How would you vote?
|
Posted By: www.MoronInCharge.com Posted on: Sep. 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM |
3.7 / 5
Based on 3 ratings.
|
For those who claim their is little difference between the two men, I have 32 reasons that say otherwise. For those of you who think you already know these men enough to put one in the Oval Office, I have 32 questions to ask you.
The follow issues have come before the Senate for a vote while both Barack Obama and John McCain were in attendance. Each man voted YES or NO on these issues. Each man voted differently from the other. Ask yourself how you would have voted, and then compare your results with the actually voting record of the man you thought you knew. Answers to follow . . .
I know that I will not change the minds of any hardcore liberals or harcore conservatives by this little exercise, but there are a lot of people in the middle who are still basing their vote on word of mouth information and gut feelings. It would be nice to infuse real data into the decision-making process. Compliments to TPM Cafe for compiling this list.
**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.
Comments:
|
Sep. 29, 2008 at 09:12:22 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Patricia L Johnson on Sep. 29, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM]
Patricia L Johnson
Sep. 29, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM Your post is great and it would be nice if it was that simple to vote yeah or nay. Unfortunately, the various amendments don't consist of one sentence, so you really can't look at the 32 statements listed above and vote yeah or nay without first looking... View this Comment If we were talking about any particular vote, I would agree with you completely. But we are talking about 32 separate votes where the two men voted differently from each other. At some point a trend begins to appear, the extenuating circumstances of a small subset of these bills begin to cancel each other out, and a pattern of voting becomes established. We can always point to a few votes that appear unflattering on the surface, but make perfect sense when placed in context. And with omnibus legislation, this happens more and more often -- you object to one part of the bill but love the other. However, as stated above, most of the above were specific single-issue amendments to larger bills, not poison pills. As such, the majority of these votes were cast on ideological principles, and not upon weighty deliberation of conflicting interests. |
||
|
Anonymous Voice #36447
Sep. 29, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by Patricia L Johnson on Sep. 29, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM]
Patricia L Johnson
Sep. 29, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM Your post is great and it would be nice if it was that simple to vote yeah or nay. Unfortunately, the various amendments don't consist of one sentence, so you really can't look at the 32 statements listed above and vote yeah or nay without first looking... View this Comment www.MoronInCharge.com is correct. |
||
|
Sep. 29, 2008 at 10:35:53 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
C'mon Mick - if you'd read the McSame's remarks before the vote on each of these amendments, you'd jump the Obama ship immediately! That's why Hillary's supporters kept her anti-war comments before her pro-war vote under wraps!Which nanny state are you for anyway? For old peeps, kids, the disabled, mentally ill, veterans, consumers - or for Wall Street? |
||
|
Sep. 29, 2008 at 01:45:07 PM
|
||
| MiC I would not put much stock in a sentance or phrase to describe a bill. We have learned alot about "creative phrasing" to describe things offered to congress to vote on, especially in the past 8 or so years. We do not know why each senator ultimatly made his decision, including but not limited to whether it was a "clean" bill, or a bundle in which to get the thing the Senator wanted, he must accept something he didn't want in exchange. I think that if you were to choose by the voting record which Senator to vote you would have to read the whole bill...at least I would not just depend on it's title or s simple phrase to describe it to make a decision. I think I will go with a pattern of record, including the voting record of what actually comes out in legislation into codified law that I think is in my best interests, and the impact of that legislation on my life, family, community, finances, etc. Overall I will listen to the general tone of each candidate to hear what his impression is about people like me and in my situations. I will give an ear to each of them to see if I can realte to them, and if they communicate to me as if I am an adult with a reasonable amount of intelligence (not condecending or over bearing) There has to be a consistancy to what he says, and it must match what he does overall. He must not seem to change his mind to suit the audience he is talking to just to get appause. I like a strategist better than a tactician, and bottom up targeted but effective thought processesand actions even if they are not off the cuff, or genuinely the candidate's own. You can see now that MANY people will make thier decision as I will because the finacial tumult we face at this very moment was caused by the stances that actually became codified law, or the stances which were ment to prevent or limit this tumult that were repealed, restricted, or ignored in the recent past. They will watch how each candidate addresses this crisis, how they act, what thought processes, and who influences those what happens.
|
||
|
Sep. 29, 2008 at 02:26:08 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Zanubiyah on Sep. 29, 2008 at 01:45:07 PM]
Zanubiyah
Sep. 29, 2008 at 01:45:07 PM MiC I would not put much stock in a sentance or phrase to describe a bill. We have learned alot about "creative phrasing" to describe things offered to congress to vote on, especially in the past 8 or so years. We do not know why... View this Comment I'm sorry, but if you can't go on their voting record to establish a pattern to their thinking, then all you have left are their promises. By all means, place their votes in context. Research the background and extenuating circumstances associated with each vote. But it is their voting record that puts meat on the bones of their promises, or strips it away. As I said, most of these votes were on very focused single-issue amendments to much larger bills. By and large, the intent of these amendments were unambiguous, and thus a yea or nay vote should also be unambiguous. One data point has a wide margin of error; 32 data points and you can start to draw a line through them. |
||
|
Sep. 29, 2008 at 02:28:55 PM
|
||
BTW, in case anyone wanted to know: John McCain voted NO on each one of these measures;Barack Obama voted YES |
||
|
Sep. 29, 2008 at 02:48:50 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| This is what I call bull s*** questions pull a line out of your ASS that makes you happy and post it.You must think we are all fools morgan.
|
||
|
Sep. 29, 2008 at 02:53:16 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Sep. 29, 2008 at 02:28:55 PM]
www.MoronInCharge.com
Sep. 29, 2008 at 02:28:55 PM BTW, in case anyone wanted to know: John McCain voted NO on each one of these measures; Barack Obama voted... View this Comment I am sure happy i am not paying your salary. If I had a employee that makes your dollars and saw him posting this crap during his shift I would fire him. In fact if I knew who you worked for I would send all of your bulls*** over to them now. I guess a little homework needs to be done on my end. HeH |
||
|
Sep. 29, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by know it All on Sep. 29, 2008 at 02:53:16 PM]
know it All
Sep. 29, 2008 at 02:53:16 PM I am sure happy i am not paying your salary. If I had a employee that makes your dollars and saw him posting this crap during his shift I would fire him. In fact if I knew who you worked for I would send all of your bulls*** over to them now. I guess a... View this Comment Good luck with that Matlock. |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


During the debate the moderator asked McCain and Obama if they were going to support the $700 billion dollar bailout. The request sent to Congress on the bailout, was 3-pages long, but the actual draft of the legislation is 110 pages long and wasn't available until after the debate was over.
Referencing a particular vote is something that politicians continually do, knowing full well that the majority of voters are NOT going to go back and read the actual bill. In many instances, the voter doesn't even know there are different versions of the bill, so someone might refer to a particular passage in a bill, and although the language was in the bill, it wasn't the final legislation that passed.
Obama continually used Hillary's vote against her (on the resolution to give GW authorization to use military force in Iraq, if necessary). Had the voters researched that particular bill, they would have read the speech that Hillary gave on the Senate floor before casting her vote and more than likely that speech would have swayed voters in her favor.
P.
Report Abuse