Senate stays in session

[Gunny]

What's even sadder, I'd vote for him again over any of the GOP offerings. For whatever reason we are not getting good candidates to choose from and haven't for a long time.

I'm not looking for perfection, just some basic honesty and enough intelligence to address the issues of the day. I don't have a problem with knowing about family or religion, but those should not be the significant signposts of the candidate. I do care if there is a 'history' of extra-marital affairs ala Kennedy or Clinton, just too much probability for harm.

I would actually vote for Thompson before Bush again, and consider Romney.

I really don't think the President of the US having extramarital affairs sets a good example. At the same time, Bill IS married to Hillary. I can see why he would.

 

[Annie]

I would actually vote for Thompson before Bush again, and consider Romney.

I really don't think the President of the US having extramarital affairs sets a good example. At the same time, Bill IS married to Hillary. I can see why he would.

I want to like Romney, I just can't. Thompson, perhaps, but I think he'll be out before the end of January, just not enough money.

 

[Gunny]

I want to like Romney, I just can't. Thompson, perhaps, but I think he'll be out before the end of January, just not enough money.

Not sure about the money thing, but he definitely isn't doing well PR-wise. As usual, he's doing his own thing when he should be "playing the game" just a little better. That maverick act may work okay for a state election, but I don't think it plays all that well on the National stage.

I haven't looked to hard at Romney. So far, all I've heard "wrong" with him is he is a Mormon. I've known a few Mormons. Never saw they weren't just normal people except the ones that ride their bikes up to my door in their little blue pants-white shirt with tie outfit. And at least *they* go away when you say no unlike a certain other religion that will walk right up while you're mowing the lawn and expect you to stop.

 

[Annie]

Not sure about the money thing, but he definitely isn't doing well PR-wise. As usual, he's doing his own thing when he should be "playing the game" just a little better. That maverick act may work okay for a state election, but I don't think it plays all that well on the National stage.

I haven't looked to hard at Romney. So far, all I've heard "wrong" with him is he is a Mormon. I've known a few Mormons. Never saw they weren't just normal people except the ones that ride their bikes up to my door in their little blue pants-white shirt with tie outfit. And at least *they* go away when you say no unlike a certain other religion that will walk right up while you're mowing the lawn and expect you to stop.

It's not the Mormon thing, that doesn't bother me. I usually like Orin Hatch, never Reid, both Mormons. Romney just strikes me a bit too slick, he also seems to have that problem of Al Gore, overstating an already impressive background. No need, just can't seem to help himself.

 

[pegwinn]

That's the thing, they AREN'T kooks. And dismissing them as kooks is non-productive and keeps this country in the mess it is. If you think they're extremists, I'd suggest you haven't really looked at the extremes.

Hi Jillian, long time no argue. I agree that name calling is non-productive. Personally I think that the current majority leadership is extreme left. Now, I may be an opinionated lout from time to time, but when I make a promise I keep it. So far the current dems of all angles are not keeping (thank goodness) the bulk of the promises they made.

As for the dems being obstructive. That's simply untrue. They got their faces pushed into the mud for six years while the loonies on the right did whatever they felt with. If the repubs didn't get their agenda "pushed", it's because they chose not to. Not a single vote went to the floor of the house for those six years where the bill couldn't be passed without a single democrat voting for it.

About that name calling thing.... I agree. The R's had a prime time opportunity to get some great things done, and they blew it. We could have had a fairtax which would strip pols of a lot of their personal power. We could have hunted OBL down and hung his sorry ass from the USS Constitutions yard arm. We could have instituted PAX America in the ME instead of pussyfooting around. We could have opened up ANWAR (the caribou would have to cope for awhile) and ensured that the energy up and downs didn't happen.

Euro path? mediocrity? Silliness.... how about proper management? An agenda that isn't xenophobic and chicken-hawk driven? An agenda that follows the "humble foreign policy" and fiscal management that Bush SAID he was running on?? An agenda that stops the infringements on the Fourth Amendment? That ends rendition and restores habeas corpus? Those things would be nice. The ball-less wonders that are the democratic party haven't even used their majority in congress to stop the loonies from the path they've misled the country down.... haven't even taken a stand.

So much for the "extremes"....

Actually, our current foreign policy is far less intrusive than during the cold war. The shooting in the ME is in direct response to an attack on us. And while you and others don't like it, the surge is working. And, we are attracting a large amount of nutjobs over to Iraq so we can kill them there instead of in our shopping malls. The Dems are actually being pragmatic. Like the dog chasing the car, now that they've caught it, they don't know what to do with it. You, being a trained attorney, have an advantage over me on the 4th. But IMNECTHO the wire tapping and the PACT are two things that are needed. In war, trust me, you do things you would never consider doing in peacetime. Happy New Year Jill......

Most important things in life depend on making the right choices. To do so requires sound judgment, for which neither intellect nor study may suffice; and, whenever in doubt, one need have resort to good advice. It is even the more so in politics, for it is not always a question of “right” or “left,” but in choosing rightly and wisely. This last has been the major fault and failing of the present administration, for President Bush - like him or not - has repeatedly made bad decisions, for which he received bad advice; and in which mistakes he has wrongly chosen to persist, compounding the error. It is time now that President Bush be made to see the error of his ways.

I have to disagree. The defining moment which set the stage for GW's presidency was 911. War is not something you rehearse for unless your job description is 0311 (Rifleman) and you get to expend rounds for a living. He has indeed received bad advice. And yet, progress has been made. Personally I would have canned some key advisers long before they went. But, can you name a President who hasn't screwed the pooch?

We - all of us - have a large stake in seeing that President Bush does not fail, for it is on “We the People” that the consequences of such failure will be visited; and not just ourselves, but upon our children and grandchildren and generations to come. It is time that we put aside our selfish, partisan interests, and unite in the cause of our country, our Constitution, and the commonweal. In this we must not fail, we must not hesitate or falter, but we must act with diligence and courage in the performance of our duties as citizens, both in choosing our representatives and elected officials and in seeing that they act in accordance with the law and in the interests of our nation.

Agreed.

What's even sadder, I'd vote for him again over any of the GOP offerings. For whatever reason we are not getting good candidates to choose from and haven't for a long time.

I'm not looking for perfection, just some basic honesty and enough intelligence to address the issues of the day. I don't have a problem with knowing about family or religion, but those should not be the significant signposts of the candidate. I do care if there is a 'history' of extra-marital affairs ala Kennedy or Clinton, just too much probability for harm.

I like Ron Paul. I don't think he has a hope in hell, but I like his voting record. I like that he actually says things like "That's not allowed according to the constitution" on a regular basis and in public. He's a RINO. Truthfully he should be in the Constitution Party. But, 3rd parties have no chance because they are focus on only one ideal part of the political spectrum.

It's not the Mormon thing, that doesn't bother me. I usually like Orin Hatch, never Reid, both Mormons. Romney just strikes me a bit too slick, he also seems to have that problem of Al Gore, overstating an already impressive background. No need, just can't seem to help himself.

I just don't trust him, or Rudy. Thompson is so low key that there is little if any action going on. I see him dropping out along with Hunter fairly soon.

 

[Annie]

Hi Jillian, long time no argue. I agree that name calling is non-productive. Personally I think that the current majority leadership is extreme left. Now, I may be an opinionated lout from time to time, but when I make a promise I keep it. So far the current dems of all angles are not keeping (thank goodness) the bulk of the promises they made.

About that name calling thing.... I agree. The R's had a prime time opportunity to get some great things done, and they blew it. We could have had a fairtax which would strip pols of a lot of their personal power. We could have hunted OBL down and hung his sorry ass from the USS Constitutions yard arm. We could have instituted PAX America in the ME instead of pussyfooting around. We could have opened up ANWAR (the caribou would have to cope for awhile) and ensured that the energy up and downs didn't happen.

Actually, our current foreign policy is far less intrusive than during the cold war. The shooting in the ME is in direct response to an attack on us. And while you and others don't like it, the surge is working. And, we are attracting a large amount of nutjobs over to Iraq so we can kill them there instead of in our shopping malls. The Dems are actually being pragmatic. Like the dog chasing the car, now that they've caught it, they don't know what to do with it. You, being a trained attorney, have an advantage over me on the 4th. But IMNECTHO the wire tapping and the PACT are two things that are needed. In war, trust me, you do things you would never consider doing in peacetime. Happy New Year Jill......

I have to disagree. The defining moment which set the stage for GW's presidency was 911. War is not something you rehearse for unless your job description is 0311 (Rifleman) and you get to expend rounds for a living. He has indeed received bad advice. And yet, progress has been made. Personally I would have canned some key advisers long before they went. But, can you name a President who hasn't screwed the pooch?

Agreed.

I like Ron Paul. I don't think he has a hope in hell, but I like his voting record. I like that he actually says things like "That's not allowed according to the constitution" on a regular basis and in public. He's a RINO. Truthfully he should be in the Constitution Party. But, 3rd parties have no chance because they are focus on only one ideal part of the political spectrum.

I just don't trust him, or Rudy. Thompson is so low key that there is little if any action going on. I see him dropping out along with Hunter fairly soon.

Phil, you know I respect you, but I would definately trust Romney, (whom I do not), over Ron Paul. Please, read a fraction of the things I've found on him. Happy New Year!

 

[pegwinn]

Phil, you know I respect you, but I would definately trust Romney, (whom I do not), over Ron Paul. Please, read a fraction of the things I've found on him. Happy New Year!

All I know about Paul and Romney is what I've seen on the babble box or read. Romney is too slick. Paul speaks like a constitutional scholar and votes like one as well. I do think that his neo-isolationist stance is great but not realistic in today's world.

 

[jillian]

Hi Jillian, long time no argue. I agree that name calling is non-productive. Personally I think that the current majority leadership is extreme left. Now, I may be an opinionated lout from time to time, but when I make a promise I keep it. So far the current dems of all angles are not keeping (thank goodness) the bulk of the promises they made.

Hey, Phil. Happy New Year to you, too! The dems weren't going to get a lot done because of filibusters and bush's veto pen. They should have at least made a show of it. But they're far better than the other side of the aise, IMO, so, that's where we are.

About that name calling thing.... I agree. The R's had a prime time opportunity to get some great things done, and they blew it. We could have had a fairtax which would strip pols of a lot of their personal power. We could have hunted OBL down and hung his sorry ass from the USS Constitutions yard arm. We could have instituted PAX America in the ME instead of pussyfooting around. We could have opened up ANWAR (the caribou would have to cope for awhile) and ensured that the energy up and downs didn't happen.

Heh... ok, so I wasn't perfect. I think they're off the charts, though. So far to the right they can't see center.

Thank goodness the repubs didn't do all those things. they messed up everything else they touched over the last 7 years. As you might guess, I don't like the so-called "fair tax" or "open[ing] up Anwar". The way to deal with energy issues is to fund alternative energy research and get rid of our oil dependence. Get rid of oil dependence, get rid of mid-east oil.

Actually, our current foreign policy is far less intrusive than during the cold war. The shooting in the ME is in direct response to an attack on us. And while you and others don't like it, the surge is working. And, we are attracting a large amount of nutjobs over to Iraq so we can kill them there instead of in our shopping malls. The Dems are actually being pragmatic. Like the dog chasing the car, now that they've caught it, they don't know what to do with it. You, being a trained attorney, have an advantage over me on the 4th. But IMNECTHO the wire tapping and the PACT are two things that are needed. In war, trust me, you do things you would never consider doing in peacetime. Happy New Year Jill......

It may be less intrusive (though I don't see how) but this wasn't necessary. Afghanistan was, not Iraq. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders of any president ever. Gee, we got bombed by a bunch of saudi nationals? what should we do? bomb iraq! (*sarcasm off*). Are the dems being pragmatic? No. I think they never should have continued funding Bush's war without benchmarks and oversight.

On your last point, I'm kind of with Benjamin Franklin: he who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither.

Again, a happy healthy new year to you and yours!

 

[midcan5]

Probably the only responsible thing to do given the poor choices this man has made, it is sorta like sheltering your children from the fools of the world. Bush needs to be sheltered, too many years of silver spoon in mouth must have poisoned his sense.

 

[pegwinn]

Thank goodness the repubs didn't do all those things. they messed up everything else they touched over the last 7 years. As you might guess, I don't like the so-called "fair tax" or "open[ing] up Anwar". The way to deal with energy issues is to fund alternative energy research and get rid of our oil dependence. Get rid of oil dependence, get rid of mid-east oil.

I would be very interested in your discussion of the fairtax bill. I have read the book, read the bill, read opposing views, and looked closely at it for flaws. I think it is just what we need from a fiscal, and personal liberty POV. ANWAR, and other places within the USA, need to be exploited for it's oil. Ours is a petroleum based civilisation. It isn't only fuel, or energy, it's also manufacturing. Solar and wind power will address the power grid, but not nearly as efficiently as oil or coal. If you want a truly independent solution for the national electrical grid, then nuclear is the only way to go. But, for now, there is no (repeat no) alternative to oil in the manufacturing process. Without exploiting our own reserves and having them ready for use, we merely allow the ME to dictate your standard of living.

It may be less intrusive (though I don't see how) but this wasn't necessary. Afghanistan was, not Iraq. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders of any president ever. Gee, we got bombed by a bunch of saudi nationals? what should we do? bomb iraq! (*sarcasm off*). Are the dems being pragmatic? No. I think they never should have continued funding Bush's war without benchmarks and oversight.

We will have to agree to disagree on Iraq. I see the strategic worth of what we did. Afghanistan is tactical, Iraq is strategic. I do wish that we'd pulled out all the stops and and hunted OBL down much as one would a rabid dog loose in the neighborhood. Congress is not authorised per the constitution to impede the Presidents authority as Commander in Chief. Attaching conditions to funding bills is a political tactic that only endangers the men and women actually on the ground in theater.

On your last point, I'm kind of with Benjamin Franklin: he who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither.

Again, a happy healthy new year to you and yours!

While I think Ben was a great guy, a fellow ladies man, and an excellent source of common sense: Ben didn't live in an era where it's physically possible to kill hundreds or thousands at a time in a span of seconds by only a couple of zealots.

Always a pleasure. Have a good day.

 

[jillian]

I would be very interested in your discussion of the fairtax bill. I have read the book, read the bill, read opposing views, and looked closely at it for flaws. I think it is just what we need from a fiscal, and personal liberty POV. ANWAR, and other places within the USA, need to be exploited for it's oil. Ours is a petroleum based civilisation. It isn't only fuel, or energy, it's also manufacturing. Solar and wind power will address the power grid, but not nearly as efficiently as oil or coal. If you want a truly independent solution for the national electrical grid, then nuclear is the only way to go. But, for now, there is no (repeat no) alternative to oil in the manufacturing process. Without exploiting our own reserves and having them ready for use, we merely allow the ME to dictate your standard of living.
We will have to agree to disagree on Iraq. I see the strategic worth of what we did. Afghanistan is tactical, Iraq is strategic. I do wish that we'd pulled out all the stops and and hunted OBL down much as one would a rabid dog loose in the neighborhood. Congress is not authorised per the constitution to impede the Presidents authority as Commander in Chief. Attaching conditions to funding bills is a political tactic that only endangers the men and women actually on the ground in theater.
While I think Ben was a great guy, a fellow ladies man, and an excellent source of common sense: Ben didn't live in an era where it's physically possible to kill hundreds or thousands at a time in a span of seconds by only a couple of zealots.

Always a pleasure. Have a good day.

My objections to the fair tax? In a nutshell, I'll give you the wiki version:"while progressive on consumption, the tax could be regressive on income, and would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase the tax burden on the middle class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

It also unfunds social security and does away with income tax. I don't believe those things are appropriate. I also don't want to see the Sixteenth Amendment repealed. I think there are other ways to do what the "fair tax" purports to do. And we also know tht spending for the very rich, is far outpaced by their savings.... so their tax burden reduces accordingly.

We may be a petroleum-based society, but we don't need to be. And we have only one planet and few untouched areas left on it. The oil to be gained from ANWAR isn't close to anything that would make up for mid-east oil, so doesn't deal with the essential societal problems facing us if we continue to rely on fossil fuels.

We do have to agree to disagree on Iraq... a bigger strategic blunder I don't think we'll see in our lifetimes. I do agree, however, that if they were going to do it, it should have been done properly, including hunting down OBL.

If we become less free because of the bad guys, they win.

And it IS always a pleasure

 

[Steerpike]

My objections to the fair tax? In a nutshell, I'll give you the wiki version:"while progressive on consumption, the tax could be regressive on income, and would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase the tax burden on the middle class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Jillian:

No offense but you chose to start that quote in a rather convenient place The actual quote says "However, opponents of the tax argue that while progressive on consumption, the tax could be regressive on income, and would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase the tax burden on the middle class."

The emphasis is mine. This makes it much more clear that the idea of the tax being regressive on income isn't so much an established fact as an argued opinion.

Also, as for doing away with the income tax, of course the fair tax does that. It is a replacement for the current income tax system, not an addendum to it.

The fair tax does not, however, unfund social security. From what I've seen, the fair tax explicitly funds both social security and medicare.

The 16th Amendment would have to be repealed, true, but if the fair tax can accomplish what its proponents argue it can accomplish, then there isn't much reason to keep the 16th Amendment around.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If there is not a qurom in the Senate isn't there a rule that the Vice President as head of the Senate controls what happens?

 

[maineman]

If there is not a qurom in the Senate isn't there a rule that the Vice President as head of the Senate controls what happens?

I will admit to being unfamiliar with the intricacies of U.S Senate rules. I would have to imagine, however, that if such a rule DID exist, that Bush and Cheney would make use of it to get their recess appointments through.

Also, even if the rule WAS as you say, I think that the mere fact that the senate is called into session means it was not adjourned sine die which means it is not actually in recess. Even if the Veep gets to control what happens during the truncated session, I do not think he can control when the Senate adjourns UNTIL. Such a decision is entirely up to the majority leader.

 

[pegwinn]

My objections to the fair tax? In a nutshell, I'll give you the wiki version:"while progressive on consumption, the tax could be regressive on income, and would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase the tax burden on the middle class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Wikipedia is not entirely correct. A consumption tax up to the poverty level would be regressive on the poor. But, uncle sugar is also throwing in a prebate. Simply put, a prebate is a monthly check which covers the amount of taxes the household could expect to pay on necessities.

The "prebate" explained.

It also unfunds social security and does away with income tax. I don't believe those things are appropriate. I also don't want to see the Sixteenth Amendment repealed. I think there are other ways to do what the "fair tax" purports to do. And we also know tht spending for the very rich, is far outpaced by their savings.... so their tax burden reduces accordingly.

Social Security is specifically funded and the income tax is eliminated. In fact, the majority of the rich don't pay income tax. They pay capital gains taxes. But, they consume far more. So, if Paris Hilton has no income (trust fund) what tax is she paying? Under the fairtax, she'd be kicking in to the .gov every time she buys a diamond studded doggie collar. Under the fairtax, the tax base increases exponentially. Criminals, Tourists, Illegal Aliens, the very rich, the poor, everyone physically in the USA. It is an equalizer in my opinion. See how well you do under the fairtax.

I could go on and on. Instead, look for a tax rant in the near future. I would like your discussion in detail.

We may be a petroleum-based society, but we don't need to be. And we have only one planet and few untouched areas left on it. The oil to be gained from ANWAR isn't close to anything that would make up for mid-east oil, so doesn't deal with the essential societal problems facing us if we continue to rely on fossil fuels.

You say "we don't need to be". I must disagree. It isn't society that is petroleum based, it is the entire worlds civilization. While gasoline is the largest use of oil, it isn't even half of every barrel. See this page for a breakdown of a barrel of oil. It isn't perfect and might not be current to todays figures, but it illustrates that oil dependency isn't merely fuel and energy.

Actually, if you want to get off of fossil fuels for the energy infrastructure, the obvious solution is to go nuclear. It is very competitive in a cost/benefit ratio and the safety record beats oil all to hell.

We do have to agree to disagree on Iraq... a bigger strategic blunder I don't think we'll see in our lifetimes. I do agree, however, that if they were going to do it, it should have been done properly, including hunting down OBL.

Ok we will agree etc.

If we become less free because of the bad guys, they win.

With respect, I disagree. We have been becoming less free on a daily basis since 1789. The founders would consider us to be under a benevolent tyrant. Yet, if the founders visited every ten years they would still come to the same conclusion. In short it isn't about the war on terror or GWB. In WWII there was rationing, concentration camps filled with citizens of the USA, internal spying, people tried and executed for treason, and the longest lasting injustice..... the federal withholding of your income tax.

And it IS always a pleasure

But of course. IF we cannot have fun then why bother.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Vice President is President of the Senate and the Majority Leader is at best Pro Tem President when the Vice President can Not attend. The Vice President has no vote except in a tie of course but I suspect in the future moves will be made to prevent this abuse of the Senate.

Further the Senate in session means the House had to receive permission from the Senate to adjourn, since the Constitution specifies that neither house can adjourn while the Congress is in session for more than 3 days with OUT the Permission of the other House.

Further I am not aware of any appointments the President needs to make, or are you telling me that once again the Democrats failed in their official capacity and did not vote on people nominated for positions by the President?

Personally if I were the President I would play their silly game and call a special session of Congress and REQUIRE both bodies to be in session as long as the Senate wants to play games.

If I were Vice President I would discover exactly what my power was and exersize it to the fullest extent. Two can play games.

 

[maineman]

If I were Vice President I would discover exactly what my power was and exersize it to the fullest extent. Two can play games.

do you honestly think that this vice president has not already investigated the full extent of his powers?

 

[pegwinn]

Two can play games.

Damn straight. I try to be polite, but when pushed can be really nasty. I'd like to see the catfight between the Exec and Congress with no holds barred.

 

[Annie]

I'm pretty sure all those hoops were jumped through, in the most basic ways. Much like the 'staying in session' it's pro forma, not reality. But it does block recess appointments.

Buy "Roberts Rules of Order" you'll be clued into the machinations.