Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill Tuesday night that would reauthorize a controversial surveillance authority of the Patriot Act until 2020, a push that comes just as a group of bipartisan lawmakers is preparing a last-minute push to rein in the government's mass-spying powers.
A McConnell aide said the majority leader is beginning a process to put the bill on the Senate calendar but said that the chamber will not take the measure up this week. That process, known as Rule 14, would bypass the traditional committee process. Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr is a cosponsor.
Under the bill, Section 215 of the post-9/11 Patriot Act would be extended until December 31, 2020. The core provision, which the National Security Agency uses to justify its bulk collection of U.S. phone records, is currently due to expire on June 1.
Yet another example of the fact that there is no such thing as a temporary government measure.
Plus, if anyone has ever read USA PATRIOT they would be surprised how much special interest pork is in it (I assume that was the cost of getting it passed)
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
CID1990 wrote:Yet another example of the fact that there is no such thing as a temporary government measure.
Plus, if anyone has ever read USA PATRIOT they would be surprised how much special interest pork is in it (I assume that was the cost of getting it passed)
I had an old co-worker that used to say that:
"Theirs nothing more permanent than a temporary solution"
The amount of money it takes to "run this government" of ours and manage the affairs of state
should embarrass every American
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
Let me see. Democrats opposed when it was first passed. Republicans opposed when it was extended. Now Democrats oppose another extension. Seems like there is a high hypocrisy factor.
TheDancinMonarch wrote:Let me see. Democrats opposed when it was first passed. Republicans opposed when it was extended. Now Democrats oppose another extension. Seems like there is a high hypocrisy factor.
Almost everyone supported it at first - Passed the House 357 to 66 and passed the Senae 98-1
TheDancinMonarch wrote:Let me see. Democrats opposed when it was first passed. Republicans opposed when it was extended. Now Democrats oppose another extension. Seems like there is a high hypocrisy factor.
TheDancinMonarch wrote:Let me see. Democrats opposed when it was first passed. Republicans opposed when it was extended. Now Democrats oppose another extension. Seems like there is a high hypocrisy factor.
Eh. Neither side has opposed it to any degree in the Senate.
House Democrats passed it overwhelmingly in 2001 but have voted against each extension since.
House Republicans have voted overwhelmingly for it at each extension.
The problem is definitely both parties in the Senate, though.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
I hoped Obama would stick to his 2007/2008 campaign promise to eliminate the Un-Patriotic Act...but I figured the siren song of power would overwhelm him and it did...
This proves to me the the Republicans are without a doubt some of the most worthless pieces of dung on the face of the earth...only the Democrats are worth less...
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Col Hogan wrote:I hoped Obama would stick to his 2007/2008 campaign promise to eliminate the Un-Patriotic Act...but I figured the siren song of power would overwhelm him and it did...
This proves to me the the Republicans are without a doubt some of the most worthless pieces of dung on the face of the earth...only the Democrats are worth less...
Hey now hold on there Mr. Smarty Pants...
I see what you did there
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
TheDancinMonarch wrote:Let me see. Democrats opposed when it was first passed. Republicans opposed when it was extended. Now Democrats oppose another extension. Seems like there is a high hypocrisy factor.
Eh. Neither side has opposed it to any degree in the Senate.
House Democrats passed it overwhelmingly in 2001 but have voted against each extension since.
House Republicans have voted overwhelmingly for it at each extension.
The problem is definitely both parties in the Senate, though.
The problem is definitely both parties.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Skjellyfetti wrote:
Eh. Neither side has opposed it to any degree in the Senate.
House Democrats passed it overwhelmingly in 2001 but have voted against each extension since.
House Republicans have voted overwhelmingly for it at each extension.
The problem is definitely both parties in the Senate, though.
CID1990 wrote:Yet another example of the fact that there is no such thing as a temporary government measure.
Plus, if anyone has ever read USA PATRIOT they would be surprised how much special interest pork is in it (I assume that was the cost of getting it passed)
I had an old co-worker that used to say that:
"Theirs nothing more permanent than a temporary solution"
The amount of money it takes to "run this government" of ours and manage the affairs of state
should embarrass every American
Indeed, but it's too big for most to wrap their minds around.
Your tax dollars at work:
One notion that's perpetually popular is the idea that rich folks should be made to cough up more. While the US tax system is progressive — meaning that rich people hand over a larger percentage of their incomes in taxes than others — it's only just barely progressive, at least according to Citizens for Tax Justice. Some numbers to illustrate that fact: The richest 1 percent of people in the US account for 21.6 percent of all income, but account for 23.7 percent of all tax revenue. The country's poorest 20 percent have 3.3 percent of all income, but pay 2.1 percent of all taxes. Added together, the top 5 percent of income earners pitch in about 40 percent of tax revenue. Put another way, the individual tax receipts of the country's wealthiest 5 percent pay for the entire defense budget.
So what are the takeaways here? First and foremost, that the US government is too big for anyone to truly get his or her head around. Uncle Sam takes in and spends enough money every year to give every person on the planet about $500. Imagine that after giving everyone on the planet $500, you told those 7 billion or so people that they had to then pool their resources and work together toward a common objective — or, really, toward hundreds or thousands of objectives. It would be a rollicking mess.
The surprise is not that the US government is a hideous jumble of inertia, confusion, and dysfunction. The surprise is that it works as well as it does.
The other big take away is that most of the money the government collects in the form of taxes comes out of the pockets of individuals, and is then distributed back to and spent on individuals in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. All the odds and ends about how much this or that program costs, or whether there's a loophole exempting corporate cocaine-party yachts from sales tax, makes a relatively minuscule difference in the big picture. They're just a lot more fun to debate.
JellyBelly's thread title is, as usual, misleading. McConnell's bill would just extend one section of the bill, perhaps the most controversial one of the lot -- and I don't support the McConnell bill, because I don't think the privacy risks are offset by the effectiveness of the surveillance. But it's just silly to throw out the baby with the bathwater and repeal the whole thing. The Patriot Act also encompasses useful subjects like border security, victim compensation, and anti-money laundering. It probably needs to be reviewed comprehensively to see what needs to be kept and what needs to be clarified or bolstered. But it's an election year, and so far there has been precisely one piece of bipartisan legislation that's had any legs: the bill requiring Congressional review of the Iran deal.
That said, with all the crap that Americans put out there on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, a lot of the whining about privacy rights should be taken with a grain of salt.
Ivytalk wrote:
That said, with all the crap that Americans put out there on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, a lot of the whining about privacy rights should be taken with a grain of salt.
Ivytalk wrote:
That said, with all the crap that Americans put out there on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, a lot of the whining about privacy rights should be taken with a grain of salt.
Ivy,
As a lawyer I thought you knew the definition of "irrelevant"...
Because your observation however true it might be in general terms it is irrelevant to the debate
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
Ivytalk wrote:
That said, with all the crap that Americans put out there on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, a lot of the whining about privacy rights should be taken with a grain of salt.
Ivy,
As a lawyer I thought you knew the definition of "irrelevant"...
Because your observation however true it might be in general terms it is irrelevant to the debate
I entered the debate. You ignored the first paragraph of what I said. And I stand behind the second as well.
Chizzang wrote:
Ivy,
As a lawyer I thought you knew the definition of "irrelevant"...
Because your observation however true it might be in general terms it is irrelevant to the debate
I entered the debate. You ignored the first paragraph of what I said. And I stand behind the second as well.
I am in complete agreement with your post - right up until the last observation
The fact that people post on facebook regardless of the nature of their posts
is irrelevant to the Patriot Act
I asked Jill... she said I was right
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
