Poll: Do you think the Democrats really have a chance of capturing the house, senate or both in November?

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87
1. I find it funny people thinking if we had a democratic controlled house and senate we would have contiunued on the surplus side of the budget. Their proof is 1 term, 1 term is not long enough to determine anything. Look further back, democratic senate + house with a republican president. There is ample points in time to show this theory is wrong.

I think the hope is that we'll have some form of accountability with the opposition party in control of congress, instead of a rubber stamp congress who looks the other way while the president rewards the people responsible for the cluster**** known as Iraq with medals of freedom.

personally, I feel like it should be a law that the executive and legislative branches can never be controlled by the same party

This is what I call a false hope. The democrats never controlled their spending at any other time under a republican president. What makes people think they will now? It is an election time ploy the democrats are making in the hope to fool the fools into voting for them. You can expect to see the same deficit spending if the democrats take office. Of course their excuse will be it is because Bush is in the white house that the democratic congress drafts up deficit ridden budgets.

And people of course will buy it hand over fist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think the hope is that we'll have some form of accountability with the opposition party in control of congress, instead of a rubber stamp congress who looks the other way while the president rewards the people responsible for the cluster**** known as Iraq with medals of freedom.

personally, I feel like it should be a law that the executive and legislative branches can never be controlled by the same party

That would be nice (and I would prefer it that way), but in most countries (like Canada and Britain for example) it's actually the law that the party that controls the legislative branch automatically gets control of the executive branch. So you could say that in the US we actually do it better than most (in that regard).

Saying that we have a "rubber stamp congress" is kind of ridiculous though. What we actually have is a rubber stamp President. He's only vetoed one bill thus far.

 

[Craig234]

The democrats never controlled their spending at any other time under a republican president.

Bull. Look at the deficits run up under democrats and compare them to Reagan/Bush and Bush 43.

There are simply people like you who fall for the lies.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87
1. I find it funny people thinking if we had a democratic controlled house and senate we would have contiunued on the surplus side of the budget. Their proof is 1 term, 1 term is not long enough to determine anything. Look further back, democratic senate + house with a republican president. There is ample points in time to show this theory is wrong.

I think the hope is that we'll have some form of accountability with the opposition party in control of congress, instead of a rubber stamp congress who looks the other way while the president rewards the people responsible for the cluster**** known as Iraq with medals of freedom.

personally, I feel like it should be a law that the executive and legislative branches can never be controlled by the same party

This is what I call a false hope. The democrats never controlled their spending at any other time under a republican president.

but we have a republican president?

 

[moshquerade]

in a way, i hope they do, and then we will see they suck just as much if not more than the current admin.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

So the largest and most expensive government health care plan in US history wasn't for the good of its citizens, especially the elderly poor?

First, it was hardly the largest government health care plan in US history. Ever hear of Medicare, for example?

Second, it is a corrupt program - for example, the republicans *demanded* the bill add a clause saying the government is barred from using its huge buying power to negotiate any discounts on the drugs (which the VA does, for example), leading to $150B+ directly in windfall profits for the drugmakers at taxpayer expense.

You have to realize that crooks like these see the government as a tool for extracting money from the suckers, the public, into the pockets of their donor cronies, and they do it under the guise of good causes - drug programs, war, etc.

Thirdly, the program sucks compared to what it should be for seniors, for the cost. For many seniors it makes drugs more expensive.

Fourth, the process by which the republicans committed this crime was a scandal, for example, threatening the person who calculated the real cost of the bill to silence him, and threatening the son of one of the members who was voting no in the son's upcoming election, and reportedly promising $100,000 aid for the son with a yes vote.

The republicans did something unprecedented in the history of congress when, after losing the vote, they just kept it open all night for hours while they arm-twisted the votes.

Medicare Part D and MMA 2003 are far and away the most expensive health care plan in US history (estimated cost of $500 billion).

What you fail to see in your partisan zealotry is that all such government programs are corrupt and always have been. The influence of the wealthy in government always expands correspondingly with the increase of government power. With absolute government power, the wealthy acheive absolute influence (as has been reflected in every totalitarian government ever, including [especially?] socialist and communist ones).

The process which you refer to BTW, of disguising the actual cost, was actually used to keep the fiscally conservative Republicans in line, as the bill passed by a narrow margin in the House (my Democratic congressperson, David Wu, abstained from voting, while my Democratic senator, Ron Wyden, voted in favor).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

The democrats never controlled their spending at any other time under a republican president.

Bull. Look at the deficits run up under democrats and compare them to Reagan/Bush and Bush 43.

There are simply people like you who fall for the lies.

FDR?

 

[Craig234]

WWII?

Look at FDR's deficits *outside* of WWII, and compare them to WWII.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234

and in fact, greatly resemble FDR's)

Rarely is something less accurate posted. For a start, you confuse big government for the good of the nation and the bulk of its citizens, especially the poor but for all, even the rich, with big government which is disastrous for the nation, a radical transfer of wealth to the top, running the nation into bankruptcy and oligarchy.

Really? So the largest and most expensive government health care plan in US history wasn't for the good of its citizens, especially the elderly poor? The multi-trillion dollar defense industry that GW's government funds doesn't employ millions of average Americans? And these policies aren't almost the exact same way that FDR funded the US out of the depression? And (regarding wealth transfer to the top), multi-billionaire industrialist J. Paul Getty didn't call FDR's administration the "bargain days"?

I'd say if anyone needs to face facts, it's a partisan fanboi like you.

You don't see a difference between FDR's taxing the rich to employ the unemployed in public works projects and GWB's taxing the middle class to support the high tech military expenditures (the ones Eisenhower himself warned us about)?

Although similar, I see a distinct difference.

WWII?

Eisenhower warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex and yet he was a what? And LBJ was a what and yet he gave that same military-industrial complex the Vietnam War?

The South now votes for the Party of Lincoln?

Tied up in your little partisan zealotry, I don't think you people are able to see the big picture of politics and government in America. People say that the Democrats only complain and don't actually present solutions for the current problems caused by the Republicans, and (if you step back for a moment) it's easy to see why. The Democrats wouldn't have done things any differently. Read the Congressional Record.

I believe I understand where your coming from, but I don't think you have me pegged as well as you think you do. Just because I hate GWB with a passion doesn't mean I'm a total partisian hack.

Part of the problem is that it seems that everything that could have gone wrong under Bush Jr. has, and that has only magnified by hate and distrust of the Republicans. I guess maybe that does make me seem partisian, but once the Bush machine has been crushed and we no longer have to worry about Jeb running for President I will be able to relax a bit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
WWII?

Exactly.

And LBJ and Vietnam. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

edit to your edit:

Look at FDR's deficits *outside* of WWII, and compare them to WWII.

They were all massive. Those New Deal programs cost an unholy bundle, and many economicists have not-uncorrectly pointed out that they may have done more harm than good.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I believe I understand where your coming from, but I don't think you have me pegged as well as you think you do. Just because I hate GWB with a passion doesn't mean I'm a total partisian hack.

Part of the problem is that it seems that everything that could have gone wrong under Bush Jr. has, and that has only magnified by hate and distrust of the Republicans. I guess maybe that does make me seem partisian, but once the Bush machine has been crushed and we no longer have to worry about Jeb running for President I will be able to relax a bit.

Perhaps.

IMO it's not that everything that could have gone wrong under Bush Jr. has, it's that it was all completely predictable. 2 wrongs still don't make a right though. America deserves more than just the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Lemon law]

There is exactly zero in our constitution about political parties---but somehow the US has developed a two party system---which has certain advantage in stability---but also certain distinct disadvantages. And rarely have third parties become forces in US politics---but they often can be spoilers.

Parlimentary systems of governments almost encourage multiple special interest parties---and even small minorities can get their way when they hold the key to a given coalition of parties retaining power.

What happened to term limits in the contract with America?---and I like Ralph Naders idea---none of the above being on the ballot---under what rocks do our political parties dredge up the devisive idiots they nominate---we end up with Republican or Democrats---and no Americans.

I remember watching the Webb Allen debate on meet the depresed lately--and commented to my wife---they are both total idiots and bigots--and neither has a place in the modern world. ---with the few voters who go to the polls often leaving holding their nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

The democrats never controlled their spending at any other time under a republican president.

Bull. Look at the deficits run up under democrats and compare them to Reagan/Bush and Bush 43.

There are simply people like you who fall for the lies.

Are you trying prove my point for me? Reagan had a democratically controlled congress, what was the deficit spending like? How about Bush senior?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87
1. I find it funny people thinking if we had a democratic controlled house and senate we would have contiunued on the surplus side of the budget. Their proof is 1 term, 1 term is not long enough to determine anything. Look further back, democratic senate + house with a republican president. There is ample points in time to show this theory is wrong.

I think the hope is that we'll have some form of accountability with the opposition party in control of congress, instead of a rubber stamp congress who looks the other way while the president rewards the people responsible for the cluster**** known as Iraq with medals of freedom.

personally, I feel like it should be a law that the executive and legislative branches can never be controlled by the same party

This is what I call a false hope. The democrats never controlled their spending at any other time under a republican president.

but we have a republican president?

Yes and? Like I said, the democrats never controlled their spending when they were under a republican president. So what makes you think under this president they would suddenly control spending?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87
1. I find it funny people thinking if we had a democratic controlled house and senate we would have contiunued on the surplus side of the budget. Their proof is 1 term, 1 term is not long enough to determine anything. Look further back, democratic senate + house with a republican president. There is ample points in time to show this theory is wrong.

I think the hope is that we'll have some form of accountability with the opposition party in control of congress, instead of a rubber stamp congress who looks the other way while the president rewards the people responsible for the cluster**** known as Iraq with medals of freedom.

personally, I feel like it should be a law that the executive and legislative branches can never be controlled by the same party

This is what I call a false hope. The democrats never controlled their spending at any other time under a republican president.

but we have a republican president?

Yes and? Like I said, the democrats never controlled their spending when they were under a republican president. So what makes you think under this president they would suddenly control spending?

they don't have to. I feel like the president will be a lot more likely to use the power of the veto against democrats.

 

[Vic]

Both parties use deficit spending for 2 reasons:
- They promise to give the voting public more than they have the balls to ask for.
- The banking interests that control this country's government and both political parties profit from the interest on the national debt.

 

[mc00]

I say yes in hope they will win but in my heart tell me they won't.

I have no trust for any party.. but I have more respect for Dem than republican... is funny thou my wife family all fcking religion folk and theyall ready say they will vote for who ever is god believer they think religion people are best people to run the country.. <-- man save me from this people..

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: CellarDoor

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Not if electronic voting machines continue to be as insecure as they currently are. link

 

[Staples]

I don't.

In the US where very few voters actually pay attention to politics, I don't think Republican scandal one after another will have as much of an effect to rock the vote. Anyway, I think the anylists don't believe the average voter is as dumb as I think they are.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
WWII?

Exactly.

And LBJ and Vietnam. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

edit to your edit:

Look at FDR's deficits *outside* of WWII, and compare them to WWII.

They were all massive. Those New Deal programs cost an unholy bundle, and many economicists have not-uncorrectly pointed out that they may have done more harm than good.

1. The previous Republican leadership had us in good shape then, right?

2. If FDR was so bad, why was he elected 4 times?


Edit: changed has to had.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Prof John,

The biggest defecit spenders in American history were Ronald Reagan and GWB---Republicans both---its just a myth--and nothing more that you are peddling.

If you want to quanify things with the facts---use the facts---and Bill Clinton is the only President in recent history to have a balanced budget---and he was--gasp--a democrat.

It was a Republican congress that along with Clinton balanced the budget. Go back and look at the budgets deficits that Clinton had projected BEFORE the Republicans took over, there was no plan to balance the budget. Had the Republicans not taken over there is a good chance we would have never seen that balanced budget. Sad to say these same Republicans seem to be on a drunken spending spree. But the good news is that the deficit this year will be lower than last year and that if we can control spending we make actually balance the budget again in a few years.

That's a distortion. The truth is the Democratic Congress took one for the country, and passed a fiscally responsible tax increase, and that is why the deficit shrank over the next 8 years.

Going back and looking at the projections you mention, shows that the positive effects of fiscal responsibility were underestimated by the Clinton administration, but if you want a really good laugh, go look at the ranting and raving the Republicans made at the same time about how the tax increase was going to destroy the economy.

The Gingrich Congress did absolutely nothing concerning fiscal responsibility that a relected Democratic congress wouldn't have done, except they wouldn't have screwed around with the stupid shutting down the government stunt first. You can speculate that my opinion is wrong about that, but that is all you would be doing, speculating. You cannot present any facts to support your opinion, while all I have to do is point to the past 5 years of actual conduct by a Republican congress, those are facts, not speculation.

There is nothing surprising about the current Republican congress' complete lack of fiscal responsibility, ALL Republicans are like that, they talk a good game, but play a completely different hand.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
WWII?

Exactly.

And LBJ and Vietnam. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

edit to your edit:

Look at FDR's deficits *outside* of WWII, and compare them to WWII.

They were all massive. Those New Deal programs cost an unholy bundle, and many economicists have not-uncorrectly pointed out that they may have done more harm than good.

1. The previous Republican leadership had us in good shape then, right?

2. If FDR was so bad, why was he elected 4 times?


Edit: changed has to had.

What do your points have to do with my arguments? The world isn't black and white and 2 wrongs don't make a right. If I say the Dems are bad, that doesn't mean I'm saying the Pubs are good. Quite the contrary, I despise them both, and their blind mindless party faithful sheeple most of all.

 

[Feldenak]

I hope they don't win both houses but the Dems winning 1 would be good. Hopefully it would stalemate some of the ridiculous measures being put forth and limit some of the more hairbrained stuff from the White House.

 

[piasabird]

Deficeits are only one picture. If you balance the budget by decreasing funding to the military, and then you need the military, you are not really balancing the budget. You are only digging a big hole and hiding in the sand.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
WWII?

Exactly.

And LBJ and Vietnam. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

edit to your edit:

Look at FDR's deficits *outside* of WWII, and compare them to WWII.

They were all massive. Those New Deal programs cost an unholy bundle, and many economicists have not-uncorrectly pointed out that they may have done more harm than good.

That's BS.

Text


The deficit as a % of GDP doubled under REPUBLICAN Hoover, and was flat throughout FDR's presidency, until WW2.

If you read the accompanying Wiki article, a minority of economists make the claim you mention, but a large majority disagree.

btw, I use the Wiki artical as a reference because it's easy, but I've known this about FDR for a long time. He tried very hard to maintain fiscal discipline and preserve capitalism as we know it, in the face of a tremendous economic problem that none of us can really appreciate.

That's why any conservative with even an ounce of common sense appreciates what FDR accomplished. A valid argument can be made that some social programs got out of hand, (I wouldn't agree, but it's at least not totally unfounded), later on, but that was not FDR's
fault.