What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dems Choice - Accomplish Something Or Continue War On Bush

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The Democrats' Choice
Do they want to get something done, or just wage war on the president?

Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Next week the Democrats will mark their 100th day running Congress, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared herself "enormously proud" of their record.

We think it's too soon to judge success or failure, and in any case the more pertinent question concerns what the Democrats are trying to accomplish: Do they want to get something done, which will require the signature of a Republican President who still has 21 months in office? Or is their goal to delegitimize the Bush Presidency with a purely partisan goal of regaining the White House in 2008?

If their plan is to govern, Democrats have several opportunities to work with President Bush to achieve goals they claim to share. Trade deals on Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea await a Congressional vote, and their defeat would harm those nations and the U.S. national interest. On immigration reform, Mr. Bush is closer to most Democrats than to many in his own party. The No Child Left Behind Act is up for reauthorization, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (a k a Mandatory Maximum Tax) needs another patch to avoid hitting 15 million more taxpayers this year.





We have nothing against partisanship, and Democrats have every right to reward their supporters and pursue their policy goals. Some of these are part of the "Six for '06" bills that House Democrats passed easily in their first days, though they still have to run the gantlet of the Senate. But our guess is that Democrats would help themselves more, and have a better chance of gaining seats in 2008, if they show they are open to compromise and can point to priorities that became law.
The alternative is to frame a largely partisan agenda that may pass the House but will either die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President. These include the largely political payoff to unions of abolishing secret organizing ballots, or cutting off funds for the Iraq war. These are crowd pleasers on the left, which has overinterpreted last year's victory as a mandate for their policies rather than a rejection of GOP failure.

But this is a risky strategy that would give the lie to the claim that House Democrats made last year that they could govern better than the Tom DeLay Republicans. Their freshmen from swing districts would have few accomplishments to tout. And neither Mr. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be on the ballot again--a reality that Democrats will sooner or later have to acknowledge, hard as it will be to give up the anger.

If Democrats are smart, they'll realize that Republicans in Congress don't fear veto fights. What gives them nightmares are signing ceremonies with Mr. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.
http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009911
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Actually, Congress isn't "waging war" on the Bush administration. This Congress is simply doing something the previous six Congresses failed to do...It's called 'oversight', a responsibility which the previous six GOP controlled Congresses abdicated entirely, placing loyalty to party and president over their loyalty to their constituents and their oaths of office.

While not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, Congressional oversight is implied given the various other functions of Congress, including the appropriation of funds, enacting of laws, raising and supporting armies, providing for a Navy, declaring war, and impeaching and removing from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress to not responsibly carry out these functions absent knowledge of what the Executive branch was doing, how and by whom it was administering its programs and policies, the costs in blood and treasure and whether or not those officials were complying with the law regarding their administrative duties.

Sorry, old son...Your cut-and-paste shit is, was and shall ever be...weak.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Actually, Congress isn't "waging war" on the Bush administration. This Congress is simply doing something the previous six Congresses failed to do...It's called 'oversight', a responsibility which the previous six GOP controlled Congresses abdicated entirely, placing loyalty to party and president over their loyalty to their constituents and their oaths of office.

While not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, Congressional oversight is implied given the various other functions of Congress, including the appropriation of funds, enacting of laws, raising and supporting armies, providing for a Navy, declaring war, and impeaching and removing from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress to not responsibly carry out these functions absent knowledge of what the Executive branch was doing, how and by whom it was administering its programs and policies, the costs in blood and treasure and whether or not those officials were complying with the law regarding their administrative duties.

Sorry, old son...Your cut-and-paste shit is, was and shall ever be...weak.

Dems are trying to take over the duties of the CIC - clearly unconstitutional
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
Actually, Congress isn't "waging war" on the Bush administration. This Congress is simply doing something the previous six Congresses failed to do...It's called 'oversight', a responsibility which the previous six GOP controlled Congresses abdicated entirely, placing loyalty to party and president over their loyalty to their constituents and their oaths of office.

While not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, Congressional oversight is implied given the various other functions of Congress, including the appropriation of funds, enacting of laws, raising and supporting armies, providing for a Navy, declaring war, and impeaching and removing from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress to not responsibly carry out these functions absent knowledge of what the Executive branch was doing, how and by whom it was administering its programs and policies, the costs in blood and treasure and whether or not those officials were complying with the law regarding their administrative duties.

Sorry, old son...Your cut-and-paste shit is, was and shall ever be...weak.

:clap2:
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
are you happy to see Dems lied about raising taxes?

The lowest wage earners will see a 33% increase in their tax rates

Liberal compassion?
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
are you happy to see Dems lied about raising taxes?

The lowest wage earners will see a 33% increase in their tax rates

Liberal compassion?

Changing the subject since you can't debate the issue you raised? Tch...Tch...Tch, old son When are you going to grow up and think for yourself?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Changing the subject since you can't debate the issue you raised? Tch...Tch...Tch, old son When are you going to grow up and think for yourself?

From your response I guess you approve the 33% rate increase on the lowest wage earners

The increase on the marriage penalty

The decrease on the child tax credit

Not only are Dems waging war on Pres Bush but also on the middle class they claim to care about
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
From your response I guess you approve the 33% rate increase on the lowest wage earners

The increase on the marriage penalty

The decrease on the child tax credit

Not only are Dems waging war on Pres Bush but also on the middle class they claim to care about

That's a discussion for another thread...Ya wanna stay on topic? Or do you have a big, red "<b><font color= red>L</font></b>" tattooed to your forehead?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
That's a discussion for another thread...Ya wanna stay on topic? Or do you have a big, red "<b><font color= red>L</font></b>" tattooed to your forehead?

Libs are showing the voters want the stand for:

Losing in Iraq

Screwing the taxpayers

So far so good if you want the Dems out in 08
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
That's a discussion for another thread...Ya wanna stay on topic? Or do you have a big, red "<b><font color= red>L</font></b>" tattooed to your forehead?

I noticed how you did not post your support for the $400 billion tax increase

I was hoping the libs on this board would show their support and explain to the stupid masses how Dems can spend their money more efficiently and on more important things then they can

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48005
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Dems are trying to take over the duties of the CIC - clearly unconstitutional

The original point is nonetheless, and surprisingly, valid. IMO, Congressional Democrats would rather be divisive than try and work with the President. Hardly a novel problem. The battle for the balance of power has been waged between the Legislative and Executive branches since Washington left office with the usual even split of who thinks Congress should have the power, and who thinks the President should.

I also don't believe it is a matter of neglected oversight. I think it's a matter of oversight versus overkill. I can understand the former while I find the latter to be little more than pointless witchhunting.

I'd like to point out that IMO, whoever has oversight of Congress (that would be us -- the voting constituency) are the ones who are failing.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I guess the money pit in Iraq is great investment eh redstates???

Wuth revenues increasing, the annual deficit decreasing, more people working, and trhe economy growing - why raise taxes?

Libs claim they "care" about the middle class and the senior citizens - is taking more of their money the way libs show their compassion?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top