What if Democrats win a majority in Congress?

Maklershed

Maklershed

CAGiversary!
Feedback
77 (100%)
An interesting speculation piece from Richard Sammon of Kiplinger.com

Link to article:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/CongressUnderDemocrats.aspx


Brief excerpt:
[quote name='Kiplinger']
Don't think for a minute that a Democratic Congress would bring major change in Washington policy.

Democrats have no real interest in a wide-scale rollback of tax cuts, in forcing an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or in impeaching the president. Even if they did, they wouldn't have the power. [/quote]
 
Nancy Pelosi plans on immediately proposing a bill that would halve the interest rates on student loans, which stands in stark contrast to the bill Republicans were discussing the past few years which would prevent students from renegotiating their student loans.

Those bad Democrats don't want you to have your money...er...well...they're bad!

EDIT: That was actually a good op-ed; what it suggests is great, IMO: checks and fucking balances. If the Democrats get too much power too quickly, while maintaining the bitterness of putting up with a rubber-stamp congress and approval of fucking EVERYTHING the Bush administration wanted (someone please tell me what was stripped from the torture bill Bush signed this morning after the "compromise" with McCain, Chaffee, and Specter), they'll just react as harshly.

I can deal with the median in the meantime. It's too early for the Dems to go whole hog anyway: we got six years of bullshit to clean up and one Osama bin Laden to kill.

EDIT: Median, not media.
 
Its still like being fucked in the ass.... atleast this way we get a reacharound and maybe some breakfast.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']He actually had one? I thought the count was still at zero.[/QUOTE]

Bush vetoed a stem cell research bill a while back. But it remains his only veto to date (despite many threats).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Bush vetoed a stem cell research bill a while back. But it remains his only veto to date (despite many threats).[/QUOTE]

To be fair, he has used "signing statements" (which are less formal, and pass a bill while simultaneously pointing out specific provisions, or entire bills, that they have no intention whatsoever in following) far more than anybody prior to him.

It's a more cunning technique, as he can have the public appearance of a moderate (though that's sure up for debate), passing bill X (thebill in which they promised not to torture several months back - well before we began discussing the bill he signed yesterday), and putting out a signing statement that more or less says "I don't really mean this. I'm not going to follow this."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nancy Pelosi plans on immediately proposing a bill that would halve the interest rates on student loans, which stands in stark contrast to the bill Republicans were discussing the past few years which would prevent students from renegotiating their student loans.[/QUOTE]

Ahem...




DO THAT fuckING NOW AND NOT IN NOVEMBER.




That is all.



Actually, that's not all. Why do people think they need to wait for a 'regime change' in order to get bills passed? Hey, I got a great idea. How about coming on the Nightly News or CNN or MTV (god, I can't believe I gave them that much power) and saying, 'Here's what I'm proposing. If you agree with it, contact your Congressperson and tell them to vote for it.' Holy shit, we might actually get some decent things done.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Ahem...




DO THAT fuckING NOW AND NOT IN NOVEMBER.




That is all.[/quote]

Nancy Pelosi could propose the "let's all shake hands and sing kum-ba-ya bill of 2006" and it wouldn't pass. I won't fingerpoint at Republicans solely, but partisan politics is just that bad anymore. If the Democrats take control of either house of congress, don't expect any Republican congressperson to be able to do anything.

Okay, that's stretching the truth (Lieberman's CAMRA Act,andthe McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Bill are just two examples of that), but the fact of the matter is Republicans would never vote to cut interest rates on student loans; like I said, they've been entertaining the prospect of notallowing students to refinance their loans instead (!!!). It ain't pretty, and I'd rather she save it for when it could be passed. Some bills die in order to prove a political point, sure; I don't want this to be symbolic, I want it to happen.

Actually, that's not all. Why do people think they need to wait for a 'regime change' in order to get bills passed? Hey, I got a great idea. How about coming on the Nightly News or CNN or MTV (god, I can't believe I gave them that much power) and saying, 'Here's what I'm proposing. If you agree with it, contact your Congressperson and tell them to vote for it.' Holy shit, we might actually get some decent things done.
Click to expand...

Well, since the libs are in control of the "MSM," they should have an easy time of that. ;)

In reality, I wish that politicians would do just that. I really do. They'd have to vote to kill riders first, so that voting for or against a bill could be more easily understood.
 
there needs to be a regime change to have bills passed b/c when ONE party controls everything, nothing happens

when two parties share control, leverage can be applied in ways that a de-facto one party controlled govt could never achieve
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']there needs to be a regime change to have bills passed b/c when ONE party controls everything, nothing happens[/quote]

Tell that to:
the wealthy
the poor
everyone else in between
the oil industry
Halliburton
Iraq
Iran
Israel
North Korea
stem cells
homosexuals
women who are pregnant with a child they don't want
blacks
muslims
dissenters
...most importantly, tell it to habeus corpus. You been nappin' since January 2001?

when two parties share control, leverage can be applied in ways that a de-facto one party controlled govt could never achieve
Click to expand...

You missed Reagan's "gridlock congress," didn't you?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Tell that to:
the wealthy
the poor
everyone else in between
the oil industry
Halliburton
Iraq
Iran
Israel
North Korea
stem cells
homosexuals
women who are pregnant with a child they don't want
blacks
muslims
dissenters
...most importantly, tell it to habeus corpus. You been nappin' since January 2001?



You missed Reagan's "gridlock congress," didn't you?[/QUOTE]

any time you find some logic, go ahead and jump on it, chachi

i was responding to this statement

"Why do people think they need to wait for a 'regime change' in order to get bills passed?"

and i stand by my response 100%

not sure how you relate that list above to that or why you would think i don't know about current events on the world stage

you've read my work

also you still haven't returned my copy of Turok for N64 and i just sold it on Ebay so if you could return that, i'd be much obliged

p.s. since i voted for Reagan twice, no... i didn't miss the gridlock. that has nothing to do with a two party controlled system being able to actually pass more legislation than a single party controlled system
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']any time you find some logic, go ahead and jump on it, chachi

i was responding to this statement

"Why do people think they need to wait for a 'regime change' in order to get bills passed?"

and i stand by my response 100%
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how you can. When both parties control one aspect of the ruling system, we get shutdowns. When one party controls both aspects, things get done at a much higher rate. It may not be what everyone (or anyone for that matter) wants, but items do get passed.

I stand firmly behind my want that riders need to be abolished. Things may not get done, but at least we won't have a $40M our-schools-need-more-money bill tacked on to gay marriage legislation. I'll take gridlock over that.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I'm not sure how you can. When both parties control one aspect of the ruling system, we get shutdowns. When one party controls both aspects, things get done at a much higher rate. It may not be what everyone (or anyone for that matter) wants, but items do get passed.[/quote]

I think when PK was saying that "nothing gets done," he meant "the minority party can't hope to do anything buy prevent what they think is too much damage." I misread it too.

I stand firmly behind my want that riders need to be abolished. Things may not get done, but at least we won't have a $40M our-schools-need-more-money bill tacked on to gay marriage legislation. I'll take gridlock over that.
Click to expand...

Regretfully, I think the only people who disagree with ending riders are the only people who can vote on it.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Ahem...




DO THAT fuckING NOW AND NOT IN NOVEMBER.




That is all.



Actually, that's not all. Why do people think they need to wait for a 'regime change' in order to get bills passed? Hey, I got a great idea. How about coming on the Nightly News or CNN or MTV (god, I can't believe I gave them that much power) and saying, 'Here's what I'm proposing. If you agree with it, contact your Congressperson and tell them to vote for it.' Holy shit, we might actually get some decent things done.[/QUOTE]
Simple: the republicans are dead set against the Democrats being behind any bill that will get them votes. They want to be the ones who take the credit.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Simple: the republicans are dead set against the Democrats being behind any bill that will get them votes. They want to be the ones who take the credit.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't make sense though. If anything, if it were an issue they care about, then this would be the perfect time to bring it up. Either the Republicans would have to vote against it on the record which then could be used against them during the elections or support it and it gets passed. Otherwise it strikes me as just blowing smoke. Actions speak louder than words.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Simple: the republicans are dead set against the Democrats being behind any bill that will get them votes. They want to be the ones who take the credit.[/QUOTE]

This is mostly true, and vice versa. Yet another reason the two-party system sucks!
 
[quote name='dopa345']That doesn't make sense though. If anything, if it were an issue they care about, then this would be the perfect time to bring it up. Either the Republicans would have to vote against it on the record which then could be used against them during the elections or support it and it gets passed. Otherwise it strikes me as just blowing smoke. Actions speak louder than words.[/QUOTE]

Except that the republicans will block the bill from ever getting a vote. That way, republicans don't have to be accountable for their votes, and democrats don't get any "points".

Elprinciple - yes, it does work the other way as well.
 
The democrats are almost certain to retake the house, and will probably pull even in the Senate. I believe we will see impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney, or at least censure. Bush won't be able to get anything else done the next two years.
 
Don't need polling data. They'll commit voter fraud, steal elections, you know, the usual stuff.

By the way vermin, you libs rely on polls all you want, they are innacurate in a lot of cases. Im sure you remember the John Kerry exit poll. We'll see in about a week and a half. If im wrong, im wrong, but I don't think i will be.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Don't need polling data. They'll commit voter fraud, steal elections, you know, the usual stuff.

By the way vermin, you libs rely on polls all you want, they are innacurate in a lot of cases. Im sure you remember the John Kerry exit poll. We'll see in about a week and a half. If im wrong, im wrong, but I don't think i will be.[/QUOTE]

In other words, to hell with the data, your gut feeling is more often correct than random sampling of likely voters?

It's funny where you attribute fault in the 2004 election exit polls; time after time they showed people voting for Kerry in the contestable states, and the election results went to Bush. Somehow, you blame individually acting news reporters for getting consistent results from exit polls! You're a trip, kiddo. Seriously.

And, for the record, Ken Blackwell is the Secretary of State in the state I work in; don't tell me a goddamned thing about voter fraud. As Pee Wee Herman said, "I don't need to see it...I lived it."
 
I wouldn't rely on exit polls personally. Personally, I don't think they should be taken at all. People on the west coast can and have been influenced by these numbers.

However, I don't see the number of seats needed for a takeover changing hands. It might be close in the senate (50-50) but in reality there is never a tie in Congress.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In other words, to hell with the data, your gut feeling is more often correct than random sampling of likely voters?

It's funny where you attribute fault in the 2004 election exit polls; time after time they showed people voting for Kerry in the contestable states, and the election results went to Bush. Somehow, you blame individually acting news reporters for getting consistent results from exit polls! You're a trip, kiddo. Seriously.

And, for the record, Ken Blackwell is the Secretary of State in the state I work in; don't tell me a goddamned thing about voter fraud. As Pee Wee Herman said, "I don't need to see it...I lived it."[/quote]

Where did i blame the news reporters? If you have lived it then why does nothing every come out of these accusations vermin? Maybe because they are bulls**t?
 
Conviently you skip out on the 2nd part of the question. Im not blaming anyone for the exit polls. I said it was stupid to rely on polls, which is what you libs like to do so much. They got an overwhelming Dem. sample , what makes you think these other polls are any different.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Conviently you skip out on the 2nd part of the question. Im not blaming anyone for the exit polls. I said it was stupid to rely on polls, which is what you libs like to do so much. They got an overwhelming Dem. sample , what makes you think these other polls are any different.[/QUOTE]

Which is explainable by one of two things: liberal bias in the media (in which you would be blaming the media), or a sample of people who overwhelmingly voted democratic (which would suggest that the actual votes taken and counted were tampered with.

Now, Ken Blackwell *DID* (and he'll tell you this much) try to disqualify thousands of voter registrations in 2004 because (*drumroll*) they were on the wrong cardstock. The paper was not the correct thickness. So he tried to disenfranchise thousands from voting. That is fact. That's also the tip of the iceberg with Blackwell. Why did nothing come of it? For the same reason that Mark Foley lasted as long as he did in congress, mon ami: it pays to have your colleagues in every conceivable position of power.

There's your answer; next time you want to accuse me of not answering a question, please be certain that it's not something you edited in after making the first post. Jesus.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which is explainable by one of two things: liberal bias in the media (in which you would be blaming the media), or a sample of people who overwhelmingly voted democratic (which would suggest that the actual votes taken and counted were tampered with.
[/QUOTE]

Those aren't the only two reasons. I, for one, don't believe there was the massive vote tampering that left-of-liberals accuse Harris and Jeb Bush of stealing the election. I'm sorry, I've yet to see evidence one to support it. Yet the exit polls were totally incorrect.

It is possible that these people being polled are picked on purpose. That doesn't imply a liberal media bias, merely a bias in the people who pick and choose where and when to interview people. Are the reporters there during the middle of the day where there is an overwhelming amount of people who are voting and not working (which would imply need, which further relates (usually) to democrat supporters), or are they there first thing or last thing to see the people that are voting around working hours (which does not neccessarily imply one political party or another)?

A study was done at one of my universities of when people vote (very informal) and my comments are supported by that study. You get a much more even spread of politics early and late than in the middle. It also more closely was associated with the actual results. But it was an informal poll, but it's the only one I know of.

It's also very easy to predict which way a county will vote in a given election. I did a GIS survey of all the Georgia counties from 1988-2000 to see which way they voted. Over 75% of the counties voted in a manner that was predictable, and was statistically significant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top