Why Democrats are not Republicans when it comes to Congressional majorities.

[techs]

Many of the Republicans here predict that the Democrats will be just as extreme as the Republicans have been if they take a huge majority and the Presidency.
Sorry, but you are wishful dreamers.
Democrats have had large majorities many times, and never did what the Republicans did.
Look at the difference between the Congressional leaders. In the Senate Bill Frist was barely a Senator for 6 years when he became the Republican majority leader. Trent Lott for 8 years before him. Harry Reid, the Dem. Majority leader was in the Senate for 19 years before he became leader.
Frist came to Washington, did his damage, and scurried back to his medical practice.
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.
There is something to be said for experience and seeing the country from the Senate over many years and learning the ins and outs of government. Republicans picked Frist because of his image, not his policy credentials.
Harry Reid makes a lousy speaker and lousy image as the Senate Majority Leader. He was chosen for his knowledge of the Senate and Government.
Many of the Republicans who did so much damage over the last 7 years came and went quickly. Many never intended to stay in Congress, like Frist, and knew they wouldn't have to live with their policies long term. Hence, they enacted their radical agenda and skedaddled.
It can be said the Republicans spend so much time outside of the majorities in Congress they are a party of criticism, not of governing.
The Democrats are the party of governing.

 

[Vette73]

Don;t know if the Dems will be as bad as the Rep's have been . But I rather have the Dems control the white house and senate with the republicans control the house of representatives.
I don;t want 1 party to control all branches. That and the Dems will only have 2 good years probable so they better show it or the Republicnas can take the house back in 2010.

 

[Genx87]

We can review this thread after 2-4 years of super majority status. If you are correct, good for the country. If you are wrong we can point and laugh. A win win imo.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: techs
Many of the Republicans here predict that the Democrats will be just as extreme as the Republicans have been if they take a huge majority and the Presidency.
Sorry, but you are wishful dreamers.
Democrats have had large majorities many times, and never did what the Republicans did.
Look at the difference between the Congressional leaders. In the Senate Bill Frist was barely a Senator for 6 years when he became the Republican majority leader. Trent Lott for 8 years before him. Harry Reid, the Dem. Majority leader was in the Senate for 19 years before he became leader.
Frist came to Washington, did his damage, and scurried back to his medical practice.
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.
There is something to be said for experience and seeing the country from the Senate over many years and learning the ins and outs of government. Republicans picked Frist because of his image, not his policy credentials.
Harry Reid makes a lousy speaker and lousy image as the Senate Majority Leader. He was chosen for his knowledge of the Senate and Government.
Many of the Republicans who did so much damage over the last 7 years came and went quickly. Many never intended to stay in Congress, like Frist, and knew they wouldn't have to live with their policies long term. Hence, they enacted their radical agenda and skedaddled.
It can be said the Republicans spend so much time outside of the majorities in Congress they are a party of criticism, not of governing.
The Democrats are the party of governing.

Are you trying to jinx the (D)'s?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: techs
Many of the Republicans here predict that the Democrats will be just as extreme as the Republicans have been if they take a huge majority and the Presidency.
Sorry, but you are wishful dreamers.
Democrats have had large majorities many times, and never did what the Republicans did.
Look at the difference between the Congressional leaders. In the Senate Bill Frist was barely a Senator for 6 years when he became the Republican majority leader. Trent Lott for 8 years before him. Harry Reid, the Dem. Majority leader was in the Senate for 19 years before he became leader.
Frist came to Washington, did his damage, and scurried back to his medical practice.
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.
There is something to be said for experience and seeing the country from the Senate over many years and learning the ins and outs of government. Republicans picked Frist because of his image, not his policy credentials.
Harry Reid makes a lousy speaker and lousy image as the Senate Majority Leader. He was chosen for his knowledge of the Senate and Government.
Many of the Republicans who did so much damage over the last 7 years came and went quickly. Many never intended to stay in Congress, like Frist, and knew they wouldn't have to live with their policies long term. Hence, they enacted their radical agenda and skedaddled.

That's pretty amusing. Your basic argument is that someone who's been a washington insider for umpteen years is less likely than someone new to washington to engage in washington politics as usual. Two words: "Yeah right". Even if there were true, there's also Pelosi, the idea of her absurd notions becoming legislation should scare all but the most radical leftist.

It can be said the Republicans spend so much time outside of the majorities in Congress they are a party of criticism, not of governing. The Democrats are the party of governing.

<taps sarcasm meter>. I hope you're trying to be sarcastic, otherwise, epic fail. Considering how well congress has served the people of this country over the past 30 years or so, I'd hardly want to take 'credit' for being the party responsible. Fortunately for teh dems, they are not to blame any more than the republicans, both sides fail the public.

 

[T2T III]

Can someone explain to me why Pelosi made a statement the other day that if the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Office of the President - all under control of the Democrats will be more bi-partisan?

Does someone know where she's buying her crack?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Don;t know if the Dems will be as bad as the Rep's have been . But I rather have the Dems control the white house and senate with the republicans control the house of representatives.
I don;t want 1 party to control all branches. That and the Dems will only have 2 good years probable so they better show it or the Republicnas can take the house back in 2010.

The Dems would have to really screw the pooch to lose the House in 2010. They are on the verge of a second huge gain this year. The odds of a single election overturning their majority are slim, if only on a campaing funding basis.
And in 2010 the census and subsequent redistricting will occur. And the Dems are taking both houses of many state legislatures, and they will overturn much of the Republican redistricting that put Dems at a disadvantage in many states.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: T2T III
Can someone explain to me why Pelosi made a statement the other day that if the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Office of the President - all under control of the Democrats will be more bi-partisan?

Does someone know where she's buying her crack?

The Dems were bi-partisan FAR, FAR, FAR more than the Hastert led Republicans.
You forget it was the Republicans who brought the whole new idea of single party, no consultation rule to Washington.


And btw your sig:

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."
Calvin Coolidge.

You DO realize it was Calvin Coolidge whose policies gave us the Great Depression, don't you? You got pwned in your own sig:shocked:

 

[ProfJohn]

Techs... explain to us why congress has LOWER approval ratings now than when the Republicans took charge?

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: techs
You DO realize it was Calvin Coolidge whose policies gave us the Great Depression, don't you? You got pwned in your own sig:shocked:

Yeah, whatever. It's still a meaningful quote - no matter who made it; unlike many of the worthless signatures around here bashing the Republicans with no merit at all.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: T2T III
Can someone explain to me why Pelosi made a statement the other day that if the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Office of the President - all under control of the Democrats will be more bi-partisan?

Does someone know where she's buying her crack?

The Dems were bi-partisan FAR, FAR, FAR more than the Hastert led Republicans.
You forget it was the Republicans who brought the whole new idea of single party, no consultation rule to Washington.


And btw your sig:

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."
Calvin Coolidge.

You DO realize it was Calvin Coolidge whose policies gave us the Great Depression, don't you? You got pwned in your own sig:shocked:

Actually it was the actions of Hoover and congress which did everything wrong after the economic down turn in 1929.

Go read about it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs... explain to us why congress has LOWER approval ratings now than when the Republicans took charge?

You know that the Congressional approval ratings are crap. The real rating to judge would be to look at individual Senator/Representative ratings. And when you do, you will see that almost every one is very highly rated.

Back OT, I believe that you are wrong in your premise Techs.

IMO, the Dems are not as likely to be collectively as bad as the Republicans (in some ways they will be just as bad and in others even worse) is that they tend to be more splintered and the liberal mindset doesn't lend itself to group think as much.

If you look at most votes (even things that should have unanimous Dem support), they are fractured. Of course there are exceptions where a vote goes uncontested, but it is a lot more frequent from the R-side than the D-side.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: T2T III
Can someone explain to me why Pelosi made a statement the other day that if the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Office of the President - all under control of the Democrats will be more bi-partisan?

Does someone know where she's buying her crack?

The Dems were bi-partisan FAR, FAR, FAR more than the Hastert led Republicans.
You forget it was the Republicans who brought the whole new idea of single party, no consultation rule to Washington.


And btw your sig:

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."
Calvin Coolidge.

You DO realize it was Calvin Coolidge whose policies gave us the Great Depression, don't you? You got pwned in your own sig:shocked:

Actually it was the actions of Hoover and congress which did everything wrong after the economic down turn in 1929.

Go read about it.

What caused the collapse was the unregulated markets in the years leading up to 1929. While stocks were being bought on paper thin margin Coolidge blandly said that markets best regulate themselves.
Hmm. I guess Republicans really never learn.

 

[ProfJohn]

Techs the stock market recovered much of its value by 1930.

It was things like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that killed the economy by killing trade world wide.
Then you have the shrinking money supply etc.

It was not a big one time crash, it took several years to reach bottom.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs the stock market recovered much of its value by 1930.

It was things like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that killed the economy by killing trade world wide.
Then you have the shrinking money supply etc.

It was not a big one time crash, it took several years to reach bottom.

You are CLEARLY out of your mind:
Dow was 320 on Oct1 ,1928
Dow was 150 on the last day of 1930



http://finance.yahoo.com/echar...le=on;source=undefined

And Smoot-Hawley did not kill world trade. It was the rest of the worlds tarrifs that did. America was no where near the economic power it was today.

And of course, you do remember, the Congress was overwhelmingly Republican when it passed Smoot-Hawley, don't you?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs
What caused the collapse was the unregulated markets in the years leading up to 1929. While stocks were being bought on paper thin margin Coolidge blandly said that markets best regulate themselves.
Hmm. I guess Republicans really never learn.

:roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Don;t know if the Dems will be as bad as the Rep's have been . But I rather have the Dems control the white house and senate with the republicans control the house of representatives.
I don;t want 1 party to control all branches. That and the Dems will only have 2 good years probable so they better show it or the Republicnas can take the house back in 2010.

The Dems would have to really screw the pooch to lose the House in 2010. They are on the verge of a second huge gain this year. The odds of a single election overturning their majority are slim, if only on a campaing funding basis.
And in 2010 the census and subsequent redistricting will occur. And the Dems are taking both houses of many state legislatures, and they will overturn much of the Republican redistricting that put Dems at a disadvantage in many states.

Yeah that will never happen. See 1994.

I seem to remember you all up in arms about redistricting when it was republicans doing it.

 

[Genx87]

Gee now we are being lectured by a proven idiot that a single stock market crash caused the Great Depression.

This is going to get really good.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs the stock market recovered much of its value by 1930.

It was things like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that killed the economy by killing trade world wide.
Then you have the shrinking money supply etc.

It was not a big one time crash, it took several years to reach bottom.

You are CLEARLY out of your mind:
Dow was 320 on Oct1 ,1928
Dow was 150 on the last day of 1930



http://finance.yahoo.com/echar...le=on;source=undefined

And Smoot-Hawley did not kill world trade. It was the rest of the worlds tarrifs that did. America was no where near the economic power it was today.

And of course, you do remember, the Congress was overwhelmingly Republican when it passed Smoot-Hawley, don't you?

Are you slow or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act)[1] was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half. In the opinion of most economists, the Smoot-Hawley Act was a catalyst for the severe reduction in U.S.-European trade from its high in 1929 to its depressed levels of 1932 that accompany the start of the Great Depression.[2][3]

Nah that act didnt cause a reduction in world trade, it was obviously the other nations that caused that :disgust:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: techs
Democrats have had large majorities many times, and never did what the Republicans did.
Look at the difference between the Congressional leaders. In the Senate Bill Frist was barely a Senator for 6 years when he became the Republican majority leader. Trent Lott for 8 years before him. Harry Reid, the Dem. Majority leader was in the Senate for 19 years before he became leader.

Lyndon Johnson became a Senator in 1949 and was Majority Leader by 1953.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

Incumbents must go.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

Incumbents must go.

Yes! Term limits, please.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

Incumbents must go.

Yes! Term limits, please.

I'm ambivalent on term limits. It's up to the voters to exercise them, and they get that chance frequently enough, but usually fail to do so. On the other hand, it's odd the executive branch is term-limited and the legislative branch is not.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

Incumbents must go.

Yes! Term limits, please.

I'm ambivalent on term limits. It's up to the voters to exercise them, and they get that chance frequently enough, but usually fail to do so. On the other hand, it's odd the executive branch is term-limited and the legislative branch is not.

I'm against them for practical considerations. Weakening term limits will likely weaken legislative power. Do we really want a Congress any weaker than we have now?