************* M*W: The Democrats control congress because there are more than 50% Democrats elected to Congress. The Republicans are the minority party (right now) and have less than 50% Republicans elected. However, the Democrats don't hold that many seats over 50%. The majority party in office also names the Speaker of the House who now is Nancy Pelosi. Come the November elections, all of this could change. With a Republican as POTUS and the Democrats controlling Congress, not much gets done. The POTUS has veto power to distinguish any bill that Congress is trying to pass. The Democrats have been the majority party in Congress since the 2006 election. The 2006 election did not include a presidential election. However, member of Congress as well as new candidates on the ballot were voted for in 2006. I hope this answers your questions.
So the Dems who have been "in control" of Congress since 2006, don't have any power at all? Saying: "they have been in power for two years", is actually a meaningless statement?
Well, yes. They do, lest there would be no purpose in holding it. No. They've been in power in the Congress for two years. ~String
Ok, I'll have another try. IF the Dems have been in POWER for two years, what does this power give them? What sort of power, or control do they have? Obviously, they don't have the power to veto the president, or the Senate (that isn't how it works). So what does the statement "the Dems have been in power for two years" mean? Please don't explain the workings of the American political system over again, I actually knew how it works already, what I DON"T know is what the above statement is meant to convey? See, control of Congress is not control of the political system, is it? Control of the Senate, would seem to be a more powerful position. Control of the White House, appears to confer the most political power. The power the Dems have in Congress, means what? They get to choose which bills are debated?
That's a good question. It depends upon the context of the question. When I asked it I was referring to the types of legislation they had proposed, opposed and what they had/have attempted to do. The answer is: very little. They should have been doing more. The Democrats have been promising to curtail Bush's campaigns in Iraq and reign in the out-of-control spending. No such luck. In the USA all bills for taxes and spending come from the Legislature. They hold the purse. They haven't been acting as wisely as they said. Total control, no. Partial control, yes. Sadly, control of the Congress means less and less with the ever growing power of the Executive branch. This will not change if/when Obama wins. A candidate runs for President because he wants to be Emperor ("to do good") not to give power back to the people. It's the beginning of a new Roman empire. The Senate is part of the Congress and is the more powerful of the two houses of Congress. You are right. That's because it's a singular authority and is more exposed to dogma and demagoguery. People like strong figureheads. The congress is much more nebulous in its operations, and therefore generally not as visible. Our minds, like our eyes, like to focus on a single object. By the nature of the Congress, that's very difficult. By the nature of the Presidency, that's very easy. Yes. By holding the power in both houses of congress they control the various committees that write and send the various bills to the floor (Energy, Medicare, Defense, Covert Operations, etcetera), they therefore can block the Republican proposed bills they do not like (any member can propose a bill, but the committee that controls that particular area of legislation can kill it before it reaches a vote) and they can propose any bill they want with little fear of opposition (except in the Senate where any member/s can filibuster endlessly and effectively kill a bill-- it's idiotic and archaic). ~String
Seriously? You object to the filibuster? I think it's a good thing. It serves as a check on "the tyranny of the majority". A single motivated person or group of people can make a difference. Didn't you ever see Mr Smith goes to Washington? What I object to is the "phantom" fillibuster where no one even needs to be talking but they simply need to have enough votes to stop a closure vote. (or is it "cloture"?) It's annoying and requires no commitment. I think, if the people "filibustering" stop talking, debate over, go ahead and vote. With that caveat, I'm all for the filibuster.
The real question is, do you actually doubt that "very bold" statement ? The one I actually made, I mean, not your little slanting of it. From '94 through '06, the Reps held power in both houses of Congress and exercised it unilaterally, without bipartisan consideration. Starting in '07, the Dems held a slim majority in the House, and a tie in the Senate on realistic votes. Neither was enough to overcome the White House advantage, or even handle the intransigence of the Republican minority, which was organized as a bloc and coordinated obstruction with the White House (lots of filibusters, vetoes, threatened shutdowns, etc: there's a reason madanth is OK with them). The Dems have now been "in power" in the House - although nothing like the lock the Reps have held for twelve years - for a year and a half: 17 - 18 months. In that time they have face continual filibuster and other threats, vetoes, and numerous obstructions not often or continually employed by them as minority party, or their White House in the 90s. How anything bad that has happened legislatively in these years could be the Dem's fault is hard to imagine. Can you think of an example ?
Yes. I do. You said:"None of the major Congressional legislation since '94, or US Governmental policy since 2000, is the fault of the Dems. The Reps have not only been in control, they have exercised power unilaterally, with little or no attempt at "bipartisan" governance." None means "none." I'd like to see you support that. You made the claim, now back it up with something reputable and verifiable beyond your, admittedly attractive, prose. ~String
if you are interested in knowing, the origins of this crisis date back to 1999, during the Clinton administration. not that i am blaming him or the dems for that-the reps did there part in deregulation.
I'm at a bit of a loss here. Am I supposed to come up with the shape of an absence ? Do you have some legislation in mind, that you think is "the fault of" (implication: it's bad legislation for some reason) the Dems ? We've been talking about that for weeks, here. That's part of the "deregulation" we've been talking about. Phil Gramm sponsored that bill, and was the chief power pushing it through Congress and the White House. He had McCain's full support, and has always been McCain's chief economic adviser. McCain has refused to rule out, when asked, Gramm for Treasury Secretary.
of course he wouldnt rule it out, its politics. but if the dems are so clever why did they agree? couldnt Clinton disagree? nobody put a gun to their heads. whos the more foolish, the fool, or the one following him?
Personally, I'd rule out people like Ivan Boesky and Phil Gramm for Treasury Secretary, politics or no politics. Plenty of Dems did disagree, and voted against it. Clinton has always been malleable and corporate oriented, the Reps had lined up a veto proof vote - and Clinton did have a "gun to his head", in a sense. In later bills to the purpose, Gramm attached - or arranged for them to be attached - to larger bills with lots of valuable content that were difficult to veto.
Of course you're at a bit of a loss. You made a ad hominem statement about an entire era which utterly absolved the Democrats from the bad legislation. If your at a loss, then that's your fault. If I make a statement, "All AIDS cases from 1994-2006 were caused by dirty needles", I better be able to back it up with something tangible than my own rhetoric. You made a statement akin to that and can't provide any shred of factual evidence to back up your claim. Are you entitled to believe it's true? Sure. But if you're going to make a statement of fact about it, you should be able to back it up. Remember, it was you who said, "NONE of the major legislation since 94... is the fault of the Dems." None means none, and I'd like to see something supporting that other than your claims. ~String
Man, are you going to be one of the sore losers that starts whining again about the vote not being fair after President McCain is serving his first of two terms?
First off ice like me will probably only complain if there is evidence of the election being unfair and more than the usual amount of crap to alter the vote. Secondly the way things stand now the likely hood of Mccain winning are under 50% Thirdly even if we give you your absurd assured win for Mccain this year given his and his parties current track record the odds of him getting 2 terms are slim.
No, the likelihood of McCain being elected isn't known. The POLLS have him at less than 50%. Polls aren't what elect a President. There are no "odds" concerning him reaching a second term. That's in your mind. As for his party's track record, it's the last two terms to zero for the Democrats. That's a hell of a good track record for the Republicans. We're getting ready to do that again.
