Boehner cuts off C-Span cameras as GOP takes beating

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/2...takes-beating/

A strange thing happened Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill.

As Rep. Stenny Hoyer (D-MD) attempted to call for a vote to extend a payroll tax cut to middle class and working Americans, his Republican colleagues adjourned the House and walked out of the chamber. And if that weren’t odd enough, it got even stranger: As Hoyer railed against them for failing to help working Americans, footage from C-SPAN went silent, then cut away.

Moments later, C-SPAN took to the Internet to explain that it wasn’t their doing, but someone working for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH

The incident occurred mere moments after the House went into session. Hoyer made a motion for a vote on the Senate’s payroll tax cut extension, which would extend the lower rates for another two months, but the Republican presiding over the House did not acknowledge the motion. He instead adjourned the House, then got up and walked out.

“As you walk off the floor, Mr. Speaker, you’re walking away, just as so many Republicans have walked away from taxpayers, the unemployed, and very frankly, as well, from those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors, 48 million senior citizens,” Hoyer can be heard saying.

“We regret, Mr. Speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing the issue of critical importance to this country, and that is the continuation of the middle class tax cut, the continuation of unemployment benefits for those at risk of losing them, and a continuation of the access to doctors for all those 48 million seniors who rely on them daily for help.”

And that’s when the audio cut out. Seconds later, footage faded to a shot of the capitol from outside.

Moments later, someone at C-SPAN took to Twitter and explained: “C-SPAN has no control over the U.S. House TV cameras – the Speaker of the House does.”

It’s for reasons just like this, one might infer, that Boehner told C-SPAN back in February it would not be allowed control its own cameras.


-What the....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/2...takes-beating/

A strange thing happened Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill.

As Rep. Stenny Hoyer (D-MD) attempted to call for a vote to extend a payroll tax cut to middle class and working Americans, his Republican colleagues adjourned the House and walked out of the chamber. And if that weren’t odd enough, it got even stranger: As Hoyer railed against them for failing to help working Americans, footage from C-SPAN went silent, then cut away.

Moments later, C-SPAN took to the Internet to explain that it wasn’t their doing, but someone working for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH

The incident occurred mere moments after the House went into session. Hoyer made a motion for a vote on the Senate’s payroll tax cut extension, which would extend the lower rates for another two months, but the Republican presiding over the House did not acknowledge the motion. He instead adjourned the House, then got up and walked out.

“As you walk off the floor, Mr. Speaker, you’re walking away, just as so many Republicans have walked away from taxpayers, the unemployed, and very frankly, as well, from those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors, 48 million senior citizens,” Hoyer can be heard saying.

“We regret, Mr. Speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing the issue of critical importance to this country, and that is the continuation of the middle class tax cut, the continuation of unemployment benefits for those at risk of losing them, and a continuation of the access to doctors for all those 48 million seniors who rely on them daily for help.”

And that’s when the audio cut out. Seconds later, footage faded to a shot of the capitol from outside.

Moments later, someone at C-SPAN took to Twitter and explained: “C-SPAN has no control over the U.S. House TV cameras – the Speaker of the House does.”

It’s for reasons just like this, one might infer, that Boehner told C-SPAN back in February it would not be allowed control its own cameras.


-What the....?

---

It's a punk move

:lmao :lmao

Quote:

---

Just before the House of Representatives cravenly backed away from an extension of the payroll tax-cut for 160 million Americans, a bunch of Republican lawmakers gathered in a conference room for the express purpose of bucking up one another and expressing confidence in Speaker John Boehner.

As many as 10 of these GOPers stepped to the microphone to invoke scenes from the gory movie “Braveheart,” in which Mel Gibson (above) played the heroic William Wallace.

One of these Republican pols, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, later put it this way in an interview on Fox News Channel: “This is a ‘Braveheart’ moment. You, Mr. Speaker, are our William Wallace.”

---

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesau...veheart-movie/


:lmao Wallace ended up beheaded :lmao

Everyone wants a one year extension.

I personally think the Senate was criminally negligent in not passing one.

Quote:

---

I personally think the Senate was criminally negligent in not passing one.

---

Criminally?

Did I miss something?

If either side had balls they'd make is a permanent reduction that goes even further, and they'd be honest about it and say it's the weening off of the SS teet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Criminally?

Did I miss something?

---

Sorry Scott. Didn't mean it in the literal sense of the word.

Just laziness and neglect of their job...they wouldn't take the time to work out their differences on a one year extension so just voted on the two month extension so they could leave town....Now, even if the House DID pass the two month extension, they still have to come back and go through the whole damn process again...

Gotcha.

a permanent reduction in SS is exactly what the Repugs want, to destroy SS sooner.

SS needs to increased permanently, not reduced.

the SS reduction for 1 year is only $120B, as stimulus that's too small given the enormity of the Banksters Great Jobs Depression. The huge failure of the original stimulus is that it should have been about $2T (compared to the $30T handed out w/o drug testing to the bankers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

a permanent reduction in SS is exactly what the Repugs want, to destroy SS sooner.

SS needs to increased permanently, not reduced.

the SS reduction for 1 year is only $120B, as stimulus that's too small given the enormity of the Banksters Great Jobs Depression. The huge failure of the original stimulus is that it should have been about $2T (compared to the $30T handed out w/o drug testing to the bankers).

---

The SS witholding doesn't go into the SS "lockbox" anyway...it just goes into the general fund. Extending or eliminating the witholding reduction is essentially just a tax reduction that affects the lower and middle classes more than the wealthy.

The HOuse isn't willing to compromise on anything so why not pass this and come back and fight it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

The HOuse isn't willing to compromise on anything so why not pass this and come back and fight it out.

---

Two months isn't gonna change anything...Why is the Senate plan good for two months but not twelve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Two months isn't gonna change anything...Why is the Senate plan good for two months but not twelve?

---

2 months is something. its 2 months of tax breaks in the holiday months. It's not nothing.

plus 2 months is 1/6th. 1/6th of something is nothing? :downspin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Two months isn't gonna change anything...Why is the Senate plan good for two months but not twelve?

---

They can't agree on how to pay for it. They were able to find agreement to pay for it for 2 months, but not 12. Passing the two month extension gives them two months to negotiate on how to pay for the other 10 months.

I am sure most Americans would have been fine with the democrats initial suggestion to pay for the whole thing with a surtax on millionaires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

I am sure most Americans would have been fine with the democrats initial suggestion to pay for the whole thing with a surtax on millionaires.

---

Well, that's not gonna happen. You know it, I know it, and they know it. Might as well figure out Plan B now instead of 2 months from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Well, that's not gonna happen. You know it, I know it, and they know it. Might as well figure out Plan B now instead of 2 months from now.

---

I think figuring out plan b is going to take longer than 10 days. The senate agrees, which is why they overwhelmingly supported the 2 month extension (with 80% of republican support).

This is just another hissy from the fucking morons in the tea party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

a permanent reduction in SS is exactly what the Repugs want, to destroy SS sooner.

SS needs to increased permanently, not reduced.

the SS reduction for 1 year is only $120B, as stimulus that's too small given the enormity of the Banksters Great Jobs Depression. The huge failure of the original stimulus is that it should have been about $2T (compared to the $30T handed out w/o drug testing to the bankers).

---

I think it should permanently go away, personally. And I'm hardly a "repug"

I see more GOP members are calling out their own party to get their act together and get the deal done. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

I think it should permanently go away, personally. And I'm hardly a "repug"

---

what do you want to replace SS with?

the amazing thing is the 9% of the polled Americans approve of Congress. :lol

lol Boehner put Hoyer on IGNORE.

at least he's cut the crying routine. if this "mexican stand-off" was happening last year, Boehner would be blubbering like a lady on every cable news show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

what do you want to replace SS with?

---

Personal responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Personal responsibility.

---

:lol

Seriously?

What a chump move by Boehner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

What a chump move by Boehner.

---

Countering a chump move by Reed.

They both suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Countering a chump move by Reed.

They both suck.

---

No, Reed got 89 votes on a bi-partisan bill in one of the most partisan climates ever.

Boehner won't even let it go to a vote in the House and then he pulls this stunt.

Boeher is the chump, and he wants you to think his disgraceful actions are somehow both sides' fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

:lol

Seriously?

---

What about it do you not find serious?

Note, I didn't ask what about it you disagree with. There is a not-so-subtle difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

What about it do you not find serious?

Note, I didn't ask what about it you disagree with. There is a not-so-subtle difference.

---

You seriously want people to take care of their own retirement? That's a very broad stance...to which degree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Everyone wants a one year extension.

I personally think the Senate was criminally negligent in not passing one.

---

No, I don't want it. Sure, I don't want to pay more, but I would rather have my marginal rates reduced. I believe SS need to go up as much as another percent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

You seriously want people to take care of their own retirement? That's a very broad stance...to which degree?

---

Well, my problem with SS (and any pension plan that provides a guaranteed annuity) is they inherently magnify market risk. The contributions that go into the system, are invested (for SS purposes, generally in very low-risk/low-return vehicles) and the contributor is guaranteed an annuity based some metric of their average earnings.

However when the fund fails to generate the return necessary, it leaves the fund with a shortfall (like we have now) where current generations are paying for previous generations as opposed to their own generation. The annuity has promised more than it was able to fund (and perhaps for exogenous reasons - if the market returned a below-expected rate of return, then the problem is created).

So what would Scott support?

I would be in favor of mandatory contributions to a retirement system, even with the same mandated employer match as exists for the SS system: but not funding a pension system that is subject to market risk that creates underfunding.

Instead, I would prefer those contributions go to retirement accounts that are tied to the individual contributing.

Sound like privatizing SS to you? Well, it basically is... though we don't have to necessarily make it private, if that is a major concern (though I'm not sure I fully agree with the concern).

I wouldn't be opposed to a federal agency that administers these retirement plans (and "approves" which investments would be allowable under the plan) so long as the cost is commensurate with it would cost to "privatize" it. (Though I don't really see the tremendous value in doing this over privatizing).

Worried about wealth inequality? We can still put measures in place to "normalize" distributions on retirement so that inequality simply does not transfer to the elderly.

Again, to summarize, I want a plan that isn't subject to gross underfunding as a result of market risk. As boutons already stated in this thread "we should raise SS taxes, not lower them" - that is generally a true statement IF YOU WANT TO SAVE SS IN ITS CURRENT FORM. I'm not interested in doing so, because the same underfunding problem will always be inherent and will in fact continue to compound. Raising taxes to try to save will be chasing the dragon... we'll get close, but we'll never catch it.

what a pussy

Looks like the house republicans folded http://www.nationaljournal.com/congr...-deal-20111222

is Boehner crying?

They can do it all again in 2 months.

do they pump toxic gasses into the capital why the fuck are all fo them some dumb

Its almost like they are saying "the bosses are watching, what can we do to look busy?" "Oh! I know, we can do the same thing over and over again to look busy"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

do they pump toxic gasses into the capital why the fuck are all fo them some dumb

---

I am not so sure its a lack of intelligence. Quite the opposite actually.

Theyve made themselves to be fools in the public eye while shilling special interests and lobbyists for millions in campaign donations, all the while securing a career post-politics that entails doing nothing and being paid millions to do what they did in office...nothing.

Really, the joke isnt on them, its on us.

UCA want, and gets, the paralysis and corruption in DC that it pays for.

It's quite amazing that Barry got the EPA to restrict mercury, and other shit from coal plants. I'm sure it never would have happened under the Repugs, who will probably nullify/not-enforce the rules when they have a chance.

Nothing Human-Americans, esp not silly farts who support Ron Paul, can do about. Out of our control.

:lmao Congress passes tax bill

:lmao at this pic

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/PqZ..._USA-TAXES.JPG

It was great to see Boehner earlier with his GOP posse behind him and then when they caved he was up there all by himself. His day as SOTH are numbered.

Flaming asshole Cantor is up next as SOTH?

Boehner’s office cuts C-SPAN video again as House Dems protest

For the second time in recent weeks, C-SPAN’s video on Friday morning cut away from high drama in the U.S. Congress as Democrats demanded to be heard, only to see their session immediately shut down by Republicans.

In another so-called “pro forma” session, or a session of Congress staged merely as formality in order to block presidential recess appointments, the House of Representatives was gaveled in on Friday and immediately gaveled out again, even as Democrats took to the floor demanding to know where their Republican colleagues were.

After the session was initiated, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) stood and asked Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), “Where are the Republicans?” He was joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and a small assemblage of other Democrats who’ve been pushing to extend lower payroll tax rates to working Americans.

“The gentleman is out of order,” Denham replied. After citing a few House rules and the GOP’s resolution to not conduct business again until Tuesday, he then gaveled the session out and walked off the stage, even as Clyburn remained at the podium.

Seconds later, C-SPAN’s video was cut.

“The House will be back on Tuesday, next Tuesday, for another pro forma session,” a C-SPAN host explained as the shot faded to an exterior view of the capitol. “They’ve been holding these pro forma sessions every couple of days to keep the — an attempt to keep the president from making recess appointments.

“You saw there James Clyburn of South Carolina trying to be recognized by the speaker pro tem, and he refused to be recognized and gaveled the session closed. Just a reminder, too: those cameras at the House are under control of the House gallery, there.”




http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/0...e+Raw+Story%29

I see you post every time the republicans do this.

Why didn't you make these posts everything the democrats were doing it? I think it was occurring on a daily basis when the democrats had control of the house. I'll bet C-Span 2 still isn't covering the senate as much as C-Span 1 is covering the house.

Damn those people are living the high life off that SS check every month. If only I could have their standard of living.

"everything the democrats were doing it"

why don't you post it now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Well, my problem with SS (and any pension plan that provides a guaranteed annuity) is they inherently magnify market risk. The contributions that go into the system, are invested (for SS purposes, generally in very low-risk/low-return vehicles) and the contributor is guaranteed an annuity based some metric of their average earnings.

However when the fund fails to generate the return necessary, it leaves the fund with a shortfall (like we have now) where current generations are paying for previous generations as opposed to their own generation. The annuity has promised more than it was able to fund (and perhaps for exogenous reasons - if the market returned a below-expected rate of return, then the problem is created).

So what would Scott support?

I would be in favor of mandatory contributions to a retirement system, even with the same mandated employer match as exists for the SS system: but not funding a pension system that is subject to market risk that creates underfunding.

Instead, I would prefer those contributions go to retirement accounts that are tied to the individual contributing.

Sound like privatizing SS to you? Well, it basically is... though we don't have to necessarily make it private, if that is a major concern (though I'm not sure I fully agree with the concern).

I wouldn't be opposed to a federal agency that administers these retirement plans (and "approves" which investments would be allowable under the plan) so long as the cost is commensurate with it would cost to "privatize" it. (Though I don't really see the tremendous value in doing this over privatizing).

Worried about wealth inequality? We can still put measures in place to "normalize" distributions on retirement so that inequality simply does not transfer to the elderly.

Again, to summarize, I want a plan that isn't subject to gross underfunding as a result of market risk. As boutons already stated in this thread "we should raise SS taxes, not lower them" - that is generally a true statement IF YOU WANT TO SAVE SS IN ITS CURRENT FORM. I'm not interested in doing so, because the same underfunding problem will always be inherent and will in fact continue to compound. Raising taxes to try to save will be chasing the dragon... we'll get close, but we'll never catch it.

---

Scott for president. I agree with all of this.

Also, the fact that Republican refusal to increase our young adult immigration rates to counteract baby boomer retirement is a death knell for the current system. There aren't enough workers to fund retirement in this country, period. Every other 1st world country has engaged in this (it also finds a lot of home buyers), we haven't and we're screwed.

This is the single biggest issue effecting the future of the country.
People keep talking about band-aids or ideologies without a straight forward solution. The rich won't jump on it unless they can use the funds for investment, the poor won't do it with the risk of losing it all and the rednecks won't do it because they're all gut and no brain.

This situation is enough for anyone productive under the age of 40 to leave the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"everything the democrats were doing it"

why don't you post it now?

---

I don't go looking for thing like that, like you do.

Quote:

---

the same underfunding problem will always be inherent

---

In 1983 Raygun and GreenSpin doubled our Social Security payments (and cut the uber rich's payments but that's another story). The Baby Boomers were the 1st generation to pay for two retirements - their parents and their own. Before Raygun, Social Security payments went directly to the retired generation so in effect the working kids paid for their parent's retirement. But Raygun changed all that.

The Baby Boomer's money is in the Social Security Trust Fund. That's where their retirement payouts will come from. That Trust Fund is suppose to go to zero after we Baby Boomers have passed on.

That leaves our children to pay for only their own Social Security. Ever cent our kids contribute to Social Security today goes to them (and the disabled and orphans of their generation).

So, we have paid for our parent's retirements and we have paid for our own retirements and now our federal government wants to take it away from us to pay for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.

That's not a ponzi scheme, that's down right fraud.

Well......there you again....
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...to-work-video/
Republicans Cut C-SPAN Feed As House Democrats Take To The Floor To Demand The GOP Get Back To Work.

House Democrats took the fight to the Republicans on Friday when they rushed to the floor of the House to demand that the GOP get back to work and cut short a recess that will last till the end of January.

As James Clyburn demanded to know where the Republicans were at, the House Leadership cut the C-SPAN feed and shut off the microphones. This marks the second time that House Republicans have censored the Democrats in an effort to keep the American people from seeing what is happening on the House floor. As C-SPAN has noted, the House Speaker controls the cameras and microphones.

Apparently Republicans can’t be bothered to do their jobs. Most Americans are already back to work after the holiday season. Millions of Americans still don’t have jobs at all and are struggling day to day. Only Republican politicians don’t seem to let that interfere with their own over extended vacations.

LOL...

They don't convene till 1/17, and are doing their jobs. the question is... why aren't the democrats?

This is a time for congressional members to visit their districts.

Keep up the propaganda!

2012 calendar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL...

They don't convene till 1/17, and are doing their jobs. the question is... why aren't the democrats?

This is a time for congressional members to visit their districts.

Keep up the propaganda!

2012 calendar

---

Aren't they in session now?

Maybe the democrats stunt worked.