Government - June 2006

2006-06-27 02:48:33 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-27 02:28:53 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-27 02:24:01 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

what do you think?

2006-06-27 02:03:33 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-27 01:34:45 · 5 answers · asked by sheila r 1

Why? Should a political candidate show true belief in his religion in order to run? What religion is better for presedency?

2006-06-27 01:28:21 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-27 01:16:21 · 7 answers · asked by sheila r 1

2006-06-27 00:46:50 · 10 answers · asked by casanovafive 1

I heard about this yesterday on the radio they want everyone from ages 14 -84 to take an aids test yearly. And I was wanting to find out were I can get more info on this because I have a research paper that I think I might do on this topic if I can find enough info on it. If anyone knows where I can find info please let me know.

2006-06-27 00:43:49 · 4 answers · asked by mom 1

2006-06-27 00:20:15 · 5 answers · asked by me 4

Recent Senate Votes

Increase in the Minimum Wage - Vote Failed (52-46, 2 Not Voting)

This amendment fell short of the 60 votes needed to approve a raise in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25.

Sen. Lindsey Graham voted NO......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Jim DeMint voted NO......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Wage Adjustment - Vote Rejected (45-53, 2 Not Voting)

The Senate rejected this proposal to raise the minimum wage to $6.25 while decreasing taxes and regulations for small businesses.

Sen. Lindsey Graham voted YES......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Jim DeMint voted NO......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redeployment of troops in Iraq by 2007 - Vote Rejected (13-86, 1 Not Voting)

During the debate over the defense authorization bill, the Senate rejected this amendment calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by July 2007.

Sen. Lindsey Graham voted NO......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Jim DeMint voted NO......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gradual redeployment of troops in Iraq - Vote Rejected (39-60, 1 Not Voting)

The Senate rejected this non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution calling for a gradual pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Sen. Lindsey Graham voted NO......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Jim DeMint voted NO......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Recent House Votes

Defense Appropriations Act, FY2007 - Vote Passed (407-19, 6 Not Voting)

The House passed this $427 billion bill that would fund the Department of Defense for the 2007 fiscal year.

Rep. J. Gresham Barrett voted YES......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act - Vote Passed (269-156, 8 Not Voting)

This House bill would permanently exempt estates worth less than $5 million per spouse from estate taxes.

Rep. J. Gresham Barrett voted YES......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Line Item Veto Act - Vote Passed (247-172, 14 Not Voting)

This bill would allow the president to veto specific items in spending bills.

Rep. J. Gresham Barrett voted YES......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Upcoming Votes

Flag Desecration Resolution - S.J.Res.12

The Senate is scheduled to begin debate of this proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations Act, FY2007 - H.R.5672

The House is scheduled to take up this $60 billion bill funding the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce and various science agencies for the 2007 fiscal year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006 - H.R.4761

This House bill would expand oil and natural gas exploration in coastal waters.


WASHINGTON -- Despite record low approval ratings, House lawmakers Tuesday embraced a $3,300 pay raise that will increase their salaries to $168,500.

The 2 percent cost-of-living raise would be the seventh straight for members of the House and Senate.

Lawmakers easily squelched a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, to get a direct vote to block the COLA, which is automatically awarded unless lawmakers vote to block it.

In the early days of GOP control of Congress, lawmakers routinely denied themselves the annual COLA. Last year, the Senate voted 92-6 to deny the raise but quietly surrendered the position in House-Senate talks
As part of an ethics reform bill in 1989, Congress gave up their ability to accept pay for speeches and made annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless the lawmakers voted otherwise.

The pay issue has been linked to the annual Transportation and Treasury Department spending bill because that measure stipulates that civil servants get raises of 2.7 percent, the same as military personnel will receive. Under a complicated formula, the increase translates to 2 percent for members of Congress.

Like last year, Matheson led a quixotic drive to block the raise. He was the only member to speak on the topic.

"I do not think that it is appropriate to let this bill go through without an up or down vote on whether or not Congress should have an increase in its own pay," Matheson said.

But by a 249-167 vote, the House rejected Matheson's procedural attempt to get a direct vote on the pay raise.

The pay raise would also apply to the vice president - who is president of the Senate - congressional leaders and Supreme Court justices.

This year, Vice President Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Chief Justice William Rehnquist receive $212,100. Associate justices receive $203,000. House and Senate party leaders get $183,500.

President George W. Bush's salary of $400,000 is unaffected by the legislation.

2006-06-26 23:55:59 · 3 answers · asked by the_decider 2

2006-06-26 23:43:46 · 16 answers · asked by Wolf 1

2006-06-26 23:36:05 · 1 answers · asked by juliapitman04 2

Our goverment is taxing us to work, water, and taking over our houses. We are told what color to paint our own houses. We don't have the right to privacy anymore. People can't even sit out in front of their houses on the weekend and enjoy the time off from work. How much more constitutional fraud are we the people going to endure. We can't even afford to sit down and eat as family's. We are to busy paying taxes and for illigal immagrants. They own all our liqur stores and work at all our fast foods. They can' t even understand english for gods sake. Whats the next corrupt move?

2006-06-26 22:43:59 · 4 answers · asked by capster 2

2006-06-26 21:52:37 · 1 answers · asked by bluediamond 1

2006-06-26 20:53:13 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-26 20:42:11 · 30 answers · asked by badr s 1

You as a citizen of the usa, want protection from every other country, many countries wants protection from the usa. You do have a right to protect your 'house' as do every other country.

Yet, America is invading more and more,
killing more and more,
selling more and more weapons,
stealing more and more oil,
killing more and more innocent civilians,
Then they gets involved when Iraq invades Kuwait... why did they get angry? Kuwait supplies the U.S with ???
The U.S gets involved when a country is killing terrorists like the terrorists that get killed in Diyarbakir, Turkey.
The U.S. gets involved when countries sell weapons to other countries, as long as the U.S. sells weapons its alright is it?
Why is oil so expensive in Turkey when they are next- door neighbours to Iraq, Middle East? The U.S. supplies Turkey with oil, thats why.

I am talking about the government which the people elected, MOST of the people in the U.S. are good people, which would not like these issues,

2006-06-26 20:22:38 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am looking for a mason named Bobby Rainwater in Oklahoma

2006-06-26 20:20:32 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-26 20:18:29 · 10 answers · asked by ...... 2

What happens is that I dont have a California ID....I mean im legal by all means (im a US citizen) and I only have a school id and my birth certificate, social security ect. Do you think they will let me in just showing those papers and our wedding papers (I still havent changed my last name) he is not going to a penitentary...just to county (local) ...Do you think I need to get a CA id? or can they let me in w/o a legal id? I dont even have a drivers license because im not 18 yet...confused...help!

2006-06-26 19:43:45 · 8 answers · asked by Pretty_LeLii 1

2006-06-26 19:26:02 · 15 answers · asked by sampsonanddelicious 1

resources to become self sustaining, simply copy the infrastructure systems implemented in America and become great nations?

2006-06-26 19:07:31 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

While Israel has never acknowledged it has nuclear weapons of its own, Israeli and foreign experts believe it possesses 100-200 nuclear devices and has the capability to deliver them via American-made F-15 and F-16 warplanes and the Jericho II missile, based on a prototype Israel developed with France in the 1960s.

The ability to deliver nuclear weapons from submarines would significantly enhance Israel's reported nuclear deterrent, by shielding the launch platform from all but the most sophisticated countermeasures. According to the Times story, Israel would use Dolphin class diesel-powered submarines acquired from Germany to launch the nuclear-armed Harpoon missiles. Israel has three such submarines in its arsenal.

A report Sunday in the German weekly Der Spiegel said Israel had identified six sites where Iran was allegedly developing nuclear weapons, most believed to be inland. Der Spiegel reported that Israel's Mossad intelligence agency was developing a plan to attack the alleged nuclear weapons sites in Iran. Iran acknowledges that it has a nuclear development program, but says it is designed only to generate electricity.

2006-06-26 18:57:04 · 8 answers · asked by The Patriot 1

2006-06-26 18:52:35 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary

2006-06-26 18:47:11 · 4 answers · asked by The Patriot 1

i need to know also whom the only president was to resign why?and where?and when? also the 7 presidents from ohio,and the 2 presidents that were impeached,and what was the results

2006-06-26 18:34:06 · 10 answers · asked by angeldolphin68 1

2006-06-26 18:30:40 · 4 answers · asked by Chad 7

2006-06-26 17:43:50 · 21 answers · asked by Glo 1

2006-06-26 17:41:21 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous