Support for Congress is up

[red states rule]

It's not about what I want and when he government takes from the "rich" and redistributes the rewards of thier success to the poor you have a socialist mechanism at work.

The remainder of your post is hyper-partisan ranting which does nothing to solve problems or mend fences.

They have already done that to the tune of $9 trillion and even that is not enough for the left

 

[roadhouse158]

This is how ignorant American "polls" and how blind people are. If Congress is now getting high marks on polls then tell me why

Social Security - Nothing Done
Minimum Wage - Nothing Done
War in Iraq - Nothing Done
Gay Marriage - Nothing Done
Stem Cell Research - Nothing Done
Gas Prices - Nothing Done
Unemployment - Unchanged
Immigration - Nothing Done

Just how in the hell does that lead to a positive approval rating???
It doesn't matter what party is in power, EVERY politician has an agenda. There is no "savior". I don't know why people think that any party is going to be the great crusaders. The only politicians that are trying hard to make a "difference" are the newest ones. They will never get high enough in the chain of power to make a difference. Well until he/she gets a lot of money...IE....A lot of payoffs to be powerful. Instead of Republican and Democratic citizens defending their party, we should all raise hell to get things right. Weather or not you are for the war is mute.. The elected President says we are staying, then we are staying. If someone in the Judicial branch should be fired, then he should be fired. What's right is right. Everyone in government is trying to take on all roles. That's why it's not working right. It's not because of who the President is. It's not because of who is controlling Congress. It's not which party has the majority in the Supreme Court. We need each branch to do what each branch is supposed to do. That's it. Nothing more. Each party is guilty of stepping beyond their boundries. If you can't admit that, then you are one of the problems with our government.

 

[red states rule]

This is how ignorant American "polls" and how blind people are. If Congress is now getting high marks on polls then tell me why

Social Security - Nothing Done
Minimum Wage - Nothing Done
War in Iraq - Nothing Done
Gay Marriage - Nothing Done
Stem Cell Research - Nothing Done
Gas Prices - Nothing Done
Unemployment - Unchanged
Immigration - Nothing Done

Just how in the hell does that lead to a positive approval rating???
It doesn't matter what party is in power, EVERY politician has an agenda. There is no "savior". I don't know why people think that any party is going to be the great crusaders. The only politicians that are trying hard to make a "difference" are the newest ones. They will never get high enough in the chain of power to make a difference. Well until he/she gets a lot of money...IE....A lot of payoffs to be powerful. Instead of Republican and Democratic citizens defending their party, we should all raise hell to get things right. Weather or not you are for the war is mute.. The elected President says we are staying, then we are staying. If someone in the Judicial branch should be fired, then he should be fired. What's right is right. Everyone in government is trying to take on all roles. That's why it's not working right. It's not because of who the President is. It's not because of who is controlling Congress. It's not which party has the majority in the Supreme Court. We need each branch to do what each branch is supposed to do. That's it. Nothing more. Each party is guilty of stepping beyond their boundries. If you can't admit that, then you are one of the problems with our government.

They are not

Gallup has the Dem Congress at 22%
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48100

 

[red states rule]

When the liberal media do it right I will give them credit

It is rare - but allow me to give credit to ABC


Only ABC Marks 100 Days for Dem Rule & Failure to Pass 'Six for '06' Campaign Promises
Posted by Brent Baker on April 13, 2007 - 20:17.
Back in January, ABC anchor Charles Gibson was the most triumphant over supposed Democratic achievements after taking control of Congress. But on Friday night, only Gibson's World News, of the three broadcast network evening newscasts, reported on the failure of Democrats to pass the bills they promised in their first one hundred days. (Brian Williams' lead on NBC: “A new and growing political problem for the White House: Missing e-mails.”) Gibson had trumpeted on January 4 how video of Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the House floor holding a baby while she talked to colleagues demonstrated “the ultimate in multitasking: Taking care of the children and the country” (NewsBusters post with video) and two weeks later he celebrated how House Democrats “completed their scheduled hundred hours of work in just about 42 hours, so they can put the other 58 in the bank.” (NewsBusters item)

On Friday night's World News, Gibson explained: “When Democrats took control of the Congress in January, they promised it would be a new day. They'd get things done. They even had a checklist. Well, a hundred days after taking control, we've checked the checklist.” Jake Tapper made clear how they've come up very short, pointing out how the Democrats “have no major legislative accomplishments to mark this anniversary. None of their 'Six for '06' campaign promises last year have made it to the President's desk.” Tapper listed several bills which passed in the House but have yet to be reconciled with the Democratic Senate and he noted how Democrats have “conducted twice as many oversight hearings over the Bush administration as Republicans did last year.” Tapper concluded, through the perspective of Democrats, on a hopeful note: “Democratic leaders know conflict with the White House is not enough for voters. So in the next hundred days they'll try to deliver on the promises of their first hundred days.”

Charles Gibson introduced the April 13 World News story:


“When Democrats took control of the Congress in January, they promised it would be a new day. They'd get things done. They even had a checklist. Well, a hundred days after taking control, we've checked the checklist. Here's our senior political correspondent, Jake Tapper.”

Jake Tapper: “The anniversary of the Democrats' takeover of Congress one hundred days ago was greeted with scorn today by Republicans.”

Senator Trent Lott: “Here we are, on Friday the 13th, discussing the first 100 days of the 110th Congress. They're gone, may they rest in peace.”

Tapper: “Democrats, after all, have no major legislative accomplishments to mark this anniversary. None of their 'Six for '06' campaign promises last year have made it to the President's desk.”

Senator Mitch McConnell: “The result of that of course is that nothing has been accomplished.”

Tapper: “Democrats in the House and Senate have passed bills [list on screen] allowing funding of embryonic stem cell research, increasing the minimum wage, implementing 9/11 commission recommendations and funding the Iraq war while requiring troops to start withdrawing. But Democratic leaders have yet to reconcile the House and Senate versions of these bills and send them to the White House. And while campaigning last year Democrats emphasized the laws they would pass, today they say their success should be judged differently.”

Senator Charles Schumer: “Change, accountability and oversight have become more than words, they've become our mission.”

Tapper: “Democrats conducted twice as many oversight hearings over the Bush administration as Republicans did last year -- on Iraq, the fired U.S. Attorneys, the environment, the list goes on. And this new dynamic has led to chest-thumping standoffs between the White House and Capitol Hill.”

President Bush on March 19: “They have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 28: “Calm down with the threats. There's a new Congress in town.”

Tapper: “Democratic leaders know conflict with the White House is not enough for voters. So in the next hundred days they'll try to deliver on the promises of their first hundred days. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Capitol Hill.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/12034

 

[red states rule]

and as far as "solving problems"...from my perspective, a democratic congress and a new democratic president will solve a lot of problems...

it may not be the solution you would prefer, but as I said before, I really don't give a shit.

Case Closed
Tax cuts mean growth.

BY FRED THOMPSON
Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

It's that time again, and I was thinking of the old joke about paying your taxes with a smile. The punch line is that the IRS doesn't accept smiles. They want your money.

So it's not that funny, but there is reason to smile this tax season. The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.

Remarkably, this has happened despite the financial trauma of 9/11 and the cost of the War on Terror. The deficit, compared to the entire economy, is well below the average for the last 35 years and, at this rate, the budget will be in surplus by 2010.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this success story is where the increased revenues are coming from. Critics claimed that across-the-board tax cuts were some sort of gift to the rich but, on the contrary, the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the national bill than ever before.

The richest 1% of Americans now pays 35% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay more taxes than the bottom 60%.

The reason for this outcome is that, because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman. Greater investment has created overall economic strength. Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been.





President John F. Kennedy was an astute proponent of tax cuts and the proposition that lower tax rates produce economic growth. Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also understood the power of lower tax rates and managed to put through cuts that grew the U.S. economy like Kansas corn. Sadly, we just don't seem able to keep that lesson learned.
Now, as before, politicians are itching to fund their pet projects with the short-term revenue increases that come from tax hikes, ignoring the long-term pain they always cause. Unfortunately, the tax cuts that have produced our record-breaking government revenues and personal incomes will expire soon. Because Congress has failed to make them permanent, we are facing the worst tax hike in our history. Already, worried investors are trying to figure out what the financial landscape will look like in 2011 and beyond.

This issue is particularly important now because massive, unfunded entitlements are coming due as the baby-boom generation retires. We simply cannot afford higher taxes if we want an economy able to bear up under the strain of those obligations. And beyond the issue of our annual federal budget is the nearly $9 trillion national debt that we have not even begun to pay off.

To face these challenges, and any others that we might encounter in a hazardous world, we need to maintain economic growth and healthy tax revenues. That is why we need to reject taxes that punish rather than reward success. Those who say they want a "more progressive" tax system should be asked one question:

Are you really interested in tax rates that benefit the economy and raise revenue--or are you interested in redistributing income for political reasons?

Mr. Thompson is a former Republican senator from Tennessee whose commentaries, "The Fred Thompson Report," can be heard on the ABC Radio network
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009940

 

[red states rule]

we have had a progressive income tax system for a century... if you want to incorrectly call that socialism.... knock yerself out....It is gonna stay progressive because society has always wanted it that way. Quit bitchin'.

Oh.... and I really am not all that fired up about mending fences. It is interesting that the right now calls for fence mending...they sure didn't give a fuck about it when the hounded Bill Clinton for eight solid years and hobbled his presidency.

what goes around comes around.

Killing the goose

Rising tax burden threatens revenues

April 15, 2007

Democratic politicians have been complaining all century about the Bush tax cuts. So why does the tax man seem to bite harder this year? Well, it's not you who is confused.

While President Bush was reducing taxes in 2001 and 2003 for the poor, middle class and rich alike, a rising toll from state and local governments was making up much of the difference.

Indeed, the tax burden from state and local governments this year has hit a 25-year high, consuming an average 11 percent of income, according to a new report by the Tax Foundation. Californians pay 11.5 percent, a load that has increased steadily since 1979, when state and local levies skimmed 9.2 percent.

Combined with federal taxes, various governments take a staggering 34.3 percent of Americans' incomes.

And yet, this raid on our pockets is just getting started. Lawmakers are busy cooking up the largest tax increases in U.S. history.

In Washington, the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill has unveiled 5-year budget plans that would repeal the Bush tax cuts. What's more, congressional leaders have imposed “pay-as-you-go” budget rules that exclude the existing entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, which dominate federal spending. So “paygo” is really just political cover for new taxes to support new spending.

Meanwhile, cash has been pouring into the treasury. The Bush tax cuts, together with Federal Reserve policy, stimulated the economy into six years of impressive growth. By far, the wealthy gave the most; their job-creating investment binge has triggered a historic surge in government revenues.

So Washington has plenty of our cash. This year federal tax revenues will come in at 18.6 percent of the total U.S. economy, above the 40-year historical average of 18.3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yet Democrats say they will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Revenues could actually decline, because higher taxes are likely to damage the economy.

In California, a similarly reckless culture of tax-and-spend is gaining steam. Despite pledges against new levies, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a government health insurance plan that would impose new taxes on employers and health care providers. More fundamentally, lawmakers have badly out-spent revenues, despite record gains from property, sales and income taxes.

Now, as the economy slows, state budget deficits are poised to widen. With Democrats refusing to cut spending, the looming fiscal crisis will test Republican promises to resist tax hikes.

Then there's San Diego, which is drowning in pension debt, losing police officers and neglecting its infrastructure. Mayor Jerry Sanders, who inherited the mess, rightly refuses to ask voters for a tax increase until the city streamlines operations and solves its pension crisis. But the union-backed City Council is less austere.

At every level, politicians have squandered the Bush economic boom. As they turn to higher taxes, and thus discourage work and investment, they jeopardize the fiscal engine of their ambitions.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070415/news_lz1ed15bottom.html

 

[red states rule]

That's an interesting OPINION piece RSR. Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

Here's some news that's not just an opinion....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...2apr12,0,4800585.story?coll=la-home-headlines

This is much more serious than Pelosi's trip to Syria.

I'm sure you'll express similar outrage over this.

Cheney bets Democrats will chuck war timetable
By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 16, 2007


Vice President Dick Cheney said he is "willing to bet" that Democrats will acquiesce to the White House's insistence on a supplemental-spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that does not include a timetable for withdrawal or binding benchmarks on the Iraqi government.
"I think the Congress will pass clean legislation," Mr. Cheney said in an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation." When asked what would happen if Democrats don't pass a bill the White House accepts, the vice president remained optimistic.
"I'm willing to bet the other way, that in fact they will," he said.
"I don't think that a majority of the Democrats in the Congress want to leave America's fighting forces in harm's way without the resources they need to defend themselves," he said.
Despite Mr. Cheney's confident forecast, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin said the vice president has lost credibility with the American people and that Democrats will continue pushing an emergency war supplemental bill with benchmarks even if they don't have the votes to override a veto from President Bush.
"We are very, very serious about what the American people said in November," the Michigan Democrat said. "They want a change of course."
Mr. Levin also rejected the vice president's criticism of the Democrats' bills.
"[Mr. Cheney] has misled the people consistently on Iraq," he said. "He has misstated. He has exaggerated. And I don't think he has any credibility left with the American people."
However, despite his pledge that Democrats would continue to challenge Mr. Bush on the war bill's language, Mr. Levin last week acknowledged that his party would eventually have to pass a bill with funding for the troops that Mr. Bush would sign.
Mr. Bush's refusal to accept a withdrawal timetable was supported yesterday by retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, a frequent war critic.
"I think it's clear, though, that we cannot leave the region, we shouldn't naively think we're pulling out, that this is Somalia or Vietnam," Gen. Zinni said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I think the debate should be, among the candidates, is how do we redesign the strategy for this region, protect our interests, create the kind of coalition involvement that would help support this and share the burden," he said.

Mr. Cheney's interview covered several other topics related to the administration's track record, besides Iraq. The vice president twice used virtually identical language when pressed on past statements and actions that have been largely criticized in political circles.
On his 2004 assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its last throes, Mr. Cheney said, "Well, partly we have to respond to questions from the press. And we do the best we can with what we know at the time."
Nonetheless, he refused to admit the statement was inaccurate. "I still think in the broad sweep of history, those will have been major turning points in the war in Iraq," he said.
Then, when asked if the administration had a "credibility problem" surrounding the Justice Department's firing of several U.S. attorneys and other perceived administration gaps, he said, "I think, obviously, we've got issues we need to work through, but you do the best you can with what you've got, obviously. And I think that on reflection that indeed the record of the president and his administration will stand up well to scrutiny."
Finally, Mr. Cheney said he has not spoken with his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, since the aide was found guilty of perjury for lying to federal prosecutors about his role in outing former CIA agent Valerie Plame.
"There hasn't been occasion to do so, but I have enormous regard for the man," Mr. Cheney said. "I believe deeply in Scooter Libby. He's one of the most dedicated public servants I've ever worked with. And I think this is a great tragedy."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...161r_page2.htm
__________________

 

[red states rule]

This is how ignorant American "polls" and how blind people are. If Congress is now getting high marks on polls then tell me why

Social Security - Nothing Done
Minimum Wage - Nothing Done
War in Iraq - Nothing Done
Gay Marriage - Nothing Done
Stem Cell Research - Nothing Done
Gas Prices - Nothing Done
Unemployment - Unchanged
Immigration - Nothing Done

Just how in the hell does that lead to a positive approval rating???
It doesn't matter what party is in power, EVERY politician has an agenda. There is no "savior". I don't know why people think that any party is going to be the great crusaders. The only politicians that are trying hard to make a "difference" are the newest ones. They will never get high enough in the chain of power to make a difference. Well until he/she gets a lot of money...IE....A lot of payoffs to be powerful. Instead of Republican and Democratic citizens defending their party, we should all raise hell to get things right. Weather or not you are for the war is mute.. The elected President says we are staying, then we are staying. If someone in the Judicial branch should be fired, then he should be fired. What's right is right. Everyone in government is trying to take on all roles. That's why it's not working right. It's not because of who the President is. It's not because of who is controlling Congress. It's not which party has the majority in the Supreme Court. We need each branch to do what each branch is supposed to do. That's it. Nothing more. Each party is guilty of stepping beyond their boundries. If you can't admit that, then you are one of the problems with our government.

This may be part of the falling approval ratings for the Dems


Congress Develops Its Own Foreign Policy
By Peter Brown

Once upon a time in Washington, D.C. there was an informal agreement that partisan political differences within the United States did not extend to America's dealings with the rest of the world.

Congress' current attempt to offer its own foreign policy marks the end of that doctrine, which, truth be told, has been on life support for some time.

How one sees this development almost certainly depends on his or her view of President George W. Bush, but clearly the once-universally accepted notion that America speaks with one voice, that of the president, to foreign nations, is no more.

The informal agreement that once existed between the two political parties not to offer conflicting signals to America's friends and foes is another casualty of the "D.C. disease" that has made bipartisan cooperation on virtually everything an anachronism.

In fact, as the Washington Post, hardly a Republican mouthpiece, recently editorialized, the Democratic Congress seems intent on developing its own foreign policy.

Consider:

* Congress has publicly told the world that it, not the president, makes foreign policy. Both the House and Senate have passed versions of spending bills that limit Bush's power to wage war and force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

* House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the nation's highest ranking Democrat, rejected White House pleas to follow Bush's policy against any high-level contacts with Syria, a country he says sponsors terrorism.

* Steny Hoyer, the House's second-ranking Democrat, did much the same in meeting with the leader of Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, whom U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has refused to meet.

Of course these developments are not the first to demonstrate that the notion of a bipartisan foreign policy has gone the way of the dinosaur. During the Vietnam-era and the Cold War there were obvious policy differences between the two parties. But, for the most part, Democratic and Republican leaders gave lip service to the ideal of the president speaking for America.

Two decades ago, it would have been impossible to imagine House Speaker Tip O'Neill, every bit the Democratic partisan as is Pelosi today, meeting a foreign leader against Ronald Reagan's wishes.

Whether Congress can accomplish anything other than demonstrating to the rest of the world the internal divisions that exist within D.C.'s halls of power is unclear.

Bush has pledged to veto any measure which would set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq and his opponents are far short of the votes to override him.

Neither the Pelosi nor the Hoyer trips are likely to change U.S. policy, especially toward Syria, which has been implicated in the 2005 assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister.

But that is not the point; the Democrats understand Bush's ability to veto their legislation, or denounce their trips. They are just making sure everyone - from Moscow, Idaho to Moscow, Russia -- knows they have their own foreign policy.

All of this begs the question of whether an outspoken role for the U.S. political party that does not hold the White House in dealing with the rest of the world is permanent, and good for the country.

Democrats argue that Bush politicized the war on terror and the war on Iraq, trying to cast those who disagreed with him as wrong-headed if not unpatriotic, and they are just responding now that they control Congress.

They are doing this because the United States does not have had a parliamentary system like many European countries, in which a majority of lawmakers can effectively force the chief executive to resign and call a new election. If America had that system, then lawmakers could effectively force a change in foreign policy.

But the American electoral system gives the president four years to do pretty much what he wants as long as he does not commit an impeachable offense, which is what frustrates the Democrats, and has led to their votes and trips.

The war-limiting legislation and the Democratic trips underscores just how much things have changed. Although hope may spring eternal, it is unlikely we'll see Congress reverting to its historic role in foreign affairs any time soon.

Peter A. Brown is assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. He can be reached at peter.brown@quinnipiac.edu
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/congress_develops_its_own_fore.html