A review of our democrat congress, so far...

...courtesy of Robert Novak

Do-nothing Congress

After five months of Democratic control, Congress has enacted no major legislation and finished no regular appropriations bill. It has successfully renamed six federal buildings and one national park, extended the lives of two government commissions and reduced the membership of the Red Cross board of governors from 50 to 10.

In addition, Congress kept the government going with temporary spending legislation, redesignated five Eastern European countries (Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia and Ukraine) for security aid, strengthened penalties against animal fighting and authorized construction of 541 feet of road in St. Louis County, Mo. An emergency bill financing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was vetoed by President Bush before a bill acceptable to him was passed before the Memorial Day recess.

Congress faces a heavy agenda to fit into a schedule interrupted by several recesses before the end of the year.

To be fair (which Novak certainly isn't) they spent a fair time mopping up the unfinished stuff the 109th left behind. Also a bit misleading. The house has passed all the things they promised for the first 100 hours, including checks and balances (apart from the pussy act of giving into bush on iraq funding) then the republicans stalled everything in the senate or Bush vetoed.


All in all they have done far more in the first few months than the republican 109th managed altogether.

Any "do nothingness" in the 110th so far is purely down to republican obstructionism. So if you want to complain...............

I guess the gripe is that they have done nothing that Bob Novak and the wingnuts want.....like gutting social security, cutting taxes for the wealthiest and wasting time on ammendments to prevent someone burning a piece of cloth....oh and stopping people of the same sex from kissing.

why would you even make posts like this J2K4?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

To be fair (which Novak certainly isn't) they spent a fair time mopping up the unfinished stuff the 109th left behind. Also a bit misleading. The house has passed all the things they promised for the first 100 hours, including checks and balances (apart from the pussy act of giving into bush on iraq funding) then the republicans stalled everything in the senate or Bush vetoed.

---

What's so unfair about Novak?

Why would you call it "mopping up"?

Hell, they'd tout anything they'd actually done, even if it originated with the Republicans, so you know that comment is baloney.

Passed.............what, precisely?

Checks and balances?

"Passed" and "practiced" must mean two vastly different things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

All in all they have done far more in the first few months than the republican 109th managed altogether.

---

Again, how so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Any "do nothingness" in the 110th so far is purely down to republican obstructionism. So if you want to complain...............

---

The only good feature this Democrat-led (bled?) Congress possesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I guess the gripe is that they have done nothing that Bob Novak and the wingnuts want.....like gutting social security, cutting taxes for the wealthiest and wasting time on ammendments to prevent someone burning a piece of cloth....oh and stopping people of the same sex from kissing.

---

Gutting social security?

Stop the presses while you explain how giving each citizen the option of investing a small percentage of his/her Social Security tax in something/anything more profitable than the God-awful (and failing) government plan?

Please, I beg you; if you feel you actually can, tell us what the government should have against this...moreover, what you yourself have against it?

BTW-

Please tell us also where this anti-gays-kissing effort is being staged; I hadn't heard of it 'til just now when you went apeshit over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

why would you even make posts like this J2K4?

---

Why, to get vidcc to go off his wingnut again - and, by Allah, it has worked! :D

There is the added fun of your posting as you have.

Good show. :)

Seriously, anyone wants to take a swing at selling Big Nancy's Congress, I'm listening.

Hey, what about William Jefferson's FBI sting-plan story?

Bloody good fun, that is. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

why would you even make posts like this J2K4?

---

Because he's been in a sulk since his party had their asses handed to them. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

why would you even make posts like this J2K4?

---

Because he's been in a sulk since his party had their asses handed to them. ;)

---

Really?

My "party" wasn't even represented.

BTW-

Are you so smug you don't have to answer questions such as the ones I ask?

The Republicans have screwed up so badly over the past several years, yet when the Dems take over, they fall flat on their faces.

They haven't a clue...

so are you a left wing satirist or right wing self destructive? :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

What's so unfair about Novak?

Why would you call it "mopping up"?

Hell, they'd tout anything they'd actually done, even if it originated with the Republicans, so you know that comment is baloney.

---

Novak is a partisan hack

All the bills the 109th punted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Passed.............what, precisely?

---

Stem cell research funding ( congress passed it, Bush's veto doesn't mean they didn't do it) minimum wage, enacting the 911 commission recommendations, student loans....................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Checks and balances?

"Passed" and "practiced" must mean two vastly different things...

---

That's a comment on what you say is a do nothing congress. If they are conducting oversight (which the republicans did little of) then they are doing what they are supposed to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Gutting social security?

Stop the presses while you explain how giving each citizen the option of investing a small percentage of his/her Social Security tax in something/anything more profitable than the God-awful (and failing) government plan?

Please, I beg you; if you feel you actually can, tell us what the government should have against this...moreover, what you yourself have against it?

---

Borrowing from the fund and not paying back.

If you want a private account then have one. Please explain why you think government would be able to run such a scheme? I would point out that you make such an idea seem almost foolproof. where is the mention of the risks that you could lose on the deal as many people with private pensions have discovered.

I have nothing against those that can afford it investing in other areas, I am against taking money from social security to do this.

Novak of course would like to see social security disappear altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

BTW-

Please tell us also where this anti-gays-kissing effort is being staged; I hadn't heard of it 'til just now when you went apeshit over it.

---

The whole anti gay stuff, marriage protection bills, stopping gay adoptions etc. etc. (incidentally isn't it slightly hypocritical to bring a defense of marriage act that omits divorce?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Hey, what about William Jefferson's FBI sting-plan story?

Bloody good fun, that is.

---

yes it is...but you fail to notice that nobody had defended him....care to talk about the half dozen or so republicans currently being investigated? :rolleyes:

Wow, jay posts about a Dem congress moving too slow but clammed up when it came to a Repub congress doing harm.

At the same time, and maybe vid can answer this, where is the lobbying reform?

Where are we on earmarks now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Borrowing from the fund and not paying back.

If you want a private account then have one. Please explain why you think government would be able to run such a scheme? I would point out that you make such an idea seem almost foolproof. where is the mention of the risks that you could lose on the deal as many people with private pensions have discovered.

I have nothing against those that can afford it investing in other areas, I am against taking money from social security to do this.

---

Oh and big business would benefit. It would be yet another gift from the Repubs to big business.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

At the same time, and maybe vid can answer this, where is the lobbying reform?

Where are we on earmarks now?

---

The lobby reform plan was toothless IMO. Even then republicans stalled and added amendment after amendment to extract more teeth.

Earmarks should settle down once pay/go kicks in (or at least one can hope). I think the pork attached to the emergency war funding bill was a case of get it while you still can.
Pork spending shot up under the republicans and Bush didn't veto one spending bill. It's telling that it has only now become an issue for some people. (Bush included)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Because he's been in a sulk since his party had their asses handed to them. ;)

---

Really?

My "party" wasn't even represented.

---

Yes really, your party

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

BTW-

Are you so smug you don't have to answer questions such as the ones I ask?

---

This from the person who seldom comments on the merrits of the cut and pastes he posts, let alone actually answering questions others raise to him.:rolleyes:

You have posted foolishly between this post and my last.

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself by offering to answer a legitimate question you feel I won't answer...and I''l give you a do-over on the Social Security question, which you've made a hash of.

I here reproduce your previous attempt-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Borrowing from the fund and not paying back.

If you want a private account then have one. Please explain why you think government would be able to run such a scheme? I would point out that you make such an idea seem almost foolproof. where is the mention of the risks that you could lose on the deal as many people with private pensions have discovered.

I have nothing against those that can afford it investing in other areas, I am against taking money from social security to do this.

---

-in order to properly immortalize your muddled words and provide you with a poor, poor example to avoid in constructing a credible and creditable new answer.

I'll tear them both to shreds later, time permitting. :)

If you don't like my answer.....tough.


I rather suspect your definition of "credible" only includes the things you agree with :rolleyes:

I'm sure you will attempt to explain some right wing economic theory, but much like the right wing theory on raising the minimum wage, the reality (as shown in the states that raised theirs) will probably turn out to be the reverse of the theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

If you don't like my answer.....tough.

---

Your answer doesn't make sense in and of itself; I have no opinion of it apart from imagining your eventual embarrassment over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I rather suspect your definition of "credible" only includes the things you agree with :rolleyes:

---

Not at all, though I can assure you it includes nothing that you agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I'm sure you will attempt to explain some right wing economic theory, but much like the right wing theory on raising the minimum wage, the reality (as shown in the states that raised theirs) will probably turn out to be the reverse of the theory.

---

"Right wing economic theory"?

As opposed to what else, precisely?

I hope you don't mind more questions...your posts beg so many of them.

Were you even going to try to ask me a question?

BTW-

I see you have given up (finally!) denying your partisan liberalism.

Good for you. :)

Since my membership began here I have been asking questions which you seldom answer and more often than not your response when you gave one to a question was not an answer but another question. If you wish to drudge through all the old posts be my guest, for myself if I really cared to repeat myself I would have.

Now throw some pies at each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Now throw some pies at each other.

---

They can't. Being political they both have their fingers in them.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Now throw some pies at each other.

---

They can't. Being political they both have their fingers in them.:)

---

I was raised to use cutlery :snooty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

They can't. Being political they both have their fingers in them.:)

---

I was raised to use cutlery :snooty:

---

And j2, being Republican, believes all the pies belong to him- which leaves vid defenseless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I was raised to use cutlery :snooty:

---

And j2, being Republican, believes all the pies belong to him- which leaves vid defenseless.

---

although if the pie owning classes are allowed to accrue big enough pies the pieless will experience trickle down - nasty if the gravy is still hot. :ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I was raised to use cutlery :snooty:

---

And j2, being Republican, believes all the pies belong to him- which leaves vid defenseless.

---

for some reason I can't get the song "Ernie" out of my head now.:frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

And j2, being Republican, believes all the pies belong to him- which leaves vid defenseless.

---

for some reason I can't get the song "Ernie" out of my head now.:frusty:

---

:lol::lol::lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I was raised to use cutlery :snooty:

---

And j2, being Republican, believes all the pies belong to him- which leaves vid defenseless.

---

No, not really true; vidcc just happens to be a pluperfectly horrible baker (I have it on good authority) even though he has lots of crust.

Trouble with him and his pies is the pies have no structural integrity and he throws them like a girl. ;)

I've been disappointed with the Democratic Congress so far. They rolled in with a lot of high hopes. But now that the July 4 break is over and Congress is returning to Washington, it will be interesting to see how much farther the Pelosi/Democrats push Bush on Iraq armed with fresh polls that show a majority of Americas willing to back impeachment of Cheney and a near majority wanting impeachment against Bush. The growing conventional wisdom is that Iraq is a quagmire, I expect the Democrats to show more ballz than they have to date.

239 separate pieces of legislation had been passed in the House, then have been stalled or blocked by senate republicans objecting to just about every major piece of legislation

Quote:

---

It’s quite a record the Senate minority has assembled.

EIGHT times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation

* Fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (Passed 97-0, Roll Call Vote #53)
* Improving security at our courts (Passed 93-3, Roll Call Vote #133)
* Water Resources Development Act (Passed 89-7, Roll Call Vote #162)
* A joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq (Passed 89-9, Roll Call Vote, #74)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 69-23, Roll Call Vote #173)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 64-35, Roll Call Vote #228)
* CLEAN Energy Act (Passed 91-0, Roll Call Vote #208)
* Funding for the Intelligence Community (Passed 94-3, Roll Call Vote #129)

FOUR times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated

* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (Rejected 54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform (Rejected 45-50, Roll Call Vote #206)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

FOUR times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote

* Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community. (Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

TWICE Republicans blocked bills from going to conference

* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (6/26/07)
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on ethics reform (6/26/07)

---

Legislation that would implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations has been passed in both houses and republican Mitch McConnell has now blocked it at the conference stage. :dry:

It seems very strange that you allow one or two members to effectively block the whole legislative process.

Let me teach you a word that's become popular around the world.

D-E M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

Get Dolly to sing a song about it, it may even catch on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

It seems very strange that you allow one or two members to effectively block the whole legislative process.

Let me teach you a word that's become popular around the world.

D-E M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

Get Dolly to sing a song about it, it may even catch on.

---

Simple majority isn't enough, imo.

I would like to know the reason behind the Repubs blocking certain legislation though.

Blocking ethnics rules sounds rather fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

It seems very strange that you allow one or two members to effectively block the whole legislative process.

Let me teach you a word that's become popular around the world.

D-E M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

---

Like it or not it is Democracy. The Senate was devised this way so that the majority opinion could not overwhelm the minority opinion. The Senate is designed to be more deliberative.

In this example, The Senate may not be working they way you want it to but be glad when the Democrats were in the Senate Minority the Republican Congress wasn't able to push through more of Bush's agenda.

Today the republicans filibustered legislation that would have mandated better treatment of our military men and women, by placing strict conditions on how soon troops can be returned to combat after coming home from lengthy deployments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Today the republicans filibustered legislation that would have mandated better treatment of our military men and women, by placing strict conditions on how soon troops can be returned to combat after coming home from lengthy deployments.

---

The democrats haven't filibustered a single thing, have they?

If I began with filibusters over judicial appointments, those numbers alone would dwarf any accumulated by the republicans, so be smart and don't go there.

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The democrats haven't filibustered a single thing, have they?

If I began with filibusters over judicial appointments, those numbers alone would dwarf any accumulated by the republicans, so be smart and don't go there.

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

---

In the first sessions of the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, there were four cloture votes on motions to proceed; this year, there has already been something like 14.


And if you wish to talk blocking judges , how many of Clinton's nominees couldn't even get out of committee? Democrats allowed votes to confirm more FAR MORE of Bush's nominees than the repugs allowed Clinton.

Even with one of Bush's nominees Sam Brownback held one up because she attended, not officiated, but attended as a guest, a gay commitment ceremony.



All this aside do you think legislation supporting the troops and their families should be denied a vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

---

The USSR was a republic, or a collection thereof. Just so you know that republic and democracy and not interchangeable.

A constitutional monarchy can be just as democratic as the most democratic of republics, so be smart and don't go there.

As I understand it, in your system a bill goes to committee and can't return until all the members of that committee agree to allow it to do so. How can it possibly be democratic to allow one man to prevent a bill from even being debated in open chamber, let alone voted on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

---

The USSR was a republic, or a collection thereof. Just so you know that republic and democracy and not interchangeable.

A constitutional monarchy can be just as democratic as the most democratic of republics, so be smart and don't go there.

As I understand it, in your system a bill goes to committee and can't return until all the members of that committee agree to allow it to do so. How can it possibly be democratic to allow one man to prevent a bill from even being debated in open chamber, let alone voted on?

---

Precisely because we are a representative republic.

We choose our representatives, then trust them to do our bidding.

That we fail to exercise our responsibility (voter ignorance) during the election cycle is our own fault.

We do indeed get what we deserve, and the fact our representatives abuse the privilige is our failing.

We sit still for all types of silliness; McCain-Feingold comes to mind.

We allow then to build their little empires, then object when they take advantage.

It's your standard cart/horse scenario.

BTW-

Comparing us to the old USSR (I'm surprised you left out North Korea) doesn't wash, and you know it.

Be smarter and don't go there. :)

I don't know how any place can be called a Democracy if it has a First Past The Post voting system. If someone gets elected by 50,500 to 49,500 votes. They then have to toe the party line and the other 49,500 voters are ignored.

Proportional representation is the only way. The UK has been governed right and left wing idiots all my life. My father voted Labour\Conservative and so will I. How inane is that?

I am glad to say that Scotland has finally got rid of the shackles of this system. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

The USSR was a republic, or a collection thereof. Just so you know that republic and democracy and not interchangeable.

A constitutional monarchy can be just as democratic as the most democratic of republics, so be smart and don't go there.

As I understand it, in your system a bill goes to committee and can't return until all the members of that committee agree to allow it to do so. How can it possibly be democratic to allow one man to prevent a bill from even being debated in open chamber, let alone voted on?

---

Precisely because we are a representative republic.

We choose our representatives, then trust them to do our bidding.

That we fail to exercise our responsibility (voter ignorance) during the election cycle is our own fault.

We do indeed get what we deserve, and the fact our representatives abuse the privilige is our failing.

We sit still for all types of silliness; McCain-Feingold comes to mind.

We allow then to build their little empires, then object when they take advantage.
Isn't that exactly the problem, having a system where they can take advantage? Where are the checks and balances you are so famous for quoting?

It's your standard cart/horse scenario.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

BTW-

Comparing us to the old USSR (I'm surprised you left out North Korea) doesn't wash, and you know it.

Be smarter and don't go there. :)

---

I didn't compare you to the USSR, and you know it.

You tried to imply that republics are democratic and by inference more democratic than other systems, I simply pointed out that republics aren't necessarily democratic either.

Please don't try the old "I'll put words in your mouth" act, it isn't very democratic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Precisely because we are a representative republic.

We choose our representatives, then trust them to do our bidding.

That we fail to exercise our responsibility (voter ignorance) during the election cycle is our own fault.

We do indeed get what we deserve, and the fact our representatives abuse the privilige is our failing.

We sit still for all types of silliness; McCain-Feingold comes to mind.

We allow then to build their little empires, then object when they take advantage.
Isn't that exactly the problem, having a system where they can take advantage? Where are the checks and balances you are so famous for quoting?

It's your standard cart/horse scenario.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

BTW-

Comparing us to the old USSR (I'm surprised you left out North Korea) doesn't wash, and you know it.

Be smarter and don't go there. :)

---

I didn't compare you to the USSR, and you know it.

You tried to imply that republics are democratic and by inference more democratic than other systems, I simply pointed out that republics aren't necessarily democratic either.

Please don't try the old "I'll put words in your mouth" act, it isn't very democratic.

---

The democracy is in the voting for our reprentatives and President.

Also certain laws go through referendum.

I might add that it is funny how there are those in congress voting against new congressional ethics laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Today the republicans filibustered legislation that would have mandated better treatment of our military men and women, by placing strict conditions on how soon troops can be returned to combat after coming home from lengthy deployments.

---

The democrats haven't filibustered a single thing, have they?

If I began with filibusters over judicial appointments, those numbers alone would dwarf any accumulated by the republicans, so be smart and don't go there.

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

---

Look at what was filibustered, jay.:dry:

Repubs filibustered treatment of the military, Dems filibustered lifetime judicial appointments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The democrats haven't filibustered a single thing, have they?

If I began with filibusters over judicial appointments, those numbers alone would dwarf any accumulated by the republicans, so be smart and don't go there.

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

---

Look at what was filibustered, jay.:dry:

Repubs filibustered treatment of the military, Dems filibustered lifetime judicial appointments.

---

Oh.

So there was no obstructionist intent whatsoever on the part of the Dems, then, and you think the Republicans really just want to "keep killing our young people so Bush can keep vainly trying to salvage Iraq", huh?

Your naivete is quite astounding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Look at what was filibustered, jay.:dry:

Repubs filibustered treatment of the military, Dems filibustered lifetime judicial appointments.

---

Oh.

So there was no obstructionist intent whatsoever on the part of the Dems, then, and you think the Republicans really just want to "keep killing our young people so Bush can keep vainly trying to salvage Iraq", huh?

Your naivete is quite astounding.

---

No I actually think they don't want restrictions on soldier deployment.

They want to be able to do what they are currently doing which is rerereredeploy soldiers for this trumped up war.

No, not naive at all.

Now it could be said that these restrictions could have harmful effects on a real war like, you know, one where our or an ally's country is actually in danger.

However, the law could be changed since I'm sure this is a direct jab at this particular war and it's abuse and weakening of our military and country's moral.