Democrats versus Republicans

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

Let's examine the deficit why don't we:

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Seems a small increase each year from 2000 to 2006, then suddenly, once the pay-go dem's take charge of the both houses and the budget - a little bit of a leap, like ONE TRILLION at year.

Yeah Rick, keep doing math. You are as Constitutionally, um, stupid as you logically challenged and non-accountability oriented.

chuck, you're the constitutionally stupid one. sorry. Perhaps your time away from the election process has dulled your senses. I know you think Congress is in charge of the government since it writes laws and budgets, passes them, etc. What you keep forgetting is that the President is the one setting the legislative and budget agendas every year. it starts in the White House and the President's party is just as likely to add amendments and more spending as the opposition. Plus, the executive branch gets to implement those passed laws, assuming the Pres signs them, through regulations that undergo intense scrutiny from all sides. And those regulations have been known to make or break a particular law or program. THe executive branch also can hold up funding in what is known as the allotment and allowance process, which is the legal way OMB doles out money to agencies. OMB also has been known NOT to allot duly appropriated funds for programs it doesn't favor. THat is called a recision, which has become harder to do since that fellow MILHOUS, a Repub as I recall, over used that tactic a bit. Ummm, OMB works for the Pres btw. Under your view of the government, the Pres would only have to show up for work once every 10 days, sign, veto, or not sign any legislation, and then go play at Camp David.

Let's talk about vetoes for a bit. Bush has issued very few vetoes. All that spending you hang on the Dems the last 2 years easily could have been vetoed by Bush. But he didn't. And despite what you apparently think it takes a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto. The Dems do not have enough seats in either house to override anything at the moment, and it's doubtful that will change tomorrow.
List of United States presidential vetoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Read it and weep.

So your boy Bush could have stopped all your whining had he vetoed all the spending bills he didn't approve of. But since he did sign them, he obviously did approve of them. They're his spending bills in that case.

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy

I just veiwed the polls on the battle ground states, all are within the margin of error and a couple are tied

Are you sure those are predictions or just what the map shows now pre 11/03/08

Fortunately the final poll is tomorrow, absent things going to the supremes again. Mr. rove will be like all the other pollsters--either right or wrong.

[erps]

Bubb2 wrote:

‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’
‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.’
‘From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.’
‘The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.’
‘During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage.

Nuts.

[sailaway21]

Sorry Mitch...you might have a grip on current practice but the constitution does not say anything about budgets or legislative agendas originating in the White House. Congress looks at the President's budget as no more than a courtesy due a co-equal branch of government. The President can veto the legislation and Congress can override the veto. I'd say, as would most political scientists, that that makes the Congress the more powerful body.

Fiscal prudence should be the hallmark of Congress.

[PBzeer]

Don't know how things will turn out by the end of the day, but there are two things I can pretty much guarantee. One, the media will call the election for Obama no later than 5:00pm based on exit polls. Of course, they will swear they aren't trying to influence the outcome ......

The second thing is the difference between the behavior of the two sides. Whoever wins, will generate neither extreme joy nor despondency among the GOP. While the Dems will go to the extreme either way.

One thing that will be interesting to watch if Obama wins, is how well he talks his way around not doing the un-demlike things he promised ... due to circumstances, of course.

[wind_magic]

Election day 2008! Vote early, vote often! Now we get to find out what the fine folks in the United States want. Besides the obvious desire to find out who is going to win the various elections, it'll also be interesting to see by what margin they win and also how accurate the polling was. I don't have any predictions except that I think the election may end up being a little closer than most people expect it to be. This country is still very divided over cultural issues, and as long as that continues we will continue to have close elections, essentially TWO AMERICAS - not two Americas rich and poor, but instead two Americas urban and rural, and those two electorates really do want fundamentally different things. All elections in recent memory have been won at the margins and have been decided by a very small number of uncommitted voters in the center, and I think this election will be no different. No matter who wins I think they win without much of a mandate, though both candidates for President would claim one if they win the election by even a single percentage point. Maybe I'll be wrong and Obama or McCain will run away with the election, but I kind of doubt it - I don't think it matters who the Democratic and Republican candidates are, we'd get nearly a 50-50 vote no matter who was running, no matter how great one or the other is. Until rural and city folk can come together on some things and stop trying to jam their views down the other's throat we're going to keep having elections like this. At this time in history, half of the American public simply doesn't trust the other half, and I don't see much in this election to change that. The one glimmer of hope is that this time the Republicans are running a centrist, and the Democratic candidate is a populist, and both of those candidates are at least courting the middle.

[SailKing1]

John, I thought the media had called the election for Obama about two weeks ago?

Here is another interesting tidbit. Vegas Odds are that if Obama loses there is a 100% chance of riots in major cities. If he wins there is a 37% chance of celebratory riots.

[KODAD]

Well, I've stayed out of this thread thus far, but have read and researched the opinions here. I just got back from voting and hope for the best for this great country. What I can't understand is the polarization of the American people. Our country is basically split 50/50 on the issues, as indicated by the last two elections. How can half of us be so sure we are right, and the other half be so sure we are wrong? There is little middle ground. I hope Americans everywhere can pull together, educate ourselves, and realize the potential that our great forefathers envisioned for this great nation. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that's what America means to me.

[xort]

Just like to remind y'all of something that happened back in 2000.
I watched 'live' an interview with John Zogby, a prominent democrat and long standing pollster. He was asked about the election (this was in late Nov 2000). He said he predicted a dead even match in Calif. Gore won by 15%. Zogby has never been off by more than 3%. Why so far off? He said that it was because the networks had declared the election for Gore early. When that happened, the 'loosers' went home but the 'victors' stayed at the polls to join in on the fun. Everybody wants to be associated with a winner and nobody wants to be associated with a looser. He further said that because of that the millions who stayed home would have thrown the popular vote to Bush AND he named 2 western states (I think it was NM & Oregon) that would have gone to Bush instead of Gore which would have negated Florida. Of course this information died a quick death even though it was from one of the most respected pollsters/democrats in the country.

We will get obama declared the winner by 5pm and the west coast MCain voters will go home, skewing the popular vote by quite a bit. Just as the democrat Zogby described in 2000.

[xort]

Kodad
I think it's the media 24/7 frenzy that has things stirred up.

The republicans will tell you that during Regan's years; Regan & Tip O'Niel would sit down for dinner and hash out deals. There was a measure of trust between them. There was a line crossed during the Bush 41 presidency...Bush said Read My Lips, No New Taxes. But the congress, heavily democrat, insisted he raise taxes. They shut down the government. So he went along with the will of the majority. They then hammered him with the 'no new taxes' in the next election. It's considered by many what got Clinton elected. Since then the reps have been extremely distrustful of making any kind of deals with the dems.

McCain was known for crossing the isle more than any other current politician. Maverick John McCain. But does he get one ounce of credit for that in the media today?

BTW, I think if you search back into the late 1800's you'll find some pretty big battles between the left & right.