Text 42382, 182 rader
Skriven 2006-11-09 10:11:48 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Kommentar till text 42377 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: Insults
===============
Hello Janis!
09 Nov 06 09:32, you wrote to me:
>> Reagan and slick willy got by with Congress in the hands of the
>> opposition party, do you really see what happened as a magic light
>> switch?
JK> Many things will be changed in this country, and I expect to see many
JK> investigations of this administration as well. It's too bad that Bush
JK> fired Rumsfeld.. I would have rather Rumsfeld was investigated for his
JK> actions as well... I wouldn't doubt that is why Rumsfeld was removed.
List the things that will be changed?
Do remember that when the Repubs took Congress in a far more dramatic and
convincing fashion in 1994, not too many of the changes they promised became a
reality. Kicker is, they had a plan and a message, the democrats of 2006 do
not.
>> The bright spot here is Bush is gonna learn how to veto things..
JK> Sure, he has that option... but if the Republican party wants to
JK> survive this Bush won't be so quick to veto every measure. Then
JK> again, don't forget, supenas like those that crushed the end of
JK> Clinton's term could well be applied to Bush. Remember that period in
JK> US History, when the Republicans did indeed state that "no one was
JK> above the law".
As I explained to someone else in another forum...
A Bush VETO wont be damaging to the GOP under circumstances I predict would be
the case.
It takes a 2/3's majority vote in both chambers to override a presidential
veto. The Democrats possess no such majority in either chamber.
Lets look at the house, if a bill initially was passed on the strength of the
dem majority, with a spattering of repub votes, lets say 175 repubs voted
against it. We can assume similiarly narrow initial passage in the Senate.
It will take 292 Votes in the House to override a Veto, Dems dont hold that
many seats. 435 X .67
It will take 67 votes in the Senate, DEMS dont hold that many seats. 100 X .67
A bill passed on the virtue of the DEM majority with a small splattering of GOP
votes, that gets vetoed and sent back to the originating chamber, well to
override would mean that those who initially voted against the bill the first
time, would have to change their vote, so if 175 repubs initially rejected the
bill the first time, do you thing 32 or more of them would change their vote
contrary to their first vote to sustain a override?
Not likely..
This is the gridlock we will see, its more evident when there is a weak
majority in the legislative body.
Your assertion can only hold true if the legislation passes Congress on veto
proof grounds, meaning it passed the house by 292 or more and the Senate by 67
or more. In this case if a bill lands on Bushes desk that he objects to, but
see's its literally bound to be passed anyway be a congressional veto override
because of the initial votes the bill passed on, he would likely not sign it,
and let the bill pass by default by not acting on it for 10 days. Of course
there is the pocket veto, if such a bill gets to him, like at the end of a
congressional session, he can not act on the bill and it would die naturally if
there is no congress in session to act on the bill. (10 day rule applies)
>> If legislation passed congress down party lines, the existing
>> majority wont be able to override any such veto..
JK> Possible.
Not possible, very likely.
>> Assuming the VA Senate seat goes left, do you think the Repubs wont
>> pull the same obstructionist BS the Dems did, which stalled and
>> stymied many things the past 6 years?
JK> Perhaps.. but I think representatives in both houses now are VERY
JK> aware of their constituents feelings about the state of this country,
JK> civil rights and more. I understand Nancy Pelosi, has a 100 hours
JK> plan to bring things back in the swing of things and I also bet she'll
JK> follow through with it.
I doubt the house in the next 2 years will be making much of a splash, the
Senate of the past 6 years has been quite a intestinal blockage and the DEM
majority is way weaker, like by only 1.
We will be seeing lotsa compromises coming through, no ramrodding and nothing
radical.
There is a reason why the left lost ground in 00,02,04, see if you can figure
that out?
>> That yours and Rons taxes will likely go up, sure!
JK> I guess you'd rather see that deficit continue to grow until it nearly
JK> bankrupts this nation? :) Our taxes haven't gone down under Bush,
JK> btw. They've gone up..
The economy would not have rebounded the way it did if we had the left wing
inspired tax structure.
and yes, my taxes did go down, not by much, but no one has the right to tell me
I dont need or need to appreciate the extra monies I see in my net take home.
I'd rather have that money for myself, rather than see it go into the welfare
system to fund irresponsible white trailer trash underage females become baby
factories on the public dole.
Remember the tax cuts were primarily income based cuts, that means people had
more to invest into the economy as in investing into business or by merely
being able to purchase more goods and services.. Tax revenue collected from
businesses has increased. But you knew that.
9-11, the Airline bailout, Katrina werent for free events.
and nearly all of the taxcuts you bemoan were enacted prior to all above!!! But
you knew that.
The number crunchers in academia said the recession began in March 2001,
recessions dont happen overnight much less in 45 days. Bush was only in office
for that long, yet the entire was all his fault to listen to you all. It wasnt
his fault, it was his responsibility to try to fix and he did it. The DJI is at
all time highs, unemployment is way down, even besting Clintonian numbers.
I will concede that Bush should have vetoed a fair number of congressional
spending bills, but with everything that has happened, we still would have had
a deficit, even if he had been more veto concious.
>>> Democrats, they are _progressive_ Democrats. Read Chris Bowers
>>> comments on mydd.com, or on dailykos.com.
>> Progressive... C'mon Janis, thats just a word...
>> The point is, you can use a million different descriptive words that
>> denote if not describe the same thing.
JK> No, the point is that those elected are not conservatives. That is
JK> what's important here.
No a fair number are conservative..
At least they ran as being conservative..
Janis, the Carolinas are probably as conservative as one can get, yet in the
congressional district that covers Asheville NC, a Democrat unseated the GOP
incumbent, Heath Shuler.. He ran as a conservative, a evangelistic Christian to
be exact.. He obviously isnt my congressman, (we re-elected our repub, his
opponent was a wife beater) but I do live in the same TV market and I saw the
commercials.
If you see this election as a backlash from the Repubs trying to rule from the
far right, just remember the lesson Clinton learned in 1994, I seriously doubt
the new class of DEMS who unsearted incumbent repubs are of the far left like
you want them to be.
Since you are afraid GOD might die if we continue to split hairs over
conservative versus progressive, lets settle for "moderate".
You are living in a dream world if you think the DEMS will take too many
chances by ruling from the left since they also represent areas with
considerable repub/conservative populaces, unless of course your assertion is
these people havent the same rights as leftos?
>> Cool your jets, if you get a DEM in the WH in 2008, is the time to
>> break out the champagne.
JK> I think most democrats are now celebrating the potential that exists
JK> to end the fear campaign in the US now.
They can do that, all they have to do is prove that they are strong on fighting
terrorism, can they do that Janis?
==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader! http://www.easternstar.info
Portal To My Personal Blogs And A Discussion Forum: http://www.cassell.us
Email: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com
... You do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-30413
* Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)
|