Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,303
    vCash
    1500

    32 times that McCain voted "NO" and Obama voted "YES"

    Senator McCain has voted ‘NO’ to all of these issues when they came up for vote before the senate. Senator Obama voted "YES'. Information is from the US Senate website. (www.senate.gov) Most of these are amendments, which means there is no "pork/earmarks" attached.

    1. A bill to provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions.
    2. To protect service members and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to service members, and to allow service members to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.
    3. To provide a homestead floor for the elderly.
    4. To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.
    5. To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.
    6. To provide protection for medical debt homeowners.
    7. To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.
    8. To exempt debtors from means testing if their financial problems were caused by identity theft
    9. To discourage predatory lending practices.
    10. To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy.
    11. To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage
    12. To clarify that the means test does not apply to debtors below median income.
    13. To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by failure to receive alimony or child support, or both, from means testing.
    14. To limit claims in bankruptcy by certain unsecured creditors.
    15. To restore funding for education programs that are cut and reduce debt by closing corporate tax loopholes.
    16. To ensure that 75-year solvency has been restored to Social Security before Congress considers new deficit-financed legislation that would increase mandatory spending or cut taxes.
    17. To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.
    18. To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by providing the necessary resources to our firefighters, police, EMS workers and other first-responders by restoring $1,626 billion in cuts to first-responder programs.
    19. To increase veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006.
    20. To create a reserve fund for the establishment of a Bipartisan Medicaid Commission to consider and recommend appropriate reforms to the Medicaid program, and to strike Medicaid cuts to protect states and vulnerable populations
    21. To repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.
    22. To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents
    23. To expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.
    24. To promote innovation and U.S. competitiveness by expressing the sense of the Senate urging the Senate Committee on Appropriations to make efforts to fund the Advanced Technology Program, which supports industry-led research and development of cutting-edge technologies with broad commercial potential and societal benefits.
    25. To increase funding for border security
    26. To eliminate methyl tertiary butyl ether from the United States fuel supply, to increase production and use of renewable fuel, and to increase the Nation's energy independence
    27. To improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40 percent by 2025.
    28. To provide additional funding for medical services provided by the Veterans Health Administration
    29. To fund urgent priorities for our Nation's firefighters, law enforcement personnel, emergency medical personnel, and all Americans by reducing the tax breaks for individuals with annual incomes in excess of $1 million.
    30. To provide an additional $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to be used for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder.
    31. To improve the Federal Trade Commission's ability to protect consumers from price-gouging during energy emergencies, and for other purposes.
    32. To provide additional funding for the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 and to provide activities for latchkey children.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Don't forget the Farm and Ethenol subsidy bill that generates over $1,000 per Iowan in state revenue. Obama supported it and McCain voted no.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Infiltrating Hippie Southwestern Command Center
    Posts
    1,405
    vCash
    1500
    anytime you see stuff like this it gets taken out of context...

    say i vote against giving schools $10 million, people think i was evil and dont care about schools... but if you read secret parts of the bill it could say something like $3 million goes to fixing up an art high school (they just built a $280 million one here in la, $250 million OVER budget btw) and $3 million to fund administrators pensions, $2 million for new carpets and only $1 for students supplies

    then yes i can see why someone would vote no... when they wanted more money for students supplies

    so to these things you listed i couldnt care less that he voted no because i dont know if the bill was labeled with pork or he voted no because he wanted MORE and wouldnt settle for a small number someone was offering...

    say he was wanting $20 million for vets and someone was only offering $8 million in a bill.. of coarse he would vote no...

    or maybe he would vote against a border fence bill because it offered no monies for more border patrol on the ground..

    I dont know... and neither do you...

    my point is without reading the entirety of these bills then they have no bearing on the decision making record of this man... this post is equivalent to a campaign ad

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerzey
    Posts
    820
    vCash
    1500
    exactly... the context of the bill is important... financial situations, risk vs. reward, etc.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fresno
    Posts
    6,268
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Fluty View Post
    anytime you see stuff like this it gets taken out of context...

    say i vote against giving schools $10 million, people think i was evil and dont care about schools... but if you read secret parts of the bill it could say something like $3 million goes to fixing up an art high school (they just built a $280 million one here in la, $250 million OVER budget btw) and $3 million to fund administrators pensions, $2 million for new carpets and only $1 for students supplies

    then yes i can see why someone would vote no... when they wanted more money for students supplies

    so to these things you listed i couldnt care less that he voted no because i dont know if the bill was labeled with pork or he voted no because he wanted MORE and wouldnt settle for a small number someone was offering...

    say he was wanting $20 million for vets and someone was only offering $8 million in a bill.. of coarse he would vote no...

    or maybe he would vote against a border fence bill because it offered no monies for more border patrol on the ground..

    I dont know... and neither do you...

    my point is without reading the entirety of these bills then they have no bearing on the decision making record of this man... this post is equivalent to a campaign ad
    What's wrong with Art? If it was a sports school would you think differently? Art inspires so many positive things in a individual I won't take time to list them all. Then you say the money was for supplies. This is what is wrong with America, the my wealth first mentality and the community second. What if this was a school in a poor area? Should they not be granted the gift of Art? I don't know about you but when I was in school Art classes supplied paint, brushes, paper, and other supplies. Just because you might of not had this when you are in school is no reason to say others should go without it.
    Last edited by Raider_Vet; 08-16-2008 at 04:31 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SmthBluCitrus View Post
    Don't forget the Farm and Ethenol subsidy bill that generates over $1,000 per Iowan in state revenue. Obama supported it and McCain voted no.
    Ethanol has to be one of our worst ideas ever. "Okay guys, let's create a system that raises the cost of food, doesn't help lower the price of oil, and costs more than gas."



    Quote Originally Posted by Lady's Man View Post
    exactly... the context of the bill is important... financial situations, risk vs. reward, etc.
    Basically.

    For instance, last year the House voted on a timetable for Iraq. Straight forward, right? Nope. It also contained billions of dollars going towards spinach farmers, peanut farmers, and fish farms.

    So I like the attempted spin, but I doubt anyone on here actually knows the real context of the bills. A lot of members of congress don't even know every minut aspect of a bill and they vote on it
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Infiltrating Hippie Southwestern Command Center
    Posts
    1,405
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raider_Vet View Post
    What's wrong with Art? If it was a sports school would you think differently? Art inspires so many positive things in a individual I won't take time to list them all. Then you say the money was for supplies. This is what is wrong with America, the my wealth first mentality and the community second. What if this was a school in a poor area? Should they not be granted the gift of Art? I don't know about you but when I was in school Art classes supplied paint, brushes, paper, and other supplies. Just because you might of not had this when you are in school is no reason to say others should go without it.
    umm nothing wront with art.. but it a building comes in $200 million OVER budget then its a problem... i wouldnt care even if it was a science building...

    the fact is Califorinia is $17 BILLION in dept... and over 75% of that dept is schools and healthcare...

    the schools have a over a 50% drop out rate and if were that far in deot how can you justify $230 on just a art school.. . and its a ugle *** building anyway.. looks like a big roller coaster...


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    Uh-oh Db... do those pics enhance the discussion? Because he's not a tm or a mod or an admin...



    And speaking of art, if you want to save money eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    Ethanol has to be one of our worst ideas ever. "Okay guys, let's create a system that raises the cost of food, doesn't help lower the price of oil, and costs more than gas."
    It generates revenue for my state and other states in the Midwest. Sure, corn is taxed thrice over but it keeps the farmers in their fields. Nobody said the energy solution was going to be cheap, but it's at least an attempt.

    And actually, if you live in the Midwest (speaking of Iowa in particular), mid-grade unleaded + ethanol (89 octane) is actually cheaper than low-grade sans ethanol (87 octane) by seven or eight cents on average.

    It's a matter of shipping. Where you're close to an ethanol refinery the cost is cheaper. However, it takes fuel to transport it to the further reaches of the country. If and when it manages to take off and plants pop up in other regions it should reduce the cost per gallon. In the meantime, it creates employment in the middle part of the country while our Amana plants, GM Plants, and DHL hubs close.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SmthBluCitrus View Post
    It generates revenue for my state and other states in the Midwest. Sure, corn is taxed thrice over but it keeps the farmers in their fields. Nobody said the energy solution was going to be cheap, but it's at least an attempt.

    And actually, if you live in the Midwest (speaking of Iowa in particular), mid-grade unleaded + ethanol (89 octane) is actually cheaper than low-grade sans ethanol (87 octane) by seven or eight cents on average.

    It's a matter of shipping. Where you're close to an ethanol refinery the cost is cheaper. However, it takes fuel to transport it to the further reaches of the country. If and when it manages to take off and plants pop up in other regions it should reduce the cost per gallon. In the meantime, it creates employment in the middle part of the country while our Amana plants, GM Plants, and DHL hubs close.
    You'll have to excuse me, SBC. I'm completely opposed to the status quo of government subsidized farmers. Any program that gives money to encourage farmers making over 200 grand a year to destroy food isn't really working for me.

    And I don't see it as a benefit for those of us in other states. By destroying corn for fuel, it raises the price of food. It increases our deficit if government subsidized. And it doesn't help the energy crisis.

    And surely you're smart enough not to make the "at least it's an attempt" argument. After all, there are numerous ways we could "attempt" to solve the energy crisis, it doesn't mean they're productive, useful, promising, or good solutions.
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    11,115
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    You'll have to excuse me, SBC. I'm completely opposed to the status quo of government subsidized farmers. Any program that gives money to encourage farmers making over 200 grand a year to destroy food isn't really working for me.

    And I don't see it as a benefit for those of us in other states. By destroying corn for fuel, it raises the price of food. It increases our deficit if government subsidized. And it doesn't help the energy crisis.

    And surely you're smart enough not to make the "at least it's an attempt" argument. After all, there are numerous ways we could "attempt" to solve the energy crisis, it doesn't mean they're productive, useful, promising, or good solutions.
    Attempting is a lot better than not trying at all, which I expected the government to do, not try to fix the energy crisis.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    38,531
    vCash
    1750
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    You'll have to excuse me, SBC. I'm completely opposed to the status quo of government subsidized farmers. Any program that gives money to encourage farmers making over 200 grand a year to destroy food isn't really working for me.

    And I don't see it as a benefit for those of us in other states. By destroying corn for fuel, it raises the price of food. It increases our deficit if government subsidized. And it doesn't help the energy crisis.

    And surely you're smart enough not to make the "at least it's an attempt" argument. After all, there are numerous ways we could "attempt" to solve the energy crisis, it doesn't mean they're productive, useful, promising, or good solutions.
    Making $200,000 a year as a farmer is very misleading. The vehicles they use in the field are gashogs, the insurance they pay on their crops isn't cheap, the fertilizers they use to keep the corn healthy is expensive. Farmers don't have as much disposable income as you would think.

    And having farmers farm corn for ethanol is a HUGE benefit to other states beside the midwest. Farms were closing at an alarming rate in my area because it was becoming too expensive to farm and more cost effective to sell of the farm for residential development. Say a farmer has a plot of land and 80% of that goes toward food and 20% goes toward ethanol production. Having the guaranteed money from ethanol production (which is higher than selling corn just for food/animal feed) keeps the farmers in business and puts food on your plate.

    And you're right. There are many other ways to produce energy beside ethanol, and we should explore them. But we aren't at a rapid enough pace. So, for the time being, ethanol is a decent alternative.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    24,942
    vCash
    1500
    i very much agree w/ those who say it is often taken out of context.
    sometimes cuts have to be made, or there is already enough funding to certain things, or the bills do other things you dont want, or too much funding.
    you cant get rid of the deficit by spending like crazy on every single bill or vote that looks alright that comes your way.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by debo0775 View Post
    Making $200,000 a year as a farmer is very misleading. The vehicles they use in the field are gashogs, the insurance they pay on their crops isn't cheap, the fertilizers they use to keep the corn healthy is expensive. Farmers don't have as much disposable income as you would think.
    While that is true, if your profit after expenses is 200 grand, taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize you.

    And having farmers farm corn for ethanol is a HUGE benefit to other states beside the midwest. Farms were closing at an alarming rate in my area because it was becoming too expensive to farm and more cost effective to sell of the farm for residential development. Say a farmer has a plot of land and 80% of that goes toward food and 20% goes toward ethanol production. Having the guaranteed money from ethanol production (which is higher than selling corn just for food/animal feed) keeps the farmers in business and puts food on your plate.
    I'll remember this the next time my food prices go up I guess

    And you're right. There are many other ways to produce energy beside ethanol, and we should explore them. But we aren't at a rapid enough pace. So, for the time being, ethanol is a decent alternative.
    Eh, if decent means only perhaps.

    Quote Originally Posted by cambovenzi View Post
    i very much agree w/ those who say it is often taken out of context.
    sometimes cuts have to be made, or there is already enough funding to certain things, or the bills do other things you dont want, or too much funding.
    you cant get rid of the deficit by spending like crazy on every single bill or vote that looks alright that comes your way.
    Agreed 100%
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    You'll have to excuse me, SBC. I'm completely opposed to the status quo of government subsidized farmers. Any program that gives money to encourage farmers making over 200 grand a year to destroy food isn't really working for me.

    And I don't see it as a benefit for those of us in other states. By destroying corn for fuel, it raises the price of food. It increases our deficit if government subsidized. And it doesn't help the energy crisis.

    And surely you're smart enough not to make the "at least it's an attempt" argument. After all, there are numerous ways we could "attempt" to solve the energy crisis, it doesn't mean they're productive, useful, promising, or good solutions.
    How much field corn do you eat? I'm going to go with ... zero. It's a feedstock, it's not going into your canned creamed corn.

    And, I'd still rather see an attempt with ethanol rather than drills digging into the northern Alaska shoreline and off-shore California which only perpetuates a culture of dependence on an ever-continuing depleting resource.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •