Unemployment jumps to 9.8%

[sirs]

Ramrodding is not compromising.  Sorry, reality is still your enemy

Let's put it this way.....soon, when the GOP takes over majority control of the House, they will spearhead efforts to defund, if not derail much of Obama's agenda.  Likely, within the 1st 6 months, we'll see which one of us is right.  We'll see if Congress, which includes the Senate ACTUALLY overturns some of the Obama legislative achievements he signed into law.

And, if by some miracle that happens, then we'll see if Obama actually capitulates on those laws he signed, by not vetoing what congress sends him

And if that happens, you indeed will be right, and I will concede I was wrong

[BT]

Ramrodding is not compromising.  Sorry, reality is still your enemy

Ramrodding would be forcing the original concept, public option, single payer, a truly universal healthcare program down the throats of the American People. And that is not the reality of what happened.

[sirs]

No, ramrodding, would be pushing legislation, that had to be pushed thru the backdoors, outside of a filibuster, and despite overwhelming public opposition.

But as I said, if in June of '11, Congress, including the Senate, actually repeal some chunk of Obama's laws he's signed into place, and after that, he then declines to veto said repeal, then you will be right, and I will have been wrong

[BT]

No, ramrodding, would be pushing legislation, that had to be pushed thru the backdoors, outside of a filibuster, and despite overwhelming public opposition.

You are talking about parliamentary proceedures. Which the GOP is sure to use when they have a majority.

In a representative democracy, i'm not sure how much public opinion snapshots matter.
Public opinion comes into play during elections, not so much during the day to day execution of legislative action.
 
 

[sirs]

No, ramrodding, would be pushing legislation, that had to be pushed thru the backdoors, outside of a filibuster, and despite overwhelming public opposition.

You are talking about parliamentary proceedures. Which the GOP is sure to use when they have a majority.

And I'll condemn the GOP if they pull the same garbage the Dems pulled with Obamacare.  If a majority party wishes to circumvent both the rules in place, and the will of the public, they should be condemned and reap the electoral repercussions.  They STILL won't even have that option in the Senate

In a representative democracy, i'm not sure how much public opinion snapshots matter.

Matter?, yes.  Be required to be a part of the decision process, no

[Xavier_Onassis]

I consider it a jump, especially for those who have lost their jobs and have suffered under this administration's policies.

==========================
Oh, come off it.
It you made $50,000 last year and $50,100 this year, would that be a "jump " in pay?
 
.2% is not a jump. It makes no difference who is responsible.

[BT]

If a majority party wishes to circumvent both the rules in place, and the will of the public, they should be condemned and reap the electoral repercussions.

What rules did the dems circumvent?

[sirs]

They avoided standard Senate rules of the legislative process, when they circumvented the filibuster.  Before you try, yes, that has been done before, but not for legislation this important, this comprehensive, and this intervening by the Government

[BT]

They avoided standard Senate rules of the legislative process

Since each Senate session can change the standing rules by a simple majority at the beginning of that session, I'm not sure how they circumvented the rules they set.

Perhaps your disagreement is simply with the rules they set.

[sirs]

I'm not exactly sure why we're having this conversation, or why you're defending the crystal clear legsislative process put in place for legislation the likes of Obamacare.  Never has there been such massive legislation that was twisted around the standard process of the Senate, circumventing the filibuster

Perhaps it's an effort to redirect from the original issues you brought forth, in claiming how the Senate could easily turn Obama's agenda upside down while he sits on the sidelines and lets it happen, holstering his veto pin.                                       Perhaps

[BT]

I'm defending the constitutional provision that allows each house to set rules at the beginning of each session.

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote. In 1917, Senator Thomas J. Walsh[9] contended the majority of the Senate could revise a procedural rule at any time, despite the requirement of the Senate rules that a two-thirds majority is necessary to approve a rule change. "When the Constitution says, 'Each House may determine its rules of proceedings,' it means that each House may, by a majority vote, a quorum present, determine its rules," Walsh told the Senate. Opponents countered that Walsh's constitutional option would lead to procedural chaos, but his argument was a key factor in the adoption of the first cloture rule later that year. In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon issued an advisory opinion stating that no Senate may constitutionally enact a rule that deprives a future Senate of the right to approve its own rules by the vote of a simple majority.[10] Nixon's advisory opinion, along with similar opinions by Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller, has been cited as precedent to support the view that the Senate may amend its rules at the beginning of the session with a simple majority vote.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Changes_to_Senate_rules

You seem to be arguing that the constitution does not apply.

[BT]

Looks like Brooks was right:

President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed Monday to a tentative deal that would extend for two years all the Bush-era income tax breaks set to expire on Dec. 31, continue unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months and cut payroll taxes for workers to encourage employers to start hiring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923.html

[sirs]

I guess we'll have to wait for Juneish to see which one of us is right

[R.R.]

Oh, come off it.
It you made $50,000 last year and $50,100 this year, would that be a "jump " in pay?
 
.2% is not a jump. It makes no difference who is responsible.

And yet a 3% increase in pay would only be an increase of $1.38 per hour, which would not be a "jump" in pay either. Your example was not comparable. We were talking about an increase in the unemployment rate, not pay.

It is a jump based on all the reasons that Sirs articulated.

[R.R.]

What do all these newspaper headlines have in common, XO?

US unemployment jumps to 9.8 percent 
UPI.com - ‎Dec 3, 2010‎

Labor Department: Unemployment Jumps to 9.8 Percent
Slate Magazine 

US Unemployment Rate Jumps To 9.8 Percent
NPR

US unemployment unexpectedly jumps to 9.8pc prompting recovery fears
Telegraph.co.uk

Unemployment jumps to 9.8 percent ? highest since April 
Christian Science Monitor - ‎Dec 3, 2010‎
 
Unemployment Jumps to 9.8% Improved Mortgage Rates on the Horizon? 
Personal Finance Bulletin - Susie Bayer - ‎Dec 3, 2010‎

This month's Employment Situation report took everyone by surprise showing a jump in the unemployment rate from 9.6% to 9.8%.

U.S. payrolls barely rise, jobless rate jumps Reuters DATA ROUND-UP Benzinga US November

Unemployment Rate Jumps Higher
Action Forex ForexTV.com - Vancouver Sun

Unemployment jumps to 9.8 percent despite upturn in business optimism 
Chicago Tribune  - ‎Dec 3, 2010‎

U.S. unemployment rate jumps to 9.8 percent 
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle - Jim Stinson - ‎Dec 4, 2010‎