Then you may want to start worrying. It seems very likely that the Democratic Party will expand their control of Congress after this election cycle. If Obama wins the Presidency, then there could be a filibuster proof monopoly. From that point it doesn't seem unreasonable that they could appoint enough people into the judiciary to give them a comfortable majority there as well.
Unlikely to be a problem. The two justices most likely to retire in the next 4-8 years are Stevens and Bader-Ginsburg, barring a health crisis for someone else on the court. I think it unlikely that Stevens will follow the tradition of retiring the sitting president is from the same party as the president who nominated you. I think he's more likely to wait for a sitting Democrat to retire to not skew the ideological balance of the court.
|
Which is exactly what I said. I never said that Obama's tax plan would raise the taxes on people making $42,000 a year, I said allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would. I simply pointed out that the satements were misleading.
The line that anyone under $250,000 will not see a tax increase is often bandied about, and is also misleading. While he may not actually propose a tax increase on anyone under that amount, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, it results in a defacto tax increase on anyone making over about $42,000 a year...
Maybe I misunderstood your intent, but it still looks to me that your original quote is saying that Obama's tax plan proposes to remove the Bush tax cuts and thereby raise taxes on people making $42K a year. The statement that people making less than $250K will not get a tax increase only seems misleading to me if the plan allows those tax cuts to expire, which it doesn't.
|
|
Maybe I misunderstood your intent, but it still looks to me that your original quote is saying that Obama's tax plan proposes to remove the Bush tax cuts and thereby raise taxes on people making $42K a year. The statement that people making less than $250K will not get a tax increase only seems misleading to me if the plan allows those tax cuts to expire, which it doesn't.Which is exactly what I said. I never said that Obama's tax plan would raise the taxes on people making $42,000 a year, I said allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would. I simply pointed out that the satements were misleading.
The line that anyone under $250,000 will not see a tax increase is often bandied about, and is also misleading. While he may not actually propose a tax increase on anyone under that amount, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, it results in a defacto tax increase on anyone making over about $42,000 a year...
But it also does not propose to extend them or make them permenant. Since they have a built in expiration date, to do nothing is the same as proposing to get rid of them. It's the same as if you have a magazine subscription. You don't have to actively cancel the subcription, in most cases, you just have to let it run out without renewing it for it to stop coming.
|
|
But it also does not propose to extend them or make them permenant. Since they have a built in expiration date, to do nothing is the same as proposing to get rid of them.
Right, except that:
Obama's own economic plan makes permanent the tax cuts to the four lowest brackets.
So I believe that the Tax Policy Center analysis cited by Factcheck in my earlier post takes this into account.
In order for the rich to get rich, they need the poor. The more money the poor have, the more money the rich will obtain.That sounds vaguely like socialism!
The more money the rich have the more jobs that are created . . . somehow . . . I never really understood that step. It's the corner stone of the Republican economic system I thought.
I'm trying to say that the only way for the rich to get richer is if the poor have money to spend. It's much easier for rich people to get richer than it is for poor people to save money or get richer. So by helping the poor, and especially the middle class, the whole system works better.
I'm trying to say that the only way for the rich to get richer is if the poor have money to spend. It's much easier for rich people to get richer than it is for poor people to save money or get richer. So by helping the poor, and especially the middle class, the whole system works better.
In order for the rich to get rich, they need the poor. The more money the poor have, the more money the rich will obtain.That sounds vaguely like socialism!
The more money the rich have the more jobs that are created . . . somehow . . . I never really understood that step. It's the corner stone of the Republican economic system I thought.
True, but poor people don't (substantially) employee others.
|
Which would appear to be a good thing. I mean when you have 450 economists, including 10 Noble Prize winners saying this about the tax cuts, perhaps people should listen?
Economic growth, though positive, has not been sufficient to generate jobs and prevent unemployment from rising. In fact, there are now more than two million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of the current recession. Overcapacity, corporate scandals, and uncertainty have and will continue to weigh down the economy.The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus. As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.
Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.
To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment. Such a stimulus plan would spur growth and jobs in the short term without exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.
But hey, what do they know? Source (PDF) Signatories
True, but poor people don't (substantially) employee others.I'm trying to say that the only way for the rich to get richer is if the poor have money to spend. It's much easier for rich people to get richer than it is for poor people to save money or get richer. So by helping the poor, and especially the middle class, the whole system works better.
In order for the rich to get rich, they need the poor. The more money the poor have, the more money the rich will obtain.That sounds vaguely like socialism!
The more money the rich have the more jobs that are created . . . somehow . . . I never really understood that step. It's the corner stone of the Republican economic system I thought.
That is true, but jobs are created, usually, by a need to supply based on increased demand. If demand is there, jobs will be created. By giving the poor (and more primarily the middle class) money, you increase demand.
|
|
But it also does not propose to extend them or make them permenant. Since they have a built in expiration date, to do nothing is the same as proposing to get rid of them.
Right, except that:
Obama's own economic plan makes permanent the tax cuts to the four lowest brackets.So I believe that the Tax Policy Center analysis cited by Factcheck in my earlier post takes this into account.
As I read the Brookings Center report Obama's plan will expand the earned income tax credit, but I cannot find anywhere in the actual report where it says the bottom four brackets will have the Bush tax cuts made permanent. I also can't find any language like that in Obama's tax plan. I must admit to being a simple school teacher so I may have missed it. If you can find it, please point it out to me. I do see where he specificly mentions repealling the tax cuts over $2650,000, but nothing that says that under $250,000 Bush's tax cuts would be permanent
|
|
As I read the Brookings Center report Obama's plan will expand the earned income tax credit, but I cannot find anywhere in the actual report where it says the bottom four brackets will have the Bush tax cuts made permanent. I also can't find any language like that in Obama's tax plan. I must admit to being a simple school teacher so I may have missed it. If you can find it, please point it out to me.
David, I think you're a smart guy, and I enjoy reading your posts. You give good insight into conservative thought, and keep people like me from getting too insular with my line of thinking. Let me say that I hope my disagreement with some of your posts hasn't made it seem like I think you're just "a simple school teacher" (a position for which I have a great deal of respect, by the way).
That said, it looks to me like Obama's tax plan says that it will extend the tax cuts on page five of the document to which you link.
The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990's levels of 36% and 39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today.
This document doesn't say specifically that it will make the cuts permanent, but I don't have time to look for other sources to that effect just now.
|
|
That said, it looks to me like Obama's tax plan says that it will extend the tax cuts on page five of the document to which you link.
This document doesn't say specifically that it will make the cuts permanent, but I don't have time to look for other sources to that effect just now.The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990's levels of 36% and 39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today.
Right, I clearly missed that the first time around. I guess ultimately though, we will have to see who ends up running the show. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seem hellbent on getting rid of all of the taxcuts, as indicated in the budget resolution that started this who discussion, and with a filibuster and veto .proof majority, they may end up running the show rather than Obama. I would also like to express my sympathy to Sen. Obama and I hope his grandmother gets better soon.
Edit: Sen. Obama's grandmother fell and broke her hip earlier in the week and is now reported as being "gravely ill."
|
|
Go back to the Powell endorsment, a friend of mine brought this to my attention. How does it help Obama's campaign to portray John McCain as Bush's third term when he has been endorsed by the most visible face of the "steady drumbeat to war" that Democrats kept bringing up? The next time Obama tries to bring up the McBush thing, McCain could simply say, "you're the one being endorsed by members of the Bush administration." Thoughts?
Go back to the Powell endorsment, a friend of mine brought this to my attention. How does it help Obama's campaign to portray John McCain as Bush's third term when he has been endorsed by the most visible face of the "steady drumbeat to war" that Democrats kept bringing up?
I don't think its much of a secret what Powell thinks of the Bush administration. Also it doesn't make much sense if you are the McCain campaign to talk about Powell, he is well liked and respected by people on both sides of the aisle, so you will either end up looking like a sore loser because he didn't endorse you or in Buchanan's case 'a race baiter'.
And to be honest no body gives a 'rats left chicken McNugget' about the Iraq war right now. "It's the economy stupid", not Ayers, not Wright, not Farakhan, I think the McCain campaign is coming unglued.
|
|
Go back to the Powell endorsment, a friend of mine brought this to my attention. How does it help Obama's campaign to portray John McCain as Bush's third term when he has been endorsed by the most visible face of the "steady drumbeat to war" that Democrats kept bringing up? The next time Obama tries to bring up the McBush thing, McCain could simply say, "you're the one being endorsed by members of the Bush administration." Thoughts?
This is faulty thinking as Powell walked away from the Bush administration rather than be a part of it for a second term. It is rather public knowledge that Powell had a falling out with the Bush camp over a number of issues. Powell's endorsement does not tie Obama to Bush in any way. Quite the opposite in fact. The thing about Powell is that he is all class. Right now Republicans are scrambling to find a way to spin or discredit one of the most well known and respected members of their party because he came out in public support of the democrat candidate.
At this point, I think the best way for the Republicans to handle the Powell situation is to say that they respect Powell and admire him being willing to go against his party to follow his beliefs. Then say that in addition to understanding why Powell chose to go the way he did, that he is out of touch with the ways in which McCain is different from the Bush administration and then point out those differences. Take the move by Powell and show that you aren't afraid of it. All of this spin doctoring and desparate stabs to find something wrong with Powell's position reaks of fear. The Republicans have to stop trying to discredit every person that supporst Obama and instead focus on elaborating on the strength's of McCain's ideas.
Showing this type of fear or desparation or whatever it is of the support Obama is getting from a big name political figure like Powell, is not helping McCain's cause.
|
I also worry about the Executive and Legislative branches being monopolized by one party. I like the checks and balances.Then you may want to start worrying. It seems very likely that the Democratic Party will expand their control of Congress after this election cycle. If Obama wins the Presidency, then there could be a filibuster proof monopoly. From that point it doesn't seem unreasonable that they could appoint enough people into the judiciary to give them a comfortable majority there as well.
The "checks and balances" are between branches of the government and not parties. The Cheney/Bush administration has challenged the "checks and balances" of this country in a more substantial way than any other administration in my (admittedly short) lifetime. One of the most appalling things about the way the republicans ran the government for the first six years of Bush's presidency was the way the republican congress refused to stand up for its rights vis a vis the White House.
If you're truly worried about the checks and balances in this country - and I believe that you should be - then you should do what you can to bury the republican majority that ran our cadillac into the ditch. If there's anything out there in congress that's "un-American" (to borrow a term from a certain Minnesota congresswoman), its placing party politics above the constitution.
|
The "checks and balances" are between branches of the government and not parties.
True, but when the same party controls both (or even all three) branches, then those "checks and balances" can all but disappear.
One of the most appalling things about the way the Republicans ran the government for the first six years of Bush's presidency was the way the Republican congress refused to stand up for its rights vis a vis the White House.
In this, you seem to be making the same case we are. Of course, my thoughts on the failure of the Republican party was that they did not fight harder to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while they conceivably had the chance to fix things. Not to mention they spent money like it was going out of style.
If you're truly worried about the checks and balances in this country - and I believe that you should be - then you should do what you can to bury the Republican majority that ran our cadillac into the ditch.
So, we should fix the "checks and balances" issue by giving one party control of the Exectuive Branch, control of the House and (possibly) a 60 vote, fillibuster-proof, majority in the Senate. After all, the Democratic party had absolutely nothing to do with our current problems whatsoever. Except, of course, that they prevented the Republican party from trying to fix the aforementioned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problem. And I find it interesting that they want to hold off on Fannie/Freddie congressional hearings until after the election. Hmmm....why could that be?
|
|
It is hard to blame the Democrats for our current mess when it is the Republicans that have had majority control in both houses, the executive branch and a majority of conservative supreme court justices. The Republicans could literally do anything they wanted with our government without any way for anyone to oppose them. Yet it is the Democrats fault that they didn't get things done? For the love of all that is holy, the Republicans had absolute control of our government until the congressional election before this one. In that election the Democrats finally got a majority in one of the branches of congress. Up til that point the Republicans could have almost rewritten the constitution and gotten away with it. But you want to pin the current problems on the Democrats? How does that work exactly?
I totally understand loyalty to your party, but you are saying that despite having a majority control in ALL THREE BRANCHES of our government that it wasn't the Republicans fault we are in the sorry state we are in? We are fighting a war in Iraq we can't get out of. The economy is in tatters. Government spending has spiraled out of control and all of that happened with a Republican government controlling every branch of government. I have no doubt that the Democrats are not blameless in this thing, but trying to absolve the Republicans when they were the ones calling all the shots is a joke. A really bad joke.
|
|
It is hard to blame the Democrats for our current mess when it is the Republicans that have had majority control in both houses, the executive branch and a majority of conservative supreme court justices. The Republicans could literally do anything they wanted with our government without any way for anyone to oppose them. Yet it is the Democrats fault that they didn't get things done? For the love of all that is holy, the Republicans had absolute control of our government until the congressional election before this one. In that election the Democrats finally got a majority in one of the branches of congress. Up til that point the Republicans could have almost rewritten the constitution and gotten away with it. But you want to pin the current problems on the Democrats? How does that work exactly?
Actually, I never stated that the Republicans were blameless regarding our current crises. I merely stated that the Democrats worked against them when they were trying to address the Fannie/Freddie problem. My point, of course, was that both parties contributed to the problems we are seeing today. The previous poster seemed to be indicating his belief that any problems were entirely the Republicans fault as you seem to be echoing.
As for Republicans having complete control of the government - that is wrong. They did have the Presidency, and a majority in Congress, However, they did not have enough members in Congress to override Democratic fillibusters, thus limiting the things they could do.
Concerning the Supreme Court - the current court is evenly split with 4 conservatives and 4 liberal justices, with one "swing" justice, Anthony Kennedy, who (as records will show) has sided with the liberal justices more often than not. Prior to that (when Bush first took office) there was Rehnquist (a conservative) and O'Connor who was also considered a "swing" judge. So prior to Roberts and Alito, the court could actually be said to have had a liberal majority, and now it is more balanced.
Actually, I never stated that the Republicans were blameless regarding our current crises. I merely stated that the Democrats worked against them when they were trying to address the Fannie/Freddie problem.
Only people that say that are Republican lapdogs, you know, like Bill Clinton.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yeah, greasy fried chicken action. lolOnly people that say that are Republican lapdogs, you know, like Bill Clinton.You know, if I weren't happily married, I'd love to go out drinking with Bill. He seems to me to be the kind of guy who would not only be a good drinking buddy, but he'd try like hell to get his friends some "action".
Fixed it for you.
It is hard to blame the Democrats for our current mess when it is the Republicans that have had majority control in both houses
What have you been living for the last 2 years? You might want to check your 'sources'. It's pretty simple - House Majority leader is a Dem, Senate Majority is a Dem. Hence, Dems have had a majority for the last 2 years.
I totally understand loyalty to your party, but you are saying that despite having a majority control in ALL THREE BRANCHES of our government that it wasn't the Republicans fault we are in the sorry state we are in?
How does the 2nd part of your argument hold up now? You might want to re-examine your level of loyalty to your party, whatever that might be.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Yeah, greasy fried chicken action. lolOnly people that say that are Republican lapdogs, you know, like Bill Clinton.You know, if I weren't happily married, I'd love to go out drinking with Bill. He seems to me to be the kind of guy who would not only be a good drinking buddy, but he'd try like hell to get his friends some "action".Fixed it for you.
lol. But they'd be young chickens.
Thx for having my back Tarren. ;)
|
|
Concerning the Supreme Court - the current court is evenly split with 4 conservatives and 4 liberal justices, with one "swing" justice, Anthony Kennedy, who (as records will show) has sided with the liberal justices more often than not. Prior to that (when Bush first took office) there was Rehnquist (a conservative) and O'Connor who was also considered a "swing" judge. So prior to Roberts and Alito, the court could actually be said to have had a liberal majority, and now it is more balanced.
I'm not a huge Justice Kennedy scholar, but I don't think he tends to side with the liberal justices on the court most of the time. He is a Reagan appointee and a conservative for the most part (particularly with respect to criminal issues), though he is the most moderate conservative on the court and does show signs of more liberal thinking from time to time (he supports privacy rights which are not directly in the text of the Constitution, for example).
So before Bush's appointments, I would have said that you had four conservative justices, four liberals, and O'Connor. When Bush replaced O'Connor with Alito, the midpoint of the Court shifted over to Kennedy, who is generally more conservative than O'Connor was but who still votes with the liberals sometimes.
I'm not a huge Justice Kennedy scholar, but I don't think he tends to side with the liberal justices on the court most of the time. He is a Reagan appointee and a conservative for the most part (particularly with respect to criminal issues), though he is the most moderate conservative on the court and does show signs of more liberal thinking from time to time (he supports privacy rights which are not directly in the text of the Constitution, for example).So before Bush's appointments, I would have said that you had four conservative justices, four liberals, and O'Connor. When Bush replaced O'Connor with Alito, the midpoint of the Court shifted over to Kennedy, who is generally more conservative than O'Connor was but who still votes with the liberals sometimes.
Yes, this is closer to the commonly held view of the court, particularly of Kennedy. His tenure has definitely suggested he's more conservative than O'Connor, who, even as a swing voter, also voted more with the conservative side than the liberal side. With Kennedy as the primary balancing point, the court has definitely shifted to the conservative side of the center.
|
|
I'm not a huge Justice Kennedy scholar, but I don't think he tends to side with the liberal justices on the court most of the time. He is a Reagan appointee and a conservative for the most part (particularly with respect to criminal issues), though he is the most moderate conservative on the court and does show signs of more liberal thinking from time to time (he supports privacy rights which are not directly in the text of the Constitution, for example).
I would call Kennedy a constitutionalist more than a conservative. For example in Texas V. Johnson he voted to strike down a law banning flag burning because he felt it was protected speech under the first ammendment. He wrote the majority opinion which afirmed that Gitmo detainees have Habeas Corpus rights, voted to overturn the D.C. gun ban, and he also voted to extend emminate domain rights to cities, all because he felt that was the way the Constitution was written. Kennedy is an example of what I wish all the justices were like, he reads the Constititution and then decides based on his best understanding of it. Even when he is deciding in a way I disagree with, like overturning the ban on "virtual" child pornography, I can still respect his reasoning.
Edit: Kennedy was also the first justice to advance the idea that we should take the laws of other nations into consideration when making Supreme Court rulings, which outraged conservatives.
|
|
I would call Kennedy a constitutionalist more than a conservative. For example in Texas V. Johnson he voted to strike down a law banning flag burning because he felt it was protected speech under the first ammendment. He wrote the majority opinion which afirmed that Gitmo detainees have Habeas Corpus rights, voted to overturn the D.C. gun ban, and he also voted to extend emminate domain rights to cities, all because he felt that was the way the Constitution was written. Kennedy is an example of what I wish all the justices were like, he reads the Constititution and then decides based on his best understanding of it. Even when he is deciding in a way I disagree with, like overturning the ban on "virtual" child pornography, I can still respect his reasoning.
Edit: Kennedy was also the first justice to advance the idea that we should take the laws of other nations into consideration when making Supreme Court rulings, which outraged conservatives.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by constitutionalist. I don't think Kennedy is a strict constructionist like Scalia - he wrote the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws under the Due Process Clause. Scalia's argument against that would be that the Constitution doesn't discuss sodomy, therefore it's up to the states to regulate it. So is a constitutionalist instead someone who reads the Constitution as a living document and attempts to apply it regardless of political outcome?
The other thing that puzzles me with respect to referring to Kennedy as a constitutionalist is the international law angle. I do like the idea of examining trends in foreign law to inform our own jurisprudence (though obviously they should not be binding in any way) but it doesn't seem like that should matter if you're only interested in applying the Constitution to a problem.
|
|
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by constitutionalist. I don't think Kennedy is a strict constructionist like Scalia - he wrote the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws under the Due Process Clause. Scalia's argument against that would be that the Constitution doesn't discuss sodomy, therefore it's up to the states to regulate it. So is a constitutionalist instead someone who reads the Constitution as a living document and attempts to apply it regardless of political outcome?
Yes, that is exactly what a constitutionalist is. The difference between a constructionist and a constitutionalist is that a constructionist only looks at the words of the Constitution, while a constitutionalist tries to understand what the framers had in mind when they wrote a certain passage.
The other thing that puzzles me with respect to referring to Kennedy as a constitutionalist is the international law angle. I do like the idea of examining trends in foreign law to inform our own jurisprudence (though obviously they should not be binding in any way) but it doesn't seem like that should matter if you're only interested in applying the Constitution to a problem.
Well, the simple answer is that the framers looked at international law, in this case English Common Law, as a starting point for the Constitution. In Kennedy's case, he has said that looking at international law is a good starting point because we can see what other people with similar legal traditions as we have did when faced with similar circumstances, just like the framers did in writing the Constitution.
|
|
It is hard to blame the Democrats for our current mess when it is the Republicans that have had majority control in both housesWhat have you been living for the last 2 years? You might want to check your 'sources'. It's pretty simple - House Majority leader is a Dem, Senate Majority is a Dem. Hence, Dems have had a majority for the last 2 years.
I totally understand loyalty to your party, but you are saying that despite having a majority control in ALL THREE BRANCHES of our government that it wasn't the Republicans fault we are in the sorry state we are in?How does the 2nd part of your argument hold up now? You might want to re-examine your level of loyalty to your party, whatever that might be.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Yes the last two years. I said that in my last post when I pointed out it had changed in the last congressional election. At that point the Dems gained a small majority in the congress. In this election they can get a large majority. But before that, the Bush administration had a complete trifecta. The last 2 years is small potatoes compared to the 6 years before that when it was Republican control. I'm not the one that needs a bursh up on my "sources". It isn't a "sources" question. It's public knowledge for anyone who wants to bother to look.
|
|
Yes, this is closer to the commonly held view of the court, particularly of Kennedy. His tenure has definitely suggested he's more conservative than O'Connor, who, even as a swing voter, also voted more with the conservative side than the liberal side. With Kennedy as the primary balancing point, the court has definitely shifted to the conservative side of the center.
I'm not a huge Justice Kennedy scholar, but I don't think he tends to side with the liberal justices on the court most of the time. He is a Reagan appointee and a conservative for the most part (particularly with respect to criminal issues), though he is the most moderate conservative on the court and does show signs of more liberal thinking from time to time (he supports privacy rights which are not directly in the text of the Constitution, for example).So before Bush's appointments, I would have said that you had four conservative justices, four liberals, and O'Connor. When Bush replaced O'Connor with Alito, the midpoint of the Court shifted over to Kennedy, who is generally more conservative than O'Connor was but who still votes with the liberals sometimes.
You guys are right, of course. My head was stuck up my ass when I wrote that he "votes with the liberals more often than not". While he does vote with them on occasion, on viewing his bio it isn't nearly as often as I thought.
I do recall the Emminent Domain case that David mentioned. If I also recall correctly, didn't some guy tried to use that very ruling to take Kennedy's house?
|
|
The last 2 years is small potatoes compared to the 6 years before that when it was Republican control.
Once again, however, the Republicans did not, in fact, have complete control of Congress. If that had been the case, then the Democrats would not have been able to make such an effective use of fillibustering.
|
|
I do recall the Emminent Domain case that David mentioned. If I also recall correctly, didn't some guy tried to use that very ruling to take Kennedy's house?I don't remember hearing about that, but it does seem like something some of the crazy people out there would do.
Kelo V City of New London Wiki Entry
I got it wrong, however, in that it was property owned by Souter and some owned by Breyer that was gone after. Scroll down to the section Public reaction and the wider effect of Kelo under the subsection New Hampshire.
|
|
Well lets look at it shall we....
Here are the statistics on the congress for Bush's entire term in office...(referenced at this site http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html)
The 107th congress (2001-2003)
Senate Democrats 50 Republicans 50 (Republican Vice President Holds Tie Breaker)
House 212 Democrats 221 Republicans 2 Other (51% Republican Majority so not fillibuster proof)
The 108th congress (2003-2005)
Senate Democrats 48 Republicans 51 1 Other (I think the other is Joe Liebermann in that instance so he tends to vote democrat but is listed as independent) Vice Presidential tie breaker not needed
House 205 Democrats 229 Republicans 1 other (53% Republican Majority so not fillibuster proof)
The 109th congress (2005-2007)
Senate 44 Democrats 55 Republicans 1 Other (again Joe Liebermann) Vice Presidential Tie Breaker not needed
House 202 Democrats 231 Republicans 1 Other 1 Vacant (53% Republican Majority so not fillibuster proof)
With the 110th congress the democrats gained a majority in the house along with a tie (or is it one seat advantage) in the senate.
There have only been 2 instances in our history where there has been a fillibuster proof congress. The first was FDR and the New Deal. The second was Lyndon Johnson. Despite those two unique occurences, congress has always operated with the potential for a fillibuster, yet we have not had hundreds of lame duck congresses. In Bush's case, he got past fillibusters on his judge appointments because a small group of republicans agreed to vote a specific way on nuclear legislation in exchange for a small number of democrats agreeing not to fillibuster a judge nominee except under "extraordinary circumstances". In practice it worked out the only nominee that got fillibustered initially was Alito by a group lead by John Kerry. He still ended up getting appointed, so Bush got what he wanted. Saying that the Republican simple majorities were not strong enough to allow the Republicans to push there agenda just isn't true. What you are implying is that for the first 6 years of his presidency that Bush was unable to get any legislation passed because of fillibusters. If you can agree that isn't the case, then you have to acknowledge that the Republican majority was getting GOP driven agendas passed.
For the love of all that is holy, the Republicans had absolute control of our government until the congressional election before this one.
My bold. Sounds like your latest post refutes your previous. As these nuggets might -
So Bush put us into a war with no Democratic support? So the Patriot Act was passed without any Democratic support? So the Bush push to increase regulation on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003 passed because of the Repub majority?
Come on. You're skewing the 'facts' to support your POV.
Here's something I'll give you. Bush is/has been a dufus. I'm not. Talking out of both sides of your mouth won't change my ability to step back out of the party-line rose(hate)-colored glasses and look at things.
As I've said before 'there is plenty of blame to go around'.
|
|
For the love of all that is holy, the Republicans had absolute control of our government until the congressional election before this one.My bold. Sounds like your latest post refutes your previous. As these nuggets might -
So Bush put us into a war with no Democratic support? So the Patriot Act was passed without any Democratic support? So the Bush push to increase regulation on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003 passed because of the Repub majority?
Come on. You're skewing the 'facts' to support your POV.
Here's something I'll give you. Bush is/has been a dufus. I'm not. Talking out of both sides of your mouth won't change my ability to step back out of the party-line rose(hate)-colored glasses and look at things.
As I've said before 'there is plenty of blame to go around'.
Oh I agree there is plenty to go around. My problem is this spin doctoring that says everything positive that has happened has been because the Republicans have passed needed legislation and everything that is bad has happened because the Democrats blocked Republican efforts to do the same. The implication is that the Republicans are only doing what is best and the Democrats are just trying to block it. Not all positive legislation originates in the Republican machine.
All of that said, I am not worried about it. It is very likely we are going to elect a democrat president and have an outside shot at a fillibuster proof congress. If such a thing happens, I can't wait to hear how the right is going to spin it that everything positive that happens was just stuff that Bush or the Republicans set up before the Dems got control. But that is neither here nor there. America is ready for a change to the leadership of this country. With any luck, we are headed for some sweeping changes for the better.
Oh I agree there is plenty to go around. My problem is this spin doctoring that says everything positive that has happened has been because the Republicans have passed needed legislation and everything that is bad has happened because the Democrats blocked Republican efforts to do the same. The implication is that the Republicans are only doing what is best and the Democrats are just trying to block it. Not all positive legislation originates in the Republican machine.
Finally we're getting somewhere. I can agree. I've also heard that argument in the reverse.
Some Dems are good, some are bad. Some Repubs are good, some are bad. Some do good things, some don't. Sometimes events conspire against them.
I have little interest in spin doctoring, but it is rampant on both sides of the aisle. And many people are too ignorant, stuck in their own paradigms, or dedicated to certain agendas to think about/see things objectively. I have little use for them either.
There is too much info out there for anyone to ignore. IF they want to take the time to look past the EASY button.
I don't mean to tease or cause flames, but what's so great about Colin Powell for him to matter in this election ?
I don't mean to tease or cause flames, but what's so great about Colin Powell for him to matter in this election ?
'Cause if he had ever run for President he might have won. He's well liked/respected.
Of course he would have been hung out to dry for being the person on the TV screen making the case for attacking Iraq, so who knows.
|
|
Saying that the Republican simple majorities were not strong enough to allow the Republicans to push there agenda just isn't true. What you are implying is that for the first 6 years of his presidency that Bush was unable to get any legislation passed because of fillibusters. If you can agree that isn't the case, then you have to acknowledge that the Republican majority was getting GOP driven agendas passed.
I didn't state that the Republican majority wasn't strong enough to push their agenda. I merely stated that your implication that they had complete control of all three branches of the government was in error. The fillibustering of Democrats did serve to limit some of the things that Republicans could do, as I previously point out. And when Bush first took office, the Supreme Court leaned more to the liberal side than the conservative one. This condition persisted until 2005, when O'Connor retired. Even afterwards, the court sometimes leans left, depending on which side of the issue Kennedy came down on.
All of that said, I am not worried about it. It is very likely we are going to elect a democrat president and have an outside shot at a fillibuster proof congress. If such a thing happens, I can't wait to hear how the right is going to spin it that everything positive that happens was just stuff that Bush or the Republicans set up before the Dems got control. But that is neither here nor there. America is ready for a change to the leadership of this country. With any luck, we are headed for some sweeping changes for the better.
Be careful about what you wish for. If the Dems do get a filibuster proof majority and the presidency, that means anything that goes wrong in the next 2-4 years is going to fall 100% on their heads. Yeah they can claim the good stuff, but people don't get voted out for the good stuff.
Of course they can always try to spin it that the bad stuff is just things Bush and the Republicans set up before the Dems got control. ;)
|
|
Yeah they can claim the good stuff, but people don't get voted out for the good stuff.
They don't get voted out for anything do they?
http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html
"In November of 2004, 401 of the 435 sitting members of the U.S. House of Representatives sought reelection. Of those 401, all but five were reelected. In other words, incumbents seeking reelection to the House had a better than 99% success rate. In the U.S. Senate, only one incumbent seeking reelection was defeated. Twenty-five of twenty-six (96%) were reelected."
It seems like every other week I see in the news politicians either doing crack in public restrooms or in court being charged with crimes X,Y, and Z and they STILL run for re-election...and win!!!
|
|
It seems like every other week I see in the news politicians either doing crack in public restrooms or in court being charged with crimes X,Y, and Z and they STILL run for re-election...and win!!!
Not to mention that it seems like some of these guys make the energizer bunny look like a wimp. According to Wikipedia, Don Young has been a Rep for Alaska since 1973 (I was about 1 at the time) and he is only the 8th longest-serving Representative. Holy Poop! And there are more just like him.
|
|
There is a new study being publicized in the politico that says that 60% of the news coverage on John McCain has been negative since the September convention while only 29% of the coverage of Barack Obama has been negative. Read more about it here.
|
|
All of that said, I am not worried about it. It is very likely we are going to elect a democrat president and have an outside shot at a fillibuster proof congress. If such a thing happens, I can't wait to hear how the right is going to spin it that everything positive that happens was just stuff that Bush or the Republicans set up before the Dems got control. But that is neither here nor there. America is ready for a change to the leadership of this country. With any luck, we are headed for some sweeping changes for the better.
Be careful about what you wish for. If the Dems do get a filibuster proof majority and the presidency, that means anything that goes wrong in the next 2-4 years is going to fall 100% on their heads. Yeah they can claim the good stuff, but people don't get voted out for the good stuff.
Of course they can always try to spin it that the bad stuff is just things Bush and the Republicans set up before the Dems got control. ;)
To be clear I am not wishing for a fillibuster proof majority. What I do want is some major changes to the way our government is being run. I totally get and agree that our entire government has pie on it's face right now. Like most American's, I want to see the economy healthy. I personally want stronger social welfare than presently exsists. I don't want to give those who are unfortunate a free pass, but I think the current system is killing families trying to get on their feet. I have a family of 5, and right now we are living on one full time income and one part time income while we are trying to finish our educations. I teach one class at KSU, and I am presently doing some student teaching in preparation for full time student teaching in the spring, as well as taking a full time course load. Our family has to take out exhorbitant amounts of student loans to survive because we just can't afford to live without it. I pay over $1000 every month for daycare and have a household income less than $35000. You do the math. State assistance for daycare has offered to give me, and I'm not making this up, thirty dollars a month to help with childcare. Thirty freaking dollars out of the almost $1100 I am paying. I get no assistance for food, and I am paying nearly $500 a month for insurance coverage for my family before you count prescription costs for my sons asthma. Between health insurance, healthcare, and childcare I am paying in excess of $1800 every month before I get a penny. Then I have to pay rent and buy food on what is left, not to mention a car payment. I am more than 40% below the poverty line for my families size and income. But I can't get help with anything. There are still some corners I could cut, but right now I am not willing to take away the small amount of entertainment my wife, my kids, and I have left just to try to squeeze another $50 a month out to put into bills.
The system needs to be better. I am not a free loader. I put in close to 80 hours a week between finishing my education, working, and student teaching. I also volunteer my time for several charities and tutor at risk students for free with my own time. My wife works full time, and is a full time student herself. We are trying to work our way to being in the middle class and to being able to give ourselves the life we want (and we aren't trying to be rich, just not poor). We aren't lazy and we have done nothing wrong outside of having children before we had the money to support them. That is on us, but I don't believe in abortion (one of the areas I am conservative) and we were too little too late on birth control (youthful naievity). Yet despite all of that, we don't qualify for social assistance because these programs have inadequate funding, and have insanely strict restrictions because of the number of people that need it. We can't get a house because we don't have perfect credit, and even if we did it is almost impossible to find a way to save 20% down on a home at current market prices. The American dream has become an exclusive club where if you aren't lucky enough to be wealthy than you have no chance of getting in. One of my parents was a high school dropout. The other was a janitor until her back gave out. I have had to put myself through college and I don't have anything I didn't earn myself. I am the first in my entire families history to earn a higher education. I'm busting my tail for a better life.
I'm tired of working so hard while our government is doing nothing to help my family. I'm tired of hearing how corporate fat cats are getting multibillion dollar bailouts while my family has to budget down to the penny to have any quality of life at all. I don't want sympathy, but I am being bled to death by our HMO run healthcare system, and the complete lack of programs to help us support ourselves while we finish our educations. I'm not afraid of hard work and I don't like making excuses. That said, if taxing those with incomes higher than $250,000 will let them provide assistance for a family like mine, or even help mine if it can get passed into law fast enough, then I am all for it. If raising taxes gives us a healthcare plan where I am not paying $5000 a year plus prescription copays, coinsurance, office visits, procedure copays and so on, then I am all for it.
I don't want a free ride, but a hand to help pull me out of the pit would sure be nice. I've seen who the GOP wants to give a hand to, and it sure as heck isn't people like me.
Where is everyone getting this pie they keep talking about? ;p
Given the current state of things, I'm guessing it's moose turd pie. And there's one man you can ask about where to get it.
Now, who can tell me who recorded something about moose turd pie without googling it?