Be careful what you ask for...

[AZhitman]

It's no secret that the current administration is problematic and has created its own, arguably justified, unpopularity.

But....

Call me alarmist, but is this REALLY what we want for our future?

A good read from the Wall Street Journal:

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

http://online.wsj.com/article/...s_wsj

[HashiriyaS14]

I read that article last week sometime.

It's a little alarmist, yes, but a Democratic supermajority (however unlikely) would indeed create very very undesirable results for conservatives.

The biggest impact is that the Democrats could effectively remove any chance of Republican national political success in the future.

They could add 2 DC Senators, as mentioned, or, even more profound, they could eliminate the electoral college and run on a straight popular vote, which would assure a Democrat in the White House forever.

In a popular vote, the Dems would be encouraged to squeeze every last bit of turnout from the massive urban areas in what are presently safe Democratic states. The GOP doesn't have much excess turnout to tap, but the Dems have huge amounts. The GOP would never put another President in office again.

I want to see Obama win the White House, but I will admit that I'd rather not ever see a super majority from EITHER party.

Luckily, the chance that the Dems will capture 60 Senate seats is pretty remote.

[smockers83]

Very good read, sir. Thank you.

[szh]

I will admit that I'd rather not ever see a super majority from EITHER party.

Agreed!

Maybe it should be a Constitutional amendment, that if the Legislative branch is majority Democrat, the Prez has to be a Republican.

And, vice-versa.

Balance of power in the right way ... else if the Legislative and Executive branches collude, the Judicial branch has no way to correct the fallout (they enforce laws, not make 'em).

Z

[marlin29311]

Agreed!

Maybe it should be a Constitutional amendment, that if the Legislative branch is majority Democrat, the Prez has to be a Republican.

And, vice-versa.

Balance of power in the right way ... else if the Legislative and Executive branches collude, the Judicial branch has no way to correct the fallout (they enforce laws, not make 'em).

Z

Quite frankly I would like to do away with partisanship and move towards having individuals that represent the ideas and values of the people they represent.

O wait, isn't that what we are supposed to have now?

[smockers83]

Quite frankly I would like to do away with partisanship and move towards having individuals that represent the ideas and values of the people they represent.

O wait, isn't that what we are supposed to have now?

I know I've said this before, but I like you. I've said this before myself, just get rid of the parties and we don't have people subscribing to party politics and we don't have the partisanship issue, or at least its dramatically reduced. People and politicians are scared to cross over the party line in fear of what may become of it from their party, and that's just not right. Instead of standing up for the party, stand up for your own self.

[AZhitman]

It's a little alarmist, yes, but a Democratic supermajority (however unlikely) would indeed create very very undesirable results for Americans.

FTFY.

[szh]

Quite frankly I would like to do away with partisanship and move towards having individuals that represent the ideas and values of the people they represent.

O wait, isn't that what we are supposed to have now?

Unfortunately, for better or worse, the two-party system - partisanship and all - is likely to stay.

Z

[marlin29311]

Sadly enough, I know.

What upsets me most is when local polictics goes partisan. What is the difference if you are a democrat or a republican when we are talking about building a park on the other side of town? Or when we're doing the budget and looking for funding for the local fire department?

I think the biggest problem with the partisanship is that it does roll into local elections. People will just vote for their party and not really look at what each person wants to do for the community. I generally call myself a national republican, but I've voted for democrats in my local community the past several years, and they've been doing good thing for around where I live. Unfortunatly, people just say "o i'm voting republican because that's what I do for the president" and never really look at what the local people have to offer. Then these people move up in the political system, and still do nothing.

It all starts at the roots.

[HashiriyaS14]

Agreed!

Maybe it should be a Constitutional amendment, that if the Legislative branch is majority Democrat, the Prez has to be a Republican.

And, vice-versa.

Balance of power in the right way ... else if the Legislative and Executive branches collude, the Judicial branch has no way to correct the fallout (they enforce laws, not make 'em).

Z

The problem with a constitutional amendment stems from a potential situation where a super-majority actually DOES reflect the makeup of America. At the moment we have a constantly tight battle between two parties, but there's no reason it has to be that way, per se.

There's no law saying that 95% of the population can't be Democratic and only 5% Republican or vice-versa. What if that were the case? If 95% of the population supported something, would it be right to allow the remaining 5% to block it? Wouldn't that represent "undue influence" being exerted by that 5%?

To revise my earlier statement, I think that super-majority would be equally dangerous if it was attained by EITHER party, my comment was not intentioned as a slight against the Democrats, a GOP super-majority would be equally terrifying.

In both cases, the most extreme ideologues of the party would quickly end up in charge and we would be subject to policies based more in ideology than pragmatism.

[AZhitman]

In both cases, the most extreme ideologues of the party would quickly end up in charge and we would be subject to policies based more in ideology than pragmatism.

...and that's where we're headed, without rational thought or careful consideration.

It's gonna be an "off with their heads" free-for-all, with Dems opposing ANYTHING that even whiffs of conservativism, a "payback" mentality run amok (even though it was the VOTERS, not the GOP that kept Reps in office).

It's kinda like handing the loonies the keys to the asylum or the addicts the keys to the med storage.

But that's OK - You guys take your election, and you guys go ahead elevate Pelosi and Reed and Frank (and those who think like they do) to their "rightful" thrones.

Some of us will weather the coming insanity quite well... Some of you will not. Just remember, you wanted "hope and change".

[szh]

To revise my earlier statement, I think that super-majority would be equally dangerous if it was attained by EITHER party, my comment was not intentioned as a slight against the Democrats, a GOP super-majority would be equally terrifying.

Hmmm ... I think you said "Either" party before too. Regardless, I agreed then too.

Z

[szh]

But that's OK - You guys take your election, and you guys go ahead elevate Pelosi and Reed and Frank (and those who think like they do) to their "rightful" thrones.

Shudder!

Pelosi and Frank scare the heck out of me. I don't know Reed though ...

Z

[Jesda]

I read that article last week sometime.

It's a little alarmist, yes, but a Democratic supermajority (however unlikely) would indeed create very very undesirable results for conservatives.

For conservatives? For everyone! Neither major party should be in full control of the federal government. Gridlock is beautiful.

[HashiriyaS14]

...and that's where we're headed, without rational thought or careful consideration.

It's gonna be an "off with their heads" free-for-all, with Dems opposing ANYTHING that even whiffs of conservativism, a "payback" mentality run amok (even though it was the VOTERS, not the GOP that kept Reps in office).

It's kinda like handing the loonies the keys to the asylum or the addicts the keys to the med storage.

But that's OK - You guys take your election, and you guys go ahead elevate Pelosi and Reed and Frank (and those who think like they do) to their "rightful" thrones.

Some of us will weather the coming insanity quite well... Some of you will not. Just remember, you wanted "hope and change".

Don't get carried away with this shxt. It is SERIOUSLY unlikely that the Dems will attain a super-majority. This is very near the equivalent of railing on and on about the idea that Bush will send the Big Red One to invade Los Angeles.

What will likely happen is Obama in the WH, a Dem house majority, and a Dem Senate Majority that is NOT filibuster proof. Thus, the Senate GOP could still block legislation via filibuster.

Jesda: Yeah, I agree, I think I mentioned that later in the thread somewhere. Both parties would be equally dangerous in super-majority and the danger would extend to the whole of the American people. It would be pretty terrifying, IMO.

[ishkabibble]

It's gonna be an "off with their heads" free-for-all, with Dems opposing ANYTHING that even whiffs of conservativism, a "payback" mentality run amok (even though it was the VOTERS, not the GOP that kept Reps in office).

Blame the voters for the actions of the Republicans? That's a new type of deflection...

[Cold_Zero]

Be careful for what you ask for.

The voters in 2006 spurred by the Mainstream News Media went to the polls in mass to sweep out the Republican controlled Congress and replace them with a Congress that would????Force the President to pull the troops out of Iraq. They wanted a change in course and what 'Change' have they gotten?

Did Congress from 2007-2008 cut the funding for the War effort in Iraq? No

Did Congress stand up to George Bush and force him to withdraw troops from Iraq? No

So I guess my question is going to be, with the past Democratic track record, what "Change" are YOU really going to get when Obama is in office?

[Cold_Zero]

I like how the 'Pissed Off Voters' have forgotten about the 2006 Mandate. Wonder what promises they are going to forget when Obama is in office!

[ishkabibble]

So I guess my question is going to be, with the past Democratic track record, what "Change" are YOU really going to get when Obama is in office?

Not going into Iraq in the first place, for one. But, yeah, the spineless Dems have largely been a failure in terms of standing up to the administration WRT the war, and I'm sure it was for political reasons. Pulling funding would have lead to Republicans leaving the troops over there to die, and then claiming "OMG! You're not supporting the troops!".

With a Dem pres, and a decent majority in both houses, I'm sure they would have ended the war.

[HashiriyaS14]

Did Congress from 2007-2008 cut the funding for the War effort in Iraq? No

Did Congress stand up to George Bush and force him to withdraw troops from Iraq? No

Do they have the 2/3 majority required for a veto override? Not to the best of my knowledge. You can only accomplish what you have the votes for.

Not that I personally endorse the idea of just cutting off troop funding, I think that would be madness and I think it was a dumb thing for them to promise, but fault them for promising a dumb thing, don't fault them for not being able to deliver it, as they never had the votes (again, AFAIK).

[Cold_Zero]

They could have put timetables and stipulations on the funding.

But are you making excuses for Democrats not crossing the aisle to get something done? As if nothing can get done if you dont have a 2/3's Majority? The Dems found it in their heart to pass the second round of the Economic Bailout Bill in the House. What gives?

Their mandate from the people was simple to get this country out of Iraq. They were given a bigger majority in the House and a new majority in the Senate.

Soooo... What has the Democrat controlled Congress given the people of the United States? Let’s see in 2007 they gave us the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which looked great on paper for Students but instead lead to a mass exodus of lenders out of the Student Loan Industry. That coupled with the Liquidity Crisis of 2008 (not solely Congress’s fault) almost lead to a total collapse of student loans lending! So what did Congress have to do to prevent an Oh **** Moment come Academic Year 2008-2009 when they were faced with no student aid for new and returning students? They passed the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act which authorized the Treasury Department to buy student loans acting as a secondary market so that lenders could originate new loans. A bailout that all of you have not heard about, I guarantee. Here is my synopsis. Congress jacks around with the interest rates and the subsidies of the FFEL program to swing the favor the way of the Governments’ student lending arm. The majority of the lenders bail from the program to go make different loans that will make them money. Congress ****s their pants in hearings when they realize that no one (I mean no one) is going to be around to make Student Loans in the summer and Direct Lending (Governments’ student lending arm) can not handle the slack. I still remember Rep Paul Sarbanes grilling the Director of the Department of Education over what was the threshold of Lenders leaving the program before the Department started to engage Schools to seek out different lenders to cover their Financial Aid needs. He totally missed the boat. Representative Sarbanes, you would not be in this mess if Teddy Kennedy and his cronies did not propose and pass the College Cost Reduction and Access Act in attempt to take down private lenders. The failure lies in the Congress trying to dismantle the FFEL program and not making any accommodations to carry the remaining student lending needs. Remember folks, these will be the people (controlling two of the three arms of the Federal Government) that will be running your country. We can not afford Democrats using their majority for political vendettas that throw our financial markets or country into a tail spin.

[Cold_Zero]

Barrack Obama talks about the 'Shrinking Pie' under the 8 years of the Bush Administration.

To be honest Barrack, those 8 years under Bush will very good to my household. I bought several nice cars, bought a house (that I can afford) and had stocks and options that were worth money to retire on and to spend.

Less than 2 years under the Democratic controlled Congress with Nazi Pelosi and Harry Reid has undone all of that. I would gladly take another 6 years of Bush and a Republican controlled Congress over 4 years of Obama/Carter/Clinton and a Democrat controlled Congress.

Democrats are bad for business. No matter how bad Republicans are preceived to be, I will never vote for another Democrat as long as I live. They screwed me big time and they are setting up to do it again in 2009!

I give you real world situtations and application. All I get from Obama supporters are soundbites and campaign slogans. Totally frustrating.

[HashiriyaS14]

Obama/Carter/Clinton

That's not quite fair.

Anyone who didn't taste a bit of extra economic prosperity during the Clinton administration was in a small minority, especially relative to Bush 41's term.

Additionally, when Obama talks about the last 8 years not bringing economic prosperity, he's speaking directly to the poorest 1/3 of the population, the people who didn't see real wage increases but did see real cost increases. He's not talking about anyone who owns any material amount of securities or likely people that own any real estate. Obviously this isn't the only population that matters, but this IS who he's addressing, not you, so let's not take it out of context. You can critique his choice of target audience all you want though.

If Democrats are bad for business, Republicans are bad for the deficit

Anyway, "working across the aisle" isn't going to happen on something like pulling Iraq troop funding. The White House wanted zero constraints and Congress wanted to pull the plug entirely. Neither one was remotely willing to work with the other given those positions, thus things could only happen by "force", like vetoes and veto overrides.

[Cold_Zero]

I guess I have to scratch my head if those comments were aimed at the poorest 1/3 of the population. Since it appears like 2/3 of the population has embraced that campaign slogan/mantra.

But I like how he keeps the Buds of the world out of the big picture. Unless I am *gasp* RICH. Which I assure you I am not.

To be honest, times under the Clinton Administration weren't that great for us. His administration did cause problems for us in FFELP by creating Direct Lending to compete with us and giving DL an unfair Government created Monopoly. To be honest, I worked for a Not for Profit Company at that time.

If Democrats are bad for business, Republicans are bad for the deficit

I dont necessarily disagree with this statement. But as the Democrats are so keen to look back on the motivation of the invasion of Iraq, I will do a bit of my own historical retrospect. Had 9/11 not occurred, you could probably make the argument that the Bush Administration would not have spent all that money creating DHS (Department of Homeland Security), engaging in the Global War on Terror, invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq. I tend to cut Bush some slack, even though I admit that not I will have to pay for the deficit that we rack up, but my child will have to pay for it. Had Bush not spent that money on keeping the United States safe from terrorlst attacks, he would be impeached and removed for dereliction of duty. And it was that spending and safety that got him re-elected in 2004. Somehow the people that voted him back into office haven't gone away. Wonder what they are saying these days? Because the charges were out there in 2004 that the WMDs were not there.bud

[x240xdrifter]

I hate the welfare system......welll not hate.....well I hate how there is no time limit on it....seriously.....its unbelievable how some just stay on welfare and never get out of it and no one does anything about it!....eating tax payers money cause they are lazy.....

[Vista Sucks!]

[AZhitman]

The insanity has been here for the last 8 years. Now its time to return the loonies to their cells.

Better check the Congressional record for the past 2 years.

Apparently you haven't been listening to Pelosi / Reed / Frank lately.

I'm no fan of the GWBA, but scarier times are coming.

[x240xdrifter]

I saw the word welfare and kinda went off in the distance.....hey a red balloon!!

[AZhitman]

I hate the welfare system......welll not hate.....well I hate how there is no time limit on it....seriously.....its unbelievable how some just stay on welfare and never get out of it and no one does anything about it!....eating tax payers money cause they are lazy.....

Congratulations. You're a Republican.