What Democrats done to protect us?

[Newscaster]

The title question demands that you understand the working of Congress because just spouting off according to party affiliation means not very much.
For legislation in this coungress to pass, there much be 60 votes of approval for the bill in the Senate. In this Congress, the Democrats are the majority party but just by a razor thin margin of two or three votes. With that kind of margin, there is not much you can do.
Now lets say the Democrats come up with a new bill. They write it up and introduce it and it passes by that razor thin majority. Okay, so far so good. It goes to the House of represenatives where the Democrats also lead by a thin margin. It passes. But now, the President vetoes the bill for one of two reasons. It either goes against his program or just because it is a bill from the Democrats. But whatever the reason for the veto, the Democrats can still get it passed if they can get enough votes, more even than they needed for the initial passage to overturn the veto. For this, because of that razor thin majority, they need the help of Republicans to sink the veto. But the Republicans stay where they are and do not help qnd the beill is dead until it can be resurrected the following year.
Then you say, what have the democrats done to protect us. I'd day they have tried to do a lot but have been skunked by Republicans who have blocked passage every which way from Sunday. The Republicans also have the ability to block legislation from getting to the House or Senate floor for a vote. They can filibuster, they can table it for "more study" or they just ignore it.
Now, if you go to the Congressional Record and count how many bills have gone down to defeat along strict party lines, you will see a very distinct pattern taking place. You will see a concerted effort by the GOP to block the Democrats from doing anything.
But there is good news. After the 2008 election, the Democratic majroty is expected to grow to the point where Democratic sponsored legislation will be "veto-proof." And there will be a Democrat in the white House so the veto will no longer be a looming problem.
Now, I am sure someone will dispute me so I suggest you take a look at the Children's Health Care Bill. Bush has twice in the last week, announced he will veto the bill because it is irresponsible. Health care for children is irresponsible??????? If the president vetoes that bill, there are a handful of states that will soon run out of funds to provide such health care. Now, which side is irresponsible? They side that wants to spend money so our kids are healthy, or the side thatrefuses to maybe allow the raising of funds thru a small tax here or there instead of wasting the money on a war that is going nowhere and robbing these kids of the help they need? And that includes the children of our young men and women who put their lives on the Line in Iraq every single day.

The question is not What Have The Democrats Done to Protect Us? The question should be What Have The Reopublicans Done to Prevent Us From Doing Anything At This Time?

[lily]

If the president vetoes that bill, there are a handful of states that will soon run out of funds to provide such health care. Now, which side is irresponsible? They side that wants to spend money so our kids are healthy, or the side thatrefuses to maybe allow the raising of funds thru a small tax here or there instead of wasting the money on a war that is going nowhere and robbing these kids of the help they need?

I know this isn' the direction you wanted this discussion to go and if I'm taking it off topic on the first post, I apologize. I just want to clarify this as I understand it.

To pay for this there isn't going to be a small tax here or there.....isn't it going to be a 61 cent tax on cigarettes? The only ones that are going to be effected by any tax at all are smokers, and studies show smoking is usually a habit of the poor......so in fact they will be paying for the insurance themselves.

So it makes me ask the question........is Bush's veto really to save his own health care program and make the Democrats look more ineffective or are the tobacco lobbiests that strong.

Newscaster........if this is not the direction you want this discussion to go, I have no problem moving my "rant" to a new thread.

[Newscaster]

Lily, Bush has no more program to save. Bush is bankrupt when it comes to ideas. Now, everything he does is negative. He brags about not taxing anyone and then he goes and spends like a drunken sailor. He does not activate programs that have already been approved and funded and uses those funds for war. And he has the gall toi say he will veto the Health Care for Children's Bill because it is irresponsible. If you want an example of irresponsibility, look at almost every move he and Karl Rove made during the past 6 1/2 years. They trash the constitution, they ignore the law of the land and they do whatever the hell they want to do.
What have the Democrats done......they have done everything they can do within the present limitations but once the voters have their say and the Democratic Majority grows to a point where it is veto proof and with a Democrat in the White House......you will see just how obstructionist the Republicans have been and still are. And a cigarette tax is not the issue. If you dont want to pay a cigarette tax, stop smoking and you will feel better and you will save a hell of a lot more money than just the tax money. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

[lily]

Lily, Bush has no more program to save. Bush is bankrupt when it comes to
ideas. Now, everything he does is negative. He brags about not taxing anyone
and then he goes and spends like a drunken sailor............

Newscaster........you are preaching to the choir on this....I'm in total
agreement.


And a cigarette tax is not the issue. If you dont want to pay a cigarette
tax, stop smoking and you will feel better and you will save a hell of a lot
more money than just the tax money. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to
figure it out.

It is an issue, as the Democrats have the "label" of raising your taxes. This will not come out of income tax, but a tax on cigarettes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101889.html?wpisrc=newsletter). I'm not complaining about the tax on cigarettes, nor do I want to turn this into another discussion about should you smoke or not.......that one has been done to death. I'm simply making the argument that in my opinion, this isn't going to take money out of anyone's paycheck and it will probably be mostly paid by the poor that are receiving it, so what is Bush's problem?

Again, I'm sorry for taking your thread off topic as you wanted the discussion to go in another direction.....so I've had my say and I'll let it get back to what the discussion should be about, the working of congress.

:thumbsup:

[Newscaster]

No problem Lily....I still consider you a friend. :-)

[lily]

:thumbsup:

[Newscaster]

Mr E-male, 60 votes is needed to pass legislation, first to achieve cloture and secondly to make it veto proof. Democrats, just recently failed to get the 60 needed when Repubs would not break ranks with their party and the bill to end the war failed. I suggest you read up on the senate a bit more throughly. One sentence in one section does not tell the whole story. Its a lot more complicated than that. By the way, the word FALSE is not spelled flase.

[Marley]

Mr. Newscaster:

You posted a falsehood, deal with it.

I provided the truth directly from the US Senate web site.

I suggest you cease posting misinformation, and stick to the truth while I'm around.

You wrote your own lie, no one made you type and post the lie you posted.

A simple majority is all that's needed to enact legislation in the US Senate!

Please stop posting lies and misinformation Mr. Newscaster.

[Newscaster]

Emale.......do you know what a semi-colon is? Look in a mirror.

[Marley]

LOL

Concentrate Newscaster!

The topic is not punctuation, why you're so desparate to change the topic to punctuation escapes me.

Bills pass the US Senate by simple majority vote.

PLEASE, lets base our discussions on truth and fact, not your lies.

[AnnEsthesia]

emale, but they have to GET to a vote. If there is a filibuster, than there never is a vote.

[Marley]

So all Senate action must include a filibuster huh?

That's "news" to me!

[AnnEsthesia]

No, but unless they pass it with enough to stop it from being vetoed, it never becomes law.

[Marley]

The president vetoes 100% of legislation that passes the Senate????

[Marley]

LOL

Okay, I like you Ann, you're a good sort and a good sport, so here, here's the punch line:

First this guy posts "The title question demands that you understand the working of Congress because just spouting off according to party affiliation means not very much."

Then, immediately, his next sentence is (note the bracketed words) "For [extremely partisan contentious] legislation in this coungress to pass, there much be 60 votes of approval for the bill in the Senate.


So ultimately, all this yahoo is doing is "spouting off according to party affiliation" in a thread and post whose very first sentence chastises others for " spouting off according to party affiliation."

What a joke.

This guy deserves to get yanked around, just a little bit more.

Come out come out where ever you are Newscaster![hr]Oh look, the insults have arrived!

Can't defend your point huh?

2nd grade school yard insults is the top of your game huh Newscaster?

Face it bud, you posted a lie, after first marinating it in hypocracy, to the point where it fouled to pure irony.

[Newscaster]

See e-male, you still dont have a clue. In any ordinary cobfgress, a simple majority is fine but this is no prdinary congress. This is one where a bunch of maniacs are in occurapttion at the white house and anytyhing the democ rats come up with is vetoes by the president. Now I am sure you have been awakew and conscious for at least part of the time, to have realized that in order for democrats to gt legislation passed, they must have the backing of 60 members of the senate to choke off cloture and to override a veto. Now, if you cannot understand that, you go back to your junior high civics book and read up about the real world, not the one you think you live in.

[Newscaster]

I pointed out YOUR typo becsuse it was in stark contrast to the excellence you ascribe to yourself. Mine was also a typo, so we are even but even only in regard to those two words. Beyond that, you are totally unarmed.

[Marley]

Still trying to wrest the argument to me so no one notices the lies and disinformation you post?

GOOD legislation still requires the simple majority it always has Newscaster.

Radical extremist leftist legislation that people like you Newscaster who spout off according to party affiliation might need the extras you try to pass off as the norm.

[heyjude]

Isn't the topic what Democrats have done to protect us? Not how well someone types.

I think that if the American people want protection, they are going to have to vote every Republican out of office. We don't need any more wars of choice. They are not making us any safer. Quite the opposite. Until the Republicans get mature enough to stop a president from bankrupting the government and endangering the people's safety, we don't need them in office.

[Marley]

Isn't the topic what Democrats have done to protect us? Not how well someone types.

Newscaster was busted posting lies and disinformation so he had to change the topic and attack me instead of admitting his lies and disinformation.

I think that if the American people want protection, they are going to have to vote every Republican out of office.

Yeah, "protection," like Vinnie collects from Brooklyn shop keepers.

We don't need any more wars of choice.

I don't know what they are, but I know Democrats authorized Military Force in Iraq October 2002.

Until the Republicans get mature enough to stop a president from bankrupting the government

LOL More disinformation!!!

Democrats now control spending, right?

Pop quiz:

Spending under Democrats is

A) Greater than
B) Leass than

Spending under the previous Republican controlled congress.

[heyjude]

None of the spending the Democrats have proposed raise the governments spending as much as the annual spending increases under the Republicans did.

The Republicans have shown that they don't have the guts to oppose the Republican president, even when they don't agree with him.

[heyjude]

B. Did you count Bush's budget for fighting an unlawful war?

[Marley]

More lies and disinformation!!!

FYI:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

"unlawful war" ROTFLMAO

Poor Juse has to make up lies and qubble and squirm.

Facts are facts.

Democrats are rolling along spending more than Hastert ever did! So, PUH-LEEZ spare me last years hollow, empty, dishonest talking points.

[lily]

Democrats now control spending, right?

Pop quiz:

Spending under Democrats is

A) Greater than
B) Leass than

Spending under the previous Republican controlled congress.


C) Pay Go. How long are you going to run up the credit card and only pay the interest? Doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work in Government.

Like it or not, email.....the chickens have come home to roost. Are the Democrats as bad at spending as the Republicans.......You betcha!!!! The difference is we try and pay our bills. Now if the Democrats are going to have to pay the bills they inherited, then I guess that means they too will have to cut down on spending. Someone's got to be responsible........but to put the blame on the Democrats for the mess we're in now is laughable.

[Marley]

C) Pay Go. How long are you going to run up the credit card and only pay the interest? Doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work in Government.

You telling me you waited 30 years to save up and buy your house?

Or you borrowed the money?

HOPEFULLY, deficit spending to, say, pave an interstate highway system, for example, is a capital expenditure properly leveraged.

Bad analogy Lily, it doesn't hold water.

That said, sure politicians can be irrespeonsible, that's why I ask, are Democrats spending less? Or more?

Jude was just parroting dishonest, disposable rhetoric designed to win election 2006.

"Pay/go" is a joke, no one ever has, or ever will, look back to check and see if the equation they used to justify whatever spending or taxing actually panned out. "Pay/go" is bull/shit based on absolutely phoney numbers. "projections" is the five dollar word for it. NEVER held accountable to actual results.

So spare me.

I haven't "blamed" anyone for anything either. Show me. I simply put out there the truth, that the Democrats in power right now will spend more than the Republican they succeeded.

[lily]

C) Pay Go. How long are you going to run up the credit card and only pay the interest? Doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work in Government.

You telling me you waited 30 years to save up and buy your house?

Or you borrowed the money?

HOPEFULLY, deficit spending to, say, pave an interstate highway system, for example, is a capital expenditure properly leveraged.

Bad analogy Lily, it doesn't hold water.

If you say so........but.......while I was buying my house, I paid more than the interest on it and I didn't go out and buy another house, while still paying for the first.

That said, sure politicians can be irrespeonsible, that's why I ask, are Democrats spending less? Or more?
I don't know......they've only been there 9 months.......so going on that I have to say a hell of a lot less.


"Pay/go" is a joke, no one ever has, or ever will, look back to check and see if the equation they used to justify whatever spending or taxing actually panned out. "Pay/go" is bull/shit based on absolutely phoney numbers. "projections" is the five dollar word for it. NEVER held accountable to actual results.

So spare me.

Consider yourself spared. You don't like the idea. I do. Sure beats the hell out of what we're doing now.

I haven't "blamed" anyone for anything either. Show me. I simply put out there the truth, that the Democrats in power right now will spend more than the Republican they succeeded.

Again........that's obviously your opinion.

[AnnEsthesia]

C) Pay Go. How long are you going to run up the credit card and only pay the interest? Doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work in Government.

You telling me you waited 30 years to save up and buy your house?

Or you borrowed the money?

HOPEFULLY, deficit spending to, say, pave an interstate highway system, for example, is a capital expenditure properly leveraged.

Bad analogy Lily, it doesn't hold water.

If you say so........but.......while I was buying my house, I paid more than the interest on it and I didn't go out and buy another house, while still paying for the first.



Nor did you take out a loan that your grandkids would still be paying for since you would have nothing for them to sell in order to end the debt.

[Marley]

You don't like the idea.

Sure Lily, just make it up. Whatever you do don't ASK ME if I "like the idea" just keep warm and fuzzy making shit up abotu me to make you feel better okay dear?

FYI the IDEA is fine, it's just never actually practiced, a fake, phoney fraudulent illusion is practiced in place of decent idea.

Get it lily?

Yet?

Again........that's obviously your opinion.

LOL

Making it up "Again" Lily.

I made a simple request: "show me."

You didn't show me Lily, you made it up to suit yourself.

For something so "obvious" you sure couldn't FIND IT ANYWHERE could you? LOL

Nor did you take out a loan that your grandkids would still be paying for since you would have nothing for them to sell in order to end the debt.

You don't "sell" anything. Maybe this financial discussion is above your pay grade? The US Treasury debt is secured by an "income producing property." Like any REIT, any corporation, any bank. The pols know how much they can borrow, and they borrow to the hilt.

Think of it like a patent, pretend the government owns the patent for Microsoft software. You don't "sell" an asset like that. Instead you "cash-out refi" it. You borrow a huge chumk of change, as much as you can, which equals the debt service the asset can service with its income. But in this case, the "patent," the "intangible asset," is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. And if you check for yourself, you'll see how highly correleated this analogy is. Take $10,000 down to your local brokerage and tell them to invest it in the safest thing possible. I betcha they'll sell you a US Treasury Security. Then realize that when YOU borrow money, the bank wants security, collateral, a mortgae or lien on your property. What's mortgaged with US Treasury debt? But why did your broker just sell it to you? Class dismissed.

[preservanation]

If you think that dems are working to protect America, then you must think that Ahmandinejad is as well.
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): My creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.Here's John Kerry July 24th of this year...
KERRY: The president is trying to scare the American people into believing that Al-Qaeda is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq.


AHMADINEJAD (via translator): They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people.Russ Feingold, May 8th, 2006.
FEINGOLD: The president violating the law by authorizing illegal domestic wiretapping.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Columbia yesterday.
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years these people are displaced. For 60 years these people are being killed. For 60 years on a daily basis there are conflict and terror. For 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads!Jimmy Carter on The Tonight Show, December 11th, 2006. CARTER: In Palestinian territory, there's horrible persecution of the Palestinians who live on their own land, and they have occupied the land. They have confiscated. They've colonized it, and they've forced Palestinians away from their homes, away from their pastures, away from their fields, cut down their olive trees and severely persecuted the Palestinians.




AHMADINEJAD (via translator): This is not Guantanamo Bay! This is not a Baghdad prison! This is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib. Senator Durbin, floor of the Senate, June 14th, 2005.DURBIN: If I read this to you and didn't tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that's not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their own prisoners.
I got this from Rush http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092507/content/01125108.member.html

Took his comments out so as not to "offend" libs, nor did I want to be responsible for their heads spinning off their necks.

All these quotes are accurate and just like Hillary they spout the same lines as our enemies.

Whenever I hear a tape from AQ, I think I'm listening to Dem talking points.
I don't know if the Terrorists are copying them or the other way around, but one thing is clear, this dem rhetoric is not helping.

I wish the leftists understood that their words are being used by the terrorists for propaganda and recruiting purposes.
Bush is not creating more Terrorists, THE DEMS ARE!

[AnnEsthesia]

Nor did you take out a loan that your grandkids would still be paying for since you would have nothing for them to sell in order to end the debt.

You don't "sell" anything. Maybe this financial discussion is above your pay grade? The US Treasury debt is secured by an "income producing property." Like any REIT, any corporation, any bank. The pols know how much they can borrow, and they borrow to the hilt.

Think of it like a patent, pretend the government owns the patent for Microsoft software. You don't "sell" an asset like that. Instead you "cash-out refi" it. You borrow a huge chumk of change, as much as you can, which equals the debt service the asset can service with its income. But in this case, the "patent," the "intangible asset," is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. And if you check for yourself, you'll see how highly correleated this analogy is. Take $10,000 down to your local brokerage and tell them to invest it in the safest thing possible. I betcha they'll sell you a US Treasury Security. Then realize that when YOU borrow money, the bank wants security, collateral, a mortgae or lien on your property. What's mortgaged with US Treasury debt? But why did your broker just sell it to you? Class dismissed.


You know emale, I am going to stop bothering to read your posts if you keep refusing to read and actually understand the discussion happening before you start your little diatribes.

Lily said you would not borrow more than you could easily repay. I said that you would also not borrow money that would be required to be repayed by your grandkids, since if you were buying a house, they could always sell it to offset the debt.

Stop being obnoxious and follow along.

If the US debt is made due tomorrow, how will the government pay it? And what will that do to our country?

[Marley]

you would not borrow more than you could easily repay.

Honey, there's not a REIT in the world planning to fully repay their mortgages, deal with it.

Income producing properties get leveraged for the benefit of the owners.

Since we got a 16th amendment, you and I are owned and we're income producing property.

The problem here is I can face the truth and deal with it, good, bad or indifferent.

And trite weak lame liberal slogans annoy me so I eagerly shoot them down on sight.[hr]If the US debt is made due tomorrow,

Do yourself a big favor, look into what your boy Slick and his Enron crony Rubin did to the Treasury debt.

They refi'd the county's debt down the "yield curve" to cook the books, same as their patron Kenny Lay did, at the cost of exposing us, the country, the treasury to markey rate volitility.

Really, you're out of your league here, engage me if you please in this area, but be ready to either have an open mind and learn or get all mad and huffy from "congative dissonance!"