next »

[ronkny]

This is campaign reform in the wrong direction.

What we need to do is to stop this perpetual campaign that we seem to have going.  The moment a Representative (or even the President) takes office they are starting to raise funds and campaign for re-election.  This is insane.  The guy never really gets to do anything; it's perpetual fundraising and politicking.  No real actions.

I would like to see a 3 month limit on all campaigns.  We start in mid-summer and go to November.  Whole thing.  Primaries, final campaign, etc.  Before that NOTHING.  It's similar to what is done in other democracies and I'll bet it will cut down on a lot of the excesses: there is a limit on how much money you can actually spend in 3 months; even if you blanket the district/country with saturation advertising.  The richer candidates won't have such an advantage and a poor candidate with a good idea might be able to be heard.

I think I also would like to put spending caps on campaigns anyway.  A lot of us get turned off from the incessant "hard sell" ads hammering at the various candidates; usually from their opponents trying to emphasize some defect.  "Are you aware that Frimis is a blatant heterosexual?!?!?!?"

Sounds good to me but the fox is guarding the hen house so fugedaboudit.

[sly fox]

you have to add last night's vote in the House approving the CR to next week as a violation of the GOP's promise not to vote on a bill which hadn't been made public for a minimum time period.

I know it is a "cheap shot" they were up against the deadline but I recall similar complaints when the House of Representatives was run by the Democrats.

Think about it folks, the negotiations are done, but who knows what they are?  What is getting cut and by how much.  In reality, the vote last night was more than extending a CR but it was an approval of the deal as well.  To quote the Republicans from last year -

"who read the bill, where is the bill? What's in the bill"

All we know is the number, although I have seen 38 Billion and 38.5 Billion cited, and the "riders" are gone but some of those will be brought to the floor of the House and Senate for separate up and down votes.

[BGuttman]

I have no problem with them bringing up the riders as separate bills.  They can be discussed and passed (or not).  I just object to them being porked into something that MUST be passed.

And it's especially egregious that the porkers are the ones who were campaigning hardest against pork.  Not kosher

[ronkny]

I have no problem with them bringing up the riders as separate bills.  They can be discussed and passed (or not).  I just object to them being porked into something that MUST be passed.

And it's especially egregious that the porkers are the ones who were campaigning hardest against pork.  Not kosher

School vouchers for poor kids in DC?  What pork?

[sly fox]

And it's especially egregious that the porkers are the ones who were campaigning hardest against pork.  Not kosher

Surely, you are not hamming it up.

tell me is pork ever kosher?

School vouchers for poor kids in DC?  What pork?

Thanks ronkny, you reminded me of another "oopsie" by the House Republicans.  They were always complaining that the Democrats, when they were in charge, were adding "policy" matters and "legislating" when passing "revenue" bills.  They said, if they, (the Republicans) were in charge, they wouldn't do that.

Well, the Republicans are in charge in the House and:

the Republicans did the same thing in their effort to add these "riders" to their take it or leave it offers to the Senate.

That's another "oopsie"

[ronkny]

Surely, you are not hamming it up.

tell me is pork ever kosher?

Thanks ronkny, you reminded me of another "oopsie" by the House Republicans.  They were always complaining that the Democrats, when they were in charge, were adding "policy" matters and "legislating" when passing "revenue" bills.  They said, if they, (the Republicans) were in charge, they wouldn't do that.

Well, the Republicans are in charge in the House and:

the Republicans did the same thing in their effort to add these "riders" to their take it or leave it offers to the Senate.

That's another "oopsie"

Where's the pork!

[sly fox]

it's not in the kosher hot dogs, for sure

[ronkny]

it's not in the kosher hot dogs, for sure

Correct!

[ronkny]

So it's a Kosher budget.  Tov!

[sly fox]

if this true, it is the biggest Oopsie so far

I've heard that sometime this week the House will be debating Ryan's budget proposal for FY 2012 (beginnng Oct 1, 2011 and ending September 30, 2012) that was unveiled last week. 

If so, I have a few questions:

where was the openness of its development

where and when were the hearings on it

where and when did Representative Ryan, (R) Chairman of the House Budget Committee seek the people's input.

who did he get input from?

as I said, this would be the biggest departure from what the GOP promised so far.

do you agree or disagree?

[ronkny]

if this true, it is the biggest Oopsie so far

I've heard that sometime this week the House will be debating Ryan's budget proposal for FY 2012 (beginnng Oct 1, 2011 and ending September 30, 2012) that was unveiled last week. 

If so, I have a few questions:

where was the openness of its development

where and when were the hearings on it

where and when did Representative Ryan, (R) Chairman of the House Budget Committee seek the people's input.

who did he get input from?

as I said, this would be the biggest departure from what the GOP promised so far.

do you agree or disagree?

Disagree

[BGuttman]

if this true, it is the biggest Oopsie so far

I've heard that sometime this week the House will be debating Ryan's budget proposal for FY 2012 (beginnng Oct 1, 2011 and ending September 30, 2012) that was unveiled last week. 

If so, I have a few questions:

where was the openness of its development

where and when were the hearings on it

where and when did Representative Ryan, (R) Chairman of the House Budget Committee seek the people's input.

who did he get input from?

as I said, this would be the biggest departure from what the GOP promised so far.

do you agree or disagree?

Disagree

OK.  So if I do it it's OK.  If you do it it's not OK.  Is that the reasoning?

[Russ White]

We'll see how open, participatory, and transparent the proceedings are once this boondoggle hits the floor. Wouldn't count on much.

[sly fox]

Another big Oopsie

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110414/pl_yblog_exclusive/why-38-5b-budget-deal-will-only-cut-spending-by-352m

By this account, it seems that the Tea Partiers in the GOP lost the budget battle. Badly.

GOP campaigned on cutting $100 Billion from the President's FY 2011 budget.  Elect us and we will do it.

They win the House and in January pass HR 1, which calls for cutting much less than $100 Billion because we are already in  FY 2011.

Then they "settled" for demanding $41 Billion b/c the FY 2011 was half over.

reached agreement with the President @ 38.5 Billion

which turns out to be much, much, much, much, less -

Another big Oopsie

   ... and the beat goes on ... 

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/details-of-spending-deal-demonstrate-that-budget-cutting-ain-t-easy-20110412

BUDGET
Budget Cutting Ain’t Easy

spending for the White House and Congress.
By Tim Fernholz

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 | 3:15 p.m. ...

   ... the beat goes on ... 


I think the Tea Partiers will consider this a betrayal by the "main stream" GOP.

will Michele (ma belle????) or someone challenge Boehner as Speaker?

Is Boehner a RINO?

Are the Tea Partiers happy now?

how about Ronkny, are you happy now?

[sly fox]

another oopsie, will the House GOP ever start following the rules they created?

. . .

despite promises of open hearings and debate, the GOP majority with 10 Democrats joining vote to end "watergate era" reform:  public finance of presidential elections

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70P8VC20110126

no committee actions, no hearings, no amendments, isn't that what the GOP was yelling about the last 2 years?  Oh wait, there was committee actions and hearings held by the Democrats wasn't there? . . .

you have to add last night's vote in the House approving the CR to next week as a violation of the GOP's promise not to vote on a bill which hadn't been made public for a minimum time period.

I know it is a "cheap shot" they were up against the deadline but I recall similar complaints when the House of Representatives was run by the Democrats.

Think about it folks, the negotiations are done, but who knows what they are?  What is getting cut and by how much.  In reality, the vote last night was more than extending a CR but it was an approval of the deal as well.  To quote the Republicans from last year -

"who read the bill, where is the bill? What's in the bill"

All we know is the number, although I have seen 38 Billion and 38.5 Billion cited, and the "riders" are gone but some of those will be brought to the floor of the House and Senate for separate up and down votes.

now, the GOP is doing it again:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/28/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=us_c2

House vote on Republican debt plan set for Thursday
By Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen, CNN

July 28, 2011 3:56 a.m. EDT . . .

where is the GOP outrage??????

hypocrisy in action once again.

[BGuttman]

Is this a corollary for the "Be careful what you ask for .." saw?  Here is a case where putting the bill up for extended review will delay it way too long.  Yet this is what the Republicans asked for earlier.

[Baron von Bone]

This is campaign reform in the wrong direction.
 
What we need to do is to stop this perpetual campaign that we seem to have going.  The moment a Representative (or even the President) takes office they are starting to raise funds and campaign for re-election.  This is insane.  The guy never really gets to do anything; it's perpetual fundraising and politicking.  No real actions.
 
I would like to see a 3 month limit on all campaigns.  We start in mid-summer and go to November.  Whole thing.  Primaries, final campaign, etc.  Before that NOTHING.  It's similar to what is done in other democracies and I'll bet it will cut down on a lot of the excesses: there is a limit on how much money you can actually spend in 3 months; even if you blanket the district/country with saturation advertising.  The richer candidates won't have such an advantage and a poor candidate with a good idea might be able to be heard.
 
I think I also would like to put spending caps on campaigns anyway.  A lot of us get turned off from the incessant "hard sell" ads hammering at the various candidates; usually from their opponents trying to emphasize some defect.  "Are you aware that Frimis is a blatant heterosexual?!?!?!?"

Communist!

[sly fox]

. . . Yet this is what the Republicans asked for earlier.

ASKED FOR

more like DEMANDED and yelled their heads off when they didn't get it.

THEY CAMPAIGNED ON IT AND PROMISED THEY WOULD NOT DO THIS

my secretary had a little sign on her desk, I know, I gave it to her:

"my [the attorney] lack of planning does not create your [the secretary's] emergency"

this was to remind me that I had to allow for preparation time for her to type and make copies.  If I was doing a legal memorandum for the Court due in 20 days, I had to get her the rough draft in 12 days so she could get it back to me in 14 days so I could get her the final by 16 days leaving 4 days to type up the final legal memorandum.

it took planning, discipline and foresight

where or where is that with today's GOP?

nowhere

[BGuttman]

I find the lack of sense of urgency interesting.

We originally had a May deadline for exceeding the debt limit.  When that began to approach, Obama asked his folks to figure out if there was a way to stretch the deadline by accounting "tricks" (moving payments around, etc.).  Suddenly this became the "official" way around the debt limit and we have the uncooperative TEA Party starting to think this can be done again.  If it was so easy to dodge the bullet, don't you think they would have done it again?  This time somebody is going to get hurt, and the markets will lose faith.  While the "hurt" is small, the loss of faith can be devastating.  And we have our Elephantine friends to thank for it.  I guess the last Recession wasn't bad enough for them; they want a bigger one.  Maybe this time a full Panic (like the Panic of 1893).  15% unemployment isn't enough for them (I'm counting discouraged workers here); maybe we need 50%.  Maybe more.  What will happen when nobody has any money to buy the cheap crap coming from overseas any more?

I'm just in a foul mood today.

[Baron von Bone]

I'm just in a foul mood today.

Ideologues in the position to impose their self-impōtant, short-sighted foolishness on everyone tends have that kind of effect.