Author Topic: Filibustered! (Read 1370 times)

ASTAC · « **Reply #45 on:** May 24, 2005, 08:29:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Interesting. This makes another pint of mine. People always complain that tax cuts are for the "wealthy". It's gotten to the point where the "wealthy" people are the only one paying taxes.

Short of actually giving people money, I'm not sure what else can be done for the bottom 60%. This of course would be socialism, reditribution of wealth. It's why dems have no answer other than to whine at Bush's tax cut. There's simply no more cutting, of any appreciable amount, for the "poor".

I wish I could find the source for the numbers that said the something like 75% of the government's income is paid by the top 10% (income wise) of the population.

I'll be honest...I make a bout 50,000 a year and end up getting 300% back from the government from my taxes...I take the money but it still doesn't seem right.

Hangtime · « **Reply #46 on:** May 24, 2005, 08:35:34 PM »

Sometimes, the obvious is anything but.

LePaul · « **Reply #47 on:** May 24, 2005, 08:44:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, again a great post.

I feel that the minority should not be able to block the majority simply because they can filibuster and overrule any vote. That's not fair in my opinion.

The people have voted and placed these people in power for a reason.

A filibuster seems very contrary to democratic vaulues.

Well said

I just wish my two wishy-washy moderate republican Senators (Snowe & Collins) would wake up, realize we are the majority, and do the people's business.

We won the Executive, Congress and Senate. Why must we always oblige the minority wishes? They certainly didnt when the roles were reversed.

Majority rules, nuff said.

Eagler · « **Reply #48 on:** May 24, 2005, 09:30:24 PM »

how long was the recession again?

how was it turned around in such short order again?

in what admin did the decline start?

which admin pulled it outa the hole in record time even with 911 compounding the issue?

I'm sure goron & the dems would have invented something that woulda done it faster - LOL LOL LOL

rpm · « **Reply #49 on:** May 25, 2005, 12:37:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mighty1
I wouldn't say it was Bush's fault for not uniting the country.

He has tried many times to reach across the aisle only to have his hand smacked.

Huh? Why don't you list a few.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #50 on:** May 25, 2005, 01:38:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Well I know he has an extremely left wing voting record. does that count?

Extreme compared to who? I'd say for a supposed "leftist liberal" he has a fairly moderate voting record, and has in fact pissed off the liberals more than once for not being liberal enough. Granted, he has gone with the left more times than not in the past, but he was gearing up to run for president too.

Steve · « **Reply #51 on:** May 25, 2005, 02:26:13 AM »

Quote

Granted, he has gone with the left more times than not in the past

Well there ya go.

Quote

but he was gearing up to run for president too.

Ummm people running for President try to mover toward the middle for a run, not either wing. well, people that hope to win anyway. Just look at Hillary's behavior lately. thankfully, and I am thankful, enough people know her for the whackjob she is and won't vote for her.

lazs2 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 25, 2005, 08:40:30 AM »

hang.. you are probly right and Bush is out to get me financially in order to benifiet the rich but..

I got no choice. I like guns and Hot rods and don't like helmet or seatbelt or condom laws. I moved away from home and moms rule long ago... not gonna go back to pre teen having mom tell me what to do for my own good by voting for a democrat.

I don't feel treating everyone differently is the road to equality. I feel socialism is evil. I think all crime is "hate" crime and it shouldn't have to be mentioned.

If a few more gazzilonares get a little richer in order to keep democrats out of my life then it is worth it.

If the supreme court gets a few more judges that believe the constitution is not a "progressive document" meant to be changed with the times like bell bottoms and disco... then it indeed all worth it.

lazs

Hangtime · « **Reply #53 on:** May 25, 2005, 09:12:57 AM »

I don't think dems are any more 'evil' than republicans.

They both lie like rugs to further their agendas.

Time for some changes. Tax code has ta go. Flat tax corporations; fund SS, get a decent health progam in motion, get education fixed, restore common sense in the courts.

These ain't republican OR democratic agendas.. I'm tired of the high profile tease tactics of politicians on either side of the asile. It seems like a promise made is a guaranteed promise broken... regardless of who makes it.

I dunno how to fix whats wrong.. I do know it's busted. One thing that folks should consider is it doesn't matter which side of the asile a good (or bad) idea comes from. Just as soon as folks on the street drop the partisan bullchit, it'll get dropped in Washington.

Stop looking for the (r) or (d) behind a politicians name. If he makes sense and has a decent agenda, get his bellybutton into washington. If he's been there awile and keeps dropping the ball, get his bellybutton out next election.

Sandman · « **Reply #54 on:** May 25, 2005, 12:31:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul

Majority rules, nuff said.

Not in this country. The minority has always been valued.

The majority ruled in Germany and we all know where that got them.

ASTAC · « **Reply #55 on:** May 25, 2005, 01:08:28 PM »

"It has become clear that The Republic no longer functions"

Toad · « **Reply #56 on:** May 25, 2005, 01:14:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
Majority rules, nuff said.

By design much of what US government does requires more than a simple majority.

For example, take amending the Constitution,

Congress proposes an amendment by a 2/3 majority; 3/4 of the states ratify by simple majority votes in their state legislatures.

In that process, a simple majority only figures in at the State legislature level.

There are numerous examples and ample writing all from the Founders that show a "simple majority" was not one of their sacred cows. In fact, the evidence points the other way.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #57 on:** May 25, 2005, 01:27:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve

Ummm people running for President try to mover toward the middle for a run, not either wing. well, people that hope to win anyway. Just look at Hillary's behavior lately. thankfully, and I am thankful, enough people know her for the whackjob she is and won't vote for her.

Forgive the rambling nature this post will take, lots of stuff in the head (mostly junk probably) and little time today.
********

Basically I think he lied his bellybutton off because he felt the liberal guys had the strongest part of the Democrat party under their umbrella, and he wanted their support. Being moderate as a Democrat these days might keep you popular back home, but it does nothing to get you on TV. Do I think Dean has liberal tendencies? Of course. Is he perfect? No. But at least he has a spine and I think he might be just center enough to support some of the same things I do if he gets a chance. Bottom line is, he's a politician and I trust him to be what he is and nothing more. But I do believe he has an agenda under all of that, and my guess is that while I wont like part of it, I can live with it. Like I said, I could be wrong. But whats to lose? Like Bush and his buddies havent tried to take away any freedoms? I mean, we got an end to that stupid gun ban, but we gained the Patriot Act? Not much of a trade IMO. At least the gun ban was pretty much useless as far as the average gun owner was concerned. Made some nice profits for dealers and collectors. Clinton gave the anti-gun nuts something and they loved it. He also made sure it didnt really have any teeth, and set it to expire. He played it so it worked for both sides. I believe thats called "compromise". Bush doesnt know how to do that, and apparently his crew doesnt either. I hate extremists of any stripe, left or right.

lazs2 · « **Reply #58 on:** May 25, 2005, 02:26:53 PM »

hang... sometimes it just saves you a lot of time if you read the "r" or "d" at the end of their name.... you won't have to worry if socialism is their agenda or.... dues.. for being where they are.. You won't have to wonder where they stand on firearms rights..

You certainly won't have to wonder where they stand on school vouchers which are the only way to "fix" our bloated, worthless monoploly of a school system. You probly won't have to worry about the next batch of laws to make your car or motorcycle even more unfun.

Call me insensitive... I don't care about the rest of the crap.

lazs

Urchin · « **Reply #59 on:** May 25, 2005, 02:32:09 PM »

IIRC, and I might get this a little wrong. For those of you looking for statistics... I'm going by memory here but the numbers will be close.

Divided up by quintiles...

The top 20% earned 50% of the income and paid 75% of the income tax. (2003)

The top 20% have 84% of the wealth in the country (assets, not paychecks, for those who don't know the difference). (2001)

Bottom 40% have 0% wealth. (actually, the bottom 20% have negative wealth, the next 20% almost cancel the bottom 20% out).

The wealth distribution is tremendously inequitable, even being in the top 20% of wage earners doesn't really mean you'll have much wealth. The top 10% of wage earners own 71% of the wealth, the top 5% 59%, the top 1% 33%.

Does it matter? Not at all. Hell, that is just a sign that our chosen form of government/society works. It is working as intended.

By the way, I was relatively disappointed that the Republicans chickened out of their attempt to seize control of the judiciary. That would have led to a true one party system, as no Republican would have ever lost another election of any importance. I'm sure they'll seize absolute power before the end of Bush's second term though. There really isn't any danger of the Democrats coming off the ropes any time soon, but why take chances? Better to ensure they never can.