So the US taxpayer should foot the bill for what the state failed at when designing and constructing the levees?

It has been repeated multiple times since Katrina, that the levees were poorly designed and constructed. That is why they broke.

 

Obama stated he was never going to be a fifty plus one President when comparing himself to Clinton. And look what he is doing now. Becoming a fifty plus one President.

 

Not to mention the fact that all the wetlands were allowed to disappear.

 

I submit that he has been forced into that position by increasingly intransigent Republicans.

 

I agree with people like Micheal Moore, its time the Dems quit worrying about being fair to Republicans and just ran over them.

And, judging from the amount of desperation I see coming out of the Conservatives/Republicans, I think that time has come.

I cannot believe the ads I've seen during this last week and they are the same damn lies and distortions they've been screaming from the first.

But I think they've got the votes and then we can move on.

 

Actually, he's more of a 50 + 9 or a 216 + 38... but who's counting?

Louisiana had nothing to do with the levees. The Army Corps of Engineers took ownership of that project decades ago.

And if you wanna morph this into an argument about Katrina: then yeah, that's why we formed a Union instead of a Confederation. When the Red Rivers overflow, we send sandbags. I don't give a shit about Mexicans, and I don't give a shit if 4,000 people are dead on your border. I certainly don't want to pay for your Predator drones. Regardless, it's gonna happen - because that's why we put up with each other.

I've lived the vast majority of my life in Michigan. Poor Michigan has paid out more in federal taxes than it's received in federal benefits for a century. Our economy has fucking collapsed and we're still paying an extra dime on the dollar. Some years in the 90s we were paying 1.50+ for a buck of benefits. That's just the way it is.

Poor California with all the stupid conservatives pointing their noses up in the air at their budget problems pays hundreds of billions more in taxes than it receives in benefits. If Cali was allowed to keep her taxes, they'd have a surplus AND send everyone to college for free again.

There's a dozen states that support the rest of the Union (Texas included - as the only Red state that isn't on federal welfare) because we're NOT the Confederated States of America! LOL

 

Totally agree. To the extent that I'm critical of Obama on this, it's because he made too many concessions for nonexistent support. Hopefully, he's seen the light.

 

NO!

He's done this on every major initiative since the Stimulus. He starts in the middle with a proposal that should be accepted by everyone, but the bad guys aren't reasonable.

If he'd started with the Stimulus as a trillion bucks worth of make-work and forced the Republicans to BARTER for that half of the Stimulus that is tax cuts, he would have had broad bipartisan support because the Republicans would have had something to take home and say, "We put those big government liberals over the barrel and got you a tax cut!"

But in searching for the path of least resistance, Obama thinks his opponents will be reasonable. They won't. Odd as it sounds: partisanship is Obama's fault because he's not been partisan enough. LOL

As smart as he thinks he is, I hope he's smart enough to learn his lesson eventually. The Republicans are going to fight either way, make them fight for something that is tolerable for the Dems to vote for!

 

See? We agree on something.

 

We ALWAYS agree...

 

This is actually pretty interesting. I was about to call a bullshit on you and say that my state pays way more into the federal government than we receive, and I'd have lost that call for sure.

Here's what I thought was a pretty good source.

*not_secure_link*www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016.swf

And here is the largest failing of conservatism, which was why the initial Confederation of the colonies failed miserably. In our culture (from the very beginning) the idea is everyone is out for themselves and the goal is to make as much as possible. It sounds good, but its nothing more than the moral and legal right to be greedy. And conservatives continue to try and claim they are above greed at the expense of their fellow humans, when we spent trillions upon trillions of dollars over the history of the nation to proves that's a fucking lie.

But that was the philosophy that prevailed and it was inevitable that it would filter into the various governments so when it came time to pay up, the colonies either skipped out or figured out ways to try and double their money with other taxes and fees before they paid the bill for the revolutionary war and things like that.

So instead the representatives recognized that, locked themselves in secret and committed treason by abandoning the Articles of Confederation and replacing them with the Constitution.

 

Colorado got .81c of benefits for a dollar paid in.

I always figure that these sorts of things are common knowledge. I'm not a huge fan of the Tax Foundation, but I like how they organize and display their research on this subject.

There's nothing that would be better for the economy of the United States than if the red states seceded in a block 1860-style. Even Texas, which generally pays more than it gets out, doesn't pay nearly its fair share considering its size and wealth with you look at what states like California, New York, Michigan, or Illinois pay in.

 

According to a poll taken January 20 - January 31, 2010 23% of Republicans want their state to secede from the United States. Then Republicans turn around and say Democrats hate the country.

*not_secure_link*www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437

 

Opps, first I have no idea of the actual credibility of the source. Like you I just like the way it was displayed. But there could be some discrepancy. For instance I know Wyoming pays out huge amounts of money to the feds for oil, gas, coal. On the other hand about a third of out state is Federal Land and National Parks and Forests, and a Native American Reservation. I wonder how much of that is counted against us.

So where do the other states like California, New York, Michigan, and Illinois generate so much money in revenue to the feds. You can educate me on that one.

 

CNN in reporting that Democrats have the 216 votes to pass health care reform.

 

Lovin' the floor debate on C-Span!

You know, I think Issa's Point of Inquiry is correct. I've been looking at the House rules: with the rule as it stands, I don't think the Senate bill passes muster against the new earmark rules set up last year in the House. Out of curiousity, I compared the House rules to the Senate rules to see if I was simply misinterpreting the House rules (ie, if they both had set up the same earmark rules), and the Senate's "earmark reform" last year isn't even close to the standard the House set up.

This should be reconciled or, in theory, no bill could pass both chambers without a conference.

It really shouldn't be that hard to calculate. Most agencies self-report their expenditures sortable by Congressional district (bureaucrats want to highlight how much a vote against their appropriation will cost each member's district).

As per blue states' productivity, I think it's a combination of industry and population density. It's far most cost-effective to provide the same service to a dense urban population than it is to provide that service to a sparse rural population. Red America is vast, empty and worthless. WTF has Utah ever produced other than Romney's? Blue America has to work real hard to subsidize the few who wish to indulge their modern cowboy fantasies.

 

They had the votes on Thursday, else they wouldn't have scheduled the vote. It was simply a matter of picking and choosing which "soft vote" was gonna bite the bullet for the team.

Stupak's folding for an XO surprised me a whole lot more.

 

Maybe you folks could answer a question for me.

It is my understand that if the bill passes the House and the Senate..signed into law it would not take effect until 2014.

If this is true (2014) no telling what this will look like by the time it is sliced, diced and amended over the next 4 years.

Am I correct?

 

Sorta.

The individual Mandate and most of the cost-cutting measures go into effect in 2014. The rest of the accessibility stuff should go into effect immediately.

The legislative process ends as soon as the Senate reconciles the House amendments. Changes would require a new legislative process and, considering how contentious this one is, I don't see anyone looking forward to jumping into another any time soon.