MOBflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:42 pm

Apparently, 500 million of the 140 million American jobs are at risk if this joke of a "stimulus plan" doesn't pass quickly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E&feature=related

And also - millions for family planning and birth control are legitimate expenditures in the name of stimulating the economy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omxQuDtF1ZM&NR=1

Give me a break people! This lady is a liberal wack-job - who now has a friend in the White House. This is what we have to face for the next two years!
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10889
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:04 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Thread starter):
Give me a break people! This lady is a liberal wack-job

You just figured that out now?

Quoting MOBflyer (Thread starter):
who now has a friend in the White House.

Hmmm, not so sure about that.

Quoting MOBflyer (Thread starter):
This is what we have to face for the next two years!

Patience grasshopper, just let the DNC hang themselves. They are off to a good start.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
MOBflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:27 am



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 1):
You just figured that out now?

I've known it, but I have never had such blatent evidence of complete mental retardation.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 1):
Hmmm, not so sure about that.

They are much friendlier with each other than W and Pelosi were. Moreso than having a friend though - her party has control of both chambers and the executive branch.

I'm further right than left (in case you couldn't tell) but I do believe that divided government is best government over all.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:47 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Thread starter):
This lady is a liberal wack-job

Let's try to build some consensus and not use the typical labels. . . call her a wackjob, but no more labels. I'm sure there are plenty of democrats scratching their heads with at least some of the things being said by their own representatives.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10889
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:51 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 2):
I'm further right than left (in case you couldn't tell) but I do believe that divided government is best government over all.

Oh your sig let that cat out of the bag right quick.  biggrin 

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 2):
I've known it, but I have never had such blatent evidence of complete mental retardation.

You been listening to Michael Savage I believe he used something close to that term the other night to describe liberalism.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:43 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Thread starter):
Apparently, 500 million of the 140 million American jobs are at risk if this joke of a "stimulus plan" doesn't pass quickly:

Years ago, a congressman said "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money." I think that we can swap out the word "billion" for "trillion" now.

This is what scares me. Her scales have gone up by a factor of a thousand, but so have the public's. Remember Clinton's huge stimulus bill in 1993? It was $35 billion. The suppliment Bush asked for in 2003 to pay for the war, and over which there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth? $70 billion. We just spent $700 billion a few months ago, and now we are looking at nearly a trillion more, and Democrats are still saying "it needs to be bigger". The $819 billion boondoggle that came out of the House has now grown by $100 billion.

I applaud the House GOP for standing firm, and hope the Senate will do the same. A proper stimulus bill should ONLY contain things that can be spent/completed within 6-12 months, and must not require future commitments (i.e. no new programs - they belong in seperate, more usual bills). Do that (at about 25% of the cost) and I won't mind the GOP signing on.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
mham001
Posts: 4190
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:57 am

Actually Obama pretty much snubbed Pelosi when he said the bill needs work. She has to be fuming right now as thin skinned as she is.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:37 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Thread starter):
Give me a break people! This lady is a liberal wack-job - who now has a friend in the White House.

Ya her an her genius buddy Harry Reid.

As a California resident I apologize for sending her to Washington.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10889
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:32 pm



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
As a California resident I apologize for sending her to Washington.

No need to, many know that SFO isn't even close to how CA is as whole state. I do feel for you to have to say you are from her state but don't worry her time is coming.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:31 pm

Wasn't it Pelosi that wanted to start taxing Social Security benefits and using it to help the illegal aliens in this country?

I can see the headlines, now........."Speaker of the House beaten by Mob of Geratrics!"  Wink
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
luckyone
Posts: 2280
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:55 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 2):
her party has control of both chambers

While they have a majority in both houses, they do not have a filibuster-proof Senate, a very good thing regardless of who's in office, so I don't know if I would call it complete control.  Smile
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:41 am

Actually, I think the only "stimulus" that Speaker Pelosi needs is electro-shock therapy.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:38 am



Quoting Mham001 (Reply 6):
Actually Obama pretty much snubbed Pelosi when he said the bill needs work. She has to be fuming right now as thin skinned as she is.

But he did say it was his package a few times. Pelosi and Reid are the ones who made this and someday Obama is going to wish he is not linked to these two.
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:46 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
Let's try to build some consensus and not use the typical labels. . . call her a wackjob, but no more labels.

Thank you for a breath of fresh air!

Again, The Economist agrees with you and provides a long-overdue perspective on the use of the term "liberal".

 Smile

Now if we can move on from the name-calling and focus on the issues... Oh wait, no chance of that, this is A.net after all...  Sad
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:56 pm

Presumably as N P is all sorts of bad things there is nothing to this graph?

http://speaker.gov/img/jobsrecessionsSM.jpg

This chart compares the job loss so far in this recession to job losses in the 1990-1991 recession and the 2001 recession – showing how dramatic and unprecedented the job loss over the last 13 months has been. Over the last 13 months, our economy has lost a total of 3.6 million jobs – and continuing job losses in the next few months are predicted.

By comparison, we lost a total of 1.6 million jobs in the 1990-1991 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing; and we lost a total of 2.7 million jobs in the 2001 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing.


Just as well she is a "a liberal wack-job" or that would be serious.
 
Elite
Posts: 2296
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:31 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:11 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 2):
I'm further right than left (in case you couldn't tell) but I do believe that divided government is best government over all.

From what I have learned, it is just a myth that people believe divided government functions better than unified government. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, and history can show that Presidents with a unified government don't find it any easier, while some Presidents with a divided government have an easier time with Congress.
 
MOBflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:16 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
Just as well she is a "a liberal wack-job" or that would be serious.

No one said the recession is not serious. But that very chart shows us how much of an idiot she is: it says we've lost $3.5 million jobs so far.... thats 0.7% of the amount she said we stand to lose, despite the fact that we have only 300 million americans, and far fewer jobs than that.....

but yeah, a loss of 500 milion jobs, that possible  Sad

So I say it again: Nancy Pelosi is a fear mongering liberal wack job!
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:45 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Thread starter):
This lady is a liberal wack-job - who now has a friend in the White House.



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
but no more labels.

Labels and the team identity / sports team mentality are only convenient for those who don't want to think too much. Many people will vote for their favorite political party and attack the other party year in and year out because it is easier than thinking.

If the Republicans had won in 2008, they would be working on a stimulus bill, and all the same arguments from each side we hear today we would still be hearing - except out of the opposite political mouths.

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 10):
they do not have a filibuster-proof Senate,

The Senate is vastly un-Democratic and should be eliminated or severely reformed.

Mighty North Dakota with its 600k residents has equal say to California with 37,000,000 residents = meaning ND has 60 times the representation in the Senate on a per-constitutent basis as California.

Of course, this arrangement favors rural America with few large cities = Republicans.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 18):
So I say it again: Nancy Pelosi is a fear mongering liberal wack job!

I agree that they have no clue as to whether this will work or not, this is just a big guess on their part - but since all they care about is keeping their jobs they do have some incentive to make it work.

Interesting you should call her fear mongering because now maybe it gives you a sense of what your political opposites felt about Bush and Cheney's constant attempts to instill the fear of terror, "radical Muslims", etc...

Cairo
 
j_hallgren
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 11:48 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:59 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 18):
The Senate is vastly un-Democratic and should be eliminated or severely reformed.

Mighty North Dakota with its 600k residents has equal say to California with 37,000,000 residents = meaning ND has 60 times the representation in the Senate on a per-constitutent basis as California.

Of course, this arrangement favors rural America with few large cities = Republicans.

Eliminate/reformed? No, in fact that's exactly the reason why the Senate exists! To provide a check/balance to the House! They are based on population and Senate is based on each state having same input...remember that USA is NOT a democracy, but a representative republic so there is a big difference, and the system works quite well...besides if if favors Repub's, why are the Dem's now in total control? Huh?
COBOL - Not a dead language yet!
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:54 pm



Quoting J_Hallgren (Reply 21):
remember that USA is NOT a democracy, but a representative republic so there is a big difference

Indeed. Which kind of flies in the face of the previous administration's alleged desire to spread "democracy" in the Middle East...  Smile
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:57 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
I applaud the House GOP for standing firm,

Give me a break. Politically opposing this is the best thing the GOP can do. I bet even if it would get Rush Limbaugh's blessing the GOP would still find it politically beneficial to oppose it why?

1. If it fails to live to expectations: Which will undoubtedly happen ( i mean seriously, who is ever 100% happy with anything?) They have ammo for the future.

2. If it helps somewhat: They can claim it was because of the changes that they fought so hard for...

They is no political loss for the GOP to oppose it. They would be stupid.. Well they were a bit, when they praised Obama for meeting with them earlier.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
The suppliment Bush asked for in 2003 to pay for the war, and over which there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth? $70 billion.

And how much has that $70 billion turned into?
Step into my office, baby
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:00 am



Quoting J_Hallgren (Reply 21):
They are based on population and Senate is based on each state having same input

Wow, thanks for the civics lesson - but do you think maybe we can raise the discussion beyond what is taught to 3rd graders?

Quoting J_Hallgren (Reply 21):
besides if if favors Repub's, why are the Dem's now in total control? Huh?

Because even though the Senate favors Republicans by giving 2 senators to each state, Republicans are so unpopular that even this advantage is not enough to get them a majority.

The Republicans won NO major city in 2008, not even those in red states like Texas...the only places Republicans win is in rural areas with no cities = the unpopulated middle and western states like the Dakotas whose 2 senators are a freakish insult to Californians, Texans and New Yorkers and a joke to a nation loudly proclaiming its democracy to the world...

Cairo
 
FL787
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:18 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:16 am



Quoting Cairo (Reply 24):
The Republicans won NO major city in 2008, not even those in red states like Texas...the only places Republicans win is in rural areas with no cities = the unpopulated middle and western states like the Dakotas whose 2 senators are a freakish insult to Californians, Texans and New Yorkers and a joke to a nation loudly proclaiming its democracy to the world...

Last I checked if the major cities outnumbered the suburbs and rural cities a democrat would have won. But the cities aren't a majority so it sounds like democracy to me.
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:15 am

Boeing, while it would be fun to address every thing you say, can you help me with one thing first? What exactly is it about a US Senate elected by popular vote that scares you? What is so bad that you fear would happen?

Cairo
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:56 am



Quoting Cairo (Reply 30):
Boeing, while it would be fun to address every thing you say, can you help me with one thing first? What exactly is it about a US Senate elected by popular vote that scares you? What is so bad that you fear would happen?

Gee, I don't know...how about that we already have that in the House of Representatives. How about the loss of the check and balances built in by our Founding Fathers with the main purpose of preventing clusters of population from dominating the whole political landscape with those outside those population centers consistently under-represented.

I have no problems with Senators being elected by popular vote...as that is how you phrased your question. The the Senate was designed so all 50 states had two senators. If you want a legislative house that assigns representatives based on population, you have the House of Representatives.

With both of these houses in existence, you cannot claim the existance of either a tyranny of the majority, or of the minority. That was the whole purpose of a bicameral legislature.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:41 am

Boeing, around 80% of America lives in the cities and this is growing. Let's say it gets to 95 or even 99.99% of the population living in the cities, such that 25 rural states in the south, midwest and west have only 0.01% of the population and the remaining 25 states have the other 99.99% of the people. Do you still support a Senate in this scenario with such a small minority having equal say to such a large majority?
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:54 am



Quoting Cairo (Reply 32):
Boeing, around 80% of America lives in the cities and this is growing. Let's say it gets to 95 or even 99.99% of the population living in the cities, such that 25 rural states in the south, midwest and west have only 0.01% of the population and the remaining 25 states have the other 99.99% of the people. Do you still support a Senate in this scenario with such a small minority having equal say to such a large majority?

How many times am I going to have to repeat this? The House of Representatives already covers this. I'm sorry, but the Senate is fair. And that's that. That 20% has a right to that equal representation in a house built upon every state having two representatives. If this problem you state was happening in the House of Representatives, with representation doled out based on population, then I'd agree with you.

Good night.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:01 am

I got caught up in the white screen of death syndrome trying to reply, but nevertheless:

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 18):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
Just as well she is a "a liberal wack-job" or that would be serious.

No one said the recession is not serious. But that very chart shows us how much of an idiot she is: it says we've lost $3.5 million jobs so far.... thats 0.7% of the amount she said we stand to lose, despite the fact that we have only 300 million americans, and far fewer jobs than that.....

but yeah, a loss of 500 milion jobs, that possible Sad

I don't suppose that a loss of 500 million jobs is possible. Not to be picky, but she wrote lost 3.5 million jobs and not $3.5 million jobs - whatever they might be. I have looked to see where 500 comes from - please let me know. The whole page on the web-site does not contain the number 500 as far as I can tell.

She goes on to say:
JOB LOSSES:
In January, American job losses totaled 598,000 -- the worst month of jobs losses since 1974 and the 13th straight month of job losses. Total job loss since the recession began in December 2007 has climbed to 3.6 million, the largest 13-month job loss on record (series began in 1939). About one-half of this decline occurred in the past 3 months.

BROAD RANGE OF INDUSTRIES IMPACTED
Factories slashed 207,000 jobs in January, the largest one-month drop since October 1982. Construction companies got rid of 111,000 jobs. Professional and business services chopped 121,000 positions. Retailers eliminated 45,000 jobs. Leisure and hospitality axed 28,000 slots.

UNEMPLOYMENT & PART-TIME WORK
In January, the unemployment rate surged to 7.6 percent --- the highest level in 16 years -- up from 4.7 percent in 2007. The number of Americans looking for work climbed to 11.6 million in January -- 4.1 million more than a year ago and the highest number in 26 years. An additional 3.1 million Americans have been forced into part-time work in the last year.

LAYOFFS
Leading American companies (including those at Macy's, Caterpillar Inc., pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Sprint Nextel Corp., and Home Depot) continue to announce layoffs --- with more than 70,000 workers layoffs announced in one day.

ECONOMY IN RECESSION
This winter, the Gross Domestic Product fell 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 2008 -- the largest contraction since the steep recession of the early 1980s. Business investment dropped at a 19 percent pace, the most since 1975. The U.S. economy has officially been in recession since December 2007, already making it the longest downturn since 1981-82. Analysts say this downturn could be the most severe since the Great Depression.


Seems more sensible by the word. How about a handkerchief to remove the red mist?  pray 
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:33 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 25):
Boeing, around 80% of America lives in the cities and this is growing.

Actually, the number is closer to 58%, counting cities of greater than 200K population. You can't compare living in Bismark SD with New York.

The problem comes from the idea of preventing "a dictatorship of the majority" What if the city dwellers decide to eliminate the income tax in favor of a land tax? Civil wars have been fought when a minority gets crowded out like that.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2280
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:00 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 17):
The Senate is vastly un-Democratic and should be eliminated or severely reformed.

Mighty North Dakota with its 600k residents has equal say to California with 37,000,000 residents = meaning ND has 60 times the representation in the Senate on a per-constitutent basis as California.

Of course, this arrangement favors rural America with few large cities = Republicans

The Senate was devised as a balance to the House of Reps. to ensure that small states did not get trampled by big states. It's a way to ensure that people like our dear barking moonbat from San Francisco don't have unchecked control over people who live in different states. Those, less populated states, BTW, are responsible for a great deal of our food and just because they live in less populated areas doesn't mean their opinions count for anything less.

FYI, the Senate was originally determined by State legislatures. This was changed by either the 16th or 17th Ammendment. One is the directly elected Senate and the other deals with income taxes (don't remember off the top of my head which is which but IMHO they should both go)

Quoting Cairo (Reply 23):
What exactly is it about a US Senate elected by popular vote that scares you?

Well it wasn't the way it was designed to be. See above.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 25):
Boeing, around 80% of America lives in the cities and this is growing

Define city. Outside of the big 3 (New York, LA, and Chicago) a "city" in the United States can have a broad definition. They are usually vastly different from what is termed a city in many parts of the world.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:03 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 19):
Of course, this arrangement favors rural America with few large cities = Republicans.

Oooh, another Republican conspiracy, huh?  Yeah sure

Ya know, it's not like there WERE political parties in this country when the constitution was written, let alone favoring the Repulicans. I suppose in your world, those that live in rural areas shouldn't have ANY representation, especially Republican? Only the elite that live in the big cities, hmmm?

Quoting Cairo (Reply 24):


Quoting J_Hallgren (Reply 21):
They are based on population and Senate is based on each state having same input

Wow, thanks for the civics lesson - but do you think maybe we can raise the discussion beyond what is taught to 3rd graders?

Maybe you're having trouble understanding something that a 3rd grader could understand.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 23):
What exactly is it about a US Senate elected by popular vote that scares you?

Uh, they ARE elected by popular vote.  Yeah sure
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:41 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
Actually, the number is closer to 58%, counting cities of greater than 200K population. You can't compare living in Bismark SD with New York.

I use US census to determine rural v. urban - it's about 80% urban.

Yes, you can compare smaller cities with New York - because they generally vote similarly.
Look at this map and drill down to the county detail. In virtually every state, most if not all of any sized population center votes for the Democrats.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

(ok - Bismark voted Republican and there are of course other cities in other states that did, but the other 2 named cities in North Dakota, Fargo and Grand Forks, voted Democrat.)


Quoting Luckyone (Reply 29):
and just because they live in less populated areas doesn't mean their opinions count for anything less.

Who is saying their opinions should count for less? I am saying their opinion should be equal based on one man-one vote - you guys are saying the opinions of rural voters should be valued higher than urban voters on a person-by-person basis. You guys have a real problem with democracy. Why?

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 29):
l it wasn't the way it was designed to be.

Doesn't matter. Go to law school and learn - the framers were wrong about many things and these things get changed. Slavery. Women voting. The way money is issued.

The dead hand of the past does not rule the lives of the currently living - the undemocratically elected Senate is another thing that should be changed.

...and btw, you can still ensure a legislative body less subjected to immediate short term trends by keeping or expanding their term time, by imposing term limitations, and by gerry-mandering Senate districts so that rural voters get a say according to their population.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 30):
Oooh, another Republican conspiracy, huh?

Well, it's celar what your fear is - true democracy is bad for Republicans. I would never stoop so low to have someone else define me politically, btw, so I carry no party designation.

If you read the history of why the Senate was set up with a 2-senator-per-state method, it was done so as a compromise to the royalists, elitists and wealthy who did not trust the will of the regular people - it was very much analagous to the way the hereditary House of Lords was used (now almost entirely eliminated) as a way to add moneyed/landed influence over government at the expense of democracy....

Like the House of Lords, the way the Senate is composed should be changed or it should be eliminated.

Cairo
 
luckyone
Posts: 2280
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:10 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 31):
Who is saying their opinions should count for less? I am saying their opinion should be equal based on one man-one vote - you guys are saying the opinions of rural voters should be valued higher than urban voters on a person-by-person basis. You guys have a real problem with democracy.

No, we are saying that they should be coutned as equal and the Senate is a measure to ensure that. And the United States is NOT a democracy. The United States IS a Republic.

Unfortunately your apparent lack of understanding of the United States Consitution (if in fact you're an American educated in government schools) has become frighteningly prevalent!
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:20 pm



Quoting Luckyone (Reply 32):
The United States IS a Republic.

The needless pedantic recitation of things you learned at the lowest level of school is really irrelevant, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat or explain the way it is now, which is not news to anyone - I'm talking about a better, more perfect, union.

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 32):
Unfortunately your apparent lack of understanding of the United States Consitution

I went to law school at the University of Texas. You? Tell me about your years of constitutional research.

The Constitution has its share of mistakes, it is not the unchangeable word of God, and the framers have been corrected several times - slavery was wrong and the way eligible voters were chosen initially would cause America to be classified as a nation with only tiny democratic processes.

The funny thing is that as far as I can tell, the people on this thread opposing making the Senate democratic do so because they fear control by the Democrats -- instead of ensuring the electoral process gives an un-democratic edge to Republicans, it might be a wiser idea to ensure the Republicans stand for something popular if your interest is having them in power.

Cairo
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:24 pm

Quoting Cairo (Reply 31):
the undemocratically elected Senate is another thing that should be changed.

You keep saying that, but how are they "undemocratically elected" if they are elected by popular vote?

Quoting Cairo (Reply 31):
Quoting Mayor (Reply 30):
Oooh, another Republican conspiracy, huh?

Well, it's celar what your fear is - true democracy is bad for Republicans. I would never stoop so low to have someone else define me politically, btw, so I carry no party designation.

Not really, because I'm an independent. You on the other hand, while maybe not outwardly labeled with a party affiliation, every statement you make labels you as a Democrat.

Using your reasoning (or what passes for it) all states would NOT have an equal voice. Higher population states and areas would have more say on the running of the country. If this was the case, populations in most smaller states wouldn't bother to vote at all....why would they want to if it didn't count, anyway? What you're suggesting is like the Electoral College, applied to general elections as well.

BTW, read your constitution......the U.S. is a Democratic REPUBLIC.....a representational democracy, not a true democracy.

One other thing....just because you don't like something in the Constitution, doesn't make it wrong. They may have got some things wrong, but they got an awful lot right. The slavery thing was a compromise. The framers wanted it stated in the Constitution that there would be no slavery......the states that were heavy into slavery at the time said they would never sign the constitution if that was in there, so, the framers were caught between a rock and a hard place. Put the anti-slavery language in there and more than likely, the entire thing would fail, or leave it out and hope it could be resolved at a later date.

[Edited 2009-02-13 09:29:39]
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:35 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 33):
I went to law school

So did the majority of our politicians.


Your continued replies on here could possibly label you as an elitist. You find something in the democracy that doesn't favor your political party, so you just label it as wrong for everyone.

BTW, remember....Obama only got 53% of the vote.....hardly a mandate of the people.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:36 pm



Quoting Mayor (Reply 34):
You keep saying that, but how are they "undemocratically elected" if they are elected by popular vote?

Fundamentally a democracy gives equal voting power to every citizen - the Senate is undemocratically elected because 600k voters in North Dakota get the same voice as 38 million Californians. Someone living in North Dakota is 60 x as represented in Washington as a Calfornian - this is not democratic.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 34):
every statement you make labels you as a Democrat.

Like what?

Quoting Mayor (Reply 34):
Using your reasoning (or what passes for it) all states would NOT have an equal voice.

Very true. States are lines on a map written mostly in the 19th century with little relevance to the way people live today. There is no reason why the mostly arbitrary state boundary lines should trump democracy in terms of representation in Washington.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 34):
Higher population states and areas would have more say on the running of the country.

****Correct, welcome to democracy = majority rule! ****

Quoting Mayor (Reply 34):
populations in most smaller states wouldn't bother to vote at all....why would they want to if it didn't count, anyway?

Who says it wouldn't count? They'd still get a vote, but only now in proportion to their population, economic value, taxes paid, etc... all of which is tied to how many people live there.

As to them not voting - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (Spock!), and if they choose not to vote, so be it. There is nothing inherently great about the rural mind that they should be so vastly over-represented in Washington.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 34):
What you're suggesting is like the Electoral College, applied to general elections as well.

I'm suggesting make all voters have an equal say in Washington, meaning each person has no more say than any other - right now rural voters have a hugely larger say in DC than their city counterparts.

Cairo
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:40 pm



Quoting Mayor (Reply 35):
BTW, remember....Obama only got 53% of the vote.....hardly a mandate of the people.

EXACTLY! Proves my point perfectly. See how narrow the election is... if true democracy were brought to the Senate you would have nothing to fear, it would probably end up being very close to whatever the presidential elections were in terms of favoring Democrats or Republicans.

Cairo
 
MOBflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:46 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):

Fundamentally a democracy gives equal voting power to every citizen - the Senate is undemocratically elected because 600k voters in North Dakota get the same voice as 38 million Californians. Someone living in North Dakota is 60 x as represented in Washington as a Calfornian - this is not democratic.

The legislative branch's two bodies, the House of Representitives and the Senate, are of different contsitiuencies. The House of Represenatives, as its name implies, is meant to be the chamber of the people. The Senate is meant to represent the states. Senators are appointed by the state legislature. Many of those legislatures defer to a general election or an executive appointment by the governor. I fail to see the issue here.....
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:48 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
the Senate is undemocratically elected

I think what you mean is "undemocratically REPRESENTED", not elected. The elections are decided by popular vote, within their districts and within their states.

The needs of those within higher population areas are vastly different than those in rural areas, but, shouldn't the needs of those in the rural areas be just as great?

If we were to eliminate the Senate or alter it like the House model, where is the voice of those in rural areas? Wouldn't those in high population areas, then be OVER-represented?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:00 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 38):
The Senate is meant to represent the states

Why is an non-living thing respresented in government? As I think Boeing pointed out, the view of your kind is that even a state with one person, or no people living in it, should have 2 senators.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 38):
I fail to see the issue here.....

The issue is that rural voters have vastly more say in Washington than the by-far more populous city voters. In the House, everyone is equally represented; in the Senate the rural voteres are HUGELY over-represented = advantage to ther rural voters.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 39):
The needs of those within higher population areas are vastly different than those in rural areas, but, shouldn't the needs of those in the rural areas be just as great?

OK, thanks for finally bringing up legitimate concerns here instead of just giving dictionary definitions of abstract words, borrowing what you think you heard an expert say, or offering platitudes learned in 4th grade government class.

I agree - the rural areas do have different needs and agendas. Is there a way to let them have a strong say for the things that are important to them without forcing the will of the minority onto the majority?

Quoting Mayor (Reply 39):
If we were to eliminate the Senate or alter it like the House model, where is the voice of those in rural areas?

Well, first of all, please explain why rural areas are so special that they need a voice beyond what their population implies.

Take today's current situation and expand it to the extremes to understand my point...what if one person lived in each of the Dakotas, Alaska, Wyoming and 20 other states and 300 million people lived in the other 26 states. You still think 2 senators per state is right? With about 20 people having equal say as 300 million?

Quoting Mayor (Reply 39):
Wouldn't those in high population areas, then be OVER-represented?

How is one-man one-vote over represented?

Every voter is equal in the House - every voter is not equal in the Senate, because voters in rural states have a far bigger say than voters in more urban states on a voter-by-voter basis.

What is it that you fear the city people will do, I'd honestly like to know?

Cairo
 
seb146
Posts: 13783
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:13 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 40):
in the Senate the rural voteres are HUGELY over-represented = advantage to ther rural voters.

Not really. Take Oregon, since that is the state I live in. We have 5 representatives and two Senators. Greg Walden represents eastern and central Oregon. That is probably about 200,000 people. Both Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley represent 2-3 million or so people in the entire state of Oregon. Those two men have to get together and decide what is best for the whole state from the least populated county to the most populated county. All Walden has to worry about is the sparsly populated areas.

However, in election years, no matter what party they represent, pandering is in full effect. Wyden and Merkley will have to pander to the majority of people, which would be the valley and Bend. They don't need to carry or worry about eastern or southern Oregon. In effect, the valley is represented in the Senate.

I have always felt, for Oregon, anyway, the valley is HUGELY over-represented.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2280
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:03 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
Correct, welcome to democracy = majority rule!



Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
I'm suggesting make all voters have an equal say in Washington, meaning each person has no more say than any other - right now rural voters have a hugely larger say in DC than their city counterparts

No, they don't, because we have the.... drumroll please..... HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The root word "represent" is even in the title!

Quoting Cairo (Reply 33):
I went to law school at the University of Texas. You? Tell me about your years of constitutional research.

Some of the stupidest people I've ever met hold Ph.Ds. All it means is time, nothing more.
If you want to look at it your way, I apparently still have a better grasp on the workings of the constitution than you do and I only had to read it.

Your entire premesis is that the GOP has an inherent advantage is flawed in that 1) at present time the Democratic Party holds a plurality* in both houses of congress, 2) party planks change over time (ie. the Republicans freed the slaves and didn't have a prayer in the South for over a century) and 3) party dominance is a natural shift in politics.


*I used the word plurality for semantics because even though they technically do hold a majority in the Senate, it is not filibuster proof, a signficant point. Plurality was the next best thing in mind mind  Smile
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:41 pm



Quoting Luckyone (Reply 42):
No, they don't, because we have the.... drumroll please..... HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The root word "represent" is even in the title!

Everyone is equally represented in the house of representatives, right?

Everyone is not equally represented in the Senate - rural voters are much more powerful.

Hence, with one half of congress equal and one half in favor of rural voters (the higher half at that), rural voters have the stronger advantage.

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 42):
Some of the stupidest people I've ever met hold Ph.Ds. All it means is time, nothing more

I did not criticize your education or understanding of the constitution, [at least not until] you challenged mine... my only choice was to reluctantly respond definitively to your implication only you can understand something you haven't studied.

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 42):
If you want to look at it your way, I apparently still have a better grasp on the workings of the constitution than you do and I only had to read it.

No doubt you can read. Are you able to determine when words written long ago are still true and relevant?

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 42):
Your entire premesis is that the GOP has an inherent advantage is flawed in that 1) at present time the Democratic Party holds a plurality* in both houses of congress,

My premise is not that the GOP has an inherent advantage so much as rural voters have the advantage...I am party-less myself.

Also, my premise is not flawed with the current situation - all this proves is that even WITH the advantage Republicans currently enjoy among the over-represented rural population in the US Senate, they still can not hold on to a majority.

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 42):
2) party planks change over time (ie. the Republicans freed the slaves and didn't have a prayer in the South for over a century)

Absolutely! Again, this proves my point that democracy is nothing to fear. It used to be that Democrats held sway over rural voters and perhaps one day this will be true again - no one needs to worry that making the Senate democratic gives a permanent advantage to one party or the other. The ideals and presentation of the party does that.

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 42):
3) party dominance is a natural shift in politics.

Absolutely! Let the people decide which parties they want in control in Washington based on the premise that each voter has an equal say in the election of their officials in the capitol - the minority (rural voters) have an unjustifiable much bigger voice in Washington than the majority (city voters) thanks to the undemocratic US Senate.

Got to go drink now - best of luck.

Cairo
 
MOBflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:09 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 41):
That is probably about 200,000 people.

Actually, its 684,280. Which is right in line with the target of 646,952.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 41):
Both Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley represent 2-3 million or so people in the entire state of Oregon.

There are 3.8 million people in Oregon.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 41):
All Walden has to worry about is the sparsly populated areas.

While his area is the least densely populated, the population distribution is 64.43% urban and 35.57% rural.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2280
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:05 pm



Quoting Cairo (Reply 43):
Hence, with one half of congress equal and one half in favor of rural voters (the higher half at that), rural voters have the stronger advantage.

No doubt you're aware a half and a half make one. No doubt you're also aware that the other half and a half make one, so the score is tied at one, which is the point. The point is not to let the larger states trample the smaller states. Why is that such a bad thing?
 
seb146
Posts: 13783
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:48 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 44):
Actually, its 684,280. Which is right in line with the target of 646,952.

Okay... I didn't think Bend/Redmond was included in his district.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 44):
While his area is the least densely populated, the population distribution is 64.43% urban and 35.57% rural.

But, look at what is "urban" and what is "rural." Urban on that side of the mountains is much, much different than urban on this side.

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 45):
The point is not to let the larger states trample the smaller states. Why is that such a bad thing?

Exactly! Alaska should get the exact same representation in one house as New York.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:10 am

Er tell me, was this thread about the stimulus or is stimulus a code for the way the Senators are elected?

Interesting that some are suggesting that constitutions can be a bit like institutional constipation. Any chance that Pelosi's* graphs about the rate of losing jobs are wrong, or does that not matter any more?

* She does source it to the Bur Stats.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6669
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Nancy Pelosi And This "stimulus"

Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:46 pm

Thread changed topic, but a good one any way, so I'll add my take. The Senate was created to ensure the union which became the United States of America. Cairo is looking at the situation as if the precidents established before has no meaning. When the framers of the constitution sat down together, they decided against what they already knew, the English system, they had a group of colonies who they wanted to bring together to create a country, there was the people within the colonies and the colonies themselves, hence the House and the Senate.

If the US Senate was changed the way Cairo wants based on representation, does any one believe that the union would continue, whey would the smaller states allow their tax base and population to decline to the benefit of say New York or California? Americans are free to move around their country to visit or live in whichever state that they want to, if the US Senate was configured based on population rather than states free movement of American would be much different, think about that for a second.

As to the thread topic, if any of us had read the entire 1,000 pages and looked at all entitlements, we would see how the influence of the Senate comes into play, the bill went up when it got to the Senate, not lower, for the same reason that the Senate ultimately exist, to protect the Union, the house takes care of the people.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BreninTW, flyingclrs727, Francoflier and 23 guests