Posted on 11/12/2006 4:20:41 AM PST by shrinkermd
WASHINGTON — After toppling the long-dominant Republicans in a hard-fought election, the Democratic Party's incoming congressional leaders have immediately found themselves in another difficult struggle — with their own supporters...
...Lobbyists for the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, are all but counting on Democrats to repeal the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorist law pushed by the White House that some critics call unconstitutional. They also want to end President Bush's domestic wiretapping program...
...Similar vows are coming from lobbyists for abortion rights, who want to expand family-planning options for poor women and scale back Bush's focus on abstinence education, and from gun-control advocates, who hope to revive a lapsed ban on assault weapons. Labor unions, a core Democratic constituency, are demanding universal healthcare and laws discouraging corporations from seeking inexpensive labor overseas....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
---
"What exactly did you want?"
Fiscal responsibility. And something done about the Borders.
---
Well, now that the DEMs control the House you can forget about the borders. Not a smart move.
And as for fiscal reaponsibility... Don't you think it takes a bit of money to upgrade a decimated military, come out of a recession, tech crash, corporate scandals, 9/11, Katrina, Rita, and two wars! Sheeeeze..........
Wouldn't you prefer that we not have another terrorist attack on American soil? A state of war is hardly a desirable thing.
How exactly do those require significant Federal spending? And what do the Medicare drug plan, the agriculture bill, the pork-laden highway bill, and No Child Left Behind have to do with any of the things you mentioned?
How exactly do those require significant Federal spending? And what do the Medicare drug plan, the agriculture bill, the pork-laden highway bill, and No Child Left Behind have to do with any of the things you mentioned?
How? We had to cut taxes to get the economy going. It took quite some time for those tax cuts to start generating record breaking revenues. During that time, the budget deficit grew! That's how!
This has got to be a trick question. We ALL know, or should know, that we ARE in a state of war. This is already a fact.
Would I prefer that we NOT be in a state of war? Sure. Just as I wish that there weren't hundreds of thousands or even millions of nutbags whose mindless allegience to a medaeval death cult masquerading as a world religion bent on domination and control didn't want us all dead or converted.
But wishing it doesn't make it so.
Just as wishing that there won't be another attack won't make it not happen. We just happen to have elected a selection of folks that are too ignorant or too self-absorbed, or too uncaring to understand this. If permitted, they will make another attack easier, and thus make it happen earlier. That's my complaint and my fear.
We aren't going to make real long term progress in this war until we Americans come to realize that it is a long-term war. It is likely a generational war. It may take 50 or 100 years to see it through to the end. This is not a TV series over in 12 weeks.
Unfortunately, the reality of life is that it often takes hard lessons learned at a great price, to bring folks to true understanding. I beleive that as a people, we have yet to learn, and we have yet to pay the full price.
I am quite sure that we will do so, however.
I'll tell you what I wanted and didn't get.
A social security or national pension system that not based on demographic slight of hand and outright fraud and dishonesty. That didn't seem to be too much to ask. If we can't fix this system when we control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, just when might it become possible?
A national income tax or national sales tax based on a simple non-progressive rate without the complexity and obscurity that make the tax code a fertile field for corruption and cash for favors. Same question. If not when we're in full control, then just when?
Just those two would have satisfied me. I could overlook a lot if I saw just those two things passed into law.
The complaint wasn't that the budget deficit grew; it was that spending grew so fast.
Time for a tractor-trailer of veto pens to be delivered to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Screw the Rat Bastard traitors.
For all their talk about the importance of cooperation and how vital it is for people to build a consensus, they show themselves to be the intolerant, arrogant bigots that they are.
Okay, I read this several times and can't figure out if you're talking about the uber-left or the stayed-at-home-on-Tuesday "purge the GOP" small-tent purists on the right that handed Congress over to Pelosi and comrades...
.
Wish I'd said that, and at least one is listening
I wanted that too! And they tired. It got shot down. They should have tried again. But that is no reson to not vote for them!
"A national income tax or national sales tax based on a simple non-progressive rate without the complexity and obscurity that make the tax code a fertile field for corruption and cash for favors. Same question. If not when we're in full control, then just when? "
A national sales tax is a disaster. It's a regressive tax. I tell you what Bush did do! He lowered all of the income tax brackets! It reduced me down by 8%!
2000 Federal Income Tax Rate:
15%: $0 - $21,925
28%: $21,925 - $52,975
31%: $52,975 - $80,725
36%: $80,725 - $144,175
39.6%: $144,175 - above
2006 Federal Income Tax Rate:
10%: $0 - $7,550
15%: $7,550 - $30,650
25%: $30,650 - $61,850
28%: $61,850 - $94,225
33%: $94,225 - $168,275
35%: $168,275 - above
A person making $50K in the year 2000 was in the 31% tax rate bracket. In the year 2006 a person making $50K is in the 25% tax rate bracket and keeps 6% more of his/her paycheck.
Now that is going to be repealed! Thank you!
This means taxpayer funded abortions. Good luck. It will never pass.
Hey!
Don't get me wrong. I may be disappointed with some aspects of the Republicans, but I'm not about to confuse disapppointment and surrender.
As Tom Sowell says, "Republicans may be disappointing, but Democrats are downright dangerous."
I work tirelessly to elect Republicans to every level of office in every election cycle. In this last election, Republican failure to enact its own program in a Congress where they controlled both houses and the Presidency hurt. I know it did because I talk to the same voters year after year.
By the way, if a tax on consumption is labeled "regressive", than that's exactly the kind of regressive tax I am in favor of. And labelling a tax as "regressive" only scares off Democrats who think a "proigressive" tax is "good" and that a "regressive" tax must then be "bad". Republicans ought to know better.
But now, we have Nancy Pelosi & Co. God help us all. We sure won't get any "regressive" taxes with that crown in control.
By the way, the last round of Republican "tax cuts" increased my taxes by about $6,000 per year. Pretty good reward for years of support, eh? The last time this happened at least I had a Democrat to blame, the late demogogue, William J. Proxmire. This time it was Charles Grassley that decided to stick it to an entire class of Republican supporters.
How so? The income tax brackets were lowered. How did yours go up???
Too bad there are only a few nuts and a vast sea of conservatives. The nutjobs sitting at home won't counterbalance conservatives sitting at home to punish the GOP. As Tuesday proved.
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.