Five months of Democratic control of the Congress

[imported_Shivetya]

Their first major accomplishment, as of this week, has been to reissue the "blank check" to President Bush on the Iraq War, which they had complained about so vociferously in the last election campaign. Democratic literature for the base has tried to sugar-coat this fact, but fact it is.

2. The new Congress has successfully renamed six post offices, four courthouses, a national park, and one of the buildings housing the Department of Education in Washington. They also extended the lives of two government commissions, reduced the membership of the Red Cross board of governors from 50 to 20, and authorized construction of 541 feet of road on a flood plain in St. Louis County, Missouri.

3. Congress also kept the government going with two temporary spending bills, redesignated five Eastern European countries (Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia and Ukraine) for security aid, and passed a bill on penalties for animal fighting that had passed in the Republican Congress last year.

4. Democrats can be proud of a change in House rules and an increase to the national minimum wage. But celebration has been minimal. For one thing, they have worked and even voted to undermine their own ethics rules, the latest example being the case of Rep. Jack Murtha, to say nothing of their continued (and mostly bipartisan) use of earmarks to distribute favors. Also, the minimum wage bill came attached to the bill in which they capitulated to President Bush on Iraq.

5. Democrats do not want to have their takeover Congress labeled as a "do-nothing" Congress, and for that reason, they are eager to enact more of their agenda. But they have been largely stymied, especially in the U.S. Senate, which always posed such a problem for Republicans before. Even in the House, Republicans have successfully used recommittal motions to divide the majority caucus

6. The perception of inaction can certainly be reversed by Democrats in the coming year, but it will still have repercussions on majority Democrats' work on appropriations bills this year. Congress now faces a heavy agenda to fit into a schedule interrupted by several recesses before the end of the year, and this means little time for a dragged-out appropriations process. Democrats will find themselves dealing from a weaker position if they try to strip certain provisions from the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills. Already, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has expressed public concern over the scheduling of too little floor time for the Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) bill.

7. In early May, President Bush leveled a veto threat against bills that fail to contain the Hyde Amendment (forbidding U.S. government subsidies for abortion abroad) and other restrictions on the use of taxpayer dollars in the HHS and Foreign Operations appropriations bills. With a difficult timetable for legislative action, Democrats may find themselves unable to put their own ideological stamp on such bills without crippling delays by Senate Republicans and a justifiably intransigent President who does not face re-election and has little to lose by letting congressional Democrats shut down the government.

So, what do you think the need to do? The problem they faced is the same as the Republicans. Come election time the parties unite within, once the election is finished all the little groups split off and claw for their own piece of the pie.

In effect the government fails to do anything major but instead keeps plodding along with small bad ideas getting the most support as one faction gains favor with another by supporting the other sides earmarks. In other words, the sell out the American public to advance their little kingdoms.

 

[dullard]

That is EXACTLY why we should have and we did vote democrats into congress. Government inaction is one of the best things we can do for our country. More meddling is the wrong thing to do. We should NEVER want the party as president to be the same as the party in control of congress.

 

[fskimospy]

Haven't we had one of these threads before? As I mentioned in the past you can check wikipedia for dates of major legislation passed by previous congresses and find they they very often do not come immediately. This is particularly true of congresses in which leadership control has switched, and in congresses of a differing party then the president... both of which are true in this situation.

Please read up on this stuff before you continue making these threads.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haven't we had one of these threads before? As I mentioned in the past you can check wikipedia for dates of major legislation passed by previous congresses and find they they very often do not come immediately. This is particularly true of congresses in which leadership control has switched, and in congresses of a differing party then the president... both of which are true in this situation.

Please read up on this stuff before you continue making these threads.

Slow news day?

 

[db]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
The problem they faced is the same as the Republicans.

NOT the same.


And, it's pretty hard to get significant stuff passed when you don't have the votes to over ride a Presidential veto.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haven't we had one of these threads before? As I mentioned in the past you can check wikipedia for dates of major legislation passed by previous congresses and find they they very often do not come immediately. This is particularly true of congresses in which leadership control has switched, and in congresses of a differing party then the president... both of which are true in this situation.

Please read up on this stuff before you continue making these threads.

Sure we've had these...but no where near as many Bush is incompetent threads *shrug*

 

[Looney]

Better than rubber stamping more soldiers to their death.

 

[Lemon law]

For all the bitching, moaning, and complaining about democratic congressional inaction, the go slow approach is bearing some fruit--and I will post the following link from yahoo news titled GOP to Bush---adopt a new strategy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...BlIWr_Tl9qKoghaQis0NUE

But these are now Republican sponsored or co-sponsored demands that the Baker Hamilton report should be the future US guidelines for Iraq. And as Republicans and Democrats both desert GWB&co., we now finally have some hope that we can evolve a better strategy in Iraq and commit to it. As a congress unites in a bi-partisan desire to do what is best for America, Iraq, the mid-east, and the rest of the world. A win win win with only one loser which finally places GWB&co. as the odd man out.

I find it somewhat odd that the criteria of what the majority party of a congress does is the standard applied to judge a congress---when in fact all recent congresses are a mix of both parties and we should be asking what they collectively do.---or collectively fail to do.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: dullard
That is EXACTLY why we should have and we did vote democrats into congress. Government inaction is one of the best things we can do for our country. More meddling is the wrong thing to do. We should NEVER want the party as president to be the same as the party in control of congress.

Agreed. At least we haven't invaded Iran yet.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dullard
That is EXACTLY why we should have and we did vote democrats into congress. Government inaction is one of the best things we can do for our country. More meddling is the wrong thing to do. We should NEVER want the party as president to be the same as the party in control of congress.

Agreed. At least we haven't invaded Iran yet.

Nuclear weapons for everybody!

 

[Lemon law]

The nuclear weapons for everyone argument has been advanced by two factors. One is the invention of the smart bomb which means that a medium sized country can really be hurt by strikes from air craft carrier based planes---and before it would have taken thousands of sorties from land based planes to do as much damage.

And GWB is the first US President eager to invade foreign countries.---and the USA has WMD and will use it on its neighbors or anyone else in the world.

And now many resource rich nations are actively seeking the safety of having nukes for their own safety.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And GWB is the first US President eager to invade foreign countries.---and the USA has WMD and will use it on its neighbors or anyone else in the world.

Gulf of Tonkin : Lyndon Johnson

Bush learned the wrong lesson from a pro

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The nuclear weapons for everyone argument has been advanced by two factors. One is the invention of the smart bomb which means that a medium sized country can really be hurt by strikes from air craft carrier based planes---and before it would have taken thousands of sorties from land based planes to do as much damage.

And GWB is the first US President eager to invade foreign countries.---and the USA has WMD and will use it on its neighbors or anyone else in the world.

And now many resource rich nations are actively seeking the safety of having nukes for their own safety.

Don't forget the third factor, the entire Democratic Party shilling for those who are making the nuclear weapons in fear of George W Bush. Never mind the nuclear programs pre-date Bush, and Iraq, I won't let that fact interfere with the second factor.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Let's see, what has the Democratic Congress done:

Bring the U.S. troops back from Iraq, pulling the nation out of this quagmire -- nope. It's what the American people wanted them to do and so far they haven't done anything yet.

In the meantime, they're pushing illegal immigration amnesty which the majority of Americans do not want.

You're doing a great job, guys. Could Bush have asked for anything more?

It gets even better! In the 2008 presidential election the choice will be between...Hillary...and...whoever the Republicans put up. Most Americans would probably rather not vote for a Republican after the eight years of the disaster that is the Bush Administration...but then again...they'd rather not vote for Hillary either. Can't the Democrats put forth a candidate people would want to vote for (like Obama)?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: dullard
That is EXACTLY why we should have and we did vote democrats into congress. Government inaction is one of the best things we can do for our country. More meddling is the wrong thing to do. We should NEVER want the party as president to be the same as the party in control of congress.

While I partly agree with you, eventually somebody has to start rolling back the bloat in government. The path it is on is unsustainable, and I have a feeling the only way it can be rolled back is via complete collapse.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
While I partly agree with you, eventually somebody has to start rolling back the bloat in government. The path it is on is unsustainable, and I have a feeling the only way it can be rolled back is via complete collapse.

I also partly agree with what I said. Take what I said to the extreme, and it clearly isn't true. But, most of what we want is stability and not government overreaction with new laws every time a problem occured (often a problem that could have been solved with proper enforcement of existing laws and/or other existing solutions). True, there are times in which a government must act. Luckilly, even a do nothing congress/president still can get through SOMETHING if necessary. When a split party government passes something, it is usually a good law. It means compromises and not idealistic party extremes.

Historically the best (in terms of long term and short term problem solving, economy etc.) situation #1 to worst situation #4:
1) D pres with R congress.
2) R pres with D congress.
3) D pres with D congress.
4) R pres with R congress.

 

[shadow9d9]

How is it the same when the republicans had to deal with no vetoes and everything passed freely while the democrats get all of their bills vetoed?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dullard
That is EXACTLY why we should have and we did vote democrats into congress. Government inaction is one of the best things we can do for our country. More meddling is the wrong thing to do. We should NEVER want the party as president to be the same as the party in control of congress.

Agreed. At least we haven't invaded Iran yet.

Nuclear weapons for everybody!

How about Nuclear weapons for nobody!

Oh, you don't like that much.

Your idea? Nuclear weapons for you and allies and those you can't stop from getting them, and none for any enemies you can stop!

Now, why would any enemies want nuclear weapons with that policy? It's not like the US might mess with them, invade them, use the CIA for meddling in their political system...