New GOP Senate Humiliates Harry Reid With Major Announcement

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous
A lot of people are arguing "quality over quantity" for all the bills that have been voted on so far, but only Buster has actually argued specifically about the bills' contents.

My conclusion is that if Congress doesn't vote on anything, everyone complains of gridlock and them not doing their job.

If Congress (and specifically the Senate) vote on a number of bills that have been backlogged over the past year, everyone complains they aren't debating enough and letting anything just go through, therefore not doing their job.

I guess the only answer is to complain about our current situation. Waaah waaah

For the last six years, the GOP has utilized the filibuster in record numbers to obstruct and insure that Congress got nothing accomplished.

Now that they're pretending to do their jobs by passing bills they know will be vetoed, I'm supposed to be impressed? PLEASE!!

a reply to: MOMof3

Gee, I guess Obama didn't do anything for your bridges on RR ties either! He gave the money to Isis, Illegals, and others outside the U.S..

Not that Washington St. Doesn't have a hand in their own infrastructure-I live in Washington, too. Of course, the governor wants a carbon tax that could reach $1.17 per gallon...none of which is earmarked for infrastructure...

a reply to: nwtrucker

He gave the money to Isis, Illegals, and others outside the U.S..

And who pushed for Obama to give that money to the Syrian rebels that became ISIS? Why little Johnny McCain and the other GOP warmongers. If you were to take the time to read the links that have been provided it just shows that the GOP wants even more American money to go out of this nation. You can whine about Obama all you want to to act like he is the only one sending money out of this nation is just sheer ignorance.

It seems I almost always find myself on the opposing side of whatever it is the GOP is proposing, whether it be the middle class killing legislation being proposed, the insane committee assignments, the vigilante hearings on non-issues billed to the taxpayer, the threats to trash our credit standing or shut the government down, the refusal to bring jobs and infrastructure legislation to the floor, the mud-slinging, slanderous and spiteful rhetoric launched against the President and anyone else they disagree with, the obvious bias for big oil and coporate interests over the welfare of the nation and it’s citizens, the “Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran...” mentality, the maniacal, evangelical, foaming at the mouth lunacy that seems to run rampant throughout the party, the constant obstruction of legislation that’s obviously beneficial to the welfare of the people, etc., etc., etc. And if all that’s not enough, what really pisses me off is that fake tan of John Boehner’s.

That being said, and believe it or not, I find myself often questioning my own beliefs. When legislation is proposed, or an action is taken, that I disagree with, I actually do ask myself, “Am I opposing this proposal/action on it’s own merit, or is it due to a bias against the party proposing it?” It used to be that I agreed with Republican positions on issues a WHOLE LOT MORE than I do these days. But then, the Republican Party was a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT then than it is today. The party has changed a lot over the past 15-20 years.

You know, aside from his obvious paranoia regarding certain issues, I actually respected Richard Nixon for his intellect and take on many affairs. I even felt sorry for him for the way the Watergate scandal unfolded. I tried to put myself in his shoes and wondered if I would have gone to the extent he did to cover up the blunders of a misguided, delusional staff. Despite making the decisions he did on Watergate, thus ending his Presidency shrouded in shame and disgrace, his tenure did include some great accomplishments. Here’s a few that I believe had merit:

Enforced desegregation of Southern schools
Introduced legislation to reform healthcare and welfare
Established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Signed into law the Clean Air Act and National Environmental Policy Act
Ended US involvement in Vietnam in 1973 through the Paris Peace Accords
Opened diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China in 1972
Initiated détente with the Soviet Union, leading to SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

I believe those were considerable accomplishments of the Nixon Administration, deserving of the recognition and credit due. Now, I ask myself, “Which of those issues credited to Richard Nixon would today’s Republican Party endorse? Also, would Richard Nixon be conservative enough to satisfy today’s Republican agenda?” And the answers that come to my mind are, “None and No”.

So, the Republicans can rejoice in their so-called productivity, congratulate themselves and give each other a big “Attaboy!” all they want, but in my eyes they still haven’t done a damned thing for this country. And, frankly, I doubt they plan to...

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic ..."

a reply to: buster2010

LMAO, sheer ignorance? Yeah right.

McCain. You are creative. Obama controlled both houses, much like Clinton. All we got was the A.C.A. and much like Clinton, Hillary care was all he achieved with both houses. It's cost them both.

I will cede the stupidity of the Republicans. It is fortunate for them that the Dems make them look good in comparison.

Your myopic views are well known. The little points you made earlier could have been passed during Obama's high time in the first two years.

NOTHING changes that fact. Deal with it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

McCain. You are creative.

I don't have to be creative I can let a picture do the talking for me.

The little points you made earlier could have been passed during Obama's high time in the first two years.

Somebody is ignorant of history also. What did the now Senate leader swear they was going to do in Obama's first term? Everything they could to stop him from being reelected. In Obama's first two years he couldn't get it passed if he wanted to besides he was busy rubber stamping everything the GOP wanted.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

If you assume that voters actually pay attention, then you're right. But that assumption is a far cry from the truth.

Here's my prediction: Over the next two year, Obama will use his bully pulpit to rant on about these "awesome" proposals that he'd like to see Congress pass--proposals that, on the surface (like most liberal ideas) seem to make good sense and help those who need it, but as many of us know will actually keep driving America in the ground financially. But the voters won't see the last part of that, only the feel-good rhetoric, and when Congress refuses to act on those things, they'll be made out to be the bad guy.

There is every possibility that this bipartisan scenario can go great for both parties. The question remains, who will capitalize on it?

But, in my opinion, both houses of Congress need a reset button hit and we all need to vote in brand new people who have never held federal office. I'd love to see who would get the votes and what they would do.

Probably nothing, but it'd be interesting nonetheless.

originally posted by: Flatfish
For the last six years, the GOP has utilized the filibuster in record numbers to obstruct and insure that Congress got nothing accomplished

What an absolute crock of #. The Democrats has full control over the entirety of Congress and the Office of the President for two full years before the Rs were capable of doing anything to stop them. And even then, they still had control of the Senate for the next four, plus the POTUS.

Maybe for the last six years, the Democrats just haven't pulled their collective head out of their arse and gotten something accomplished when they could.

Government isn't about only one party getting to pass things at a time, it's about compromise, and neither of the two main parties know how to do that anymore. We could legitimately pass blame in all directions, but be honest--with the way politics work right now, it's best that nothing does get done.

a reply to: buster2010

How does that picture say anything? Surely, your not a racist? Considering your anti-Zionist/Israeli views, one would think you'd approve...

Besides, at least McCain isn't taking lessons from these guys like Obama apparently does....

a reply to: nwtrucker

My representative is Cathy McMorris Rodgers. The bridge that I speak of is in Colfax, WA. You can go see it for yourself. School buses travel on that bridge. I saw the RR ties holding up the bridge when we ate at Subway, which sits under the bridge, almost. I have written her, sent pictures of it, and she said first Keystone. That was the only infrastructure she wanted to talk about. But her kids don't have to travel on dangerous roads. What is her job?

a reply to: xuenchen

To think that our troops went over to Iraq to protect people like you. Or was it a big, expensive lie that you now want workers and poor to pay for with "austerity".

I just can't take anyone serious that activly defends Harry Reid and complains about congrss, that clown is a walking talking example of what's wrong with Congress.

Before you call me a Republican stooge, I am now a registered member of the Veterans party.

a reply to: MOMof3

Hey, I agree. I work on these highways and see many of them.

It really is a stretch to connect that issue to this thread...

Seeing there's been talk of a Federal tax increase on gas, I'd like to see a bi-partisan amendment that mandates those funds for infrastructure ONLY.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Because Cathy McMorris Rodgers promised me that in 2015 they would address our roads and bridges. All they care about is their egos and "humiliating" one another. I swear to God, if that bridge fall with school children on it, I will try to press charges against her for negligence. This is personal now.

a reply to: MOMof3

In the States defense, I will say I've seen a big increase in bridge repair since the collapse on I-5.

It's been an inconvenience, as a trucker, but those spans have been fixed, from what I can see. As the dollars are limited, as well as the crews to fix them, I can see the interstates and major highways as the priorities and work their way to the lesser travelled spans.

Stay on it. The squeaky wheel does get the grease....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh I know. We are the "poor" side compared to Seattle area. Like Spokane needs a north south to connect our small cities and towns for commerce. Without federal funds, it won't get done. Seattle is going to fall into the ocean if it gets any heavier with population. We are good hard working people on this side too.

a reply to: MOMof3

I know it well. I'm over the passes almost daily to Eastern Washington. My kind of people..

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: buster2010

How does that picture say anything? Surely, your not a racist? Considering your anti-Zionist/Israeli views, one would think you'd approve...

Besides, at least McCain isn't taking lessons from these guys like Obama apparently does....

a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

Not refuting this at all, they are getting work done. We just have to be sure this is the work that 'we the people' have put them in there to do. Instead of the work that they 'want to do' for potential personal gain. Again, it's great to see productivity within our government, but make sure it's productivity that won't hurt the people.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Here's my prediction: Over the next two year, Obama will use his bully pulpit to rant on about these "awesome" proposals that he'd like to see Congress pass--proposals that, on the surface (like most liberal ideas) seem to make good sense and help those who need it, but as many of us know will actually keep driving America in the ground financially. But the voters won't see the last part of that, only the feel-good rhetoric, and when Congress refuses to act on those things, they'll be made out to be the bad guy.

Programs that either directly give money to the poor or save them money so that they can spend elsewhere are completely free, as in they cost no money at all and I'll explain why. On the other hand, programs that give money to the wealthy who save it rather than spend it cost a lot of money because that cash leaves the system.

Now to explain: If you've had any classes on economics you're probably aware of economic multipliers. Well, there's another aspect at work too in taxes. A person who gets money is taxed on that money through income taxes. Then they goto shops to spend that money, they pay fuel taxes to get there and sales tax on their purchases. The store that sells the item takes that money and pays payroll taxes to their employees, excise taxes, and all of the other taxes that businesses pay. After that the store purchases new product from their distributor who again pays a round of taxes. Then the distributor gets their items from the manufacturer who also pays these taxes. By the time the money has worked through the system it has all been eaten by taxes. Higher taxes result in the money leaving the system sooner which slows the velocity of money while lower taxes keep the money in the system longer speeding up the velocity. In the end though given enough time (depending on the tax rate), fines, tariffs, and taxes result in all money that goes to the poor eventually finding it's way back to the government. On it's journey that money creates large amounts of economic stimulus, which creates jobs.

Corporate welfare on the other hand doesn't have this effect. Money given directly to corporations is saved, given out as bonuses to people who invest/save rather than spend, and so on.

This is why nations like Norway can get away with the types of welfare programs they do. The programs ultimately don't cost anything. Just something for you to think about.