• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Say it isn't so Oldtimer

Tam

Well-known member
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA, Ensign Amdt. No. 154 )
Vote Number: 26 Vote Date: January 25, 2007, 12:17 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 154 to S.Amdt. 100 to H.R. 2
Statement of Purpose: To improve access to affordable health care.
Vote Counts: YEAs 47
NAYs 48
Not Voting 5
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA, Bunning Amdt. No. 119 )
Vote Number: 28 Vote Date: January 25, 2007, 02:59 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 119 to S.Amdt. 100 to H.R. 2
Statement of Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits.
Vote Counts: YEAs 42
NAYs 51
Not Voting 7
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Kyl Amdt. No. 4191 )
Vote Number: 50 Vote Date: March 13, 2008, 01:24 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4191 to S.Con.Res. 70 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To protect small businesses, family ranches and farms from the Death Tax by providing a $5 million exemption, a low rate for smaller estates and a maximum rate no higher than 35%. Vote Counts: YEAs 50
NAYs 50
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended )
Vote Number: 213 Vote Date: October 1, 2008, 09:22 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 1424 (A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes. )

Vote Counts: YEAs 74
NAYs 25
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Affordable health care NAY say the Dems.
Repeal tax increace in SS Nay say the Dems
Protect family farms from Death tax nay say the Dems.
The Bailout Yea say the Dems.

Looks like you should be proud Oldtimer. :roll: Well you can have one Tester didn't vote for the Bailout :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The title of a bill means nothing-- its the wording of what it does- and the effects it really has...

Its like right now there is a law in Congress called the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act" (S. 9), which most would assume stops all the illegal aliens-- but which instead actually gives out thousands of worker visas to immigrants from countries all over the world- along with amnesty to the 20 million illegals already in the country...

Just like the reason my Senator Tester was the only Democrat to vote against both Bailout bills- because he said their was not enough teeth to require the current administration to provide transparency (he's seen what lying crooks they are) - nor enough regulation on how those receiving bailouts could spend it and had to account for it....
Which is absolutely what has happened with Paulson refusing to even say who got the money, let alone how much-- and the GAO now saying their is absolutely no way to account for what they did with it....

Sometimes a nay vote is an aye vote for the real problem....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The title of a bill means nothing-- its the wording of what it does- and the effects it really has...

Its like right now there is a law in Congress called the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act" (S. 9), which most would assume stops all the illegal aliens-- but which instead actually gives out thousands of worker visas to immigrants from countries all over the world- along with amnesty to the 20 million illegals already in the country...

Just like the reason my Senator Tester was the only Democrat to vote against both Bailout bills- because he said their was not enough teeth to require the current administration to provide transparency (he's seen what lying crooks they are) - nor enough regulation on how those receiving bailouts could spend it and had to account for it....
Which is absolutely what has happened with Paulson refusing to even say who got the money, let alone how much-- and the GAO now saying their is absolutely no way to account for what they did with it....

Sometimes a nay vote is an aye vote for the real problem....

I guess you missed the "statement of purpose" of each bill. And if Tester believe their wasn't enough teeth then why did the other Dems vote yea to it? Didn't they care about the teeth. :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
The title of a bill means nothing-- its the wording of what it does- and the effects it really has...

Its like right now there is a law in Congress called the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act" (S. 9), which most would assume stops all the illegal aliens-- but which instead actually gives out thousands of worker visas to immigrants from countries all over the world- along with amnesty to the 20 million illegals already in the country...

Just like the reason my Senator Tester was the only Democrat to vote against both Bailout bills- because he said their was not enough teeth to require the current administration to provide transparency (he's seen what lying crooks they are) - nor enough regulation on how those receiving bailouts could spend it and had to account for it....
Which is absolutely what has happened with Paulson refusing to even say who got the money, let alone how much-- and the GAO now saying their is absolutely no way to account for what they did with it....

Sometimes a nay vote is an aye vote for the real problem....

I guess you missed the "statement of purpose" of each bill. And if Tester believe their wasn't enough teeth then why did the other Dems vote yea to it? Didn't they care about the teeth. :shock:

Title- statement of purpose- whatever you want to call it-- you have to look at what really is in the bill...Many times its nowhere close to either title or statement of purpose....

McCain introduced a GI Bill too-- but only did so trying to kill the real GI Bill that actually gave the returning military personnel, including Guardsmen that had served a certain period of time in Iraq, the same benefits the original GI Bill of the 40's did....
Then later ran around claiming he'd supported the GI Bill altho he tried to kill the one that passed by a huge majority.... :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
The title of a bill means nothing-- its the wording of what it does- and the effects it really has...

Its like right now there is a law in Congress called the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act" (S. 9), which most would assume stops all the illegal aliens-- but which instead actually gives out thousands of worker visas to immigrants from countries all over the world- along with amnesty to the 20 million illegals already in the country...

Just like the reason my Senator Tester was the only Democrat to vote against both Bailout bills- because he said their was not enough teeth to require the current administration to provide transparency (he's seen what lying crooks they are) - nor enough regulation on how those receiving bailouts could spend it and had to account for it....
Which is absolutely what has happened with Paulson refusing to even say who got the money, let alone how much-- and the GAO now saying their is absolutely no way to account for what they did with it....

Sometimes a nay vote is an aye vote for the real problem....

I guess you missed the "statement of purpose" of each bill. And if Tester believe their wasn't enough teeth then why did the other Dems vote yea to it? Didn't they care about the teeth. :shock:

Title- statement of purpose- whatever you want to call it-- you have to look at what really is in the bill...Many times its nowhere close to either title or statement of purpose....

McCain introduced a GI Bill too-- but only did so trying to kill the real GI Bill that actually gave the returning military personnel, including Guardsmen that had served a certain period of time in Iraq, the same benefits the original GI Bill of the 40's did....
Then later ran around claiming he'd supported the GI Bill altho he tried to kill the one that passed by a huge majority.... :roll:

Sorry if I don't believe you Oldtimer :wink: A vote on SS, access to health care and your dems voted nay live with it. :roll:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The title of a bill means nothing-- its the wording of what it does- and the effects it really has...

Its like right now there is a law in Congress called the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act" (S. 9), which most would assume stops all the illegal aliens-- but which instead actually gives out thousands of worker visas to immigrants from countries all over the world- along with amnesty to the 20 million illegals already in the country...

Just like the reason my Senator Tester was the only Democrat to vote against both Bailout bills- because he said their was not enough teeth to require the current administration to provide transparency (he's seen what lying crooks they are) - nor enough regulation on how those receiving bailouts could spend it and had to account for it....
Which is absolutely what has happened with Paulson refusing to even say who got the money, let alone how much-- and the GAO now saying their is absolutely no way to account for what they did with it....

Sometimes a nay vote is an aye vote for the real problem....

So if you are saying tester was right-- then are you saying baucus was wrong OT????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
The title of a bill means nothing-- its the wording of what it does- and the effects it really has...

Its like right now there is a law in Congress called the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act" (S. 9), which most would assume stops all the illegal aliens-- but which instead actually gives out thousands of worker visas to immigrants from countries all over the world- along with amnesty to the 20 million illegals already in the country...

Just like the reason my Senator Tester was the only Democrat to vote against both Bailout bills- because he said their was not enough teeth to require the current administration to provide transparency (he's seen what lying crooks they are) - nor enough regulation on how those receiving bailouts could spend it and had to account for it....
Which is absolutely what has happened with Paulson refusing to even say who got the money, let alone how much-- and the GAO now saying their is absolutely no way to account for what they did with it....

Sometimes a nay vote is an aye vote for the real problem....

So if you are saying tester was right-- then are you saying baucus was wrong OT????

Yep-- from what I saw Baucus follows the drumbeat of the party leaders too much....

I think if those folks wanted the money- their use of it should have been put under a fine tooth comb- and it not be used to pay off multimillion dollar salaries/golden parachutes of the same CEO's that ran the company into bankruptcy...Also the money should have been awarded with transparency-- and Paulson should be being required to report to the people where the money went- and how it was spent....

And I agree with Tester that if regulations/pay restrictions are going to be put on the Auto Workers/Unions- they should also be put on the Auto management/BOD's....
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
The title of a bill means nothing-- its the wording of what it does- and the effects it really has...

Its like right now there is a law in Congress called the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act" (S. 9), which most would assume stops all the illegal aliens-- but which instead actually gives out thousands of worker visas to immigrants from countries all over the world- along with amnesty to the 20 million illegals already in the country...

Just like the reason my Senator Tester was the only Democrat to vote against both Bailout bills- because he said their was not enough teeth to require the current administration to provide transparency (he's seen what lying crooks they are) - nor enough regulation on how those receiving bailouts could spend it and had to account for it....
Which is absolutely what has happened with Paulson refusing to even say who got the money, let alone how much-- and the GAO now saying their is absolutely no way to account for what they did with it....

Sometimes a nay vote is an aye vote for the real problem....

So if you are saying tester was right-- then are you saying baucus was wrong OT????

Yep-- from what I saw Baucus follows the drumbeat of the party leaders too much....

I think if those folks wanted the money- their use of it should have been put under a fine tooth comb- and it not be used to pay off multimillion dollar salaries/golden parachutes of the same CEO's that ran the company into bankruptcy...Also the money should have been awarded with transparency-- and Paulson should be being required to report to the people where the money went- and how it was spent....

And I agree with Tester that if regulations/pay restrictions are going to be put on the Auto Workers/Unions- they should also be put on the Auto management/BOD's....

Yes OT, you got that right!!!Montanan's called in 10-1 against the bailout
Reberg and Tester listened while Baucus thumbed his nose at us.
For your next question then OT, explaine why Bush and the Democrat leaders were on the same side of the fence??
Aren't democrats supposed to be "for the working man" and repubs for "big business" -- what happened there??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
So if you are saying tester was right-- then are you saying baucus was wrong OT????

Yep-- from what I saw Baucus follows the drumbeat of the party leaders too much....

I think if those folks wanted the money- their use of it should have been put under a fine tooth comb- and it not be used to pay off multimillion dollar salaries/golden parachutes of the same CEO's that ran the company into bankruptcy...Also the money should have been awarded with transparency-- and Paulson should be being required to report to the people where the money went- and how it was spent....

And I agree with Tester that if regulations/pay restrictions are going to be put on the Auto Workers/Unions- they should also be put on the Auto management/BOD's....

Yes OT, you got that right!!!Montanan's called in 10-1 against the bailout
Reberg and Tester listened while Baucus thumbed his nose at us.
For your next question then OT, explaine why Bush and the Democrat leaders were on the same side of the fence??
Aren't democrats supposed to be "for the working man" and repubs for "big business" -- what happened there??

Well- Bush kind of explained that today in his "goodbye" ( :D ) press conference-- that after all his advisors told him things had got so bad we were looking at facts and dire conditions worse than the great depression unless drastic measures were taken quickly- and he didn't want to be the President that brought down the country :???: :(

I think everyone now sees how badly 8 years of this administrations being asleep at the wheel has allowed this country to become- altho they have to keep some common sense with their actions to counter it.....

This one I agree with Tester on-- they should have forced the Repubs to put more limitations/restrictions on how the money was spent and more Congressional teeth for oversight to jerk old Paulson up by the left one if he doesn't follow the law...But Paulson will soon be history too....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- from what I saw Baucus follows the drumbeat of the party leaders too much....

I think if those folks wanted the money- their use of it should have been put under a fine tooth comb- and it not be used to pay off multimillion dollar salaries/golden parachutes of the same CEO's that ran the company into bankruptcy...Also the money should have been awarded with transparency-- and Paulson should be being required to report to the people where the money went- and how it was spent....

And I agree with Tester that if regulations/pay restrictions are going to be put on the Auto Workers/Unions- they should also be put on the Auto management/BOD's....

Yes OT, you got that right!!!Montanan's called in 10-1 against the bailout
Reberg and Tester listened while Baucus thumbed his nose at us.
For your next question then OT, explaine why Bush and the Democrat leaders were on the same side of the fence??
Aren't democrats supposed to be "for the working man" and repubs for "big business" -- what happened there??

Well- Bush kind of explained that today in his "goodbye" ( :D ) press conference-- that after all his advisors told him things had got so bad we were looking at facts and dire conditions worse than the great depression unless drastic measures were taken quickly- and he didn't want to be the President that brought down the country :???: :(

I think everyone now sees how badly 8 years this administrations being asleep at the wheel has allowed this country to become- altho they have to keep some common sense with their actions to counter it.....

This one I agree with Tester on-- they should have forced the Repubs to put more limitations/restrictions on how the money was spent and more Congressional teeth for oversight to jerk old Paulson up by the left one if he doesn't follow the law...But Paulson will soon be history too....

the key here is YOU think, opppppppppsssss oldtimer and think oxymoron

Unless it is cut and paste oldtimer is lost for an answer!
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- from what I saw Baucus follows the drumbeat of the party leaders too much....

I think if those folks wanted the money- their use of it should have been put under a fine tooth comb- and it not be used to pay off multimillion dollar salaries/golden parachutes of the same CEO's that ran the company into bankruptcy...Also the money should have been awarded with transparency-- and Paulson should be being required to report to the people where the money went- and how it was spent....

And I agree with Tester that if regulations/pay restrictions are going to be put on the Auto Workers/Unions- they should also be put on the Auto management/BOD's....

Yes OT, you got that right!!!Montanan's called in 10-1 against the bailout
Reberg and Tester listened while Baucus thumbed his nose at us.
For your next question then OT, explaine why Bush and the Democrat leaders were on the same side of the fence??
Aren't democrats supposed to be "for the working man" and repubs for "big business" -- what happened there??

Well- Bush kind of explained that today in his "goodbye" ( :D ) press conference-- that after all his advisors told him things had got so bad we were looking at facts and dire conditions worse than the great depression unless drastic measures were taken quickly- and he didn't want to be the President that brought down the country :???: :(

I think everyone now sees how badly 8 years of this administrations being asleep at the wheel has allowed this country to become- altho they have to keep some common sense with their actions to counter it.....

This one I agree with Tester on-- they should have forced the Repubs to put more limitations/restrictions on how the money was spent and more Congressional teeth for oversight to jerk old Paulson up by the left one if he doesn't follow the law...But Paulson will soon be history too....

Now OT this doesn't quite make sense to me--
you just said it was the top democrats that pushed this through-
not much repub support, so how did it become repubs fault??
By the way did this cause you to vote for Rehberg ?? he voted NO!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Now OT this doesn't quite make sense to me--
you just said it was the top democrats that pushed this through-
not much repub support, so how did it become repubs fault??
By the way did this cause you to vote for Rehberg ?? he voted NO!

Top Democrats and Top Repubs pushed it thru-- remember Bush is the party leader...Cheney spent days on the floor lobbying his Repub cohorts....It was a bipartisan group of the Banking committee members that worked on the bill and came out for its passage...
It was the Repubs that put the stops to more rules and regs- especially on the money being used for the CEO's because they oppose setting limits on CEO's/management...Bush also wanted Paulson to have leeway for how to spend it--which I see in the news some Repubs even are now regretting supporting because he again is not being transparent with what he's using it for...

I did not vote for Rehberg or Baucus...The main reason I wouldn't vote for Rehberg is his flip flopping on the Cuban Issue....Montana cattle producers and wheat producers have spent a lot of time and money trying to build up a trade partnership with Cuba- and lobbyied to get the embargo (which has been stupid and worthless imho) lifted....Rehberg has always went along with lifting the embargo- until it came to a vote last year- and he then voted not to lift it....He shortly thereafter got a $1000 campaign contribution from a Florida based pro embargo Lobbying group- and since then has received over $10,000 from them.....

Is he following in Conrad's footsteps and selling out Montana for a few gold sheckles in his own pockets :???:

I sent him over a half dozen letters and e-mails asking him to explain to me his Cuban stance and his reason for his change....Never got an answer- so he never got my vote....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Now OT this doesn't quite make sense to me--
you just said it was the top democrats that pushed this through-
not much repub support, so how did it become repubs fault??
By the way did this cause you to vote for Rehberg ?? he voted NO!

Top Democrats and Top Repubs pushed it thru-- remember Bush is the party leader...Cheney spent days on the floor lobbying his Repub cohorts....It was a bipartisan group of the Banking committee members that worked on the bill and came out for its passage...
It was the Repubs that put the stops to more rules and regs- especially on the money being used for the CEO's because they oppose setting limits on CEO's/management...Bush also wanted Paulson to have leeway for how to spend it--which I see in the news some Repubs even are now regretting supporting because he again is not being transparent with what he's using it for...

I did not vote for Rehberg or Baucus...The main reason I wouldn't vote for Rehberg is his flip flopping on the Cuban Issue....Montana cattle producers and wheat producers have spent a lot of time and money trying to build up a trade partnership with Cuba- and lobbyied to get the embargo (which has been stupid and worthless imho) lifted....Rehberg has always went along with lifting the embargo- until it came to a vote last year- and he then voted not to lift it....He shortly thereafter got a $1000 campaign contribution from a Florida based pro embargo Lobbying group- and since then has received over $10,000 from them.....

Is he following in Conrad's footsteps and selling out Montana for a few gold sheckles in his own pockets :???:

I sent him over a half dozen letters and e-mails asking him to explain to me his Cuban stance and his reason for his change....Never got an answer- so he never got my vote....

Probally because he knew you didn't count anyway!!!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
This one I agree with Tester on-- they should have forced the Repubs to put more limitations/restrictions on how the money was spent and more Congressional teeth for oversight


while I even agreed that in the beginning of the thread about how a bill title or summery often has little to do with the actual bill.

:roll: But when you blame those who voted against a bill, for the passage of the bill, then I feel your partison blindness has exceed any reasonable belief.. :roll:

Can you explain how the democrats should have "forced" the republicans to fix the bill that the democrats" wrote, sponsored and pushed for?

as the republicans had limited imput on the democrats' bill, with the house democratic majority, the republicans took the only option the republicans had, the republicans voted against the democrats' flawed bill...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
OldTimer
This one I agree with Tester on-- they should have forced the Repubs to put more limitations/restrictions on how the money was spent and more Congressional teeth for oversight


while I even agreed that in the beginning of the thread about how a bill title or summery often has little to do with the actual bill.

:roll: But when you blame those who voted against a bill, for the passage of the bill, then I feel your partison blindness has exceed any reasonable belief.. :roll:

Can you explain how the democrats should have "forced" the republicans to fix the bill that the democrats" wrote, sponsored and pushed for?

as the republicans had limited imput on the democrats' bill, with the house democratic majority, the republicans took the only option the republicans had, the republicans voted against the democrats' flawed bill...

The bill didn't pass just on a Democrat vote...You better go back and look- it was members of both parties that voted for it... And leadership of both parties that drafted it....And it was pushed by Bush/Cheney/Paulson...

Now how can that make it a Democrat bill :???:

I think the Dems should have stood pat- let a few more of the big banks fold and go under- and I think than there would have been much more support from both the Banking Industry and the Repubs to put it thru with some oversight teeth in the bill...

But again they fell prey to GW's fearmongering and calls of the country being in dire straights and that it must be passed immediately....And got duped again when Bush and Paulson promised transparency....
Like Tester did- I'd rather have seen more vote to put restrictions and more oversight in how our money is being spent...
 
Top