Let an American help.Its possible with how damaged the republicans are that the dems who will assuredly make gains in both the house and senate as well as win the white house hopefully, gain enough seats in the senate(to where they have at least 60 of the 100).That would give the dems the ability to stop whats called a philibuster by a republican,you need 60 votes ( a supermajority) to stop those.Or in the case that McCain wins somehow and the dems get the 60 they would be able to overide anything(new law they had passed) that McCain tryed to veto.Again you need the 60 votes to overide vetos.The supermajority is still a long shot for the dems (senate is 51-49 right now in their favor.They will gain seats for sure but that many (9) would be tough.Hope that helps lol.
The Coming Supermajority Nightmare ?
- Thread starter Facetious
- Start date
Let an American help.Its possible with how damaged the republicans are that the dems who will assuredly make gains in both the house and senate as well as win the white house hopefully, gain enough seats in the senate(to where they have at least 60 of the 100).That would give the dems the ability to stop whats called a philibuster by a republican,you need 60 votes ( a supermajority) to stop those.Or in the case that McCain wins somehow and the dems get the 60 they would be able to overide anything(new law they had passed) that McCain tryed to veto.Again you need the 60 votes to overide vetos.The supermajority is still a long shot for the dems (senate is 51-49 right now in their favor.They will gain seats for sure but that many (9) would be tough.Hope that helps lol.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
So if the dems get 60 of the seats they can pretty much do what they want? What if the pubs got 60 of the seats?
It would be the same deal.But in both cases you need to keep every member on board(all 60 vote together) which can be difficult at times.And on the pubs getting 60 seats that is probably out of the question this election.Dems are going to increase their majoritys,only question is if they gain enough to be at or over 60.Just to give you an example one of the republicans ,Stevens of Alaska(the longest serving republican in the senate) was already in a tough fight to keep his seat just got convicted of accepting improper gifts(bribes).He is still going to be on the ballot next week,but is as you might imagine even less likely to win now lol.
I wouldn't call a Democratic victory in November the creation of a "super-majority" until they win a few states other than those who border water. The nation has become extremely divided with the "midsection" of the nation being completely different than the "coasts." Nothing s going to change that unless Obama is a miracle worker and actually is able to keep all of his promises and turn the US into a new Garden of Eden.
Was that too cynical?
Was that too cynical?
I can't wait for this nightmare - I'm looking forward to it....
Will E Worm said:
Yep. Some people just don't get it.
Here's how it plays out:
Congress panders to special interest groups (wait, I thought we weren't gonna do that!) and repeals the 2nd Amendment. "Don't worry. The government will protect you.
Hell, then why don't we just repeal the 13th Amendment (slavery), or the 15th or 19th (voting rights), or the 14th (due process).
Messing with the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights (which the 2nd Amendment is a part of) is a slippery slope people and is in SERIOUS jeopardy with a Democratic super-majority.
Hell, many liberals will be quick to point out that the Bush administration has, in many ways, severely weakened the 4th Amendement (arrest, search, seizure) via the Patriot Act -- oh yeah, that Biden voted in favor of, and both Obama and Biden voted in favor of to extend.
Did you know that of the 645 justifiable homicides in 2007 almost 40% were by legally armed citizens?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-14-justifiable_N.htm
That means almost 40% of the time, the government was not "there to protect," and citizens had to take matters into their own hands. Our founding fathers were wise enough to know that government cannot protect all of its citizens all of the time so it must provide the inherent right for those citizens to defend themselves and their family.
We need to keep a tight reign on the people we put in office in this country or we will indeed head down a road that is very ugly. And while some rights may not be important to you, they are probably important to other citizens and thus you should care about that as a basis. That is what the United States is about.
But hell, let's just go ahead and start taking away rights...
I'm afraid the supermajority is a given either way OP.
McCain has changed parties
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/john-mccains-last-best-hope.html
McCain has changed parties
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/john-mccains-last-best-hope.html
Re: Define "better"?
Infant morality rate is the most basic measure of a health care system. More babies dieing = worse care. The rate goes up in poorer countries, cept of course for the US. You cant argue with basic logic and stats. You can just make BS arguements that you cant back up with any stats.
You also pay more per person for healthcare. Pretty simple math.
Infant morality rate is the most basic measure of a health care system. More babies dieing = worse care. The rate goes up in poorer countries, cept of course for the US. You cant argue with basic logic and stats. You can just make BS arguements that you cant back up with any stats.
You also pay more per person for healthcare. Pretty simple math.
Again, I "meet" your focus, now I ask you to "meet" mine!
This isn't a "black'n white" argument.
I have a pay-up PPO plan that I pay through the nose for, but I consider it worth it.
So I ask again, under a new, "universal" system, do I still get to opt for that?
Or do I only get what everyone else has?
I fully admit that many people in the US don't have even elementary healthcare, so I meet you on your "basic" focus.
Now I ask you to re-focus on what I'm talking about, those of us with uber-super-duper, pay-up PPO programs.
Do we now lose them as things won't be covered under an "universal" plan?
Or would you allow those of us who are "rich" to buy free market "supplemental" plans?
That's basically what I'm asking, because allowing the latter isn't "fair" and "equal" for everyone.
At the same time, I've clearly paid around $200,000 in insurance premiums over the last 17 years (probably closer to a good quarter-mil in "equivalent pre-tax dollars" considering some were paid post-tax).
So if you choose the former, considering my "investment" in my past healthcare costs (instead of buying cars, houses, etc...), is it fair not to give me that "buy-up" option?
Again, let's talk that specific, which you (and others) seem hell-bent on avoiding.
Again, you have defined "better" differently than I have.
This isn't a "black'n white" argument.
Currently, if I get sick in the US, there's no limit to my benefit and I am entitled to various procedures you can't get in Cuba.
I have a pay-up PPO plan that I pay through the nose for, but I consider it worth it.
So I ask again, under a new, "universal" system, do I still get to opt for that?
Or do I only get what everyone else has?
I fully admit that many people in the US don't have even elementary healthcare, so I meet you on your "basic" focus.
Now I ask you to re-focus on what I'm talking about, those of us with uber-super-duper, pay-up PPO programs.
Do we now lose them as things won't be covered under an "universal" plan?
Or would you allow those of us who are "rich" to buy free market "supplemental" plans?
That's basically what I'm asking, because allowing the latter isn't "fair" and "equal" for everyone.
At the same time, I've clearly paid around $200,000 in insurance premiums over the last 17 years (probably closer to a good quarter-mil in "equivalent pre-tax dollars" considering some were paid post-tax).
So if you choose the former, considering my "investment" in my past healthcare costs (instead of buying cars, houses, etc...), is it fair not to give me that "buy-up" option?
Again, let's talk that specific, which you (and others) seem hell-bent on avoiding.
Re: Define "better"?
What the infant mortality stats fail to reveal is that the U.S. also has a teen pregnancy rate that is 3-5 times that of nearly all developed countries. Teen pregnancies have a 60% higher mortality rate due to the increased risk of premature delivery and poor pre-natal responsibility by the mother (drinking, smoking, regular check-ups, etc). When you eliminate the excess teen pregnancies in the U.S., our infant mortality rate is on par with most of Europe.
What the infant mortality stats fail to reveal is that the U.S. also has a teen pregnancy rate that is 3-5 times that of nearly all developed countries. Teen pregnancies have a 60% higher mortality rate due to the increased risk of premature delivery and poor pre-natal responsibility by the mother (drinking, smoking, regular check-ups, etc). When you eliminate the excess teen pregnancies in the U.S., our infant mortality rate is on par with most of Europe.
So what you're saying here ...
I.e., Obama could do a lot of good, but if the stock market was at 7,000 at the end of his term, you'd say he wasn't good?
Or if the market was over 11,000, but the OMB reported its 4th straight month of major, negative growth (not even looking at the earlier parts of the year with the same) and a majority of employers were stating that they would likely be laying off employees in the next 6 months and the budget was going to swing from a surplus to a deficit before the next term (regardless of who was elected or re-elected) even finishes a single, full quarter, would that be "positive"?
And yes, I'm referencing the reality of 2000 to 2001. I got laid off in April 2001. Do I blame W.? Clinton? I got laid off again at the end of 2001 when my major client's sales went to absolute 0 after 9/11. Do I blame W. yet again? Clinton? And who do we blame for the massive increase in costs for entitlements to those not only unemployed, but the major reductions in taxes because they are no longer working?
Snapshots don't tell anyone a thing, much less the economy is always a result of things that happen 6-9 months and even 6-9 years before. That's why I don't "blame" or "praise" any single person or movement.
So what you're saying is that you only look at "snapshots" of the whatever "values" you want to say "matter," then ignore not only the trends, rates of rates of changes, etc... but the other "snapshots" of the same values when they don't favor your position?
I.e., Obama could do a lot of good, but if the stock market was at 7,000 at the end of his term, you'd say he wasn't good?
Or if the market was over 11,000, but the OMB reported its 4th straight month of major, negative growth (not even looking at the earlier parts of the year with the same) and a majority of employers were stating that they would likely be laying off employees in the next 6 months and the budget was going to swing from a surplus to a deficit before the next term (regardless of who was elected or re-elected) even finishes a single, full quarter, would that be "positive"?
And yes, I'm referencing the reality of 2000 to 2001. I got laid off in April 2001. Do I blame W.? Clinton? I got laid off again at the end of 2001 when my major client's sales went to absolute 0 after 9/11. Do I blame W. yet again? Clinton? And who do we blame for the massive increase in costs for entitlements to those not only unemployed, but the major reductions in taxes because they are no longer working?
Snapshots don't tell anyone a thing, much less the economy is always a result of things that happen 6-9 months and even 6-9 years before. That's why I don't "blame" or "praise" any single person or movement.
Re: The indirect relation of income to wealth when it comes to income taxes ...
That doesn't appear to address my question at all :dunno:
That doesn't appear to address my question at all :dunno:
Facetious
Moderated
Facetious
Moderated
. . .and the interest rates ?
What about capital gains, income, property and death tax obligations ?
Will we become a more energy self sufficient nation at the end of an Obama first term ? Will Obama ever become enlightened of the fact that the anti nuclear energy hysterics are just that ?
Will Obama allow for the sensible expansion of a comprehensive, nuclear energy apparatus within this nation ?
Will Obama come to realize that nuclear energy is our only sustainable long term energy resource ?
Will Obama allow for the reprocessing of spent nuclear rods ? - A process, of which, was developed in America and is used throughout France, Japan, Canada, Germany, among others. A reprocessing technique that renders the final waste material as incosequential and, for all practical purposes, inert.
I sure hope so
But ...
This is what kills me about the left-wing, they think there will be any remote GDP and federal revenue like it has been if we kill capitalism. There won't. The US GDP will shrink to the size of a typical western European nation.
Sorry, reality. That's what us Libertarian-Capitalists are trying to avoid, both with the right-wing Facists and the left-wing Socialists. By the time the "correction" happens to socialism, the actual money flow that results (or lackthereof) will result in a greatly reduced GDP and federal income base.
And at that point, even if the tax rate was 90% on everyone making $100K (not that 90% on anyone is remotely sustainable, much less small business), it won't equal what it was at 33% in the upper bracket.
And, again, I was not talking "corporations" but "small business." You left-wingers talk about "the rich" and then raise taxes on small business owners. That's where the whole "Joe the Plumber" comes from, because too fucking Americans are too fucking ignorant of what us small business owners suffer.
In other words, we try to create private sector jobs, but get penalized for doing so. It only hurts the GDP and reduces income tax revenue collected. That's the folly of it all! The "amount of money" is not finite and discrete, but based on flow.
But, how does the government pay for these jobs? Seriously!
This is what kills me about the left-wing, they think there will be any remote GDP and federal revenue like it has been if we kill capitalism. There won't. The US GDP will shrink to the size of a typical western European nation.
Sorry, reality. That's what us Libertarian-Capitalists are trying to avoid, both with the right-wing Facists and the left-wing Socialists. By the time the "correction" happens to socialism, the actual money flow that results (or lackthereof) will result in a greatly reduced GDP and federal income base.
And at that point, even if the tax rate was 90% on everyone making $100K (not that 90% on anyone is remotely sustainable, much less small business), it won't equal what it was at 33% in the upper bracket.
And, again, I was not talking "corporations" but "small business." You left-wingers talk about "the rich" and then raise taxes on small business owners. That's where the whole "Joe the Plumber" comes from, because too fucking Americans are too fucking ignorant of what us small business owners suffer.
In other words, we try to create private sector jobs, but get penalized for doing so. It only hurts the GDP and reduces income tax revenue collected. That's the folly of it all! The "amount of money" is not finite and discrete, but based on flow.
Re: But ...
Shit based on that statement my fellow Gen-xer, no wonder business are outsorcing I wonder what will happen if B.O. wins.
Shit based on that statement my fellow Gen-xer, no wonder business are outsorcing I wonder what will happen if B.O. wins.
Facetious
Moderated
Re: The Coming Supermajority Nightmare ? . . Not To Be
Nothing to really celebrate here, at least it didn't go the way of a dictatorship. :dunno:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHW-ZJ03DLcUGUM9z9p2nkbRAG-QD94QV0C00
(real conservative - not the Quisseling, george w. bush, style of pseudo conservatism)
Nothing to really celebrate here, at least it didn't go the way of a dictatorship. :dunno:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHW-ZJ03DLcUGUM9z9p2nkbRAG-QD94QV0C00
He'll be forced to govern as a somewhat *conservative democrat, he'll have to. :dunno:
(real conservative - not the Quisseling, george w. bush, style of pseudo conservatism)
Similar threads
