Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    (snip)"A Failure to Lead
    The Democratic Congress is more interested in acting out than in taking positive action.

    BY KARL ROVE
    Friday, November 9, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

    This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.

    The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.

    Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.

    Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as "tax reform" by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month."(snip)

    (snip)"Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical."(snip)

    (snip)"Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.

    The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead."(snip)

  2. #2
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    Karl Rove? Criticizing Democrats? Surely not.

  3. #3
    stellaforstars
    Guest

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    ^^

    Indeed.

  4. #4
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    Karl Rove? I expect better than that from you Melonie.

    Since you like sniping of articles, try this one on:

    SUBVERTING MAJORITY RULE
    By Robert Borosage on September 20, 2007 - 12:38pm.

    The Republican obstruction campaign continues. Yesterday, the Republican minority in the Senate filibustered and blocked two measures that had majority support in the House, and bipartisan majority support in the Senate. Republicans continue to filibuster at a pace three times anything ever seen before, in a systematic effort to block popular reforms.

    (snip) Republicans are filibustering so many bills that the press has begun to cover this extreme tactic as business as usual. The front-page Washington Post story covering the Webb proposal is headlined “Senate bill short of sixty votes needed.” The article says the proposal “failed on a 56 to 44 vote, with 60 votes needed for passage.” The article never tells the reader that the reason majority rule was frustrated was because of a Republican filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome.

    (snip)It is vital that the press get this right – and that the media expose the extraordinary scope of the Republican strategy of obstruction. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, has announced that Republicans will filibuster every “controversial measure.” They are making majority rule the exception rather than the routine in the Senate. Never has any party been so brazen or systematic in using the filibuster to block the majority.

    (snip)Their strategy is clear – and very likely to work. The public expects the party in charge to get things done. Excuses are largely dismissed as political bickering. The Republican minority blocks popular reforms and then charges Democrats with running a “do-nothing Congress.” For scandal-stained Republican legislators yoked to an unpopular president pursing an unpopular debacle in Iraq, this may be their best hope for survival.

    (snip)These measures did not fail for lack of bipartisan, majority support. They have majority support in the House, the Senate and among the American people. They failed because they were blocked by a partisan minority pursing a partisan political strategy. The press should insure that Americans are told that story.

    Here's the complete story for anybody interested:
    http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/sub..._majority_rule

    Another good site:
    http://home.ourfuture.org/filibuster.html

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    ^^^ well, who can blame the Republicans for applying techniques pioneered by the Democrats during the previous Congressional sessions ! How soon they forget that it was Democrats who altered de-facto Senate rules that now require a 60-40 majority on important votes instead of 51-49 via filibustering ...



    When Democrats were in the minority in the previous two congressional sessions, the de-facto 60-40 majority rule change was supposedly an absolutely essential development to guarantee bipartisan participation in the democratic process. However, now that Democrats are in the majority, but a majority of less than 60 votes, all of a sudden the Republicans mustering 41+ votes against them under the very same 'new' Senate rules put in place by Democrats during previous Senate sessions are supposedly guilty of 'subverting majority rule' ? This smacks of partisan Hypocracy at a truly astonishing level !

    Along this line, while Karl Rove's editorial was admittedly about as subtle as a trillion dollar tax increase, he does raise one very valid point. During this congressional session Republicans DID offer bi-partisan compromises on many pieces of legislation. It was the Democratic majority who chose to throw the Republican compromise offers overboard and to press on with their unlateral legislation, which in turn resulted in either republican filibusters or presidential vetos which the Democrats KNEW they didn't have the votes to override. This was done for the express purpose of earning political brownie points in the mainstream media in preparation for the next election i.e. "Republicans want to deny health insurance coverage to children" even though it was the Republicans who created the SCHIP program in the first place and even though the Republicans were offering a compromise that significantly increased SCHIP spending for CHILDREN's coverage. However, as with your complaint about mainstream media not covering republican filibusters, the same mainstream media did not bother to cover the fact that a republican compromise offer was put forward and rejected by Democratic leadership. Again the partisan hypocracy is simply amazing.


    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-10-2007 at 02:45 PM.

  6. #6
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ well, who can blame the Republicans for applying techniques pioneered by the Democrats during the previous Congressional sessions ! How soon they forget that it was Democrats who altered de-facto Senate rules that now require a 60-40 majority on important votes instead of 51-49 via filibustering ...

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...7/163742.shtml

    When Democrats were in the minority in the previous two congressional sessions, the de-facto 60-40 majority rule change was supposedly an absolutely essential development to guarantee bipartisan participation in the democratic process. However, now that Democrats are in the majority, but a majority of less than 60 votes, all of a sudden the Republicans mustering 41+ votes against them under the very same 'new' Senate rules put in place by Democrats during previous Senate sessions are supposedly guilty of 'subverting majority rule' ? This smacks of partisan Hypocracy at a truly astonishing level !
    Republicans have every right to use the fillibuster but to do so then complain about a "do nothing congress" is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Along this line, while Karl Rove's editorial was admittedly about as subtle as a trillion dollar tax increase, he does raise one very valid point. During this congressional session Republicans DID offer bi-partisan compromises on many pieces of legislation. It was the Democratic majority who chose to throw the Republican compromise offers overboard and to press on with their unlateral legislation, which in turn resulted in either republican filibusters or presidential vetos which the Democrats KNEW they didn't have the votes to override. This was done for the express purpose of earning political brownie points in the mainstream media in preparation for the next election i.e. "Republicans want to deny health insurance coverage to children" even though it was the Republicans who created the SCHIP program in the first place and even though the Republicans were offering a compromise that significantly increased SCHIP spending for CHILDREN's coverage. However, as with your complaint about mainstream media not covering republican filibusters, the same mainstream media did not bother to cover the fact that a republican compromise offer was put forward and rejected by Democratic leadership. Again the partisan hypocracy is simply amazing.
    LOL, I can't recall republicans compromising at all over the 6 years they had control of congress (and the white house), now they expect the dems too? Talk about hypocracy.

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    LOL, I can't recall republicans compromising at all over the 6 years they had control of congress (and the white house), now they expect the dems too? Talk about hypocracy.
    Again the convenient shortness of memory is absolutely astounding ...




    Republicans have every right to use the fillibuster but to do so then complain about a "do nothing congress" is a bit disingenuous to say the least.
    Au contraire ! During the previous two congressional sessions, once it became clear that the 60-40 majority rule change was here to stay, the Republican leadership altered many of their actions away from their actual preferences in order to actually get something accomplished. I would offer the nomination of SC Chief Justice John Roberts, and the withdrawl of Miguel Estrada's nomination, and the withdrawl of a 'permanent' extension of the 2003 Bush tax cuts in favor of a 'temporary' extension, as prime examples. In contrast, the Democratic leadership of the current congressional session hasn't chosen to compromise a bit in the interest of getting anything accomplished.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-10-2007 at 03:42 PM.

  8. #8
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    ^^^Ok, sorry, there's one instance, but truth be told that was GWB's baby, if there was compromise involved most of it was between GWB and the republican congress.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    ^^^Ok, sorry, there's one instance, but truth be told that was GWB's baby, if there was compromise involved most of it was between GWB and the republican congress.
    well, some would argue that GWB allowed Teddy Kennedy to write the friggin' education bill !

    At any rate, it can be equally argued that the initial bipartisanship that WAS extended to minority Democrats on some issues in the previous two congressional sessions was NOT reciprocated by Democrats on other issues ... resulting in the withdrawl of further bipartisan compromise offers on the part of the majority Republicans once it became glaringly apparent that the minority Democrats expected all 'take' and no 'give'.

    As to your supposed point about Republican obstructionism, today the majority Democrats are STILL expecting all 'take' and no 'give' ... and as a result it is THEY who are choosing not to compromise and thus not getting much of anything accomplished !!!


    I will concede that the Democrat persistence did finally accomplish something this past week ... $20 odd billion dollars worth of spending with lots of 'pork' for Louisiana ... made possible with the 'help' of congressional republicans to override a GWB veto.



    (snip)"Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), in fact, put out a press release late last night declaring Thursday as "our $12 billion day." Indeed, Louisiana received $3 billion in home reconstruction aid that was dropped into the Defense spending bill late in negotiations. That bill cleared the Senate on Thursday. Louisiana will receive $7 billion of the $23 billion water resources development act money thanks to the resounding override of President Bush's veto of that bill. And the Pelican State will receive $2 billion in defense funds for various military projects and installations in that state under the Pentagon spending bill.

    Bringing home the bacon for Louisiana certainly doesn't hurt Landrieu, who is the Republicans' top target in 2008 Senate elections.

    But Senate Republicans late on Thursday night decided not to try to jettison Louisiana's $3 billion earmark for the Louisiana Road Home housing recovery program. Technically speaking, the late addition of that money to the defense spending bill could have violated Senate rules. But it would only have mattered if someone decided to raise a ruckus on the Senate floor.

    According to Senate aides familiar with the behind the scenes negotiations, conservative Republicans backed off a threat to raise a point of order against Landrieu's money because Democrats agreed to give attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey a quick vote.

    Landrieu left the Senate floor late Thursday night with a pile of money for her state."(snip)


    Of course one major reason that the republicans were forced to go along with this Democratic 'pork' spending spree were actually centered on past memories of the mainstream media making racial discrimination accusations against Republican politicians in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina ... something that they certainly didn't want to have to deal with again given that the next election is now less than a year away. There was also apparently a back room quid pro quo deal re the quick confirmation of new Attorney General Mukasey secretly tied to this 'pork' spending bill too, which mainstream media also chose not to report.

    what's the famous old barnacle of political wisdom ?

    'Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.' - Otto von Bismarck


    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-10-2007 at 04:28 PM.

  10. #10
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    ^^^^You know damn well that the GOP is not interested in bipartisanship. They are more interested in attempting to make the democrats appear ineffective.

    Speaking of short term memory, you seem to have it regarding GOP pork don't you??

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    Speaking of short term memory, you seem to have it regarding GOP pork don't you??
    Not at all ! I was just as pissed off about the billion dollar Alaskan 'bridge to nowhere' as I was about the billion dollar Louisiana pork spending. The difference of course is that the Alaskan 'bridge to nowhere' appropriation was shot down, whereas the Louisiana pork spending was approved ! Also, the Democrats add immeasurably to the 'pork' hypocracy since their 2006 congressional majority is in fact at least partially due to voter promises that 'Earmark Reform' would be implemented after they were elected ... which the landmark large 'pork' appropriation for senator Landrieu (democrat, Louisiana) flies directly in the face of !!!!! Of course, she's certainly not alone ... but the millions in earmarks for other prominent Democratic senators and representatives approved in this congressional session are dwarfed by Landrieu's billions !



    (snip)"Considering the Interior Appropriations bill June 26, the House kept alive 11 egregious earmarks. Rep. John Murtha, king of Democratic earmarkers, kept $1.2 million for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission in HoIIidaysburg, Pa. (by a 343-lo-86 vote), and $150,000 for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry in Greene County, Pennsylvania (328 to 104). The House voted 323 to 104 to retain $!40,000 for the Wetzel County. West Virginia, courthouse sponsored by Democratic Rep. Allan Mollohan (W.Va.), whose earmarks have provoked an FBI investigation.

    Moving on to Financial Services Appropriations June 28, the House voted 335 to 87 to continue Murtha's raid on the Treasury: $231,000 for the Grace Johnstown (Pa.) Area Regional Industries Incubator. By 325 to 101, the members refused to remove a $231,000 Mollohan earmark for the West Virginia University Research Corp. to renovate a "small business incubator." (snip)


    They are more interested in attempting to make the democrats appear ineffective.
    In all objectivity, the democrats don't need any help from the republicans in making themselves appear ineffective. The ARE ineffective despite their majority! And the reason that they are ineffective is that they choose not to yield an inch despite knowing full well they don't have the 60 votes necessary to back up that unyielding position ... presumably out of fear of alienating their 'extremist' liberal support base. This is political grandstanding no more no less, and has made this congress the most ineffective congress in recent memory.




    Please don't read my personal position incorrectly ... which is that ALL of these sons of bitches are able to spend my tax money way too easily !!! But the apparent hypocracy of the Democrats promising to provide Earmark Reform in order to get elected in 2006, but then throwing that promised Earmark Reform completely out the window where new earmarks for Democratic senators is concerned, is just galling ! Then if you consider that the Democrats are talking about a trilliion dollar tax increase in order to spend MORE of my tax money, rather than discussing one dollar worth of spending reductions ...

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-10-2007 at 05:53 PM.

  12. #12
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    Did ya get bored today, Melonie? Posting a Karl Rove article? LOL!

    What's the approval rate on the Congress these days? 11% or so? Makes Bush look like Mr. Popular.

    Everyone sees through their bullshit. They are busy gaming each other in rhetoric (and still spending our money) while the rest of us try and figure out how to form an independent coalition or third party to shake things up a bit.

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    ^^^ Hey, I figured why not toss in a stick of dynamite in order to see what sort of shrapnel flies where !

    Here's a related question though ... even if, by whatever miracle, a third party presidential candidate were to wind up in the White House, that president would still have to deal with a congress full of entrenched multimillionaire professional politicians plus entrenched mainstream media. This would be a far different situation than Teddy Roosevelt's 'Bull Moose' victory one hundred odd years ago. Could a third party president actually accomplish much, or would there simply be four years worth of vetos and overrides ?

    I also get the strong feeling that this country is going to be forced to make changes, but only if and when enough Joe Sixpacks have seen enough negative changes in their personal situations / standard of living to become seriously pissed off.

  14. #14
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol View Post
    Everyone sees through their bullshit. They are busy gaming each other in rhetoric (and still spending our money) while the rest of us try and figure out how to form an independent coalition or third party to shake things up a bit.
    Michael Bloomberg???

  15. #15
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ Hey, I figured why not toss in a stick of dynamite in order to see what sort of shrapnel flies where !

    Here's a related question though ... even if, by whatever miracle, a third party presidential candidate were to wind up in the White House, that president would still have to deal with a congress full of entrenched multimillionaire professional politicians plus entrenched mainstream media. This would be a far different situation than Teddy Roosevelt's 'Bull Moose' victory one hundred odd years ago. Could a third party president actually accomplish much, or would there simply be four years worth of vetos and overrides ?

    I also get the strong feeling that this country is going to be forced to make changes, but only if and when enough Joe Sixpacks have seen enough negative changes in their personal situations / standard of living to become seriously pissed off.

    Just wait until they see what happens to their Social Security and FICA withholding in the years ahead.

    Those gutsy enough to even talk about the looming Social Security and Medicare crunch ( Obama & Greenspan) ALL say that an increase in Social Security taxes will be necessary. Greenspan wants to raise the retirement age to an actuarily sensible number. Obama wants to raise the income limit from $93,000 to over $200,000.

    The problem is that Social Security withholding only affects salaries and ordinary income. It doesn't touch capital gains , dividends , tax free interest or hedge fund earnings.

  16. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    The problem is that Social Security withholding only affects salaries and ordinary income. It doesn't touch capital gains , dividends , tax free interest or hedge fund earnings.
    ... which translates into the proposed $200,000 limit on SSI taxes having essentially no effect on the very rich or the banks and hedge funds that serve them, but having a devastating effect on 'middle class' wage earners and their employers.

  17. #17
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: First Anniversary of Democratic control of US Congress ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ... which translates into the proposed $200,000 limit on SSI taxes having essentially no effect on the very rich or the banks and hedge funds that serve them, but having a devastating effect on 'middle class' wage earners and their employers.
    Exactly ! This is the problem with career politicians like Charlie Rangel ; Robert Byrd and so many others in BOTH parties. It has been decades since they worked in the PRIVATE SECTOR. "Byrd-brain" has been in the Senate for close to 50 years. Rangel has been in the House since 1970. They and their colleagues get a regular Gov't. paycheck in the high six-figures with Federal Withholding ; Social Security and FICA all deducted. They don't pay for their offices ; their staff ;their phones; faxes ; stationary ; postage or toilet paper and they certainly don't pay a dime for their HEALTH CARE. So it's easy for them to say that those making up to $200,000 ought to pay higher Social Security. They don't feel it and have difficulty understanding how a small business owner or skilled professional would either.
    And the K Street lobbyists have spent a LOT of time, money and effort to see to it that big-time corporate execs and Wall St. types are free to get paid primarily in stock options and hedge fund fees where there is NO Social Security deducted.

Similar Threads

  1. Democratic National Convention 2012
    By thefrog in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-28-2011, 11:27 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-11-2008, 03:25 PM
  3. Democratic and Republican National Conventions
    By britneyireland in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 09-08-2008, 02:49 PM
  4. Democratic Convention
    By JDanielle in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 01:55 AM
  5. Democratic Debate 4/26/07
    By PorschaM in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-27-2007, 06:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •