SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

June 21st, 2007, 12:48 pm

Dems running the show, speaker Pelosi, etcconfidence in Congress at all time lowQuoteJust 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress. This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994. And it seems that despite complaints about the RINOs spending money like drunken sailors when they ran the show, things are even worse with the Dems in chargeQuoteBush is confronting Democrats over their plans to spend $23 billion more than the $933 billion indiscretionary spending he requested for the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills.
 
User avatar
PaperCut
Posts: 1616
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:45 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

July 2nd, 2007, 1:08 am

Whew ! It's a good thing those guys got elected. Looks like the war would still be raging if they hadn't.Wait a second. You mean they haven't stopped the war? But they promised. You don't suppose they might be the sort of people who...don't keep promises, do you?Hmm...
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

September 19th, 2007, 12:40 pm

deja vu all over againA paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July
 
User avatar
hullabaloo
Posts: 122
Joined: July 27th, 2007, 11:17 am

how's that new congress doing ?

September 25th, 2007, 7:34 pm

The Republican strategy is now clear: Block every major effort by the majority in Congress to pass legislation sought by the American people, and then blame Democrats for a “do-nothing Congress.”Republicans want to tear down the temple in the hope that both parties will be equally discredited in the rubble. This is akin to someone mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn’t delivered on time.But we are exposing the scheme and the obstructionists who are carrying it out.Get the full story:
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

September 25th, 2007, 10:52 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: hullabalooThe Republican strategy is now clear: Block every major effort by the majority in Congress to pass legislation sought by the American people, and then blame Democrats for a “do-nothing Congress.”Republicans want to tear down the temple in the hope that both parties will be equally discredited in the rubble. This is akin to someone mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn’t delivered on time.But we are exposing the scheme and the obstructionists who are carrying it out.Get the full story:Ah, what it is to get wise to the ways of the world. Shattered all our childhood delusions?
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

September 26th, 2007, 1:11 pm

that's odd. I don't remember hullabaloo being opposed to filibusters when the dems were the minority.
 
User avatar
hullabaloo
Posts: 122
Joined: July 27th, 2007, 11:17 am

how's that new congress doing ?

September 26th, 2007, 1:52 pm

which ones did you have in mind
 
User avatar
PaperCut
Posts: 1616
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:45 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

September 27th, 2007, 2:49 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: hullabalooThe Republican strategy is now clear: Block every major effort by the majority in Congress to pass legislation sought by the American people, and then blame Democrats for a “do-nothing Congress.”Republicans want to tear down the temple in the hope that both parties will be equally discredited in the rubble. This is akin to someone mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn’t delivered on time.But we are exposing the scheme and the obstructionists who are carrying it out.Get the full story:Bullshit. Here is an article of interest, from the AP. (I found it on Yahoo.)Let's not make up incorrect party characterizations of "good guys versus bad." To wit:**********************************************Dems can't make guarantee on Iraq troops By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer HANOVER, N.H. - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013. "I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state."It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York."I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not."I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.Foreign policy blended with domestic issues at the debate on a Dartmouth College stage, and several of the contenders endorsed payroll tax increases to assure a stable Social Security system.Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, as well as Dodd, Obama and Edwards all said they would apply the tax to income now exempted.Richardson said he wouldn't and Clinton refused to say. "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table" unilaterally, she said.Current law levies a 6.2 percent payroll tax only on an individual's first $97,500 in annual income.Biden also said he was willing to consider gradually raising the retirement age, which is now 67.Kucinich said that while he favors taxing additional income, he wants to return the retirement age to 65, where it stood until the law was changed in 1983.Health care, and the drive for universal coverage, also figured in the debate."I intend to be the health care president," said Clinton, adding she can now succeed at an undertaking that defeated her in 1993 when she was first lady.But Biden said that unnamed special interests were no more willing to work with Clinton now than they were more than a decade ago."I'm not suggesting it's Hillary's fault...It's reality," he said, carefully avoiding a personal attack on the Democrat who leads in the polls.Biden said a "lot of old stuff comes back" from past battles, adding, "when I say old stuff I mean policy. Policy."Across the stage, Clinton smiled at that. The moment was not the only one in which attention turned to the former first lady, a campaign front-runner bidding to become the first woman president. Asked whether presidential libraries and foundations should disclose their donors, she said she had sponsored legislation requiring it. Asked whether her husband's foundation should voluntary disclose, absent a requirement, she said, "you'll have to ask them." "I don't think about my private conversations with my husband," she added. She seemed to suggest differently at another point, after being asked whether she would ever approve torturing a suspected terrorist to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb. She said no, and Russert said former President Clinton, her husband, once suggested it might be appropriate. "Well, he's not standing here right now," she said, an edge in her voice. There is a disagreement, Russert rejoined. "Well, I'll talk to him later," she said with a smile. A question about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 drew a cheer from the students listening in the Dartmouth auditorium. And expressions of support only from former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Kucinich. The opening question of the two-hour debate instantly plunged the eight contenders into the issue that has dominated all others — the war in Iraq. With the primary season approaching, all eight have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters likely to provide money and organizing muscle as the campaign progresses. Edwards said his position on Iraq was different from Obama and Clinton, adding he would "immediately drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops." That's roughly half the 100,000 that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated could be stationed there when President Bush's term ends in January 2009. Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton's, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. "I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq," he said. Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way. Asked whether they were prepared to use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, several of the hopefuls sidestepped. Instead, they said, all diplomacy must be exhausted in the effort. Moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani's pledge to set back Iran by eight to 10 years if it tries to gain nuclear standing. Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. "Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about," said Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "He's the most uninformed person on foreign policy that's now running for president." The debate unfolded in the state that has held the first presidential primary in every campaign for generations. The contest is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 22, but that is expected to change as other states maneuver for early voting position in the campaign calendar. The debate was broadcast on MSNBC, New Hampshire Public Radio and New England Cable News.
 
User avatar
hullabaloo
Posts: 122
Joined: July 27th, 2007, 11:17 am

how's that new congress doing ?

September 27th, 2007, 11:26 am

-- Bullshit. Here is an article of interest, from the AP. (I found it on Yahoo.)-- Let's not make up incorrect party characterizations of "good guys versus bad."-- To what:I fail to see how your blurb disagrees with the previously published data. i.e. you forgot to make a point that was relevant to the topic at hand. But I would not worry about it, it happens a lot around here.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

September 27th, 2007, 12:43 pm

nice post, mr papercut
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

September 27th, 2007, 12:53 pm

hullabaloo:I was trying to ascertain if you're intrinsically opposed to the use of the filibuster to block legislation,or only opposed to its use by republicansthe dems have not been averse to filibustering legislation in the past.For example the Democrats blocked a number of measures in the 108th Congress, including:Quote• The Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 (S. 2062), which would close a loophole infederal court jurisdiction rules and create a consumer bill of rights in order to preventtrial lawyers from abusing class action procedures at the public’s expense [filibusteredin the Senate];• The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2004 (S. 2290), which wouldreduce the prevalence of attorney-driven fraud and manipulation in asbestos-relatedlawsuits by establishing a privately funded trust fund to compensate asbestos victims[filibustered in the Senate];• The Patients First Act of 2003 (S. 11), which would help healthcare providers affordmedical liability insurance coverage by setting sensible limits on compensation fornon-economic damages [filibustered in the Senate];• The Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6), which would provide a comprehensivenational energy policy that balances domestic energy production with conservationand efficiency efforts to enhance America’s security and decrease our dependence onforeign sources of oil [House passed Conference Report in 2003; Conference Reportfilibustered in the Senate];• The Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE)Act (H.R. 4), which would maintain the phenomenal success of the 1996 welfarereform law by continuing to give states flexibility in providing the services that lowincomefamilies need to become self-sufficient [House passed in 2003; filibustered inthe Senate];• The Confirmation of Highly Qualified Federal Judges. For the first time in U.S.history, a partisan minority of Senators has filibustered judicial nominations to thefederal bench, threatening the administration of justice as the nation’s federal courtscontinue to struggle to cope with judicial vacancies. Democrats have blocked up-ordownvotes on 10 judicial nominees this Congress.In addition, Democrats refuse to go to conference on the following bills passed by the Senate:the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (S. 150); the Charity Aid, Recovery, andEmpowerment (CARE) Act of 2003 (S. 476); and the Workforce Investment Act (S. 1627/H.R.1261). These bills will not become law until Democrats cease their obstructionism.However, the issue is not whether you think these particular bills should have been blocked,but rather whether you are opposed to the filibuster or only republican filibusters
 
User avatar
hullabaloo
Posts: 122
Joined: July 27th, 2007, 11:17 am

how's that new congress doing ?

September 27th, 2007, 1:35 pm

I like this one "The Patients First Act of 2003", which restricts the amount of compensation that said patient can receive. As they say do not judge a book by its cover.The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

September 27th, 2007, 1:50 pm

hullabaloo, I didn't understand your answer to the question of whether you're intrinsically opposed to the use of the filibuster to block legislation, or only opposed to its use by republicans
 
User avatar
hullabaloo
Posts: 122
Joined: July 27th, 2007, 11:17 am

how's that new congress doing ?

September 27th, 2007, 2:11 pm

This is a deliberate strategy. Republican whip Trent Lott told Roll Call, “The strategy of beingobstructionist can work or fail… and so far, it’s working for us.”2 Democrats are the ones taking theblame for not getting anything done.The Senate and the President, however, stopped progress. The President vetoed the bill that wouldend the occupation of Iraq. Republicans continually threaten to filibuster, requiring 60 votes forcloture (a limit on debate) to proceed on a wide variety of measures. The first session of the 110thCongress saw 45 cloture votes in eight months,1 far above historical norms (see the chart on thenext page). Republicans are on pace to bring the number of filibuster threats and cloture votes to alevel nearly half again as high as the 108th and 109th Congress put together.Obstruction
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

how's that new congress doing ?

September 27th, 2007, 9:52 pm

Poor dibs, people not playing by your rules again?
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On