When they have a large majority, a procedural vote is typically "the vote".
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
BROWN TURNS BLUE AS FAST AS THE TEA CHILLS IN MASSACHUSETTS
- Thread starter MaineCWPtraining
- Start date
When they have a large majority, a procedural vote is typically "the vote".
Kennedy had no shot. That's all there is to it. So vote for Kennedy and let Coakley sail in - likely for life? That would be the stupid game. Scott Brown appealed to Dems, Indys, Republicans and RINOS...Kennedy did not. Scott Brown had the dough and the message to get things done - Kennedy did not - perhaps he was banking on name recognition? In any case, the stupid game was played by those who voted for a no-shot in a close race...BTC, was all we had and all we have....
Absolutely and I hope Senator Brown gets his crap together and listens to his constituents - (we need to put some pressure on him). Scott Brown got into his position partially due to his stance against the current healthcare bill, but make no mistake - Scott Brown is for government run healthcare and supported the absolute mess that government run healthcare has become here in the Bay State. Look at what MassHealth and the rest of this debacle has become and you will see Scott Brown....He needs a wake-up call and to be shown the light, because he absolutely, positively supports government run health care. Look at who his friend is - Mitt the Twitt has had a major influence on him and we all know Romneys stance on government run healthcare here in Massachusetts and his support for maintaining the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban...Scott Brown deserves an A rating from GOAL about as much as I deserve an A rating from The Brady Campaign....People were just too caught up in being giddy, (rightly so by the way), about Scott Brown defeating Coakley, but a look at his record should raise some concern....We got exactly what we voted for and donated our hard-earned to: Better Than Coakley....How much better will be up to Senator Brown....
1) the GOP didn't have enough votes for a filibuster even w/o Brown
2) even had the measure been filibustered, it likely still would have passed.
3) the filibuster was called for because the GOP was pissed at Ried for acting like an a$$
4) this gives Brown a cheap and easy way to suck up to the independants in MA whom the attack ads about Brown 'being in lockstep..' were aimed at.
It was a smart political move on Brown's part and will ultimatly play well with the voters of MA.
2) even had the measure been filibustered, it likely still would have passed.
3) the filibuster was called for because the GOP was pissed at Ried for acting like an a$$
4) this gives Brown a cheap and easy way to suck up to the independants in MA whom the attack ads about Brown 'being in lockstep..' were aimed at.
It was a smart political move on Brown's part and will ultimatly play well with the voters of MA.
Garys
NES Member
Wow, one vote you don't like and he's already a failure? Some people on this forum are fickle little girls. Read about the bill, read about why he voted the way he did, and then maybe you'll have a clue. BTW, the vote was 62-30. Which means that eight Senators (including Lautenberg who is sick) didn't bother to vote for it. I don't think this was exactly a key issue.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I never said he's a failure. I said he's not off to a great start.
So, you only want a politician who represents you on key issues? To me, any bill that spends 15b of my money is a key issue. If being unhappy with this vote makes me a fickle little girl, I'll add that to "troll" and carry the titles proudly.
Some of you guys have no problem demonizing those who don't agree with you.
+1 to Bob P
We need politics moving and stop all the party line crap resulting in nothing getting done.
We need politics moving and stop all the party line crap resulting in nothing getting done.
So we should vote for more crap just to "keep politics moving"?
Yup... I never said he's a failure - not by a long shot, but he's not exactly off to a great start voting to move along a smoke-n-mirrors spending bill.....Spend, spend, spend...When will it end? Apparently not here and apparently some of you have no problem with that...Some of us do, so that makes us bad?
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
So we are told by the Dems... They'd like it if we would kindly line up on the beach voluntarily to lubricate the launching of their ships with our bodies...
Their mantra on the disaster of a health bill (well all bills lately) is "It's not perfect, but at least we are doing something."
He'll probably vote for a neutered health care bill too.
Apparently that's the concensus. Personally, I think they should pass out copies of the Constitution in Congress and have them read them for a couple weeks straight. Then give them a test.
NEWS FLASH: None of these bills are anything that the government should have their hands in AT ALL! There is no reason to "compromise" on a jobs bill, or on a health bill because they are both un-Constitutional! It has nothing to do with party lines, unless you consider following the founding documents a party line.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 340
- Likes
- 31
As a transplant from Texas - with deep conservative political beliefs - I'm willing to cut him a little slack on a procedural vote that is going to pass anyways. Voting "no" would have been You-tubed and played over and over to paint him as the "anti-jobs" candidate on his next political run. The voice-over would have been "Scott Brown - a Republican candidate who didn't want unemployed workers to have a job, just like Bush & Cheney"
I'm hoping he steps up when it counts. I think we need to move away from a federal government that tries to be everything to everyone to a federal government that sticks to what's specified in the Constitution. I'm ok with state governments trying social experiments (not on the federal taxpayer dime though) as if I don't like it, I always have the option to move. If the federal government mandates something, it's hard to get away from that.
I'm hoping he steps up when it counts. I think we need to move away from a federal government that tries to be everything to everyone to a federal government that sticks to what's specified in the Constitution. I'm ok with state governments trying social experiments (not on the federal taxpayer dime though) as if I don't like it, I always have the option to move. If the federal government mandates something, it's hard to get away from that.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 6,022
- Likes
- 757
He already helped pass socialized healthcare in MA and says on his website he believes in the program. He's going to help pass it in Washington.
He in no way shape or form supports the current bill. Had Coakley been elected it would already be passed. Once you add 30 million more people to the government tit you have secured
every single election from that point on.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 6,022
- Likes
- 757
He doesn't support the current bill.
He'll vote for a modified one in the near future that is still "socialized medicine" but with a nicer name.
If you're not familiar with the one implemented in 2006, it requires all MA residents to purchase health insurance or incur a fee penalty.
Those fees are supposedly used to pay for other people's healthcare costs.
Direct from his website:
Last edited:
In the meantime the rest of a country has a chance to come to their senses and put people into office that will stop it altogether. It remains to be seen whether Brown will vote for such a bill.
You still can't grasp it can you???? All he has done is buy us f-ing time until November when the (R)'s take back both the house and senate. Then it WON'T F-ING MATTER!
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Brown has already accomplished everything I hoped for. He got elected. That's all I wanted from him. Call him a RINO or whatever else you want to call him, but the fact remains that he had an "R" next to his name and still managed to get elected in one of the most blue states in the country. The very next day democrats in both the House and Senate were pissing their pants, especially those who's districts aren't firmly blue. Brown could turn out to be a grand dragon in the KKK for all I care at this point, because that still wouldn't change the fact that his election caused a very real change in the political climate of the entire country.
Very good points. He does have to be more cognizant of election considerations than most Senators.
And his presence alone completely reframed the health care discussion.
radioman
NES Member
Not all Dem bills are bad and not all Con bills are good. Scott thought the jobs bill was a good bill so he voted for it. It's that simple. I trust Scott's judgment that's why I voted for him. If he starts to go all progressive that's another thing, but for now I'll give him some space.
If you didn't see this coming, you voted for a guy you knew nothing about. he never advertised himself as anything other than a MA Republican, which in Texas would be considered a raging moonbat.
That said, the tax breaks and incentives for small businesses in this bill I can 100% get behind. If the 800billion stimulus bill had been all incentives and tax breaks for small business I would have been all for it.
That said, the tax breaks and incentives for small businesses in this bill I can 100% get behind. If the 800billion stimulus bill had been all incentives and tax breaks for small business I would have been all for it.
Communist China is ready to put a stop to our spending appetite and call in their markers.
Politics moving is what has gotten us to where we are today. We would have been a lot better off a long time ago if politicians got nothing done. Every time they "accomplish" something - the inevitably end up screwing me and you.
You forget who is the majority party and who holds the presidency right now. If politics "get moving" we are going to get nationalized health care, deficit spending that will make even today's deficits look like childs play, cap and trade legislation, anti gun legislation, and a whole host of other BS that will make your head spin.
The only kind of movement I truly want to see in politics is backward. I want to see senators and congressmen start repealing laws one by one - instead of constantly passing more and more bullshit.
If you want to see what progress gets you - you ought to go look at the increase in size of the Federal Register over the years. What "progress" has gotten us is a country where it is almost guaranteed that every single day you break some law that stands the potential of putting your ass in jail and/or bankrupting you. The only reason that our jail population isn't not just the largest in the world - but the insanely largest in the world - is that there just aren't enough law enforcement officers to throw everybody in jail. It's not because the laws don't exist already.
So keep wishing for progress - and you when you finally get your wish it will probably be from behind the bars of a prison cell - or from inside a box under highway overpass because the government has taken everything you thought you owned.
Yay progress.
Last edited:
I, for one, would like to welcome our new Chinese overlords. I am already sweeping my home and computer of items which might be deemed a threat to the security of the state in preparation...
+1
I dont think this is as disastrous or turncoat as everyone is making it out. AFAIK Brown ran on the premise that the federal Govt should be focusing on job creation and helping businesses and was criticizing the whole focus of the democrats to ram the healthcare bill at this time at a time when they should be worrying about the economy. Helping private small businesses which are the backbone of this country create jobs is not something I am against. I'll presume the bill is not perfect....but you will never get a perfect bill. I am sure there is some aspect of it that I will not agree with in it but I'm not ready to throw Brown under the bus or label him YET over this.
For those of you that disagree, could you please tell me what in the bill you exactly despise?
Last edited:
Titan
Banned
I think Brown was also picking his battles.
Every thinking person realizes that businesses don't get incentivized into hiring workers by the promise of a few hundred dollars.
Brining on an employee can cause thousands in search costs, it creates a bond among employees, and it creates legal obligations to the employee when time may come to terminate that employee.
Other than Progressives, loons, and moonbats, people tend to realize that nobody will get hired until EMPLOYERS can predict their futures with some reasonableness. They won't hire while they have unquantifiable increased taxes, and unpredictable federal mandates hanging over their heads.
Sanity has to be restored to government before the broad economy will begin to grow again. Meanwhile jobs will only be created in niche industries (some supported by one time 'stimulus' money) and in the government.
Scott Brown sees no harm in voting for this bill, in light of the fact that much of the money will never be spent.
Whether he gets any credit at all with MA leftists when he runs for re-election is doubtful (IMHO), but at this point, I can understand Brown's 'Yes' vote.
Every thinking person realizes that businesses don't get incentivized into hiring workers by the promise of a few hundred dollars.
Brining on an employee can cause thousands in search costs, it creates a bond among employees, and it creates legal obligations to the employee when time may come to terminate that employee.
Other than Progressives, loons, and moonbats, people tend to realize that nobody will get hired until EMPLOYERS can predict their futures with some reasonableness. They won't hire while they have unquantifiable increased taxes, and unpredictable federal mandates hanging over their heads.
Sanity has to be restored to government before the broad economy will begin to grow again. Meanwhile jobs will only be created in niche industries (some supported by one time 'stimulus' money) and in the government.
Scott Brown sees no harm in voting for this bill, in light of the fact that much of the money will never be spent.
Whether he gets any credit at all with MA leftists when he runs for re-election is doubtful (IMHO), but at this point, I can understand Brown's 'Yes' vote.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 6,022
- Likes
- 757
Why would you need to spend 800 billion dollars to give a tax break? It's like someone saying they need to spend a few million dollars to allow people to drive through the tolls for free.
And why do we need to spend money to provide incentives for business? Isn't the idea of business to produce or provide a service to make your own money? Why is there any other incentive?
But I'm with you in spirit...just not in practice. The best thing the govt can do for our small businesses is to stay the hell out of their way.
Ugh, please just peel back one layer before you support such things...
In giving tax breaks to specific companies the government is suggesting that it "knows best"TM which companies are best positioned for the health of this nation as we go forward and rewarding them.
It is not, it has never been, nor will never be best positioned to understand the future of economics. It is in fact one of the WORST predictors of future economics by its record.
Behavioral manipulation via taxation is perhaps one of the most despicable things a government can do short of false imprisonment and extermination of its citizens. You rob one group of people to reward another. Whether that be in time (rob the future to enrich the present) or more often you rob one politically out of favor group to reward another.
This is disgusting. It is our undoing as a nation and you are celebrating it because it uses the words "create jobs". A phrase, when uttered, which should always cause you to question "how", "for whom" and "at what cost".
Similar threads
