1) They are set either way.
2) they lose their seat, they still get to be lobbyists, which is more renumeritive than congresscritter anyway
3)they can get enough goodies for the boys that matter back home to make it worthwhile, despite the damage to the public at large.
4) if they've been in congress for over 2.5 years (IIRC) they get full pay for life.
They are counting on the fact that there will be 11 months or so (assuming it gets passed by year's end) for most people to get distracted and forget all about it. Plus I believe a lot of them have been bought out anyway. If they lose then they will get a cushy position somewhere in the Obama admin.
.............In other words, they don't give a damn that they are consigning us all to an even more certain hell than before, and therefore the only rational choice for the rest of us is to start watering Jefferson's tree as soon as possible................
Hi,
Wonder if Jefferson watered the tree the same way we did as kids......
I am all for that with every member of congress.
reagrds,
5412
Both parties are being driven by the 'Progressive' elements of their organization. For the progressives, this has been a long time coming, and it isn't so much about the content of each of these bills as it is two other things.
First, is the need to overwhelm the current system: everything that has crossed The Øne's desk this year has been at least a thousand pages long. Nobody in Congress reads them; mostly because nobody in Congress could possibly have the time under the rapid pace these monstrosities come flying at them. They're part of an Alinsky-esque plan to overload the current system in place (remember how The Øne promised he was going to "re-build" America?), in order to cause it's collapse.
The second factor is what's actually in the bills that nobody's reading. While The Øne and the Congress-shits have been distracting everyone with debates and entirely to public attempts to ramrod through the most controversial and least well polled aspects of each of these things, what nobody talks about is the underlying infrastructure that is being laid into our contry's legal framework. For example: while 'single-payer' or 'public option' health insurance plans may not be in the text of the bill currently being greased through the Senate, 170-some odd NEW federal bureaucracies are, along with all of the tax hikes and a whole string of regualtory powers meant to lay the groundwork for single-payer sometime in the near future.
The progressives have been patient for over 100 years in their slow, methodical corruption of the Federal Government. They're not about to be impatient now, when the plum is about to drop into their laps.
So far the only way we can see that not happening is when they try to dump term limits or stop an election. That is when a Tommy Frank or McCrystal goes in and takes over the military and tells the commies the party is over. It will be a military person who has the moral authority to lead that the military will follow.
regards,
5412
Because the American voter has a very short memory..... couple that with this not going into effect until after the next presidential election cycle, and there is PLENTY of time to spin this any which way they want.
I disagree
This will arise from the street level. Currently there's a 60% against health care poll number. Add in all the new programs and spending. Then no one will buy T-Bills. Money supply dries up for the moochers. They will get restless.
I believe a majority of the military will walk, always family first. This will leave a corrupt military attempting to defend the actions of lawmakers.
5:51 pm - To be presented on Tuesday, December 5th 2006.
I've just heard that the UT Society for Environmental Education has accepted my abstract and the presentation is scheduled for Tuesday, December 5th at 7PM (location presently unknown). You should be there, because it's going to be like nothing any of these people has ever seen.
“Dedevelopment and the Problems of Cost-Benefit Environmentalismâ€
Abstract:
In order to understand the problems of environmental degradation, we must be willing to investigate how representative democracy and capitalism make these kinds of problems inevitable. Because our economic and political systems are based on property rights, we are socialized to consider human beings as owners, and of everything else as owned. This kind of subject-object distinction has allowed humanity to rationalize the worst kinds of atrocities, and must be overcome. Eternal pursuit of affluence dooms the entire planet. We must live simply so others can simply live. This presentation will address the reasons why participatory democracy and conservation are critically important to reformulating our interactions not only with the rest of the natural world, but also with each other.
Selected Bibliography:
Meszaros, Istvan. Beyond Captial: Toward a Theory of Transition. New York: Merlin Press. 1996.
Mishan, Edward J.. The Economic Growth Debate. New York: Franklin Watts. 1978.
Ophuls, William and Stephen Boyan. Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited: the Unraveling of the American Dream. New York: WH Freeman & Company, 1992.
Ryan, Michael. Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1984.
Trainer, Ted. Abandon Affluence. London: Zed Books, 1985.
-----. The Conserver Society: Alternatives for Sustainability. London: Zed Books, 1995.
Can Renewable Energy Sources Sustain Affluent Society?
F. E. Trainer
University of New South Wales 1995
Figures commonly quoted on costs of generating energy from renewable sources can give the impression that it will be possible to switch to renewables as the foundation for the continuation of industrial societies with high material living standards. Although renewable energy must be the sole source in a sustainable society, major difficulties become evident when conversions, storage and supply for high latitudes are considered. It is concluded that renewable energy sources will not be able to sustain present rich world levels of energy use and that a sustainable world order must be based on acceptance of much lower per capita levels of energy use, much lower living standards and a zero growth economy.
They don't care if they are individually voted out. It's the collective party and platform that are important.
Hi,
While we all know and feel that the true liberal socialism has finally started to come up big time, the one common question we old farts are asking and asked constantly is this. Why would any member of congress vote for a piece of legislation like health care when they know it is a terrible bill, know that the vast majority of the people that hired them are violently opposed to it, and they well may lose thier job because of it? Why the hell would they do that anyway?
It gets their foot in the door. It may not be exactly what they want, but it is more power. Once "public health care" is enacted, the degree is merely a matter of rules, not votes.
As for why do it at all, when the public doesn't want it? The type of people who go in to politics today do not do it for public service, they do it for themselves. I've always been of the opinion that wanting to run for public office should be an automatic disqualification for said office. Democrat politicians want to exert control over us. They desperately want to increase that control while they can. If they wait too much longer, it may not happen, especially after the '10 elections.