Do You Agree with Your Enemy Party on Any Issue?

[jillian]

Democrats are NOT for a balanced budget nor Fiscal responsibility. Every time they have had an opportunity to vote on either of those, they vote no. Democrats are tax and spend, they not only raise taxes but when they do rather then use it to balance the budget or be fiscally responsible they spend MORE.

Remind us how the dems voted on allowing Social Security funds to ONLY be used for Social Security? Remind us who controlled congress in the 90's and forced Clinton to go along with "fiscal responsibility"? Remind us in the 90's who insisted Social Security was going broke, did nothing about it and then when Bush brought it up suddenly the system is sound and safe?

All spin, baby!.....

The facts, Jack!...

In his memoir, ``The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,'' the former Federal Reserve chairman skewers President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans for what he said was reckless spending and a politically driven economic agenda and said they deserved to lose control of Congress in 2006. By contrast, he praised former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and his economic record.

Greenspan's words are likely to echo throughout next year's campaigns for president and Congress.

``Democrats will taunt the Republicans with this and they will have to address it,'' said James Carville, who ran Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. ``This is not coming from some shoe clerk.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a82eq0PQMhZI&refer=home

In other words, your guys spend like drunken sailors.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All spin, baby!.....

The facts, Jack!...



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a82eq0PQMhZI&refer=home

In other words, your guys spend like drunken sailors.

LOL, you are aware a President has almost nothing to do with the Budget or what we spend? Only Congress can create money bills and only Congress can pass them. Specifically the House with consent of the Senate.

All a President can do is sign or veto said bills. Ohh he gets to make a budget request once a year but unless he can find members of congress will to create the bill, he has no say at all beyond public speeches.

And last I checked the Congress under Clinton was Republican from 1994 on. It is amazing how little you college educated liberals know about our own Government and how it functions.

As to where the HUGE deficit came from before 1994? From 1952 to 1994 the House was controlled by the Democrats and the Senate was controlled most of that time by the Democrats also. A check of tax and spending will discover that every time the Democrats RAISED taxes from 1952 to 1980 they also INCREASED spending.

Reagan never got a single budget he ask for. In fact if one checks his Budget requests with what was passed , you will discover the Democrats approved more than Reagan ask for. The only thing Reagan managed was to force Congress to approve more money for the military and defense by veto and by shutting down all but essential services twice. I was a Marine during his Presidency , we got told both those years we might not get paid in January and end of December if Congress didn't agree to what the President wanted or they couldn't find the votes to override his veto.

 

[Gunny]

Enemy party?...rather strong words don't you think?

Pretty-much what it's come down to, don't you think?

 

[Larkinn]

Pretty-much what it's come down to, don't you think?

I don't actually...although large groups on the fringes of both sides act that way. But if that were the case that everyone was dogmatic and only stuck to one side Bushs approval rating would have been fairly constant throughout his tenure...rather it has ranged from high 80's IIRC, to low 30's around what it is now.

And if it is the case I would still challenge it, as though it may be descriptive it should NOT be normative.

 

[Larkinn]

LOL, you are aware a President has almost nothing to do with the Budget or what we spend? Only Congress can create money bills and only Congress can pass them. Specifically the House with consent of the Senate.

All a President can do is sign or veto said bills. Ohh he gets to make a budget request once a year but unless he can find members of congress will to create the bill, he has no say at all beyond public speeches.
.

Err...considering the president can veto the entire bill , unless Congress has the votes to over-rule him on that (which they almost never do in recent times if they vote purely along party lines), then you better bet he has a lot to say about what gets put into the budget.

 

[jillian]

Err...considering the president can veto the entire bill , unless Congress has the votes to over-rule him on that (which they almost never do in recent times if they vote purely along party lines), then you better bet he has a lot to say about what gets put into the budget.

Bush also repeatedly bragged, prior to the last election, that the budget was worked out jointly between him and his republican congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bush also repeatedly bragged, prior to the last election, that the budget was worked out jointly between him and his republican congress.

Which has ZERO to do with your claim Clinton balanced the budget or brought us budget surplus. But hey I realize you can not win that one so pretend you didn't say it.

 

[Bern80]

The original question of the thread I think is is interesting where our politicians are concerned. Why don't the agree with each other? Simple: they can't afford to. This is why despite news that Bush is seriously contemplating troop cutbacks you're not hearing any praise from the Dems. Can you imagine if someone like Pelosi were to say something to the effect that the dems are glad the President has reached compromise and is takeing seriously plans for withdrawing forces? The politcal fall out for Pelosi or any dem to support any action or policy the the President or any Republican (and vic versa probably) came up with would be disastrous for them. Even if it is an action they were calling for. If Bush were to declare that all troops are comeing home tomorrow, I promise, the Dems would find a problem with it. Why? Because they have to.

Think about from a voters perspective. Are you gonna vote for someone that came up with a good idea or the person that agrees with the good idea? This is why we need to get rid of political parties all together. They don't serve the purpose of government anymore which is ultimately to do what's best for the country.

 

[Larkinn]

The original question of the thread I think is is interesting where our politicians are concerned. Why don't the agree with each other? Simple: they can't afford to. This is why despite news that Bush is seriously contemplating troop cutbacks you're not hearing any praise from the Dems.

What? For those who want a withdrawal, placing 30,000 more troops in Iraq...and then taking them out again isn't exactly a huge troop cutback.

Can you imagine if someone like Pelosi were to say something to the effect that the dems are glad the President has reached compromise and is takeing seriously plans for withdrawing forces? The politcal fall out for Pelosi or any dem to support any action or policy the the President or any Republican (and vic versa probably) came up with would be disastrous for them.

Then pray tell why Mukasey recieved praise from the Democrats?

 

[Bern80]

What? For those who want a withdrawal, placing 30,000 more troops in Iraq...and then taking them out again isn't exactly a huge troop cutback.

I don't believe I said 'huge troop cut back'. It is however what dems have been asking for and that is actions towards removing our troops. Yet there is no semblance of unity or attempt by dems to work with the President in reaching a common goal.

Then pray tell why Mukasey recieved praise from the Democrats?

Mukasey was a judge who showed that despite conservative leanings up held the rule of law first and foremost. Dems approving of him really isn't comparable to what I'm talking about or what the thread is about. We are talking about the opposite side approving of the other's stance/position or action, not approval of a person's character. The dems endorsement of Mukasey is in large part based on his actions as a judge. As a judge he showed no political favoritism toward one party or the other. Whatever party he was part of was secondary to his job. That isn't the case with elected officials. In short, the dems approval of Mukasey really isn't a case of a dem agreeing with a republican.

 

[jillian]

I don't believe I said 'huge troop cut back'. It is however what dems have been asking for and that is actions towards removing our troops. Yet there is no semblance of unity or attempt by dems to work with the President in reaching a common goal.



Mukasey was a judge who showed that despite conservative leanings up held the rule of law first and foremost. Dems approving of him really isn't comparable to what I'm talking about or what the thread is about. We are talking about the opposite side approving of the other's stance/position or action, not approval of a person's character. The dems endorsement of Mukasey is in large part based on his actions as a judge. As a judge he showed no political favoritism toward one party or the other. Whatever party he was part of was secondary to his job. That isn't the case with elected officials. In short, the dems approval of Mukasey really isn't a case of a dem agreeing with a republican.

Why should the Dems work with Bush to continue a failed policy? Has he worked with them to "change the course". Bush also has no choice but to remove the 30,000 because of military over-rotations. He gave ice in winter.

As for Mukasey, excellent jurist. Well-regarded all around. Mukasey WAS praised by democrats because he is fair and because Bush finally put up a nominee for something, anything, who isn't a partisan hack.

I'm kind of thinking Giuliani was the one who pushed for him because they were both U.S. Atty's in NYC.

 

[Bern80]

As for Mukasey, excellent jurist. Well-regarded all around. Mukasey WAS praised by democrats because he is fair and because Bush finally put up a nominee for something, anything, who isn't a partisan hack.

I'm kind of thinking Giuliani was the one who pushed for him because they were both U.S. Atty's in NYC.

Which kind of illustrates my point. Sure the dems approve of him (the person), but why do they not credit Bush for the nomination (the action)? For me it's a rhetorical question, but was just wondering.

 

[jillian]

Which kind of illustrates my point. Sure the dems approve of him (the person), but why do they not credit Bush for the nomination (the action)? For me it's a rhetorical question, but was just wondering.

I've heard an awful lot about it being an olive branch of sorts. Is anyone saying Bush didn't appoint someone good?

I'm not sure that a president deserves kudos for appointing someone appropriate to the job. It's what he's SUPPOSED to do. It's only unusual because it's a first for Bush.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't believe I said 'huge troop cut back'. It is however what dems have been asking for and that is actions towards removing our troops. Yet there is no semblance of unity or attempt by dems to work with the President in reaching a common goal.

Really? So when the Dems asked for a troop cut back what they meant was for the president to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq...and then a few months later remove them?

Mukasey was a judge who showed that despite conservative leanings up held the rule of law first and foremost. Dems approving of him really isn't comparable to what I'm talking about or what the thread is about. We are talking about the opposite side approving of the other's stance/position or action, not approval of a person's character.

You said "any action or policy". Bush nominated Mukasey...that was, most definitely, an action.

The dems endorsement of Mukasey is in large part based on his actions as a judge. As a judge he showed no political favoritism toward one party or the other. Whatever party he was part of was secondary to his job. That isn't the case with elected officials. In short, the dems approval of Mukasey really isn't a case of a dem agreeing with a republican.

Err, yes it is. Its a case of Bush doing an action (nominating the AG) and the Democrats *gasp* agreeing with him. Which you claimed before, never happens.

 

[doniston]

Really? Name the last time you DIDN'T attack a republican? When you voted for one? And your just like Maineman , you refuse to ever critize any liberal under any circumstance. At least he is honest about why that is.

I fully agree with the poster. It could be appropriately described as the OPPOSING party, but not the enemy party.

 

[Shogun]

I've heard an awful lot about it being an olive branch of sorts. Is anyone saying Bush didn't appoint someone good?

I'm not sure that a president deserves kudos for appointing someone appropriate to the job. It's what he's SUPPOSED to do. It's only unusual because it's a first for Bush.

oh I dunno.. I think it would have been a positive gesture to acknowledge that he chose someone somewhat painfree instead of trying to nix the fillibuster... Might be handy to bring up the next time the pubs try to forcefeed the dems another roberts and alito, eh?

 

[doniston]

Hegel rips Bush and now you like him ?

personally, the only Republican I would vote for at the present time is Hagel (maybe Bloomberg) but neither is running---- YET

 

[jillian]

oh I dunno.. I think it would have been a positive gesture to acknowledge that he chose someone somewhat painfree instead of trying to nix the fillibuster... Might be handy to bring up the next time the pubs try to forcefeed the dems another roberts and alito, eh?

Wasn't Schumer saying the guy was a great pick the same as saying he chose someone painfree?

I'm not being snide. I'm just not sure what they're looking for beyond that.

 

[Bern80]

Really? So when the Dems asked for a troop cut back what they meant was for the president to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq...and then a few months later remove them?

The dems have asked that troops come home. Bush has made plans for that. How do you get any closer to what Dems have been asking for than that?

You said "any action or policy". Bush nominated Mukasey...that was, most definitely, an action.



Err, yes it is. Its a case of Bush doing an action (nominating the AG) and the Democrats *gasp* agreeing with him. Which you claimed before, never happens.

Yes it was the action of Bush, but that wasn't who your post referred to. You don't get to keep changeing your story. Your response asked for an explanation of why the dems were praising Mukasey. Nothing more. There was no mention of an action by Bush then.

I claimed you don't see dems openly support the actions of members of the opposite party. Again Mukasey is supported by Dems because of his strict adherence to the law as a judge. Makeing whether he is Republican or Democrat irrelevant. As I said to Jillian we are seeing plenty of praise by the dems for Mukasey (your original claim). We are not seeing vocal support for Bush's action of the nomination (the claim your trying pretend you made the first time).

 

[Annie]

Actually I agreed with most Democrats on killing the 'immigration reform bill', like myself they recognized it for the amnesty it was. Now the question is, will the do the same with the DREAM bill?