Like it...
PLEASE VOTE!!
Started by
insolent cur
, Nov 06 2012 12:02 PM
229 replies to this topic
#117
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 30 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:38 PM
You mean he will actually do his job rather than worry about whether or not what he does will make him re-electable?
exactly. first term is for trying to set up that which you will ultimately try and accomplish in the second term. 4 years isn't long enough to make a significant difference, especially when, for half of that term, one's adversaries have stated their primary goal is to prevent a second term, as opposed to working across the aisle for the benefit of the nation.
#119
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 15,846 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:39 PM
exactly. first term is for trying to set up that which you will ultimately try and accomplish in the second term. 4 years isn't long enough to make a significant difference, especially when, for half of that term, one's adversaries have stated their primary goal is to prevent a second term, as opposed to working across the aisle for the benefit of the nation.
That is appalling. Pretty sure I can't sandbag for the first 4 years of a new job.
#120
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,766 posts
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:39 PM
exactly. first term is for trying to set up that which you will ultimately try and accomplish in the second term. 4 years isn't long enough to make a significant difference, especially when, for half of that term, one's adversaries have stated their primary goal is to prevent a second term, as opposed to working across the aisle for the benefit of the nation.
Republican Jobs Bills Blocked By Democrats
1) H.R. 872—Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act: The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state may not require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the application of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. By removing duplicative requirements, the bill would reduce overlapping and unnecessary regulation on pesticides that are already regulated, thereby reducing costs to both farmers and small business owners.
2) H.R. 910—Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011: H.R. 910 would prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases to address climate change under the Clean Air Act. More specifically, the bill would prohibit the EPA from regulating: water vapor; carbon dioxide; methane; nitrous oxide; and any other substance subject to regulation, action or consideration under the Clean Air Act to address climate change. The bill would prevent a needless increase in energy prices for American households and businesses.
3) H.J.Res. 37—Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices: The bill would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from implementing a net-neutrality rule which would prohibit Internet providers from slowing or blocking legal websites or Internet services because of concerns over bandwidth. In May 2010, seventy-four House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski making the case that net-neutrality rules will “jeopardize jobs” and “should not be done without additional direction from Congress.”
4) H.R. 1230—Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act: H.R. 1230 would require the Department of the Interior (DOI) to auction offshore oil and gas leases in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, as well as in an area off the coast of Virginia. The bill would help to reduce energy prices and promote job creation by expediting offshore oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and the Virginia coast.
5) H.R. 1229—Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act: H.R. 1229 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to require that any lessee operating under an approved exploration plan obtain a permit before drilling any well, and obtain a new permit before drilling any well of a design that is significantly different than the design for which an existing permit was issued. The bill would prohibit the Secretary from issuing a permit without ensuring that the proposed drilling operations meet all critical safety system requirements (including blowout prevention), and oil spill response and containment requirements.
6) H.R. 1231—Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act: H.R. 1231 would require that each five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources, and would establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal. The bill would essentially lift the President's ban on new offshore drilling by requiring the Administration to move forward on American energy production in areas estimated to contain the most oil and natural gas resources.
7) H.R. 2021—The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011: H.R. 2021 would eliminate needless permitting delays that have stalled important energy production opportunities off the coast of Alaska. The bill would also eliminate the permitting back-and-forth that occurs between the EPA and its Environmental Appeals Board. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and rescinded by the agency and its review board, the EPA will be required to take final action – granting or denying a permit—within six months.
8) H.R. 2018—Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011: H.R. 2018 would a restrict the EPA ability to issue a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a state has adopted and EPA already has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant, unless the state concurs with the EPA Administrator’s determination that the revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The bill would prevent unilateral actions by the EPA that second-guess the decisions of the state regulatory agency.
9) H.R. 1315—Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act: H.R. 1315 would improve consumer protection and provides greater economic stability by allowing the Financial Stability Oversight Council to vote to set aside any harmful federal regulation.
10) H.R. 1938— North American-Made Energy Security Act: H.R. 1938 would direct the President, acting through the Secretary of Energy, to coordinate with all federal agencies responsible for an aspect of the President's National Interest Determination and Presidential Permit decision regarding construction and operation of Keystone XL, to ensure that all necessary actions are taken on an expedited schedule. The bill would promote job creation and energy security by ending the needless delay of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline.
11) H.R. 2587—Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act: H.R. 2587 would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.
12) H.R. 2401—Transparency In Regulatory Analysis Of Impacts On The Nation: H.R. 2401 would require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental EPA. Specifically, the bill would require the President to establish the Committee for the Cumulative Analysis of Regulations that Impact Energy and Manufacturing. The Committee would be charged with analyzing and reporting on the cumulative and incremental impacts of covered rules and actions of the EPA concerning air, waste, water, and climate change. The bill would establish the interagency committee to evaluate the economic impacts of EPA regulations and delay the final dates for both the maximum achievable control technology (Utility MACT) standards and the cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR) until the full impact has been studied. Both regulations would cost consumers and businesses $184 billion from 2011-2030 and would cause electrical prices to skyrocket.
13) H.R. 2681—Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act: H.R. 2681 would provide a legislative stay of three EPA emissions standards that apply to cement manufacturing plants and are known as the “Cement MACT rules.” The bill would also provide for the implementation of effective regulation that protects communities both environmentally and economically.
14) H.R. 2250—EPA Regulatory Relief Act: H.R. 2250 would provide a legislative stay of four interrelated EPA rules, commonly referred to as the “Boiler MACT rules,” that govern emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from approximately 200,000 boilers and incinerators nationwide. The bill would remove this excessive regulatory burden placed on employers by the EPA’s Boiler MACT rules, potentially costing companies $14 billion and 224,000 American jobs, and replace them with sensible, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs.
15) H.R. 2273—Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act: H.R. 2273 would utilize the framework and requirements of an existing federal regulatory program developed by the EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA) as the basis for enforceable minimum federal standards for the regulation of a waste stream known as coal ash. The bill would include enforceable federal standards, but would leave regulation and enforcement to the states. The bill would also provide consistent, safe management of coal combustion residuals in a way that protects jobs and encourages recycling and beneficial use.
16) H.R. 2433—Veterans Opportunity to Work Act: H.R. 2433 would create or modify programs that provide employment and training services to veterans and service members separating from active duty. The bill would also make changes to programs that offer home loan guarantees, ambulance services, and pension payments to qualifying individuals. Among other things, the bill would provide up to 12 months of Veterans Retraining Assistance to no more than 100,000 unemployed veterans that enter education or training programs at community colleges or technical schools to prepare them for employment in an occupational field that is determined by Department of Labor to have significant employment opportunities.
17) H.R. 674—To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities: H.R. 674 would permanently repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities. Currently, the imposition of the 3 percent withholding is set to take effect on January 1, 2013. If the 3 percent withholding tax were implemented as scheduled, government entities would be required to withhold 3 percent of payments to persons providing property or services to the government. For example, on an invoice for $20,000 the government would pay the business $19,400 and withhold $600 as a preemptive tax. These added costs would almost certainly translate into fewer private-sector jobs and higher costs for the government and taxpayers.
18) H.Con.Res. 34—Budget for Fiscal Year 2012: The FY 2012 budget resolution passed by House Republicans promotes job creation and certainty by preventing the president’s job destroying tax increases and runaway spending.
#123
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 30 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:46 PM
Apparently he already has some sitting Supreme Court Justices ready to step aside so he can appoint whom he wants.
it is widely accepted that the next president will have an opportunity to nominate at least one, of not more, scotus justices. while the president can nominate whomever he believes to be best, that individual must still be confirmed by congress.
#126
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 15,846 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:50 PM
it is widely accepted that the next president will have an opportunity to nominate at least one, of not more, scotus justices. while the president can nominate whomever he believes to be best, that individual must still be confirmed by congress.
So which is it, speculative or a done deal? I am reading you posting on both sides of that fence.
#133
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 30 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:58 PM
If Obama does not win?
i'm much less certain, but extremely nervous, about what would happen to scotus under a romney administration.
he has stated that he would appoint justices who favor overturning roe v. wade. we know that he thinks citizen's united is good law. that tells me where he stands.
#136
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 30 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:07 PM
But anyone he appoints still have to run the confirmation gauntlet. Its not like whoever he picks automatically gets in.
Then that should not be the basis for picking a president.
it's a determination of fitness to serve, not a series of litmus tests. obama will appoint and have confirmed more liberal justices. romney will appoint and have confirmed more conservative justices.
#138
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,766 posts
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:11 PM
what was tacked to that bill? there's more than meets the eye.
the same things could be said for any number of "obstructed" measures the president and his team have put forth. My point is that saying, and bitterly clinging to the "obstructionist" bit goes both ways. The democrats controlled the house and senate until 2010. they passed a ton of measures too. Including the highly unpopular Obama Tax. So the obstrucitonist argument is rather flimsy, regardless of republican lip service.
#140
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,766 posts
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:15 PM
Speculative as that is, if that's all we have as a reason to vote one or the other, isn't the plate lacking any meat or potatoes? I mean, you have a plate adn you're hoping someone puts steak on it, but you could end up with cat shit too.
#141
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 30 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:16 PM
the same things could be said for any number of "obstructed" measures the president and his team have put forth. My point is that saying, and bitterly clinging to the "obstructionist" bit goes both ways. The democrats controlled the house and senate until 2010. they passed a ton of measures too. Including the highly unpopular Obama Tax. So the obstrucitonist argument is rather flimsy, regardless of republican lip service.
how can you dismiss something stated as their primary goal, and then followed up accordingly?
there is no comparison between the obstructionist teabaggers and legislation blocked by democrats. one of the two parties answers to the singular goal of unseating the president by obstruction and obfuscation. one party has repeatedly attempted to do the county's business. eg: remember the debt ceiling argument? that sure worked out well.
#142
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 30 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:17 PM
Speculative as that is, if that's all we have as a reason to vote one or the other, isn't the plate lacking any meat or potatoes? I mean, you have a plate adn you're hoping someone puts steak on it, but you could end up with cat shit too.
what may be speculative to you, is more than speculative to me. we swim in different pools.
#143
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 11,415 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:19 PM
it's not just rhetoric. imo, it's very real. there is a distinct difference in the type of nominee each would choose.
I'm sure they would choose different people. The rhetoric I was speaking of are the speeches I get about how the Supreme Court will be forever destroyed if I vote for ____ instead of _____.
#144
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,766 posts
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:28 PM
how can you dismiss something stated as their primary goal, and then followed up accordingly?
there is no comparison between the obstructionist teabaggers and legislation blocked by democrats. one of the two parties answers to the singular goal of unseating the president by obstruction and obfuscation. one party has repeatedly attempted to do the county's business. eg: remember the debt ceiling argument? that sure worked out well.
Of course there is no comparison when one is partisan. The debt ceiling? Is that really the business of the country? Some people believe that democrats are destroying the country, not doing its business. I'm not saying that is true, but you're using objective reference to prove a point. And that is why the entire political body is polarized. The "two" parties believe both sides aren't doing the business of the nation how THEy believe it should be done. And frankly, both sides just want control and the ability to spend on what they think is best, not what is best for everyone.
#147
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,023 posts
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:36 PM
i personally dont get it.... i dont care if other ppl vote. seems like a holier than thou thing to me... vote if you wanna... if you dont, no skin off my back. also i think its braggy when ppl are all like I VOTED! well yay for you.... i dont find a need to flaunt my vote....
i do think everyone should have the option to vote.... but outside that, if you dont use it well then thats your option
i do think everyone should have the option to vote.... but outside that, if you dont use it well then thats your option
#148
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 30 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:36 PM
Of course there is no comparison when one is partisan. The debt ceiling? Is that really the business of the country? Some people believe that democrats are destroying the country, not doing its business. I'm not saying that is true, but you're using objective reference to prove a point. And that is why the entire political body is polarized. The "two" parties believe both sides aren't doing the business of the nation how THEy believe it should be done. And frankly, both sides just want control and the ability to spend on what they think is best, not what is best for everyone.
i disagree with you regarding the goals of liberals in that last characterization.
this is our current system. the court is in play and whomever becomes president makes the nomination. personally, i would rather we have 4 or 5 robust parties, that would either win outright or be able to form governing coalitions.
