Make my Day......GOV Blagojevich arrested.

[Darius871]

Couldn't Blago make an appointment literally this minute and have it be binding? What would be the procedure to impeach his appointment, who can't be shown to have been involved in any crime?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Darius871
Couldn't Blago make an appointment literally this minute and have it be binding? What would be the procedure to impeach his appointment, who can't be shown to have been involved in any crime?

Yes.
No impeachment.

[David Floyd]

The Senate determines the qualifications for it's own members. If Blago really goes off the deep end with an appointment, the Senate doesn't have to seat him, and even worse for Blago, it makes him look even guiltier.

If Blago is trying to avoid jail time and build his own case, he'll appoint the most qualified candidate around, someone with the full support of the DNC and Obama.

[rah]

Don't bother David, If you don't agree with KH, you don't just have a different opinion, you're retarded.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Darius871


In all honesty, I have to say that even as a rhetorical device this seems pretty silly. It's Donald Trump that pays for these things, not you. The top 20% pay almost 80% of the taxes, even under the Bush cuts.

My wife and I together are in the top 20% of household incomes in the US, so I don't see what your point is.

[David Floyd]

Oh, so then you are personally aware that the $2 per person figure is intellectually dishonest?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My wife and I together are in the top 20% of household incomes in the US, so I don't see what your point is.

What DF said:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, so then you are personally aware that the $2 per person figure is intellectually dishonest?

I might also ask whether your vote has more "value" since a special election would cost you more than it would others, but who wants to go there? It's more intellectually honest to believe that such a fundamental right is never quantifiable.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, that demonstrates a couple of things. First, it demonstrates your ignorance of the value of a viable automobile industry in this country and what it does for the economy. Odds are strong that you would end up down far more than $100 if GM, Ford, and Chrysler go under.

Ah, the libertarian is now in favour of government handouts. Lovely.

And no, I wouldn't end up down 100$ if they go out of business. In fact, insofar as employment was actually reduced by their failure in the short term the glut of blue collar labour would help me by reducing the price I pay for all sorts of stuff. Plus I'd benefit from increased economies of scale of the more efficient non-Detroit automakers making cars cheaper.

Secondly, you can like reduces cost to dollar per person all you want, but that doesn't make it a valid argument.

Make what a valid argument? There is no argument inherent in pointing out what the cost per resident of a program is. It is a fact, not an argument.

Thirdly, your right to vote isn't being denied by having a replacement appointed. Hell, if Obama didn't win, you wouldn't have gotten to vote for another two years anyway. Your vote will make zero difference in the grand scheme of things, because a 1st term, special election Senator with 1/3 of a term to serve is going to exercise effectively no power and bring little, if anything, of value to Illinois.

Then save the money of paying one for two years and leave the seat vacant.

So, in order for you to feel warm inside about your "right to vote" - which is pretty irrelevant in this case - taxpayers should have to shell out $25 million?

Funny, I didn't realize that only one person in Illinois got to vote.

You're not skimping on anything. There was never a scheduled election, nor is there a provision for a special election. Let's please use correct language, otherwise you'll confuse stupid people. And confusing stupid people is another real good way to wind up with more government spending.

Do you have a point here? Your argument against a special election based on 25 million in spending in a state which collects 40 billion in revenue a year is silly. There are other places to save money than by granting the Governor the power to appoint Senators to vacated seats.

unless you are willing to tell me that $25 million is not very much money

25 million for a state of 13 million people to exercise their right to elect their Senatorial representation for the next 2 years is not very much money. It's chump change, as a matter of fact. And we've just seen what happens when you leave such an important decision in one man's hands. I think 25 million for the people of Illinois to get their voice back is a bargain. Given how much political parties spend to capture these seats I think their value should be obvious.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, so then you are personally aware that the $2 per person figure is intellectually dishonest?

It's not at all intellectually dishonest. It's an average figure, as was explicitly stated. Do you have trouble reading?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by rah
Don't bother David, If you don't agree with KH, you don't just have a different opinion, you're retarded.

No, if you demonstrate a complete lack of intelligence you're retarded.

Go lick your wounds in private, rah. It's embarrassing to watch you like this.

[rah]

Again, it comes down to a matter of opinion.
Some of us think using 25 million is too much money.

Others think $2 dollars per resident isn't too much money and states it this way to make it appear as not as much money.

No matter how you state it, some agree and some don't and just because we don't agree doesn't make us retards.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Nice catch by Jake Tapper...

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.

While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/questions-arise.html

[David Floyd]

Ah, the libertarian is now in favour of government handouts. Lovely.

Where did I say that?

And no, I wouldn't end up down 100$ if they go out of business. In fact, insofar as employment was actually reduced by their failure in the short term the glut of blue collar labour would help me by reducing the price I pay for all sorts of stuff. Plus I'd benefit from increased economies of scale of the more efficient non-Detroit automakers making cars cheaper.

The flip side is, with tens of thousands of workers getting released out onto the market, what do you think the odds are they will find jobs? Not very high, not in this market. That means they end up on unemployment. That means the government probably extends unemployment benefits. This means they don't have health insurance anymore (if they did before) and are using ERs. Who pays for all that?

And since you are part of the population paying 80% of the taxes, your share will definitely come to over $100 in the long-term.

Make what a valid argument? There is no argument inherent in pointing out what the cost per resident of a program is. It is a fact, not an argument.

It isn't the cost per resident. That's a very disingenuous statement as I have already pointed out.

Then save the money of paying one for two years and leave the seat vacant.

#1, I don't even know if that's legal.
#2, neither the RNC nor the DNC would ever allow their vote to be dilluted like that
#3, what would be the point when one can already be appointed for free?

Funny, I didn't realize that only one person in Illinois got to vote.

OK funny man, let me rephrase: So that x % of voters can feel good about themselves, everyone should have to shell out $25 million whether they agree or not?

Do you have a point here? Your argument against a special election based on 25 million in spending in a state which collects 40 billion in revenue a year is silly. There are other places to save money than by granting the Governor the power to appoint Senators to vacated seats.

But we aren't talking about saving money, we are talking about spending money. No one is advocating cutting out an election to save money. I'm just saying don't spend additional money on an unnecessary and irrelevent election.

Also, if you can find other places to save money in the Illinois budget, go right ahead! But I think you'll find that governments are notoriously bad at doing any such thing, which is why I don't want them adding money to the budget in the first place.

25 million for a state of 13 million people to exercise their right to elect their Senatorial representation for the next 2 years is not very much money. It's chump change, as a matter of fact. And we've just seen what happens when you leave such an important decision in one man's hands. I think 25 million for the people of Illinois to get their voice back is a bargain. Given how much political parties spend to capture these seats I think their value should be obvious.

Obvious to whom? On this thread, apparently it's only obvious to you. I wonder if that is representative of the state of Illinois?

It's not at all intellectually dishonest. It's an average figure, as was explicitly stated. Do you have trouble reading?

It distracts people from the overall cost, which simply leads to people thinking that government spending is no big deal. "Oh, 100 new fighter jets? Well, that's only $8/person, no biggie - I'll just drink Bud instead of Heineken tonight." or "What's that you say? A bridge to nowhere? Well, I dunno, but if you're sure it only costs me $.50, then I guess it's not worth arguing about."

Right?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Darius871
It's more intellectually honest to believe that such a fundamental right is never quantifiable.

No, that belief is simply the lazy man's way out. If it cost 10000$ a person to hold an election then you can be damn sure we wouldn't hold them.

I'm really enjoying this discussion because it's becoming increasingly obvious that most people really do suffer from an inability to intuitively grasp the meaning of large numbers. This leads to people doing ridiculous things like arguing against a special election because of the cost to taxpayers of holding such an election.

[Naked Gents Rut]

The FBI disagrees with che...

Robert Grant, FBI special agent in charge of the Chicago office, characterized Illinois' place in the pantheon of political corruption.

"If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor," Grant said. "Even the most cynical agents in our office were shocked."

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/us-attorney-fitzgerald-press-conference-blagojevich.html