GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1988 posts, RR: 9 Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1443 times:
It's been one week now, and while not "officially" in power, the Democrats have made a number of appointments and statements. I'd like to hear what both Democrats and Republicans think of these choices. I know one week, and not even being in power yet isn't a lot of time to show their hand, but I'm curious to look at it now, one month from now, one month after they are in power, and then 100 days after they start.
What do you think.
Are they really going to:
Raise or keep taxes the same?
Go beyond "oversight" and really try to impeach Bush?
Kill or just modify the Patriot Act (or leave it be)?
Kill the Southern "Wall?"
Hillary Care being reintroduced?
Gun Control?
Those are just a few. And I'm NOT asking for your OPINION on the subject, I pretty much know everyone's, I'm asking what you think the Democrats are really going to do on each subject.
I'm curious to hear what people have to say. I honestly, have heard only ONE Democrat, Mrs. Pelosi, actually speak of some sort of compromise, and honestly, I feel that if the Democrats could just suck it up, and play along for the next year or so, 2008 would be a watershed year for them, winning just about everything. But, if they take this political bashing that's been going on for the last 6 years to an even higher level, basically forgetting everything that's important today from the war on terrorism, to immigration, and everything in between in order to just finally get Bush, I predict they don't have a prayer in 2008.
Your thoughts?? We can revisit this in a month...
Did you know Taylor Swift has a STAR to BNA named after her? No, I'm not kidding.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19721 posts, RR: 56 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
Well, Rumsfeld's out. That's progress enough for one week. And I'd be shocked if the Democratic victory didn't have something to do with that.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Charger From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
Go beyond "oversight" and really try to impeach Bush?
Kill or just modify the Patriot Act (or leave it be)?
Kill the Southern "Wall?"
Hillary Care being reintroduced?
I can see them raising taxes, or at least rolling back Bush's tax cuts. IMO that won't be a bad thing as long as the money is used to pay down the deficet.
I do not see them trying to impeach Bush. I do think they will hold his feet to the fire and there will be investigations, but not impeachment.
They will try to modify the Patriot Act.
I have no idea about the southern wall.
I definetly see health care being a major issue with them.
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12562 posts, RR: 64 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
Duff44 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
Won't do it for 2 reasons:
1) It looks petty and childish
2) They don't have enough votes to remove him from office even if they do impeach him (It takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President from office, Dems only have 51 seats)
I don't think they'll be much change there. The Constitution still has a 2nd Amendment, and the Dems still don't have enough votes to override a Bush veto.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
I think that if they are really smart, they will get the votes together and get all the ducks in a row, then call it off to demonstrate how bipartisan they are. That way they can claim to be the party of mercy and compassion
They won't kill it outright, they just won't fund it. That way they can pander to what they think Hispanic voters want without really have to face the border security advocates. They can also claim to improve relations with Mexico. They should be able to ride that one for a few years.
Save it for '08. Let Hillary run on it. That is worth a lot and they should wait until they can use it to buy the most votes. A few more years of stirring up hysteria about health care will go a long way towards making this one an easy lay up.
This one is right up there with abortion and gay marriage. They have very little to gain and a lot to lose. It will also be expensive. A few more school shootings could change this, but for now there are better ways to spend thier political money.
After the Iraq war, I think we will see a revisit of environment issues. Now if they could address energy idependence in a meaningful way (increase supply and sources as opposed to controlling demand) I think they could really make headway with some of the centrist voters who could go either way in the next election.
Confuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3636 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
To paraphrase a 1984 presidential campaign commercial:
It's morning again in America...America today is prouder and better.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7336 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 10): Well, all the bickering and stabbing in the back is quite entertaining. I have a little bowl of microwave popcorn standing by.
Zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4724 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
Raise or keep taxes the same?
Redistribute, objective being to reverse the working middle class always biting the pillow and taking their screwing in regard to taxes.
Go beyond "oversight" and really try to impeach Bush?
Investigate oversight but, impeaching Bush, meet Mr. Slim and Mr. None!
Kill or just modify the Patriot Act (or leave it be)? One can only hope!
Modify yes kill it, no.
Kill the Southern "Wall?"
Probably not, I do feel, the Dems will try to kill or at least delay the big Bush push for the North American Union! Hell no to the Amero!
Hillary Care being reintroduced?
Only if it makes Hillary look great for 2008.
Gun Control?
This will be talk amongst yourselves.
I do think, the Dems will push for more alternative energy plans and address the global warming issue.
DeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 16 Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1988 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1080 times:
Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 14): I say you don't know much about how they have no official power until January. You went to a public school didn't you?
Well, the discussion was civil until you injected your ounce of brilliancy.
Listen. If you actually READ my thread, you'd see it went something like this...
Quoting GuitrThree (Thread starter): It's been one week now, and while not "officially" in power, the Democrats have made a number of appointments and statements. I'd like to hear what both Democrats and Republicans think of these choices. I know one week, and not even being in power yet isn't a lot of time to show their hand, but I'm curious to look at it now, one month from now, one month after they are in power, and then 100 days after they start.
I believe I never once referred to the Democrats ever being in power right now. What I DID ask, and most people were intelligent enough to understand simple English, what they thought the Democrats were going to do, based on their appointments and statements about what their plans are. I don't know, maybe the statement I made of "I know one week, and not even being in power yet isn't a lot of time to show their hand, but I'm curious to look at it now, one month from now, one month after they are in power" probably was too much for you to understand, but I asked this based on the already strange occurrences, things like Mrs. Pelosi "supporting" Mr. Murtha, something the Speaker of the House never is "supposed" to do.
Seems to me, with your lack of ability, want, or need to step out on a limb and actually comment on the week's events, seems to me you must be a little upset by their actions
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8): Uh, they don't take over till JANUARY!
Talk to us then.
Humm, weren't you the one who was always screaming "they aren't in power so they don't have to have a plan..." when asked what the Democrats plan on ANYTHING was???
Again.. all I'm looking for is your predictions on what they will do, and your comments on what they have already said and appointed....
Did you know Taylor Swift has a STAR to BNA named after her? No, I'm not kidding.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1064 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 15): Humm, weren't you the one who was always screaming "they aren't in power so they don't have to have a plan..." when asked what the Democrats plan on ANYTHING was???
Again.. all I'm looking for is your predictions on what they will do, and your comments on what they have already said and appointed....
GT, they AREN'T in power, are they? They're planning to take over power in about, what? 45 Days? Until then, I say nothing, because they ARE NOT IN CHARGE.
DeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 16 Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1060 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 15): I believe I never once referred to the Democrats ever being in power right now.
Uhmm...yeah you did. Right there in the thread title.
"1 Week Of Democratic Rule- What Say You?"
Your language implies they are in power, running committees, and passing legislation which we all know (but not you) isn't the case.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 15): and most people were intelligent enough to understand simple English,
But yet it eludes you in the simple world of understanding present vs. future based on your thread title and then contradictory wording in the thread.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 15): seems to me you must be a little upset by their actions
Not really. I'm sitting back waiting to watch them implode. Murtha losing despite the endorsement from Pelosi is just the beginning. There is a big split amongst the Dems that will come out. The election was not so much the US saying we want the Dems because they have a better plan (what plan actually?) but rather the GOP doesn't freaking listen to us so let's give these other yahoos a try.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
PSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 972 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1055 times:
Don't expect much to come from the Democrats until after 2008.
Bush is pretty idealistic, and he will more than happily veto any type
of crap legislation they put on his desk. And they don't hold enough the
number of votes in Congress to overide a presidential veto.
If they try to weaken the Patriot Act or put severe restrictions on the
government survailance program, and then there is an attack in the U.S.,
you can forget about any future victories in the next few election cycles.
If they're smart, they'll keep it tame for the next 2 years. It's too much of
a gamble for them to do anything drastic. But then again, they are the
Democrats, so who knows. Plus, a few of their newly elected freshman
class are pretty conservative, which I think is going to be a heavy anchor
around their more senior (and more liberal) colleagues.
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1988 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1050 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16): GT, they AREN'T in power, are they? They're planning to take over power in about, what? 45 Days? Until then, I say nothing, because they ARE NOT IN CHARGE.
So you can't comment on the appointments and the Murtha -vs- Hoyer vote?
You can't comment on the hearings involving Gen. John Abizaid and his recommendations on staying or leaving in Iraq?
You can't comment on Bush trying to work with the Democrat's on an immigration plan?
What? Falcon is going to shut up until January? I thought the world stopped last Tuesday, I guess it just paused for the great stoppage tonight!!!
Did you know Taylor Swift has a STAR to BNA named after her? No, I'm not kidding.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1049 times:
Quoting Duff44 (Reply 5): Won't do it for 2 reasons:
1) It looks petty and childish
2) They don't have enough votes to remove him from office even if they do impeach him (It takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President from office, Dems only have 51 seats)
Well, the Republicans didn't have the votes to oust Clinton and certainly tried it.
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13): Where they were at the highest level since World War II. Brilliant. Now they are back in line where they were supposed to be.
Riiight. So, how big is the deficit?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1042 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19): What? Falcon is going to shut up until January? I thought the world stopped last Tuesday, I guess it just paused for the great stoppage tonight!!!
Me? Shut up?
Never!
But until they're sworn in, control remains with the current Republican majority-they are in charge, until that gavel passes from Dennis to Nancy.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1024 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 20): Riiight. So, how big is the deficit?
Around 2.2% of GDP, if memory serves. And that is in a time of war.
During WWII, The deficit reached 30.3% of GDP. During the 80s and 90s it ran up to 6%.
Taxes are no longer the problem. Taxation is running at 17.5 to 18% of GDP, which has historically been a good, stable mark. The problem is spending, not taxes. Expenditure is around 20%, mainly because of war expenditures. If 9/11 had never happened, we'd have a balanced budget. But I think that during wartime deficits are admissable (unless you want to reduce domestic programs).
And remember also that most industrialized countries, especially in Europe, would kill to have a 2.2% deficit rate, and they aren't even at war.
N174UA From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
Quoting Duff44 (Reply 5): I don't think they'll be much change there. The Constitution still has a 2nd Amendment, and the Dems still don't have enough votes to override a Bush veto.
Quoting PSA727 (Reply 18): Plus, a few of their newly elected freshman
class are pretty conservative, which I think is going to be a heavy anchor
around their more senior (and more liberal) colleagues.
Yep. Look at Bob Casey and Jon Tester and Jim Webb from Viriginia. Dems in red states (well, 2, excluding PA). All they have to do is vote yes on anything even remotely related to gun control, and they're gone. Casey is actually opposed to stricter gun control laws. Several other Dems from red states would be ill-advised to support a Schumer/Feinstein sponsored ban that is designed to take away rights from honest people, even though criminals don't obey laws.
Howard Dean of all freaks actually came out and said that the issue of gun control is better to be dealt with on a city-by-city and state-by-state basis, rather than trying to apply another (meaningless feel-good) piece of national legislation.
Dems are going to keep a low profile...they're pissed off about Iraq, and that will be their main focus for two years. They know Bush will probably compromise on the minimum wage, so they'll win that one, and then anything else bipartisan that Bush agrees with them on. But Bush will only give them a leash long enough to hang themselves with.
Coming from a moderate, a lot of the new Dems that won aren't ultra-left wing San Francisco/New York/Chicago whacko types...which means people I could/would vote for. Hell, if I lived in Montanta, I would have voted for Tester. Or Casey if I lived in PA. If the Dems keep getting moderates elected, then they have a real shot at keeping power. But, they will have to get rid of the Kerry/Kennedy/Pelosi screwballs before that can happen.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 998 times:
Quoting N174UA (Reply 23): If the Dems keep getting moderates elected, then they have a real shot at keeping power. But, they will have to get rid of the Kerry/Kennedy/Pelosi screwballs before that can happen.
That's the thing. While most Democrats are generally moderate, somehow the extreme left has taken over the key leadership positions.
Luckily for the country (and for the Democratic Party) Pilosi was checked on the Murtha issue. The moderate majority gave her a clear signal there that they will only go so far. Good for them. Bad for Republicans though. If the Pilosi/Dean/Kerry/Gore wing of the party maintained absolute control, the Republicans would be a shoe-in to come back in 2008.
25 N1120A: Still using outdated economic indicators. Further, I wasn't talking about GDP, which is growing slower than mildew in the presidential shower. I was
26 Cfalk: Like I said, a 2.2% difference. GDP is the only measure which is consistantly comparable over time. When people say "record deficits", they sound so
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1988 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13874 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
