Rex Kickass

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 10:20 PM) Ok, what do they do with that money? Why should that even matter?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 08:04 PM) I can't disagree with this from the concept of if you need to fund something that's bankrupt, taking away money isn't the way to go... but then you all are going to argue it's the same with traditional taxes, which it isn't. Except Social Security isn't bankrupt. Doing something like this makes bankruptcy a bigger possibility though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 04:32 PM) The Senate has accepted a motion to begin debate on the new START treaty. It passed with 66 votes in favor, 32 against. 9 Republicans voted to begin debate on the treaty. 1 Democrat failed to vote, Evan Bayh of Indiana. For the treaty to pass, it needs 67 votes; the current 66 + Bayh, with no losses amongst the Republicans who voted in favor of it. That would be by far the narrowest margin of passage of any of the START treaties, and probably by far the narrowest margin of any arms control treaty. I am willing to bet that when START comes up for ratification vote, it will have far more than 67 votes.

Fox News has a website aimed at a hispanic audience called "Fox News Latino." They ran a story about Penelope Cruz's pregnancy calling it "Penelope Cruz is Having an Anchor Baby" http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/entertain...-united-states/

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) This is why some Democrats are against the payroll tax deduction--just like the Bush tax cuts that were supposed to expire, there will be a fight to make them permanent. Apparently there's talk in the House of trying to change the payroll tax deduction into a one time tax refund check, which would have the same effect - but not actually have to worry about the fight over Social Security in a year's time. I think, if you're going to do this, this might be the best route to take. I was at an event with my Congressman, Rush Holt (D-NJ), on Sunday. He's really concerned with this bill and he came at it from an angle I had never thought of before. His main problem isn't that we're cutting taxes in different ways than is traditional, or that the wealthiest among us will get an Obama tax cut in 2011, but rather that we're cutting taxes meant to fund Social Security. This is something that he feels shouldn't be done, because it sort of takes Social Security away from being a separate entity in the way that the program is managed and switching into something that the government is confident to play games with.

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, suggests that the Senate should come back to work after Christmas and work til Jan 4, the last actual day of the lame duck session, since there are so many things still on the agenda (because none of them can get 60 votes until millionaires get their tax cut). Here's Republican Senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 12:24 PM) Acela is part of a line, only travels high speed part of way. Reading Gartman letter this morning, he mentions a high speed rail line linking VA. Beach to Norfolk. BTW, he lives in VA. The proposed cost five years ago was $300 million, current incomplete rail line cost is 1.7 billion and rising with in his opinion few people likelt to use it. Actually, if you want to get technical, Acela is a brand which refers to a specific type of trainset used by Amtrak to travel high speeds on the Northeast Corridor, the only section of track that Amtrak really controls. This service area stretches between Boston and Washington D.C. Other trains operating with similar schedules in the Northeast Corridor are referred to as "Northeast Regional" and operate and are marketed separately. In as much as you can have a true high speed rail line in the US, the Acela is as complete as you can get. By your logic, the TGV, ICE, Pendolino, X2000 and all the other high speed rail services in Europe are also only part of a line as well, because they operate on tracks shared with lower speed trains, and are run as part of national transportation networks.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 01:02 PM) Now, the NJ governor's decision, at least makes some kind of sense. His state was on the hook for a known few billion dollars, as well as any overruns which also may be billions. So in his case, there is a real decision to make when it comes to best use of funds. But Wisconsin was getting a full federal funding for this project, a billion dollar's worth resulting in many jobs and other positive financial effects... in exchange for a couple million a year going forward. The decision there that he made is idiotic and 100% political to make a point. Actually, this is where we disagree. The state of NJ was on the hook for 3 billion over 10 years. This 3 billion would create about 6000 jobs directly over ten years. Construction had started, they'd already spent a couple hundred million. By killing the program a year in, NJ ends up on the hook for another 300 million. For 0 gain. So rather than have the possibility of cost overruns 10 years from now, he took a 600 million dollar hit today.

Your new House Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Congressman Spencer Bachus - Alabama http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2010/12/spenc...ly_gets_hi.html

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) Illinois also got a chunk of that money, and so did some other states, though CA got the biggest piece. And the IL legislature is looking at a package to woo that rail company to move to Illinois instead of Wisconsin, since Illinois is continuing to do the rail projects and is so near where the current facility is. Not a good start for the new governor of WI - throwing away thousands of jobs and unknown increased tourism dollars to save $2M a year. I wonder what's going to happen with the 3 billion in matching funds the Federal Government made available for NJ to build the ARC tunnel that our GOP Governor killed.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 08:24 PM) So? It's not the way things should be passed... especially the line here. Health care is not COBRA nor tax measures. Actually COBRA IS health care.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 10:19 PM) Not just that, but the other side is...corporate profits are at record highs as well, from industry to industry. In addition to that.... Let me see, the Banking sector gets a multi billion dollar bailout and no real accountability for their actions. The auto industry gets a bailout and a turnaround. The health insurance industry gets 30+ million new customers as per law. Extending unemployment benefits beyond 26 weeks assures that millions of Americans continue to be able to buy basic necessities at grocery and department stores. This president has done a great job doing over the last few generations have done, Republican and Democrat alike, protect money.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 07:09 PM) You're right - I think we are both thinking about that as it relates to justices? I was trying to point out the procedural nature of health care passing. It was reconciliation, not the "nuclear option". Got my procedures mixed up. Exactly the very same way things like COBRA was passed. And the Bush tax cuts in fact.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 06:57 PM) Okay. So, then, are the Republicans hiding in the closet (rather appropriate considering most of their stances on DADT, don't you think)? You just said they aren't, yet Democrats do exactly the same thing and it's hidden, swept under the rug, and they're "for the little people" all of a sudden? Bulls***. No one is for the little people anymore. NO ONE. But at least Republicans would rather let the private sector have something instead of nothing. The sad part is, none of it really matters anymore. This ain't your mom and dad's and grandpa and grandma's country anymore. It's our f***up, and I for one hate the fact that no one gives a s*** anymore and would rather defend our government sleaze and be "right" then really care about what's going on. I would argue the private sector's gotten a pretty good deal over the last two years.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 02:37 AM) I'll check and ask my friend what exactly he means. This is not a slam but a serious question. Is Obama our worst president in the last 70 years? No.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 10:04 PM) So... pushing through votes by any means necessary on the other side... The point remains the same. The sleaze factor since 2006 has elevated higher then any other time by both sides as seen by "any means necessary"... but that's okay, it's justified by the majority doing the sleazy things and the Republicans trying to stop it. It's all justified if it's your side. Wrong is wrong is wrong. This is a false equivalency. You can point to "Freezerbucks" but he was removed from leadership, and was convicted IIRC. You can point to Rangel, but he lost his leadership and received censure. Democrats do hold members of Congress accountable, or at least have since 2006. This is why the House has had an ethics committee for the last four years. If this was 2005 and Rangel was a Republican, there wouldn'have even been an investiation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 03:10 PM) Senator Sanders has been staging a mock-filibuster against the tax deal today. Supposedly he's been talking for about 4 hours so far. I wish if Senators truly thought the Filibuster was warranted that they would actually do something like this. If you're gonna hold up business in the Senate, bring the drama and bring the pain to bear. And make the argument the right way. Filibustering by actually filibustering is something I can respect.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) So what. Demand for bonds is immaterial to its stimulative abilities. The point is, this can't be considered "stimulus" while tax cuts aren't, because it is money going to the exact same tax bracket. If that's the case, why wouldn't a tax increase then be acceptable for people in that tax bracket, because they're getting a break on those bonds?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/09/gop-fr...n-lobbyist-cos/

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 11:40 AM) None of this is going to create jobs. You could make the argument that by giving larger tax breaks to people who are less likely to be able to sock those savings away that the tax breaks will be spent more immediately, increasing retail sales and making job creation more likely in that sector, and then by cascading effect, in the manufacturing sectors that supply those retail stores (assuming anything is still made in this country.)

If I can catch the express train into the city, it takes me only 15 minutes longer to get from the PA/NJ state line (Trenton) to midtown Manhattan than it would take someone coming from Inwood (the northern tip of Manhattan).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 10:47 AM) You don't have to for me. I agree. Awww, pumpkin!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 10:47 AM) You don't have to for me. I agree. I'm not accusing anyone because of their political party in this case. I think doing something like this over such a sustained period of time, regardless of party affiliation, is pretty much political terrorism. Especially if its not a question of doing an active filibuster to kill one specific thing (which is what these rules are designed to do), but when the clear motivation is to obstruct for the sake of obstruction - there's really no other way of describing it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) And you don't think that the language there is a little over the top, calling people "terrorists", as a way of similarly trying to score political points? I don't know how many political points I score by making this reference on a baseball board. But I'll be happy to amend my remarks to refer to it as hostage taking if it pleases the people here.

New Jersey is less than a mile from Ground Zero.