Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Senate Republicans have broken the record for filibustering, all with a year to spare. They are so used to reflexive blocking anything, a few weeks ago they filibustered a bill they had been in support of previously. But I'm sure this is based on principle and not a mindless partisan strategy.
I'm not sure who I saw this quote from, but its akin to mugging the mailman then complaining the mail isn't being delivered.
Its really unfortunate how disfunctional our government is right now. As much as I dislike Democrats, their counterparts are so repulsively anti-intellectual, one has little choice but to continue voting for a party that will allow itself a leader like Harry Reid.
Maybe because the Congress at that time was more interested in getting bills passed then making a political statement (at least in the first term of Clinton's presidency) like the current Congress. Why else would they write bills that they know they have no chance of getting passed.
You are obviously forgetting the 2005 budget Clinton repeatedly vetoed, eventually shutting down government, because he felt the GOP Congress wasn't spending enough. And the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which Clinton vetoed in January 1996, and vetoed again in June 1996, before signing it into law only AFTER Congress passed it with a veto-proof margin in July 1996.
Clinton had six times the number of vetos Bush has currently.
^^ That ability to write bills that will pass was largely dependent on the President's (Clinton) willingness to sign bills that were moderate. Maybe if Bush had set a more modest limit, say for starters the amount that his Republicans passed the past 4 years, then the Democrats would be able to write passable legislation. Bush needs to give Democrats some room to work or else they have no choice but to write impassable legislation.
Let me point out in YOUR own posting, what is wrong...
That ability to write bills that will pass was largely dependent on the President's (Clinton) willingness to sign bills that were moderate.
What you meant to say, if Bush had bent over and took it, you'd be thrilled, since the bills attempting to be passed now are FAR from moderate, please come back and restate your argument.
Senate Republicans have broken the record for filibustering, all with a year to spare. They are so used to reflexive blocking anything, a few weeks ago they filibustered a bill they had been in support of previously. But I'm sure this is based on principle and not a mindless partisan strategy.
I'm not sure who I saw this quote from, but its akin to mugging the mailman then complaining the mail isn't being delivered.
Its really unfortunate how disfunctional our government is right now. As much as I dislike Democrats, their counterparts are so repulsively anti-intellectual, one has little choice but to continue voting for a party that will allow itself a leader like Harry Reid.
YAAAA.. it just continues to show how inept the Congress management is right now.. thanks for pointing out yet another example.
After all, if the bills were MODERATE, we wouldnt be seeing this, would we?
I guess it was GREAT when the Democrats fillibustered, but now that the Republicans are, Democrats are wondering if its even constitutional.. haha..
You are obviously forgetting the 2005 budget Clinton repeatedly vetoed, eventually shutting down government, because he felt the GOP Congress wasn't spending enough. And the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which Clinton vetoed in January 1996, and vetoed again in June 1996, before signing it into law only AFTER Congress passed it with a veto-proof margin in July 1996.
Clinton had six times the number of vetos Bush has currently.
But that big bad mean Bush, who just hates little children and would like to have them all killed.. Dont confuse facts with emotions Glitch, people on the left dont want to hear about how the Republican congress forced Clinton into fiscial spending.
If only we still had a congress forcing the president into fiscal spending, we'd be ok.
But that big bad mean Bush, who just hates little children and would like to have them all killed.. Dont confuse facts with emotions Glitch, people on the left dont want to hear about how the Republican congress forced Clinton into fiscial spending.
If only we still had a congress forcing the president into fiscal spending, we'd be ok.
But in all fairness, this isn't a problem caused by Democrats. The expansion in spending over the recent past happened when the Republicans controlled both Congress and the Senate.
The reason why the "Democratically controlled Congress" has FAILED to get anything done has nothing to do with the Democrats.
It's the party-line voting from the Republicans.
In case you didn't know, a "majority vote' is NOT simply 51%. It requires two-thirds. Right now, the Democrats are NOT in control, but they are the majority in numbers.
They still need Republican support to get anything done. Democrats do NOT make up 2/3rds of the house.
Blame the Republicans, and their indignant refusal to go along with anything proposed by a Democrat. THAT is why nothing is getting done.
More people need to understand this and stop thinking the Democrats aren't doing anything and/or bending over for the President. I've listened to the ineptness of the President on a number of accessions where he stating the Democrats are playing politics with his bills. Well duh.... This man continues to point out the obvious and the reason why it take so long to pass anything is b/c of what the OP has stated. Every party (who in fact don't have the majority of the voting power currently) wants their own agendas passed.
It's so easy to say the Democrats conformed to this and that but if they hold out our troops will be at greater risk without funding. Sadly troops rely on the tit-for-tat of these two bickering parties who don't have absolute voting power.
But in all fairness, this isn't a problem caused by Democrats. The expansion in spending over the recent past happened when the Republicans controlled both Congress and the Senate.
If you read my postings, I champion them fighting against each other because no party should have absolute control because once they do, they create programs, and entitlements, without the need to pay for them, that are virtually impossible to remove later.
Have we EVER had a governmental agency closed or decreased in size over the long haul?
What we need to do is make a federal law, requiring balanced budgets, then make those in Congress actually work, rather then figure out ways they can buy votes, using the publics money.
But in all fairness, this isn't a problem caused by Democrats. The expansion in spending over the recent past happened when the Republicans controlled both Congress and the Senate.
Not entirely true, although the Republicans do share the blame for their fiscal irresponsibility (specifically the MediCare/MedicAid Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003). If you recall, the Democrats controlled the Senate from May 2001 through December 2002, and Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since December 2006. So out of the last 7 years, the GOP have only controlled both houses of Congress for 4 years and 5 months.
That is certainly no excuse for the GOP's fiscal irresponsibility, or Bush's endorsement of such fiscal irresponsibility, but they are not the only ones to blame either.
Location: On another site. This one is lame :) Trying to give it a second chance though.
105 posts, read 71,175 times
Reputation: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Not entirely true, although the Republicans do share the blame for their fiscal irresponsibility (specifically the MediCare/MedicAid Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003). If you recall, the Democrats controlled the Senate from May 2001 through December 2002, and Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since December 2006. So out of the last 7 years, the GOP have only controlled both houses of Congress for 4 years and 5 months.
That is certainly no excuse for the GOP's fiscal irresponsibility, or Bush's endorsement of such fiscal irresponsibility, but they are not the only ones to blame either.
See the original post.
The Democrats control nothing. When the Dems have the power to push through legislation at will, THEN they are in control.
Right now they're just patsies for the right's antics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
