Economy

The United States Senate has 100 members. A bill gets passed in the Senate when a majority of Senators vote for it.

Before the vote, however, there is a debate held over the merits of the legislation. The vote comes AFTER the Senators vote to end the debate and vote on the bill. It only takes 51 Senators to pass a bill, but it takes 60 Senators to end the debate.

After the Republicans lost their majority in the 2006 elections, there were 49 Republicans remaining in the Senate. Of course, if 51 Democrats vote for a bill, even if all 49 Republicans vote no - that bill will pass. They didn't like that idea. Instead, they came up with another idea - instead of voting no, they just decided to vote against voting. Often. More often than ever before.

Then there was another election in 2008. Republicans knew they were going to lose some seats, but thought they could hold on to at least 41. They warned voters against electing 60 Democrats - and the dark possibility that there would be No Stopping Them! if the GOP lost the ability to prevent the Senate from voting on new bills.

Dark, DARK DAYS! D.C. shrouded in darkness! Oh yeah, I just realized, Obama's skin is slightly darker than most voters. LOL, coincidence!

Republicans lost 8 more seats, leaving them with only 41 of 100 - the bare minimum needed to continue keeping bills from being voted on.

At least, they DID have 41 - until Arlen Specter switched parties to become the 60th vote the Democrats needed to end those debates and vote on the bills.

They lost their ability to filibuster. This is, of course, GREAT NEWS FOR REPUBLICANS! - according to Fox News.

Oh, it's the mainstream media. It crapped its collective pants again.

Today's stupid-o-rama:

Fox News: Recession May End This Year

Reuters (c/o Yahoo!): Bernanke fears recession could extend to 2010

Well that sounds both good and serious at the same time. Now first off, I'd like to point out that Bernanke is a tool. Now that we've got that out of the way, let's take a peek at these articles.

Ok, so the quote from Bernie-boy that both of these news sources used to create their headlines appears to be:

"...there is a reasonable prospect that the current recession will end in 2009 and that 2010 will be a year of recovery."

So wait, Fox News actually conveyed this headline.. conservatively? You mean Reuters is the fire and brimstone maker? Well, I guess everyone makes mistakes.

This year is already on its third month. I know times are tough, but this year will be over before you know it. I feel like Reuters was taking advantage of the fact that some people still have 2008 lingering in the backs of their minds. "2010! That's nearly two years!"

Can't we just report the news? Where did you guys get the word "fears" anyway, Reuters? Did you just pull it out of your hat? Or was it your "doom-n-gloom phrase o-matic?" The word "fear" only appears in the headline. It's not even in the fucking contents of the article! Moreover, it's not even a quote! He never said fears!!

In fact, if you ask me, I think we're fortunate if the recession is on the rebound in 2010. What the fuck?

Fuck it. Buy your own damn fries.

Soros Sees No Bottom for World Financial "Collapse":

Renowned investor George Soros said on Friday the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis.

Soros said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union.

...

His comments echoed those made earlier at the same conference by Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who is now a top adviser to President Barack Obama.

"I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world," Volcker said.

OH SNAP:

I’ve been ruminating over economic prospects for next year, and I’m getting scared.

The economy is falling fast. We’ll see what tomorrow’s employment report says, but we could well be losing jobs at a rate of 450,000 or 500,000 a month.

Time to invest in the fedora hat market.

Not so much:

World economy 'weakest since 30s'

The United Nations says the world economy faces its worst downturn since the Great Depression.

It expects world economic output to shrink by as much as 0.4% in 2009, due to a slump among developed countries - particularly the US and in Europe.

This would mark the world economy's first year of contraction since the 1930s, the UN said.

On the plus side, this is an excellent opportunity to invest in the soup kitchen market.

There ya go, folks. We are no longer the top dogs. Maybe those "stir the economy" refunds will help? Hah I'm funny.

First, it was the news that Mississippi Lawmaker(s?) have proposed a bill that would make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese patrons.

There are so many things wrong with situation, I doubted whether or not I wanted to write about it. Why would anyone discriminate against a group of people (a majority in the US)?
I couldn't wrap my mind around it, not to mention how there is no way it's constitutional. Nevermind, how terribly, horribly, mean that is.

Besides, who would decide what qualifies as obese? What would be the deciding factor? Some people doubt the truthiness or quality of the BMI scale. So, what would you go by? Some hostess in some random restaurant's suggestion or opinion?

Not to mention the douchebag Republican Lawmaker that doesn't even think it will or should pass.

"I do not have any intention of this becoming law," says the Desoto County Republican. "I don't think it has a Chinaman's chance. I'm against intrusive government. I don't think that's what we're here for and what we should be doing."

So why draft such controversial legislation?

"The reason I put the bill in," says Mayhall, "was to call attention to the seriousness of the obesity epidemic in Mississippi."

Oh! So you proposed a bill you don't even agree with or want to pass, because you want to alienate a certain group of people because you disagree with their lifestyle. Ahh, so very Republican of you.

I don't care what your opinion is on the state of the people in your state, lose weight like Mike Huckabee did. Or actually try and think about doing something that might make a difference an encourage people of unhealthy weight to do something about it, instead of estranging those who you're trying to 'help'.

Just because Mississippi has been ranked #1 in amount of obese people in the US for the past 3 years, doesn't justify this kind of unethical behavior. That's simply ridiculous.

Then, a California man is being sued by his city, San Carlos, for canceling his trash pick up, because he was environmentally conscious.

SAN CARLOS (Map, News) - A man who claims to have reduced his waste to nearly nothing out of concern for the environment now faces a lawsuit from San Carlos for canceling his garbage-collection service.

Eddie House, 53, says he was shocked when he was served with a lawsuit Sunday at his Cedar Street home.

The lawsuit, filed by San Carlos Deputy City Attorney Linda Noeske in San Mateo Superior Court on Jan. 22, seeks a permanent injunction forcing House to maintain garbage service. City officials are also seeking to recoup from House the costs of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims House broke the city’s municipal code requiring all residential, commercial and industrial properties to contract with Allied Waste for pickup at least once a week — a standard requirement in most cities, San Carlos Deputy City Manager Brian Moura said.

I shit you not. A guy recycles and composts all his waste, therefore he doesn't need his trash service. And? He gets sued. SUED.

I can see how the city would be concerned about people having plenty of waste, and not throwing it away or wanting to pay the trash guys, but if he has no trash then what in the hell are they expecting for them to pick up?

It makes no sense. Any rational, logical, or reasonable person would applaud his efforts, and let him be. But apparently we're too concerned with the laws themselves to worry about who we're enforcing them on, or why we're enforcing them.

And it's not like the City just got confused, and they didn't know the whole situation (Which, really, who does before they SUE SOMEONE). But they're trying to recoup their expenses from HIM for the lawsuit.

Sometimes, I seriously wonder if we’re too wrapped up in silly laws that seek to govern our every step. It’s almost as if we live in a country that believes it will behave in exactly the same way 200 years from now. Change and the rights of the individual are covered in layers of codes and red tape. This is a perfect example. And was it truly necessary to sue? Couldn’t there have been some other action taken to resolve any issues between the city and the homeowner? Ridiculous.

I get it, we're a nation of laws. But since when do they dictate everything we do? From being overweight to being environmentally conscious.

I've never met them, so I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure The Founding Fathers didn't mean for laws to go this far.

Since when is the legislative process not for actually proposing legislation that might better the state and its people, but is instead meant to get your opinions on the news?

Since when do we care more about going by the books like some kind of mindless robots, than analyzing the situation like real, rational people?

I think we need to reevaluate our situation in this country, and maybe start voting for change.

Our government needs to start answering to us, rather than the other way around. Isn't that what a Democracy is supposed to be anyway?