The dems only propose hand outs anyway and tax increases. I hope they repeal NAFTA. I'd love to hear the Canadians crying about that. NAFTA is very dangerous for American drivers, it allows mexican truckers to drive unsafe rigs on our highways meanwhile our truckers are held to far superior safety standards.
It's getting to the point where America needs to build a Northern and a Southern wall and buy American only.
It's getting to the point where America needs to build a Northern and a Southern wall and buy American only.
its shocking to read that xpanda, but what can one say? we kind of knew that when the senate won all those seats we kind of had the feeling this would be the attitude.
whats there to propose? theres no money. let the republicans be in charge of the pennies and nickels for 3 years. who cares.
whats there to propose? theres no money. let the republicans be in charge of the pennies and nickels for 3 years. who cares.
xpanda said:
That is business as usual in the House. The majority party has incredible powers and will use it as much as possible. Nothing will come to a vote unless the Speaker decides it should. The Dems did it for the 50 years that they ran the House; NAFTA was an exception because Clinton and the Speaker of the House wanted it so bad. Had Clinton been opposed to it, it would never have seen the light of day.
Shotgun said:
But this is the first time it's been announced brazenly as official party policy, isn't it? It seems to me that the Repubs are getting bolder and bolder ... which is hardly a good sign considering what they did with their first term when their 'political capital' was not yet at a premium.
At any rate, they're making my thesis much easier to argue ...
Okay, let me rephrase my original question:
At any other time in history, has the party in power publicly stated, as official policy, that they would be ignoring the votes of the opposition for every single issue that arises, regardless? Has any party in history stated this in advance of actual issues coming to bear?
Do any of you consider the fact that the statement was made at this juncture gives you reason to pause? Do you think that there exists a potential for abuse of power at this stage? Or do you think it is a matter of further marginalising the Democrats, making them even more insignificant than public opinion already places them?
(I could really use some non-partisan answers on this one before I go and reference this article. Thanks muchly.)
At any other time in history, has the party in power publicly stated, as official policy, that they would be ignoring the votes of the opposition for every single issue that arises, regardless? Has any party in history stated this in advance of actual issues coming to bear?
Do any of you consider the fact that the statement was made at this juncture gives you reason to pause? Do you think that there exists a potential for abuse of power at this stage? Or do you think it is a matter of further marginalising the Democrats, making them even more insignificant than public opinion already places them?
(I could really use some non-partisan answers on this one before I go and reference this article. Thanks muchly.)
I wouldn't be too worried.
Eventually the ruling party gets so blatant, arrogant and corrupt they wind up with a good hiding at the next election.
It can be quite a party if they really go for it.
Thatcher ripped the social fabric of Britain apart by the seams.
(goodness knows when her party will see power again.)
If they're short of cash, welfare stuff gets slashed bigtime and any public asset not nailed down gets flogged off before there are any tax increases.
(Like drilling and mining rights in areas of outstanding natural beauty)
There will probaly be moves to get public capital projects financed on a revenue basis.
(sorta like buying your house with a credit card)
It can be interesting to watch.(so long as its not your country
)
Eventually the ruling party gets so blatant, arrogant and corrupt they wind up with a good hiding at the next election.
It can be quite a party if they really go for it.
Thatcher ripped the social fabric of Britain apart by the seams.
(goodness knows when her party will see power again.)
If they're short of cash, welfare stuff gets slashed bigtime and any public asset not nailed down gets flogged off before there are any tax increases.
(Like drilling and mining rights in areas of outstanding natural beauty)
There will probaly be moves to get public capital projects financed on a revenue basis.
(sorta like buying your house with a credit card)
It can be interesting to watch.(so long as its not your country
The demos ignored the republicans for years when they were in power, now that they are losing they are concerned, give it a break. They were the minority the last 4 years and bottled up the presidents nominations. I don't see it happening again. The republicans should appoint wide right judges early and often. Let the jackels filibuster, lets see a real filibuster on the black and hispanic bush nominees.
xpanda said:
I was taught in grade school that the Speaker controlled everything in the House; he could force new laws through to a vote on the floor, sit on them, or simply feed them to a committee where his hand-picked chairman would do the killing. To me Hastart was just spouting off a "water is wet" argument...it is common knowledge that the majority (whatever party is in power) operates that way. That is how the House was set up; the Senate is where the minority gets to make its voice heard.
