Here Today... Gone To Hell!

(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4025/winnerrm6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

WASHINGTON - The 110th Congress convened Thursday with Democrats in control of both the House and Senate for the first time in a dozen years. "Today we make history. Today we change the direction of our country," exulted Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), poised to become the first woman speaker in history.


With her grandchildren joining her for the historic moment, Pelosi beamed as her name was placed in nomination and the party-line roll call commenced.

Both Democrats and Republicans alike pledged cooperation despite years of bitter partisanship and gridlock, to try to get the 110th Congress off on a productive note.

House Democrats also were ready to impose a ban on gifts from lobbyists and a clampdown on travel funded by private interests ? measures crafted in response to the ethics scandals that weakened Republicans in last fall's elections.

"The Democrats are back," Pelosi said earlier Thursday. She will lead a fractious House divided 233-202, with Democrats claiming control for the first time since 1994.

In remarks prepared for delivery later after her swearing in later Thursday, Pelosi said: "The election of 2006 was a call to change ? not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country. Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in
Iraq. The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end."

Democrats maintain a tenuous hold on a Senate divided 51-49, with ailing South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson slowly recovering in a Washington hospital weeks after suffering a brain hemorrhage. There are 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans and two independents, who both vote with Democrats.

The fragile Senate margin ensures little Democratic-sponsored legislation can pass without support from at least some Republicans.

"Our efforts are going to be to work in a bipartisan basis in an open fashion to solve the problems of the American people," said new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Taking the oath of office were 10 new senators ? eight of them Democrats, Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Joe Lieberman returned to the Senate for a fourth term after losing a raucous Democratic primary in Connecticut but winning in November running as an Independent.

Vice President Dick Cheney swore in the new and returning senators, beginning with a group including Senate President Pro Tem, Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. ? third in the line of presidential succession ? elected for a record ninth term. In the gallery overhead, former President Clinton and daughter Chelsea applauded and waved to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was sworn in for a second term.

The House has 55 new members, all but 13 of them Democrats. Two of them, Baron Hill of Indiana and Nick Lampson of Texas, had previously served.

As the House gathered, dozens of lawmakers' children and grandchildren joined them on the floor, including Pelosi's six grandchildren.

The day capped the rise of several Democratic veterans to powerful committee posts ? including Charles Rangel of New York as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee and David Obey on the powerful Appropriations panel ? after 12 dispiriting years in the minority.

House Republicans, meanwhile, adjusted to their unaccustomed roles out of power, grousing about being shut out of any chance to affect the early agenda.

The convening of the Democratic-led Congress also opened a new chapter in the presidency of Bush, who faces divided government as he cements his legacy in his final two years in the White House. Bush had a light public schedule Thursday, intended at least in part to let the new Congress have its day.

House Democrats planned quick action on legislative priorities that included boosting both the minimum wage and stem cell research. Democrats also said they would pressure President Bush to bring the troops home from Iraq.

Reid, a soft-spoken but tough inside player ? took the reins of the notoriously unwieldy Senate, hosting both Democrats and Republicans at a rare closed-door conference Thursday morning in the Old Senate Chamber. The aim was to set a bipartisan mood after years of political rancor.

"Our efforts are going to be to work in a bipartisan basis in an open fashion to solve the problems of the American people," Reid said afterward.

The meeting, said top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, gave senators in both parties "a chance to express some of their quiet frustrations that we get past the level of partisanship that we've witnessed in recent years."

The Democratic-led Congress also opened a new chapter in the presidency of Bush, who faces divided government as he cements his legacy in his final two years in the White House.

Anti-abortion protesters greeted Pelosi, D-Calif., as she began the day at a prayer service at a Catholic church on Capitol Hill before being sworn in as speaker in the afternoon by Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the longest serving member of the House. Pelosi then was to address the House ? and the nation ? in a speech carried live on C-SPAN, which broadcasts all House proceedings, and on cable news networks.

Dingell administered the same oath to former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., 12 years ago when Republicans seized the House after 40 years of Democratic control ? and he's set to get back his gavel as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

House Democrats promised speedy passage of the first six bills on their agenda and a series of stiffer ethics rules.

Great day for America!  : ok:

The new congress will get more done in one week then the do-nothing congress of the last 6 years did their entire term.

I couldn't have said it better myself : ok:

I have guarded optimism.

 ::)  Please.  Don't delude yourself into thinking anything will change.  It's going to be the same old song and dance, just new faces.  Need I remind you that your boys have already lied about one of their election promises.  How many more are on the horizon?

Lets revisit this thread in 6 months then....until then don't make assumptions.

if the minimum wage increase and the ethics reform go into effect this congress will have done more then the republican one did the last 6 years.

WASHINGTON - The House, in its second day of Democratic reign, changed budget rules that have allowed deficits to swell with lawmakers' pet projects and President Bush's tax cuts.

So if they pass two pieces of legislation, they will have done more than congress had over 6 years prior? ?Riiiiight. ? ?What you mean to say, and you're entitled to your opinion, is that this congress will try to put through bills you want. ?But, Bush still needs to signoff - let's see that veto power baby. ?The Dems may still lose the Senate and their majority in the House is minimal; they lack the votes to override any veto. ?Will some new legislation come forth? ?Probably, but it's not going to be a 180 from where we were 2 months ago. ?All this media attraction around new work hours and promises is just publicity. ?When things are no different two years from now, it will be back to the finger pointing with no solution offered.

Example:

Reporter: ?"Mr. Democrat Candidate, Iraq is more fucked up than ever and things are going to hell. ?What is your plan to remedy the situation?"

Democrat: ?"BUSH DID IT! ?It's not my fault."

Reporter: ?"But Sir, you voted to goto war and repeatedly funded the operation."

Democrat: ?"I was lied to and changed my mind after the fact - after I sent troops into combat I changed my mind."

Reporter: ?"When you say 'lied' do you mean that you failed to research the situation and voted to send thousands of Americans into harms way? ?That's awfully irresponsible of you."

Democrat: ?"This is the Republicans mess. ?The Democrats are offering a new way."

Reporter: ?"So you mean you voted for a war when it was the popular thing to do, and then when it became unpopular you changed your position. ?That seems to be a luxury that the military and executive branch don't have. ?What is the new way?"

Democrat: "Democrats are an tent of ideas and opinions. ?We're going to do things differently."

Reporter: ?"So you have no real solution, just rhetoric. ? Weren't you claiming change 2 years ago, won the majority in congress, yet things have stayed the same or gotten worse? ?Would it be fair to say your parties platform is to point fingers and blame, focusing on the negative and avoiding any counter all together by bringing other legislation into the light? ?Then when anyone questions your legislation you can just bring up Iraq and deny any involvement?

Democrat: ?"You summed up the Democrat's platform and plan very well."



---

What no one is focusing on is that for the first time ever we have an openly elected socialist as a member of our senate. ?That is a very sad thing indeed.

so you back up your position with assumptions and fairy tale/fictional conversations??

And as for Veto power....Bush has used it ONE TIME  :hihi:

Name something good the rep congress did?

I could name a couple.? Mass pay increases for our Military as they were very underpaid from the Clinton era.? Preventing the AWB from being renewed.? I could surely find many more, but these are the first two that popped up.? Considering it's been a Republican congres for 12 years, are you saying nothing good has come from Congress since 1994?

I don't think my story was too far off.  After all, that was the Democrats battle cry the past year.

Unlike bush, Clinton was much more compromising and worked with his Republican congress to pass legislation.  Ever since 2000, The repubs have had ZERO excuses for not getting their legislation passed the way they want it.

Please find more, b/c your examples are not mind blowing.  I'm glad the military got more money, they deserve it.  Especially these days.

While cutting benefits for vets at the same time.

Good point, I forgot about that.  Disgraceful.

Hope the restroom arrangements don't affect Pelosi's productivity.? If I were her, I'd use the men's room.? Seriously.

There isn't a better example of how the sexes are treated differently in Congress than the toilet situation.

The House men's room is just a few steps from the House floor and features a fireplace, a shoeshine stand, giant windows, TVs showing the floor proceedings, and an attendant.

Getting to the ladies' loo involves wading through crouds of gawking tourists in Statuary Hall, going through another room and down a cluttered corridor of offices into a cramped, windowless room with just three stalls.

i agree with guns n rockmusic 100%

I'll say Guns N rockmusic makes a good point about the decision to go to war and the lack of real research.  Are congressmen/women shielded from the intelligence community?  Basically, it's pretty shitty that everybody just believed everything fed to them by the top of the chain at the White House. (me included at first)  If it's allowed, you can bet your ass that Congress will be hounding the intelligence community like hell the next time this country is preparing for war.   :peace:

Bush was told the info was  no good (http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/60min.320.240.mov) by the CIA. Bush told the lie and many fell for it, caught up in the emotional aftermath of 9-11. He completely exploited the tragedy of 9-11, and lied to the world.

Again, you have never and will never proove it was a lie.  A lie implies intentional deceit.  But for intellectual purposes, lets say that Bush did take advantage of the emotional state.  Should we excuse Congressman who we elect to be professional, research the issue and be above reactionary measures?  Any prudent person will say no.  But admitting that your party screwed the pooch as much as anyone else hurts your position.  You choose to be an emotional reactionary rather than an objective thinker.  Everything about your posts, from ideas to pictures, indicates this.  You're just as quick to cater to emotion and what's popular as the created, deceitful President you point fingers at.

You are sad.

Top CIA officials have come forward to say that they told Bush the "intel" was not from a trusted source, and INSTRUCTED HIM to take it out of his speech that week (in Kansas.) They instructed him to take it out because it was not true.

Bush chose to include what HE KNEW was false info in the next speech (state of the union.) If that ain't lying, then I don't know what else to call it. The fact that no WMD were found only prove what the CIA told Bush was true: the intel was faulty.

One more time, mmkay? Bush ignored the CIA and used bogus (after he was told it was bogus) "intel" as a reason to go to war. The CIA TOLD HIM TO TAKE IT OUT, but Bush ignored that and used it anyway-telling the world. That's called lying. A child could understand that, it's pretty simple.

ANYONE who thinks that this was DOES NOT belong to Bush, Cheney and the other Neo-Cons is a moron.  Plain and simple.

Anyways, the point of this thread is to look forward, not backward, with a new congress in place.

Lets see how Bush handles Iraq with 2 years left on his term and what Congress does as well.  He is already pissing EVERYONE off by adding more troops.

They tried that in Vietnam and it didn't work.

Word on the street is that Bush is anxious to do nothing and then hand the mess off to the next guy (probably a Dem) so they can take the heat instead.

I hate to say this, but the reason congress did nothing was because Democrats refused to compromise as the minority. They were used to being in power and so when the Republicans took power they didn't know how to work with the majority "correctly."

American politics only work efficiently when there is compromise from both sides. Because the Republicans were a minority in Congress for so long they realized this and used it to their advantage quite well.

And of course the Dems are going to talk about compromising and how its "important" yadda yadda now that they are the majority. What were they doing the last couple of years as the minority? Not co-operating. And whats funny is, if this congress doesn't work so well they will make the Republicans out to be the bad guys and blame it all on them.

I'm not saying the Dems are evil and trying to ruin the system or anything. It's just that when you become used to having the majority, it must be hard to adjust to being the minority. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans act now.

We really need a politician who can bring the two sides closer, because this stuff is killing me. Or maybe a upstart more balanced 3rd party. That would be cool.. even if near impossible.


You know.. I was thinking that just the other day while I was watching the news.. Pah-theh-tic! It's crazy.. theres no plan out.. and he's just gonna hold off until hes home free.   :confused:

Good post Jack, I agree.  Bush is fucked no matter how Iraq turns out.  If Iraq goes on for 20 more years and is fucked up still, everyone will blame Bush even though 10 more Congresses and at least 3 more presidents are in office.  If all goes well, they'll still call him a fuck up and take credit elsewhere.

Bush isn't an evil man, has no malicios intent.  He thought we could waltz into Iraq and be looked on as Heroes.  That hasn't happened and now we have to pay the piper and fix it.  Even if this event becomes a major, positive catalyst for change in Iraq, certain people will never give Bush the credit for it.  Then again, being right for the wrong reasons makes you all that more wrong. 

I don't believe Bush is going to whipe his hands clean.  We have an new Secretary of Defense and a new Congress, some change will happen - how much is all in the air.  Some people here have been opining for years that we pull out immediately, but that would just create more chaos and unstability whcih we would inevitably have to combat later.  We can keep them unorgainzed and in hiding or we can hand them the keys to a regime of terrorism.

It's not a pretty picture and we never should have gone in.  But rather then waste time and energy living in the past and pointing fingers, we should look to how we can best secure America's future.  This is why I have no problem going over there and doing what I need to do to make sure America is safe as possible.  I really believe others want America to be hit again so they can gloat and feel vindicated.  These people don't care about you or I and are enemies of our freedom and posterity.  They know who they are.

From the mouth of babes....... ::)

I suppose we should listen to the same group of people who got us into this fucking mess in the first place huh? The same people who brought us: "WMD" and "Greet us as liberators" are supposed to be taken seriously at this point? You guys created a terror state,made us less safe, and accomplished nothing-except hand Iraq over to Iran, just like I said you would. Time to be quiet and let the grown up take charge.

You mean like John Edwards, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton?  And don't worry your little head SLC.  Grownups like myself are willing to lay down our lives so you can sell real estate and run your mouth.  The kids room is down the hall at The Tinfoilhat Linux.  Your classmates miss you.

Bush was given the correct intel by the CIA, Bush ignored that, took the false info and lied to everybody. I keep telling you this, but you keep ignoring it. The CIA has been interviewed several times on this story, it was all over the news months ago. It's not a case of "bad intel" as you would like to pretend, just as it is not "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" as you guys still repeat to this day. All of the lies have been outed, and it's all out in the open now. Now (just like I said years ago) oil corporations are lining up to get their hands on a post Saddam Iraq.

Suckers.

Why do you keep bringing up what I do for a living? How is it relevant to this discussion?

ok so.... we ahve estalished that slc here sells houses.... again...... and because gnr here wants to die... slc can do it........ lol


i should explain that last part a little better as it may be construed that im anti troops, to the contray im very supportive of the troops. However in the modren world, wars are fought and won not just on the battlefield but in the news, no tv, in schools on the streets. one such as gnr whose ability to walk through a forset and not see one tree lends greatly to the arguement of his own short sightedness.  If he was capable of truely seeing from an alterate prespective, then perhaps I may be able to say there goes a true patroit serving his country willing to let his blood spring forth and help grow a new and better future. Alas all i see is a boy who uses the uniform of so many who came before him, ones whose great deeds shall echo for decades to come, and sully that uniform with his words against others who dont share his vision. Words againist the very essence of what made the US great, and that simple thin is all the different viewpoint and ideals that exist thanks to so many that have died long ago.

What are you protecting us from right now?

Iraqi goat farmers and cheap gas?

You still haven't responded to that question?  Does that hurt your agenda to claim Democrats were innocent babies and have the sollution for peace and prosperity.

I sure did, go back and read, or chose to ignore it like always.

No you didn't.

Again, that doesn't answer my question.? You're avoiding it by bringing up something else.? I said : "Should we excuse Congressman who we elect to be professional, research the issue and be above reactionary measures?"

You avoid that and say Bush lied.  Even if he did, how does that answer my question.  And quit using 9/11 as an excuse for the vote.  The "emotional" factor was long over before we invaded Iraq.  Were people still hurt and upset, but they had almost 18 months to research it.

Your question is messy, please rephrase it.

You don't seem to "get it" dude. Like all the others who have come and gone before you, you either are too dumb, or (more than likely) ignore the point and press on.

DUH, i mean, like, its TOTALLY relevant.  If your'e not in the US armed forces you are not an American, you have less of a say then those fighting and you are practically useless to this country.  Dont' you know that!!?!!?!    ::)

HAHAHAH GIve me a BREAK!  You can't be this dumb can you?  We were all duped by this.  Bush and his cronies had created total fear in the country and in the government.  To dissent against bush and his war was to be unpatriotic and anti-american.  If you didn't support getting "the people who helped osama in 9-11" then you didn't care that 9-11 happened. It was a climate of fear created to gain support for a BS war and to ridicule anone who dared speak out against those in charge.

This is Bush and the neo-cons war.  Nobody elses. 

Excellent post.  I couldn't agree more.

Jack, from everything I've read, seen, heard in the past couple of years it was the exact opposite.  The dems were almost completely shut out of the political process by the repubs.

I don't think the majority can blame not getting anything done on the minority.  They were the majority in the house and the senate and they had their guy as the president!  What else more did they need?

When Clinton lost his majority, he worked with the repubs to get things done.  Bush has never done anything even close to that.  its always been his way or no way.  look at how he wants to add more troops now when NOBODY is saying we should.  Yet he is completely ignoring his new congress and the american people.

In terms of working together, bush has done nothing to suggest he is going to do so.  In terms of the new congress, i'm not saying they are going to change the world, but in comparison to the repub congress of the last 6 years, i would bet they get a hell of a lot more done.  Not to mention I doubt we'll see any dem names in big name scandals (foley, cunningham, etc....)

Exactly my point. Bush presented what he knew was bogus intel to everybody as fact. The theory the right likes to use is that "They all had the same intel", which of course is false. Bush provided bogus "intel" as fact-he created the lie of the imminent "threat." Flagg insists that I am changing the subject, but it is clearly going over his head (no surprise there.)

I don't even need to touch on the time period in which it took place, where propaganda, paranoia, and name calling were the norm (just read any thread I posted on back during that time) to anybody who said "this is wrong." The media, in the stranglehold of corporate Amerikkka,was unable to ask the question "Do we have the correct intel here?". They just beat the war drum, created the sound bites, and packaged the war like a coming attraction-it was absolutely atrocious, and they are just as guilty as our liar -n-chief as far as I'm concerned.

You may also want to keep a close eye on the "Downing street memos" which will probably be experiencing a resurrection this year. Notice that Miers resigned -I'd put money down that Bush is assembling his defense (as they are already refusing to hand over various memos already) for the upcoming investigations. I can't wait to see what happens.

Agreed, the media never asked tough questions, did hardly any investigative reporting - I think Colberts speech to the press corps was when things turned around for the media.  I was waiting to laugh the whole time (it wasn't really comical) until it dawned on me that he wasn't joking around.

Regardless of who voted for what when, Bush is probably the only person left in the world who thinks staying in Iraq until "we achieve victory" is a good idea.

Anyways, way off topic - like I said, lets see what the new  congress can do before we make conclusions.  I have high hopes they'll be much more effective then the last congress.  Every poll I have seen has the american public firmly behind the Dems agenda....

One of the best bitch slaps I have seen for sometime. The deserved every last bit of it, and it wasn't long enough IMO.

I don't really feel that way. It's all a matter of opinion really because we aren't members of Congress and therefore do not know how exactly everything works..

As for the minority, majority thing... one of the great things about America (or bad things depending on how your perspective) is the power it gives to the minority. It isn't mob rule... just because you have more people doesn't mean you will win everything. Which in my opinion is a very good thing. It keeps things in check. The minority cannot have the power because they lack the numbers.. and the majority can't have too much power because of restrictions. 

In congress it's not like the minority is a small one either. It's usually pretty close. The Dems knew they had the power to stop the majority Republicans and therefore chose to do so... in my opinion it was for the worse, merely putting a cog into the machine. When a congress "gets nothing done" it's because BOTH sides choose to not agree on things. Most of the time the minority party should take a bow as they are in fact, only representing the minority. Which by the way is what most people forget, Congress is supposed to be a representation of the people and ONLY that.. it is supposed to serve the people, which is why I feel the Dems did a bad job as the minority, making it selfishly about a power struggle instead of representing the people properly. Not that Republicans are saints either.. no politician really looks out for the good of the people much anymore.. just that I feel they do a better job as the minority.

In the end though, just my opinion. If your opinion is different.. what does it matter you know? Were all friends here.  :beer:... most of us.. lol.

Peace.

Says the man who, just a few posts earlier, supported his position with a fictitious conversation based on his own supposition and emotional reaction to the dems taking office, and what his hyperbole opinion is of what will happen over the next 2 years.

The FACT is that the majority of congress does NOT have the kind of access to intelligence that the president has.  Not by a long shot.  What the president basically eluded to, in his "plea" to congress was that he, and is immediate cabinet and administration, had information they were not privy to.  He presented that information, which was not available from any other source, and failed to offer the qualification that the CIA had passed on TO HIM, and his administration.

By hook or by crook, most of Congress was decieved.  Lied to may be too strong, maybe, but then we're arguing semantics....Bush may very well have believed the info despite the CIA's "qualifications" of it.  He may not have intended to decieve them....but he certainly had more information than what he decided to pass along.

You may want to recheck the validity of that assertion.  The Repubs, actually, rebuked every attempt (early in their majority) by the Dems for compromise.  It was their way, or no way.  There was no bipartisanship because the Repubs refused to be bipartisan, by and large.  There is more than adequate documentation for this, and the Repubs very public, very nasty, lambasting of the Dem minority.


And once they finally took power, they were so giddy they refused to play nice with others.  Very well documented.  And look...the dems come to power and immediately try to make nice with the minority.....


Go back and read the coverage of the most recent session of Congress.  You'll see that it wasn't that the dems wouldn't cooperate, it was that the Repubs gave them no chance to compromise...no quarter on their agenda.  There was no WAY to cooperate....they were railroaded through the process.



And when you're in the minority for so long, it's hard not to get "drunk with power" once you're the majority.

I'll agree, though....our next pres needs to bring the two parties together, not further espouse partisanship like the current administration has done.

Exactly right.  The system is set up to give the minority some power in the process.


So the minority should HAVE the power to have an effect, but shouldn't USE that power?  That seems sort of wrongheaded.  The Dems blocked (when possible...which wasn't all that often) the Repubs because the Repubs refused to compormise at every turn.   That's not supposition and opinion, its a passing familiarity with a whole LOT of the reporting and documentation, some of it from the Repubs, themselves, that exists on the sesssions where the Dems were in the minority AND there was a Republican president.  The Repubs didn't need to compromise, so they simply ignored, berated, abused, and generally pissed on the Dems.....so, in return, in the few cases where they could use their minority power to actually either a) force the repubs to compromise or b) block the Repubs in doing something particularly "against" the dem ideology, they did it.  That sounds, to me, like the system working the way it should...the dems just couldn't block anything worthwhile enough to get the Repubs to sit down at the table to compromise....except, maybe, the approval of judges.

Pilferk, good posts.  The repubs had their agenda and the majority to push it through.  at no time did the words "compromise" enter their vocabulary.  It was their agenda or you were blasted to the press about how uncooperative and anti-american you were....

The Shape of Things to Come
By Bill Steigerwald
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 8, 2007


Major Garrett has been covering Congress for cable news outfits, newspapers and news magazines since 1990, when he was a reporter for The Washington Times. Now Fox News Channel?s congressional correspondent, Garrett spent Thursday on Capitol Hill, where the first Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in 12 years was sworn in. I called him to get his take on what changes and surprises we're likely to see this year in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House:

Q: Is this Democrat takeover of Congress really a big deal -- a historic deal?
A: It?s historic at two levels. One, for the first time in 12 years, Democrats will control the agenda in the House. Why does that matter? Well, we can?t spend a dollar or tax a dollar in America without first the consent of the House. So the party in control of the House says a lot about how we spend money and how we tax money in America.

Point two is, for the first time in American history the speaker will be a woman. It?s not just any woman. It?s Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California. One of the articles of faith of gender-politics is that you split both sides evenly -- gender and politics. Yes, she is a woman, but also she has a political record, and Nancy Pelosi historically has been among the most liberal members of Congress. Last year, according to National Journal, her voting record was more liberal than 91 percent of her colleagues.

Q: Do you think this ?takeover? will actually result in any important legislation?
A: I think there are a couple of things that will occur, most definitely. There will be some arrangement to raise the minimum wage. President Bush has already signaled that. Democrats want it. It?ll be up to Republicans and the White House to decide how much of a price they want Democrats to pay in terms of small-business tax breaks, but ultimately that?s going to get done.
The president also wants to work on immigration. Because the Democrats are much closer to his immigration policy than many of his House Republican colleagues, I think that has a good chance of getting done.

Also, I think there is movement afoot to deal with Social Security -- not on the president?s terms, not on post-2004 election terms of personal accounts, but entirely on Democrat terms, meaning no personal accounts or maybe something that bears some ghostly resemblance to a personal account, but higher taxes or some rejiggering of benefits along a much more traditional line of quote-unquote ?fixing? Social Security.

I can tell you Democrats and Republicans are moving in that direction, and the only ones who seem to be standing athwart of history screaming ?stop,? as Bill Buckley once said famously, are free-market conservatives.

Q: There are a few still left in the House.
A: One or two. They could caucus in a phone booth.

Q: What about President Bush?s call in The Wall Street Journal for compromises and bipartisanship? Does it have a chance?
A: Well, it does?. If the president can find votes with the majority of the Democrats and some moderate Republicans on some issues, he?s going to get his way on domestic policies.

It?ll be interesting to see how this new Democrat majority deals with Iraq. The president is going to have a new direction there, but there is already building tremendous intensity among the activist Democrat left for the new majority not to play ball. I would argue that Iraq at that level is a much bigger and more immediate headache for Democrats than it is for the president. It?s been a headache enough for the president, no doubt. This is going to be a simmering issue that will boil up to the surface within a matter of certainly months but possibly weeks.

Q: How nasty is this going to be in Congress? Is there going to be a lot of partisanship and a lot of gridlock?
A: I think Republicans are too shell-shocked right now to be nasty. Republicans are reacting to this defeat much differently than Democrats did when I covered the Republican Revolution of 1994 that manifested itself with the first Republican majority in the House in 40 years in 1995. Then Democrats were seething with anger and ready to find offense at the slightest provocation from Republicans, real or imagined.

As a matter of fact, (look at) this little debate that?s going on now about the Democrats moving their ?First 100 hours? agenda without any committee meetings or floor amendments. If Republicans had tried that when they came to power in 1995, the Democrats might have considered burning the Capitol down. Republicans are saying, ?Well, you know, OK, We?ll take them at their word. After the first 100 legislative hours they?ll give us some bites of the legislative apple.? That just shows you the difference. In the Contract With America, everything that went to the floor went through committees, had to withstand the acid test of Democratic amendments meant to peel away Republicans when they came to the floor; Amendments were offered, Democrats were able to marshal their resources and their wit and wisdom and offer their alternatives on the floor -- and Republicans passed everything. It was proof positive that they were not only willing to push their agenda but also subject it to a full and open debate. Democrats aren?t and Republicans are basically letting them get away with it.

Q: Beyond the ?100-hour agenda? will Democrats try to pass anything big or controversial?
A: Not without a handshake from the White House.

Q: Will the most liberal Democrats try to sabotage the troop surge or larger Iraq policy?
A: ?Sabotage? is not the right word. Congress has only one mechanism by which to alter war policy -- that is to deny funds. The central question Democrats have to ask themselves is: ?Do we deny funds or do we not?? That?s it. That?s all there is. They can do nothing else, because the commander in chief sets policy. So, there are many wise men and women in the Democrats' ranks who are counseling this new Democrat majority: ?Don?t cut the funds.? Because if you cut the funds, Democrats become co-authors of the next chapter of Iraq, meaning they are co-responsible, equally responsible.

 

Right now the leadership?s position is: pressure for a change, pressure for a new direction, see if that works and see how long they can tamp down this activists? revolt in their ranks, which is more grass-roots than at the member level right now. But if the grass-roots get fully motivated it will get to the member level and will become a voting matter by summer.

Q: So the Democrats are not going to get too crazy? They?re not going to try to roll back the tax cuts or start subpoenaing people?
A: Those are two completely different questions. On taxes, the first thing Democrats are going to try to do is prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting another tranche of upper-middle-class taxpayers. Actually, Democrats are going to be trying to shield the middle-class and the upper-middle-class from the alternative minimum tax. That?s the first thing they are going to do when it comes to tax policy. That will be welcomed by many taxpayers who might suddenly find themselves unexpectedly paying higher taxes -- because they are defined by a 1971 bit of mathematics put into the tax code -- as being obscenely wealthy in America, when obviously they are not.

But subpoenas are a totally different thing. This Congress is going to define itself by investigating the White House up one side and down the other. The investigative mechanism of Congress will be brought to bear fully on Iraq. Because that?s the mechanism by which Democrats tell their activists they?re dealing with Iraq: ?Hey, we?re investigating. We?re oversighting them. If there were crimes, we?re going to get them punished? and things like that. That?s going to be their safety valve to not have to immediately defund or reduce funds for the war.

Q: Will the conservatives -- the fiscally sound conservatives, all four of them -- will they unite and return to their lost conservative values to combat the Democrats?
A: They might. But that?s not what?s going to be what gets it done. I spent four years covering the Republicans when they were in a minority and the Democrat majority in Congress was basically in its death throes. What Republicans did was they stopped just saying, ?We want something cheaper.? They started saying, ?We want something better? and they actually went through the hard work of creating what that better thing would be; that is to say, new ideas to reshape existing government programs along the lines of efficiency or cost-savings or maybe getting rid of regulations that had long outlived their usefulness. That?s what works in American politics.

Right now, Republicans are too dispirited to say, ?Oh, we?ve got religion. We want to do it cheaper.? That?s not going to get it done. That?s not going to create a political following necessary to get them back in power. They?re going to have to put the shoulder to the wheel and ask hard questions and come up with some innovative answers about how to make what they have work better, smarter and cheaper. Whether they?re up to that, I don?t know.

Q: Do you see President Bush learning how to use the veto pen?
A: I do -- as a matter of necessity. But his first response will not be the veto pen. His first response will be, ?Can we cut a deal.? The president is, as all presidents are, acutely aware of his diminished role in American life. He?s still the president but he has a weaker hand to play than ever before. So in certain respects he has to come on bended knee. He will seek accommodation first and wield the veto pen only as a last resort.

Q: What will Nancy Pelosi accomplish or try to accomplish that may surprise us?
A: I think we may find the San Francisco liberal -- who opposed the war, who organized her Democratic caucus in the House to speak out against the war -- in the position of straddling a quote-unquote ?consensus? or ?accommodationist? role against her left wing in order to protect the president?s policy -- at least in 2007. You may find in the not-too-distant future liberals denouncing Nancy Pelosi as an Iraq War sellout.

Bush to announce Iraq plan on Wednesday

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -
President Bush will address the nation at 9 p.m. EST Wednesday about his new approach for the war in
Iraq, the White House said. Bush is expected to announce an increase of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops.

Bush's decisions, more than two months in the making, already are drawing criticism from new Democratic leaders in Congress who say it is time to begin ending the war, not to send in more U.S. forces.

Now in its fourth year, the war has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military and was a major factor in the Republicans' loss of Congress in the November election. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Bush in a letter last week that "we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

Snow said he contacted television networks Monday morning to request air time for the president's speech, to be delivered at the White House. He said the administration welcomes a debate about Bush's new policy.

"I think it's important to get congressional support," the spokesman said. Yet he would not say whether Bush will seek specific congressional approval for his new strategy.

"Rather than me jumping out and talking about resolutions and budget items and all that, I'm not going to do it," Snow said. "But there will be a debate about the particulars in the way forward, as there should be. We welcome it."

Pelosi on Sunday cautioned Bush to think twice before proposing a troop increase, suggesting the new Democratic-controlled Congress could deny him the funding.

But the Senate's top Republican said he believed that Bush will get the money he needs and cast doubt that Democrats would ? or could ? block him. "Congress is incapable of micromanaging the tactics in the war," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

In issuing her warning, Pelosi made clear that her party supported boosting the overall military size "to protect the American people against any threats to our interests" and would not cut off money for troops already in Iraq.

But Bush will not get a blank check for an open-ended commitment there, she said. Any funding he seeks for additional forces in Iraq ? Bush's expected plan could send as many as 20,000 more U.S. troops ? will get the "harshest scrutiny."

"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."

"There's not a carte blanche, a blank check for him to do whatever he wishes there," she added in an interview taped Saturday and broadcast Sunday.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq,
Afghanistan and other terrorism-fighting efforts. The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds ? a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush's Feb. 5 budget.

While leading Democrats reaffirmed their opposition to a troop buildup, several did not join Pelosi in suggesting it was possible Congress could deny Bush the money for the additional forces.

"I don't want to anticipate that," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

"As a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop,'" said Biden, D-Del., unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in persuading Bush that the strategy is wrong.

First off - is Tony Snow the biggest douche on TV right now or what?  People aren't buying the 9-11/Iraq tie in anymore.  It blows me away to see him still saying the two in the same sentence.  There were hardly any terrorists in Iraq until AFTER we attacked!!

Secondly, it sounds like its not up to the Dem congress to deny funds - unless an overwhelming majority says so - so will the repubs do the right thing and stand up to Bush? 

Pilferk I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were right. Especially if you feel like you know it for a fact. I only hear things you know? And sources could definitely be wrong/ biased..

Sorry I announced some things as "fact." I usually try to let people know its only my opinion.

 :beer:

Hanna, what part aren't you seeing.? Snow isn't saying Iraq was tied into 9/11.? What he's saying is that Iraq is a breeding ground now for terrorists.? If America pulls out completely, the terrorist, now much better organized, will strike America again.? The point he is making, and I have echoed many times, is that it is better to force them to fight us in Iraq where they are unorganized and running scared, rather than pull out letting them establish themselves and striking.? It was obviously clear this is what he meant.? However, as it so often happens, you read what you wanted to see.

The Democrats aren't going to deny any funds.? Doing so would be political suicide.? Like all smart politicians, the Democrats are going to try to find the best way to leave Iraq and minimize political attention - meaning no one in a position of power seriously thinks we should just pull out tomorrow.? As my article explained, the idea is floating around at the very far left, grass roots level and the Dems want to stomp it out quickly.

We all agree that Iraq is a cluster fuck right?? Is it not fair to say Iraq will become much worse if America and England completely pull out, the "terrorist" won't be hiding any more and actively train and recruit?? When they strike America, those who called for an immediate pull out will be more to blame for the attack than Bush for invading.? Democrats don't want that stigma; they'll fund the war.

Running scared? Unorganized?  Never discredit your enemies guy.....these terrorists may not have the military structure of the US, but they've put up quite the fight don't you think?  I have yet to see them "running scared" as attacks are at one of their highest levels.  They're just not fighting a battlefield war.  I mean the US military is touted as the strongest in the world and yet...they're not winning.  Seems like this goes back to the original mistake made by the Bush administration as he descredited and ignored these problems.

They can't stay in one place.  They're excellent at guerilla tactics, but pulling off an organized terrorist attack like 9/11 isn't feasible - yet.  Allow them the comfort and stability of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and we'll be hit again.  I don't want to stay in Iraq to bring them peace and freedom -  I really don't care.  I want to stay in Iraq because we will have to go back if we don't finish the job.  Just look at Germany from WWI and WWII - the job wasn't finished so bam! 100x wore 20 years later.  The same thing will happen in Iraq.  You're going to have years of turmoil and instability - but radical Islam will be the stabalizing factor rather than National Socialism. 

We stay in Iraq, they remain unorganized and on the move.  We pull out without some safe guards, we're going to be sorry.  And pointing fingers at Bush for getting us there isn't going to justify pulling out immediately nor will it bring back the thousands that will suffer.

What, specifically, is "the job"?

The job was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and install a pro-US government full of democracy which the people of Iraq have rejected.  As for Afghanistan being a safe haven for Bin Laden.....don't you think that's also the US's fault?  I mean wasn't that our first whole reason for entering foreign soil in the first place?  Bin Laden openly admitted to being the backing force of the 9/11 attacks, however we decided to say oh well.....we got the Taliban out of power and split them up, let's move on and attack Iraq because Saddam and Osama are buddy boys!  Intel proven false, ignored, who cares, let's attack anyway.  Meanwhile Osama has been hiding now for years laughing at the pathetic attempts to find him.  Instead of doing a door to door terrorist search in Iraq, shouldn't US forces be checking every nook and cranny in Afghanistan to find Osama?  I mean couldn't they have covered the whole territory and found him by now instead of spending the last 4 years in that cluster fuck in Iraq?

the problem with WW1 and then WW2 was not finishing the job as you say... i guess would have been a rather total elimination of germany in ww1 from your prespective, but was through the inefective LoN and failures from france and britian to stand up and sit down or we'll knock you down years prior to the german break out. And then actually stepping up to the plate when germany was in total violation of the treaty of from ww1.

the thing is... the US has won the war against the iraqi goverment of saddam. hell they won the war in recor time crushing t he military of iraq like it did not exist. The problem is not so much as the us being the strongest military in the world not being able to defeat this gurrila enemy, it is the fact that there were far to ew soilders on the ground from the onset of the invasion, resulting in a need for a fst and non protracted ground ofensive to bring about a decisive victory. if the ground numbers were closer to that of GW1 a fast strike could have been accomplished in baghdad, with a slower search and secure to find all the weapons caches and military hardware that could be used against the US forces today.

this slower march would have resulted in higher losses in the earlier days / weeks but a more stable iraq now.

Dude your avatar is going to get me fired from work and you might get a call from the FBI....  :hihi:

To line up oil contracts for Exxon, Shell, BP etc.

Yep that was it, you nailed it.? Bush is an evil man who lied about Iraq so his buddies could make millions.? He orchestrated 9/11 and has chuckled while thousands of young men have been slaughtered and even more men and women injured.

Oh wait, that's a total crock of bullshit based on on hearsay and conspiracy.? Every time you associate yourself with the mainstream I chuckle.? SLC, I will finance a TV ad for you to go on and spill the beans.? All I ask is that you make it ever clear that you represent the ideals of the Democrat party.? Please, I beg you do, do this.? I can see it now, SLC single handedly gives Republicans the 2008 election.

Either your sarcasim is poorly expressed or you missed my point.? I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.? But some people believe Bush orchestrated 9/11 so he could gain support for an invasion of Iraq.? Those people would do better in Oz than in our world.

I sure am, they are getting ready to bring a law in front of the Iraqi parliament in a few days that will do just that.

Well, back on topic...

When premier Bush spews forth his 'plan' for the surge on weds, I will be very curious to see how the dems react. ?they are strongly hinting they might deprive him of the funds for EXTRA troops while still giving him money to support the troops already stationed there.

This surge is pathetic. ?If any of the surge troops are KIA, their blood is on Bush's hands. ?How dare he play god with their lives like this just to satisfy his own ego. ?It really makes my blood boil. ?the man can not face the facts - he was 110% wrong. ?Yet despite what EVERYONE is saying, even members of his own party are telling him hes wrong, the media, the american public - he simply doesn't care. ?he is going to show us all that we were all wrong and he was right.

what a f'ing douche.

is he "an evil man"? ?No, just a major dumb, shit for brains, fuck-tard.

I love when people completely miscategorize someones viewpoints to create hyperbole.  It's so much fun....

I don't think many have said Bush is evil.  But the assertion that this war was as much about securing a position for US oil interests, as it was about preventing terrorism or any evidence of WMD's, isn't so far afield. 

If you can honestly sit there and say that the guys running this administration didn't give serious discussion to the benefits of having a democratic outpost in an oil rich area of the world, you are deluding yourselves.  Was it the single impetus to invade Iraq?  I doubt it.  Was it a factor in the decision making process?  I'm absolutely sure that it was.  Why? Because if we're discussing it, I'm sure THEY (meaning the administration as a whole) were discussing it.  I'm sure they also were sick of Saddam being a thorn in the US's side.  I'm sure they suspected there were WMD's (but were wrong) around.  I'm sure they expected to find a whole rash of "shit" when they actually got on the ground.  Turns out, their speculation wasn't well founded, and they were wrong.....So, while all those were factors in the decision, it turns out they were all incorrect.  So it's not hard to turn around and say, in the end, one of the only reasons left as valid (granted, they didn't necessarily know it at the time) was oil.

But, staying there, after the initial invasion, was all about installing a bastion on democracy in the Middle East....and THAT, again,  had as much to do with securing our oil futures as it had to do with trying to give us an outpost in an unfriendly area, and instilling stability in an unstable area.  AS MUCH TO DO WITH.....not soley to do with.  It so happens that the second 2 reasons brought the terrorists out of the woodwork, since it was an easy sell to the locals that we were going to implement a long term occupation and "repatriotization"...and it was a static front that they could make "PR-type gains" in.  They don't have to "win" actual battles...all they have to do is continue to kill our soldiers and make us look like bufoons, on the military strategy front.  And that leads us to the mess we're in now.

I know these are pretty off topic - but I think they are hysterical:

"Big day. Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House. Experts say Pelosi is now the most powerful non-Oprah woman."
---Conan O'Brien


Starting January 23rd Canadians will need a passport to get into the United States. This is to discern non U.S. citizens from U.S. citizens. Look, all we need to do is look at the people with big bags of cheap prescription drugs to know which ones are Americans.
---Jay Leno


"They executed Saddam Hussein. I guess that means that whole Iraqi thing is over. We can all go home now..."
---David Letterman


"President Bush is claiming that a new postal law gives him the authority to read anyone's letters without a warrant. If you're upset about the law, you can let Bush know by writing to your sister."
---O'Brien

"President Bush is expected to announce that he is now sending more troops to Iraq, despite the fact that his general, his military analysts, members of congress, and most of the American people are against the idea. The reason he's doing it? To give Iraq a government that responds to the will of the people."
---Leno

glad u approve ;)

Didn't the republican one liberate like 50 million oppressed people?  I'd say if the dems can match that they will have done well.  Raising the minimum wage nothing but hurting the small business owner.  No one making minimum wage is supporting a family.  They have a job at minimum wage to supplment their income, not as a primary source.  As usual, the dems can't keep their eye on the ball. 

How do you know that?

Very well put. ?I agree with this 100%. ?

Of course I was exaggerating.  But typically, people with minimum wage jobs have those jobs as second or third jobs.  Or in some cases, one spouse will have a large income and the other will take a part time minimum wage job to supplement their income.  A small percentage of people are living off a minimum wage job.  I've read enough of your posts here to know you understand this SLC.  So, it follows that raising the minimum wage serve to hurt the small business owner while providing no real benefit otherwise but in isolated cases.  We should not be making policy based on isolated cases, but rather on what helps the majority.  At least in my twisted opinion.  :)

Hmmm...I'm calling a red flagg.

Were you somebody else in another life ?

Where are you getting your information from? Or is your post nothing but speculation?  Even if it is just a "small percentage" shouldn't those people, paying taxes, earning an honest wage, be able to afford everyday things?  The fed minimum wage hasn't been raised in a decade!!!  The price of everything has gone up since then.

ask yourself how much gas prices have gone up in decade, now imagine you're still earning 5 an hour and figure out how you'd be able to drive to work.....

Your New Congress at Work...

WASHINGTON - Anti-terror legislation sailed through the House on Tuesday, the first in a string of measures designed to fulfill campaign promises made by Democrats last fall.

Patterned on recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the far-reaching measure includes commitments for inspection of all cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft and on ships bound for the United States.

The vote was a bipartisan 299-128, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) took the rostrum to announce the passage of the first legislation to clear under the new Democratic majority.

Democrats said the bill's passage was a top priority.

"Our first and highest duty as members of this Congress is to protect the American people, to defend our homeland and to strengthen our national security," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

Several Republicans criticized the legislation as little more than political posturing in the early hours of a new Democratic-controlled Congress. Democrats want to "look aggressive on homeland security. This bill will waste billions of dollars, and possibly harm homeland security by gumming up progress already under way," said Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.

I think it shows they are actually DOING Something about homeland security!!  and as for wasting billions and increasing the number of terrorists.....one word...wait for it......Iraq.

In a written statement, the Bush administration listed several objections and said it could not support the measure as drafted, but stopped short of a veto threat.

Democrats have pledged to make fiscal responsibility a priority in the new Congress, but they advanced the bill ? their first of the year ? without even a bare-bones accounting of the estimated cost. The funding will require follow-up legislation.

Legislation introduced in the Senate a year ago to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission had a price tag of more than $53 billion over five years.

and how much has the war in iraq  cost us and how much less safer has it made us.....so very interesting isn't it???

The terrorism legislation is the first of six measures the House is expected to pass in its first 100 hours in session under Democratic control.

Next up is an increase in the minimum wage ? set for passage on Wednesday ? followed by relaxation of the limits on stem cell research conducted with federal funds and a measure directing the administration to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare recipients.

Next week, the Democrats intend to clear legislation to cut the interest rate on student loans and to curtail tax breaks for the energy industry.

Each of the six bills would go to the Senate, and it could be months ? if then ? before they reach the White House.

Already, President Bush has signaled he would veto the stem cell bill, which is opposed by abortion foes. House supporters of the measure conceded at a news conference during the day that they do not have the two-thirds support needed to override a veto.

Depending on the outcome of that struggle, said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., "400,000 embryos will either be wasted or utilized to cure a disease."

The House labored over the terrorism bill as the Senate began work on legislation enacting stricter ethics rules ? and Democrats continued to gain from last fall's elections.

Officials said that four of Bush's controversial appeals court appointees, their chances for confirmation doomed in the Democratic-controlled Senate, would not be renominated.

The four are William Haynes, William Myers, Terrence Boyle and Michael Wallace, all of whom were prevented from coming to votes last year when the Senate was under Republican control.

"The president is disappointed in this inaction and hopes that the days of judicial obstructionism are beyond us," said Dana Perino, deputy White House spokeswoman.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., saw it differently. "Democrats stand ready to work with the administration to confirm judges who are not extremists, either left or right," he said.

In the House, passage of the anti-terror bill coincided with an email from the Democratic campaign committee touting the party's agenda for its first 100 hours in power, and asking for a contribution for the 2008 elections.

Democrats said the bill would enact virtually all of the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and several members of the rank and file remarked that Republicans had failed to do so in five years since planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and scarred the Pennsylvanian countryside.

"Don't be fooled by those who say that this bill is moving too quickly," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (news, bio, voting record), D-Miss. "It has been five years since 9/11. It has been three years since the 9/11 commission issued its report."

"The fact is that the bipartisan 9/11 commission gave the last Congress F's and D's in implementing its recommendations," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. "This Congress is determined to earn its A's in implementing its recommendations."

Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., noted disapprovingly that screeners at the Transportation Security Agency would receive collective bargaining rights under the bill.

And Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., said the measure "gives false hope to the American people" because technology for scanning all cargo containers is not yet available.

The legislation directs the Homeland Security Department to establish a system for inspecting all cargo carried on passenger aircraft over the next three years. It also requires scanning of all containers bound for the U.S., using the best available technology. Large ports would be given three years to comply, smaller ports five years.

While much of the debate revolved around the provisions dealing with cargo, the bill also requires the government to take the risk of terror attacks into greater account when distributing homeland security grants to the 50 states.

The measure also would centralize the government's efforts at preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and would take steps to disrupt the black market for nuclear material.

"We will not be safe here as long as the worst weapons can fall into the worst hands," said Rep. Rick Larsen (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash.

The measure also establishes a new program of grants to make sure local governments can communicate effectively in the event of a crisis.

One of the tragedies of 9/11 was the deaths of New York firefighters who were trapped inside the World Trade Center and could not hear urgent warnings to evacuate that were broadcast on police radios.

A companion measure, to establish a new House subcommittee with jurisdiction over intelligence matters, cleared on a vote of 239-188.

actualy this is a quite possible outcome to occur, however expect that thre will be tax breaks for small busineses so that they can adapt to the new increased min wage

At cursory glance, it seems logical, right?

Except, well....it's not, necessarily, true.

First off, there is a good portion of the population working at minimum wage.  It's something to the effect of 15 million people (about 11% of the workforce). 

Second, to assert that those, making solely minimum wage, are not, as a large group, simply "supporting a family" but are earning "supplementary income" is something I'd like to see proof of.  It sounds good, I'm sure, to those against a minimum wage increase, but it sounds strangely like "loose science" propaganda, too.  I'd say, if it's 11% of the work force, I'd want to see demographic breakdowns to show we're not talking about 11% of families working below the poverty line, with a single parent...or just over it with 2 minimum wage incomes.

On hurting the small business....how?  By making them pay their workers more?  Again, that sounds good to some.  But you're not taking into account that there ARE those using minimum wage jobs to supplement their incomes, just like you pointed out in your post....and there are things that those earning minimum wage and supporting families on it need and want.  And guess what?  Raising that minimum wage gives them more income....and probably more disposable income.  And they're going to spend that money.  So who's the beneficiary of that?  The small business person.  You don't think they will reap at least $80 per week, per FTE, in increased business?  Maybe not, but the EPI studies in '98, associated with the 96-97 minimum wage increase actually showed job GROWTH, accross every sector (including small businesses) after the minimum wage increase. Studies in 90 and 91 showed the same sorts of things...with job growth being static or better.  A recent FPI study showed there is virtually NO negative impact of a minimum wage increase on the small business...it worked out, largely, to, at least, a "wash".  It's trickle down economics at it's finest.

In addition, there are MANY economic models that show that a minimum wage increase actually can SAVE small businesses money....because they can absorb  some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.  They're models, to be sure, but reputable ones at least.

The big problem with the minimum wage is that it's not actually attached to any economic indicator.  So, as years pass, and inflation rises....the minimum wage doesn't.  In THAT scenario, the small business is now paying what is essentially below inflation wage rates...and they make more money because of it.  Every 10 years-ish, there is an equalizer to bring the wage back up to market/inflation adjusted levels.  The argument that it "hurts the economy" or "hurts small business" is a long standing one...and it has never turned out to be true.

Well pilf with summer raises to min wage here small business received tax breaks to offset the increased cost they would incuur...... this was only for 36 months... and it actually aidd both the smal business and the worker as it ended up being a more stable work eniroment then it as befre

I would expect we'll see some of that, too...it certainly wouldn't surprise me.  36 months is 3 years time.....if you have one "adjustment" every 10 years, it means that, once again, the small business owners are making up the cost by the tax breaks, and then, likely, inflation (prices go up but their labor cost does not).

Here in CT, our state minimum wage is already at (or just over, actually) the proposed federal minimum, so it's unlikely to have any effect, at all.  It hasn't, from the studies that are out there, had any notable effect on small businesses.

I am curious to see the speech tonight and the Dems reaction.

IF his speech contains what all the news outlets are reporting it will,I think we can predict that.  Outrage.  Indignation.  Anger. Disappointment.  But an explanation in tomorrows paper, on tomorrows news casts, and on every news web site on the planet, that there is precious little they can do to force the CIC into a direction more to their liking....short of holding up funding which they won't do because they don't want to put our troops in any more danger than they are, already.

Are the Democrats thru giving "thank you's" to each other yet?


If so, I would really like to see the Democrats stop the Mexican invasion of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and deport those who are in this country illegally. And also crack down on those employers who hire illegals and fine them enormously.

Breaking CNN: House passes minimum wage raise 315 - 116.

Up to $7.25, over two years.

Internet Freedom Preservation Act is introduced

By WILLIAM TRIPLETT

WASHINGTON -- Democrats, who all but sank major communications reform legislation in the previous congressional session over the issue of so-called 'Net neutrality, marked the first day of the new Congress by introducing a bill that will mandate 'Net neutrality, which is intended to guarantee the equal accessibility and flow of content over the Internet.

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act, sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), "would ensure that broadband service providers do not discriminate against Internet content, applications or services by offering preferential treatment," according to a statement by Dorgan.

Without a federal mandate for 'Net neutrality, Dorgan said, broadband providers could be "gatekeepers capable of deciding which content can get through to consumers, and which content providers could get special deals, faster speeds and better access to the consumer."

The bill "marks another step toward ensuring the fate of the Internet lies in the hands of its users and not the hands of a few gatekeepers," Snowe said in a statement. "The tide has turned in the debate between those who seek to maintain equality and those who would benefit from the creation of a toll road on the Internet superhighway."

Last year, the GOP-controlled Senate tried to move a massive communications reform bill that included changes to national video franchising rules. Democrats tried but failed to attach a 'Net neutrality amendment to the bill while still in committee. While some Republicans supported their effort, Democrats took the lead in threatening a filibuster should the bill come to a floor vote without any provisions for 'Net neutrality. As a result, the bill never made it to the floor.

Legislation requires broadband service providers to operate networks in a nondiscriminatory manner, while leaving them free to protect the security of the network or offer different levels of broadband connection to users.

Consumer groups hailed the bill. "This bill will help ensure that consumers will continue to enjoy the competitive and affordable services that broadband has brought them and that big telecommunications companies cannot use their networks to hinder consumers' access to those services," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union, in a statement.

Opponents of 'Net neutrality say a federal mandate is a solution in search of a problem "that doesn't exist," said Peter Davidson, Verizon senior VP for federal government relations.

"Most policymakers will focus on how to increase broadband deployment, and wonder how 'Net regulation advances that goal," Davidson added. "It's ironic that this bill is introduced at the same time the Consumer Electronics Show is filling the news with broadband-enabled innovations. There is a disconnect between consumers' desires for new products and services and the stifling effects of this bill."

Both the Motion Picture Assn. of American and the Recording Industry Assn. of America declined to comment on the bill. Officials at the MPAA have said that member companies are still split over whether 'Net neutrality will be good or bad for business.

Co-sponsors of the bill include Dem Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.).

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957029.html?categoryid=1064&cs=1

You got the wrong group in control to see this.  The Dems don't have any interest in stopping the invasion.  They will probably want to increase welfare to them.   :hihi:

Net neutrality is a great idea.

I don't need the internet turning into the mobile phone industry.

"ONLY TIME WARNER CABLE ALLOWS YOU TO BROWSE ON MYSPACE!" ect.

Cause thats what their trying to stop right?

The internet should always be a free place man...

Its about time...

But THANK GOD the rich people got all those tax breaks b/c they REALLY needed them you know  : ok:

yeah, having control of congress for a few days - i mean, how come they haven't addressed this yet?? Too busy with the minimum wage and corrupt congress, and 9-11 commission implementations and this thing in Iraq or something....

 The last congress had 6 years and a repub in the white house and they did TONS to battle illegal immigration....oh...wait.

they didn't do much of anything did they?

You are acting like flag burning and Shiavo media attention wasn't getting anything done. Give them some credit.

Whoa guys wait.....don't forget the giant chain link fence they were going to put all the way across the Mexican/American border......that would have been incredible and would have stopped a trillion people going across it.........oh wait, I'm being naive again!

You're right, I fogot how important Shiavo was.

pop quiz folks...

which of these events made Bush fly back to DC while on vacation?

 a) warned a month before 9/11 that Osama was determined to attack America.
 b) terror alert raised to red after the discovery of a plot to bomb ten American airliners.
 c) to sign a law to "save" Terry Schiavo?

hehe, I can tell you which ones he did not.

was it option C?

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!

you win 2 more years of a lame duck president! Congratulations!  : ok:

oh god please dont bring that freacking threads back to life on that.... i was ready to fly in a shoot her myself... just to shut people up

The rich people are the ones driving the economy.  People making minimum wage are not growing our economy.  When you give tax breaks to the rich, it stimulates the economy in a huge way.  I never understand when people get mad at tax breaks for the rich.  Hell they pay a huge percentage of the overall income tax in the country already.  I forget the number, but it's a huge percentage.  The rich deserve tax breaks just as much or more so than the poor.  It's because of them that our economy thrives.

Like this congress will find out, it's hard to implement a plan when the other side opposes it.  If the republicans (and democrats for that matter), had no opposition, they could and would implement change on the border.  But neither side sees eye to eye so it doesn't get done.  The liberals won't get anything done on the mexican invasion either. 

Is that what your eight ball says?

We won't be able to count on this jerk for helping with illegal immigrants!  :rant:

Massachusetts governor says police won't arrest illegal immigrants

(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070111/capt.mabt10301112002.patrick_immigration_mabt103.jpg?x=180&y=201&sig=YhCxaHxdJ_nijy0lLQ9.DQ--)


By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 11, 3:03 PM ET


BOSTON - Newly elected Gov. Deval Patrick said Thursday he is rescinding a month-old policy imposed by his predecessor that allowed state troopers to arrest illegal immigrants.

The Democrat said he is replacing it with a program to deport convicted criminals serving time in state prisons.

Patrick said the shift would free troopers to focus on gun, gang and drug crimes, while removing illegal immigrants after they complete their sentences.

"I think that strikes the right balance between our responsibility to assure public safety and our responsibility to respond to the concerns about illegal immigration," he said.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, who is considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, announced just before leaving office that the state would allow state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws.

No one had been arrested under the program, the result of an agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, since the troopers had not completed their training.

Under the new initiative, a dozen Correction Department employees will review the status of convicts and consider them for deportation.

Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke said the State Police worried that their expanded duties would take time away from their central law enforcement duties and compromise troopers' ability to gather intelligence and solve crimes in immigrant communities.

Burke estimated there are 700 illegal immigrants in state custody.

Patrick said if prisoners are determined to be illegal immigrants, "they're out of here" after they complete their sentence.

ICE has signed similar agreements with correction officials in California, Florida and Arizona.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_us/massachusetts_immigration

oh please, they keep the cash for themselves.  have you read about the insane bonuses these CEOs are getting?  either they are getting paid or the stock holders are.  Trickle down economics is bullshit and you know it Flagg.

and who is talking about tax breaks for the poor?  Its the middle class who gets fucked in the ass.

i think you're one of a very small group of people who has this issue on their radar right now.  funny with the shit storm in iraq you guys are trying to change the subject.  why not dig up a thread about gays and christian rights or something.  oh wait, you already did that.  nevermind. 

who needs Nyquil to go to sleep, just read your posts...total snoozefest.

I am sure that all the CEOs just hoard the millions and swim around in pools filled with it. They never SPEND any thus putting money into the economy.  Sheesh, talk about clueless. Businesses don't lose profit when taxes go up, they just raise the price and the consumer pays more... you know them, the middle class you speak of.

Drew's in the same boat: SS-keep-the-subject-off-Iraq.

Aww but c'mon, who's got time to worry about Iraq, when you got those gays out there going against God's will.  Everytime a gay couple wants to gets married, the terrorists win!

For pure consumerism dollars spent, the middle class is far and away the larger number.... because there's a lot more of them.  While the "rich" spend more, per capita, the total middle class spending number dwarfs it.  Logic would dictate you give more spending power to the group that does the most amount of spending, or a group you'd LIKE to do more spending, not the group who, for all intents and purposes, have pretty much maximized their spending power (the "rich).

Just to stem the request for a "source":  The Department of Labor?s Consumer Expenditure Survey.

I love Pilferk's posts - hes able to articulate most of my sentiments/thoughts better then I can myself.  : ok:

How low can he go??

WASHINGTON - Public approval of Congress has edged up a bit now that Democrats are back in control, but it's still nothing to write home about. Approval for the way Congress is handling its job rose to 32 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll, up from a meager 27 percent a month earlier. That puts Congress on par with President Bush, whose 32 percent approval rating represents a new low for him in AP-Ipsos polling.

So if you want the middle class to have more money to spend, would it make sense to raise taxes on the rich so they raise prices on the goods that the middle class is going to hopefully buy? Hmmm not in my book it don't.

wow.oh my god. christ your funny.. im stil laughing. thanks man that was about the funniest thing i have read. LOL......

funny or stupidiest??  ???

Eh hem...aside from displaying an incredible lack of knowledge of how the free market economy actually works.....let's address some points:

First off, The "rich" don't raise prices on the goods that the middle class consume.  Corporations and businesses do.  The "rich" are consumers (that CEO you mentioned, FYI), more affluent with larger resources, just like you and me.  That was rather the point of my post.  The "rich" spend more per person, but the size of that group is so much smaller than the middle class, as whole, that the final dollar number is HEAVILY weighted on the side of the middle class.

Secondly, There are also, basically, two ENTIRELY different tax codes for consumers and for businesses (with many, many gradiations in each...I'm not going to get into all the specifics and I'm simplifying, for sure, for anyone that takes issue).  So cutting taxes on the middle class, or raising taxes of the wealthy CONSUMERS is not going to have one iota of an efffect on corporations and most businesses (I don't know of many large DBA's or Sole proprietorships out there, which are the only business type that personal tax code changes might effect...and from the numbers I've seen MOST of those types of businesses wouldn't earn enough taxable income to be effected, anyway.  High earning businesses typically end up as LLC type things, or wholely owned inc's.).

Third, and perhaps most importantly, IF there was a tax increase for "wealthy" corporations/businesses, corporations and businesses can try to pass along increased tax burden to the consumer..that's true..but only to the extent that they can keep their prices within the acceptable level of the consumer AND continue to be a business that the consumer will buy from.    That limit is what keeps our free market economy going....the law of supply and demand, and all it's various tenets.  The corporation has to supply a product at a price the consumer will pay...or demand will dwindle, their revenue will tank, and they'll soon find themselves filing for bankruptcy.

Again, historically speaking...our economy tends to boom when the middle class increases in size, and gets more spending power.  When it gets smaller in size, and/or spends less...those corporations everyone is so worried about see their revenues tank...and they pay less taxes as a result, too.  See how this works?

you decide... lol


but read the above from pilfric. its close on what i had save in word for when someone asked that question

Me three.




Any good post starts with a great throat clear, which I have yet to master.




I love you bro, but why do you still type with your nose after all these years?

Thanks, guys, for the kind words.

Condileeza Rice sure got sliced up......jeesh!

Lets see...we had:

Outrage.  Check
Indignation.  Check
Anger.  Check
Disappointment. Check

Pretty much the response I expected...and the expected "distancing" from the decision by the Dems (and even some Repubs).

If I were Condi, I'd demand more money (and start wondering if GW makes these decisions, and then throws her in front of the firing squad, as some sort of sick joke).

What are we referring to here? it sounds awesome and i want to know more!

lol today i blame it on ths stupid laptop keyboard. and my newfieness

Condi was before one of the Senate committees on Thursday, before her trip.  They weren't kind.

Did you guys hear about Condi plugging her boys at Fox news???? I thought that shit was hilarious....another example of a microphone malfunction.

Rice: "My Fox Guys, I Love Every One Of Them"


Following reports that Fox News Channel is the only cable news channel permitted to be switched on in the White House comes a report suggesting that it may also enjoy special status in the State Department, too. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was overheard remarking over an open microphone between interviews Thursday, "My Fox guys, I love every single one of them." Later, however, she remarked that she would like to do an interview with Harry Smith on CBS's The Early Show. "He's a decent guy. I know they are like 55 in the ratings, but I like him." It could not be determined what her ratings figure referred to.

O'Reilly probably got a special tingle when he heard that.

The score thus far for your new congress in the first 100 hours, only one more bill left on the agenda with PLENTY of time to spare...........

The others passed so far would:

_Make the government negotiate for lower Medicare prescription drug prices. It passed last Friday.

_Expand federally funded stem cell research. It passed Jan. 11.

_Raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 26 months. It passed Jan. 10.

_Bolster terrorism-fighting efforts with more cargo inspections. It passed Jan. 9.

Democrats also won approval of internal House rule changes dealing with ethics, lobbying and budgeting. They were passed on Jan. 4-5, the first two days of the new Congress

Real ethical Congress it will be.... John Murtha, my boy!

You can't possibly be comparing Murtha to Foley and Cunningham.  Sad repubs STILL trying to find SOMETHING or SOMEONE to demonize aren't you?  Keep looking  :rofl: