d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > "do-nothing" Congress > Harry Reid And Lynn Jenkins
Prev1345678Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Oct 20 2014 09:23pm
Quote (ChrisKz @ Oct 20 2014 08:09pm)
senate works very similarly to how the house works..... ..... ........................


No, it doesn't. The two chambers are honestly more different than they are similar in regards to how they procedurally operate.
That is simply a fact based on how each chamber has changed throughout history.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 20 2014 10:59am)
I'm not going any route, I'm stating a fact that being on his desk doesn't mean being obstructed by him... and  you can make up euphamisms to defend the republicans and confirm what I've been saying (fake libertarian, jump through hoops to defend Republicans) all you want, or you can read the statement.

At any rate it was rated half true for the sake of placing blame on both parties for obstructionism, else it would have just been rated false.  I have a feeling it should be close to 80% false to reflect who's actually doing the obstruction as half-true is just more false equivilance bullshit.


Don't waste time trying to make sense of Politifact. When you've got shitty researchers, you get a shitty product.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 20 2014 04:48pm)
Don't know? But I thought you were such a INFORMED individual. But still, you did touch on it with your false equivalency bullshit in the bold. It's false because in the four instances you noted, a nuclear option was only threatened, not acted upon, like Dingy Harry did. Since he followed through, it's only common sense that retaliation via one of the few avenues left - denial of unanimous consent - is in order.


Obviously I'm informed of things that actually matter, in this case inarguable legislative history and Congressional record, and not whatever bubble-babble fantasy that you're pushing at any given moment that flies directly in the face of basic, agreed-upon facts.

And, no, your characterization of those examples is completely untrue. Stupid or uninformed people might buy that bullshit because they don't know any better but you're obviously just wasting your time by trying to pass off a patent lie on me. And once again there's the nagging fact that can't be ignored, that no one (who expects to be taken seriously, at least) could credibly claim that any action taken in 2013 could be used to justify behavior that predated it by 7 years and that persisted for the duration of that time.

This post was edited by Pollster on Oct 20 2014 09:26pm
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Oct 20 2014 09:34pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 20 2014 01:34am)


they said the claim was murky, an oversimplification and half true -

yup - sounds exactly like something the Gop would say to get the teatards riled up.
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Oct 20 2014 10:26pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 20 2014 06:32pm)
Possibly because the senate democrats would prefer a different version than what the house democrats want..... and I'm reserving judgement on that one until I see some actual information since that's another statement which would be ripe for misrepresentation.


Just saw this. The reason that the majority of these Democratic bills are "sitting on the desk" is because they either have companion bills that were already introduced in the Senate, meaning they aren’t actually stalled in reality, or because they are primed to be combined into a “sweep,” meaning they’re seen as non-essential and will therefore be held over until near the end of this Congress (examples of this are Sam Farr’s clinic renaming bill, or Ann Kirkpatrick’s National Forrest bill and Chellie Pingree’s veteran’s care bill that are purposefully being held over until they can incorporated into relevant, larger December bills). This is a routine measure that occurs in every Congress to use time more efficiently: a large number of non-controversial bills will be bundled together in December to be passed and sent to conference just before this Congress officially ends, and most of the Democratic bills mentioned are of this variety. Congressional Republicans are merely lying and/or misrepresenting how Congress works and how it has worked historically in a desperate attempt to place the blame for their obstruction anywhere other than where it actually belongs.

Aside from that, there’s also the fact that many of these House-passed bills that were sponsored by Democrats were already passed by the Senate: they were part of comprehensive measures like the Farm Bill, the Water Resources Bill, or Immigration Reform that are not being brought for a vote in the House. Congressional Republicans are refusing to either hold a House vote for them or refusing to allow a conference committee to be created, so the only option left for those Democratic-sponsored bills is for their authors to write a new, smaller bill that lifts out specific provisions they want in hopes that the Senate passes a smaller companion bill that will then be allowed by Republicans to proceed to committee. Many of the remaining bills fall under this criteria.

The rest meet the same fate as the Republican-sponsored bills I mentioned earlier: one part of the Senate caucus (at least) opposes them, and they cannot get 60 votes in order to pass over top of the predictable Republican filibuster.
Member
Posts: 9,412
Joined: Nov 18 2009
Gold: 20.00
Oct 20 2014 10:37pm
Quote (Skinned @ Oct 20 2014 08:44pm)
I've never considered money allocated for rent, power, transportation, and food to be disposable.  I just factor taxes right along in there as a relatively minor cost compared to the rest.  And I see myself getting quite a bit back in return.  I love having my trash picked up, having clean water to drink that will literally come out of my faucet no matter how long I have it turned on, nice roads and passable bridges, high quality public education for my children in a nice, clean building, and if I ever run into a stroke of bad luck I can be sure my family won't starve because of the fruits of the welfare state.

Compared to rent, transportation, power, groceries, etc, I feel like I get the best bang for my buck through societal collective action aka government.


But they are disposable. There are always alternative forms of housing, power, transportation, and food that can lead to lower costs.

For example, trailer parks and mobile homes, coal/wood power as opposed to expensive alternative energies, riding the bus, and cooking your own cheap meals instead of eating out are examples of cheaper ways to spend that disposable income.

This post was edited by PixileDust on Oct 20 2014 10:37pm
Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Oct 20 2014 10:38pm
Quote (PixileDust @ Oct 20 2014 10:37pm)
But they are disposable. There are always alternative forms of housing, power, transportation, and food that can lead to lower costs.

For example, trailer parks and mobile homes, coal/wood power as opposed to expensive alternative energies, riding the bus, and cooking your own cheap meals instead of eating out.


Yep, all your money is "disposable"unless you're renting a studio apartment, living on ramen, walking to work, and burning wood you cut yourself.
Member
Posts: 9,412
Joined: Nov 18 2009
Gold: 20.00
Oct 20 2014 10:39pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 20 2014 10:38pm)
Yep, all your money is "disposable"unless you're renting a studio apartment, living on ramen, walking to work, and burning wood you cut yourself.


Other than burning wood, that was/is my college experience.

Needless to say it is cheap and effective. Naturally, I don't feel like I'm privileged.

This post was edited by PixileDust on Oct 20 2014 10:40pm
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Oct 20 2014 10:44pm
Quote (PixileDust @ Oct 20 2014 11:37pm)
But they are disposable. There are always alternative forms of housing, power, transportation, and food that can lead to lower costs.

For example, trailer parks and mobile homes, coal/wood power as opposed to expensive alternative energies, riding the bus, and cooking your own cheap meals instead of eating out are examples of cheaper ways to spend that disposable income.


I could shop less and make less to pay less taxes too. Therefore, since I can lower my tax payment, taxes are disposable income by your reasoning.

In fact if I had filed my taxes throughout my twenties I would not only have gotten every dime back that I payed in income taxes but I would have gotten more through a tax credit for having a child. FFS the only taxes I really paid for most of my life are sales taxes, because unless you're making over $40k a year with no kids you are probably getting all your money back and then some.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 20 2014 10:44pm
Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Oct 20 2014 10:53pm
Quote (PixileDust @ Oct 20 2014 10:39pm)
Other than burning wood, that was/is my college experience.

Needless to say it is cheap and effective. Naturally, I don't feel like I'm privileged.


It's mine as well, but I'm not raising a family, and everybody can't live by a college freshman's standards. Parents can't feed kids ramen every night, can't sew together some rags and call them cloths to save a few bucks, etc. etc. Any money you could have theoretically not spent is not necessarily disposable.
Member
Posts: 9,412
Joined: Nov 18 2009
Gold: 20.00
Oct 20 2014 10:58pm
Quote (Skinned @ Oct 20 2014 10:44pm)
I could shop less and make less to pay less taxes too.  Therefore, since I can lower my tax payment, taxes are disposable income by your reasoning.

In fact if I had filed my taxes throughout my twenties I would not only have gotten every dime back that I payed in income taxes but I would have gotten more through a tax credit for having a child.  FFS the only taxes I really paid for most of my life are sales taxes, because unless you're making over $40k a year with no kids you are probably getting all your money back and then some.


There is an opportunity cost of making less to pay less taxes which would be equal to the decrease in disposable income, as taxes are only a percentage of income. So, doing what you suggested is not rational and thus wouldn't be done.

So, taxes are not disposable income by my reasoning. Instead, Disposable Income = Income - Taxes & Taxes = Income - Disposable Income. Defined by google: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+disposable+income&oq=define+disposable+income

Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
Oct 20 2014 11:33pm
Quote (Skinned @ Oct 20 2014 11:44pm)
I could shop less and make less to pay less taxes too.  Therefore, since I can lower my tax payment, taxes are disposable income by your reasoning.

In fact if I had filed my taxes throughout my twenties I would not only have gotten every dime back that I payed in income taxes but I would have gotten more through a tax credit for having a child.  FFS the only taxes I really paid for most of my life are sales taxes, because unless you're making over $40k a year with no kids you are probably getting all your money back and then some.


I wish I knew that feel :(
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1345678Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll