Congress

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090807/ap_on_go_co/us_senate_martinez_resigns

According to many news sources he is resigning so Charlie Christ can take his place increasing the number of GOP Senetors by one. This is brilliant, and the Democrats dont even realize they are being set up, fact.

Just like Palin resigning, its all part of the plan people, the Democrats are finished, fact.

No but it might help the GOP to keep one.

This move did not increase the number of republicans in office.

X – 1 + 1 = X

House?
A lot of folks think presidents run the country–when in fact the democratic congress is the reason the economy is os bad–and democratic congress started the Iraq war–and is the reason for most of our problems…what say you?
Democrats have HAD a majority int he Congress FOR 2 YEARS!

I’m going to answer you as honestly as possible. I hope you can appreciate a viewpoint from the other side of the isle Please read, I want to answer your question respectfully.

=========

The constitution is designed in such a way as to not give one branch too much power. That is the very essence of the separation of powers our forefathers wrote in articels 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution (link below). For example, congress may narrowly pass a bill, say 52% yea – 48% nay, but a Presidential veto will send it back to congress, this time requiring a 66% yea. When democrats only hold a slight congressional majority (they held 51senate seats before the last election), it becomes increasingly hard to override a presidential veto because they then have to lobby republicans to vote in their favor. Can you imagine how hard it is for democrats having to lobby an additional 16% worth of republican support when they couldn’t even get a single republican to support this last bill that passed yesterday?

I’m not trying to make a case for one side or the other- all I’m saying is that the powers are divided. If one party only holds a slight majority (like the democrats did), the president will have more power. Now, if the democrats held a 2/3 majority in congress, then Congress would’ve had more power because they easily could’ve overridden a presidential veto. So to answer your question- it depends on the above. In this case, I would respectfully argue that the democrats majority wasn’t big enough to override the president’s vetos, therefore democrats couldn’t get legislation passed, therefore you cannot blame them. It’s not political bias- only fairness.

Also- What did the democratic congress do to make the economy bad? Some would argue that republicans lifted the government regulations which protected foreclosure victims- those regulations were put in place after the great depression to "firewall" another great depression.

Have you ever heard of Phil Gramm? He was McCain’s economic adviser. He pushed through congress a major deregulation bill in 2000 which was a huge component in the mortgage meltdown. As you know- the housing crisis caused the credit crisis, which is causing the massive job losses today. If you really want the truth about who to blame, read this article.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

===

Look, my party has screwed up in the past, and I’ll admit it. And not all republicans have bad ideas. But republican deregulation is probably more responsible this time around. Admitting that does not make you less of a republican- it just makes you able to hear both sides of the story.

And that’s the problem with the American political system today- no one wants to hear both sides of the story…don’t you agree?

hope this helped. Good luck

The US Military never lost one battle during the Vietnam War. Even the North Vietnamese said the US had the war won, but they withdrew. The reason they withdrew, was that the Democrat controlled Congress withdrew funding for the War and made us withdraw our troops. They are trying to do the same thing now b spreading misleading statements and openly disapproving of the Military in the halls of Congress. It’s Congress which is to blame if we cannot fulfill our commitment in the Middle East and Afghanistan, not the Military nor our Commander In Chief. Some troops will be coming home soon and others will follow, but Congress would have you believe that nothing is good in Iraq since the super liberal media cares only to publish casualties. Of all the wars the US has been involved in, our present Military has suffered the fewest caualties. Casualties are an unfortunate occurrence in the Military. Congress should allocate more funds to help with their supplies . Why don’t they?
I am not still fighting Vietnam. I am illustrating a parallel. Same thing is happening now which happened then with the democrat controlled congress. Also, similar things are happening now as happened then to some of our military personnel if they wear their uniforms among the civilian public. Some of them are being spat on. Another thing, you dem leftists alread know is that they are already allocating troops to come home. Then there will be more until we no longer need such a dominant presence. My whole family served and a few are serving now. They are doing a job and we don’t like wars either, but they do their constitutional duty as proud citizens of the USA. I don’t care if corporations get richer selling supplies to the military. They do an important job and also employ many people. What I don’t like is the outsourcing of too many jobs to foreign countries because they have to save a buck. I don’t like all the outsourcing that’s going on in the private sector either.

Oh man you will get nothing but ignrant rants form libs with this question.
HAcker….man …you are ignorant, the only reason the groups like black water have that kind of protection is becasue we as soliders do to. you cant sue a soilder for killing and enemy of the country for which he is bound too. Like wise the same for any contactors that serve the same country. An es I agree the only problem with this paticular war is that the media has decided that it is not worth it and stiffles any progress but amplifies an hand wrings about any casulaty including the enemy. This same media during world war 2 we would not have been victorious nearly as fast. It is the fault of the hyphenated american we are not all equaly yoked for the comon good of the country most are to obssed with me me me me me me hand out hand out hand out. whay can the govermant do for me this week.
You cant critizie the war without critizing the participants in it, man you libs want to change everythign in your own image, the world is flat the sky is purlple ughhh it is like convecing a 5 year old that he can touch the sky just by standing up. They cant understand cause they just cant get past their ignorance.
AN they like to thow around words to lable peopel like nationalist, neo con, but you cant call a black a nigger that would be wrong.

The Democrats actually fell for it, and their falling for Obama’s policies which are the exact same thing. Ignorance is abundant in voters these days. Change………….Hope…….Change………………..You Democrats better start praying instead of hoping. Hoping didn’t work with Congress.

And don’t forget they promised to do something to lower gas prices.

That whole national security lie is bullshyt also. This nation would have no enemies and no need for secrets if we stayed the hell out of other peoples business.

i am actually afraid of what this new election might bring us!

Heavy increase in LGP gas oil rates will effect the voters of India.

Congress has shown a flop show & his loyallity towards capitalists like BJP govt. will kill the poor peoples of India.

I don’t understand how congress doesn’t get rid of ambiguity in the constitution. I understand there are differing ideologies, but I fee that it simply leads to arguments in congress that waste time. I’ve heard of the 3/4 vote for an amendment, but why doesn’t congress do it? Ambiguity is what leads our country into arguments that have been raging for 40 years. Is there any way we can get rid of ambiguity in the constitution?

It’s the Congress’s job to argue, they are always wasting our time, we can’t really do anything about that. The 40 year old arguments are not because of Congress, but because of the constituents that wont stfu about stupid ass shit like abortion and other culture war issues. The forefathers knew what they were doing, they weren’t geniuses and they certainly weren’t perfect. But they knew that shit was gonna be like nothing they could fathom so they made it ambigious enough so that we would know how we were suppose to face the problem, but would be able to interpret it based on our modern knowledge.

…and then what would be a remedy for the problem? Should the president just appoint a combination of Democrats, republicans, and moderates?

The problem is gridlock – relatively little gets done.

But I think that’s a strength of our system. we have checks and balances – no one party should be able to ram everything through.

Many presidents worked with a congress of a different party. I think it works because then our representatives have to work to find common ground, and enact changes almost everyone agrees on.

I am just wondering since majority of democrats have the seats in Congress does that mean more assistance will be given to the middle and lower class? Will more bills or laws that goes through congress be approved since the democratic party is now power? Is there a way for the republicans to still win in congress? Kinda confused. Thanks.

A lot will depend on each congress persons district they are elected from. For example Nancy Pelosi is in a liberal district, so she can support liberal agenda. Some Dems are in more moderate or even conservative districts, so even though they personally might oppose or support something, they can’t vote that way if their constituents don’t want it.

There are also a lot of what they call "blue dog" Democrats. Those are much more conservative Democrats.

President Elect Obama is probably farther to the left, than the average American. However like President Clinton, he will have govern, pass or veto bills, more from a centrist position, because most Americans are center or right of center.