storm relief and a 33 B part with the rest of it. Boehner could have called a vote on the first part. Christie isn't getting mad for no reason. Sure, passing that part first makes sense. But there's still no reason to rush. There's already disaster relief money out there and reconstruction will take a long time and won't really begin until spring for many areas. It's not "rushing". Sandy happened in late October. And since then the area has received normal disaster relief funding. The bulk of the bill in question is reconstruction not relief - almost 2/3 of the money won't be spent for 2 years ( source). This is long-term stuff and big numbers - it should take months to get it right. Explain which part hasn't been gotten right as of now?
I don't have a detailed bill in front of me and its not my job to do that. Some of those who's job it is to do just that want more time with it. That's not unreasonable!
|
On January 04 2013 08:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Think it is telling how Boehner kept the speakership by just TWO votes. The great political what if if a few had voted for someone who wasn't already leaving Congress.
Where did you get this 2 votes thing? Cnn says that only 14 republicans declined to vote for bohner some of which didn't vote at all or voted "present".
Heres cnn list of the republicans that didn't vote for Bohner.
REPUBLICANS WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR BOEHNER:
Rep. Justin Amash voted for Raul Labrador
Rep. Jim Bridenstine voted for Eric Cantor
Rep. Paul Broun voted for Allen West
Rep. Louis Gohmert voted for West
Rep. Walter Jones voted for David Walker
Rep. Tim Huelskamp voted Jim Jordan
Rep. Tom Massie voted for Justin Amash
Rep. Steve Pierce voted for Cantor
Rep. Ted Yoho voted for Cantor
Rep. Steve Stockman voted present
Rep. Raul Labrador did not vote
Rep. Mick Mulvaney did not vote
This isn't really that much of a surprise. Apparently stuff like this just happens.
|
Hm? CNN saying only 15 were present with one voting for someone not there.
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/03/boehner-elected-second-term/
Boehner, now in his 12th term as an Ohio congressman, was re-elected Thursday with 220 votes. He endured nine defections from the Republican ranks but was able to just clear the 214-vote threshold he needed to avoid a second round of balloting.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, the only other declared candidate besides Boehner, got 192 votes -- five Democrats defected and did not support her.
|
If Boehner is good at one thing, it is holding power once he's got it. The desire of Republicans to at least minimize the intra-party struggle is evident in this as well. No real name did a big public push to go for Boehner's spot; and it is likely that any attempts this time around we're crushed at the outset. Maybe others are biding their time until midterm elections.
Tea party and conservative opposition were then forced to just throw out protest votes that had no real power. Moderate leadership continues. I'm curious if any opposition moves will gather strength in this new year or if compromise and acquiescence will be the name of the game. It may be pivotal on whether or not Republicans continue to hold the House.
|
On January 04 2013 10:23 Danglars wrote:If Boehner is good at one thing, it is holding power once he's got it. The desire of Republicans to at least minimize the intra-party struggle is evident in this as well. No real name did a big public push to go for Boehner's spot; and it is likely that any attempts this time around we're crushed at the outset. Maybe others are biding their time until midterm elections. Tea party and conservative opposition were then forced to just throw out protest votes that had no real power. Moderate leadership continues. I'm curious if any opposition moves will gather strength in this new year or if compromise and acquiescence will be the name of the game. It may be pivotal on whether or not Republicans continue to hold the House.
I honestly think if Cantor wanted to take Boehner's job he could have pulled off a coup. However taking his job now would mean that all the deals that are cut and passed which have to be passed will have his fingerprints all over it. If I were him I would say the best time to make a move is either if they lose the house in 2014 because minority leader has no real power or go for speaker in 2016 if a republican wins the white house.
|
The mantle of leadership amongst Republicans is not a burden many wish to bear, not for these next two years. I think Adreme is right on; Cantor could have taken it if he had really wanted to. But no one really wants to lead House Republicans, for that potato will most certainly leave burns come 2014.
|
WASHINGTON -- The Senate postponed debate on reforming the filibuster Thursday, as advocates cited the support of 48 senators for eliminating the silent filibuster using the so-called constitutional option, a measure that requires 50 votes plus that of the vice president.
During a briefing on Capitol Hill, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) updated reporters on their joint effort, which is also being shepherded by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
The remaining seven within the Democratic caucus who have yet to sign on are Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a source familiar with the whip count told The Huffington Post.
A coalition of progressive groups is also keeping up the pressure for reform, such as advocacy group CREDO Action, which targeted wavering senators Wednesday.
Despite some opposition, Udall was confident about the proposal’s prospects, telling reporters it has “Big Mo," referencing his uncle, Mo Udall, a former, longtime Arizona congressman. Udall said he anticipates having enough Democratic votes to pass reform using what advocates call the constitutional option, but what opponents refer to as the “nuclear option.”
“I believe we have 51 votes to utilize the constitution and go forward with rules change,” Udall said, implying that enough of the remaining seven would swing their way to push them over the top. If the chamber was deadlocked at 50-50, Vice President Joe Biden, who supports filibuster reform, would break the tie.
Source
|
On January 04 2013 08:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Think it is telling how Boehner kept the speakership by just TWO votes. The great political what if if a few had voted for someone who wasn't already leaving Congress. Where did you get this 2 votes thing? Cnn says that only 14 republicans declined to vote for bohner some of which didn't vote at all or voted "present".
The Speaker requires a majority of votes, not a plurality. Unless Democrats were voting for Boehner, only 17 Republicans had to defect to force a second round of voting.
|
On January 04 2013 14:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- The Senate postponed debate on reforming the filibuster Thursday, as advocates cited the support of 48 senators for eliminating the silent filibuster using the so-called constitutional option, a measure that requires 50 votes plus that of the vice president.
During a briefing on Capitol Hill, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) updated reporters on their joint effort, which is also being shepherded by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
The remaining seven within the Democratic caucus who have yet to sign on are Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a source familiar with the whip count told The Huffington Post.
A coalition of progressive groups is also keeping up the pressure for reform, such as advocacy group CREDO Action, which targeted wavering senators Wednesday.
Despite some opposition, Udall was confident about the proposal’s prospects, telling reporters it has “Big Mo," referencing his uncle, Mo Udall, a former, longtime Arizona congressman. Udall said he anticipates having enough Democratic votes to pass reform using what advocates call the constitutional option, but what opponents refer to as the “nuclear option.”
“I believe we have 51 votes to utilize the constitution and go forward with rules change,” Udall said, implying that enough of the remaining seven would swing their way to push them over the top. If the chamber was deadlocked at 50-50, Vice President Joe Biden, who supports filibuster reform, would break the tie. Source
We can only hope that it passes. It's rather ridiculous that normal governance requires more than a majority right now.
|
wait they can change the rules of the senate just like that? I still don't like it for gerrymanderings sake. I guess its fair to make senate the same as congress though.
|
On January 04 2013 20:41 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- The Senate postponed debate on reforming the filibuster Thursday, as advocates cited the support of 48 senators for eliminating the silent filibuster using the so-called constitutional option, a measure that requires 50 votes plus that of the vice president.
During a briefing on Capitol Hill, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) updated reporters on their joint effort, which is also being shepherded by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
The remaining seven within the Democratic caucus who have yet to sign on are Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a source familiar with the whip count told The Huffington Post.
A coalition of progressive groups is also keeping up the pressure for reform, such as advocacy group CREDO Action, which targeted wavering senators Wednesday.
Despite some opposition, Udall was confident about the proposal’s prospects, telling reporters it has “Big Mo," referencing his uncle, Mo Udall, a former, longtime Arizona congressman. Udall said he anticipates having enough Democratic votes to pass reform using what advocates call the constitutional option, but what opponents refer to as the “nuclear option.”
“I believe we have 51 votes to utilize the constitution and go forward with rules change,” Udall said, implying that enough of the remaining seven would swing their way to push them over the top. If the chamber was deadlocked at 50-50, Vice President Joe Biden, who supports filibuster reform, would break the tie. Source We can only hope that it passes. It's rather ridiculous that normal governance requires more than a majority right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.
So it's okay when the Democrats do it but not the Republicans?
The filibuster is vital to giving a voice to the minority party in American politics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality.
|
On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality.
And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
