View Full Version : 6 hours down... 94 to go
Almost three years ago, the 9/11 Commission made a series of suggestions to make America safer.
The 108th Congress passed about half of them. The 109th Congress passed zero.
In it's first six hours of the 110th Congress, the House has already acted on one of the suggestions. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/09/house.agenda/index.html)
Passsed by a vote of 299-128, including 70 Republicans, it mandates full inspection of air and sea cargo entering the United States and shifts more homeland security funding to communities with high-risk terror targets.
jack grebe
01-09-2007, 08:53 PM
It doesn't mean a thing if W doesn't sign it:rolleyes:
yeah, imagine the response.
Paul Pless
01-09-2007, 09:55 PM
it mandates full inspection of air and sea cargo entering the United States and shifts more homeland security funding to communities with high-risk terror targets.
I'm not quite sure I got it down yet, could you explain the difference between liberal pork and conservative pork to me one more time?
The thing I noticed about the democratic congress, how it lied about the pay as you go rules. I remember hearing Nancy Pelosi explicitly describing the pay as you go during the campaign. She explicitly said that all spending increases and all tax cuts would have to be funded. Now, the first day of congress they passed the pay as you go rule and it only applies to tax cuts, entightlement increases, and military expenditures. All other spending increases are fair game.
Liars.
Cuyahoga Chuck
01-09-2007, 10:17 PM
If the the Republicans sit on their hands and let Bushman pull the bungs out of their political future they deserve what they get. It's quite obvious I'm no Republican admirer but, I don't think they will be so supine as to let Bush put the kaibosh on programs that have widespread public appeal.
Paul Pless
01-09-2007, 10:18 PM
Liars.
Nah! They're just politicians, you can't blame em, they can't help it.
Paul Pless
01-09-2007, 10:21 PM
If the the Republicans sit on their hands and let Bushman pull the bungs out of their political future they deserve what they get. It's quite obvious I'm no Republican admirer but, I don't think they will be so supine as to let Bush put the kaibosh on programs that have widespread public appeal.
You know, I'd like to be able to agree, and I'd hope that that would be the case, but I think on the other hand, Bush ain't jack to lose, so he'll probably end up be a sacrificial martyr for the the Republican party.
He'll sacrifice the Republican Party before he sacrifices himself. GWs loyalty is now to future historians.
Paul, are you saying that inspections are adequate at port facilities and the real problem is gel products in carry on luggage?
Just wondering how they are going to offset this new spending? It may be a good idea to mandate full inspection of air and sea cargo, but it has to cost something. They told us during the election that any new spending would be paid for with either cuts in other spending or taxes.
peb, how shall we offset the cost of the GWOT?
Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-09-2007, 10:45 PM
If only a trillion dollars hadn't been thrown away in Iraq. Oh well, you guys have the bucks.
peb, how shall we offset the cost of the GWOT?
I don't know. I'm not a big fan of it. But Bush never said he would offset that spending. Pelosi said she would offset all new spending. She made a big deal out of it. It was a major campaign theme of the democrats. Just wondering how she is doing so far.
me too. I'd trade the $17Billion in tax credits extended to the oil industry, or maybe $2 Billion for the two 747s outfitted for prototype lasers. Or the billions in SDI. Lots' of places I would guess. How much is that particular bill?
Peb, there are plenty of ways to offset the cost. The most obvious is to stop wasting it in Iraq.
There are three major wastes in Iraq: the fact that we are there at all... the way in which we are doing it... and the way it has been mismanaged.
To date, we've spent hundreds of billions 'legally.'
Tens of billions more have been siphoned off in questionable contracts.
Several billion have simply disapeared without a trace.
Even if we aren't going to withdraw, we can save tens of billions simply through better management and oversight.
Other than Iraq, the next most obvious source of funds to offset the cost are the tax-giveaways to large corporations and the ultra-rich. Exxon-Mobil is already making record profits -- they don't need a tax break too.
Next on the list is curtailing earmarks and pork which reached an all-time high under the Republican controlled congress.
Finally, raising taxes is a legitimate option which should be considered.
The 110th Congress has only been in session for six hours --- it is much too early to accuse them of having broken this promise. Pelosi said the new spending would be offset --- she did not say that it would be offset instantaneously.
It is not to early to accuse them of breaking their promise. She promised pay as you go rules with all spending increases of tax cuts being offset. I heard her say it more than once. She never limited it to entitlements. The house pay-go rule passed the other day was not what she promised. It was a joke.
And I brought it up on this thread because this is exactly the type of spending increase that was not covered by her sham pay-go rule. Furthermore, I have heard of no offsets specified with this new security law.
So not only did the pay-go rule prove to be a lie, one of the first significant laws proved her to be a liar.
Cuyahoga Chuck
01-10-2007, 10:07 AM
Peb,
Compared to the previous Republican contolled congress this congress has taken off like a rocket.
Carp away if it makes you feel better. But, remember this. The current, Democratic, congress has inherited a legislature that has been broken for at least six years and putting all the pieces back together is going to be a horendous job.
As I write, Nancy Pelosi has announced she will hold a vote on Bush's proposed troop increases, TONIGHT. The President hasn't even made his new deployment plans known, yet! But, what the hell, the prez is a Neocon and has a pass from God.
Charlie
"Boy, I wish that women would get a move on!"
the prez is a neocon sock puppet and has a pass from God.
He was getting his world geography lesson in 1998 from Rice and Cheney before the run for presidency.
jack grebe
01-10-2007, 11:00 AM
Nancy Pelosi has announced she will hold a vote on Bush's proposed troop increases, TONIGHT. What does that mean?.....NOT A DAMN THING, anything she may come up with still has to go to the W.H. to be signed. It's just a dog and pony show for media ratings, doen't mean shyte
Peb, the "pay as you go" rule does not require that the offsetting costs savings occurs in the same bill.
The 2007 budget deficit is projected to be $286B -- up from $248B in 2006. It's hard to imagine the 110th Congress doing much worse than the 109th.
We won't see the results of the 110th's budget for several years. It's a little too early for you to start hyperventilating about spending.
What does that mean?.....NOT A DAMN THING, anything she may come up with still has to go to the W.H. to be signed.
It works both ways... anything Bush can come up with has to go through the Congress.
Bush is getting ready to ask for an "emergency" $100 Billion for Iraq.
Paul Pless
01-10-2007, 11:36 AM
We won't see the results of the 110th's budget for several years. It's a little too early for you to start hyperventilating about spending.
Hahahahaha!
Employing a double standard never hurt nobody too very badly.
Cuyahoga Chuck
01-10-2007, 01:18 PM
"What does that mean?.....NOT A DAMN THING,"
Well, you are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is targeting activities that haven't happened yet.
You folks certainly weren't holding your darling, George Bush, to such a high standard, were you? If you folks had been as demanding way back when we would have seen Iraq tidied up 3 years and 9 months ago.
Your guys were an hour late and an dollar short but, our guys have to pay in advance and in gold, eh?
'Figures.
What does that mean?.....NOT A DAMN THING, anything she may come up with still has to go to the W.H. to be signed. It's just a dog and pony show for media ratings, doen't mean shyte
sounds like an enthusiastic advocate for a benevolent dictatorship. Screw checks and balances. Long live the king!
jack grebe
01-10-2007, 04:34 PM
sounds like an enthusiastic advocate for a benevolent dictatorship. Screw checks and balances. Long live the king!
No, just reality
No, just reality
The reality is that Bush is about to ask Congress for an extra $100 Billion to fund his little mis-adventure.
While it's true that Congress can accomplish little without Bush's signature, it's also true that Bush can't fund this war on his own.
By the way, the vote was 299-128 -- more than enough to over-ride Bush's veto, if it should come to that.
Not everything needs to get the president's signature to become law!
Paul Pless
01-10-2007, 04:48 PM
I don't support this war, but lets get the facts straight on this
it's also true that Bush can't fund this war on his own.
The fact's are that Bush is the sole Commander in Chief and Congress did support the war initially. Its quite debateable whether Congress can pull the funding at this point.
The fact's are that Bush is the sole Commander in Chief and Congress did support the war initially. Its quite debateable whether Congress can pull the funding at this point.
No debate about it at all.
U.S. Constituion, Article 1, Section 8:
Congress shall have the power....To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
It would be nice if everyone knew what was in the Constition. We do still use that thing, don't we?
3hrs to go. Any drinking games to accompany the Decider?,,,er,,or some kind of diversion to numb the pain of his delivery.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/10/details_of_bushs_new_iraq_strategy/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News+%2F+Nation
U.S. TROOP INCREASE
-- Bush will commit 17,500 additional U.S. combat troops, the equivalent of five combat brigades, to Baghdad. The first brigade is to arrive Jan. 15; the next on Feb. 15; the remainder in separate waves every 30 days.
Paul Pless
01-10-2007, 05:05 PM
No debate about it at all.
Your stance is laughable. Every major political op-ed outlet, and most of the new democratic congress members have been debating this very point for the last 2 months.
Your stance is laughable. Every major political op-ed outlet, and most of the new democratic congress members have been debating this very point for the last 2 months.
Well, it would be nice if they read the Constituion too.
Is there some part of that document which you are unable to understand?
Another few hours down... another accomplishment.
The House has just passed (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/minimum.wage.ap/index.html) the first increase in the minimum wage since Clinton was in office.
It passed 315-116, with support from 82 Republicans. Such overwhelming support is easily enough to over-ride a veto, if Bush should be foolish enough to try.
Milo Christensen
01-10-2007, 06:51 PM
What's happening in the Senate with all this legislation that's got you so giddy?
Hey erster -- whassup wid da new you? I didn't have any trouble understanding what you've written today, keep up the good work.
What's happening in the Senate with all this legislation that's got you so giddy?
Glad you asked... Sen. Kennedy is hearing testimony about how to make health care more affordable for everyone...
...and Sen. Feingold has introduced a bill to provide congessional oversight of government data-mining programs.
Can you name anything accomplished by the Senate over the last two years?
Have you got anything to be proud of -- or do you just hate others for accomplishing goals while your guys fail at everything?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.