Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Just need 2 in the Senate.
Politically the smart thing is for them to make the Dems own everything done.

I'd wager that appearing obstructionist at this juncture probably won't help them out a whole lot.

It's also important to remember that the Republicans have become accustomed to "bipartisanship" meaning "doing things our way and not complaining" a bit too much. They need to remember what "minority party" means.

I've little doubt but who knows. The Republican Congress was showing "an unacceptable level of hubris" in my eyes a good seven years before the pendulum started its current leftward swing in 2006.

although all of us have high hopes from obama but i was a bit dissatisfied with the fact that expenses incurred in his oath ceremony could have been lessened and would have been used to serve miserables..............

i think obama really desreved the designation. he handsomely won the heart of all to ensure that his promises are real.we can say that he say what he mean

Metacell wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

The problem would be it never has worked in recorded history.

What has?

Extreme socialism is what propelled us to become the strongest economic force on the planet during WWII.

Yep,
Something the righties won't think about. How massive government building programs and huge public/private enterprises grew this country great in the post war era.

Pariah wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

What has?

Extreme socialism is what propelled us to become the strongest economic force on the planet during WWII.

Yep,
Something the righties won't think about. How massive government building programs and huge public/private enterprises grew this country great in the post war era.

How so?

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Got an example?
I know of an example where a group of republicans made a deal with a group of dems over judge nominations.

That was in the Senate, seven from each party (arising from the GOP threat of invoking the 'nuclear option' because the Democrats were blocking 7 of Bush's judicial appointments.  Do you know how many of Clinton's appointments were blocked or were never brought for a vote?).

The House is far more polarized, because most members come from 'safe' districts that are either heavily democratic or republican.  Republicans will have more input on the Senate side, and Obama is meeting with all parties--but at the end of the day, the Dems control Congress.  Obama has already pushed for changes in the bill.

If they are "safe" districts than how come it switched party control two years ago?

On the other side of the coin, I wonder if the Dems are a little surprised to see that Republicans aren't willing to cheerfully bend over and spread their cheeks for the president the way they themselves did with Dubya.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

If they are "safe" districts than how come it switched party control two years ago?

Do you really need this explained to you?

No - I don't.
They lost seats because some of the republicans forgot they were elected to serve the people, not their party.
Hey - kind of like what is happening now.

bratboy wrote:

Changes occur around the margins, but the Republicans were clearly 'safe' in most of their seats, even in years as toxic for the party as 2006 and 2008.  House members are elected to serve 'the people' in their districts.

Yet the Dems in the house are clearly serving the party, by not even involving republican input in such an important bill of national scope until the babysitter made them.

Last edited by resedit (2009-01-28 10:19 am)

Right now on Fox they are interviewing someone about the bill and how it creates jobs.

One of the items is apparently the purchase of a bunch of alternative fuel cars for government use, such as park service, etc.
The Democrat Senator being interviewed says it creates jobs in Detroit.

While that may be the case, those vehicles are extremely expensive, and a report last year that showed that of the very expensive alternative fuel vehicles the government bought, something like only 3% of the gas that was used was actually alternative fuel. In other words the purchase was a "green feel good" waste of money.

The places to buy these alternative fuels just don't exist.

Please, if you are going to spend money to create jobs, spend it to create jobs, don't waste it on your ideological fantasies that just are not reality.

There's a couple major problems with these alternative fuels - the biggest being distribution, you can't send them through the pipelines. Why not buy vehicles that are less expensive and use the difference towards, I don't know, building the proper infrastructure for alternative fuel source distribution so that in the future alternative fuel cars can compete with gas only cars in the free market?

Last edited by resedit (2009-01-28 10:35 am)