Politics, Politics, Politics

[Torpedo]

You can argue until the cows come home, TORP, but Obama took control of a crashing economy. A lot of jobs were saved and the job trend REVERSED shortly after he took office. I'll not provide you any further graphs or pics because you're too stubborn to accept what you see. The US would have pulled out of this recession a lot earlier if Republicans had not been obstructing his every move ... 317 Republican filibusters? More than ALL the other filibusters of ALL the other Presidents added together? The ONLY thing Republicans accomplished in the past 6 years is managing to damage the US credit rating.

I really don't need any of your graphs. What we are discussing I have done for a living most of my adult life. It has been my job to tell my bosses what was really going on, not what someone wanted them to believe.

The federal government does not create jobs at least not productive jobs that add value to the economy. The only thing the federal government can do is create a climate that the private sector can grow in. I am not referring to big business I am referring to small business where traditionally 60% of the new jobs are created. Last year more small businesses closed their doors than started. You do a nice job with cute graphics but you really have a poor understanding of economics other than the shout "It is all the Republican fault!." You apparently weren't even aware that the United States is a Republic not a Democracy.

It is really arguable that the economy has really recovered. The deficit for the the fiscal year ending September 2016 is projected to be 474 Billion dollars. Based on current trends the national debt is project to be over 20 trillion dollars by 2019.

Obama is no leader, all he has done done is whine about the Republicans. He has done pretty much everything he could to piss anybody off that doesn't agree with him. Hell Jimmy Carter was a better leader than Obama.

I would be curious to hear a real plan for paying off the national debt or at least getting it under control. Nor some rant about the "Evil Republicans that hate Obama" but a real plan based on economics.

 

[Torpedo]

My issue with the Republicans is that they've built their platform around Supply-Side Economics which has decimated the middle-class and flattened wages. ALL of the GOP candidates want to cut taxes AGAIN, except Trump ... ALL OF THEM.

And the Democrats and the Federal Reserve has done exactly the same thing with QE. QE has made the wealthy wealthier with the hope they would create jobs and stimulate the economy. If you really had a grasp of economics you would understand that what the Democrats have done really isn't all that different from what the Republicans have done. The Democrats were just better marketing it.

I would imagine you may have heard of Warren Buffett. He has been a major backer of Barack Obama. One of Buffett's first moves when taking over a business is to make it more profitable, and invariably that includes cutting labor costs usually by layoffs.

Wages have suffered under Obama at least as much if not more than than any president since WWII.

It takes a bonehead not to see that. It takes money OUT of the pockets of those who would need and spend it on things like household goods, cars, homes, food, etc etc. which would stimulate the economy back into productivity and creating ... wait for it ... here it comes .... JOBS! (GASP)

Before you go an get all flamboyant about jobs you need to take a look at the what kind of jobs are being created and what types of jobs are lost. A lot of higher paying jobs are going by the wayside and most of the new jobs being created pay a lot less. And it appears unlikely they will reach the same levels. So GASP, the picture isn't quite so rosy.

 

[falcondfw69]

Well I believe it was President Reagan that appointed Alan Greenspan to the Fed. Reserve, and George Bush that appointed his replacement, Ben Bernake. Those would be good places to start with those 'stimulations' you talk about.


You still refuse to "get it" ... for ONE I repeated Cheney saying "deficits don't matter" , READ what I said or buy some glasses. The deficit spending started with REAGAN ... should I use all capital letters so you can read without assumption or fabricating my comment?
Second, when the throttle to the US economy was handed over from Bush to Obama the aircraft was in a straight nose dive to the ground; had the Republicans won the POTUS, the US would most definitely have gone into another Great Depression.

• 2 unfunded wars
• 2 unfunded tax cuts
• Wall Street collapse & banking collapse (remember Lehman Bros.)
• Auto Industry collapse
• TARP bailout
• 800,000 jobs being lost each month in the last year
• Subprime mortgage collapse

You can argue until the cows come home, TORP, but Obama took control of a crashing economy. A lot of jobs were saved and the job trend REVERSED shortly after he took office. I'll not provide you any further graphs or pics because you're too stubborn to accept what you see. The US would have pulled out of this recession a lot earlier if Republicans had not been obstructing his every move ... 317 Republican filibusters? More than ALL the other filibusters of ALL the other Presidents added together? The ONLY thing Republicans accomplished in the past 6 years is managing to damage the US credit rating.
Now, as we approach the next election, Republicans have NOTHING that they can say they have accomplished because they've spent their entire productive time being NON-PRODUCTIVE.
I'm going to post these last sentences in BOLD so you'll quit dodging around them:
My issue with the Republicans is that they've built their platform around Supply-Side Economics which has decimated the middle-class and flattened wages. ALL of the GOP candidates want to cut taxes AGAIN, except Trump ... ALL OF THEM.
Except they don't call it Supply Side ... they now call it "shrinking government", or "getting government out of the way", or as Ben Carson now calls it "tithing at 10%" ... a flat tax is nothing more than a tax cut for the rich, AGAIN, at the expense of the poor. A flat tax of 10% benefits everyone above 10% and penalizes everyone below 10%. It takes a bonehead not to see that. It takes money OUT of the pockets of those who would need and spend it on things like household goods, cars, homes, food, etc etc. which would stimulate the economy back into productivity and creating ... wait for it ... here it comes .... JOBS! (GASP)
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/05/terrana-whos-blame-when-nothing-trickles-down

For Sale ... Mounts To Wall With No Adhesive
View attachment 646106 ........ View attachment 646107

Mac, you are an idiot. Deficit Spending started WAY before Reagan. Why does everything you seem to hate start with Reagan? If you don't like the country, get the fuck out. Most of us like this country and although we may complain from time to time, it is only because we care and want to make it better. You seem to really dislike this country, which would beg to question "Why are you still here? To screw this place up for the rest of us?" Might I suggest a place more to your liking, like Cuba or Russia?

 

[MacNfries]

 

[MacNfries]

Mac, you are an idiot. Deficit Spending started WAY before Reagan. Why does everything you seem to hate start with Reagan? If you don't like the country, get the fuck out. Most of us like this country and although we may complain from time to time, it is only because we care and want to make it better. You seem to really dislike this country, which would beg to question "Why are you still here? To screw this place up for the rest of us?" Might I suggest a place more to your liking, like Cuba or Russia?

falcond, I'm going to ignore this kind of post at me once, but if you ever address me as you just have, again, I'm going to slap you around like a red headed step baby. Don't you ever question my patronage again, and I'm very serious. It won't be pretty if you do. And, I would suggest you go investigate the National Debt charts that show the debt declining with every President since Truman, until Reagan became President, and tripled it. You don't shrink the National Debt by having deficit spending, pal.
Just put me on ignore and go tend to your Texas Jade Helm invasion. By the way, how's that invasion going?

 

[falcondfw69]

falcond, I'm going to ignore this kind of post at me once, but if you ever address me as you just have, again, I'm going to slap you around like a red headed step baby. Don't you ever question my patronage again, and I'm very serious. It won't be pretty if you do. And, I would suggest you go investigate the National Debt charts that show the debt declining with every President since Truman, until Reagan became President, and tripled it. You don't shrink the National Debt by having deficit spending, pal.
Just put me on ignore and go tend to your Texas Jade Helm invasion. By the way, how's that invasion going? View attachment 648105

And deficit spending started with who? You still have not answered my question. If you cannot answer it honestly, go crawl away like the rest of your liberal friends. Deflect, defer, defend. The liberal playbook exposed. Just tell the truth, moron.

 

[MacNfries]

And deficit spending started with who? You still have not answered my question. If you cannot answer it honestly, go crawl away like the rest of your liberal friends. Deflect, defer, defend. The liberal playbook exposed. Just tell the truth, moron.

Still using insults, I see .... ok, we'll play it YOUR WAY. The topic was on the Nat'l Debt and current deficit, oh clueless one, not the "HISTORY OF DEFICIT SPENDING". The debt was well under a trillion before your "trickle down" President took office. You changed the subject, not me. Here's a excellent CBO chart ... does that meet your qualification of a qualified source? Just follow it down ... by President from Roosevelt to current. Can you follow the last column where do you see the numbers on the far right suddenly change from a (minus) to a (plus)? Who was President? Ohhhh, come on, his last name starts with "R", sounds like "ray" .... come on, you can do it.



I also am giving you more charts; I know you don't like charts, which is why YOU don't provide any. Oh come on, peanut brain, look at those pretty blue & green colors. Can you see what year the debt started down (Truman) and when it started back up? OK, who was the President in 1981- ... oh come on, again, his name sounds like "ray" and last syllable sounds like "can". Over 30+ years of declining national debt until he came along. By the way, I'm not giving Obama a whole lot of slack, but at least Reagan had a congress working with him, not hitting him with 300+ filibusters and a congressional goal of making him a one-term president.
Until Republicans will come to the table willing to talk a balanced approach to solving the debt crisis, I'll continue belittling their foolish "trickle down" and austerity ideology. They're the ones who took an oath to Groover not to accept any proposals that included tax increases, and turned down a 4:1 deal with Obama. If I'd been Obama, I would have said "fuck 'em" , too!


Now ... , you don't warrant my attention. Find someone else to pester and leave me the fuck alone.
......Mac

 

[falcondfw69]

Still using insults, I see .... ok, we'll play it YOUR WAY. The topic was on the Nat'l Debt and current deficit, oh clueless one, not the "HISTORY OF". You changed the subject, not me. Here's a excellent CBO chart ... does that meet your qualification of a qualified source? Just follow it down ... by President from Roosevelt to current. Can you follow the last column where do you see the numbers on the far right suddenly change from a (minus) to a (plus)? Who was President? Ohhhh, come on, his last name starts with "R", sounds like "ray" .... come on, you can do it.

View attachment 648838

I also am giving you more charts; I know you don't like charts, which is why YOU don't provide any. Oh come on, peanut brain, look at those pretty blue & green colors. Can you see what year the debt started down and when it started back up? OK, who was the President in 1981- ... oh come on, again, his name sounds like "ray" and last syllable sounds like "can" .... come on, we haven't all night because President Obama is planning a second wave of Jade Helm invasion of Texas. Got your 6-shooter loaded?

View attachment 648842
Now ... View attachment 648844, you don't warrant my attention. Find someone else to pester and leave me the fuck alone.
View attachment 648849 ......Mac

The only insult I used was to call you a moron. I used it, because it was the third time I had tried to get you to back your numbers. Right now, due to pain restrictions/medications (I snapped off a tooth), I will respond to you FINALLY giving [roof of your position, when I am able to think coherently. Oh. And BTW, OW!!! FING OUCH!!!!!!!

 

[MacNfries]

The only insult I used was to call you a moron. I used it, because it was the third time I had tried to get you to back your numbers.... I will respond to you FINALLY giving [roof of your position, when I am able to think coherently.

Well, no, actually you called me an idiot and non-patriot earlier at post 1733 ... short memory, huh? So do you have Alzheimer's or are you a liar as well?
But here's the deal as far as I'm concerned, falcond, there's an old saying "never try to teach a pig to sing, you just waste your time and aggravate the pig". Similarly, there's no changing either of our attitudes here, we're both fairly polarized. Difference is, I document, you don't, then you point, belittle, deny, and blame ... I'd just as soon you didn't respond to anything I post unless I've directed it to, about, or at you, and I wouldn't hold my breath. Obviously, if you do as Torp use to do, continue addressing me even when I'm ignoring you, I'll eventually respond. But I think we could both spare this forum the distractions of our verbal joustings, if for no other reason than as a courtesy to them. I'm just trying to be logical about this ... again, however, Your Call! Thank you for that consideration ... Mac

 

[omen616]

Nice to see Jeremy Corbyn winning the election for Labour Party in uk. Next Bernie sanders for democrat presidential candidate ...

Hopefully the beginning towards Keynesian economics with social democrat policies coming into play...

Well one can hope...

 

[MacNfries]

...... Next Bernie sanders for democrat presidential candidate ...
Hopefully the beginning towards Keynesian economics with social democrat policies coming into play...
Well one can hope...

.....I'm afraid Bernie won't make it that far; he's an independent and not well funded, but like Trump, he's bringing up issues that the country wants addressed, mainly Supply Side Economics. Thing is, every GOP candidate is talking the same crap AGAIN ... cutting taxes. J Bush is wanting to cut taxes to 25% for the top, and cut corporate taxes to the bone as well ... I'm just wondering where he thinks the revenue to run the country is going to come from?! The middleclass is "tapped out" ... and the poor (48% of our country living with poverty wages) don't have it. But, they've been pushing "trickle down" for 35 years now.
.....I'd love for Joe Biden to suddenly get a big spark and run, but his heart just isn't in it, plus, he'd have to campaign again Hillary, and they're good friends. So, I don't think he'll run. But, I'm enjoying TRUMP ... glad he came along to replace Michelle Bachmann.

 

[syscom3]

Nice to see Jeremy Corbyn winning the election for Labour Party in uk. Next Bernie sanders for democrat presidential candidate ...

Hopefully the beginning towards Keynesian economics with social democrat policies coming into play...

Well one can hope...

Wont happen.

 

[falcondfw69]

Nice to see Jeremy Corbyn winning the election for Labour Party in uk. Next Bernie sanders for democrat presidential candidate ...

Hopefully the beginning towards Keynesian economics with social democrat policies coming into play...

Well one can hope...

Omen, have you been awake for the last 6+ years? Obama is not Keynesian with SD policies? Are you kidding me?

 

[MacNfries]

.....President Obama wasn't allowed to implement full Keynesian policy. The two things Keynesian policy stress is keeping interest rates low, and public sector investment in things like infrastructure, which Republicans would not support. Worked great after WW2 into the late 60's. But, Republicans wanted to invest in, wait for it ... "a pipeline" and "big oil". Big Oil isn't doing so well right now ... gas prices down around $2 a gallon here. And, instead of implementing fair, even tax policies across the entire economy, we made more income tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest/corporations, who didn't invest back into jobs in America. They've made their wealth in things the poor & middle-class rarely access ... stocks, bonds, various other investings, and then persuaded their rich friends in Washington to create more tax loopholes, or they hid it from being taxed. Take General Electric, largest company in the USA, who paid little to no taxes in a few years past.
.....Still, we, as a nation, sit idle and watch as our nation's infrastructure continues to deteriorate, and infrastructure projects still wait in the wings. The infrastructure problem now becoming worse and more apparent, the question is how much longer can interest rates stay down enough to make it affordable to address? I imagine we'll wait until we get early 80's inflation back, THEN Republicans will say, "hey, we need to invest in infrastructure jobs at 10-12%". It'll surely make sense IF the GOP was to capture the POTUS. Infrastructure investment was simply a bad idea to Republicans BECAUSE the President wanted to do it, and their last 6 years has been focused on "making Obama a one-term President". Once THAT failed, they decided to hit him with 300+ fillibusters and stop anything he wanted to do, include getting extra ice for his tea. How'd that work out, right-wingers?
.....Heck, even George Wills (who literally hates the Democrats) recently said exactly the same thing about investing in public infrastructure jobs. Pissed Fox News off big time because he said it on THEIR station.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/george-wills-firing-offense-at-fox_b_7008154.html

 

[hoping hubby]

.....President Obama wasn't allowed to implement full Keynesian policy. The two things Keynesian policy stress is keeping interest rates low, and public sector investment in things like infrastructure, which Republicans would not support. Worked great after WW2 into the late 60's. But, Republicans wanted to invest in, wait for it ... "a pipeline" and "big oil". Big Oil isn't doing so well right now ... gas prices down around $2 a gallon here. And, instead of implementing fair, even tax policies across the entire economy, we made major more income tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest/corporations, who didn't invest back into jobs in America. They've made their wealth in things the poor & middle-class rarely see ... stocks, bonds, etc, and then persuaded their rich friends in Washington to create more tax loopholes, or hide it from being taxed.
.....Still, we, as a nation, sit idle and watch as our nation's infrastructure continues to deteriorate, and infrastructure projects still wait in the wings. The problem now becoming more apparent, is how much longer can interest rates stay down enough to make it affordable? I imagine we'll wait until we get early 80's inflation back THEN Republicans will say, "hey, we need to invest in infrastructure jobs at 10-12%". Infrastructure investment was simply a bad idea to Republicans BECAUSE the President wanted to do it, and their last 6 years has been focused on "making Obama a one-term President". Once THAT failed, they decided to hit him with 300+ fillibusters and stop anything he wanted to do, include getting extra ice for his tea. How'd that work out, right-wingers?
.....Heck, even George Wills (who literally hates the Democrats) recently said exactly the same thing about investing in public infrastructure jobs. Pissed Fox News off big time because he said it on THEIR station.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/george-wills-firing-offense-at-fox_b_7008154.html

Mac,

You keep bringing up this claim of over 300 filibusters to stop Obama. Looking back, I see a graph you posted that was titled "Filibusters by Senate Session..." which showed a big spike in 2007-2008 session to almost 140 and then nearly the same about in the 2009-2010 session. The graph only had partial data for 2012. Here's the graph:

However looking at actual Senate data:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

This is NOT a graph of filibusters. It is a graph of cloture motions. The Senate process is complex. It is a rather sophomoric mistake to equate cloture motions to filibusters. As the US government's Congressional Research Service states "Filibusters can occur without cloture being attempted, and cloture can be attempted when no filibuster is evident".

You have expressed a desire to see Bernie Sanders at the top of the Democrat ticket in 2016. Well here is a list from Bernie's own website of "Bills Blocked by Republican Filibusters"

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/bills-blocked-by-republican-filibusters

The total according to Bernie as of Nov 2013 was 16...actually only 15 if you consider that one bill is on there twice.

 

[hoping hubby]

Just to be clear, I'm not equating Bernie's list with the number of filibusters. That would be sophomoric as well. However Bernie's list is a good indication of the actual level of actual republican "obstruction" of legislation.

 

[MacNfries]

.....

Fair assumption, to save back & forth I'll go with "motions filed to filibuster", not actual filibusters, that fair? The convenience of filibustering or not is best addressed as to who holds/doesn't hold the majority when it is convenient to the other party, or as us Southerners say "who's ox is being gored". Just saying, Republicans took it to a whole new level. Here's a more up-t0-date chart but it doesn't show the party making the motions, unfortunately:

Coincidently, the Senate is now trying to remove the 60-vote rule, but I agree the 60-vote rule seems to speak against the majority of voters. But, again, these topics only become important to the party that isn't getting its way.

As far as Bernie Sanders is concerned, I don't recall my favoring Bernie Sanders, I'm just saying he and Donald Trump are bringing issues to the front that are of voter interest, plus they are fresh options to the Bush-Clinton type faces. I'm more of a moderate liberal than far-left. If you'll go back and look at a specific chart I posted of my own positions on all the current, key topics, you'll see just that. I can't recall if it was in this thread or one of the other politically based threads. I did that so those certain conservatives in these threads would quit calling me out as a far-left liberal. In fact, I'm closer to center on many of the issues we've talked about in this forum. The problem with having discussions with Republican/conservative postings is that there are so many factions of Republicans, each with their own beliefs/agenda ... from Tea Party to Religious to Moderates ... which is why the party is struggling for an identity to most all the issues. When they run against Democrats in the general election, they'll most assuredly NOT win the POTUS. The voters are starting to become aware, now, to the "trickle down" damage. Which is why Republicans have attacked State-Local elections instead the past couple elections ... they stand a better chance of controlling them with the likes of KOCH's, etc.

 

[hoping hubby]

.....

Fair assumption, to save back & forth I'll go with "motions filed to filibuster", not actual filibusters, that fair? The convenience of filibustering or not is best addressed as to who holds/doesn't hold the majority when it is convenient to the other party, or as us Southerners say "who's ox is being gored". Just saying, Republicans took it to a whole new level. Here's a more up-t0-date chart but it doesn't show the party making the motions, unfortunately:
View attachment 658603
Coincidently, the Senate is now trying to remove the 60-vote rule, but I agree the 60-vote rule seems to speak against the majority of voters. But, again, these topics only become important to the party that isn't getting its way.

As far as Bernie Sanders is concerned, I don't recall my favoring Bernie Sanders, I'm just saying he and Donald Trump are bringing issues to the front that are of voter interest, plus they are fresh options to the Bush-Clinton type faces. I'm more of a moderate liberal than far-left. If you'll go back and look at a specific chart I posted of my own positions on all the current, key topics, you'll see just that. I can't recall if it was in this thread or one of the other politically based threads. I did that so those certain conservatives in these threads would quit calling me out as a far-left liberal. In fact, I'm closer to center on many of the issues we've talked about in this forum. The problem with having discussions with Republican/conservative postings is that there are so many factions of Republicans, each with their own beliefs/agenda ... from Tea Party to Religious to Moderates ... which is why the party is struggling for an identity to most all the issues. When they run against Democrats in the general election, they'll most assuredly NOT win the POTUS. The voters are starting to become aware, now, to the "trickle down" damage. Which is why Republicans have attacked State-Local elections instead the past couple elections ... they stand a better chance of controlling them with the likes of KOCH's, etc.

Mac,

You've repeated the same mistake. You changed terms from filibuster to motion to filibuster, but then post a plot of cloture. That plot is exactly the same data I posted in my senate.gov link. Again, per the congressional research service, cloture motions don't equal filibusters....or motions to filibuster, whatever that is.

Cloture can be invoked regardless of whether there is a filibuster. Also, multiple cloture votes or motions may happen for any one bill if it is filibustered.

If you want to use cloture vote data as a proxy for obstruction, the best way would be to subtract the number of clotures invoked from the number of cloture motions filed. If cloture is invoked, then the bill or issue progresses to a vote. Therefore the difference I listed is the number of times where cloture failed, and the measure didn't proceed....at least not at that time.

So look at your plot. In the big spike of 2007-2008, there were 139 cloture motions filed and 61 times it was invoked....so there were 78 times where progress on a measure was blocked by failure to get cloture.

Now look back at 1995-1996. There were 82 cloture motions filed and 9 times it was invoked. So 73 times a measure was blocked. Guess who held the majority then....Republicans. So the Senate Democrats then were basically just as effective at obstructing the Senate as republicans have been of late.

As to your statement of not recalling favoring Bernie Sanders. Check your Aug 7 post in this thread....you said "I'd like to see a Bernie Sanders/Eliz. Warren ticket, but that won't happen"

 

[predoff]

yes I made a mistake...I meant decaying...sorry
anyway you're not decaying because of Obama....
Roman Empire died...Ottoman Empire died...Austrian Empire died...
all super power nations collapse sooner or later...

and you can continue the USSR died soon and the European Union! no eternal empires! unfortunately it everything I have experienced!

 

[MacNfries]

.... per the congressional research service, cloture motions don't equal filibusters.
Cloture can be invoked regardless of whether there is a filibuster. Also, multiple cloture votes or motions may happen for any one bill if it is filibustered.

.....Maybe I've learned something here, hubby; I'm not sure. Common sense is that when a cloture motion (note singular) is filed, it is to end a filibuster. That means a filibuster had been filed. If I'm wrong for that ridiculously assumption, I apologize. Getting the exact number of filibusters from senate records or any other source isn't all that simple; at least not in a time frame I have for looking for them. Also, this thing with multiple clotures is news to me and a bit confusing. The 111th Congress & first 9 months of the 112th Congress showed there were 246 cloture motions, and that wasn't even counting those for the President's nominations, a whole other topic which showed that out of 168 cloture motions ever filed on President's nominations since the turn of the 20th century, 82 (42%) were filed since 2009; a obvious disproportionate share filed. If that's Congress's way of showing their desired to work with Obama, I'm Donald Trump's long lost *******.
.....Anyway, all the graphs and research material revealed one very obvious thing, that the Congress was/is there to obstruct the President's agenda period. As Rush Limbaugh openly said on his radio station "want Obama to fail". Which is why the likes of Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders are popular ... people are fed up. The Republican legislation in NC is so scared of what's coming that they have removed the "straight party voting" option from the ballots. I've never had to stand in line to vote for more than 30 minutes, in my life, but this last mid-term, my wife and I stood in line 3 frik'n hours. We were just thankful it was not raining, as much of that waiting time was outside.
.....Also, this talk the Republicans are using of the President being against our military, I have a short list of documented filibusters the Republicans have filed to stop veteran bills and causes ...

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_have_republicans_filibustered_Obama

What's so funny, however, is the fact the tables got turned with the Iran Deal ... a little filibuster Karma in the making by Democrats.

As to your statement of not recalling favoring Bernie Sanders. Check your Aug 7 post in this thread....you said "I'd like to see a Bernie Sanders/Eliz. Warren ticket, but that won't happen"

.....I recall saying that, now, and still think that would be an interesting ticket. But, they are not the ticket I'd prefer seeing. Bernie & Elizabeth are platforming on pay equality and the Supply Side "myth" and Wall Street/Banking, things I believe in myself. It makes no sense when a man can sit in his office, punch in a few keys and make a cool million in minutes, but then when he fucks up, turns to everyone else and says "I'm too big to let fail". Or, when he fails at his job and still gets a 6-digit bonus at the end of the year. Or, when the CEO brings a company to its knees and the board hands him a $5 million check to go away. Thing that is really disgusting about it, is we didn't seem to learn our lessons, as our Congress is wanting to relax banking regulations once again.
Thanks on the cloture info; I'm going to read a bit more on that. A lit'l schooling doesn't hurt! Mac