The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

DLS — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:42:24 -0000

Get ready for another bailout, this time of a state long controlled by Democrats.

http://www.latimes.com/news...

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

DLS — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:12:57 -0000

A federal law (written and passed by Congress) on abortion would violate the Tenth Amendment. A judicial decision such as Roe v. Wade also violates other parts of the constitution because judicial power is vested in the courts while legislative power is vested in Congress, and Roe v. Wade was an instance of the judiciary arrogating the power of Congress (legislative power). It's one branch usurping the power and role of another.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

DLS — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:10:45 -0000

"If an individual truly believes that ALL abortion is murder, then I would expect that person to support a national ban on abortion, not leave it up to the states."

More than one issue is at stake here. Constitutional federalism becomes an additional issue whenever a national (federal) law of any kind is considered.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:03:21 -0000

Um, that is news to me. I thought Congress (both houses,in fact) was currently under Democratic control. When did the Republicans win it back?

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

Walden — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:04:41 -0000

Obama is the anti tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the middle class candidate; McCain is the "anti pork" candidate. But when it comes to greatest good for the greatest number -- (i.e. the basic principle on which a Democratic government is founded) they BOTH had to compromise their political values to compel the so called "conservative" Republicans who threw a hissy fit at being served a chicken bill, instead of a leg of pork on Monday + to keep the Dems and Reps who did like the original House version from crying out "NAY" the next time around. That's being "bullish" on the economy!

But then again, this was to be expected! After all, we're all trying to clean up the sty left behind by precisely these so called "conservatives" who were running the Congress and the Presidency since 2000.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:58:53 -0000

DLS - actually, you changed his premise to fit your answer. If an individual truly believes that ALL abortion is murder, then I would expect that person to support a national ban on abortion, not leave it up to the states.

Your answer is the position of those such as myself that believe that Roe v Wade was a violation of the 10th Amendment.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

DLS — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:43:42 -0000

False analogy, Chris. To answer your question, incidentally, you let states decide the legality of abortion because it's not your place (i.e., that of the person we're considering) to decide in place of states, given that in our constitutional federal system the legislation of abortion is correctly and properly left to state and local governments as they see fit.

You were closer to the point later in your posting, which incidentally applies to _any_ approach or position on an issue. McCain is against pork, so he shouldn't have voted for this second bad bill that's full of it. He could at least have insisted that the pork be left out and only the actual bailout be in the bill. (It's stupid as well as insulting for the Senate to try to bribe the House by loading the bill with pork, that constitutes an additional $100+ B in pork!)

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

ChrisWWW — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:16:47 -0000

AR,
Here's an analogy... say you think any abortion is murder, then how can you justify letting state's decide the legality of abortion? Should the definition of murder change from state to state?

When you take a hardline approach, like McCain, you have the obligation to live up to it, or at the very least, explain why you didn't. McCain has done neither in this case of pork.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:50:42 -0000

Chris - I wasn't making any comment on Obama's position, and it isn't my statement that was absurd. It was yours, that that they are not anti-pork crusaders, so by inference it was OK for them to vote for the bill, but not McCain. That was the whole point.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

ChrisWWW — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:20:12 -0000

AR,
Even with absurdly simplified characterization of Obama's position, I doubt you'll get anyone to actually care.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:08:04 -0000

Chris -

Thanks. That explains it. Obama/Biden are pro-pork; only McCain is against it.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

ChrisWWW — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:37:21 -0000

AR,
Obama and Biden aren't anti-pork crusaders. During last Friday's debate, when the subject was the economic crisis, all McCain could bring himself to talk about was earmarks and wasteful spending.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

DLS — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:34:52 -0000

[sigh] Don't leap to illogical inferences or conclusions from what I post.

My (obvious) point was that McCain is a hypocrite. He voted _FOR_ the bill.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:34:25 -0000

Hmm. Congressman (or Congresswomen) = crack addict? Nah, they are a den of thieves and whores, put in place by the American public.

And Chris, love your pointing out that McCain voted for it, without one word that Obama and Biden did as well.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

ChrisWWW — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:27:57 -0000

Ah, J. Chem, but McCain's not in office yet. "So, my friends, this is why you should elect me as your next president -- so I can veto, with this pen [pulling pen from pocket], future bills like this."

Senators can't defeat bills (or speak out against them) in the Senate these days?

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

RememberNovember — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:23:53 -0000

and both McCain and Obama voted yea. It's the clear-coat and floor mats philosophy.

maybe we just need to switch the pork to turkey bacon. Pork will always be pork...is Cargill in on this?

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

SteveK — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:23:35 -0000

Hello... The pork was added FOR the House Republicans to get them on-board!

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

DLS — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:23:07 -0000

Ah, J. Chem, but McCain's not in office yet. "So, my friends, this is why you should elect me as your next president -- so I can veto, with this pen [pulling pen from pocket], future bills like this."

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

ChrisWWW — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:22:00 -0000

Why, oh why is this stuff allowed to be tacked on to other bills?

Because, if you don't attach it to a politically important bill, it's too easy to defeat.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

DLS — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:20:50 -0000

Yes, Chris, John McCain voted for this bill.

In all fairness, not to McCain (and Obama) but to those who actually want a bailout (let's assume a truly clean bailout), it's probably the following on Bernanke's mind that moved them to support a bailout, at least in theory. (I do _not_ support a bailout; the borrowers and the lenders should be left alone, and those destined to fail should of course fail.)

Bernanke bailout testimony

http://blogs.wsj.com/econom...

Speech on deflation

http://www.federalreserve.g...

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

jchem — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:18:06 -0000

Didn't McCain say he would veto any spending bill that had pork in it? I agree Chris. Granted he isn't the President but why try to be a champion of the anti-pork wagon if he is just going along for the ride?

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

vicb — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:17:25 -0000

Isn't the solution to this to simply have pork-only legislation? If pork projects are necessary, fine, pass a pork bill that has five, ten, a hundred pork projects listed and nothing else. Why, oh why is this stuff allowed to be tacked on to other bills? The only reason I can see is to either sneak stuff through without scrutiny or to get it passed because the main bill is too important to fail.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

Silhouette — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:09:56 -0000

I could be that the pork was included to turn away vegan Congresspeople.

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

ChrisWWW — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:58:13 -0000

John McCain voted for this bill did he not? Will he proceed to publicly flog himself for voting for pork?

Re: Bailout Binge: Senate Porkers Know Not Shame

jkarczek — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:53:44 -0000

Is there a breakdown anywhere online that links the various cutlets of pork to their sponsors?