First 100 hours!

[Parkbandit]

I didn't see anything in Pelosi's agenda about taking the day off to enjoy a night BCS game.

Weird.

[Kefka]

I'm figuring she meant working hours, so the other 16 hours of the day are not included on the agenda. Weekends neither. :) The first 100 hours could span over months instead of just the week like some people hoped.

[Parkbandit]

My point was that they had this 'agressive agenda' to get Government back working for us, but felt it was necessary to take the entire day off for a game that starts at 8pm EST.

Sorry I confused you.

[Ardwen]

Going by the republican calendar the first 100 hours ends around june of 2029. Give or take a week.

[Parkbandit]

That made sense.

or not.

[Gan]

OK Folks. the 100 hour plan has its own wikipedia site. And here's a convenient outline of it for those who are interested in keeping score.

The Plan as outlined by Speaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representati ves) Pelosi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelosi) is as follows:

Day One

"Break the link between lobbyists and legislation" with new House rules.
Further enumerated to: "Curb lobbyists' influence by banning meals and gifts to lawmakers and requiring more disclosure and oversight."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_Hours#_note-3_prong_plan)Day Two

Enact all recommendations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Commission_recommendations) made by the 9/11 Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission)
Further enumerated to: "Implement unfulfilled recommendations of the September 11th Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11th_Commission) and beef up port security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_security)."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_Hours#_note-3_prong_plan)
Time Remaining in 100 Hours

Raise the federal minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages) to $7.25 an hour.

Cut interest rates on student loans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans) in half.

Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_companies), securing lower drug prices for Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29) patients.
Further enumerated to: "Reduce prescription-drug prices for seniors by requiring Medicare to negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_Hours#_note-3_prong_plan)

Grant federal funding to a wide variety of stem cell research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research) projects.
Further enumerated to: "Pass another bill that allows expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, betting on better prospects for an override if the president vetoes it again."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_Hours#_note-3_prong_plan)
Institute a "pay-as-you-go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Enforcement_Act_of_1990)" policy to reduce the deficit.

End the Bush tax cuts for the Americans "at a certain level" (those making $250,000.00 a year or more), both to reduce the deficit and to more fairly distribute the economic burden in the United States.

End large tax subsidies for large oil companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_companies), for the reasons outlined above and also to help foster energy independence.(outline source = wikipedia)

There are also a few other links below from different sources since wikipedia is so frowned upon. I have them posted up from another thread/post of mine in the not so distant past.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100600056.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html)

http://democraticleader.house.gov/about/100hours.cfm

http://www.democraticleader.house.go...ReleaseID=1936 (http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=1936)

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/06/D8KIV12O0.html

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/100_hours_with.php

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/245/dem...-majority.html

(from post)
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=537400&postcount=2


Please keep in mind, that there is already concern that Day Two will see a different result than what was advertised during the election campaign this past November.

Already there is speculation that, even with all the hooplah that surrounded the idea that Bush has not fulfilled ALL of the 9/11 comission recommendations, and that it was used as a political tool against the Republicans, and furthermore became a campaign platform of the new-leadership of the Deomcrat party, ALL the recommendations of the 9/11 comission will not in fact be enforced as promised.

Yessir, I'm keeping a scorecard on this one. And for those who voted based on these promises, I hope you will to.

[Latrinsorm]

It's clear that she's using "day" in the Biblical creation sense. Obviously.

[Sean]

Honest question.. do you actually know anyone who voted based on the first 100 hours?

[peam]

Well, four days is better than three.

[Gan]

Honest question.. do you actually know anyone who voted based on the first 100 hours?

Two of my more 'leftist' friends used the 100 hours as a major tenant of their reason for voting Democrat. Was it the 'only' reason why? I highly doubt it, but it was a major part of their 'anti-corruption, anti-Republican' mantra that made up their justification for voting the way that they did.

I'm going to enjoy many free drinks from winning bets of incompletion of said 'contract' with the voters over this. Yep.

:cheers:

[Sean of the Thread]

You mean the 100 hours started? I didn't notice.



Politics suck.. let's all go have a beer and fight over sports at least.

[Back]

This is the schedule released by Steny Hoyer’s office on the 3rd.


The 100 hours schedule will proceed as follows:

Tuesday, January 9 - Implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations

Wednesday, January 10 - Increase the Minimum Wage

Thursday, January 11 - Expand Stem Cell Research

Friday, January 12 - Allow Negotiation for Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Wednesday, January 17 - Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans

Thursday, January 18 - End Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy



They officially started the 100 hours today due to all the swearing in that needed to be done with so many freshmen.

[Some Rogue]

When does 100 hours not equal 100 hours?

When Democrats control the calender apparently.

[Drew]

Haha and look at that schedule. 5 days a week! Or not. I like how they made a big deal about that and now Steny Hoyer is backing off of it. "I really meant more like 4 or 3 days a week."

[Parkbandit]

It's clear that she's using "day" in the Biblical creation sense. Obviously.


LOL

[Parkbandit]

Haha and look at that schedule. 5 days a week! Or not. I like how they made a big deal about that and now Steny Hoyer is backing off of it. "I really meant more like 4 or 3 days a week."

Did you really, REALLY think otherwise?

Come on.

[ElanthianSiren]

House Democrats move on terror bill By BEVERLEY LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 18 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - House Democrats moved Tuesday to implement some of the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 commission as the first in a string of bills over the next two weeks aimed at asserting their new control over Congress.

The bill would redirect homeland security funds to more urban areas based on their likelihood of becoming a target of terrorists and eventually require that all cargo containers bound for the United States be scanned for nuclear materials and explosives.

"Here's a chance for Congress to stop dragging its feet," said Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson (news, bio, voting record), the new Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "It's been three years since the 9/11 Commission issued its report. Now is the time to put words into action."

Republicans found themselves in the same position that Democrats said they had occupied the past 12 years when the GOP had control of the House, frozen out in writing the bill and with no chance to offer amendments to it.

"We as Republicans had no say whatsover on this legislation," said Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record) of New York, the homeland security panel's former chairman and now its senior GOP member. He said the bill "gives false hope to the American people" because technology for scanning all cargo containers is not available now.

The bill is the first of six that new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., promised to pass within the first 100 hours of Congress. On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to take up a bill increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, followed by another bill Thursday to expand federally funded stem cell research.

The anti-terrorism bill also would also require screening of all air cargo on passenger planes and consolidate efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Its fate was less clear in the Senate, which held hearings Tuesday on many of the same issues. Because of questions about the costs and impact of some provisions — such as how more intensive cargo inspections might hamper global commerce — it is uncertain how much of the bill is likely to become law.

House leaders, who symbolically labeled the bill H.R. 1, were eager to contrast their action on the issue with the Republican-run Congress' failure to approve some of the 41 recommendations the commission. That panel made its proposals three years ago in an effort to prevent a repeat of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Democrats will be — and hopefully we'll be doing this in a bipartisan way — putting the protection of the American people very high on our priority list," Pelosi told reporters on Monday.

Though many Republicans were expected to support the measure, some objected to provisions of the bill and the speed with which Democratic leaders planned to whip it through the House, bypassing hearings.

Democrats declined to cite the bill's total price tag. A similar measure introduced in the Senate last year by Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., was estimated at $53 billion over five years, but it included some costs not covered in the new proposal. Funding for the bill would come in separate spending legislation.

The House also planned to vote on a separate resolution creating a new House committee to closely monitor the budget and actions of the U.S. intelligence community. Congressional jurisdiction over intelligence is currently spread among several committees.

The measure moves toward the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to centralize congressional oversight in either a joint House-Senate panel or one committee in each chamber.

Many of the commission's recommendations have already been enacted, including some changes in the organization of intelligence institutions, in air security systems and in strategies for disrupting terrorist financing.

Other recommendations were not acted upon because of costs and political differences. Among them was one that would give Transportation Security Administration screeners at airports the right to join unions and provide them with whistle-blower protections.

The Democrats' bill would direct the Homeland Security Department to phase in the inspection of all cargo carried on passenger aircraft over the next three years. It would also require scanning of all containers bound aboard ships for the U.S. Large ports would be given three years and smaller ports five years to comply.

Homeland security grants would be allocated to states according to risk assessment rather than population under the bill, which also calls for shoring up ways to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorists' hands. Better emergency communications systems for state and local first-responders would be sought as well.



-M
thus far, they're on course, but I expect we'll have to listen to some more crying without logical thought process. Bush does still have a veto pen, and they are effectually still 50/50 with Johnson in intensive care. If it makes you feel better though :shrug: Glass houses.

[Gan]

thus far, they're on course, but I expect we'll have to listen to some more crying without logical thought process. Bush does still have a veto pen, and they are effectually still 50/50 with Johnson in intensive care. If it makes you feel better though :shrug: Glass houses.

Yet you're forgetting that they raked Bush over the coals for not implementing ALL of the 9/11 panel recomendations and then promised everyone they would recomend ALL OF THE 9/11 RECOMENDATIONS. And now ALL has turned into SOME. Funny, Bush implemented SOME of the recomendations from the 9/11 panel too.

No, they really arent on track, they just want you to think they are.

Hypocracy at its finest.



...crying without logical thought process...
Are you fucking kidding me?

Sounds more like you're defending without logical thought process.

[ElanthianSiren]

Yet you're forgetting that they raked Bush over the coals for not implementing ALL of the 9/11 panel recomendations and then promised everyone they would recomend ALL OF THE 9/11 RECOMENDATIONS. And now ALL has turned into SOME. Funny, Bush implemented SOME of the recomendations from the 9/11 panel too.

No, they really arent on track, they just want you to think they are.

Hypocracy at its finest.


Are you fucking kidding me?

Sounds more like you're defending without logical thought process.

Not at all. I'm saying, neither side should be throwing rocks when neither side is perfect. They're on par with what I expected when I cast my ballot in November. Also, I don't think it was wise to make such bold promises, but I honestly can't say it bothers me like it bothers some here. Don't you expect the same from Republicans? - such as that claim that we'd never involve ourselves in so called nation building?

-M
edit: I should post to point out that I largely voted on stem cell research and against the religious right (Santorum), not particularly because I liked Casey or believed that much could be done in the first 100 hours of session. I do however have a fondness for Sestak.

[Gan]

A man is only as good as his word. Doesnt matter if he/she is a Democrat or a Republican.

With that said, when the Democrats campaigned on the so-called failed actions of the Bush administration and built their platform on making their own promises should they be voted into power. Now, if they want to be viewed in my eyes as more than just misleading politicians then they need to follow through with their promises, and not just spoon feed us rhetoric now that the voting is done.

Accountability, you cant expect to hold one group to it if you (representing the other group) dont practice what you preach.

[ElanthianSiren]

A man is only as good as his word. Doesnt matter if he/she is a Democrat or a Republican.

With that said, when the Democrats campaigned on the so-called failed actions of the Bush administration and built their platform on making their own promises should they be voted into power. Now, if they want to be viewed in my eyes as more than just misleading politicians then they need to follow through with their promises, and not just spoon feed us rhetoric now that the voting is done.

Accountability, you cant expect to hold one group to it if you (representing the other group) dont practice what you preach.

So we can count on you never to vote again?

-M

[Gan]

So we can count on you never to vote again?

-M

Where did you get that from?

Do you not understand man-speak?

[ElanthianSiren]

I was referring to the inability of Republicans to fully engage their Contract with America in 1994 (the last major Congressional power shift). I'm sure someone can Wiki it. Same idea, and in the impression given from your text, same kind of broken promises; yet have you or have you not consistently voted Republican prior to switching to Independent? Speak into the lamp when you answer please! :)

Actually, this kind of behavior is pretty normal, and were it a dem-rep switch, I'm sure the dems would be behaving the same way, hence politics. Like X said, sports would be much more engaging to debate right now, but at least politics has only two major teams to track.

-M

[Gan]

yet have you or have you not consistently voted Republican prior to switching to Independent? Speak into the lamp when you answer please! :)


Actually, my votes have been a mix of mostly Republican with a few independants on the Federal level, same on the state level, and almost an even split 50/50 on the local city level. I voted for our Democrat Mayor Bill White even. (Important to note: I've never voted straight ticket in any political race, and do not intend to).

So, as I speak this into the lamp, I will reiterate - DO NOT MAKE PROMISES YOU CAN NOT KEEP MR. POLITICIAN. And... IF YOU DO NOT KEEP YOUR PROMISES, EVEN WHEN YOU CAMPAIGN ON THE LACK OF PROMISE KEEPING BY YOUR OPPONENTS, EXPECT ME TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IT.

I'm still waiting for the lamp to respond.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, my votes have been a mix of mostly Republican with a few independants on the Federal level.

Yet Republicans didn't keep their promises with regard to CWA, but I didn't see Dems mentioned there federally. :shrug: Honestly, I have no idea how old you are, if you remember CWA, if you could vote then, and it's not my business how you vote, just something to think about before bringing in that defense. All politicians lie IMO; in general, it's the degree of the lie you're willing to accept and who you see as best benefitting you.

While I admire your wanting to hold people accountable to the T of their word, it's been shown generally not feasible in our political climate.

-M

[Back]

So, as I speak this into the lamp, I will reiterate - DO NOT MAKE PROMISES YOU CAN NOT KEEP MR. POLITICIAN. And... IF YOU DO NOT KEEP YOUR PROMISES, EVEN WHEN YOU CAMPAIGN ON THE LACK OF PROMISE KEEPING BY YOUR OPPONENTS, EXPECT ME TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IT.

I'm still waiting for the lamp to respond.

The NSA are on their way...

I find it interesting you went to all the trouble to use all caps to express your disappointment in failed promises. In fact, this is one of the few times you ever have use all caps. In fact, in fact, this is over a Congress that has just barely started. In fact, in fact, in fact this is over what exactly? That the pledges made are being acted on?

[Gan]

Yet Republicans didn't keep their promises with regard to CWA, but I didn't see Dems mentioned there federally. :shrug: Honestly, I have no idea how old you are, if you remember CWA, if you could vote then, and it's not my business how you vote, just something to think about before bringing in that defense. All politicians lie IMO; in general, it's the degree of the lie you're willing to accept and who you see as best benefitting you.

While I admire your wanting to hold people accountable to the T of their word, it's been shown generally not feasible in our political climate.

-M

37 years old. My first federal election to vote in was the 1988 presidential election. I've been voting since, consistently on the federal, state, and local levels.

I know all politicians lie. That was drilled into me my freshman year of college with my poli-sci theory instructor. However, that still does not prevent me from having high expectations of the product of Congress. While you may see fit to lower your standards to avoid disappointment, I will not.

And yes, I remember the CWA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America). In fact, I remember how much trouble Clinton was to the measures that were sought for passage. I also remember many of them failing miserably before they could come to a vote on the floor of the House and Senate. And I was severely disappointed that they were not revisited in greater effect in 2002.

So this year, the Democrats took a play out of the Gingrich playbook and did the same thing. And liberal America bought the ruse hook line and sinker while berating the Republican party for failing in keeping the promises that were offered 10 years ago. They say the definition of stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

So yea, excuse me if I see 110th Congress heading down the same road as the 104th Congress.

[Gan]

...in fact this is over what exactly? That the pledges made are being acted on?

This is over the fact that already, before the first week of new leadership is behind us, the language of the promises made pre-election is already being modified.

Actually if you paid attention to how the language on Pelosi's website (now the pages have been taken down) has changed with regards to the 9/11 comission from ALL of the findings to SOME of the findings. There's plenty of references and quotes about the first 100 hour contract language pre-election and post-election. Perhaps if you took off your rose colored glasses you would notice it.

So yea, I'm pissed off and saddened that a majority of the American population were gullable enough to be taken in by more promises and yet so blind to see the new promises being modified right under their noses.

And yet out of the other side of your mouth you've got the gall to bash the previous leadership for the very same faults that the new leadership is already practicing.

Hypocrite much?

[Kefka]

This is over the fact that already, before the first week of new leadership is behind us, the language of the promises made pre-election is already being modified.

Actually if you paid attention to how the language on Pelosi's website (now the pages have been taken down) has changed with regards to the 9/11 comission from ALL of the findings to SOME of the findings. There's plenty of references and quotes about the first 100 hour contract language pre-election and post-election. Perhaps if you took off your rose colored glasses you would notice it.

So yea, I'm pissed off and saddened that a majority of the American population were gullable enough to be taken in by more promises and yet so blind to see the new promises being modified right under their noses.

And yet out of the other side of your mouth you've got the gall to bash the previous leadership for the very same faults that the new leadership is already practicing.

Hypocrite much?


I doubt there's many Americans out there that are actually upset with their vote. At least, not so soon with the new Democratic majority. It's wishful thinking that everything down to the letter would be passed. The fact that something's being done will suffice for now. Yes, I hear that more can be done, but by far, the most vocal against this new congress are from those who voted against them.

[Back]

For the first time in nearly a decade, the House of Representatives voted 315-116 today to boost the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour.

[Artha]

I make $8 an hour now teaching kids how to read. Time to go find an easy min-wage job.

[Gan]

I feel for the small businesses that will be affected by the rise in wage prices for their labor.

Oh well, guess that makes more leverage for large businesses to take over since they can afford to pay higher wages and yet remain competetive with price-neutral goods and services. ;)

[Back]

It passed by 315-116, with the House at Dem 233 GOP 202... that must mean either 86 republicans agreed (most likely), or close to that with a few dems disagreeing.

[Drew]

Minimum wage increases are for the dumbest people in America (sadly that's a large number). You don't gain anymore spending power, but hey, tyranny of the majority, working against our economy again.

[Parkbandit]

It's a stupid law passed for the stupid people of the country. Grats.

Now that small business with 100 employees will have an extra $416,000 tacked onto their expenses. Let's see.. what will they do? Take the loss? Um, no. They will do 3 things..

1) Decrease their workforce - at $416,000... that's 27 employees they can no longer afford to keep.

2) Increase their price - Whatever they are selling or making, they will need to increase the price per unit to cover the loss.

3) Combination of the two.

[Parkbandit]

At least Backlash is going to get that raise he's always wanted now.

[Back]

At least Backlash is going to get that raise he's always wanted now.

rofl

If its such a big bad thing thats falling out of the sky to destroy our poor helpless economy... why even have it in the first place? You guys are a joke. Minimum wage ensures against ANY kind of businesses taking advantage of the workforce. But hell, if it was up to you two, we would return to 25¢/hour sweatshops.

[Gan]

rofl

If its such a big bad thing thats falling out of the sky to destroy our poor helpless economy... why even have it in the first place? You guys are a joke. Minimum wage ensures against ANY kind of businesses taking advantage of the workforce. But hell, if it was up to you two, we would return to 25¢/hour sweatshops.

Dont forget the child labor...

[zhelas]

If its such a big bad thing thats falling out of the sky to destroy our poor helpless economy... why even have it in the first place? You guys are a joke. Minimum wage ensures against ANY kind of businesses taking advantage of the workforce. But hell, if it was up to you two, we would return to 25¢/hour sweatshops.

That is why companies have their products manufactured outside the US. Outsourcing.... Mmmm cheap labor.

[Gan]

That is why companies have their products manufactured outside the US. Outsourcing.... Mmmm cheap labor.

Dont pay attention to Backlash, his understanding of economics can rest on the tip of a needle and still have room for company. At best it makes for good comedy relief.

[Parkbandit]

rofl

If its such a big bad thing thats falling out of the sky to destroy our poor helpless economy... why even have it in the first place? You guys are a joke. Minimum wage ensures against ANY kind of businesses taking advantage of the workforce. But hell, if it was up to you two, we would return to 25¢/hour sweatshops.

My point isn't that I think people like you should earn $2.00 an hour.. it's that I believe the minimum wage should be determined by the market and not by some suit in Washington DC.

The great part about a free society like ours is that the businesses can't take advantage of us because there is another business right down the street that won't. You don't like the place you are working, then take some initiative and go elsewhere. With 4.5% unemployment, even you could get a better job right down the street.

[Landrion]

My point isn't that I think people like you should earn $2.00 an hour.. it's that I believe the minimum wage should be determined by the market and not by some suit in Washington DC.

The great part about a free society like ours is that the businesses can't take advantage of us because there is another business right down the street that won't. You don't like the place you are working, then take some initiative and go elsewhere. With 4.5% unemployment, even you could get a better job right down the street.

That doesnt sound right. The reason these many labor laws were introduced in the first place was because companies did take gross advantage of the workers.

A company that shafts its workers is garnering a competitive advantage. The customers dont usually care, theyve got to feed their families too. The shafting companies become more profitable. They use those enhanced profit margins to undercut the companies that are actually doing the right thing.

Maybe a minimum wage employee can go right down the street today, but it wouldnt last. The guy down the street would have to start cutting his wages too or get put out of business by the place you just left. The market doesnt just "do the right thing" without regulation. It never did so in the past. Businesses are driven by profit, thats what theyre designed to do.

In any event, Im not saying this particular raise is bad or good, but I recognize why the suits in Washington have to be involved in the market and do not trust the free market to take good care of the standard of living.

[zhelas]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-controlled House Thursday passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures.

But the 253-174 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President Bush's promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again.

The White House said the bill -- the third bill of the Democrats' first 100 hours agenda to pass the House -- "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research."

At stake was whether research on cells taken from human embryos -- considered by scientists to be the most promising approach to developing potential treatments or cures for dozens of diseases -- should be underwritten with taxpayer funds.

The debate raises passions because the research typically involves the destruction of frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization. It draws fierce opposition from anti-abortion lawmakers and like-minded constituents who believe their taxes should not fund such research. Proponents of the research said it is done on embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics anyway.

Despite bolstering their numbers in November's elections, supporters of the controversial research -- which holds promise for medical cures of diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's -- acknowledge they lack the two-thirds margin to override another Bush veto.

The House commenced debate on the bill, the third piece of the Democrats' first 100 hours agenda, Thursday morning. Just hours before, however, the White House restated Bush's veto threat. The statement said the bill "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research." (Interactive: House Democrat's '100 hour' agenda)

At stake was whether research on cells taken from human embryos -- considered by scientists to be the most promising approach to developing potential treatments or cures for dozens of diseases -- should be underwritten with taxpayer funds.
Bill sparks passions

The debate raises passions since the research typically involves the destruction of frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization, which ensures fierce opposition from anti-abortion lawmakers and like-minded constituents who believe their taxes should not fund such research. Proponents of the research said it is done on embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics anyway.

The debate came just days after new research reported that stem cells extracted harmlessly from the amniotic fluid that cushions a fetus in-utero hold much the same promise for disease-fighting as embryonic stem cells. (Full story)

"I support stem cell research with only one exception -- research that requires killing human life," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be carried out in an ethical manner in a way that respects the sanctity of human life. Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in the scientific community." (Watch how new discoveries may change the stem-cell debate Video)

Democrats countered with Rep. James Langevin, D-Rhode Island, an anti-abortion lawmaker who is paralyzed from the chest down from a handgun accident that occurred when he was a teenager. The research, Langevin said, offers "tremendous hope that not only stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal cord injuries but one day a child with diabetes will no longer have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests."

Dr. Robert Lanza, a top stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., said that stem cell-based treatments could be just a few years away for eye and spinal cord injuries, but that a decade or more of research is needed before treatments might become available for diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes.
Polls: Most support research

Polls show most Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and Democrats say the issue played a big role in the November 7 elections that returned their party to the majority in the House and Senate.

But in the House, Democratic gains of 30 seats don't translate into anywhere near that number of new votes for the embryonic stem cell research bill, sponsored by Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, and Mike Castle, R-Del.

For starters, many Democratic freshmen defeated more moderate Republicans who voted for the bill when it originally passed in 2005 and on an unsuccessful veto override attempt last year. And some Republicans who supported the bill have been replaced with opponents of the measure.

As a result, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, House embryonic stem cell research proponents have gained only about a dozen votes.

If every House member votes, it takes 290 votes to override a veto. Support reached a high-water mark of 238 in the prior GOP-controlled House.

"It will be difficult to get to 290 votes, but we're gaining on it," DeGette said.

Both the House and Senate have to override a veto for a bill to become law without a president's signature.
A host of potential cures

Scientists still say, however, that embryonic stem cells so far are backed by the most promising evidence that one day they might be used to grow replacements for damaged tissue, such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

The legislation would lift Bush's 2001 ban on federal dollars spent on deriving new stem cells from fertilized embryos. Bush's veto of the bill last year was the first veto of his presidency.

Embryonic stem cells are able to morph into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. They usually are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. But because the culling kills the embryos, Bush on August 9, 2001, restricted government funding to research using only the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence, groups of stem cells kept alive and propagating in lab dishes.

But those 21 stem cell lines have many problems, and researchers say 300 newer lines, culled from fertility clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away, are considered better suited for implantation into sick Americans.

Scientists take those cells from a 5-day-old embryo, when it's a ball of about 100 cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/stem.cell.ap/index.html

[Parkbandit]

Let's talk about present time Landrion.. not back in the 1920's. Hell, we can go back to Egypt and say employers were using slave labor.. but that's really not relevant in today's business climate.

And you are 100% correct. Companies are driven by profit. Period. That is why they are in business.. to make money. But when was the last time you managed a business, owned a business or had some stake in a business other than working for one? I can tell you from 20 years of management/ownership experience, a business cannot just 'shaft' it's employees and expect big profits year after year. Eventually, it catches up to them.

If you don't pay your employees a fair market wage, they will leave for someone who will. By regulating what that market wage is, you artificially inflate labor expense for most businesses. This minimum wage doesn't just effect those who are making minimum wage.. it has a cascade effect on most of your workforce. Billy, the janitor was making $5.15 an hour, but as a cashier, I was making a $2.00 premium over him. Well, when he gets raised up to $7.25, what do you think I'm going to demand? At least $2 over him, since I have a more 'skilled' job than he does.

It's a bad idea that will get passed because Republicans don't want to look like cold, heartless bastards denying some poor person a couple extra bucks. And thankfully, the economy is strong enough to absorb such a strain.

Personally, it won't effect at all what I pay my employees because they are all paid well above minimum wage... but I know I can expect to pay more for al the goods I need to run my business. I know I can expect to pay more for everything in my life thanks to this stupid regulation. Everything that you need to live on will eventually go up.. and the poor will still be poor because their spending dollars didn't go up because they are paying more for everything they buy.

[Parkbandit]

Obviously the retards in Congress haven't read the news lately that said they can get tons of new lines from discarded remains after a pregnancy... the placenta and other bloody discharges.

BUT OMG! EMBRYO STEM CELLS CAN CURE ALL DISEASES!!! WE MUST HAVE THEM!!!

[Keller]

PB -- I don't have the time to make the full argument, but I think you're smart enough to get the synapsis.

One might argue that if people have more money to spend, businesses will sell morre widgets/services and will be able to absorb the increased labor costs without passing the price along to the consumers. It might not cover the full cost of the labor, but it will offset it such that consumers are in a better financial position and businesses are roughly in the same position.

[Keller]

Obviously the retards in Congress haven't read the news lately that said they can get tons of new lines from discarded remains after a pregnancy... the placenta and other bloody discharges.

BUT OMG! EMBRYO STEM CELLS CAN CURE ALL DISEASES!!! WE MUST HAVE THEM!!!

Embryo stem cells are readily available. What's the problem with using them, too?

[Gan]

Everything that you need to live on will eventually go up.. and the poor will still be poor because their spending dollars didn't go up because they are paying more for everything they buy.

This bears repeating.

This is a major cause/effect of instituting a minimum wage.

Now keep in mind, many states have already passed a minimum wage increase long before the federal government has. So those living in states that already have seen this effect will not notice much difference unless their industry requires the importation of goods and services from other states.

There was an excellent thread regarding the minimum wage discussion just recently.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=22280

[Parkbandit]

PB -- I don't have the time to make the full argument, but I think you're smart enough to get the synapsis.

One might argue that if people have more money to spend, businesses will sell morre widgets/services and will be able to absorb the increased labor costs without passing the price along to the consumers. It might not cover the full cost of the labor, but it will offset it such that consumers are in a better financial position and businesses are roughly in the same position.

You've never done any sort of business budgetting before.. have you?

If we sell more widgets.. fantastic.. but our price for said widget has already been determined by our labor expenses and our estimated cost increases for the goods needed to make the widgets. We're going to make our profit for 2006, or at least budget our profit.

[Parkbandit]

This bears repeating.

This is a major cause/effect of instituting a minimum wage.

Now keep in mind, many states have already passed a minimum wage increase long before the federal government has. So those living in states that already have seen this effect will not notice much difference unless their industry requires the importation of goods and services from other states.

There was an excellent thread regarding the minimum wage discussion just recently.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=22280

Use a salary calculator on any of those states that already did that compared to a state that didn't. Wow.. shock, you need to make more in those states because everything is more expensive.

I spent 2 years in CT and got a big raise to do it.. and my savings account dwindled. Do the math.

[Parkbandit]

Embryo stem cells are readily available. What's the problem with using them, too?

As I've stated before.. I really don't care if you use them, but Bush has stated that destroying other life to do research on is unacceptable. While I may not agree with him, I respect his principle on the subject.

[TheEschaton]

My point isn't that I think people like you should earn $2.00 an hour.. it's that I believe the minimum wage should be determined by the market and not by some suit in Washington DC.


Except that capitalist systems are inherently amoral. You say that if I was paying you 2.00 an hour, you would move to a company paying you more. Fine, but if you do, there's ALWAYS people looking for work, and I'd just fill the vacancy. I fill the vacancy, undercut your company, and done. Your company fails, and you're out of a job...

...and, at the end of the day, if you're out of a job....2.00 an hour is better than nothing, the next time one of my employees leaves for a "higher paying company".

Market regulation of the minimum wage only works if there is no involuntary unemployment.

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

Obviously the retards in Congress haven't read the news lately that said they can get tons of new lines from discarded remains after a pregnancy... the placenta and other bloody discharges.

BUT OMG! EMBRYO STEM CELLS CAN CURE ALL DISEASES!!! WE MUST HAVE THEM!!!

Obviously, you haven't read the scientific research or opinions of those working with said remains, umbilical tissues etc that say they're inferior to lab grown stem cells. The lead scientist working with the umbilical ones just made that same mention, as well as stating that it's disasterous, in his expert opinion to limit ourselves in any venue of research with regard to stem cells (in general).

-M

[Gan]

Except that capitalist systems are inherently amoral. You say that if I was paying you 2.00 an hour, you would move to a company paying you more. Fine, but if you do, there's ALWAYS people looking for work, and I'd just fill the vacancy. I fill the vacancy, undercut your company, and done. Your company fails, and you're out of a job...

...and, at the end of the day, if you're out of a job....2.00 an hour is better than nothing, the next time one of my employees leaves for a "higher paying company".

Market regulation of the minimum wage only works if there is no involuntary unemployment.

-TheE-

ROFL at your understanding of hiring costs for employees.

Every vacancy you fill costs you money. Money in loss in production of the vacant position, loss in money from production loss of other employees training the new employee, loss of money from less production of new employee until they get up to speed (get past the learning curve of the new job skill set). Loss of money in a lesser product being produced until the new employee learns how to produce the quality standard that longer term employees produce. Loss of money in customers buying better quality and service from places that turn out better quality and service due to a better quality of employee in production.

Now do this repetatively and your company will be the one going under, and you'll be the one looking for the 2.00/hr. job.

Do us a favor and stick to learning law. You suck at business.

[Parkbandit]

Obviously, you haven't read the scientific research or opinions of those working with said remains, umbilical tissues etc that say they're inferior to lab grown stem cells. The lead scientist working with the umbilical ones just made that same mention, as well as stating that it's disasterous, in his expert opinion to limit ourselves in any venue of research with regard to stem cells (in general).

-M

I haven't. I only go by a couple news stories about it in the past couple of days and neither one mentioned such trouble. One of the sources was ABC 'news' which would basically do anything to discredit Bush.. I'm sure if they knew of something bad about these stem cells, they would have mentioned it.

[TheEschaton]

In jobs with minimum wage workers, those times are minimal. Doesn't take long to learn how to be a register jockey at McD's, and they get applications every day. I imagine turnaround is pretty fucking quick.

I freely admit I've never studied business formally, I only speak from what makes sense to me. But I have worked since I was 15, and I remember that the dishwashing job that paid me shit wasn't one which took me all that long to learn. "Rinse, put them in the rack, throw them in the machine, stack. When you have time, put the clean dishes away, look for dirty ones in the bus pans outside." Nor did it require anyone to train me, it was just a verbal "Hey, do this" sort of instruction on the part of my manager. Done.

Walmart? How long does it take you to learn how to swipe a fucking barcode and then handle cash or credit? I think you're overestimating the difficulty of the jobs in question. That, or you're trying to make your point without accepting reality.

Since markets supposedly work in a logical way, one with a logical method could supposedly evaluate it.

-TheE-

[Gan]

In jobs with minimum wage workers, those times are minimal. Doesn't take long to learn how to be a register jockey at McD's, and they get applications every day. I imagine turnaround is pretty fucking quick.

I freely admit I've never studied business formally, I only speak from what makes sense to me. But I have worked since I was 15, and I remember that the dishwashing job that paid me shit wasn't one which took me all that long to learn. "Rinse, put them in the rack, throw them in the machine, stack. When you have time, put the clean dishes away, look for dirty ones in the bus pans outside." Nor did it require anyone to train me, it was just a verbal "Hey, do this" sort of instruction on the part of my manager. Done.

Walmart? How long does it take you to learn how to swipe a fucking barcode and then handle cash or credit? I think you're overestimating the difficulty of the jobs in question. That, or you're trying to make your point without accepting reality.

Since markets supposedly work in a logical way, one with a logical method could supposedly evaluate it.

-TheE-

There are always costs associated with high turnover in business. They scale according to the skill requisite of the position. There are also costs on pre-hiring investigations, background checks, etc. So while you're seeking logic, why not ask those who have been in those shoes and have performed those functions. As a hiring manager responsible for the HR component as well as the budgetary component I would beg to differ with your 'logic'.

Here's an interesting article that took me 5 seconds to Google. Logically, I'd encourage you to read it.




SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management, estimated that it costs $3,500.00 to replace one $8.00 per hour employee when all costs -- recruiting, interviewing, hiring, training, reduced productivity, et cetera, were considered. SHRM's estimate was the lowest of 17 nationally respected companies who calculate this cost!
Other sources provide these estimates: It costs you 30-50% of the annual salary of entry-level employees, 150% of middle level employees, and up to 400% for specialized, high level employees!
Do a quick calculation: Think of a job in your organization where there has been some turnover, perhaps supervisors. Estimate their annual average pay and the number of supervisors you lose annually. For example, if their average annual pay is $40,000, multiply this by .125% (or 125% of their annual pay, a reasonable cost estimate for supervisors). This means it costs $50,000 to replace just one supervisor. If this company loses ten supervisors a year, then 10 times $50,000 equals $500,000 in replacement costs for just supervisors. This is the bottom line cost. The top line cost? If the company's profit margin is 10%, then it costs $5,000,000 in revenues to replace these ten supervisors.http://www.webpronews.com/expertarticles/expertarticles/wpn-62-20060724EmployeeRetentionWhatEmployeeTurnoverReall yCostsYourCompany.html

[Parkbandit]

You will have to excuse TheE.. he's obviously never held a real job.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Back]

On the subject of minimum wage... there are many studies that say it has NO effect on unemployment. Most states have already done it. Obviously a majority of Congress found it needed to be passed, Republicans as well.

I mean, is it really that big of a concern to you guys, or is it just because Dems said they would pass it and they did?

[Gan]

On the subject of minimum wage... there are many studies that say it has NO effect on unemployment. Most states have already done it. Obviously a majority of Congress found it needed to be passed, Republicans as well.

I mean, is it really that big of a concern to you guys, or is it just because Dems said they would pass it and they did?

Psssst!

We've been down this road before. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=22280)

Its more a political tool than an economic benefit, IMO. Yes there are two (more than two actually) schools of thought, which you already know given your limited participation in the last thread we discussed minimum wage.

You know, if you laid off the pot, it might improve your memory (and perception) a little.

[Back]

Psssst!

We've been down this road before. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=22280)

Its more a political tool than an economic benefit, IMO. Yes there are two schools of thought, which you already know given your limited participation in the last thread we discussed minimum thread.

You know, if you laid off the pot, it might improve your memory a little.

Fuck, I need to smoke pot to understand the bullshit you guys come up with.

A political tool... you mean like how our elected leaders are supposed to look out for the common man instead of cowtowing to the corporations who gift them with corporate jets to VIP only events?

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah because they can't afford their own jet rides to any event they want.

[Parkbandit]

Fuck, I need to smoke pot to understand the bullshit you guys come up with.


I've given up on trying to make you even come close to understanding pretty much anything Backlash. You can disagree with us.. but if you can't understand a pretty basic concept, then maybe you should just stop posting in threads you don't understand.. go smoke another bone and head back over to your word association thread.

[Back]

I've given up on trying to make you even come close to understanding pretty much anything Backlash. You can disagree with us.. but if you can't understand a pretty basic concept, then maybe you should just stop posting in threads you don't understand.. go smoke another bone and head back over to your word association thread.

Its called a bong, grandpa.

Basic concept. We elect people to represent us, the people. Corporations favor the elected to represent them. What do the elected do?

[Sean of the Thread]

Pretty sure you smoking a bone is an accurate statement.

Like PB said.. head back to your word association thread where you've got at least the chance to make a coherent post.

[Back]

Pretty sure you smoking a bone is an accurate statement.

Like PB said.. head back to your word association thread where you've got at least the chance to make a coherent post.

I will. Anything in that thread is more entertaining than anything you ever have to contribute.

[ElanthianSiren]

I haven't. I only go by a couple news stories about it in the past couple of days and neither one mentioned such trouble. One of the sources was ABC 'news' which would basically do anything to discredit Bush.. I'm sure if they knew of something bad about these stem cells, they would have mentioned it.

It's been my experience, (and I'm going to sound a little bitchy here, but I am PMSing, bloated, and bitchy, so everyone can just live with it), that unless someone is in the trade, they don't understand much at all about stem cell research. I don't expect many writers/reporters do either, though I wholeheartedly expect that they write and deliver their lines in a manner most consumable for their viewers.

I doubt the average American has the attention span to listen to a reporter espouse every limitation of the different approaches to stem cell research. It would be like what happened last time I tried to explain the limitations on this board. Shari and a host of others complained I was speaking science-tongue greek-geek. Kranar was interested, and that was refreshing, but it ended up with Stan and I basically talking science to each other and someone starting an abortion debate, which largely has no place in the issue, which people would generally understand if they researched more.

:shrug: Knee jerk emotion grabbers, in general, sell news better than informed scientific reports however, so it's been my experience, that news sticks to that approach.

-M

[Landrion]

Let's talk about present time Landrion.. not back in the 1920's. Hell, we can go back to Egypt and say employers were using slave labor.. but that's really not relevant in today's business climate.

And you are 100% correct. Companies are driven by profit. Period. That is why they are in business.. to make money. But when was the last time you managed a business, owned a business or had some stake in a business other than working for one? I can tell you from 20 years of management/ownership experience, a business cannot just 'shaft' it's employees and expect big profits year after year. Eventually, it catches up to them.

If you don't pay your employees a fair market wage, they will leave for someone who will. By regulating what that market wage is, you artificially inflate labor expense for most businesses. This minimum wage doesn't just effect those who are making minimum wage.. it has a cascade effect on most of your workforce. Billy, the janitor was making $5.15 an hour, but as a cashier, I was making a $2.00 premium over him. Well, when he gets raised up to $7.25, what do you think I'm going to demand? At least $2 over him, since I have a more 'skilled' job than he does.

It's a bad idea that will get passed because Republicans don't want to look like cold, heartless bastards denying some poor person a couple extra bucks. And thankfully, the economy is strong enough to absorb such a strain.

Personally, it won't effect at all what I pay my employees because they are all paid well above minimum wage... but I know I can expect to pay more for al the goods I need to run my business. I know I can expect to pay more for everything in my life thanks to this stupid regulation. Everything that you need to live on will eventually go up.. and the poor will still be poor because their spending dollars didn't go up because they are paying more for everything they buy.


I admit, the excesses of the 20's and before are what I was referring to. And, no I have not managed a business. Most of my understanding comes from the classroom, I admit it is inferior to practical experience.

I agree that companies who shaft their employees get screwed in ways their bean counters are poorly equipped to catch (pissed off customers, shrinkage, turnover etc.).

Still, I have reservations that the modern market is so different that a minimum wage is unneeded. Hasnt Walmart displayed that you can undercut competitors and drive them under? Even in our modern market, with its e-commence and mail order convienence.

I hear what you are saying about a big raise to the min. wage causing a price wave. But on the other side, no one can deny that inflation has happened along the way too.

Check this out.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

A federal minimum wage was first set in 1938. The graph shows both nominal (red) and real (blue) minimum wage values. Nominal values range from 25 cents per hour in 1938 to the current $5.15/hr. The greatest percentage jump in the minimum wage was in 1950, when it nearly doubled. The graph adjusts these wages to 2005 dollars (blue line) to show the real value of the minimum wage. Calculated in real 2005 dollars, the 1968 minimum wage was the highest at $9.12. Note how the real dollar minimum wage rises and falls. This is because it gets periodically adjusted by Congress. The period 1997-2006, is the longest period during which the minimum wage has not been adjusted.

The stats may be complete BS, but they jive with what I expect. The min wage hadnt been raised for almost 10 years and inflation didnt go on vacation for that period. As you said, if this raise causes a buck in prices the increase wont help the poor's buying power as much, but that buying power eroded without the wage going up.

Anyway, I cant claim the breadth of business experience or economic knowledge to say this is a bad or good thing. From a layman's point of view, it seems like a normal consequence of inflation.

[Parkbandit]

Still, I have reservations that the modern market is so different that a minimum wage is unneeded. Hasnt Walmart displayed that you can undercut competitors and drive them under? Even in our modern market, with its e-commence and mail order convienence.



The problem with your theory is that you believe Walmart hires it's employees at the current minimum wage. In my area.. one of the lower cost of living areas of the country, I know that this is not the case. Walmart 'drives' other competitors out by offering low prices, not paying employees low wages.

[Gan]

If anything the graphs show how ineffective a minimum wage is at assisting the poor. Simply because, as you stated, the increase wont help the poor's buying power as much.

Interesting link though Landrion, thanks for posting it.

[Tolwynn]

Since Wal-Mart was mentioned earlier, it's interesting to note they're supporting the minimum wage increase as well. Simple enough to figure why, as it won't apply to and subsequently raise costs from most of its suppliers, but it will raise costs for some of its competition, making it that much easier to plow them under.

[Back]

This is over the fact that already, before the first week of new leadership is behind us, the language of the promises made pre-election is already being modified.

Actually if you paid attention to how the language on Pelosi's website (now the pages have been taken down) has changed with regards to the 9/11 comission from ALL of the findings to SOME of the findings. There's plenty of references and quotes about the first 100 hour contract language pre-election and post-election. Perhaps if you took off your rose colored glasses you would notice it.

So yea, I'm pissed off and saddened that a majority of the American population were gullable enough to be taken in by more promises and yet so blind to see the new promises being modified right under their noses.

And yet out of the other side of your mouth you've got the gall to bash the previous leadership for the very same faults that the new leadership is already practicing.

Hypocrite much?

You know... they toned down that particular promise before the election. If they lied about anything I hope it was when they said impeachment was not on the table.

[Gan]

You know... they toned down that particular promise before the election. If they lied about anything I hope it was when they said impeachment was not on the table.

Show me an article and a quote that proves that. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

I can show you articles leading up to the election that say otherwise.

Apologist.

[Gan]

Speaking of bullshit (Pelosi).



House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.

"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."

On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.

The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.

One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.

"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.

During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."

A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."

"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.

"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.

Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.

"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."

A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm

:clap:

This is going to be a fun two years.

:lol:

[Some Rogue]

Haha, you left the best part out of the quote.



During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."
A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."
"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.
"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.

[Gan]

Haha, you left the best part out of the quote.

True true, that certainly bespeaks bipartisanship doesnt it!!!

Actions speak louder than words dont they?

[Atlanteax]

In regard to the minimum age increase...

[Stanley Burrell]

^^^Two or three posts back --

The U.K. parliamentary shitfits beat the periwig out of House "debacles."

That, and legislature that opened the can of worms/vat of stem cells should be happy that a patronizing tone is the wrist slap they sustain, IMHO.

[Skirmisher]

Side A) a group in "power" less than a week which may or may not be on schedule to fulfill a campaign promised agenda in "100 hours".

Side B) An administration that some three plus years, three thousand U.S. soldiers killed and literally hundred of billions of dollars also gone that could have otherwise been used to fund innumerable other very much needed domestic programs has nothing to show but a botched execution of Saddam, a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight. An administration who 500 days after Katrina which they felt they did a "heckuva job" in responding to and throwing billions of dollars into some black hole with little to show for it still has a huge mess also with no end in sight.

I find it interesting that looking at those two groups that some see a clear and pressing need to choose side A to be focusing on for criticism.

We all have different priorities it seems.

[Back]

Show me an article and a quote that proves that. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

I can show you articles leading up to the election that say otherwise.

Apologist.

Ok, I have to bite it on this one. I can’t find anything pre-election. I could have sworn that at some point before the election someone started screaming about how the dems wouldn’t enact all the recommendations and the dems themselves toning down the talk on that particular issue.

Oddly, I can’t find any articles before January 2007 on Google news.

[CrystalTears]

...a botched execution of Saddam...
Is he not dead now? How is it botched?

[Some Rogue]

Side A) a group in "power" less than a week which may or may not be on schedule to fulfill a campaign promised agenda in "100 hours".

Side B) An administration that some three plus years, three thousand U.S. soldiers killed and literally hundred of billions of dollars also gone that could have otherwise been used to fund innumerable other very much needed domestic programs has nothing to show but a botched execution of Saddam, a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight. An administration who 500 days after Katrina which they felt they did a "heckuva job" in responding to and throwing billions of dollars into some black hole with little to show for it still has a huge mess also with no end in sight.

I find it interesting that looking at those two groups that some see a clear and pressing need to choose side A to be focusing on for criticism.

We all have different priorities it seems.

Or some just find it funny that the group A promised how much different they were going to be than group B, and in less than a week, they've proved differently.

[Gan]

Side A)Side B) An administration that some three plus years, three thousand U.S. soldiers killed
usually happens in a war...


and literally hundred of billions of dollars also gone that could have otherwise been used to fund innumerable other very much needed domestic programs
we could have used WWII ordinance and just carpet bombed the country destroying all infrastructure and civilians alike, that would have been cheaper than using all the high tech weaponry, armor, etc., if war is to be called anything but cheap to begin with.



has nothing to show but a botched execution of Saddam,
In which they had no participation in.


a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight.
OMG OMG OMG THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! Not to mention that the only reason the civil war had not happend sooner is because of a dictator who comitted mass murder and oppression to supress it? perhaps?



An administration who 500 days after Katrina which they felt they did a "heckuva job" in responding to and throwing billions of dollars into some black hole with little to show for it still has a huge mess also with no end in sight.
Right, because we all know the LA govenor and mayor of NO had no part in pre-planning for such a disaster, as if anyone can be totally responsible for the safety and well being of a city residing below sea level on the gulf coast that would be, could be, and was subjected to a catastrophic hurricane. Oh thats right, Bush could have just flown through it with AF1 and pushed is magical dissapate button!!



I find it interesting that looking at those two groups that some see a clear and pressing need to choose side A to be focusing on for criticism.

We all have different priorities it seems.

Only because Group A made it a point to demonstrate how evil Group B was and how Group A would come in and clean house, making everything all right with their magical promises... not considering the fact that they are already backing out or loopholing their way through the platforms that got them elected in November.

Yea, different priorities, same corruption, just a different label. But I'm glad you feel better, safer, and more peaceful now that the liberals are in control.

:banghead:

[Back]

Only because Group A made it a point to demonstrate how evil Group B was and how Group A would come in and clean house, making everything all right with their magical promises... not considering the fact that they are already backing out or loopholing their way through the platforms that got them elected in November.

ROFL

Drama much?

[Gan]

ROFL

Drama much?

ROFL

Hypocrite much?

[Gan]

Ok, I have to bite it on this one. I can’t find anything pre-election. I could have sworn that at some point before the election someone started screaming about how the dems wouldn’t enact all the recommendations and the dems themselves toning down the talk on that particular issue.

Oddly, I can’t find any articles before January 2007 on Google news.

Thats because this little theory of yours does not reside in print, it does not exist. Its a figment of your apologetic hypocritical THC induced imagination. Much like a majority of the other bullshit you spew out on these boards.

[ElanthianSiren]

we could have used WWII ordinance and just carpet bombed the country destroying all infrastructure and civilians alike

Yes, instead we used white phosphorus in areas.




Not to mention that the only reason the civil war had not happend sooner is because of a dictator who comitted mass murder and oppression to supress it? perhaps?

I'm not sure how you can make a statement like that. Certainly, order was kept better, but the US presence has, according to our generals or the Baker commission, inflamed the sectarian divide between the different Muslim groups in the region. I'm not saying that your statement isn't true; I'm saying that there are plenty of factors at work in Iraq, and we can't prove it true or false at this point.



Right, because we all know the LA govenor and mayor of NO had no part in pre-planning for such a disaster, as if anyone can be totally responsible for the safety and well being of a city residing below sea level on the gulf coast that would be, could be, and was subjected to a catastrophic hurricane.

Generally, and this has been true for some time, if a disaster is too big, states rely on the federal government. We didn't look to Florida, so badly damaged by Andrew that it's weather instruments couldn't measure much of the storm, to clean up on its own. That would have been ridiculous. Consequently, George H. W. Bush's slow response time on that prompted caterwauling, (with a mere less than 100 deaths in Florida due to the storm), and much of it from Floridian Republicans.




Only because Group A made it a point to demonstrate how evil Group B was and how Group A would come in and clean house, making everything all right with their magical promises... not considering the fact that they are already backing out or loopholing their way through the platforms that got them elected in November.

Again, I don't feel disappointed in my vote. I'm curious if anyone here that voted Democrat feels disappointed in their vote. The previous republican session held Congress two days a week. If the libs hold it even three, they're doing better IMO.


-M

[Kefka]

Speaking of bullshit (Pelosi).



http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm

:clap:

This is going to be a fun two years.

:lol:

??? Does Samoa fall under our laws and would the minimum wage bill apply here as well? I don't see this story anywhere else. Washington Times a.k.a. Moonie Times is deep with conservative bias. Someone else also mentioned ABC as a source. ABC is owned by conservative Disney. Their showing of the fictional film 'Path to 9/11' has placed them close to Fox News Channel.

[ElanthianSiren]

??? Does Samoa fall under our laws and would the minimum wage bill apply here as well? I don't see this story anywhere else. Washington Times a.k.a. Moonie Times is deep with conservative bias. Someone else also mentioned ABC as a source. ABC is owned by conservative Disney. Their showing of the fictional film 'Path to 9/11' has placed them close to Fox News Channel.


I haven't. I only go by a couple news stories about it in the past couple of days and neither one mentioned such trouble. One of the sources was ABC 'news' which would basically do anything to discredit Bush.. I'm sure if they knew of something bad about these stem cells, they would have mentioned it.

The two very different opinions here, sort of make me wonder if news groups are (generally) neither conservative or liberal but rabid sensationalists looking to make a buck wherever they can in a capitalistic society where people show a marked interest in boiling a problem down to the level of soggy rice chex then having it spoonfed. (in one long sentence)

-M

[Back]

Thats because this little theory of yours does not reside in print, it does not exist. Its a figment of your apologetic hypocritical THC induced imagination. Much like a majority of the other bullshit you spew out on these boards.

Damn, who pissed in your Wheaties today?

[Sean of the Thread]

Some times you people astonish me .. and that is a feat.

[Parkbandit]

Side A) a group in "power" less than a week which may or may not be on schedule to fulfill a campaign promised agenda in "100 hours".

Side B) An administration that some three plus years, three thousand U.S. soldiers killed and literally hundred of billions of dollars also gone that could have otherwise been used to fund innumerable other very much needed domestic programs has nothing to show but a botched execution of Saddam, a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight. An administration who 500 days after Katrina which they felt they did a "heckuva job" in responding to and throwing billions of dollars into some black hole with little to show for it still has a huge mess also with no end in sight.

I find it interesting that looking at those two groups that some see a clear and pressing need to choose side A to be focusing on for criticism.

We all have different priorities it seems.

What a really, really stupid thing to post.. even for you. Because the war in Iraq isn't going as we had planned, then we aren't allowed to criticize anyone else until Iraq is fixed.

I find it interesting that you even bother posting in political threads with shit like this.


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Dumbshit.jpg

[Back]

Skirm made the president cry.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20070111/i/r3828336413.jpg


Don’t you feel bad now, Skirm?

[Parkbandit]

Skirm made anyone with a brain cry.. for pity sake.

[Gan]

??? Does Samoa fall under our laws and would the minimum wage bill apply here as well? I don't see this story anywhere else. Washington Times a.k.a. Moonie Times is deep with conservative bias. Someone else also mentioned ABC as a source. ABC is owned by conservative Disney. Their showing of the fictional film 'Path to 9/11' has placed them close to Fox News Channel.

But yet Samoa is included in the stem cell legislation.

If you would have read the rest of the article, perhaps you would have understood the significance of why the hypocracy is evident.

Or, perhaps you just dont get it . :shrug:

[Gan]

Damn, who pissed in your Wheaties today?

YOU DID!

YOU WOKE US ALL UP WITH YOUR CRIES FOR JUSTICE AND POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY!

WHY STOP NOW!?!?!

LETS CONTINUE TO HOLD POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE, NOT JUST THE REPUBLICANS!!!!

ITS ALL YOUR FAULT BACKLASH!!!


:lol:

[Gan]

Again, I don't feel disappointed in my vote. I'm curious if anyone here that voted Democrat feels disappointed in their vote. The previous republican session held Congress two days a week. If the libs hold it even three, they're doing better IMO.-M

A reasonable person would not expect you to feel disappointed so soon.

Now ask youself that 2 years from now. I'm willing to bet either you or others will have a different response.

[Parkbandit]

A reasonable person would not expect you to feel disappointed so soon.

Now ask youself that 2 years from now. I'm willing to bet either you or others will have a different response.

I'll take that bet.

There is no way she will ever have an issue with the great Democrat Party. That's like saying Backlash would find something wrong with socialism.

[Gan]

I'll take that bet.

There is no way she will ever have an issue with the great Democrat Party. That's like saying Backlash would find something wrong with socialism.

:rofl: I thought about that, so I included 'or others' since there seems to be a few 'rabid' liberals that post here.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'll take that bet.

There is no way she will ever have an issue with the great Democrat Party. That's like saying Backlash would find something wrong with socialism.

I find plenty of fault with the party that I belong to and several of its platforms, thanks. First, I don't believe in gun control. Second, I believe in capital punishment. Thanks for playing though.

Ganalon is likely right. I don't second guess my decisions on a regular basis; rather, I react to them appropriately. If in two years a Republican shows more promise than a democrat (like Specter), I will vote for him (AGAIN).

-M

[Parkbandit]

Isn't Specter a Democrat really though? That's like saying "I vote for Republicans too.. I voted for Schwarzenegger!"

[ElanthianSiren]

Is he? Funny, his title says R-PA. Someone will have to do something about that, I suppose. Exactly what issues are you basing this assessment from, and precisely how would you rather he behave?


-M

[Back]

House votes to force Medicare drug negotiations (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-12T211622Z_01_WBT006404_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-MEDICARE.xml&src=rss)


The bill passed on a vote of 255-170, with 24 Republicans joining the Democratic majority in support of it.


One disappointing aspect of all of this is that they aren’t getting the majority needed to override the veto power of the president. Kind of a hollow victory.

[ElanthianSiren]

House votes to force Medicare drug negotiations (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-12T211622Z_01_WBT006404_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-MEDICARE.xml&src=rss)




One disappointing aspect of all of this is that they aren’t getting the majority needed to override the veto power of the president. Kind of a hollow victory.


Well, what happens now is the legislation goes back to the house, and the democrats try to broker promises to support from "soft" republicans. Generally, favors are exchanged (ie, I'll support drilling in your district of Louisiana if you support this medicare bill). Not many vetos are broken historically, however. It's going to depend on how well the democratic house can work with the republicans there.

-M

[TheEschaton]

Video of Barney Frank laying down the procedural smackdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-CHWKDBP8&eurl=)

The Republicans weren't following the rules of the house, Frank just called them on it. It makes the GOP sound like whiny bitches. Frank was completely within his rights.

God, I love CSPAN.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Video of Barney Frank laying down the procedural smackdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-CHWKDBP8&eurl=)

The Republicans weren't following the rules of the house, Frank just called them on it. It makes the GOP sound like whiny bitches. Frank was completely within his rights.

God, I love CSPAN.

-TheE-

Actually, he was within his right. I have no fault with Frank doing what he did.. but the Republican asking the question made me laugh. Alot.

[Sean of the Thread]

All that aside... Democrats from MASS make me laugh... A LOT.

[Back]

Only because Group A made it a point to demonstrate how evil Group B was and how Group A would come in and clean house, making everything all right with their magical promises... not considering the fact that they are already backing out or loopholing their way through the platforms that got them elected in November.

Yea, different priorities, same corruption, just a different label. But I'm glad you feel better, safer, and more peaceful now that the liberals are in control.

:banghead:


ROFL

Drama much?


ROFL

Hypocrite much?

You are basing the entire term of the 110th Congress in its first week all on one thing. Its inability to enact ALL the 9/11 Commissions recommendations. In fact, its inability to not enact ONE of the recommendations. You conveniently forget the fact that the rest of those recommendations, which deal directly with our national security, were not enacted by the 108th or 109th Congresses.

You are trying to say this Congress is just as bad as the last one. I don’t see how you can possibly justify that statement. When we get to the end of the term then we can compare.

[TheEschaton]

He's actually my representative. He's hilariously awesome, and so flamingly gay it's almost shocking.

-TheE-

[Gan]

You are basing the entire term of the 110th Congress in its first week all on one thing. Its inability to enact ALL the 9/11 Commissions recommendations. In fact, its inability to not enact ONE of the recommendations. You conveniently forget the fact that the rest of those recommendations, which deal directly with our national security, were not enacted by the 108th or 109th Congresses.

You are trying to say this Congress is just as bad as the last one. I don’t see how you can possibly justify that statement. When we get to the end of the term then we can compare.

Dude, I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen thus far. Yes, more will come out of the wash as time goes on. But thus far, we've seen backpedaling and loophole cavorting, and tons of posturing. Yea, the 110th is off to a great start.

Funny how you are now preaching peace and patience. Do those words taste sour in your mouth, or does everything still taste like burnt rope?

[Back]

Dude, I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen thus far. Yes, more will come out of the wash as time goes on. But thus far, we've seen backpedaling and loophole cavorting, and tons of posturing. Yea, the 110th is off to a great start.

Well, hey, if them doing what they said they were going to do with that one exception in their first three weeks, which is more than the 108th and 109th combined, is what you call being just as corrupt, ineffective and flaccid as the 109th congress... you’re just an exaggerating drama queen.

[Skirmisher]

Video of Barney Frank laying down the procedural smackdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-CHWKDBP8&eurl=)

The Republicans weren't following the rules of the house, Frank just called them on it. It makes the GOP sound like whiny bitches. Frank was completely within his rights.

God, I love CSPAN.

-TheE-

Frank sure did use the rules to shut him down, it was pretty funny!

[Back]

Video of Barney Frank laying down the procedural smackdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-CHWKDBP8&eurl=)

The Republicans weren't following the rules of the house, Frank just called them on it. It makes the GOP sound like whiny bitches. Frank was completely within his rights.

God, I love CSPAN.

-TheE-

rofl

One of the youtube comments was hilarious also... Welcome to the minority, assholes!

[Back]

Meanwhile... over in the Senate.

Senate To Deny Pensions To Convicted Lawmakers (http://cbs4denver.com/nationalpolitics/politicsnational_story_012115505.html)


(AP) WASHINGTON Members of Congress convicted of serious crimes would lose their taxpayer-paid pensions, sometimes totaling more than $100,000 a year, under a measure unanimously approved by the Senate Friday.

The 87-0 vote to deprive lawbreaking lawmakers of their retirement benefits was part of a comprehensive ethics and lobbying bill that the Senate has taken up as its first piece of legislation in the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

[Atlanteax]

Hopefully the Democrats won't succeed in derailing the U.S. economy...

[TheEschaton]

Maybe you should try doing more than posting conservative political cartoons....

-TheE-

[Gan]

Hopefully the Democrats won't succeed in derailing the U.S. economy...

Actually the latest forecasts are up. Looks like 2006 was not as bad as the big think tanks were predicting. Some are speculating that this was because of the warm winter thus far and the falling prices of energy. Either way, its good that the numbers came out before the Democrats could take credit for it. ;)