2007 Democrats More Successful Than 1995 GOP

[ECW]

Lots of crap has been tossed around these boards about the lack of progress made by Democrats in getting their agenda passed and signed into law. Perception is rarely reality in these cases and the same goes here. A chart released by the House Democratic Leadership shows the vast chasm between the Republicans led by Newt Gingrich and their Contract On America and the 2007 Democrats.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/image001.jpg

The War In Iraq is still going on unchecked. Bush's spending spree continues unabated. Health Care for all Americans is still a pipe dream. Congress' poll numbers are the lowest they have ever been because none of the major reasons they were returned to power have come to pass BUT they did do more than the Gingrich congress did in their first year. So, let's lay that BS mantra of a do nothing Congress to rest because that was the title for the 109th Congress... the last Republican Congress.

[bishop]

looking at the chart, it highlights the amount of pork that went into each bill.. a "family reinforcement" act that includes verbage on energy and global warming?? a "taking back our streets" act that includes verbage on veterans affairs?? i wonder if their next farm bill will include provisions to buy some new j-dams..

funny thing too - the majority of those initiatives you're pointing out appear to be republican initiatives.. they were included in gingrich's contract w/america. scroll to the bottom.

http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/april96herman.htm

heh.. here's to original thought on the part of the dems. i see no reason to applaud them on following up on gingrich's ideas, and managing to pile on all sorts of irrelevant amendments and pork to boot.

and on the other hand, those of us who lean in a libertarian direction believe that less is more. i look at all those "yes" votes as examples of politicians usurping states' rights and wasting taxpayer money. i'd be more than happy to see the federal government do virtually nothing whatsoever.[hr]just to add one more thing... it's completely expected that the dems would try to pat themselves on the back for a job "well done".. certainly, they don't want to focus on their ineptitude and failure to follow through on their campaign promises..

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7792528?nclick_check=1

On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.

<snip>

Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guantánamo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.

Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.

<snip>

Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.

Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.

[Keith Hamburger]

Well, I hope this doesn't come across sounding like I support either of these groups of bozos, because that definitely isn't the intention.

I don't find this surprising at all. The lines that we have today weren't nearly as well defined 12 years ago. The neocon uprising was just barely getting started. Today we have what amounts to a virtual alliance of the neocons and (to use a word that many hate but seems to fit well) neolibs.

The neocons are nominal conservative warmongers who love welfare. The neolibs are nominally liberal socialist who love warfare. Each continue to make the talking points to appeal to their old supporters, neocons talking about cutting government, neolibs talking about cutting back on the war, but neither really have any commitment, or even any desire, to follow through on that.

Without the current alliance of welfare/warfare that we're seeing reflected in the positions of the vast majority of the frontrunners in the current campaign for president, Newt and his bunch didn't stand a chance. Today, except for a token veto to appease the religious right, Bush is all for increasing social programs. And, the neolibs are all for continuing the war as long as Bush doesn't fight them on the social programs.

We get the best of both worlds. Increasing social programs, continuing warfare and an enormous and continuous increase in government control over our lives.

If Newt had figured out how to make that compromise he could have accomplished anything he wanted.

Keith

[Deadshot]

Let's HOPE that we, da Dems, do as well as the GOP'ers did in 2000, on the backs of the '95 GOP congress.

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/photos/uncategorized/tds_m5_10102a_cobert.jpg

[preservanation]

This is all I can remember that the Dems proposed and passed... a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the 911 commission's recommendations, college-cost reduction and an energy law that mandates conservation and will most likely increase energy costs and decrease production and supply. As well as threaten our agricultural food supply.

What is more interesting are other things they did do...at odds with their base.
Promised to end the Iraq war, restore fiscal discipline and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead sent Bush $70 billion in war funding — no strings attached — and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax (AMT) bill, thus in their eyes added to the budget deficit.
Adding to their obvious ineptness, Gitmo remains open for business. Bush's FISA court system was not only sanctioned but expanded by them and Pelosi and Reid could not eliminate the CIA's use of what they view as torture tactics.

They also could not overcome vetoes on an expansion of the SCHIP program.

Bush prevailed on every Iraq war fight, beginning in February with a nonbinding resolution that opposed troop increases.

No wonder their approval rating is in the effen toilet...the lowest ever.
I know it's still early but to compare the Dem's dismal showing to the sweeping changes enacted by the GOP in '94 is simply either wishful thinking or partisan denial.

[Truth_and_Power]

Well, I hope this doesn't come across sounding like I support either of these groups of bozos, because that definitely isn't the intention.

I don't find this surprising at all. The lines that we have today weren't nearly as well defined 12 years ago. The neocon uprising was just barely getting started. Today we have what amounts to a virtual alliance of the neocons and (to use a word that many hate but seems to fit well) neolibs.

The neocons are nominal conservative warmongers who love welfare. The neolibs are nominally liberal socialist who love warfare. Each continue to make the talking points to appeal to their old supporters, neocons talking about cutting government, neolibs talking about cutting back on the war, but neither really have any commitment, or even any desire, to follow through on that.

Without the current alliance of welfare/warfare that we're seeing reflected in the positions of the vast majority of the frontrunners in the current campaign for president, Newt and his bunch didn't stand a chance. Today, except for a token veto to appease the religious right, Bush is all for increasing social programs. And, the neolibs are all for continuing the war as long as Bush doesn't fight them on the social programs.

We get the best of both worlds. Increasing social programs, continuing warfare and an enormous and continuous increase in government control over our lives.

If Newt had figured out how to make that compromise he could have accomplished anything he wanted.

Keith


I could not agree more, thus I am voting for Ron Paul. The virulent sniping between the left and the right is all the more disgusting for its lack of actual substance. I mean, maybe if they were actually DIFFERENT it would be more worthwhile to spend so much time playing PR games and backbiting.

[Howard2020]

With all of the "accomplishments" of this Congress it is certainly easy to see why they are the lowest rated in the History of keeping records.

Ethics Reform? Surely you jest. Feel good but accomplished nothing. Enought loopholes to run a freight train through.

The Minimum Wage bill was a "feel good" piece of legislation that did nothing except pay off the union bosses for their support.

College cost reduction? Cost reduction to who?

Energy Act? Only problem is it didn't contain anything to generate any...Energy. Plus it has over 9,000 earmarks including a $700,000.00 Bike Path in Minnisota? Do you think that money might be better spent...replacing some of their bridges that are collapsing?

Now they're trying to jam the immigration bill down our throats one piece at a time since it didn't get passed in one piece. Plus they cut all the funds for the 700 mile fence that was already approved. Both the House and Senate are at the point where they are downright arrogant and defiant to their constituents.

Virtually every American was embarrassed by Murtha, Reid, Pelosi all screaming that the war was lost, surrender now and avoid the rush, that the surge had failed...before the troops were even deployed. Now the Iraq War is going so well that all those same people are admiting that it is working, and working well.

How is the Bush "spending spree" continuing if Congress controls the purse strings? President Bush can request funds, but Congress has to approve.

Yeah, I just can't understand how that dynamic Congress is getting such low ratings.

Have a blessed Christmas
and a Joyous New Year!