Another boost for expanding goverment powers

[bushwacked]

Thank you Senators!

 

I've noted that McCain voted for it, which definitely doesn't improve his chances of potentially getting my vote.

Edited February 13, 2008 by bushwacked

[driveby]

while the two Democrats, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, did not vote.

 

How convenient.

[Savage Beatings]

Thank you Senators!

 

I've noted that McCain voted for it, which definitely doesn't improve his chances of potentially getting my vote.

 

Psssssst

 

McCain = Obama = Clinton

 

[Skippy]

I really miss the good old cold war days when all we worried about were the Russians.

[bushwacked]

Psssssst

 

McCain = Obama = Clinton

 

 

What are Obama's and Clinton's voting tendencies on these "type" of bills? I'm clueless about Obama and would assume that Hillary typically supports these things.

 

ETA: The only thing I found with a quick search is an August 2007 bill that authorized easier govt. access t electronic communication surveillance. It passed the Senate 60-28 with Obama and Clinton both voting No and McCain not voting.

Edited February 13, 2008 by bushwacked

[bushwacked]

What are Obama's and Clinton's voting tendencies on these "type" of bills? I'm clueless about Obama and would assume that Hillary typically supports these things.

 

 

No answers? I guess it's safe to assume that some are for big govt. and some are for BIGGER govt?

[Randall]

Figures, al least the House is doing the right thing. If telecoms don't have retroactive immunity they can't be sued and we'll never know what really happened. Bush threatened to veto any bill that ddn't have that immunity.

 

He has what he needs(for 1 year) except for immunity and americans are sick and tired of the fear mongering. Too bad the senate is too gutless to stand up to him.

 

From my senator

 

 

February 15, 2008

 

“Congress should pass a surveillance bill that gives the intelligence community the tools it needs to go after suspected terrorists without trampling on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. Unfortunately, the President is more interested in trying to scare the American people and score political points than he is in working with Congress to fix FISA. House Democrats should be commended for standing up to the President and refusing to ram through the deeply flawed bill that the Senate passed.

 

“The President cannot be taken seriously when he argues that letting the PAA expire or blocking retroactive immunity will render the government unable to gather information about terrorists. Existing orders issued under the PAA will remain in place for up to a year, and new wiretaps can be initiated with a FISA warrant. And I have no doubt that telecom companies will continue to cooperate with legal government requests as they did for 30 years before the administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. While many Democrats worked to fix the law before it expired, it is the President who was willing to let it expire if it didn’t include a bail-out of the telecom companies. It is unfortunate that the President’s brinksmanship has brought us to this point, but make no mistake - critical foreign intelligence surveillance will continue even if the PAA expires.”

 

 

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

Commending House Democrats for Standing Up to the President’s Scare Tactics

[untateve]

Psssssst

 

McCain = Obama = Clinton

 

 

Savage and I have found poltical agreement.

[Randall]

Savage and I have found poltical agreement.

 

 

Do you guys really think they are the same? This is Obama's speech before the Iraq war.

 

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

 

I Don't Oppose All Wars

 

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

 

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

 

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

 

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

 

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

 

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

 

On Saddam Hussein

 

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

 

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

 

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

 

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

 

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

 

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

 

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

 

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

 

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

 

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

 

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

[untateve]

I believe that there are some differences. However, I see little difference between the dems and repubs, despite the rhetoric. I think if the dems had congress and white house, then we still would have seen out of control spending and a scary national debt.

 

I do not think we'd be in Iraq if we had a dem in the white house, however. I concede that this is a major difference.

[TimC]

Q. When is the last time the Government has sad no?

 

A. Not since before the New Deal.

 

They are like the perfect parents for spoiled chldren....or slave-owners, depending on your perspective or which end you're getting it from. And yes, they are all the same.

[AtomicCEO]

I believe that there are some differences. However, I see little difference between the dems and repubs, despite the rhetoric. I think if the dems had congress and white house, then we still would have seen out of control spending and a scary national debt.

 

I do not think we'd be in Iraq if we had a dem in the white house, however. I concede that this is a major difference.

 

What does this country spend most of it's money on?

[untateve]

What does this country spend most of it's money on?

 

I'm guessing the war. I still believe that if you have one party control both congress and the white house, the deficit would be out of control.

[Dr. Love]

What does this country spend most of it's money on?

Well, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the breakdown looks like this:

 

Social Security - 21%

Defense and Security - 21%

Medicare, Medicaide, and SCHIP - 19%

"Safety Net" Programs - 9%

Interest on Debt - 9%

Federal Retirees and Veterens - 6%

Education - 4%

Scientific and Medical Research - 3%

Transportation and Infrastructure - 2%

Non-Security International - 1%

All Other - 5%

 

http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm

[TheShiznit]

Well, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the breakdown looks like this:

 

Social Security - 21%

Defense and Security - 21%

Medicare, Medicaide, and SCHIP - 19%

"Safety Net" Programs - 9%

Interest on Debt - 9%

Federal Retirees and Veterens - 6%

Education - 4%

Scientific and Medical Research - 3%

Transportation and Infrastructure - 2%

Non-Security International - 1%

All Other - 5%

 

http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm

 

However, they only track items accounted for in the budget. All the spending for Iraq and afghanistan have been done with Emergency supplemental bills off budget and are therefore not part of those numbers.

[AtomicCEO]

Well, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the breakdown looks like this:

 

Social Security - 21%

Defense and Security - 21%

Medicare, Medicaide, and SCHIP - 19%

"Safety Net" Programs - 9%

Interest on Debt - 9%

Federal Retirees and Veterens - 6%

Education - 4%

Scientific and Medical Research - 3%

Transportation and Infrastructure - 2%

Non-Security International - 1%

All Other - 5%

 

http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm

 

Honest Question:

Is the Iraq war a part of this budget? I was under the impression that it was almost completely funded by emergency bills not covered in the budget.

[AtomicCEO]

However, they only track items accounted for in the budget. All the spending for Iraq and afghanistan have been done with Emergency supplemental bills off budget and are therefore not part of those numbers.

 

Reading the info Dr. Love provided, I couldn't tell if this was true or not. It may have been included in those numbers.

 

That link seemed to indicate that the total cost for 2007 in Iraq was 100 billion, which was the original estimate, but this story seems to indicate that it was more like 170 billion.

 

But, the site that the good doctor linked to isn't some right-wing think tank, it's actually fairly objective analysis, so I don't think they would intentionally mislead. That was probably just the best info available at the time.

 

EDIT: His link was for 2006

Edited February 17, 2008 by AtomicCEO

[Randall]

Honest Question:

Is the Iraq war a part of this budget? I was under the impression that it was almost completely funded by emergency bills not covered in the budget.

 

 

That way congress doesn't have time to go over all the dollar amounts. In addition this year's supplemental only goes through the remainder of the Bush term.