PoliticsSioux Nation

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: SiouxPal who wrote (183348)12/20/2009 8:46:22 PM
From: manalagi
3 Recommendations   of 308630
Ooooh Sioux, there are bad fat cat bankers, but, let's read about a wonderful man named Sol Price who died a few days ago. He limited his salary to 10 times the average workers. How those fat cats? They earn up to 500 times the average employees.

Remember the name: Sol Price. This is a nice read for a Sunday.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: SiouxPal12/20/2009 9:02:04 PM
1 Recommendation   of 308630
Feingold: Obama Responsible For Loss Of Public Option

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: SiouxPal12/20/2009 9:19:13 PM
1 Recommendation   of 308630
Obama Transfers Balls to Lieberman in White House Ceremony
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - In a White House ceremony that many historians are calling unprecedented, President Barack Obama today transferred his balls to the custody of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Called the "Balls Summit" by White House aides, the ceremony was intended as an official acknowledgment of Mr. Lieberman's complete control of the nation's health care future.

"There are now four branches of government," the President said. "Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Lieberman."

Mr. Lieberman explained his decision to oppose the Medicare buy-in he supported just three months ago, saying, "I'm a bigger dick now."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Mannie who wrote (183266)12/20/2009 9:47:39 PM
From: stockman_scott
   of 308630
'I have found that if you love
life, life will love you back.'

~ Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: SiouxPal12/20/2009 10:07:03 PM
   of 308630
Natalie won Survivor!
Russell thought he had it.
Another fun season for me.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: SiouxPal who wrote (183353)12/20/2009 11:44:34 PM
From: Wharf Rat
1 Recommendation   of 308630
A Dangerous Dysfunction
Published: December 20, 2009
Unless some legislator pulls off a last-minute double-cross, health care reform will pass the Senate this week. Count me among those who consider this an awesome achievement. It’s a seriously flawed bill, we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge step forward.

It was, however, a close-run thing. And the fact that it was such a close thing shows that the Senate — and, therefore, the U.S. government as a whole — has become ominously dysfunctional.

After all, Democrats won big last year, running on a platform that put health reform front and center. In any other advanced democracy this would have given them the mandate and the ability to make major changes. But the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a filibuster — a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule — turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter. And it gave a handful of wavering senators extraordinary power to shape the bill.

Now consider what lies ahead. We need fundamental financial reform. We need to deal with climate change. We need to deal with our long-run budget deficit. What are the chances that we can do all that — or, I’m tempted to say, any of it — if doing anything requires 60 votes in a deeply polarized Senate?

Some people will say that it has always been this way, and that we’ve managed so far. But it wasn’t always like this. Yes, there were filibusters in the past — most notably by segregationists trying to block civil rights legislation. But the modern system, in which the minority party uses the threat of a filibuster to block every bill it doesn’t like, is a recent creation.

The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.

Some conservatives argue that the Senate’s rules didn’t stop former President George W. Bush from getting things done. But this is misleading, on two levels.

First, Bush-era Democrats weren’t nearly as determined to frustrate the majority party, at any cost, as Obama-era Republicans. Certainly, Democrats never did anything like what Republicans did last week: G.O.P. senators held up spending for the Defense Department — which was on the verge of running out of money — in an attempt to delay action on health care.

More important, however, Mr. Bush was a buy-now-pay-later president. He pushed through big tax cuts, but never tried to pass spending cuts to make up for the revenue loss. He rushed the nation into war, but never asked Congress to pay for it. He added an expensive drug benefit to Medicare, but left it completely unfunded. Yes, he had legislative victories; but he didn’t show that Congress can make hard choices and act responsibly, because he never asked it to.

So now that hard choices must be made, how can we reform the Senate to make such choices possible?

Back in the mid-1990s two senators — Tom Harkin and, believe it or not, Joe Lieberman — introduced a bill to reform Senate procedures. (Management wants me to make it clear that in my last column I wasn’t endorsing inappropriate threats against Mr. Lieberman.) Sixty votes would still be needed to end a filibuster at the beginning of debate, but if that vote failed, another vote could be held a couple of days later requiring only 57 senators, then another, and eventually a simple majority could end debate. Mr. Harkin says that he’s considering reintroducing that proposal, and he should.

But if such legislation is itself blocked by a filibuster — which it almost surely would be — reformers should turn to other options. Remember, the Constitution sets up the Senate as a body with majority — not supermajority — rule. So the rule of 60 can be changed. A Congressional Research Service report from 2005, when a Republican majority was threatening to abolish the filibuster so it could push through Bush judicial nominees, suggests several ways this could happen — for example, through a majority vote changing Senate rules on the first day of a new session.

Nobody should meddle lightly with long-established parliamentary procedure. But our current situation is unprecedented: America is caught between severe problems that must be addressed and a minority party determined to block action on every front. Doing nothing is not an option — not unless you want the nation to sit motionless, with an effectively paralyzed government, waiting for financial, environmental and fiscal crises to strike.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (183354)12/21/2009 12:03:56 AM
From: Wharf Rat
1 Recommendation   of 308630
Olympia Snowe Will Vote Against Health Care Reform
"It's only been 97 years since TR proposed universal care; I'm waiting for 100".

First Posted: 12-20-09 12:50 PM Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), considered one of very few Republicans who might vote for the Senate health care bill, said Sunday that she would not.

"This process denies us the opportunity to thoroughly and carefully and deliberately evaluate what's at stake," she said on CBS.

She also told the New York Times it was a rushed vote on a "a take-it-or-leave-it package."

Democrats no longer need Snowe's vote -- but the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen points out that they courted her anyway only to have her object over the debate's speed.

I just can't figure out what on earth Snowe is talking about. She voted with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee reform plan, but now appears to be looking for an excuse to oppose the effort. But to sound even remotely credible, Snowe will have to do better than this.

Snowe has been complaining about the speed of the legislative process since July, but therein lies the point: how could this possibl[y] get slower?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (183355)12/21/2009 12:09:34 AM
From: T L Comiskey
   of 308630
"This process denies us the opportunity to thoroughly and carefully and deliberately evaluate what's at stake,"

lil jrs war machine..

fook her
with Karl Rove's
dip stick...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (183355)12/21/2009 12:22:20 AM
From: Gary Mohilner
2 Recommendations   of 308630
In the end the Republicans are once again placing Party above Country. In fact, both Parties tend to function in this way far to often. There was a time when Country meant more than Party, but that seems to have disappeared some time ago.

In November of 2010 the public will have the opportunity to change the balance of power again, if they do, practically nothing meaningful will happen for at least two more years.

Some criticize Obama for not making change happen faster, others say it's to fast. In my lifetime I've never seen a President take on so much so quickly. While all results are not perfect, I believe we're moving in the right direction. I hope voters will see it to, if the balance of power does change, voters need to recognize they're defeating the change they wanted in 2008. Does anyone really want to go back to what we had with Bush.

Personally I wish independents were voted in, people who'd actually put Country first because they really didn't have a party, that to me would be the best outcome until Politicians can once again remember that Country comes first.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (183339)12/21/2009 1:06:38 AM
From: bagwajohn
1 Recommendation   of 308630
This guy was really good as well. Jaco was a legend well before I ever heard of him, although I did have some Weather Report music and didn't connect the dots. Funny how that works.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.