Roland Burris & the passage of the Obama Stimulus/Spending Bill ...

@ladyluna (7004)
United States
February 16, 2009 11:25am CST
Hello All, Geesh, no rest for the wicked! Well, now that Roland Burris' appointment to the U.S. Senate (by former Illinois Governor Rod Blogojovich) has come under scrutiny, what happens to the Obama Stimulus/Spending bill if Burris is forced to resign or steps down to avoid prosecution? If Burris purjered himself to obtain the Senate seat, then wouldn't that nullify his "yes" vote on the 787,000,000,000.00 Obama bill? The FBI made no secret of the fact that they had tape recordings of all of the relevant Blogo conversations. So, is this perhaps the reason for the unprecedented rush to write, pass, and have the president sign the largest spending bill ever in the history of the USA? Even to the detriment of Obama risking the public relations backlash of him breaking his promise to the voters to allow 48 hours for review of the bill? What say you?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
16 Feb 09
There is surely something to this idea... however I believe that there is another reason for the mad rush, just as there was when Bush proposed his bailout package. It is called striking while the iron is hot.... in business you have to take advantage of opportunities lest you lose out. The same is true in politics... if you ram something through really fast people don't have time to look it over and make an informed decision. The more we see about this Bill, the more we find that there is nothing helpful in it... it is nothing more than special interest spending on a massive scale... of the type that the 0bamunist said in his campaign would never happen. We already know that this Bill was passed without being read... and I am sure that the 0bamunist will not read it before he signs it either. I read the other day that the true cost of this thing is something like 3.27 trillion according to GBO ... http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/stimulus_bill_pork/2009/02/14/181864.html?s=al&promo_code=7A39-1 The fact is that they are pushing this through before any resistance and opposition can be mounted by the taxpayers. Welcome to the USSA.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Feb 09
Hello Destiny, Hmmmm, yes I see your point about ulterior motives. Though, the question remains: If Burris purjered himself, then what happens to the Obama Stimulus/Spending bill?
• United States
16 Feb 09
I think that the reality is that it won't make a difference. If you recall, the second bailout that Bush signed came from the Senate, which is not who makes the appropriations... and therefore were Constitutionally illegal. In fact, the whole bailout business was illegal according to the Constitution, but I don't see that being rolled back based on that fact. Therefore, I see no reason to believe that even if Burris is removed that nothing would change. The only way any of this can be undomne is f the 0bamunist is found and ruled to be ineligible to be president which would invalidate everything that he has done to date.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Feb 09
Hello Destiny, Hmmm, I didn't recall that. Yes come to think of it, that does shed a different light on the way this mess has unfolded, now doesn't it??? In my eyes, Bush will never live down his part in this abuse of The People's Trust! As for how Burris' vote or non-vote would make a difference, the 2/3 rule is based on a 60 vote filibuster proof majority. If Burris' vote was illegal then cloture was taken off the table, and a filibuster would have been an option. Yup, it's a HUGE issue! 'Cause as we all know, filibusters work! Especially when the objective is to slow down the process enough for the voter to make the difference. Ya' know, it's just an off-the-wall bit of trivia, but I'll share it for entertainment's sake. The Chinese New Year festivities always bring forth a slew of interesting "predictions". This year I was somewhat intrigued to learn that a some of the most respected Feng Shui masters have apparently "forseen" the scandalous end of the Obama administration by years end. I certainly wouldn't place a sizeable wager on their prediction, though I'd definitely throw a 'fin' into the pot. It'll be interesting to see if any part of their prediction comes true. Though if it does, the b-c issue is certainly a gaping hole in Obama's armor. So, who knows???
• United States
16 Feb 09
Did the bill pass by only one vote? Otherwise, so what? I'm confused.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Feb 09
Great question, Red! The final Senate vote was 60 to 38. If Burris' vote didn't legally count, then cloture would have been ruled out, and a filibuster could have prevented or postponed the vote until the bill could have been read. Or, more appropriately stated, until the U.S. Taxpayer had an option to shine the light of scrutiny on this boondoggle. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=senate+filibuster+&page=1&qsrc=2106&zoom=Recent+%3CKW%3EFilibuster%3C%2FKW%3E%7CLongest+%3CKW%3EFilibuster%3C%2FKW%3E+in+%3CKW%3ESenate%3C%2FKW%3E+History%7C%3CKW%3ESenate%3C%2FKW%3E+Procedure+%3CKW%3EFilibuster%3C%2FKW%3E&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.senate.gov%2Fartandhistory%2Fhistory%2Fcommon%2Fbriefing%2FFilibuster_Cloture.htm
1 person likes this
• United States
16 Feb 09
Thank you very much for clearing that up for me. I should have known that, but didn't. I'd say you asked the great question. Jeesh... this is a sticky wicket! My guess is that SCOTUS does not have the courage to rule on it so things will stand as they are no matter what.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Feb 09
Isn't it strange how often we've found ourselves in uncharted territory regarding this new administration and the election cycle leading up to it. Hmmm, kinda' makes ya' wonder, doesn't it?
1 person likes this
@deejean06 (1953)
• United States
17 Feb 09
I believe that this Illinois governor case is very tangled and has lots of strings that we have yet to see or hear. I'm not so sure this is the reason for the rush of passage for the bill. I think the doomsday attitude is the reason. It's always a do or die situation and with that panic settling into the minds of ordinary Americans the politicians think they can pass anything. And I never believed that his administration was going to be transparent.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
17 Feb 09
Hello Deejean, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this question. Indeed -- Illinois politics has long been a terribly tangled web. Good for you for being astute enough to recognize the improbability of any politician acting as a true reformer for transparency. Uh, aren't the terms "politician" and "transparency" antonyms? As for how Burris plays into the urgency -- without Burris' vote, the tally would have remained at 59 "yeahs", meaning that the Republicans could have filibustered the bill. Which, would have given the American People enough time to learn what was really in the bill. Which, of course, would have given We The People the necessary time to put the 'fear of the unemployment line' into the hearts and minds of Queen Pelosi, Master Reid, and their minions. You're right about the panic thing though. When it manifests into unchecked ugliness, I wonder if Nancy, Harry, & Obama will acknowledge their roles in fomenting that panic???
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
17 Feb 09
Don't worry Chicago will find the votes to prove he won the election, even if they have to empty all the cemetarys in IL.
1 person likes this