|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| As I posted a week or so ago, I'm just chortling with glee about these election predictions and struggling hard not to count my chickens before they hatch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Environmental legislation, Energy Independence policies, raising the Minimum Wage, and perhaps even some changes in education and health care are in the cards should the Dems gain control of the House and the Senate.
An end to the Iraq war, or even meaningful change in policy there, is probably not no matter what happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
An end to the Iraq war, or even meaningful change in policy there, is probably not no matter what happens.
|
Unfortunately, that is a sad reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, realistically, since the Democrats have no chance of establishing veto-proof majorities, the best hopes will be things that they can blackmail the Republicans into voting for (e.g., a higher minimum wage) with the threat of using it against them in 2008. Sweeping environmental legislation is unlikely in this regard; it's just not as effective a political weapon. Too bad.
Go here for some similar discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/opinion/18bartlett.html
EDIT: I added the link after huffdaddy's post below, but I'll just note here that Bartlett argues that Bush will re-discover the veto in the next two years if needed.
Last edited by Woland on Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Woland wrote: |
| Also, realistically, since the Democrats have no chance of establishing veto-proof majorities, |
B*shy doesn't veto bills anyways. He just adds signing statements to override the intent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
What most people don't understand is that the Democrats are poised to win the House of Representatives. However, they are not set to win the Senate. The Republicans would still have George Bush as president of the United States. However, a sweeping victory in the House of Representatives would be a signal that a Republican majority in Senate would have to be serious about bi-partisan initiatives. People had the impression since Al Gore won the popular vote, and Bush was granted the presidency by a Supreme Court ruling, that Bushwould do his best to build bi-partisan consensus. He did the opposite.
If the Democrats take the House, they cannot force the president to withdraw from Iraq. However, the House cannot control the purse, so to speak. What about that? They certainly would have a lot of clout if they control the purse. It would force the Senate to be quite obliging towards them. It might go a long way to heal some of the divisions of the last few years.
There is also the question of the Democrats not being able to pass meaningful laws except, perhaps, raising the minimum wage, increasing aid to students to some extent etc... I would support them raising taxes if it means paying off the deficit, spending more on education, scientific research in environmentally friendly alternatives to gasoline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| However, the House cannot control the purse, so to speak. What about that? They certainly would have a lot of clout if they control the purse. It would force the Senate to be quite obliging towards them. |
Both houses "control" the purse jointly through their various authorization and appropriations committees.
My understanding is that the House has the upper hand on these things. Perhaps Ya-ta can clarifty this point.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| It might go a long way to heal some of the divisions of the last few years... |
Unfortunately, I would not hail any Democratic victory as a sign that these divisions might be reconciled. I do not see Democrats in a very healing mood. The Administration is no better. But this kind of confrontational Democratic rhetoric, even, in some cases, against other Democrats "soft" on the war issue, worries me...
| CNN wrote: |
A ranking Democrat in the House of Representative is apologizing for saying an African-American Senate candidate "slavishly" supported the Republican Party.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said he meant no offense when he made the remark about Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the GOP nominee for the seat being vacated by longtime Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes... |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/democrats.apology/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yet another poll suggests probable Democratic victory next month...
| Quote: |
Just weeks before crucial midterm elections, a new poll says nearly three quarters of Americans see Congress as out of touch, much as they did in 1994, the last time the minority party took control of Capitol Hill.
Seventy-four percent of respondents to a new Opinion Research poll say Congress is generally out of touch with average Americans... |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/18/congress.poll/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Both houses "control" the purse jointly through their various authorization and appropriations committees.
My understanding is that the House has the upper hand on these things. Perhaps Ya-ta can clarifty this point. |
The House has the 'power of the purse', which in this case means ALL tax bills must begin in the House. The Senate may amend the bills and then return it to the House for approval, but the Senate cannot begin a tax bill. This is the 'upper hand' that Gopher correctly referred to.
(I hope I got the details right.)
An example would be Bush asking for another tax cut. He would have to convince a Representative to introduce a tax bill that would have to go through all the appropriate committee work avoiding blocking by all relevant the committee heads.  Ain't gonna happen.
In theory the House could stop the war in Iraq by refusing to fund it. They can also add a little tax clause to something Bush wants badly and 'blackmail' him into accepting it (if they can pick off a few Republican Senators.)
Another thing a Democratic-controlled House can do is call hearings. They can force Rummy or Cheyney to attend open hearings and drag in every decision they ever made and make them try to explain it in public.
They could even hold impeachment hearings, whether or not they thought passing a bill of impeachment is possible.
A Dem-controlled House probably won't be able to roll back policies but they will almost certainly be in a position to stop any new nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Has anyone heard who the new Speaker will be if the Democrats gain the majority? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta: glad to see my info on Congress is still passable. (I was not quite sure I was right until you confirmed.)
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| In theory the House could stop the war in Iraq by refusing to fund it. They can also add a little tax clause to something Bush wants badly and 'blackmail' him into accepting it (if they can pick off a few Republican Senators.)... |
And, conversely, an influential Congressman (like Charlie Wilson) could single-handedly call in his chips, up a covert war's budget even if this might go against the Administration's wishes, thus virtually unilaterally pressing "go" on a war...
I strongly recommend Charlie Wilson's War, on Afghanistan in the 1980s, for anyone who has not yet checked it out. If you are interested to see just how much influence a single Congressman can wield on foreign affairs and defense matters, check this out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mirthridates,
Cool chart man.
To answer Ya-Ta-Boy's question I believe it would be Nancy Pelosi of California is the most likely person, but of course that's not for sure. Here is an article about her from Time Magazine I happened to see a few months ago:
| Quote: |
"Anybody knows not to mess with me"
Nancy Pelosi leads the Democrats with a fiery style that could make her the first woman Speaker of the House
By BY PERRY BACON JR.
Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House, portrays herself as a polite, grandmotherly lady. She constantly discusses her five grandchildren, makes sure her office is stocked with Ghirardelli chocolates, perpetually smiles and never swears in a business in which almost everyone else does. She even has a few cute quirks she and her staff would love to tell you about: a diet consisting mostly of chocolate and chocolate ice cream, and so much energy, she rarely sleeps. Just the other night, she will tell you, she was up watching MTV after midnight.
Don't believe it for a second. Would your grandmother ever say, "If people are ripping your face off, you have to rip their face off" (Pelosi's approach to handling attacks from Republicans)? How about "If you take the knife off the table, it's not very frightening anymore" (her explanation for why she won't let voters forget George W. Bush's unpopular Social Security proposal from last year)?
The 66-year-old San Francisco lawmaker is an aggressive, hyperpartisan liberal pol who is the Democrats' version of Tom DeLay, minus the ethical and legal problems of the former Republican House leader. To condition Democrats for this fall's midterm elections, she has employed tactics straight out of DeLay's playbook: insisting other House Democrats vote the party line on everything, avoiding compromise with Republicans at all cost and mandating that members spend much of their time raising money for colleagues in close races. And she has been effective. House Democrats have been more unified in their voting than at any other time in the past quarter-century, with members on average voting the party line 88% of the time in 2005, according to Congressional Quarterly. That cohesion enabled Democrats to hasten President Bush's slide in the polls when they blocked his plan to reform Social Security by allowing retirees to eschew guaranteed benefits in favor of private accounts. Bush's approval rating remains depressed--38% in a TIME poll last week--and the Democrats are in their best position to win the House since Republicans took control of it in 1994. |
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376213,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
