Making us proud

11 Responses to Making us proud

1. Nathan says:

   April 13, 2009 at 6:53 am

   I’d have to say that Yglesias is a moron as well, considering his analysis that Nebraska has .6% of the population, but 2% of the Senate. Who cares? All spending bills by law come from the House where representation is equal (save Wyoming and Alaska).

   [Reply]
2. Tim says:

   April 13, 2009 at 7:03 am

   you misspelled “morons”.

   [Reply]

   neal replied:
   April 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

   Tim,

   I was amusing myself by referring to this great moment in protest history:

   

   [Reply]

   theotherneill replied:
   April 14th, 2009 at 11:52 am

   What does he have against Mr. Moran? He was a great Spansh teacher.

   [Reply]
3. Joshua says:

   April 13, 2009 at 3:00 pm

   If they don’t like it, maybe they should elect some republican congressman rather than the far-left liberals representing Nebraska in congress now.

   [Reply]
4. Who cares says:

   April 13, 2009 at 3:38 pm

   Nathan, you do realize that the Senate still votes on spending bills, correct? And that they have all kinds of other powers and obligations besides, right? This might go some way towards answering your question.

   [Reply]

   Nathan replied:
   April 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

   Yes, I know that. But 1.) the Senate represents the States, not the people, 2.) the people of the United States are equally represented in the House, 3.) all spending bills originate in the House. Yes, the Senate has to pass the same bill, but the bill originates in the House, the House is where the majority of the bill’s specifics come from. So, I’d say that his claim is moronic.

   [Reply]

   Who cares replied:
   April 14th, 2009 at 9:35 am

   3. True 2. True 1. Tell that to the Seventeenth Amendment. Representation =/= “technically gets to introduce spending bills first.”

   [Reply]
5. neal says:

   April 13, 2009 at 8:06 pm

   I’m having trouble following this logic.

   1. Nebraska teabaggers chant “No taxation without representation.”
   2. In response to this claim, Blogger Yglesias points out that Nebraskans actually do have representation. He adds that if you look at Senate representation compared to population, Nebraskans are over-represented.
   3. Commenter Nathan cites a fact that neither supports 1 nor refutes 2.
   4. Commenter Nathan thus concludes Blogger Yglesias is a moron.

   [Reply]

   Nathan replied:
   April 14th, 2009 at 6:27 am

   1. I agree, that is a stupid thing to chant.

   2. Yglesias does point out that Nebraska has representation with Fortenberry, Terry, and Smith. He should have dropped it there.

   The claim that he makes that Nebraskans are over represented is wrong. The Senate represents the State. He might as well have said Nebraska is UNDER represented because we only have .69% of the House, yet the State of Nebraska makes up 2% of the Union. It would be the same thing, comparing seats which are divided by population to the absolute entity of the state.

   Or better yet, he could have kept it on point and noted that Nebraska controls .69% of the House while only having .56% of the total US population, and is thus over represented in the House, where said appropriations bills originate.

   So yes, I think bringing in the red herring that is the Senate is stupid, as stupid as chanting “No taxation without representation.”

   [Reply]

   neal replied:
   April 14th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

   I just don’t think it’s reasonable to separate Yglesias’ comment from why he was saying it. It’s not as if he was claiming somebody screwed up and gave Nebraska too many Senators or something. He was responding to the absurd idea that Nebraskans have no representation by pointing out that we do, and quite clearly illustrating how our legislative clout is greater than our share of the population. There’s simply nothing incorrect about that.

   [Reply]