It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New GOP Senate Humiliates Harry Reid With Major Announcement

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The reason for the gridlock was simple: no one wanted to take any political risks with elections coming up.

It actually blew up in the faces of the Democrats, obviously.


Politics now works this way:
Step 1) Campaign.
Step 2) Get elected.
Step 3) Do just enough to pander to your core voters while also satisfying the big-money donors that really got you into office.
Step 4) Stop doing anything that could upset any segment of voters.
Step 5) Start campaigning again.
Step 6) Do absolutely nothing until you get reelected.

Rinse. Repeat.




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
The reason for the gridlock was simple: no one wanted to take any political risks with elections coming up.

It actually blew up in the faces of the Democrats, obviously.


Politics now works this way:
Step 1) Campaign.
Step 2) Get elected.
Step 3) Do just enough to pander to your core voters while also satisfying the big-money donors that really got you into office.
Step 4) Stop doing anything that could upset any segment of voters.
Step 5) Start campaigning again.
Step 6) Do absolutely nothing until you get reelected.

Rinse. Repeat.


When did politics ever work different? That's how politics has always worked. The only thing that has changed is how much and what people do during step 3.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Answer
The reason for the gridlock was simple: no one wanted to take any political risks with elections coming up.

It actually blew up in the faces of the Democrats, obviously.


Politics now works this way:
Step 1) Campaign.
Step 2) Get elected.
Step 3) Do just enough to pander to your core voters while also satisfying the big-money donors that really got you into office.
Step 4) Stop doing anything that could upset any segment of voters.
Step 5) Start campaigning again.
Step 6) Do absolutely nothing until you get reelected.

Rinse. Repeat.


When did politics ever work different? That's how politics has always worked. The only thing that has changed is how much and what people do during step 3.


Yeah, unfortunately the more I study about the history of American politics, the more I realize that nothing has changed.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I don't want more "conservative" laws any more than I want more "progressive" laws. I fewer laws and less government; not more laws and more government. Perhaps good old stagnation in Congress is better than the alternatives.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I don't want more "conservative" laws any more than I want more "progressive" laws. I want fewer laws and less government; not more laws and more government. Perhaps good old stagnation in Congress is better than the alternatives.
edit on 28-1-2015 by Detergent because: typo



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
in re; 'Republican Filibusters'; do you have a source on that?

any speculation on how many media outlets will report the Republican activity and compare to Reid's shutdowns? Outside of Fox and the Blaze I mean? I'm guessing, none. why inform the public when Republicans do something positive?
edit on 28-1-2015 by works4dhs because: redo quote



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: netbound

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

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


so the Democrats would support Nixon today? not a chance.
I have no special love for pols today but I think it's very low to speculate on their stance on other issues at other times. let them stand or fall on their stands and principles today.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You're arguing for a perpetual-taxation state. Welfare generally doesn't get taxed because it doesn't equal out to be over the minimum taxable income level (or what bit that does go above that threshhold doesn't replace the amount received). But that's just part of it--there is a ridiculous level of taxation at every stage of the trickle-up economic theory that you described.

While I'm not a fan of corporate welfare, either, there's a simple counter to your argument based just on your example of wealthy people investing/saving their money: Investing, just like purchasing products or services, provides a company with more income in order to do the same things that you mention personal welfare dollars do. Also, on the saving side of things, money in savings accounts at banks are what allow banks to provide those with less income to get approved on loan applications or get credit lines or cards. Without that hoarded-away money, they couldn't do those things. Plus, the financial institutions make money on both the saved money AND the loaned money, so it also gives them profits that they otherwise wouldn't have, just by the money sitting in their banks.

I have thought about your proposed "free" welfare program, and it's wrong. Sorry. Nothing is life is free, and those of us not on the welfare system pay extra for those who are--and not willingly, but forcebly through taxation. Then that money from taxes gets taxed again (although not entirely) through income/gas/cigarette/whatever taxes that these people must pay when making purchases. It's a taxation perpetual motion machine. Really makes you wonder why we're so far in debt as a nation in the U.S. when the same dollar gets taxed so many damn times.

But, no, ALL welfare systems are a burden on most people's taxes, regardless of whether or not you think it's free. Reality doesn't support your argument at all.

ETA: Also, keep in mind that your example--Norway--has slightly more than half of the population of New York City proper. If the U.S.'s population were tiny, but made nearly the same GDP amount per capita (actually, Norway's is a tad higher), it'd be very simple to keep a welfare system like Norway's in check and running efficiently. The problem with the U.S. government is that nothing it does is efficient--the cost wouldn't justify the system. Oh, and then there's that


Norway's modern manufacturing and welfare system rely on a financial reserve produced by exploitation of natural resources, particularly North Sea oil.


Wiki Source (with five linked references)

Also, the entire country is very much run in a Socialist way, using taxation and government assistance to try and limit or "guide" the habits and purchases of its citizens. Not really a great form of gov't, IMO. America is moving toward that, and it disgusts me.
edit on 29-1-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You're arguing for a perpetual-taxation state. Welfare generally doesn't get taxed because it doesn't equal out to be over the minimum taxable income level (or what bit that does go above that threshhold doesn't replace the amount received). But that's just part of it--there is a ridiculous level of taxation at every stage of the trickle-up economic theory that you described.


Possibly, but aren't we in a perpetual taxation state now? Any system which has taxes on consumable goods from fuel to food is perpetual taxation and in a system where there's a perpetual government those recurring taxes are a necessity. From my post it's probably obvious that I don't mind taxes. I like everyone else don't like seeing money taken out of my check, but I've looked at it enough to realize that taxes aren't a quality of life issue. Instead it seems to be the opposite, the nations with the higher taxes have a better quality of life but a lot of this comes down to how that money is spent.


While I'm not a fan of corporate welfare, either, there's a simple counter to your argument based just on your example of wealthy people investing/saving their money: Investing, just like purchasing products or services, provides a company with more income in order to do the same things that you mention personal welfare dollars do. Also, on the saving side of things, money in savings accounts at banks are what allow banks to provide those with less income to get approved on loan applications or get credit lines or cards. Without that hoarded-away money, they couldn't do those things. Plus, the financial institutions make money on both the saved money AND the loaned money, so it also gives them profits that they otherwise wouldn't have, just by the money sitting in their banks.


I've thought about this as well, it's the whole basis of trickle down economics. The idea is that those at the top wind up with a lot of surplus money which they then spend in investments, thereby creating jobs and more wealth. Those employees then spend their paychecks and we all end up richer. Here's the big difference: Those at the top have no obligation to spend their money in the local economy. A rich businessman for example can invest in a business by outsourcing jobs to India for a higher return which removes the money from the economy. Alternatively they can save it which again removes it from the economy. When you add money to those on the bottom however they have little choice but to spend it in the local economy, as long as that is happening (meaning they aren't saving it) you eventually recover 100% of all tax dollars spent.

As far as banking capital goes, perhaps you remember the days where a loan required 10% down? It was pretty standard for a long time and there's a reason for that: The maximum leverage was limited to 10:1 which means that for every $1 in money a bank was holding they could issue $10 in loans. Eventually we struck down that regulation and the banks started leveraging themselves higher and higher. With higher leverage rates a couple of things happen: Banks become more susceptible to a bank run, holdings become more vulnerable as they have less backing, and vast amounts of money enter the system triggering inflation, these extra loans then translate to extra profits. In their defense they do have one good side, there is a large economic stimulus as people obtain and spend money. When 2008 happened and the system collapsed banks were leveraged at 30:1, today they are leveraged 60:1. This means that if you have $1 in the bank they can loan out $60 on that single dollar. Because of these huge differences in multipliers, the amount of money we deposit in banks means little to how much money they can spend. When the banks need to make more loans but they don't have the capital (such as what has been happening these past few years), they just leverage themselves further.


ETA: Also, keep in mind that your example--Norway--has slightly more than half of the population of New York City proper. If the U.S.'s population were tiny, but made nearly the same GDP amount per capita (actually, Norway's is a tad higher), it'd be very simple to keep a welfare system like Norway's in check and running efficiently. The problem with the U.S. government is that nothing it does is efficient--the cost wouldn't justify the system. Oh, and then there's that


Norway's modern manufacturing and welfare system rely on a financial reserve produced by exploitation of natural resources, particularly North Sea oil.


The size of the population means little. With a larger population there are more people to support but also a larger tax base. It is entirely proportional and a state of 1,000 or 1,000,000 people doesn't change that. As far as the oil goes, perhaps you haven't kept up on the news but the US is the largest coal and oil producer on the planet. We pump more oil than Saudi Arabia. So we're exploiting plenty of natural resources.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I absolutely disagree with your comment about the size of the population not meaning much--anything as large as the United States that tries to implement centralized, one-size-fits-all systems tends to run inefficiently, have a crappy ROI in that system or program, and generate ridiculous levels of fraud, waste, and abuse.

As for the comment about "rich" businessmen (not all trickle-down economies start at massive corporations) being able to invest overseas--honestly, that's driven by two main factors: The cost of doing business in America (which includes ridiculous corporate taxation) being so high for large companies, and that they have the right to do what they will with their own money.

That latter factor is the big one that I think you and I may not see eye-to-eye on. Prior to about 1913, our nation ran perfectly well without an income tax, and it could do so again in a less bloated, less intrussive model of government. The problem is that the beast that passes laws to take our money is on a feeding frenzy, constantly needing more and more and more. But the thing is that, in a truly free system, the monetary compensation that we earn for our time and skills and knowledge should be ours and ours alone--every last dime of it. If the gov'ts want to place taxes on goods and services, that a different discussion altogether, but we should not be taxed specifically because we make a living in America.

THAT is the crux of my reasoning behind not liking the welfare system--it redistributes my wealth into areas that I have no say, and it does so badly and inefficiently. But I think we'll agree to disagree with each other on this one. At least no one called anyone names



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Dems have called the Reps the party of "No" for quite a while. Do the Reps now get to call the Dems the party of nothing?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Aazadan

I absolutely disagree with your comment about the size of the population not meaning much--anything as large as the United States that tries to implement centralized, one-size-fits-all systems tends to run inefficiently, have a crappy ROI in that system or program, and generate ridiculous levels of fraud, waste, and abuse.

As for the comment about "rich" businessmen (not all trickle-down economies start at massive corporations) being able to invest overseas--honestly, that's driven by two main factors: The cost of doing business in America (which includes ridiculous corporate taxation) being so high for large companies, and that they have the right to do what they will with their own money.

That latter factor is the big one that I think you and I may not see eye-to-eye on. Prior to about 1913, our nation ran perfectly well without an income tax, and it could do so again in a less bloated, less intrussive model of government. The problem is that the beast that passes laws to take our money is on a feeding frenzy, constantly needing more and more and more. But the thing is that, in a truly free system, the monetary compensation that we earn for our time and skills and knowledge should be ours and ours alone--every last dime of it. If the gov'ts want to place taxes on goods and services, that a different discussion altogether, but we should not be taxed specifically because we make a living in America.

THAT is the crux of my reasoning behind not liking the welfare system--it redistributes my wealth into areas that I have no say, and it does so badly and inefficiently. But I think we'll agree to disagree with each other on this one. At least no one called anyone names


I would like to simplify your first paragraph. A federal level government can not govern as many diverse people as exist in the USA. The only way to govern and be fair while representing the people is at the state and county level. It is impossible for one government mind to meet the needs of a people as diverse as the USA.

Example: At one time, the representative for North Carolina could represent the vast majority of the people because the vast majority of the people shared the same religion, beliefs, goals and had the same basic job. Today...no one can represent all the people of North Carolina fairly because there is no vast majority. Too many people would be "left behind" and not represented.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous


“We actually reached a milestone here that I think is noteworthy for the Senate. We just passed our fifteenth roll call vote on an amendment, on this bill, which is more roll call votes on amendments than the entire United States Senate in all of 2014.”


This is a direct quote from the new Senate Majority Leader in America. In less than a month they have been more productive than Senator Reid in all of 2014! This seems so obvious that Reid was keeping the Senate gridlocked and refusing to vote for many things. It's great to see Congress trying to make changes instead of being stuck fighting over petty things.

I know this is considered a conservative website, but the quote is still true and this still did happen.

Link

Does everyone see this as a good thing or something that is useless and doesn't change anything?


What a laugh. They have produced more bills because the democrats are not obstructionists. The democrats could stop every bill with a filibuster the same way the republicans did. Who are you kidding?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I absolutely disagree with your comment about the size of the population not meaning much--anything as large as the United States that tries to implement centralized, one-size-fits-all systems tends to run inefficiently, have a crappy ROI in that system or program, and generate ridiculous levels of fraud, waste, and abuse.


But with a larger population comes a larger government. Let me ask you a question, just about every other government around the world seems to be capable and competent. Even the US believes so as we have spent how many trillions of dollars to install foreign governments modeled after our own? So the question becomes, why is our government so incapable? We're a large county if anything we should be taking advantage of the economy of scale and run more efficiently. I don't believe it's a matter of population size because larger countries like China are run very capably and I don't believe it's a matter of corruption because again China is very corrupt essentially being a bribe culture and they're competent.

Instead I would propose that the reason is twofold:
1. We elect people who run on a platform of government being incompetent, and then try to make it even more so during their time in office. We are literally sabotaging ourselves.

2. This is the big one: We got away from proportional representation. In a representative system we need a lot of representation in order to account for the differences in population. According to the constitution we should have 1 rep per 20,000 people. Due to physical limitations we got away from that early last century but with the advent of digital communications we could return to such a system. I believe that is something we need to do so that Reps can once again be more regional. Note that doing so would also automatically fix the problem of gerrymandering which was created in response to proportional representation being out of whack.


That latter factor is the big one that I think you and I may not see eye-to-eye on. Prior to about 1913, our nation ran perfectly well without an income tax, and it could do so again in a less bloated, less intrussive model of government. The problem is that the beast that passes laws to take our money is on a feeding frenzy, constantly needing more and more and more.


I don't believe we could go back to such a system. To start with, the number of things that require public funds such as transportation and infrastructure spending has increased. Superhighways, fiber optic cables, and everything else require spending. Next, the cost of arms has increased, this gets into why I believe the second amendment has failed as well but military equipment is no longer cheap. You can't fight a war with the same rifle that soldier might use for hunting in peacetime. You need carriers, fighters, cruise missiles, satellites, and everything else. Last we have social spending, and I'm not talking about welfare here instead I'm talking about things like drug development which requires a subsidy as no company can afford it out of pocket, and education spending, and all the rest.

Then we get into the issue of paying for the above, even if we could eliminate the income tax the government is addicted to money. Removing one tax simply adds a tax in another area and personally I would prefer a progressive tax like the income tax that takes disposable income into account so that an undue burden isn't placed on anyone to the alternative of a regressive tax that hits the poor and middle class hardest.


At least no one called anyone names


If I had to resort to calling people names I would retire from the internet.


originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Example: At one time, the representative for North Carolina could represent the vast majority of the people because the vast majority of the people shared the same religion, beliefs, goals and had the same basic job. Today...no one can represent all the people of North Carolina fairly because there is no vast majority. Too many people would be "left behind" and not represented.


As I mentioned above there is a requirement in the constitution to have 1 rep per 20,000 people. Today it is 1 per 200,000 at best and in many areas is as high as 1 per 1 million. We have the technology to address this issue and it's something we should do. The answer isn't to dismantle the federal government and throw our hands up because states still have diverse populations and will still require that state level representation. The solution is to add more representatives so that our viewpoints are properly reflected in congress.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
US gummint is failing because it's trying to do too much. no government can take care of masses of it's populace; that's a major reason why Rome fell. Washington has to stop micro-welfare, especially housing subsidies.
democrats mostly to blame as they fall into the trap of using tax $ to buy votes. too many republicans falling for same temptation.

gummint should take care of elderly and veterans, and maybe the truly helpless (mental and physical). able-bodied young people should take care of themselves.

edit on 31-1-2015 by works4dhs because: adjust for thread



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: damwel

Accept in the Senate it was Reid that blocked votes not the gop.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
MAY 24, 2016

Does Harry Reid have any influence these days? Says he'll fight Hillary Clinton's V.P. nominee if he/she doesn't fit certain parameters.

Story: www.foxnews.com...




posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
MAY 24, 2016

Does Harry Reid have any influence these days? Says he'll fight Hillary Clinton's V.P. nominee if he/she doesn't fit certain parameters.

Story: www.foxnews.com...



Since no one replied to this news of Harry threatening Hillary, this must be a really low-priority turn of events, LOL!



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

boom goes the dynamite !



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Obama's new "quantity" standard will be how many vetoes he signs.
...
His veto statements will fill libraries.


Funny how the actual facts are the direct opposite to what you claim!


To date, according to GovTrack, just shy of 3,000 bills have passed both houses of Congress during Obama’s terms, and he has rejected only 0.1 percent, compared with the average veto rate of 1.9 percent for all other presidents since 1973 (not including Obama).


fivethirtyeight.com...


When facing “friendly” Congresses (president’s party controls both Senate and House): Obama’s veto rate: 0.1 percent All other presidents (1973-2008): 0.7 percent When facing split-control Congresses: Obama’s veto rate: 0 percent All other presidents (1973-2008): 3 percent When facing opposition-controlled Congresses: Obama’s current veto rate: 0 percent Obama’s veto rate if he vetoes Keystone: 1.4 percent All other presidents (1973-2008): 3 percent


Also
en.wikipedia.org...


George H. W. Bush[3][4] 29 15 44 1 2% 2%
Bill Clinton 36 1 37 2 5% 6%
George W. Bush 11 1 12 4 33% 36%
Barack Obama 8 1 9 0 0% 0%

edit on 24-5-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join