NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON - The Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months, increasing prospects that provisions the administration considers indispensable to the war on terrorism may soon expire.

"The House of Representatives opposes such an extension and the president will not sign such an extension," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told his colleagues in a floor showdown Friday as lawmakers scurried to finish business for the year. From the White House, Bush's spokesman echoed Frist as they sought to give a boost to efforts to renew provisions of the law that are set to expire Dec. 31.

The Senate was still weighing a proposed accord with the House to extend the expiring 16 provisions of the law enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. But that compromise appeared to lack the necessary votes to succeed.

"Should we take a step forward in making America safer or should we go back to the pre-9/11 days when terrorists slip through the cracks?" said Frist, R-Tenn. "A nation in fear cannot be a nation that's free."

But even with that stark choice, senators were deeply split over whether to extend the law, which passed four years ago 99-1.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid proposed an alternative bill to extend the expiring provisions by three months to allow Congress time to add protections for civil liberties.

"Mr. President, liberty and security are not contradictory," the Nevada Democrat said on the floor.

The exchange came after a brief morning meeting in Frist's office in which Reid told Frist there were enough votes to filibuster proposed compromise, according to two senior officials with knowledge of the meeting.

The White House and its congressional allies prefer to let the provisions expire and hold Democrats responsible in next year's midterm elections rather than let opponents whittle away at the law. -Yahoo News, Dec 16 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see...the provisions are so important to national security that the "obstructionist Democrats" should get out of the way, according to the President's press secretary Scott McClellan. Yet instead of taking the three-month extension and review offered by the Democratic Senate leader, the Republicans are content to allow the provisions to expire so that they have a political weapon to use in the 2006 elections. Of course, we should not be too surprised. If Bush was willing to use actual footage from 9-11 in one of his re-election campaign commercials, then there is nothing he will not do for political gain.

Anyone who voted for these jackasses should be -deeply- ashamed at this point.

"Mr. President, liberty and security are not contradictory," the Nevada Democrat said on the floor.

In large part, they are. It's a dialectic - if you want someone else to provide your security, you'll automatically give up liberty in order to get it. If you expect someone else to provide your security, but aren't willing to give up your liberty, you're responsible for your own security, because the government won't be able to provide it.

The Bush administration must feel confident that they can bully their senators into voting for the renewal, because Russ Feingold has said publicly that he has enough bi-partisan support to filibuster it, and that he will.

-snip-
By the sounds of it, Anyone who VOTED in the last election should be ashamed of themselves. What the hell is going on here? Democrats voting to extend the Patriot act? Republicans putting civil liberties ahead of security?

It feels like I've just entered a parallel universe here...

Actually, they (the Democrats) were trying to extend it by only three months so that there would be time to weave some more robust civil rights protections into it. They essentially were offering the GOP a chance to retain the law but to negotiate on it next year.

Anyone who voted for these jackasses should be -deeply- ashamed at this point.
Yes, that's definitely for sure :rolleyes:
After we already wrecked the US for four years, creating a new record deficit and the likes, it somewhat surprised me that there were still that much braindead retards to re-elect this moron for a second term :rolleyes:
I thought by myself, "C'mon, the people in the US can't possibly be *that* loony!?"

I might add that a three-month extension seems like a reasonable compromise. I don't think the Patriot Act should be allowed to continue in its' current form. But the Bush people want an all-or-nothing roll of the dice again.

After we already wrecked the US for four years

The economy is wrecked?

The economy is wrecked?
It is if you only read the NYT.

It is if you only read the NYT.
Ah, Paul Krugman and his "I can make up anything I like because the editors here encourage it" column.

The economy is wrecked?

It certainly isn't GOOD. People are having trouble finding anything other than McJobs.

WASHINGTON - If Bush was willing to use actual footage from 9-11 in one of his re-election campaign commercials, then there is nothing he will not do for political gain.

Anyone who voted for these jackasses should be -deeply- ashamed at this point.

I think using actual footage from 9-11 pales in comparison to the volumes of seditious acts committed by democrats and their forigen supporters in the name of political gain.

We do agree however that those that voted for these jackasses should be deeply ashamed. I will never, ever vote for a democrat again, for any reason. The Iraqi people have their future in thier own hands, despite the best efforts of the vermin that infilterated the democratic party and now it is time to pay the piper. The backlash shall be relentless, and within a few short months you will never find a sole that admits to being against freedom for Iraq. The democratic leadership will be running the footage of their support for the war in their own campaigns, just as the media is running in now when wondering why they deny it.
The democrats deserve and shall be allowed no credit what so ever for the success over the past few years. Let them wear the badge of "Robbers of Freedom" they so richly deserve.

It certainly isn't GOOD. People are having trouble finding anything other than McJobs.
Really? I've had no trouble changing jobs and increasing my salary and benefits as I go since Bush was elected - especially this year.

The economy, by all measures, is doing extremely well. And has been for at least the last four quarters.

The average wage has moved nowhere under this President, Kimchi.

I think using actual footage from 9-11 pales in comparison to the volumes of seditious acts committed by democrats and their forigen supporters in the name of political gain.

We do agree however that those that voted for these jackasses should be deeply ashamed. I will never, ever vote for a democrat again, for any reason. The Iraqi people have their future in thier own hands, despite the best efforts of the vermin that infilterated the democratic party and now it is time to pay the piper. The backlash shall be relentless, and within a few short months you will never find a sole that admits to being against freedom for Iraq. The democratic leadership will be running the footage of their support for the war in their own campaigns, just as the media is running in now when wondering why they deny it.
The democrats deserve and shall be allowed no credit what so ever for the success over the past few years. Let them wear the badge of "Robbers of Freedom" they so richly deserve.


That's just plain stupidity. Just because I disagree with how you are doing something doesn't mean I am against freedom. ENOUGH OF THE CONSERVATIVE LIES!

The average wage has moved nowhere under this President, Kimchi.
Well, there hasn't been any inflation, either. And the middle class has a new way to make money other than simple wages. It's called investment in stocks and real estate. The GDP has been growing quite well, and unemployment is low. Consumer prices even took a record tumble.

By the sounds of it, Anyone who VOTED in the last election should be ashamed of themselves. What the hell is going on here? Democrats voting to extend the Patriot act? Republicans putting civil liberties ahead of security?

It feels like I've just entered a parallel universe here...

I believe what we are seeing here is called a "set up". If you recall the supplimental bill they passed was the one that contained the provisions that they wanted to make permanent. My understanding is, even if the rest of it is scrapped those provisions must be addressed individually, making it virtually impossible to remove. If this is correct, the democrats simply played into their hands by threatening a fillibuster (again). My question is, if this group of liberals are as smart as they tell us, why do they keep falling for simple little "flim flams" that make them look like such idiots?

That's just plain stupidity. Just because I disagree with how you are doing something doesn't mean I am against freedom. ENOUGH OF THE CONSERVATIVE LIES!

Good rebuttal!

(a side note) I didn't say you.

Well, there hasn't been any inflation, either. And the middle class has a new way to make money other than simple wages. It's called investment in stocks and real estate. The GDP has been growing quite well, and unemployment is low. Consumer prices even took a record tumble.

In the first term of Bush's administration, the economy lost 3 million jobs. The average wage of the job lost was approximately $44,000 per year, and many were in manufacturing jobs which also provided health and retirement benefits, in effect providing wage boosts beyond the listed price. The average job gained during this period was a service sector job with a median wage of approximately $35,000 per year, with little or no health or retirement benefits. As such, in the aggregate, the workers who lost jobs under Bush now have less money to spend, and also have to spend it on services that once were for free, such as health care.

Based on this, here are some important (rhetorical to anybody but Rush Limbots) questions you probably should be asking yourself:

1) How exactly is a person supposed to "invest" in the economy if he has less money to do it with, and must pay for expenses that he never had to in the past?

2) For every dollar made by the guy who scrapes enough spare change to buy 100 stocks, the stockowner with the controlling interest of of 60% of all stock in the company makes several thousand. How does this discrepancy and widening of wealth better the nation?

3) The Dow Jones peaked in early 2001, which means that people who invested at or near the top (of which there were quite a few) are still waiting to break even on their "investment". Given basic knowledge about economics, this discourages investment most in the A) upper class, or B) lower class?

4) The recovery is real, significant, and substantial, even with the aggregate decrease in wage of almost $10,000 per year not including benefit packages. Yes or No?

Anyone who voted for these jackasses should be -deeply- ashamed at this point.
And people wonder why I cap down on leftists! SIGH! :headbang:

And people wonder why I cap down on leftists! SIGH! :headbang:
Because you live in your own little world devoid of any contact with reality as it exists for the rest of us? Just a guess.

Yes, that's definitely for sure :rolleyes:
After we already wrecked the US for four years, creating a new record deficit and the likes, it somewhat surprised me that there were still that much braindead retards to re-elect this moron for a second term :rolleyes:
I thought by myself, "C'mon, the people in the US can't possibly be *that* loony!?"
As an aside, you do realize that as a percentage of our GDP our deficit is actually less than Germanys right?

As an aside, you do realize that as a percentage of our GDP our deficit is actually less than Germanys right?

But Germany is supposed to be like that according to you because it's semi-socialist.

So the grand Capitalist heart of the world should not be having any great deficit at all you'd think...

WASHINGTON - The Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months, increasing prospects that provisions the administration considers indispensable to the war on terrorism may soon expire.

"The House of Representatives opposes such an extension and the president will not sign such an extension," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told his colleagues in a floor showdown Friday as lawmakers scurried to finish business for the year. From the White House, Bush's spokesman echoed Frist as they sought to give a boost to efforts to renew provisions of the law that are set to expire Dec. 31.

The Senate was still weighing a proposed accord with the House to extend the expiring 16 provisions of the law enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. But that compromise appeared to lack the necessary votes to succeed.

"Should we take a step forward in making America safer or should we go back to the pre-9/11 days when terrorists slip through the cracks?" said Frist, R-Tenn. "A nation in fear cannot be a nation that's free."

But even with that stark choice, senators were deeply split over whether to extend the law, which passed four years ago 99-1.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid proposed an alternative bill to extend the expiring provisions by three months to allow Congress time to add protections for civil liberties.

"Mr. President, liberty and security are not contradictory," the Nevada Democrat said on the floor.

The exchange came after a brief morning meeting in Frist's office in which Reid told Frist there were enough votes to filibuster proposed compromise, according to two senior officials with knowledge of the meeting.

The White House and its congressional allies prefer to let the provisions expire and hold Democrats responsible in next year's midterm elections rather than let opponents whittle away at the law. -Yahoo News, Dec 16 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see...the provisions are so important to national security that the "obstructionist Democrats" should get out of the way, according to the President's press secretary Scott McClellan. Yet instead of taking the three-month extension and review offered by the Democratic Senate leader, the Republicans are content to allow the provisions to expire so that they have a political weapon to use in the 2006 elections. Of course, we should not be too surprised. If Bush was willing to use actual footage from 9-11 in one of his re-election campaign commercials, then there is nothing he will not do for political gain.

Anyone who voted for these jackasses should be -deeply- ashamed at this point.

You know, I've gotten sick up to my eyeballs with this black-or-white, "them or us" mentality that has so come to define the Bush Administration. Part of what makes a government effective is its incorporation of criticism into accomplishing a governmental action that is in the best interest of the public at large. Yet for Bush and his neo-conservative cronies, any criticism is taken as an attack on the nation itself, not on the policies of the current administration.

The notion that it is okay to force citizens to give up their liberties or to do so using subterfuge is appalling. The American people deserve the right to decide for themselves how best they feel they need to be protected or at least to know what measures are being taken to that end, instead of only hearing canned rhetoric that promises to protect us from a conjured boogeyman that Bush has turned terrorism into.

That's my two cents anyway...

The average wage has moved nowhere under this President, Kimchi.
Given that the biggest reason that wages moved as much as they did in the 90's was because of the advent of the PC in the business world and the expansion of the internet your point really doesn't mean all that much.

But Germany is supposed to be like that according to you because it's semi-socialist.

So the grand Capitalist heart of the world should not be having any great deficit at all you'd think...
Except of course, between Medicare, SocSec, the new perscription drug plan and other sundries, we aren't all that capitalist here. Fucking AARP.

Really? I've had no trouble changing jobs and increasing my salary and benefits as I go since Bush was elected - especially this year.

The economy, by all measures, is doing extremely well. And has been for at least the last four quarters.

No, I can tell you it's not doing well at all. I barely managed to get a warehouse job last summer, (after searching for a job forabout two months nonstop), and even they were reluctant to hire an extra person, as they weren't doing too well financially. And it's not like I'm not someone you would want working either, for an 18 year old I'm pretty hire-able.

The company my dad used to work for just tanked, too. Luckily, he's not there anymore. Things look rather bleak from down here, across the board.

Perhaps wealth is being generated, but we little people are not benefitting.

In the first term of Bush's administration, the economy lost 3 million jobs. The average wage of the job lost was approximately $44,000 per year, and many were in manufacturing jobs which also provided health and retirement benefits, in effect providing wage boosts beyond the listed price. The average job gained during this period was a service sector job with a median wage of approximately $35,000 per year, with little or no health or retirement benefits. As such, in the aggregate, the workers who lost jobs under Bush now have less money to spend, and also have to spend it on services that once were for free, such as health care.


No, actually real median income is $44,389, a decline from the peak in early 2000. However, you must take in to account the fact that there was a significant equity collapse in that year, (and the bulk of income loss occured in 2000, in Clinton's last year.)

And since the recession ended, real disposable income has risen by 4% despite energy prices.

Based on this, here are some important (rhetorical to anybody but Rush Limbots) questions you probably should be asking yourself:

1) How exactly is a person supposed to "invest" in the economy if he has less money to do it with, and must pay for expenses that he never had to in the past?

They don't; inflows in to securities by households are at record highs.

[/QUOTE]2) For every dollar made by the guy who scrapes enough spare change to buy 100 stocks, the stockowner with the controlling interest of of 60% of all stock in the company makes several thousand. How does this discrepancy and widening of wealth better the nation?

Over 50% of American households own stocks; and anyways, there are almost no corporations in the US that have anywhere near 60% ownership by one person.

Even if that person owns 100 shares and makes less money, they are still earning more than they would without the stock. Only now, it's much more possible for an individual to invest than it was 20 years ago.

[QUOTE]3) The Dow Jones peaked in early 2001, which means that people who invested at or near the top (of which there were quite a few) are still waiting to break even on their "investment". Given basic knowledge about economics, this discourages investment most in the A) upper class, or B) lower class?

Most lower class people don't own stock anyway. Most middle-class people invest in funds, which have been able to perform well even despite the decline in equity prices because there are trained professionals who do the economics work and make decisions according to the market. Furthermore, multiple indices have performed very well, and this is where the investments are going. The Dow only represents 30 stocks and isn't representative of overall performance, so to try and gauge the health of portfolios by it is blatantly inaccurate. Much of the gains in the late 90's came from a handful of hypervalued stocks, so to even compare performance is virtually impossible.

4) The recovery is real, significant, and substantial, even with the aggregate decrease in wage of almost $10,000 per year not including benefit packages. Yes or No?

Yes, because not everyone has those losses. There are sectors of the economy that have underperformed in this expansion, but the middle class/upper class have done well, as have the well educated. The poor and undereducated have been left behind due to changing economic conditions even during the 1990's boom, which greatly widened the income gap. They have been unfortunately forced to shoulder the burden of falling wages ever since the 90's boom to the present.

No, actually real median income is $44,389, a decline from the peak in early 2000. However, you must take in to account the fact that there was a significant equity collapse in that year, (and the bulk of income loss occured in 2000, in Clinton's last year.)

And since the recession ended, real disposable income has risen by 4% despite energy prices.

. . .And yet, this has absoldarnlutely nothing to do with my post. I didn't question what the median annual wage was; I posted concerning what the median income of a Bush "recovery" job was, pointing out that in general, it is worth about 9-10 thousand dollars per year less in income, in addition to have little or nothing in benefits to replace what on average was a fairly decent benefit package of the job that has been cut. Do you by any chance see what the difference between the two are? If so, can you really call it a Bush "recovery" without doing what we in the boondocks of Idaho colloquially knew as "lying"?

Moreover, of course real disposable income has gone up: unemployed people now have jobs. That doesn't change the fact that those jobs pay only about 80% of the old jobs and require people to pay for things like retirement and healthcare that they didn't have to before. In short, while disposable income might well be up 4% since the end of the recession, it is down from Feb 2001 when Bush took office. . .meaning, again, that you really have to question how effective a recovery it has been.


They don't; inflows in to securities by households are at record highs.


You forgot the important qualifying phrase in that sentence. If you amended it to say "They don't; inflows in to securities by households [almost exclusively at the very, very high end of the income spectrum] are at record highs", then you would have an accurate statement. As is, it is more commonly known as a lie by omission, although I'm sure that was just a mistake on your part.



Over 50% of American households own stocks; and anyways, there are almost no corporations in the US that have anywhere near 60% ownership by one person.

The first part of that sentence is another half-truth due to an important omission: while 50% of American households own stocks, about 90% of all stocks are controlled by 10% of the households mentioned. In other words, in our "investment" society, only half of people have any investments at all, and one in ten of those control nine in ten investments. So really, you did nothing to talk about the main point of that post at all.

With respect to the second part, you are correct: I should have been more precise. It is "stockowners", not singular as mentioned. Moreover, that point had nothing to do with the main thrust, which was to question how massive disparaties in wealth, which seem likely to increase with the increase of our rate of investment, serves the interest of the nation. I'm not sure if you meant to provide a red herring, but congratulations if you did.


Even if that person owns 100 shares and makes less money, they are still earning more than they would without the stock. Only now, it's much more possible for an individual to invest than it was 20 years ago.


. . .Which completely ignores the point of my question. I didn't ask whether you were a little better off if others were a lot better off. I asked if the nation was better off if the disparity in wealth between the rich and the super rich, to say nothing about the disparity between the rich and the poor continues to accelerate.


Most lower class people don't own stock anyway. Most middle-class people invest in funds, which have been able to perform well even despite the decline in equity prices because there are trained professionals who do the economics work and make decisions according to the market. Furthermore, multiple indices have performed very well, and this is where the investments are going. The Dow only represents 30 stocks and isn't representative of overall performance, so to try and gauge the health of portfolios by it is blatantly inaccurate. Much of the gains in the late 90's came from a handful of hypervalued stocks, so to even compare performance is virtually impossible.

. . .And yet, most funds try to match the Dow's performance over the long term, so the fact that most people are in funds and not the Dow does nothing for your argument, to say nothing of hurting mine. Yes, Vetalia, I do pay attention to market analysis, and I've probably watched more Paul Kangas than you could possibly stomach. The fact remains that its been five years and quite a few people are still waiting for any return on their investment. If you are speaking of the NASDAQ, then it's been five years and many people are still waiting to get 30 cents on every dollar they invested. Aggravating the problem is that those "hypervalued" stocks were mostly tech stocks that newbie investors invested in most heavily.

But all that is neither here or there. The main point is that given current market conditions, who can really wait to turn a profit on their investment, the poor or the rich? It is a point which you've been singularly unable to answer.


Yes, because not everyone has those losses. There are sectors of the economy that have underperformed in this expansion, but the middle class/upper class have done well, as have the well educated. The poor and undereducated have been left behind due to changing economic conditions even during the 1990's boom, which greatly widened the income gap. They have been unfortunately forced to shoulder the burden of falling wages ever since the 90's boom to the present.

Vetalia, in case you haven't paid much attention to history, the middle/upper class do well in every expansion, no matter how small. Saying then that the system works because the rich have benefitted borders on tautology; it is certainly begging the question. But I believed that one of the things that was so often trumpeted by those who believe in an "investment economy" was that the rising tide raised all ships: by increasing the amount of capital investment, ultimately creating jobs and better wages for the poorest of workers. Yet here you are admitting that in fact, yes, the poor are getting poorer, and the investment system you seem to be trumpeting has thus far done nothing to remedy that situation. By using words like "unfortunately", I can only assume that you think that the plight of the poor is, well, bad. Despite that, I'm struck most by the fact that you don't seem to want to change anything, except maybe accelerate the process.

That's just plain stupidity. Just because I disagree with how you are doing something doesn't mean I am against freedom. ENOUGH OF THE CONSERVATIVE LIES!

hmmm... if you're against what we're doing in Iraq, given that it has greatly increased personal freedom for Iraqis... then either you're lying about being for freedom or you're simply against Iraq because you hate President Bush and will blindly fight anything he wants to do.

Well, there hasn't been any inflation, either. And the middle class has a new way to make money other than simple wages. It's called investment in stocks and real estate. The GDP has been growing quite well, and unemployment is low. Consumer prices even took a record tumble.

the economy is in pretty good shape... of course, if you listen to most news -- ahemliberalbiased -- programs/cable business reporting, you'd think we were in a recession.

lol

Dow is fairly steady, getting up around 11,000... it's pretty much fully recovered from the shocks of 9/11 and the pre-Bush tech bust.

Unemployment numbers are fine

investor confidence is steadily coming back, although there's still a lot of money on the sidelines

consumer prices haev dropped, which will give us a break in holiday shopping

etc.

the economy is in pretty good shape... of course, if you listen to most news -- ahemliberalbiased -- programs/cable business reporting, you'd think we were in a recession.


Yes, because the corporation-owned media is so anti-corporate...

You might want to check your scalp for aluminum poisoning.

So......does anybody care about the National Deficiet?