Maybe Dems would do better at the polls...

[davebg 0]

1. Yes, if there was a Dem controlled House and Senate with Bush in office I do think spending would drop. If Democrats controlled Congress I think Bush might find a bill or two to veto, something he has not done in his entire time in office.

 

2. OK, the last time the Dems controlled Congress and the White House I was barely voting age and didn't follow politics at all. Satisfied?

I think what he's looking for is for you to say that if it was a Dem controlled WH, then you'd vote for a Rep controlled Congress, in keeping w/your little theory of checks and balances.

[parrot 789]

in keeping w/your little theory of checks and balances.

Yeah, that's something we just dreamed up.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I think what he's looking for is for you to say that if it was a Dem controlled WH, then you'd vote for a Rep controlled Congress, in keeping w/your little theory of checks and balances.

 

Exactly

 

Yeah, that's something we just dreamed up.

 

His theory of "checks and balances" relates to a two party system, which is totally different than the "checks and balances" across 3 branches of government as designed by the framers of the Constitution. Two totally different things.

[Strike 5,489]

MDC seems to think this country only has two parties, and doesn't seem to understand that you can even run for office if you're not affiliated with any party

[torridjoe 48]

I watched him on C-Span. I am not delusional. He did not let the bill get to the floor because he didn't want the Senate to be able to vote on the amendments to the Kennedy-McCain Version.

 

The bill was already dead on arrival. Don't be disingenuous.

[MDC 7,339]

I think what he's looking for is for you to say that if it was a Dem controlled WH, then you'd vote for a Rep controlled Congress, in keeping w/your little theory of checks and balances.

 

Yes, if the Dem controlled Congress / White House were out of control and my Democratic state Rep weren't clearly better than the challenger, I'd vote GOP and vice versa.

[davebg 0]

Yeah, that's something we just dreamed up.

Yeah, I didn't really like that once I posted it.

 

I didn't mean that the whole "checks & balances" thing is made up. I was really referring to MDC's little theory on how to vote in an election. I mean, essentially what he said was that all things being equal (ie. both candidates are sketchy politicians), then you should vote for whichever party is not in control of the other branches of govt (like the WH.)

 

We were just wondering if MDC would have the same opinion if there was a Dem in the WH and he was voting for Congress. Would he vote for the Reps to maintain these checks and balances or is he the hypocrite that some consider him to be?

[MDC 7,339]

MDC seems to think this country only has two parties, and doesn't seem to understand that you can even run for office if you're not affiliated with any party

 

Actually I know there are more than two parties, but I'm a pragmatist and I live in this place called "reality."

[torridjoe 48]

The choice is easy for me this year. I voted for Arlen Specter in '04 - he's still my proudest vote from that year

 

so you were glad to see Alito and Roberts pushed onto the Court? You're glad there's someone there to block oversight on domestic spying and manipulation of intel?

[parrot 789]

Exactly

His theory of "checks and balances" relates to a two party system, which is totally different than the "checks and balances" across 3 branches of government as designed by the framers of the Constitution. Two totally different things.

I'm the one who posted the phrase "checks and balances" in this thread, so it's my theory as much as his.

 

And no they aren't two totally different things. The process of checks and balances rests on the presumption that the different branches are willing and able to use their vested powers to limit the actions of the other branches. When you have all three branches acting in collusing and content to merely sign off on the actions of the others in a quid-pro-quo arrangement, you don't have checks and balances.

[MDC 7,339]

I mean, essentially what he said was that all things being equal (ie. both candidates are sketchy politicians), then you should vote for whichever party is not in control of the other branches of govt (like the WH.)

 

What I originally said was that if you are not happy with the job that Congress and the White House are doing, the best way to affect change is to vote Dem this fall. That point got derailed by a long discussion about things I might have said or did when I was 18. It's sort of like I'm running for office.

 

so you were glad to see Alito and Roberts pushed onto the Court? You're glad there's someone there to block oversight on domestic spying and manipulation of intel?

 

I've got my hands full without getting into your typical red herrings and straw man arguments, torrid. I'm sure gocolts or Recliner would love to talk it over with you.

[torridjoe 48]

I've got my hands full without getting into your typical red herrings and straw man arguments, torrid. I'm sure gocolts or Recliner would love to talk it over with you.

 

It's not a strawman. You said you were proud of voting for Specter. I asked why you would be proud of voting for a spineless ###### for Congress?

[MDC 7,339]

It's not a strawman. You said you were proud of voting for Specter. I asked why you would be proud of voting for a spineless ###### for Congress?

 

I'm not interested, sorry.

[torridjoe 48]

I'm not interested, sorry.

 

There's a more honest answer. A douche-baggish answer, but honest.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

What I originally said was that if you are not happy with the job that Congress and the White House are doing, the best way to affect change is to vote Dem this fall. That point got derailed by a long discussion about things I might have said or did when I was 18. It's sort of like I'm running for office.

 

That is what I disagreed with. You stated that you should vote Dems in if you are unhappy, regardless of whether that person is even qualified. By doing so, we can hold the WH in check. I disagree.

 

What davebg and parrot are saying is more realistic. They stated that "all things being equal" put the Dem in Congress, which I can understand. But really, when was the last time both candidates were equal?

 

And, MDC, the last time that spending dropped was 1965, so I don't think that you will see government spending dropping anytime soon.

[parrot 789]

And, MDC, the last time that spending dropped was 1965, so I don't think that you will see government spending dropping anytime soon.

Do you think spending would be where it is if we had a Democrat in the oval office? Or do you think Bush might have dug the ole veto pen out of the bottom of the desk if some of these grotesque spending measures had come from a Democratic congress?

[MDC 7,339]

There's a more honest answer. A douche-baggish answer, but honest.

 

Well since you already know why I like Arlen Specter I guess there's no reason to discuss it.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Do you think spending would be where it is if we had a Democrat in the oval office? Or do you think Bush might have dug the ole veto pen out of the bottom of the desk if some of these grotesque spending measures had come from a Democratic congress?

 

I think that we probably would not have had nearly as many cuts in discretionary spending (i.e. gov't programs), so we would have spent more there. I don't know that a Dem Prez would have spent as much on Homeland security and the military. So my best guess is that total spending would not have been as much, but it still would have been more than in the past.

 

I would expect that Bush would have vetoed some items from a Democratic Congress. I am not sure what he would have vetoed and I am sure that there would have been backroom politicking that would have essentially gone like this:

 

GWB - "Mr. Speaker, if you don't give us too much grief on our increase in spending on the military, we won't give you much grief on your increase in Federally funded programs."

 

Mr. Speaker - "OK, Georgie. As long as I get my pork barrel stuff. It is not my money anyway".

 

GWB & Mr. Speaker - (high five each other)

[MDC 7,339]

I think that we probably would not have had nearly as many cuts in discretionary spending (i.e. gov't programs), so we would have spent more there. I don't know that a Dem Prez would have spent as much on Homeland security and the military. So my best guess is that total spending would not have been as much, but it still would have been more than in the past.

 

I would expect that Bush would have vetoed some items from a Democratic Congress. I am not sure what he would have vetoed and I am sure that there would have been backroom politicking that would have essentially gone like this:

 

GWB - "Mr. Speaker, if you don't give us too much grief on our increase in spending on the military, we won't give you much grief on your increase in Federally funded programs."

 

Mr. Speaker - "OK, Georgie. As long as I get my pork barrel stuff. It is not my money anyway".

 

GWB & Mr. Speaker - (high five each other)

 

For a guy who was accusing me of partisanship, you sure have a lot of excuses for Bush and the GOP Congress' record spending and deficits. "The Dems would be just as bad!" is a pretty pathetic rationale for business as usual.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

For a guy who was accusing me of partisanship, you sure have a lot of excuses for Bush and the GOP Congress' record spending and deficits. "The Dems would be just as bad!" is a pretty pathetic rationale for business as usual.

 

I am not a Republican and did not vote for Bush. I completely disagree with Bush on his foreign policy, his spending, and his stomping on the Constitution. However, voting Democrat regardless of qualification is not the answer. "Meet the old boss, same as the old boss"

[parrot 789]

I think that we probably would not have had nearly as many cuts in discretionary spending (i.e. gov't programs), so we would have spent more there. I don't know that a Dem Prez would have spent as much on Homeland security and the military. So my best guess is that total spending would not have been as much, but it still would have been more than in the past.

 

I would expect that Bush would have vetoed some items from a Democratic Congress. I am not sure what he would have vetoed and I am sure that there would have been backroom politicking that would have essentially gone like this:

 

GWB - "Mr. Speaker, if you don't give us too much grief on our increase in spending on the military, we won't give you much grief on your increase in Federally funded programs."

 

Mr. Speaker - "OK, Georgie. As long as I get my pork barrel stuff. It is not my money anyway".

 

GWB & Mr. Speaker - (high five each other)

It worked pretty well during Clinton's second term with the Contract with American Congress acting as a foil.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It worked pretty well during Clinton's second term with the Contract with American Congress acting as a foil.

 

Was that because we had a Republican Congress and a Dem President or was it because we had some pretty solid people in office and the stars were aligned (economy boom, albeit short-lived)? No question that they had the right formula, which was to spend less than what you brought in. However, some claim that the cuts made during those years caused the issues that happened when Clinton got out of office, particularly those with National Security.

 

I can see the point of both sides on that one. I still believe that you don't spend more than you bring in over anything more than a year or two and you should have a rainy day fund. That is not going to happen any time soon with this deficit, but it can't hurt to start small by having a positive balance year-over-year.

[MDC 7,339]

Was that because we had a Republican Congress and a Dem President or was it because we had some pretty solid people in office and the stars were aligned (economy boom, albeit short-lived)?

 

It was because we had a Republican Congress and a Dem President.

[What is the deal? 1]

The bill was already dead on arrival. Don't be disingenuous.

It was dead on arrival because the Harry Reid and Co. didn't want the amendments to be voted on. I sat there and watched him fillibuster it to death.

 

You are the one being disingenous. Why didn't they get to vote on the bill then or the amendments?

[torridjoe 48]

It was dead on arrival because the Harry Reid and Co. didn't want the amendments to be voted on. I sat there and watched him fillibuster it to death.

 

You are the one being disingenous. Why didn't they get to vote on the bill then or the amendments?

 

He didn't filibuster anything. It was not about wanting amendments voted on, it was about holding the number of amendments to three for each side.

 

The bill was dead when it arrived before Reid even made a move on it. The Senate was not going to make being undocumented a felony, or doctors or church workers who help undocumenteds felons. The House version was not going to pass, because the Senate GOP would not have voted for it. The GOP's deep internal divisions on immigration reform are what's holding up a bill.

[What is the deal? 1]

He didn't filibuster anything. It was not about wanting amendments voted on, it was about holding the number of amendments to three for each side.

 

The bill was dead when it arrived before Reid even made a move on it. The Senate was not going to make being undocumented a felony, or doctors or church workers who help undocumenteds felons. The House version was not going to pass, because the Senate GOP would not have voted for it. The GOP's deep internal divisions on immigration reform are what's holding up a bill.

As the Senate prepares to tackle the most sweeping immigration reforms in years, a top Democrat vowed Wednesday to do everything in his power, including filibuster, to thwart Majority Leader Bill Frist's proposed overhaul.

 

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would "use every procedural means at my disposal" to prevent Frist from bypassing the Judiciary Committee. Frist, R-Tenn., has made clear the Senate will take up his proposal next week if the 18-member committee fails to complete a broader bill.

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/22/D8GH0QS03.html

 

Frist unveiled a bill last week that sidesteps the question of temporary work permits. It would tighten borders, punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and provide more visas.

 

It never said anything about Felony's as far as I know.

[torridjoe 48]

It never said anything about Felony's as far as I know.

 

Thank you for agreeing with me. The Senate bill was unreconcilable with the House bill from the start. Which is why I said it was DOA.

 

Remember who the majority is, again?

[What is the deal? 1]

Thank you for agreeing with me. The Senate bill was unreconcilable with the House bill from the start. Which is why I said it was DOA.

 

Remember who the majority is, again?

The Senate does not need to be handcuffed by the House. They can negotiate later to reach a concurrent agreement on the law. They definitely could have agreed on the border security issues that were proposed in the Senate's bill.

 

You can make excuses all day long, but I sat there and watched with my own 2 eyes as Harry Reid cried and moaned while holding up the immigration bill. Him and Schumer both didn't want to have their precious party members have to go public about whether they supported the rights of illegal immigrants or wanted to be tough on immigration.

 

The majority can't do anything without the minority coming on board.

 

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says a new immigration bill may be passed by Memorial Day, as his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Harry Reid, drops his refusal to allow GOP amendments to come to the floor.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369777

 

Senator Reid says he objected to the amendments, because he believed they were intended to weaken essential parts of the legislation. He also denied accusations by some Republican leaders that he is trying to put roadblocks in the way of passing the bill for political reasons. Immigration reform is an emotionally-charged issue, and this is an election year for many in Congress.

 

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-04-08-voa15.cfm

 

Minority Leader Harry Reid refused yesterday to allow votes on amendments to the bill that Republicans say they will filibuster, including one that would prohibit any illegal alien convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors from obtaining U.S. citizenship.

Mr. Reid and other Democrats say that such an amendment would "gut" the immigration bill and they accused Republicans of being hostile to immigrants for proposing it.

Mr. Reid's tactical maneuvers came as news spread around Capitol Hill of a bill the Nevada Democrat sponsored in 1993 that was aimed at severely curtailing legal immigration and cracked down on illegal immigration.

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs," Mr. Reid said in a 1993 statement first reported on yesterday on the Drudge Report. "The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement. Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes."

Since the time of his proposed legislation, the estimated number of illegal aliens has gone from 3.3 million to more than 11 million.

"Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world," Mr. Reid said at the time. "Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

Mr. Reid yesterday disavowed that bill and his statements in support of it. And in an unusual, rambling confession on the floor of the Senate yesterday, he said it was the "low point" of his career.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...24606-5360r.htm

 

 

To me the bottom line seems to be that this minority senate would rather block good bills from being passed so they can blame the "majority" for not getting the job done later...

 

 

you can't blame this on the Republican Senate being in agreement.

 

Senate Republicans Agree on Immigration Bill

Wide Bipartisan Support Would Break Logjam

 

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 6, 2006; Page A18

 

Senate Republicans reached agreement last night on a compromise immigration measure that they believe will garner enough bipartisan support to break through a parliamentary impasse that has stymied progress on a high-stakes border security bill for two weeks.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6040502818.html

[torridjoe 48]

The Senate does not need to be handcuffed by the House. They can negotiate later to reach a concurrent agreement on the law. They definitely could have agreed on the border security issues that were proposed in the Senate's bill.

 

You can make excuses all day long, but I sat there and watched with my own 2 eyes as Harry Reid cried and moaned while holding up the immigration bill. Him and Schumer both didn't want to have their precious party members have to go public about whether they supported the rights of illegal immigrants or wanted to be tough on immigration.

 

The majority can't do anything without the minority coming on board.

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369777

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-04-08-voa15.cfm

 

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...24606-5360r.htm

 

 

To me the bottom line seems to be that this minority senate would rather block good bills from being passed so they can blame the "majority" for not getting the job done later...

you can't blame this on the Republican Senate being in agreement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6040502818.html

 

You're doing an amazing job of ignoring the central point: The Republicans in the Senate killed the House bill, not Harry Reid. Their version is markedly different, for good reason--the House version would never pass.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It was because we had a Republican Congress and a Dem President.

 

So why did it not work for the guy before Clinton when there was a Republican President (Bush I) and a Democrat House?

[What is the deal? 1]

You're doing an amazing job of ignoring the central point: The Republicans in the Senate killed the House bill, not Harry Reid. Their version is markedly different, for good reason--the House version would never pass.

so what exactly did Harry Reid do to contribute to a bill being passed?

 

Please do tell...