Obama Raids Federal Pension To Continue Funding Radical Spending Policies

[etrigan420]

There's really not much sense in voting. We're only going to have one of two that have been selected by the Dems or Reps, and they are going to continue the fight against each other while Rome burns. It's what they do.

You know what kills me the most?

Even when they pull a trifecta (Senate, HoR, & Pres.), they *still* can't do shit!

Neither one of them!

That's just fucking ridiculous, and proves that very few of them actually give 2 shits about "us".

It's almost sad really... :$

 

[fskimospy]

Can't we just "sack" the entire government like other countries have in the past and then have special elections to replace every single politician at once in Washington?

Then drag the lobbyist and other power brokers out in the street and shoot them? (or at least beat them and ship them to Alaska?)

You realize that lobbying is a constitutionally protected right, the same as freedom of speech and religion, right?

 

[Craig234]

You know what kills me the most?

Even when they pull a trifecta (Senate, HoR, & Pres.), they *still* can't do shit!

Neither one of them!

That's just fucking ridiculous, and proves that very few of them actually give 2 shits about "us".

It's almost sad really... :$

Maybe you should recall the abuse of the filibuster blocking basically everything, and the list of bills the House passed the Senate blocked, much less the progressive agenda.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Lately we've had some posters who are just self-parodying caricatures of the idiot right.



What's a waste of breath is trying to help someone that deluded.

Heh, I knew my sig would get to some of you. And you totally fail to see the sarcasm in it. Congrats! :biggrin:

 

[nonlnear]

Maybe you should recall the abuse of the filibuster blocking basically everything, and the list of bills the House passed the Senate blocked, much less the progressive agenda.

Mmmm mmmm, ah looove me some filibuster. And what do you mean by "abuse"? I get the impression that you consider any filibuster you disagree with to be "abusive". That can't be right, can it? No no, I've got it: a devout statist like yourself probably considers all filibusters to be abusive. After all, anything that impedes a government from asserting its sovereign authority over the mob is just plain inconvenient.

 

[Jhhnn]

Mmmm mmmm, ah looove me some filibuster. And what do you mean by "abuse"? I get the impression that you consider any filibuster you disagree with to be "abusive". That can't be right, can it? No no, I've got it: a devout statist like yourself probably considers all filibusters to be abusive. After all, anything that impedes a government from asserting its sovereign authority over the mob is just plain inconvenient.

Rave on. What he means by abuse is this- the explosive increase in cloture motions required since Repubs fell into the minority in the Senate-

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/chart-of-the-day-how-the-filibuster-broke-the-senate/

Which doesn't even count the other abuses of the process, like secret holds on nominees.

 

[Artista]

You realize that lobbying is a constitutionally protected right, the same as freedom of speech and religion, right?

I just read the Constitution and I didn't see it in there!

Really though asking a member of Congress to consider voting one way or the other is strictly speaking, "lobbying". We can all do that by writing our elected officials. It is the back room deals, pay offs, bribes, gifts, etc. that make it illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.

Lets face it there are no legal or moral lobbyist. It is all corrupt power brokering done by wicked lobbyist lingering in the dark and sliding through greased up loop holes. It needs to stop.

Plus even if there is a "legal" form of it (which no one adheres to) that doesn't make it smart, morally correct or the right thing for our country.

 

[fskimospy]

I just read the Constitution and I didn't see it in there!

Really though asking a member of Congress to consider voting one way or the other is strictly speaking, "lobbying". We can all do that by writing our elected officials. It is the back room deals, pay offs, bribes, gifts, etc. that make it illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.

Lets face it there are no legal or moral lobbyist. It is all corrupt power brokering done by wicked lobbyist lingering in the dark and sliding through greased up loop holes. It needs to stop.

Plus even if there is a "legal" form of it (which no one adheres to) that doesn't make it smart, morally correct or the right thing for our country.

It's in the first amendment, lobbying is petitioning the government for redress of grievances. You might not like how it's done, but it is constitutionally protected.

As for saying there are no moral lobbyists, what are you basing that on? Do you think the people calling Congressmen to help disabled veterans get funding to deal with their disabilities are immoral? They are lobbyists too.

 

[dmcowen674]

What a joke......he is raping our future.

The joke is you, Fox, the OP and the rest of your cabal.

 

[nonlnear]

Rave on. What he means by abuse is this- the explosive increase in cloture motions required since Repubs fell into the minority in the Senate-

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/chart-of-the-day-how-the-filibuster-broke-the-senate/

Which doesn't even count the other abuses of the process, like secret holds on nominees.

I still don't get the peppering of the term "abuse". In the game of politics, the rules are the game. That's the deal. This whining about "abuse" of procedures that are abused by both parties is just pathetic, no matter which party is doing the whining. They both take their turns at playing the pathetic "abuse" card. It's a meaningless populist gimmick to pique the ire of the base. It's so transparent and mindless that Craig will never see through it.

 

[Jhhnn]

I still don't get the peppering of the term "abuse". In the game of politics, the rules are the game. That's the deal. This whining about "abuse" of procedures that are abused by both parties is just pathetic, no matter which party is doing the whining. They both take their turns at playing the pathetic "abuse" card. It's a meaningless populist gimmick to pique the ire of the base. It's so transparent and mindless that Craig will never see through it.

Willful blindness, I gather. Repubs use of the filibuster is utterly unprecedented, and an obvious attempt to inflict the minority's will on the rest of us. It's even worse when you figure that the Senate itself isn't egalitarian at all, with 2 sparsely populated red state Senators having the same clout as 2 from New York, California, or Texas...

I will agree that Repubs' whining about judicial nominees during the Bush years was unseemly, and their threat of the nuclear option even worse, particularly when Dems had allowed something like 195 of Bush's nominees, filibustered 8...

 

[nonlnear]

Willful blindness, I gather.

Of what? I hat eRepubs as much as Dems. That jsut so happens to make me impervious to Dems' stage tears.

Repubs use of the filibuster is utterly unprecedented, and an obvious attempt to inflict the minority's will on the rest of us. It's even worse when you figure that the Senate itself isn't egalitarian at all, with 2 sparsely populated red state Senators having the same clout as 2 from New York, California, or Texas...

What exactly does "egalitarian" mean, and why do you assume that this nebulous term is particularly worthwhile? The senate was designed to protect the [limited] sovereignty of the states from federal overreach. The fact that this was subverted by bad amendments doesn't somehow make the legacy of its original design "bad". It is what it is.

I will agree that Repubs' whining about judicial nominees during the Bush years was unseemly, and their threat of the nuclear option even worse, particularly when Dems had allowed something like 195 of Bush's nominees, filibustered 8...

Maybe the Dems at the time didn't care as much, or there were other strategic purposes, like manipulating the Congressional schedule. See I just don't care either way. It's a game that they both play ruthlessly. I don't give either party any sympathy - especially when they complain about being the victim of "abuse". That's about as bad as campaign ads that have the words "the children". Appeals to emotion serve only one purpose in politics: to get people to make a decision using something other than a careful analysis of facts.

Now I'm not defending any particular use of the filibuster. I'm only arguing against the assertion that using the filibuster, even in an "unprecedented" way, is abuse. It isn't. It is legal, effective, and may be the only tactic available to a party under certain circumstances. Those simple facts make it easy to draw an obvious conclusion: either party would probably do the same thing if the tables were turned. C'est la vie.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Stop using logic. Logic isn't allowed in here.

 

[Craig234]

You posted idiocy. I was tempted to leave it at that but will make a couple points.

Of what? I hat eRepubs as much as Dems. That jsut so happens to make me impervious to Dems' stage tears.
What exactly does "egalitarian" mean, and why do you assume that this nebulous term is particularly worthwhile? The senate was designed to protect the [limited] sovereignty of the states from federal overreach. The fact that this was subverted by bad amendments doesn't somehow make the legacy of its original design "bad". It is what it is.

Maybe the Dems at the time didn't care as much, or there were other strategic purposes, like manipulating the Congressional schedule. See I just don't care either way. It's a game that they both play ruthlessly. I don't give either party any sympathy - especially when they complain about being the victim of "abuse". That's about as bad as campaign ads that have the words "the children". Appeals to emotion serve only one purpose in politics: to get people to make a decision using something other than a careful analysis of facts.

Now I'm not defending any particular use of the filibuster. I'm only arguing against the assertion that using the filibuster, even in an "unprecedented" way, is abuse. It isn't. It is legal, effective, and may be the only tactic available to a party under certain circumstances. Those simple facts make it easy to draw an obvious conclusion: either party would probably do the same thing if the tables were turned. C'est la vie.

Clearly you can't tell the difference between "abuse" and "legal"; abuse and "effective"; and you think 'the only tactic available' is a justification.

Guess what, nonlinear? When people lose elections, they're not necessarily *supposed* to still be able to prevent all legislation they don't like.

Most bills in the Senate require *50%+1* of the votes to pass - not 52, not 60, not 81, not 100.

Those are the rules. There are exceptions; some things take other percentages to pass, such as convicting in an impeachment, which requires 2/3+1 IIRC.

And there are filibusters - a process designed for a certain purpose, a purpose which is NOT "get rid of the 50%+1 bill for every bill you don't like", but LIMITED use.

That's too much for you to get, I understand. For you, there are only two things - 'they can get away with it, so it's 100% fine, or they can't'.

But that's your problem - not the correct opinion.

Let's take your points 1 at a time - the 'only resort they had left' one, already addressed above, let's look at that logic.

So if the 'only resort someone has left' to get what they want is to lie, that's ok. If Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't get JFK out of office with his vote or a letter with his opinion, I guess the only resort he had left is to shoot him. So it's ok. After all, there's no way the Republicans could possibly be asked to LOSE VOTES 51-49, 60-40, 56-44, and so on, because THEY WON LESS THAN 50 SEATS NEEDED TO WIN THE VOTES.

No, they can't possibly be asked to do that - so clearly anything they can possibly do that's 'legal' and 'effective' is perfectly fine to get their way instead. That's your 'logic'.

You don't have the word 'abuse' in your vocabulary. It's 'legal' or 'illegal' only.

Let's take 'legal'. You think everything legal is perfectly ok?

So, if someone walks down the street insulting people terribly, it's legal, so there's *nothing wrong* with it. If you can go from fast food restaurant to fast food restaurant and stand at the menu saying you're still deciding until they order you to leave all day, that's perfectly ok, since it's legal. If you do what a poster said they plan to today, and write to politicians around the country pretending to be their constituent, if there's no actual law against it - no problem, it's legal.

If you carry a sign walking the sidewalk at your nearby school encouraging children to take illegal drugs, if there's no law against it, it's not abuse of free speech - it's legal.

And if your employer has sick days, and you want a vacation and say you're sick of not taking vacation and that makes it ok to say you're out sick - no abuse, it's legal.

How many examples do we need to make the point that legal and abuse are not the same standard, that you don't get?

The filibuster had some element of judgment expected in its use, some criterion, which are completely abused by Republicans (among other abuses of rules, such as refusing to approve ANY of the President's appointees if they don't get their way on an unrelated matter, abusing their power of consent). The filibuster was NOT a way for 40 Senators to block practically ALL legislation as if they had 51 votes.

Your last argument was 'effective'. Do you really need it explained to you that 'effective' does not preclude 'abuse'?

Oswald was 'effective'. Lying can be 'effective'. All kinds of abuse can be 'effective' - but it's still abuse and generally wrong.

If you organize your political allies to call your opponents' phone bank all day and it prevents them making calls and is 'effective' at denying their right to call voters, does it being 'effective' mean it's not abuse of the phone system or that it's ok? If the politicians didn't realize to pass a law against that, it it not abuse and 'ok'? If it's 'the only way you can win the election' because voters like the other guy more, does that make it not abuse and ok?

Wasting my breath here. You don't get what abuse is.

Republicans ABUSED a process to STEAL political power to block legislation that they DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO under democracy, which says that 50%+1 of the Senate, which Democrats had, are supposed to be able to pass most bills over the 40 Senators who lost 60 elections. The filibuster has been around a long time, and has never been used for, and was not intended for, this abuse.

There are a lot of abuses possible. They're abuses. This one is a serious abuse that robbed the American people of the government they elected, well over 50 Democrats - not to mention the other branches - as can be seen in the many policies the Democrats could have passed, many policies that passed in the House, that had over 50 votes in the Senate, enough to pass as the government is designed for passing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, well you can all stand proudly as champions of the filibuster next time the GOP gains the Senate as you did under Bush.

 

[sportage]

Yeah this is no doubt Fox News sourced BS...
Sounds like it. Smells like it. Sticks to your boots like it.
Whether its fox or cnn or msnbc, they all have their agenda.
No one is going to feed you the news of truth by watching tabloid tv.
And that is all we have left today on the air. Tabloid tv.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, well you can all stand proudly as champions of the filibuster next time the GOP gains the Senate as you did under Bush.

Fact is the Democrats can't compare to the Republicans on the filibustering.

Is you saying otherwise reckless ignorance or dishonesty?

 

[1prophet]

It's in the first amendment, lobbying is petitioning the government for redress of grievances. You might not like how it's done, but it is constitutionally protected.

As for saying there are no moral lobbyists, what are you basing that on? Do you think the people calling Congressmen to help disabled veterans get funding to deal with their disabilities are immoral? They are lobbyists too.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

A grievance is a wrong or hardship suffered, which is the grounds of a complaint.

So all these corporations that spend untold millions lobbying for their profit only mentality are they the same as those that lobby to right wrongs and hardships they suffer?

 

[nonlnear]

You posted idiocy. I was tempted to leave it at that but will make a couple points.

Clearly you can't tell the difference between "abuse" and "legal"; abuse and "effective"; and you think 'the only tactic available' is a justification.

I never said anything about justification. I find the entire game rather repugnant to be honest, but I have no delusions about some secret code of honor or principles, and am especially suspicious of any politician or party that attempts to posture as being principled when it comes to "abusive" tactics.

Guess what, nonlinear? When people lose elections, they're not necessarily *supposed* to still be able to prevent all legislation they don't like.

Most bills in the Senate require *50%+1* of the votes to pass - not 52, not 60, not 81, not 100.

Those are the rules. There are exceptions; some things take other percentages to pass, such as convicting in an impeachment, which requires 2/3+1 IIRC.

And there are filibusters - a process designed for a certain purpose, a purpose which is NOT "get rid of the 50%+1 bill for every bill you don't like", but LIMITED use.

That's too much for you to get, I understand. For you, there are only two things - 'they can get away with it, so it's 100% fine, or they can't'.

Here's a clue: the entire unwritten premise of the legal profession is that there is no such thing as a "purpose" to anything. There are words, interpretive traditions, and, well that's about it. The values that are sold to the public like "truth" and "integrity" are campaigning gimmicks. There's a handful of people in the game (yes, in both parties) who practice otherwise, but they never get anywhere in the inner circles of power.

But that's your problem - not the correct opinion.

Let's take your points 1 at a time - the 'only resort they had left' one, already addressed above, let's look at that logic.

So if the 'only resort someone has left' to get what they want is to lie, that's ok. If Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't get JFK out of office with his vote or a letter with his opinion, I guess the only resort he had left is to shoot him. So it's ok. After all, there's no way the Republicans could possibly be asked to LOSE VOTES 51-49, 60-40, 56-44, and so on, because THEY WON LESS THAN 50 SEATS NEEDED TO WIN THE VOTES.

No, they can't possibly be asked to do that - so clearly anything they can possibly do that's 'legal' and 'effective' is perfectly fine to get their way instead. That's your 'logic'.

What's so magical about 50%+1? It's not like the senate is proportionally representative anyways (not that I care, but some do), so why are you so attached to that ostensibly magical threshold? 50%+1 represents precisely nothing abotu the underlying public opinion. All it shows is that somebody somewhere managed to game enough votes. That's it. It will never mean anything more, and it will never mean anything less.

You don't have the word 'abuse' in your vocabulary. It's 'legal' or 'illegal' only.

Let's take 'legal'. You think everything legal is perfectly ok?

I never said that. I said that's the de facto rule of the game. A game that I find repugnant, but I don't let that personal prejudice blind me to the simple reality in front of my eyes.

So, if someone walks down the street insulting people terribly, it's legal, so there's *nothing wrong* with it.

Nothing that Congressional rules or applicable law gives me any recourse against. That's all I've ever said in this thread.

If you can go from fast food restaurant to fast food restaurant and stand at the menu saying you're still deciding until they order you to leave all day, that's perfectly ok, since it's legal.

Yup. It's rude and inconsiderate, but the right to be rude and inconsiderate is actually one of the vital foundations of a meaningful right to free speech. If a law were passed to the contrary I would think that to be an alarmingly authoritarian development.

If you do what a poster said they plan to today, and write to politicians around the country pretending to be their constituent, if there's no actual law against it - no problem, it's legal.

And don't think there aren't groups advocating for both parties who aren't doing exactly that this very day. It's dishonest and subversive, but given that there is no way to prevent it (actually I wouldn't object to a law making it criminal to specifically represent oneself as a constituent of a different district/state tahn one is but if you say it's legal I'll take your word for it).

If you carry a sign walking the sidewalk at your nearby school encouraging children to take illegal drugs, if there's no law against it, it's not abuse of free speech - it's legal.

Actually if my neighbors went on a positive information campaign abotu the DEA's lies and the insidious practices of such harmful programs as D.A.R.E., I would consider them community heroes.

And if your employer has sick days, and you want a vacation and say you're sick of not taking vacation and that makes it ok to say you're out sick - no abuse, it's legal.

Depending on the employer's PTO policy, yup. I give my employer my best efforts at work, not the details of my health.

How many examples do we need to make the point that legal and abuse are not the same standard, that you don't get?

Actually you have clearly misunderstood my point. I was simply pointing out the reality of the game, not saying that there is anything principled about it. I do find it quaint that there are people who try to hold the DC game to a standard of principles though. Everythign makes a lot more sense once you take those glasses off.

The filibuster had some element of judgment expected in its use, some criterion, which are completely abused by Republicans (among other abuses of rules, such as refusing to approve ANY of the President's appointees if they don't get their way on an unrelated matter, abusing their power of consent). The filibuster was NOT a way for 40 Senators to block practically ALL legislation as if they had 51 votes.

The words you just posted mean absolutely nothing to anyone with any power in DC. Yes, even your beloved Democrats.

Your last argument was 'effective'. Do you really need it explained to you that 'effective' does not preclude 'abuse'?

Why bother arguing against something I never said?

Oswald was 'effective'. Lying can be 'effective'. All kinds of abuse can be 'effective' - but it's still abuse and generally wrong.

There was a time when I might have been surprised that somebody could be a true believer in any party and still believe in phrases like "generally wrong". Talk about cognitive dissonance! Bu tthen not much surprises me any more...

If you organize your political allies to call your opponents' phone bank all day and it prevents them making calls and is 'effective' at denying their right to call voters, does it being 'effective' mean it's not abuse of the phone system or that it's ok? If the politicians didn't realize to pass a law against that, it it not abuse and 'ok'? If it's 'the only way you can win the election' because voters like the other guy more, does that make it not abuse and ok?

Wasting my breath here. You don't get what abuse is.

Republicans ABUSED a process to STEAL political power to block legislation that they DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO under democracy, which says that 50%+1 of the Senate, which Democrats had, are supposed to be able to pass most bills over the 40 Senators who lost 60 elections. The filibuster has been around a long time, and has never been used for, and was not intended for, this abuse.

Yes, you are wasting your breath here. The problem is I do get what abuse is. ALL political power is stolen. I don't believe in the religion that masquerades as democracy. It's marginally better than its predecessors, but it's got some fundamental paradoxes (as all political systems do) that require religious fervor to overlook. But then government is religious in function and form, so that's no surprise.

There are a lot of abuses possible. They're abuses. This one is a serious abuse that robbed the American people of the government they elected, well over 50 Democrats - not to mention the other branches - as can be seen in the many policies the Democrats could have passed, many policies that passed in the House, that had over 50 votes in the Senate, enough to pass as the government is designed for passing.

I'll refrain from a historical litany of "unprecedented" Democratic "abuses". After all I'm not really trying to argue for the Republicans here, just making some observations of patently obvious facts. Not to mention it would be pointless...

(And I'll actually concede the point that the Republicans have been worse about doing "unprincipled" things in the last few decades; I simply don't believe in political principles though, so it doesn't faze me.)

 

[soulcougher73]

The first year's budget was passed before he took office.

But..but..those are facts. He cant let those get in the way of his ideals.

 

[werepossum]

Lately we've had some posters who are just self-parodying caricatures of the idiot right.

What's a waste of breath is trying to help someone that deluded.

Before this I'd have doubted that the most ironic post ever in the history of the Internet would be right here in P&N. How wrong I would have been!

Someone notify Algore, irony has been perfected on his creation.

 

[fskimospy]

A grievance is a wrong or hardship suffered, which is the grounds of a complaint.

So all these corporations that spend untold millions lobbying for their profit only mentality are they the same as those that lobby to right wrongs and hardships they suffer?

Grievances are merely causes for complaint or protest, which covers basically everything on planet earth (as it should, we should always be allowed to have the government hear our protests). A policy you believe to be bad because it lowers your profits is a valid complaint.

It's not that I don't think the whole process as it takes place isn't shitty, it's just that it's constitutionally protected.

 

[nonlnear]

Crickets234

 

[Balt]

Sure both sides deserve blame, but when the deficit is $1.6 Trillion and the government almost shuts down over $30 Billion in cuts, we have a problem.

Well the largest problem is that the largest expenditures weren't even considered 'on the table' for discussion in budget cut talks. Neither party wants to take on the entitlements.

Hell, even Newt threw Paul Ryan under the bus for bringing it up. I'm not saying Ryan's plan is a good one, but at least he had enough spine to point out where some of the real budget problems are. Of course, he's not going to consider raising taxes, but I doubt anyone would expect him to.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well the largest problem is that the largest expenditures weren't even considered 'on the table' for discussion in budget cut talks. Neither party wants to take on the entitlements.

Hell, even Newt threw Paul Ryan under the bus for bringing it up. I'm not saying Ryan's plan is a good one, but at least he had enough spine to point out where some of the real budget problems are. Of course, he's not going to consider raising taxes, but I doubt anyone would expect him to.

Actually, he proposed eliminating capital gains taxes and eliminating middle class deductions, gutting medicare- basically open class warfare, waged from the top down.

I mean, austerity is obviously a good thing, so long as it doesn't touch the privileged class...