AP RedBailout passed...after they made the deal worse
October 3rd 2008 19:48
And you thought Congress didn't pass the original bill because they were looking out for you.
They were just holding out to take care of their friends. Oh, and now CNN is offended when they were part of the Great Depression/Armageddon spin that was so desperate to get this thing passed.
Well, except for Lou Dobbs. Him I'll give props to for saying ahead of time this bill/set of bills wasn't looking out for the people.
Basically, the bill is still the same. To try to hide Congressional cronyism, they sprinkle in "Green" tax breaks, student aid, disaster relief for Texas (Bush doesn't care about black people unless they live in Texas with white people apparently), rural schools, and other minor feel good things.
Now here's the rub. NASCAR and motorsports tracks that were locked in to pay taxes already get to not pay about $7 million a year. Fastest growing sport in the US making money hand over fist so they desperately needed that to stay afloat.
Hollywood gets to deduct an extra $5 million a project. So the people that were already here and already set to stay here get a tax break. They were already locked in to stay, they weren't threatening to move to Vancouver, yet let's give them more money.
Oh, and wool fabric companies that use IMPORTED fibers and yarns get those IMPORTED items with less taxes imposed. We're protecting OUR economy how? Shouldn't the breaks go to the companies that use fibers and yarns in OUR country?
The others are too laughable to mention. Oregon/Wisconsin reps gave up their votes for wooden arrows but this only cost $2 million so were relatively cheap votes to be bought. That seemed particularly greedy/stupid/bought like a $2 crack ho ish rider that needed to be said.
So where is the help for the people losing their homes? Or the middle class tax break? Or the extra accountability for the bad companies they want to save?
Well, I didn't buy it. And anyone that did should now know better. I'm gonna go and wash my hands for 30 minutes cuz even typing this stuff makes me feel dirty.
They were just holding out to take care of their friends. Oh, and now CNN is offended when they were part of the Great Depression/Armageddon spin that was so desperate to get this thing passed.
Well, except for Lou Dobbs. Him I'll give props to for saying ahead of time this bill/set of bills wasn't looking out for the people.
Basically, the bill is still the same. To try to hide Congressional cronyism, they sprinkle in "Green" tax breaks, student aid, disaster relief for Texas (Bush doesn't care about black people unless they live in Texas with white people apparently), rural schools, and other minor feel good things.
Now here's the rub. NASCAR and motorsports tracks that were locked in to pay taxes already get to not pay about $7 million a year. Fastest growing sport in the US making money hand over fist so they desperately needed that to stay afloat.
Hollywood gets to deduct an extra $5 million a project. So the people that were already here and already set to stay here get a tax break. They were already locked in to stay, they weren't threatening to move to Vancouver, yet let's give them more money.
Oh, and wool fabric companies that use IMPORTED fibers and yarns get those IMPORTED items with less taxes imposed. We're protecting OUR economy how? Shouldn't the breaks go to the companies that use fibers and yarns in OUR country?
The others are too laughable to mention. Oregon/Wisconsin reps gave up their votes for wooden arrows but this only cost $2 million so were relatively cheap votes to be bought. That seemed particularly greedy/stupid/bought like a $2 crack ho ish rider that needed to be said.
So where is the help for the people losing their homes? Or the middle class tax break? Or the extra accountability for the bad companies they want to save?
Well, I didn't buy it. And anyone that did should now know better. I'm gonna go and wash my hands for 30 minutes cuz even typing this stuff makes me feel dirty.
| 42 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
10. October 8th 2008 @ 17:24. D. Armenta Says:
Hello all, sorry for the abrupt departure last night; naturally I had to watch the campaign interviews debates..ugh. More on that later.
Now, Mr. Red, to address your points one by one:
-I used Canada as an example of giving all parties a voice at election time, not as a solution for our problems in gov't.
-Comparing Nader to Gary Coleman et. al is a little off the mark, don't you think? It's not like the man just thought one day "Hey, why not run? It'll be a hoot." Nader has been fighting for the consumer's rights for 40 years, and he is still doing so by running.
-The "spoiler" bit adopted by the Dems and the media is a poor excuse for a candidate who couldn't get the votes, as you said. One thing we seem to be losing sight of, though, is that the whole "spoiler" label is based upon the assumption that all of the voters who cast for Nader or Buchanan would have voted Dem or Repub otherwise. I disagree with that whole "lesser of the two evils" mentality. It's intellectual laziness. I'd pick a third party at random from the ballot and cast that way if Nader weren't running. Why?
-Nader himself entertains no delusions about being elected president. What he is and has been trying to do is break up the two party system and bring the American public's attention to the fact that it can be changed. A two party system does not work when both parties want exactly the same things in the important issues like economy and the war.
-Also, just a gentle correction; Nader is on the ballot in 45 states, can be written in on 4 more. The state of Oklahoma is the only holdout.
--The duocracy is not indestructible. Nader's runs
for the last three elections are trying to bring that point home to the public. For all of those who cry "spoiler", and "you can't beat the system", I say: Wake up!! Read your constitution! It was set up specifically so this type of monopoly (yes, monopoly. Both parties are on the same agenda) can be broken up by the voters.
A good example of this would be the third party on Women's Suffrage. Another is the third party on the issue of Slavery. Neither of the two existing parties wanted anything to do with either of those issues; it took a third party to get them pushed through.
Yes, we won't see immediate results. Yes, it will take hard work and more civic involvement on the part of Americans--but it can be changed, if not for us then for our children and our childrens' children..but action has to be taken NOW, before we lose any more of our civil rights.
It comes down to this: we can stay insulated to what's going on in gov't.-- fat, pissed off and ineffectual as we're being herded along to the slaughterhouse; or we can get off of our cynical and complacent butts and exercise a little foresight beyond where we're going for dinner tonight.
Comment by AP Red
All Knowing Geek
I felt that commenting again would further detract from your original post, which I felt was a very good idea.
On the number of ballots, I meant to say 40-45 states. Another poster listed 44 or something, I found an article that said 40 so I meant to say 40-45 but I didn't double check when I was typing and I don't know how/if I can modify comments since I'm new to this forum. So my bad there.
I didn't compare Nader to Gary Coleman. I used California's election circus to illustrate how opening up the election to every "party" wouldn't be productive. Maybe what happened there can only happen in California, but I think the farce that happened there would happen everywhere to any joker who wants to get famous or sell themselves if the process was more like Canada. So I was illustrating how the multi-party process has played out in the US previously.
I don't put the Green Party or the Libertarians into the circus mix, I just don't see it being productive. Washington already isn't productive, so why add a third, fourth, fifth division into the mix?
The two party system is indeed not indestructible. Like I said, Ventura won in Minnesota, there are two "independent" senators right now and the mayor of the largest city in the US is an independent. But the way a PRESIDENTIAL election is set up, it is a two party race.
The two party system even has divisions in their own parties. Rightists, leftists, radical liberals, extreme right wingers, isolationists et all exist in the system. So I don't see the need and if the general population saw the need, than that 40% that doesn't vote and the people that choose between the lesser of two evils would have swung a major election or two already.
Is Minnesota honestly the most progressive state in the US? Been there, don't think so.
On being a spoiler, less than 200 votes decided the outcome in Florida. If you can't see how the Dems would have gotten more of Nader's votes (80,000 of them) than the Republicans, than you've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid Nader is dishing out. Can you honestly say that if Nader wasn't in the election the Dems don't get those 200 votes? I think they do and I was on the other side.
That's also the reason why Buchanon didn't campaign in Florida. He didn't want to take from the GOP base when everyone knew FLA was up for grabs.
And no, there is no coming down to anything. People always make it out like there's sides. There is no right or wrong, black and white, good or evil. 40-plus percent of the people excercise a third option and not vote. Another 10 percent vote third party which objectively only impacts tight races. Another 1 percent take it further and write in Pikachu and ALF.
Personally, I don't think either the dems or GOP have anything to offer me right now. And I choose to be in that 40 percent plus that doesn't vote.
Last I checked Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness didn't include Social Security, Healthcare, and candidates that believe in 70-80 percent of what I believe in, And that might not be fair, but its more fair than most of the world.
Now talk to me about bailing out failing companies and shipping out jobs/aid to foreign countries and we'll probably have similar views.
Incidentally, its just AP, not Mr. Red.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
That's why the system is set up so that "viable" parties are the only ones that end up on the final ballot, the term meaning only any party that has enough (10-15%) support to be a factor in the finals. That is our hedge against frivolous candidates.
Unfortunately, the "unwritten" rule is that since the major networks are now corporate-owned, they can give air time to whoever they damn well please--which is certainly not going to be a man like Nader who has attacked corporate crime, fraud, waste and abuse for the last 4 decades. Canada's CBC network is run by the government and the people; that is why all candidates have a say.
Well--I was there, living and voting in Florida in the 2000 elections, and Yes, I can honestly say that if Nader wasn't in the 2000 election the Dems still would have lost, and here's why:
Several factors were blamed by various state,government and private investigation commissions;
1) The premature calling of Gore as the winner by Fox network a full 2 hours before polls closed in the Fla. Panhandle, which is on Central time--not Eastern. This reportedly influenced the mostly Republican voters there to not bother voting at all.
2) Too many different vote counting standards were used in the individual counties. Some pretty nefarious tricks by Republican party members were unearthed by these investigations; tricks which violated the Voter Protection Registration Act of 1993 by requiring Florida voters convicted of felonies in other states (and subsequently restored their rights by said states), to request clemency and a restoration of their rights from Governor Bush, in a process which might take two years and ultimately was left to Bush's discretion.
This completely refuted not only the Voter Protection Registration Act, but further ignored a ruling by Florida's Dept. of State in 1998 that had established that a person residing in FLA.,who had been previously been convicted in another state but had their rights restored in that state, was eligible to vote in Florida with no restrictions (see Schlenther vs. FL. Dept. of State, 1998)
3) G.W. Bush's cousin, John Prescott Ellis, was appointed voter data analyst (after the first voting clusterfuck ) for Fox News in FL.; it was his decision to call the state for Bush at 2:16 a.m., shortly after the famous Volusia error was introduced. This error took 16,022 votes away from Gore and added those votes and more to Bush, producing more total votes in the precinct than there were registered voters. The other major networks announced the same totals within minutes. The error was corrected quickly and the calls retracted one by one.
4) Xavier Suarez, who was ousted as mayor of Miami in 1998 on charges of absentee voter fraud, was later elected to the Executive Committee of the Miami-Dade Republican Party. Suarez helped fill out absentee ballot forms and enlist Republican absentee voters in Miami-Dade County for the 2000 presidential election. This came under fire.
5). The manual recount in Miami-Dade County was shut down shortly after screaming protestors arrived at Miami's recount center. It turned out that these protesters were Republican Party members flown in from other states, some at Republican Party expense.
6) The suppression of vote pairing. Vote pairing web sites were established to match Nader supporters in swing states like Florida with Gore supporters in non-swing states like Texas. The Nader supporters in Florida would vote for Gore and the Gore supporters in Texas would vote for Nader. This would have allowed Nader to still get his fair share of the vote and perhaps get into the Presidential debates, while also allowing Gore to carry swing states.
This suppression of vote pairing was perpetrated by 6 Republican Secretaries of State, led by Rep. Bill Jones (R-Calif.), who threatened vote pairing websites and participants with criminal prosecution. The ACLU had to step in to defend the vote pairing websites and were vindicated when the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finally ruled against Jones in favor of the vote pairing sites--but that was 2 years after the election.
The vote pairing web sites tallied 1,412 Nader supporters in Florida who vote paired for Gore, and if only a few more of the 97,421 people who did vote for Nader in Florida had known about vote pairing, the election might have had a different outcome.
If you must cast blame somewhere for Bush's squeak-by victory, you can blame the parties responsible: those listed above.
Blaming Nader is a soundbyte started by underhanded Republican officials in FL. and elsewhere that was picked up and run with by underhanded Dem officials and uninformed voters ever since post-election 2000.
Now, I'm sorry I ran overtime here--but I've had it up to here with all of the otherwise intelligent but extremely lazy voters who do not bother to check their facts before spouting bullshit, partisan lines fed to them by the corporate-owned media.
Adopting the defeatist attitude that the only choices we have for our president are either the douchebag or the shit sandwich is going to have very serious repercussions for modern voters and their children and grandchildren.
Comment by AP Red
All Knowing Geek
On point #1, that's a joke. You're blaming bad journalism who used polling numbers that were incomplete/useless and you're using polling/survey numbers which could also be incomplete/useless. BTW, the poll run that had Bush getting 7,000 more votes if it weren't for "voter confusion" that you're referencing was run by a Republican supporter.
On points 2,3, and 4, you're implying the election was already rigged to begin with. If it was rigged, than why are we even having this conversation? Why is your argument even about having a three party system when it should be about cleaning up what we have now?
On point 5, you're using a movie as a point of fact. A MOVIE. Recount is based on a true story, same as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Hello. You should really use Unprecedented as a springboard, at least that was a DOCUMENTARY.
On point 6, I guess you're talking about vote swapping but not sure and no clue where you were going with that at all.
You honestly want to make those points, you should be talking about disenfranchised voters (black votes) and the voting machines having coding that gave the Republicans 10-30% more votes.
Instead, you're spouting off stuff off a wiki page word for word. But I'm the Republican lemming.
And normally I'd let that stuff go, but you're honestly coming after me about being lazy and not knowiing facts.
Point of fact, the election was won by 500 votes. You have not said anything that can rebuke my opinion that Nader's 90k votes wouldn't have swung the election Gore's way. Read The Perfect Tie and not a wiki and then come back to me with a valid response.
Viable parties are not the only ones that can get in a system. In some states, a valid citizen list can get you in. In some states, a voting block of citizens can put any candidate they want on a ballot. Now, in each instance, the candidate that gets this support can sue to get in nationally/statewide/etc.
Not ignorant, not uninformed but I'll let you get the final word in like 3-4 days after you study a wikipedia on the various points and then claim I'm uninformed because I'm not backing up "facts" with a wiki word for word or a movie.
Tell me if I'm wrong on that.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
You are wrong on that.
Wikipedia? Now why do you want to get all personal, AP? Wikipedia is not a reliable reference, which is why I never quote it as one. Sheesh.
(Response to my comments 2/3/4):
To save a little space here, I will copy and paste my first response above:
On your response to point 1: there is no speculation or bias about Fox News' actions (and subsequently, the other local channels) announcing Gore as the winner prematurely in Florida. It happened, and is archived in network transcripts for Fox and other local channels in 2000.
I'm not sure where you're getting this:
did not bother to vote once a "winner" was announced by the media.
On your response to point 5: I have no idea of what movie you are referring to, but-
"The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted unanimously to conduct hearings on alleged Election Day voting irregularities in Florida." (CNN archives 2000)
"The Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board's decision on Wednesday to shut down its hand recount of presidential election ballots followed a rapid campaign of public pressure...Republican telephone banks had urged Republican voters in Miami to go to the Stephen P. Clark Government Center downtown to protest the recount.. which Democrats hoped would help swing Florida's 25 electoral votes to Vice President Al Gore.
..The city's most influential Spanish-language radio station, Radio Mambi, called on staunchly Republican Cuban-Americans to head downtown to demonstrate. Republican volunteers shouted into megaphones urging protest. A lawyer for the Republican Party helped stir ethnic passions by contending that the recount was biased against Hispanic voters."
(The New York Times archive, 11/24/2000)
-Oops, I've run way overtime..I'll address the rest of your comments tomorrow, I promise.
Let me leave you with this,though: nothing I have said has been a personal attack on you. Please don't read it that way.
Regards,
D. Armenta
Comment by AP Red
All Knowing Geek
On point #5, "The manual recount in Miami-Dade County was shut down shortly after screaming protestors arrived at Miami's recount center. It turned out that these protesters were Republican Party members flown in from other states, some at Republican Party expense" is a very good description of a sensationalized scene from the movie Recount..
Okay, now let me say I thought there was a negative connotation to the Mr. Red address. But felt it could just be how you address people even though I didn't see that when you addressed some other people so I initially let it go as a formal, respectful address.
After answering your comment in a respectful way, you had a reply which closed "but I've had it up to here with all of the otherwise intelligent but extremely lazy voters who do not bother to check their facts before spouting bullshit, partisan lines fed to them by the corporate-owned media".
Now maybe that's not addressed to me or it came out wrong or whatev, but it looks like a shot at me when I'm the only other person in the conversation. And yeah I took offense.
Might not be intent there, or maybe just a little intent there. Don't know and don't really care. I'm cool with respectful exchanges but the point of my blog is to just keep it light and not too serious and a flame war doesn't fit with that. Even in a semi-debate context.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
No argument here about bad journalism on Fox's part--I think that's their credo anyway, isn't it?
My point was that their crappy performance misled a lot of voters, so I don't think we're at odds there.
I don't cite any of the "projected" votes that Bush supposedly lost; speculation is irrelevant here.
#5: Well, you saw my references. I've never seen "Recount", but if I had--I still wouldn't use a movie as a reference!! Might as well use wikipedia.
I use a formal address with everyone until they tell me they prefer otherwise. If you go wayyyyy back to my first dust-ups with S.L. Bradish, you'll see that I addressed even her as Ms. Bradish (though I privately thought of her as B.S. Brandish)
My mum taught me to treat others with respect until/unless they prove themselves unworthy of it. So that was the whole "Mr. Red" thing.
My whole last statement about lazy, uninformed voters was a general vent on my part; sometimes I hear and read too much of the absolute horsecrap a lot of people actually believe and it sends me off the deep end.
I mean, people take the time to research where they're going on vacation, or the flat-screen TV they want to buy, or they'll do a google search on someone they're dating--
but when it comes to voting for who's going to run the country , it's--"Well, X has a better stage presence than Y". or "Z is a woman/minority/Democrat/Repub lican so I'll vote for him/her", or "They both suck, but I'll vote for W. because he/she is the lesser of the two evils".
Drives me absolutely batshit. Laziness is the perpetual downfall of the average taxpayer.
Ooops, see? There I go again!
I'm sorry if that sounded like I was targeting you, AP. Reading it again, I can see how that could be construed as a personal attack--and for that I apologize
sincerely. I'm very sorry.
People just make me so crazy sometimes; that wasn't referring to you personally.
By the way, your responses have been the closest I've ever had to an actual debate on any of my posts! Thank you for that.
Comment by AP Red
All Knowing Geek
Honestly just trying to find a voice in this forum. Really new to blogging and not sure where I should comment, get offended, make friends/enemies, et all.
I'm sure what you said would have sounded less confrontational than it reads, so I'll just blame getting offended on me being new.
Like I said originally, totally agreed with your original post and the reason I didn't want to get further into a back and forth was I felt that might take away from a good idea.
But its all good.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
As far as blogging goes--being the occasionally overbearing type that I am (hahahaha!!!!!) I'll offer my unsolicited two cents:
-Read and comment on as many blogs here as you can, especially ones that have a common interest in what you plan to blog about.
-Use good keywords so your blogs will come up in Google searches.
-Orblers are a polite and courteous lot for the most part (that's pretty rare in the blogosphere) Namecalling, stalking, targeting others in posts doesn't go over well on this site. Disagree in comments, but do so respectfully. Remember that you are an American guest on a mostly Australian site.
-Check out this blog on Orble-click here and read the policy. These guys are very helpful.
*That's my experience from two plus years of blogging at Orble. I've met some fantastic people here.
Good Luck!!
D.