• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator's Projects Stall Obama Appointees

Goldenboy219 said:
Op-Ed Columnist - America Is Not Yet Lost - NYTimes.com

I found this editorial interesting in conjunction with the OP.
Click to expand...

Krugman is usually too angry for my tastes, but in this case he's absolutely right. I really think we need to reform the Senate rules. It has become more and more ungovernable in the last couple decades. It's bad enough that 41 senators can shut down anything they want, but not a single senator can do so...and for no particular reason other than he wants a pork project. This is not a recipe for good governance.
 
This is something I hope both parties can get behind, but right now it is tactically helpful for the GOP to keep obstructing government, so they'll never vote in favor of changing the rules.

I mean christ, 33 people voted to continue the filibuster.
 
An update: Senator Shelby has released the blanket hold on Obama's nominees. It turns out that public embarrassment is the most effective antidote to situations like these.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the Republicans have good reason for blocking these appointees. Obama seems to nominate his buddies and fellow ideologues. Just look at Gates, Rham, and Nepolitano...
 
digsbe said:
I'm sure the Republicans have good reason for blocking these appointees. Obama seems to nominate his buddies and fellow ideologues. Just look at Gates, Rham, and Nepolitano...
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure the Republicans have good reason for blocking appointment to key national security positions and making America less safe so that they can get pork for their districts.
 
Ok, lets break this down.

Senator Richard Shelby, Republican - Alabama, is blocking several of Obama's appointees not because Shelby has an issue with the appointees, but rather he is holding the process hostage until Alabama gets a 35 Billion Dollar defense contract and an FBI Lab.

This is a perfect example of just how intellectually bankrupt the so called "conservative movement" is. You have a conservative Republican that is potentially putting the nation's national security at risk, just so he can spend more of your money in his state. This, coming from the guys that are supposed to be the fiscal conservatives and party of limited government. I guess this has worked before for Senator Shelby, as his state ranks 15th in pork barrel spending, and gets back more in federal spending than its citizens pay in in federal taxes. So basically, his state is a bunch of welfare queens dependent on wealth transfers from richer states.

These guys talk a good game, but none of them ever lives up to their rhetoric. That alone demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt their ideology is. Its never one time been successfully put into practice.
 
digsbe said:
I'm sure the Republicans have good reason for blocking these appointees. Obama seems to nominate his buddies and fellow ideologues. Just look at Gates, Rham, and Nepolitano...
Click to expand...

Think before you type. Gates was the Bush Administration's Secretary of Defense. He is a Republican. Obama simply kept him on.
 
for a president and a party to enact their agenda, absolutely, they should be able to attract 60 votes

if their measures are popular they should have no trouble obeying senate and house rules, as well as the constitution

out of an election a president, a party receive some measure of mandate, and it's up to them to use it, work it, enact it, etc

if it crashes, well, it's hardly manly to blame the rules

hardly leaderly

doesn't inspire confidence

this might be one of your problems

that you don't understand things like this

and

for the american people to see an entire agenda crash mightily like this one, and then TO REWARD the party in OPPOSITION with a THIRTY POINT swing in places like massachusetts...

yes, doggone it

i'm pretty darn sure, by now

these kinda things ARE your very problem

the very HEART of the matter
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is a perfect example of just how intellectually bankrupt the so called "conservative movement" is.
Click to expand...

Hey, I have an idea, let's take a single case of something a single guy did and decide that it shows something about an entire broad movement.
 
Senator Shelby should be arrested and charged with attempted extortion of the American people.
 
Dav said:
Hey, I have an idea, let's take a single case of something a single guy did and decide that it shows something about an entire broad movement.
Click to expand...

Dav, they have all been talking this crap my entire life, and none of them have delivered on it. Red states on average get more in spending back from the federal government than blue states do. These guys talk small government but they can't even manage to get their own states to live within their means and not depend upon the taxpayers of wealthier east coast states. Their model, their ideas, simply don't work.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Dav, they have all been talking this crap my entire life, and none of them have delivered on it. Red states on average get more in spending back from the federal government than blue states do. These guys talk small government but they can't even manage to get their own states to live within their means and not depend upon the taxpayers of wealthier east coast states. Their model, their ideas, simply don't work.
Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:
I don't understand why people still try to draw conclusions by looking at what states are most or least likely to do this or that and then looking at how those states vote. That's not how logic or statistics work.
Click to expand...


There are way too many factors affecting each state in how much federal money it receives to say conclusively that it is related to whether it's a "red state" or "blue state".

Of course, to say that they have one "model" is incorrect anyways. There are many conservative models, since conservatism (as well as liberalism) is hardly a united or consistent ideology.
 
Dav said:
Hey, I have an idea, let's take a single case of something a single guy did and decide that it shows something about an entire broad movement.
Click to expand...

It's not just Shelby. It requires 41 votes for a filibuster to succeed. There are 41 Republican Senators. (more accurately, it requires 60 votes to override a filibuster via Cloture)

The Republicans have to back him for this to work.
 
Dav said:
There are way too many factors affecting each state in how much federal money it receives to say conclusively that it is related to whether it's a "red state" or "blue state".

Of course, to say that they have one "model" is incorrect anyways. There are many conservative models, since conservatism (as well as liberalism) is hardly a united or consistent ideology.
Click to expand...

The fact is, these movement conservatives have been talking the limited government talk for 30 years now, and have yet to put it into action anywhere. The only difference in them and their liberal counterparts is what they want to spend your money on.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The fact is, these movement conservatives have been talking the limited government talk for 30 years now, and have yet to put it into action anywhere. The only difference in them and their liberal counterparts is what they want to spend your money on.
Click to expand...

Anywhere? That's just not accurate; there are plenty of states with very limited governance. And on the national level, we had Reagan and Gingrich, though I already know that you would debate those so oh well.

Even if you were right, though, it doesn't really mean anything except that they haven't had the political power yet to do so.
 
Dav said:
Anywhere? That's just not accurate; there are plenty of states with very limited governance
Click to expand...

Please provide an example of a state under conservative Republican control, that has reduced the fiscal size of its government, YET, does not receive more from the federal government in spending than it pays in as taxes.

I don't know if there is one or not, however, I bet there isn't.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Please provide an example of a state under conservative Republican control, that has reduced the fiscal size of its government, YET, does not receive more from the federal government in spending than it pays in as taxes.

I don't know if there is one or not, however, I bet there isn't.
Click to expand...

I would, but you're failing to realize that it does not matter. How much federal money a state receives is a matter of the conditions of certain people in the state and of demographics. Whether they are a "red state" or "blue state" is pretty much irrelevant to both of those things.

But I would suspect that the Dekotas would be an example of what you are looking for.

EDIT: [ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States"]Tax Donor or Contrib States[/ame]


The states that payed more in federal taxes (according to that) than federal money they received between 1981 and 2005 are: CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, MA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OR, TX, WA, WI

A mixed bunch.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
for a president and a party to enact their agenda, absolutely, they should be able to attract 60 votes
Click to expand...
There has rarely been a time when a president or party's agenda has attracted 60% of the votes. Almost no competitive elections are decided by this margin--fewer still at the national level. Why should the Senate be different?

The reason this has never been a problem before is that the Senate has operated by a gentlemanly, informal set of cooperative rules. This has gone on for hundreds of years, in fact. Even during during the years leading to the Civil War we did not have this level of grandstanding and obstruction. Of course, back then, there was a bar in the back of the room.....
 
Rassales said:
There has rarely been a time when a president or party's agenda has attracted 60% of the votes. Almost no competitive elections are decided by this margin--fewer still at the national level. Why should the Senate be different?

The reason this has never been a problem before is that the Senate has operated by a gentlemanly, informal set of cooperative rules. This has gone on for hundreds of years, in fact. Even during during the years leading to the Civil War we did not have this level of grandstanding and obstruction. Of course, back then, there was a bar in the back of the room.....
Click to expand...

nonsense

in the clinton years, every bit of legislation he passed he did because the minority was AFRAID to oppose him

his particulars were perceived as popular

reagan's agenda, he totally intimidated his opposition

obama completely misplayed his mandate

his stimulus was a PIG

he let PELOSI write it, for cryin out loud

ie, what would/could anyone EXPECT?

if he'd done HEALTH CARE before CAP AND TRADE (in the house), for instance...

100 other things, big and small

oh, no, times are no more partisan today than they've ever been

politics in the united states is what it's been---outright CIVIL WAR

both sides would assassinate the other if they could get away with it, if resort to violence didn't turn out to be so disadvantageous, harmful, POLITICALLY

obama's a loser, one of the greatest in our nation's long, glorious history

sorry
 
The Prof said:
nonsense

in the clinton years, every bit of legislation he passed he did because the minority was AFRAID to oppose him

his particulars were perceived as popular

reagan's agenda, he totally intimidated his opposition

obama completely misplayed his mandate

his stimulus was a PIG

he let PELOSI write it, for cryin out loud

ie, what would/could anyone EXPECT?

if he'd done HEALTH CARE before CAP AND TRADE (in the house), for instance...

100 other things, big and small

oh, no, times are no more partisan today than they've ever been

politics in the united states is what it's been---outright CIVIL WAR

both sides would assassinate the other if they could get away with it, if resort to violence didn't turn out to be so disadvantageous, harmful, POLITICALLY

obama's a loser, one of the greatest in our nation's long, glorious history

sorry
Click to expand...
This is a string of unsubstantiated and overstated claims.

Sorry.
 
nope

health care---dead

cap and trade---dead

reg reform---dead

bank tax---no way

debt commission---already failed on the floor

mini stimulus 2---small ball, in some trouble, 50-50, it's hung up today (politico) over death tax, grassley won't budge, neither will harry, harry needs 60

that's one mighty dead agenda for a prez with SIXTY senators

poor little obama, it's not fair

2009 was just SO partisan

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
nope

health care---dead

cap and trade---dead

reg reform---dead

bank tax---no way

debt commission---already failed on the floor

mini stimulus 2---small ball, in some trouble, 50-50, it's hung up today (politico) over death tax, grassley won't budge, neither will harry, harry needs 60

that's one mighty dead agenda for a prez with SIXTY senators

poor little obama, it's not fair

2009 was just SO partisan

LOL!
Click to expand...
Ok, so your claims are circular.

Obama's agenda has stalled because he's a loser, the proof of which is that his agenda has stalled. Neat. Empty, but neat.
 
well he's certainly not a loser cuz his agenda's been a success
 
The Prof said:
well he's certainly not a loser cuz his agenda's been a success
Click to expand...

His agenda has been a success, look how everything has failed!

Man I'm confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom