Posted on 01/04/2007 10:18:30 AM PST by freemarket_kenshepherd
As the new majority of Democrats takes over the House of Representatives January 4, they have big plans – plans the media have supported.
Journalists have called arguments against a minimum wage hike “a lot of bull” and even came out in blatant endorsement of socialized medicine.
“The only answer is going to be, eventually, some kind of national, universal coverage. A guaranteed system that everybody regardless of income will have at least basic health care,” said ABC medical correspondent Dr. Timothy Johnson on the Oct. 16, 2006, “Good Morning America.”
In the “first 100 hours” of their reign, according to the House Democrats Web site, Democrats say they will (among other things):
* Increase the federal minimum wage * “Make health care more affordable for all Americans” * Reinstate pay-as-you-go legislation and commit to no new deficit spending
Raising the minimum wage has received widespread support from the news media including CNN, PBS, ABC, USA Today and The Washington Post.
The Democrats have also said as part of their health care plan they intend to “fix” Medicare with more government involvement in the market. The media are unlikely to find fault with such a plan, as they frequently support even more extensive government fixes. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and ABC’s Johnson have both expressed support for government-run universal health care.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessandmedia.org ...
It's "the only answer" because it'll get the lawyers out of the liability lawsuits. Not so easy to sue the government.
"everybody regardless of income will have at least basic health care"
All these people live in states and most states already provide health care to those that cannot afford it.
We do not need to duplicate it at the federal level.
Poor John Edwards, I weep for him.
ho-hum. With the Republican "moderates" in the Senate (a la gang of 14) and President Bush's "new tone," they will likely have all they need to enact this.
Of course, you, President Bush, have a way to stop this. Don't repeat the sins of your father.
Do you actually believe that the Senate Republicans will have enough backbone to use the procedural filibuster the way the Democrats did? Don't fool yourself into thinking "they really need 60 votes." They have a majority and the Republicans won't have the will to stop them.
As for needed a Bush sign off, well I'll believe he's capable of vetoing bills when I see it.
Dems to Block Republicans in House
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced a plan to put an end to partisan bickering in the House of Representatives. “For too long, the business of the American people has been hampered by excessive partisanship,” Pelosi said. “It has been pointed out to me that it is within the power of the Democratic Caucus to prevent this. This will be my first priority in my promised 100-hour legislative blitz.”
The gist of Pelosi’s plan is to resort to a rarely used Constitutional clause to deny the seating of any Republican Representatives. The clause is in Article I, section 5 and says “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”
“We can’t stop Republicans from running, nor voters from voting for them, but we can prevent them from taking their seats,” Pelosi pointed out. “If everyone in our caucus holds the line, we have the power to ensure that no Republican is in a position to impede our progress.”
Pelosi dismissed contentions that overruling election outcomes in which Republicans had won would be undemocratic. “Considering well-documented evidence of Republican intimidation of minority voters, their rigging of voting machines, and the continued discriminatory ineligibility to vote of undocumented immigrants, I think it’s fair to say that there may not be a legitimately elected Republican in the lot,” Pelosi asserted. “Besides, given the state of the country, who in their right mind could possibly have voted Republican? We cannot let the votes of the mentally unbalanced stand in our way.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
"Of course, you, President Bush, have a way to stop this. Don't repeat the sins of your father."
Hope it's not hitsory repeating itself with the Bushes: GW- "Read my lips, I will not eliminate the current tax cuts"
I hope his belief that his father's breaking of the tax promise was a huge mistake is more than just a rumor.
Didn't be veto one last year?
So now the journalists are setting our legislative agenda.
I thought that was done by elected officials?
Yes, one. Out of how many? He could only find one worth vetoing. The point is that almost everything passed by Congress will be signed by Bush. I think the only things he'll veto are things that are egregious violations of his Christian beliefs, (Stem cell, abortion, etc) which there will almost certainly be some. Don't expect him to be vetoing minimum wage laws or amnesty (hell he's looking forward to signing an amnesty bill) or most other things that conservatives find outrageous.
That was the point I was trying to make with some friends the other day.
Too many in the GOP think that as long as someone is pro-life, it's OK to be liberal on everything else, and I disagree with that. I AM pro-life, staunchly so, but it's not the only issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.