|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 8, 2008 11:36:00 GMT -5
Well...I'm officially off the HRC bandwagon. Mostly because I think the people have spoken, and it's time to accept the inevitable. And because she's nuts to keep spending her own money. Also, she pissed me off with her remarks about elitist economists and her getting on board with the "bribe us with a gas tax holiday that conveniently ends right around election time plan", which will only feed yet more profits to the oil companies and encourage consumption rather than conservation. So, Obama 2008 it is, then. Let's do this thing! Welcome, Anne and Rachael! I saved you both some seats. Seriously, though...I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning (which has a lot to do with having been an Illinois voter when he ran for Senate), but that didn't mean I was anti-Clinton. However, now the tone has as you so rightly put it, gotten sour, and it seems less about "let the people decide" and more about "don't tell me what to do." Am I being unfair in that categorization? I want to know, particularly from you two because you've changed your minds re: HRC (I almost typed HRG; good lord). Oh, yeah, I had forgotten that you used to live in Chicago. Care to share your impressions of him representing Illinois in the senate? Inquiring minds want to know. ETA: Oh, and this question is directed towards Karen too.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 8, 2008 11:49:09 GMT -5
Well...I'm officially off the HRC bandwagon. Mostly because I think the people have spoken, and it's time to accept the inevitable. And because she's nuts to keep spending her own money. Also, she pissed me off with her remarks about elitist economists and her getting on board with the "bribe us with a gas tax holiday that conveniently ends right around election time plan", which will only feed yet more profits to the oil companies and encourage consumption rather than conservation. So, Obama 2008 it is, then. Let's do this thing! Welcome, Anne and Rachael! I saved you both some seats. Seriously, though...I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning (which has a lot to do with having been an Illinois voter when he ran for Senate), but that didn't mean I was anti-Clinton. However, now the tone has as you so rightly put it, gotten sour, and it seems less about "let the people decide" and more about "don't tell me what to do." Am I being unfair in that categorization? I want to know, particularly from you two because you've changed your minds re: HRC (I almost typed HRG; good lord). No, you're not wrong. I have to say I like them BOTH less than I did before the campaign really got going. But she's lost, and she needs to accept it and move back to being a Senator. She'll have another shot in 4 or 8 years. Anne's right - "frantic" is a good descriptor. I don't think she expected Obama to be as serious a contender as he turned out to be. Hardly anyone really did - he's so new, and young. She can't keep me interested by sounding like a socially liberal version of John McCain.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on May 8, 2008 14:12:45 GMT -5
Well...I'm officially off the HRC bandwagon. Mostly because I think the people have spoken, and it's time to accept the inevitable. And because she's nuts to keep spending her own money. Also, she pissed me off with her remarks about elitist economists and her getting on board with the "bribe us with a gas tax holiday that conveniently ends right around election time plan", which will only feed yet more profits to the oil companies and encourage consumption rather than conservation. So, Obama 2008 it is, then. Let's do this thing! Welcome, Anne and Rachael! I saved you both some seats. Seriously, though...I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning (which has a lot to do with having been an Illinois voter when he ran for Senate), but that didn't mean I was anti-Clinton. However, now the tone has as you so rightly put it, gotten sour, and it seems less about "let the people decide" and more about "don't tell me what to do." Am I being unfair in that categorization? I want to know, particularly from you two because you've changed your minds re: HRC (I almost typed HRG; good lord). LOL! So, one study has said that Obama doesn't have a chance again McCain..but HRC does. I don't know what to think about that, but I'm guessing it's McCain supporters who are pushing that slog. I'm hoping for a Obama/McCain debate in the square in my hometown where the first Lincoln/Douglas debate was held 150 years ago. (It's the 150th anniversary this year.) How cool would that be? Bush was here about 8 years ago. I took a pass. Hey - maybe you all could come to town if that happens and we'll have a mini S-cubiefest. I'm sure we could come up with a couple of other things to do. We have a nice state park nearby and even a comedy club in town. And Chicago is a short car ride away - about 90 minutes to Lake Shore Drive.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 8, 2008 16:57:49 GMT -5
Cindy McCain says she won't release her tax records. [She files separately from John.] The Dems, predictably, are using that to accuse McCain of being less than open.
I dunno. They've mostly kept the business and her stuff in her name; they are her tax records. Seems like she should be allowed to keep them private.
Thoughts?
===========
Also reading an article about Obama being back in the Senate. Hmm, I'd forgotten about both of them actually have to work together in the same place with the same people.
Imagine Jon Stewart with his pinky in the corner of his mouth and the high pitched voice saying, "awkward."
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 8, 2008 17:18:23 GMT -5
Another question:
What do you all think about the notion of an Obama/Clinton ticket?
Good idea? Bad idea? Helpful? Hurtful?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 20, 2008 6:17:52 GMT -5
Random, too early in the morning thought. Just saw a "yahoo news headline" about Congress packing the war-funding bill with domestic stuff.
I've often thought that the typical "price of doing business" in D.C. will never change all that much unless some of the basic rules for how a bill gets passed are changed.
I have absolutely NEVER understood how/why you are allowed to take a bill about something and add all sorts of unrelated amendments. I think that's a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 20, 2008 7:31:19 GMT -5
Random, too early in the morning thought. Just saw a "yahoo news headline" about Congress packing the war-funding bill with domestic stuff. I've often thought that the typical "price of doing business" in D.C. will never change all that much unless some of the basic rules for how a bill gets passed are changed. I have absolutely NEVER understood how/why you are allowed to take a bill about something and add all sorts of unrelated amendments. I think that's a bad idea. Blame the presidents who refuse to veto something like that and the lobbying system that's gotten out of control. I have been against this kind of doing business since I became aware of it. When it comes to spending, if you can't get your way openly and on the record, maybe you shouldn't be getting your way. And, by and large, earmarks aren't designed to spend for the social good, but are for special interests that the rest of the country has nothing to do with. Not a McCain lover by any means, but I do note he is the only one who claims to have never tacked an earmark onto another bill and who says he will veto any legislation that has spending earmarks attached to it. Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 20, 2008 7:48:47 GMT -5
Random, too early in the morning thought. Just saw a "yahoo news headline" about Congress packing the war-funding bill with domestic stuff. I've often thought that the typical "price of doing business" in D.C. will never change all that much unless some of the basic rules for how a bill gets passed are changed. I have absolutely NEVER understood how/why you are allowed to take a bill about something and add all sorts of unrelated amendments. I think that's a bad idea. Blame the presidents who refuse to veto something like that and the lobbying system that's gotten out of control. I have been against this kind of doing business since I became aware of it. When it comes to spending, if you can't get your way openly and on the record, maybe you shouldn't be getting your way. And, by and large, earmarks aren't designed to spend for the social good, but are for special interests that the rest of the country has nothing to do with. Not a McCain lover by any means, but I do note he is the only one who claims to have never tacked an earmark onto another bill and who says he will veto any legislation that has spending earmarks attached to it. Make of that what you will. Sadly, it's not a very "sexy" cause that you could get the media and the "people" all worked up about. Grr. Argh.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 21, 2008 12:25:34 GMT -5
Warning! Language not suitable for work environments or children!!
Background: Bill O'Reilly had a meltdown on the set of "Inside Edition". It was filmed, naturally. This is the "inside" scoop with a fictional producer interacting with BOR during the meltdown: It's hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 21, 2008 15:34:15 GMT -5
Blame the presidents who refuse to veto something like that and the lobbying system that's gotten out of control. I have been against this kind of doing business since I became aware of it. When it comes to spending, if you can't get your way openly and on the record, maybe you shouldn't be getting your way. And, by and large, earmarks aren't designed to spend for the social good, but are for special interests that the rest of the country has nothing to do with. Not a McCain lover by any means, but I do note he is the only one who claims to have never tacked an earmark onto another bill and who says he will veto any legislation that has spending earmarks attached to it. Make of that what you will. Sadly, it's not a very "sexy" cause that you could get the media and the "people" all worked up about. Grr. Argh. I gotta say - the earmarks are irritating, yes, but don't they really end up making up a tiny percentage of the budget expenditure? It may not be that bad a system. So, you have to allow a some pork to the mix, to help a bill get through the process - this may be less expensive than other ways you could think of, to keep that sort of "heavy, lengthy process" from completely stagnating. You have to make concessions to human nature for this kind of thing, if you don't, you end up with a paralyzed system - and this may be one of those necessary concessions. Haven't really thought this all the way through, but I'm up against so much paralyzing ridgidity here at work, sometimes, that my mind goes to these places.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 21, 2008 19:15:41 GMT -5
Sadly, it's not a very "sexy" cause that you could get the media and the "people" all worked up about. Grr. Argh. I gotta say - the earmarks are irritating, yes, but don't they really end up making up a tiny percentage of the budget expenditure? It may not be that bad a system. So, you have to allow a some pork to the mix, to help a bill get through the process - this may be less expensive than other ways you could think of, to keep that sort of "heavy, lengthy process" from completely stagnating. You have to make concessions to human nature for this kind of thing, if you don't, you end up with a paralyzed system - and this may be one of those necessary concessions. Haven't really thought this all the way through, but I'm up against so much paralyzing ridgidity here at work, sometimes, that my mind goes to these places. No, I don't think they are very teeny. It's my understanding, and I could be mistaken, that earmarks form a very large percentage of the spending done by Congress. They are not part of the budget, actually, but are add-ons to other unrelated legislation and therefore constitute extra-budgetary spending potentially breaking the bank one of these days.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 22, 2008 7:28:18 GMT -5
I gotta say - the earmarks are irritating, yes, but don't they really end up making up a tiny percentage of the budget expenditure? It may not be that bad a system. So, you have to allow a some pork to the mix, to help a bill get through the process - this may be less expensive than other ways you could think of, to keep that sort of "heavy, lengthy process" from completely stagnating. You have to make concessions to human nature for this kind of thing, if you don't, you end up with a paralyzed system - and this may be one of those necessary concessions. Haven't really thought this all the way through, but I'm up against so much paralyzing ridgidity here at work, sometimes, that my mind goes to these places. No, I don't think they are very teeny. It's my understanding, and I could be mistaken, that earmarks form a very large percentage of the spending done by Congress. They are not part of the budget, actually, but are add-ons to other unrelated legislation and therefore constitute extra-budgetary spending potentially breaking the bank one of these days. Onjie: Here is what I found on this: Earmarks for 2008 are projected to be just one half of one percent of the budget – hardly a significant item overall. Of course, the last half of the sentence is editorializing, but I tend to agree. Source is this article: DMI on the 2008 State of the Union: Budget
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 22, 2008 8:32:52 GMT -5
No, I don't think they are very teeny. It's my understanding, and I could be mistaken, that earmarks form a very large percentage of the spending done by Congress. They are not part of the budget, actually, but are add-ons to other unrelated legislation and therefore constitute extra-budgetary spending potentially breaking the bank one of these days. Onjie: Here is what I found on this: Earmarks for 2008 are projected to be just one half of one percent of the budget – hardly a significant item overall. Of course, the last half of the sentence is editorializing, but I tend to agree. Source is this article: DMI on the 2008 State of the Union: Budget Thanks for the link and the info. It spurred me to look more deeply into this issue to remove my visceral reaction. I did a little additional research on it and you are right that the percentage of any given budget is deceptively small. ;D However, it's not budget percentage, per se, about which I'm incensed. It's the spending on nonsense, to the tune of more than $17 billion dollars this year and $29 billion in 2006, to which I'm objecting. Just to put it in perspective, 1 billion seconds equals just under 32 years. So, 1 billion seconds ago the year was 1976, roughly. 17 billion dollars/seconds ago the year was roughly 1467. That's a lot of money. And, a billion here, a billion there adds up over time. So, while the absolute percentage of the overall budge for a given year may seem insignificant, the aggregate amount of money spent on earmarks over even a decade is very large. I find that this site has a pretty comprehensive summary of what earmarks are used for and while the percentage of a given overall budget may not be significant, it's still wasteful and unnecessary, increasing deficits by that much more. That is what I object to. Rubber stamping bills with earmarks disregards the system of checks and balances the Constitution was supposed to guarantee. I find that irritating.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 22, 2008 8:42:02 GMT -5
If PORK (don't you love the euphemism "earmarks") is a small percentage then today I'll rail against the HUGE amount of money going to pay interest on the debt.[i/]
The single greatest reason to get the budget under control long enough to pay down the debt is that then we could spend the actual taxes on real stuff, not just debt service.
Grr Argh.
[As for earmarks: if it's a worthwhile project---put it in the budget upfront as is proper. It's the method of acquiring the money that irritates, not the percentage. In order to get a food-stamps bill passed you shouldn't have to agree to vote for the bridge to nowhere.]
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 22, 2008 8:45:37 GMT -5
If PORK (don't you love the euphemism "earmarks") is a small percentage then today I'll rail against the HUGE amount of money going to pay interest on the debt.[i/]
The single greatest reason to get the budget under control long enough to pay down the debt is that then we could spend the actual taxes on real stuff, not just debt service.
Grr Argh.
[As for earmarks: if it's a worthwhile project---put it in the budget upfront as is proper. It's the method of acquiring the money that irritates, not the percentage. In order to get a food-stamps bill passed you shouldn't have to agree to vote for the bridge to nowhere.] Word. And, the use of "pork"? Kinda makes me want to raise pigs for a living and get some of the farm subsidy money for myself. Or, maybe I'll have to promise not to raise pigs in order to get the money. . .. ;D
|
|