What do you think of Democrats hitting 60 in the Senate?

[Dissipate]

The deck of the Titanic will just be repainted with a donkey logo instead of an elephant logo.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If the GOP choose to be be the party of grid lock like they did after 2007, having a filibuster proof Senate will be good for the country. If the GOP rejoins the United States and gets real, it does not matter how big the democratic majority in the Senate gets. There are a large number of conservative democratic senators who vote on principle and not party line to keep excesses in check.

But based on polls, I suspect Barrons will land about right in their predictions. And if nothing really changes in the way of external events, the GOP is paying the price for their failures.

But its ridiculous to assume any voter will go to the polls and vote on the basis of what the final count will be in other states.

Can't wait until the election is over... I suspect we will see what a "failure" really is. Sure, I might get a tax cut with Obama as president, but how many low income workers will lose their jobs because of IMHO, his unsound economic policies. These people who want to "redistribute the wealth" from the rich. I hope most of them know that in a recession/depression ,the people who get the pink slips are mostly the poor.

Yep. I own my own consulting firm and all of my clients are "small business" and a few are likely to be dinged pretty good by his tax plan. People just look at their own check and think that's the end of the story. What good is a tax cut if your employer lays you off? It will also hit both my wife's father's company and her stepfather's company.

Hell make it a 100% tax cut. 100% of 0 is still 0.

 

[jpeyton]

As much as I'd like 60, polling shows they have a solid chance of 57-59 seats. Here's hoping one or two more shift the Dems way so they get a filibuster proof majority.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Unless you make over $1 million dollars or more of taxable income you're likely to not get dinged by Obama's tax increases. Most small-businesses aren't generating that kind of revenue.

If you make between $200,000-$603,000 your taxes go up $12.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Unless you make over $1 million dollars or more of taxable income you're likely to not get dinged by Obama's tax increases. Most small-businesses aren't generating that kind of revenue.

If you make between $200,000-$603,000 your taxes go up $12.

Where are you getting that from?

When the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 everyone will get a tax increase.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: bdude
Seriously, just face it. You're gonna be the minority party for a while. The D's will show the R's how governing is actually done.

ala Pelosi?

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: bdude
Seriously, just face it. You're gonna be the minority party for a while. The D's will show the R's how governing is actually done.

ala Pelosi?

ALA President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: bdude
Seriously, just face it. You're gonna be the minority party for a while. The D's will show the R's how governing is actually done.

Are you on crack? Congress' approval rating is even lower than Bush's. Two entities in the past decade have managed to make larger asses of themselves than Bush: John Kerry and our current Congress.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: bdude
Seriously, just face it. You're gonna be the minority party for a while. The D's will show the R's how governing is actually done.

Are you on crack? Congress' approval rating is even lower than Bush's. Two entities in the past decade have managed to make larger asses of themselves than Bush: John Kerry and our current Congress.

Approval ratings of individual congressmen however remain high. This means control of Congress isn't likely to shift much in the next election or two.

 

[CalvinHobbes]

I'd be happier if we just got rid of the party system. Barring that, I don't think it's going to change a thing. They will still be corrupt and still working for whoever can pay the most.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
i think the idea of Democrats getting 60 should be scary to everyone except the most leftist of us.

Having one party control government is bad, having one party have complete control and the ability to do whatever it wants could be a disaster.

Right it looks like the Dems will end up a few seats short of the 60 mark.

I would really like to hear what our Democrat members have to say about this issue.

For the umpteenth time: 'one party' does not mean the same thing with Republicans and Democrats.

Having Republicans get one-party rule is bad. Having Democrats get it is not the same thing as Republicans getting it.

Many of our best government programs were passed by all-Democrat government and could not have been passed without it, including Social Security and Medicare.

You don't want the Democrats controlling any branches of government, as much as some Republicans today are temporarily less strident after the last 8 years.

So of course you are against all-democrat government.

And the fallacy of the righties now is to use the phrase 'one party government' as if the Republicans and Democrats are the same.

Is there a risk of the Democrats becoming 'corrupted' with too much power? Yes, of course, but there's also history showing a lot of good can happen too.

So, while I'll favor things to 'keep them working for the public', I'll also advocate giving them every branch to do what needs doing now, just as in the 'New Deal'.

Republicans can be counted on nowadays for no more than obstructionism, not helpful policies.

However, the minority Republicans can provide a good service as an opposition party to point out if the Democrats make mistakes. Too bad they'll abuse that role.

 

[Ferocious]

It will make little difference if they have 60.

Some of the Dems would be Reps in most other states.

Carter had 60 Dem Senators and they could never conjur up 60 yays for highly partisan votes.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It will make little difference if they have 60.

Some of the Dems would be Reps in most other states.

Carter had 60 Dem Senators and they could never conjur up 60 yays for highly partisan votes.

Well, it was apparently enough to wreck havoc on ... everything.

 

[miketheidiot]

i think it will be 58-59 including the independents, they will likely get 60+ in 2010

 

[marincounty]

Don't forget that Republicans have been packing our courts with conservative judges for years. Even if Democrats take control of the white house and congress, they are still faced with conservative courts.
Which makes Obama's election even more important.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Don't forget that Republicans have been packing our courts with conservative judges for years. Even if Democrats take control of the white house and congress, they are still faced with conservative courts.
Which makes Obama's election even more important.

While Republicans have appointed 7 of the 9 justices, their leanings are pretty much split down the middle.

 

[jpeyton]

We just got a little closer to that magic 60 seat majority 🙂

Your darn GOP Senators keep getting felony convictions.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It will make little difference if they have 60.

Some of the Dems would be Reps in most other states.

Carter had 60 Dem Senators and they could never conjur up 60 yays for highly partisan votes.

Well, it was apparently enough to wreck havoc on ... everything.

Why don't you back that up with some facts? What, exactly, did the Senate pass during the Carter administration that 'wreacked havoc'?

Perhaps it was the FISA laws to limit the abuse of the US government that had been exposed in the Democratic congressional hearings, the Church Committee?

Perhaps it was the legislation that improved the situation for America's workers, such as job training?

Perhaps it was his efforts to put the nation on track for reducing energy imports, with 30% of our oil imported in his administration but over 50% after Reagan?

What are these votes by the Democratic Senate?

Here is a NY Times editorial agreeing with you about havoc - but using the phrase 'events caused havoc', not the Democrats.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I think there's a decent chance of it, and that it's a double-edged sword (though dull mostly). In times of crisis, neccessary measures can be passed through the house and senate and approved by the President in quick time to (hopefully) avert disaster. However, there's not always that balancing opposition that can offset any stupid party agendas hidden in the bills.

But like another poster mentioned, liberal dems in some states would be considered fairly moderate/conservative in others. So even with a party super-majority, it doesn't always matter.