Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: MAJOR Rant ! Illinois rep EXPLODES on the House floor! Its All Falling Apart...

Posted 6 years ago on May 31, 2012, 9:07 p.m. EST by Renneye (3874)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[I pulled this from another forum. What it lacks in planning it makes up for in impassioned fury!]

Illinois rep EXPLODES on the House floor! IT’s ALL FALLING APART…


Comment by mbridges on May 31, 2012 @ 1:34 pm


An Illinois Representative has stood up on the floor of the House and said it like it is. The Speaker has too much power. This inhibits the ability of his power to effect the needs and will of the folks he represents.

While he had the courage to call this gross injustice out, two cowards sat to his left and to his right. I am going to find out who they are. I suggest we write en masse to both of them, shaming them for their lack of valor or bravery. I am certain that they took oaths to the Constitution and should be held accountable.

For now, I suggest we send an email to him in support:




Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I saw that, and applaud him for saying fuck it, Im gonna let em have it!

I think his reaction should be the norm, not the exception.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

lulz like a boss

The people around him just look bored like they're not even paying attention.

The government is ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

When they start talking truth - there may be hope.



[-] -2 points by tj202later (-1) 6 years ago

Define "they".

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Our elected officials. Did you watch the vid? Kinda self explanatory.

[-] 0 points by tj203later (1) 6 years ago

So you agree, then, that we must end the corporate-funded two-party tyranny the ruling elite have used to control Americans and America for generations?

YES, or NO?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

NO - we just need to put in office people who work for the people. We need to be able to fire on performance based record.

We need to become a major part of the process. The Democratic process.

Because whatever system you have will have people. Support the good ones kick out the bad ones.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

U R funny.

We live in a Democracy. Our Government is supposed to be Democratic.

What form of government are you pushing?

[-] 0 points by tj203later (1) 6 years ago

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

[-] 1 points by Learning1 (1) 6 years ago

Anyone think Bost's bost has anything to do with the dow plung. hmm!

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

I feel for him

here's my vote on the June 5, San Diego Election

Prop 28 http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/28/title-summary.htm

Reforming Legislator's term limits

Under Current law legislators can not serve more than 6 years in the Assembly House and 8 years in the Senate House.

This law would allow them to serve 12 years total.

A legislator could serve 12 years in one house.

This would improve the experience and long term projects of the legislative branch.

I vote YES http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop1206/prop28.html

Proposition B

san diego city has a ballet measure to move retirement for public employees into private account

I vote NO

private banks have enough

dollar cigarette tax

I vote yes on prop 29

I vote against all judges who support the death penalty

I also do not favor those that thought putting away ghetto people

I am writing in NO WAR for me presidential candidate

No on Prop A

no government money for private profiteers


DeMaio's fought pensions, tax increases and unions, and fought for outsourcing for a decade. You know where he stands and he won't compromise on his core principles.

I don't understand how cutting programs constitutes principles


class size should be limited to 24

"If San Diego Unified goes through with the 1,600 layoffs of teachers, we're going to have class sizes approaching 50," Filner(Mayor Candidate) said. "That's just wrong. The teachers can't teach. The children can't learn, and we got to get adequate funding."


seems like it's the same fight every year

why isn't there a push for more teachers not fewer ?

new and innovative is empty jargon

Fletchter(Mayor Candidate) touts tough on crime focus

(doesn't help me or the schools)

he's for bipartisan problem solving

(when it's suspect the both parties work for the rich)

Fletcher can't say close loop holes without saying tax cuts


Mayor Candidate Dumanis

We must NOT forget the military which fuels our local economy to the tune of $16 billion annually. As Mayor I will make sure the military receives the region’s undivided support and assistance in growing their local presence.

hooray for bombs

City Budget

My approach and my philosophy to budget issues can be summed up in four words: Living within our means.

(translates) Cut's have to made

we give up to being poor

Mayor Candidate Tobiah Pettus

Based on my extensive review of the state of the City, my opinion is that the City of San Diego’s budget is balanced. In fact, there’s a surplus. Comprehensive Pension Reform addresses only ~1.75% of the City’s annual budget. Reform, though needed, should not include the unethical reduction of earned retirements.

San Diegans do not want

  • homeless people living and dying on our streets.
  • pan-handlers on almost every corner.

San Diegans want

  • good roads, good infrastructure, including bridges, reliable electrical power, reliable water, reliable sewage systems, etc…

San Diegans want

  • litter removed from their roadways and beaches.
  • the economy to dramatically improve
  • and jobs!


Matt Holck at work washing Dishes

[+] -4 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 6 years ago

People are really getting sick of their financial stupidity. It's not going to be pretty when it does explode. We've got a debt of $50,000 for EVERY person in the United States. That's going to haunt us and turn us into a third world country.

You can't get around the math and economics of those ugly numbers.


[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 6 years ago

If you really understood macroeconomics you would be laughing at your own comment. Stop reading CATO and Mises.org

When was the last time in US history we were debt free? How long did it last? What is the debt vs GDP? What is the real implication in terms of our currency system?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

and how did we get out of the great depression? and when did sweden exit that same depression - 1934 using keynesian economics. too much nonsense being spread by mainstream economics

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

the blase' attitude propagates an assurance of control

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago


[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Not sure, but I think he may be pissed at ya....or maybe that things are too far gone to be fixed easily, or at all. I wish he would write long-winded comments. They wouldn't take so long to figure out. lol

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

maybe he is an economist

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Don't think you need to be an economist to know that we are screwed. I'm noticing your comments are less wordy too...easier to figure out though.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

the economists are the reason we are in this mess!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

they should all take communication for accountancy

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i was thinking more along this line - AMY GOODMAN: So, to avoid another catastrophe, collision, if you were in charge, what would you say has to happen?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: First of all, we need cultured economists again, who know the history, where they come from, how the ideas originated, who did what, and so on and so on; second, an economics now that understands itself very clearly as a subsystem of a larger system that is finite, the biosphere, hence economic growth as an impossibility; and third, a system that understands that it cannot function without the seriousness of ecosystems. And economists know nothing about ecosystems. They don’t know nothing about thermodynamics, you know, nothing about biodiversity or anything. I mean, they are totally ignorant in that respect. And I don’t see what harm it would do, you know, to an economist to know that if the bees would disappear, he would disappear as well, because there wouldn’t be food anymore. But he doesn’t know that, you know, that we depend absolutely from nature. But for these economists we have, nature is a subsystem of the economy. I mean, it’s absolutely crazy.

And then, in addition, you know, bring consumption closer to production. I live in the south of Chile, in the deep south. And that area is a fantastic area, you know, in milk products and what have you. Top. Technologically, like the maximum, you know? I was, a few months ago, in a hotel, and there in the south, for breakfast, and there are these little butter things, you know? I get one, and it’s butter from New Zealand. I mean, if that isn’t crazy, you know? And why? Because economists don’t know how to calculate really costs, you know? To bring butter from 20,000 kilometers to a place where you make the best butter, under the argument that it was cheaper, is a colossal stupidity, because they don’t take into consideration what is the impact of 20,000 kilometers of transport? What is the impact on the environment of that transportation, you know, and all those things? And in addition, I mean, it’s cheaper because it’s subsidized. So it’s clearly a case in which the prices never tell the truth. It’s all tricks, you know? And those tricks do colossal harms. And if you bring consumption closer to production, you will eat better, you will have better food, you know, and everything. You will know where it comes from. You may even know the person who produces it. You humanize this thing, you know? But the way the economists practice today is totally dehumanized.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago


products are often subsidized which displaces their real value and effort

I would hasten to note transportation across water is fairly efficient

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Yes i know. They sold us on neoliberal economics as a beautiful thing that we would all benefit from.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

put on the tinfoil hat

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

We should all shoot our wads, and get the heavy-duty tin foil

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Right, it's debt vs. GNP that matters, and what people should understand is ... if our economy is growing faster than public spending, then our debt to GNP ratio will shrink.

The theory behind Keynesian fiscal stimulus is stimulus spending should result in a multiplier (but this is a controversial idea). My personal opinion is, all stimulus is not equal. John Maynard Keynes would say that even if we buried treasury notes deep underground, and allowed those who mined the buried treasure to cash in those notes when they recovered them .... it would qualify as a stimulus (ergo Bernanke's comment about dropping money out of helicopters).

In my view, this is sort of ridiculous. Imagine a stimulus whereby we build a new electric grid, and in the process, build in alternative energy production. Also imagine if we spent stimulus funds on expanding our public university systems? Also imagine if we spent stimulus finds on direct loans and/or grants to expand manufacturing? In each of these cases we get real value for our money (versus a short term jobs program that doesn't accomplish anything productive).

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 6 years ago

This past stimulus was misapplied. There are differences in how and where the money is spent....even Keynes said that the spending should be on job creation, what they made didn't matter, as long as people where put back to work.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Right, and that's my only major complain with Keynes (otherwise, I admire Keynes' work). I don't think all stimulus is equal, and I don't think all job creation programs are equal. Part of the analysis I think is sort of intuitive. I think we can easily say that spending money on things where we wind up with assets with long term value (like a new electrical grid or schools or airports), is clearly more desirable than spending money on temporary job programs (in both cases you create jobs over the short term, but in the former case, we wind up with valuable assets). Also, spending money on enhancing domestic production could provide permanent jobs, and reduce our trade imbalance (thereby enhancing our currency value over the long run).

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

that is a misunderstanding of keynes - here is a full explanation -Digging Holes Just to Fill them Back Up Again

In The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes writes

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

This leads a lot of economists and thoughtful people to the conclusion that Keynes is either ignorant of or ignoring the role of productive activity and trade. How is it that people are to become wealthier in an activity which is clearly wealth destroying?

You can see the point though if you look at why Keynes choose this particular example. It’s because it is exactly how a Gold Standard economy works. Keynes phrases it as this:

It is curious how common sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd conclusions, has been apt to reach a preference for wholly ‘wasteful’ forms of loan expenditure rather than for partly wasteful forms, which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles. For example, unemployment relief financed by loans is more readily accepted than the financing of improvements at a charge below the current rate of interest; whilst the form of digging holes in the ground known as gold-mining, which not only adds nothing whatever to the real wealth of the world but involves the disutility of labour, is the most acceptable of all solutions.
[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I'm glad I misunderstood Keynes in that regard & thanks for the correction. Like I said, I respect Keynes, and this misperception was one of the flaws I saw in his theory (but I never read his complete General Theory, I studied his theory briefly as an undergrad, and I'm sort of embarrassed to say, took this idea from second hand critiques, uncharacteristically unrigorous of me) :)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

job creation should not be temporary at all

but it is

I have 1 friend who's managed to have a constant job

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 6 years ago

One of the best ideas I have come across is to form worker cooperatives with stimulus money; worker-owned companies that would be democratic and for-profit to compete with privately held companies. It wouldn't take many of these successful companies to start a whole new trend in this country.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Perhaps a few making green tech. products in a green tech Building.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!




FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

The greenest of all technologies is also the simplest. Conservation and efficiency. When energy is not used, the extra infrastructure that would have been necessary to supply it will never have to be built and maintained.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I fully agree .... this would be perhaps the best thing we could do for ourselves.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

How are worker coops going to compete with goods made in China? Won't work. In the first place, business/manufacture moves to the lowest cost producer (China/India) and 2) lack of demand. Doesn't matter who owns the business - workers or traditional capitalist, it still has to compete with China and supply doesn't create it's own demand.

Businesses fail every day. You are talking about investing in something that would have a 50-50 chance of success, at best. Money would be better spent on nationwide infrastructure, building a stronger education system. Things that will have a lasting impact, is less risky, and doesn't involve competing with China. I like francis's ideas below about schools/airports/electrical grid.

We need a new NASA. Spurred tons of innovation and jobs in the private sector. It took government leadership. It took the great leadership of Pres. Eisenhower and Pres. Kennedy.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 6 years ago

It does not have to involve manufacturing, except for non-competitive products. Here in the Vegas area, we have a small chain of worker-owned supermarkets that successfully compete against Walmart. Gar Alperovitz has mentioned coop banks. Right now, the SBA does not offer such an option. Stimulus money for grants and loans could be provided for such ventures.

Incidentally, failure rates in businesses vary by type of business. It is important to research what has succeeded best in the past.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Where ever there is opportunity, some smart capitalist will find it. What makes you think there is opportunity out there that no one else has found yet, but some worker owner group, backed by the govt, is? So let them have at it. There is no way that some govt program is going to find opportunity that some smart capitalist already hasn't found. Worker owned this or that, all fine and well. They're doing it already. They can apply for business loans same as anyone else. There's nothing stopping them. Let some worker owner group find that opportunity. Nothings stopping them. You said yourself, there is a small worker owned chain of grocery stores in your area. Good for them. They're already doing it.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 6 years ago

Of course people are already running worker-owned businesses. The idea is to create long-term worker-owned enterprises that not only create steady employment,but continue to pay decent wages for co-owners. For that I believe the government, as part of the so-called stimulus, should encourage cooperatives by offering special loans and even grants.

All the money thrown at infrastructure reconstruction for the past few years, has certainly enriched many contractors, most of them large coporations, and provided temporary jobs for workers. I've seen it here in Nevada as highway after highway is under reconstruction, which is great, except the population of Nevada has barely grown since 2008. From 2010 to now the population has increased by a mere 23,000 people in state of 2.7 million, most of the growth attributed to births.

We'll have the most modern highways in the country for a state that ranks about 35th in amount of residents.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Why would coops deserve any special treatment in loans or grants?

We need big big projects. Electrical grid big. NASA big. Instead of moon landing, maybe it would be something really huge in alternative energy research and development. If we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to develop alternative energy. The government should be in this in a big huge NASA way.