What has the Democratic congress done for America since 2006? [Archive]

View Full Version : What has the Democratic congress done for America since 2006?

Methuser

06-26-2008, 06:18 PM

Democrats Passed First Minimum Wage Increase in a Decade. “The nation's lowest-paid workers will soon find extra money in their pockets as the minimum wage rises 70 cents to $5.85 an hour today, the first increase in a decade. It ends the longest span without a federal minimum wage increase since it was enacted in 1938. The previous increase came in September 1997, when a bill signed by President Bill Clinton raised the minimum 40 cents, to $5.15 an hour. Legislation signed by President Bush in May increases the wage 70 cents each summer until 2009, when all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.” [Associated Press, 7/24/07]

Democrats Passed War Spending Bill that Included $6 Billion for Hurricane Relief. “The war spending bill provides about $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30 and billions in domestic projects, including more than $6 billion for hurricane relief.” [Associated Press, 5/25/07]

Democrats Passed Wounded Warriors Bill to Upgrade Military Health Care and Provide a 3.5% Pay Raise for Our Troops. “Senate Democrats scored a crucial pre-recess legislative win Wednesday, as a veterans’ healthcare measure and military pay raise previously attached to the stalled defense authorization bill passed unanimously. Republicans sought to add the 3.5 percent pay increase to the healthcare bill, dubbed the Wounded Warriors Act, before allowing immediate passage of the package.” [The Hill, 7/26/07]

Democrats Passed Legislation Out of Committee Providing the Largest Increase for Veterans Affairs Funding in History. “House and Senate appropriators are both confidently moving forward with their proposals to give the Veterans Affairs Department its largest-ever budget increase to address the increasing health care needs of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed its version of the fiscal 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill (HR 2642) June 15 by a vote of 409-2. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved, 28-1, its draft version on June 14.” [CQ Today, 6/15/07]

Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill Included Additional $1.8 Billion for Veterans’ Health Care. “The House and Senate approved the $120 billion package yesterday. The president had requested $103 billion, but Congress added additional spending requirements to increase veterans’ health care programs by $1.8 billion, military construction and realignment by almost $5 billion, and homeland security by more than $1 billion.” [VFW Press Release, 5/25/07]

Democrats Passed Bill to Implement 9/11 Commission Recommendations. “The Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation yesterday to implement many of the remaining reforms suggested by the Sept. 11 commission, answering its three-year-old call for better emergency communications; more money for cities at high risk of terrorist attacks; and tighter security for air cargo, ports, chemical plants and rail systems.” [Washington Post, 3/14/07]

Democrats Passed Ethics and Lobbying Reform Bill. “Senate Democrats and Republicans broke a difficult stalemate last night and approved 96 to 2 expansive legislation to curtail the influence of lobbyists, tighten congressional ethics rules and prevent the spouses of senators from lobbying senators and their staffs. The Senate legislation, hailed by proponents as the most significant ethics reform since Watergate, would ban gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists, and would force lawmakers to attach their names to special-interest provisions and pet projects that they slip into bills. Lawmakers would have to pay charter rates on corporate jets, not the far-cheaper first-class rates they pay now.” [Washington Post, 1/19/07]

Democrats Passed Bill to Cut Subsidies to Student Lenders and Provide $17 Billion in Grants and Other Student Aid. “The Senate overwhelmingly approved a wide-ranging overhaul of student loan programs early today that would pay for more than $17 billion in grants and other student aid by slashing subsidies to lending companies. Democrats and student advocates said the legislation, which passed in a 78 to 18 vote, would help millions of Americans pay for college in a time of steady and often steep tuition increases.” [Washington Post, 7/19/07]

Democrats Passed a Bill to Better Regulate the Student Loan Industry. “Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts made the comments shortly after senators passed legislation (S 1642) to reauthorize the primary law governing colleges, universities and federal aid by an overwhelming margin of 95-0…. The underlying bill would increase the amount of information that schools and lenders must provide to students — including up-front disclosure of loan rates and terms and data on total school costs — and would ban lenders from giving schools financial aid funds or any other perks to get on a preferred lender list…. The bill would require colleges and universities to draft codes of conduct governing relationships with lenders; shorten the application form for federal student aid; and authorize a pilot program to allow students to learn the total aid they can expect to receive up to two years in advance.” [CQ Today, 7/24/07]

Democrats Passed a Fiscally Responsible Budget. “Congress gave final approval on Thursday to a $2.9 trillion budget plan that promises big spending increases for education and health care and a federal surplus in five years… Democrats said their budget measure would put the government $41 billion in the black by 2012, after steady deficits since 2002. They said the measure also would reversing Bush's clampdown on domestic agencies' annual budgets passed by Congress… The budget plan would lock in a promise by Democrats to restore pay-as-you-go rules. Republicans abandoned these in 2001 to pass Bush's tax cuts.” [Associated Press, 5/17/07]

Democrats Passed Energy Bill That Increased Fuel-Efficiency Standards for First Time Since 1975. “The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters… The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.” [Washington Post, 6/22/07]

Meanwhile time after time the Senate Republicans have obstructed progress on America's priorities:

Democrats Pushed for A New Direction in Iraq; Republicans Obstructed. On July 17 and July 18, Democrats held an all night debate to force a change of course in Iraq. Republicans obstructed Democratic attempts to vote on the Levin-Reed Amendment 8 times. Republicans have obstructed progress on legislation calling for a change of course in Iraq 8 times earlier in the year. [Senate Floor Proceedings, 7/17/07-7/18/07; Senate Vote #241, HR 1585, 7/11/07; Senate Vote #171, HR 2206, 5/17/07; Senate Vote #167, HR 1495, 5/16/07; Senate Vote #117, HR 1591, 3/28/07; Senate Vote #74, S.J.Res. 9, 3/14/07; Senate Vote #51, S. 574, 2/17/07; Senate Vote #44, S. 470, 2/5/07; Senate Vote #43, S. Con. Res. 2, 2/1/07]

Democrats Tried to Pass a Minimum Wage Increase; Republicans Obstructed. On January 24, Republicans blocked a bill that would have increased the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. [Senate Vote #23, HR 2, 1/24/07]

Democrats Tried to Pass Tax Incentives for Clean Energy; Republicans Obstructed. On June 21, Republicans blocked an amendment that would have established $32.1 billion of tax incentives for alternative energy sources while imposing taxes on the oil and gas industry. The amendment would have created $3.6 billion worth of renewable energy bonds, established $11 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy and authorize $2.5 billion for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act. [Senate Vote #223, HR 6, 6/21/07]

Democrats Tried Twice to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform; Republicans Obstructed. On June 7 and June 28, Republicans blocked debate on comprehensive immigration reform. [Senate Vote #206, S. 1348, 6/7/07; Senate Vote #235, S. 1639, 6/28/07]

Democrats Tried to Pass Intelligence Authorization; Republicans Obstructed. On April 16, Republicans blocked consideration of the Intelligence Authorization bill, which would have authorized classified amounts in fiscal 2007 for U.S. intelligence activities and agencies including the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. [Senate Vote #130, S. 372, 4/16/07]

Democrats Passed War Supplemental Funding Bill With Measures to Change Direction in Iraq; President Bush Vetoed the Bill. “President Bush used his veto pen for only the second time Tuesday after Congress sent him a war spending bill that would impose timelines to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, which he called a ‘prescription for chaos.’” [NBC News, 5/1/06]

Democrats Passed a Bill to Expand Stem Cell Research; President Bush Vetoed the Bill. “President Bush yesterday vetoed legislation to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, saying that scientific advances now allow researchers to pursue the potentially lifesaving work without destroying human embryos.” [Washington Post, 6/21/07]

I've seen and heard the argument that the Democratic congress hasn't done anything and I thought it would be a good idea to let our members know different.

EDIT: Also>>

Conservatives have repeatedly criticized the Democratic-led Congress for not passing enough legislation. “I don’t think they’ve gotten anything done,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in March. In July, he added that “Congressional Democrats” have “failed to deliver on any of their promises and have almost no accomplishments of which to speak.”

But a new Politico analysis finds that this 110th Congress has had more roll call votes this year than any other Congress in history, almost doubling the number under the previous Congress overseen by Boehner and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):

The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000 votes on the House floor in 2007.

Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison, the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in 1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.

Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a July McClatchy report. “If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes.”

It’s interesting that Boehner is criticizing the 110th Congress as doing nothing. After all, the House, under his leadership, met for just 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress, setting the record “for the fewest days in session in one year since the end of World War II.”

Mr. Heskey

06-26-2008, 06:20 PM

Every congress does stuff.

But the democratic congress promised us to end the war, fix the economy, fix gas prices, etc etc.

The things that REALLY matter to us back home, it's stayed pretty much the same.

And keep in mind, they have an approval rating that's considerably lower than Bush's.

Devastation

06-26-2008, 06:21 PM

Yeah, but have they legalized weed? Hmm? Hmmmm?

theC

06-26-2008, 06:24 PM

And yet they have an 18% approval rating. That is just slightly above herpes and slightly below rugburn.

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 06:27 PM

That's why their aproval rating is less than the Presidents.

Congress, less than 18% source (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx)

President, twice that at 32% source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval)

Yep everyone's happy with all that's been done by a do nothing Congress.

Methuser

06-26-2008, 06:29 PM

But the democratic congress promised us to end the war, fix the economy, fix gas prices, etc etc.

And keep in mind, they have an approval rating that's considerably lower than Bush's.And yet they have an 18% approval rating. That is just slightly above herpes and slightly below rugburn.

Yeah because they didn't whip out their magic wand and fix the economy, end the war in Iraq, or fix gas prices.... hell they should have brought back the wooly mammoth while they were at it. It all sounds so simple.

Can you guys please provide a source where Democratic congress made all these promises?

kevinsmith

06-26-2008, 06:29 PM

I do recall many democrats jumping for joy as their party members were elected into office, sweeping out many republicans. Things were going to get better now.

So...um...I'm waiting for the better. I really am. I mean, I'll gladly say I was wrong if things were better. But they're not.

I know..this was petty and immature, but so was the rubbing-the-noses in the victory that was happening after the elections. :D

Yeah because they didn't whip out their magic wand and fix the economy, end the war in Iraq, or fix gas prices.... hell they should have brought back the wooly mammoth while they were at it. It all sounds so simple.

Can you guys please provide a source where Democratic congress made all these promises?

No, democratic candidates promised the status quo, that's how they got in. Because everyone was so happy with how things were going...that's why a lot of incumbants lost their seats to democratic challengers. :err:

Methuser

06-26-2008, 06:47 PM

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 06:58 PM

Methuser

06-26-2008, 07:01 PM

That's a very convincing argument. You should try it some time.

Just look at the first four links!

Learn Moar (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+corruption)

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 07:07 PM

Just look at the first four links!

Learn Moar (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+corruption)

I didn't know they were links. Usally in C/U it doesn't look like E/N.

I still didn't click your E/N style links. For all I know you linked Goatse or some other stupid fucking meme.

Edit/ besides I don't trust Meth Users.

Chupacabra

06-26-2008, 07:08 PM

Methuser

06-26-2008, 07:09 PM

I didn't know they were links. Usally in C/U it doesn't look like E/N.

I still didn't click your E/N style links. For all I know you linked Goatse or some other stupid fucking meme.

Edit/ besides I don't trust Meth Users.

That's right. Avoid the truth like the plague.
your blind devotion to the democratic party sickens me.Irony. It's often worth a chuckle.

kevinsmith

06-26-2008, 07:10 PM

Mojoe77

06-26-2008, 07:11 PM

Learn moar! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+veto+summary)
Learn moar! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+veto+iraq)
Learn moar! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+veto+oil)

There are literally millions of links to help inform you. It's called google.

Methuser, I don't think giving google search results as sources will do you any good. Do Stu a favor and find sources that are relevant to your argument. For example, find an article that explains how bad Bush is instead of giving a link to google search results about how bad Bush is. Narrow down your argument.

Oh, okay, it's Bush's fault they didn't get to cause all the changes they talked about.
So, um, why did they promise something they couldn't deliver? You mean, dems make hollow campaign promises too? NO!

I personally don't like Bush, but I also think people are too quick to jump to conclusions and blame the Bush administration for just about everything.

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 07:14 PM

That's right. Avoid the truth like the plague.
Irony. It's often worth a chuckle.

I'm not avoiding anything but your lack of respect of this secton with your E/N style posts.

Post like you mean it instead of like a stupid asshole and you might earn some respect.

The more you post like that the less cred you have.

Methuser

06-26-2008, 07:17 PM

I'd like a good source for the democratic congress promising to end the war in Iraq, lower gas prices, and fix the economy.

I googled "congress promise" and all that came up were neocon blogs saying "congress breaks promises"

Mojo... That is the point of the links. Read just two of the links. Learn more about the party you defend. There are things I don't like about my own democratic party and extreme leftists... But I prefer them over greedy imperialist crooks.
That's why their aproval rating is less than the Presidents.

Congress, less than 18% source (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx)

President, twice that at 32% source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval)

Yep everyone's happy with all that's been done by a do nothing Congress.I'm not avoiding anything but your lack of respect of this secton with your E/N style posts.

Post like you mean it instead of like a stupid asshole and you might earn some respect.

The more you post like that the less cred you have.
Irony. Sometimes it boggles the mind.

I proved you wrong. You said congress did nothing and had low approval ratings. Rather than let you manipulate the situation I provided you with overwhelming proof that Bush is the reason congress can't fix all the fuck ups he created in his first 6 years as president. OVERWHELMING! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=bush+vetoes&spell=1)

Devastation

06-26-2008, 07:22 PM

I seem to remember many television ads interrupting my football and basketball games in '06 (the things that really matter), usually between R. Anne Northup and D. Forgothisname, with Anne doing her usual mudslinging (ironically, all her ads focused on the non-existent mudslinging of D. Forgothisname), and D. Forgothisname doing ads about "getting our troops out of Iraq".

Anne lost, finally.

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 07:23 PM

I'd like a good source for the democratic congress promising to end the war in Iraq, lower gas prices, and fix the economy.

I googled "congress promise" and all that came up were neocon blogs saying "congress breaks promises"

Mojo... That is the point of the links. Read just two of the links. Learn more about the party you defend. There are things I don't like about my own democratic party and extreme leftists... But I prefer them over greedy imperialist crooks.

I proved you wrong. You said congress did nothing and had low approval ratings. Rather than let you manipulate the situation I provided you with overwhelming proof that Bush is the reason congress can't fix all the fuck ups he created in his first 6 years as president. OVERWHELMING!

I'm guessing that's because there aren't any real promises from the Dems on that subject.

It's clear you've lied to by your party.

Edit/ I posted "souces" you posted moar (www.google.com)

I don't see how your post edit of my 2 posts are irony. I fail to see the point.

I posted sources, you posted shit. You didn't even post sources for the stuff in your opening post of this thread.

Methuser

06-26-2008, 07:27 PM

I'm guessing that's because there aren't any real promises from the Dems on that subject.

It's clear you've lied to by your party.

LOL wut?

Umm no. hmmm...

The point is that the democratic congress never made simpleton promises to "pull right out of Iraq immediately, bring gas prices down to $1.50, or "fix" the economy"

But all the republican blogs keep saying is that the Democratic congress broke those promises.

It's like saying that Michelle Obama hates America all because she said she was REALLY proud of American politics.

And as far as the democratic congress lack of doing those things goes... Bush and the house republicans have done everything in their power to block and stop those bills to help dig the United States out of the hole the Bush administration has put it in.

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 07:30 PM

Read my edit.

Mr. Heskey

06-26-2008, 07:32 PM

Mojoe77

06-26-2008, 07:37 PM

I'd like a good source for the democratic congress promising to end the war in Iraq, lower gas prices, and fix the economy.

I googled "congress promise" and all that came up were neocon blogs saying "congress breaks promises"

From Representative Kanjorski (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5lHXkrdQ8&feature=related) himself regarding the Iraq War "promise".

I don't think the Democrats ever promised lower gas prices, but here (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/11/obama-id-like-higher-gas-prices-just-not-so-quickly/) Mr. Obama says that he'd prefer a "gradual adjustment". I'd also like to note that he brings up the rapid growth of India and China which is crunching oil supplies world wide. Gee, ya think if the Democrats let us drill in ANWR and the OCS, this might alleviate the problem?

Ace Hippie

06-26-2008, 07:54 PM

Gee, ya think if the Democrats let us drill in ANWR and the OCS, this might alleviate the problem?

From the government's own study

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html?featureclicked=2&

Report (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf)

From the Summary

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018.

On lowering oil prices;

The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case

It then later notes that this effect is lowered as time goes on, even in the best case scenario (i.e. most oil is found).

As with any drilling, the underlying problem is that even with legislation passed, it still takes usually 8-12 years to get the drilling going (the 2018 date in the EIA report being a 10 year span from the passage of theoretical 2008 legislation).

kevinsmith

06-26-2008, 07:58 PM

As with any drilling, the underlying problem is that even with legislation passed, it still takes usually 8-12 years to get the drilling going (the 2018 date in the EIA report being a 10 year span from the passage of theoretical 2008 legislation).

It will take just as long, if not longer, to make alternative fuels just as viable as gas. So the right approach would be two pronged.

Mojoe77

06-26-2008, 07:59 PM

From the government's own study

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html?featureclicked=2&

Report (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf)

From the Summary

On lowering oil prices;

It then later notes that this effect is lowered as time goes on, even in the best case scenario (i.e. most oil is found).

As with any drilling, the underlying problem is that even with legislation passed, it still takes usually 8-12 years to get the drilling going (the 2018 date in the EIA report being a 10 year span from the passage of theoretical 2008 legislation).

I don't care if it takes 8 - 12 years to get the drilling going. Just as long as we start using the energy we have here and knowing that there will be a decrease in gas prices in the foreseeable future. On the flip side, you can always count on OPEC to price gouge you while, as we're seeing now, the Democratically elected Congress doesn't allow drilling on US soil.

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 08:01 PM

It will take just as long, if not longer, to make alternative fuels just as viable as gas. So the right approach would be two pronged.

I agree.

So we should drill here and start yesterday. I truly think the technology is there to see returns sooner than 10 to 12 years.

Spike Lee

06-26-2008, 08:11 PM

Although I'm not at all blaming democrats, the economy and gas prices didn't all go to hell until the democratic congress took over.

Gas was under $2.00/gallon before.

Again, not blaming them. Just pointing out a pertinent fact.

Why are you pointing that out. It's stupid to point that out mainly because it only does one thing and that is imply fault. The rise of gas prices started in well before 2006, the economy is tanking as of a result of actions before 2006.

DURR.... IM JUST SAYING DURRR

Ace Hippie

06-26-2008, 08:12 PM

It will take just as long, if not longer, to make alternative fuels just as viable as gas. So the right approach would be two pronged.

Sure, it might be worthwhile as an intermediary step. The point, however, is that people mistakenly think that agreeing to drill in ANWR is going to lower prices to something more reasonable now. It isn't. At best it's likely to hold us over a few years, but people tend to think it's the holy grail when it isn't (and probably that's for the best, anyway, as it'll force us to continue to work on alternative energy anyway).

I don't care if it takes 8 - 12 years to get the drilling going. Just as long as we start using the energy we have here and knowing that there will be a decrease in gas prices in the foreseeable future. On the flip side, you can always count on OPEC to price gouge you while, as we're seeing now, the Democratically elected Congress doesn't allow drilling on US soil.

I was merely pointing out that even if Congress did agree to drill now, we'd still be paying these high prices. There is no easy fix, from any side.

I agree.

So we should drill here and start yesterday. I truly think the technology is there to see returns sooner than 10 to 12 years.

It's not just about the technology, and that's the government stating it'll be 8-12 years. Here's the timeline, FYI

The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline:

• 2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.

• 2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.

• 1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered. Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted. The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.

•3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.

The 10-year timeline for developing ANWR petroleum resources assumes that there is no protracted legal battle in approving the BLM’s draft Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM’s approval to collect seismic data, or the BLM’s approval of a specific lease-development proposal.

The report then notes two exceptions (6 and 8 years) but..

These Alaska North Slope oil field development time delays do not include the time delays associated with BLM leasing, the collection and interpretation of seismic data, and the drilling of exploratory wells.

Spike Lee

06-26-2008, 08:22 PM

I still don't see how you want to solve this problem by issuing a short term solution to it ten years down the line.

The U.S. Geological Survey has said that the the amount of economically recoverable oil (oil that private companies can produce while still making profit) is less than 4 billion barrels. I've never heard of any significant price drop regarding the price of a barrel or the national average for a gallon.

Heck I've heard the number for the price of a gallon to be lowered by one cent starting in 2018. And that's from the Joint Economic Committee.
http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Reports.Reports&ContentRecord_id=77afe2d6-0615-20c9-f737-0ec0886c6668

And the highest so far is 75 cents starting in 2028.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/18/dont-expect-too-much-from-anwr/

What do you say to these claims? And I really have to disagree to the claim that we won't know how much is there till we drill. If that was the case, how do we know there is oil there to begin with? Don't question the science here and accept when it benefits you unless you can provide proof that it doesn't matter.

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 08:30 PM

kevinsmith

06-26-2008, 08:30 PM

Sure, it might be worthwhile as an intermediary step. The point, however, is that people mistakenly think that agreeing to drill in ANWR is going to lower prices to something more reasonable now. It isn't. At best it's likely to hold us over a few years, but people tend to think it's the holy grail when it isn't (and probably that's for the best, anyway, as it'll force us to continue to work on alternative energy anyway).

But wouldn't the knowledge of more oil coming in to the market make future prices drop from the speculators, who are the real culprits on this problem?

I still don't see how you want to solve this problem by issuing a short term solution to it ten years down the line.

The U.S. Geological Survey has said that the the amount of economically recoverable oil (oil that private companies can produce while still making profit) is less than 4 billion barrels. I've never heard of any significant price drop regarding the price of a barrel or the national average for a gallon.

Heck I've heard the number for the price of a gallon to be lowered by one cent starting in 2018. And that's from the Joint Economic Committee.
http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Reports.Reports&ContentRecord_id=77afe2d6-0615-20c9-f737-0ec0886c6668

And the highest so far is 75 cents starting in 2028.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/18/dont-expect-too-much-from-anwr/

What do you say to these claims? And I really have to disagree to the claim that we won't know how much is there till we drill. If that was the case, how do we know there is oil there to begin with? Don't question the science here and accept when it benefits you unless you can provide proof that it doesn't matter.

I haven't been able to watch this video all the way through, but it seems to answer some issues. http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

Devastation

06-26-2008, 08:31 PM

Vote for me and all gas will be sold free of charge, starting tomorrow.

Of course, that will coincide with the invasion of Venezuela...

Spike Lee

06-26-2008, 08:36 PM

I haven't been able to watch this video all the way through, but it seems to answer some issues. http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

Can you give me some data on the role of speculators? Cause I have heard that it is primarily thier fault, but I'm skeptical as to what their role is and I am also curious to see if all they are at the moment is a scapegoat. What do you think the prices will end up as when we announce offshore drilling?

Ace Hippie

06-26-2008, 08:38 PM

If it's taken out of the Governments hands and put into the hands of Private Industry, I as the future leader of all that is fair and good, promise those numbers will be reduced by more than 50%.

Great, once you turn 35 you'll surely be elected President-for-life.

But wouldn't the knowledge of more oil coming in to the market make future prices drop from the speculators, who are the real culprits on this problem?

Because even the government's projections of how much oil we'll get out of ANWR, at least, are simply not that high (I'm guessing). From the EIA's report;

Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production. Opening ANWR results in the lowest oil import dependency levels during the 2022 through 2026 time frame, when oil import dependency falls to the minimum values of 46 and 49 percent for the high and low oil resource cases, respectively. During that timeframe, the mean resource case and AEO2008 reference case project an average oil import dependency of 48 and 51 percent, respectively. Because ANWR oil production is declining after 2028, U.S. oil dependency rises to 51 percent in 2030 in the mean resource case, compared to 54 percent in the AEO2008 reference case. The high and low resource cases project a 2030 oil import dependency of 48 percent and 52 percent, respectively

This doesn't cover if we start offshore drilling and ANWR, though I'd imagine even that wouldn't have huge effects as well.

Other issues include (1) that even domestic oil is expensive, (2) the costs of development, (3) it's unclear how much oil is exactly there, (4) potential environmental restrictions even beyond those already in place, etc.

The report I linked to in my initial post goes into more detail about each of these (I'm obviously no expert on the oil industry :idea:), and is actually a fairly interesting read for a government report.

Spike Lee

06-26-2008, 08:41 PM

The speculation of relied is 75 cents down? I'm sure the speculators are going bananas!

Stu Pidasole

06-26-2008, 08:44 PM

Great, once you turn 35 you'll surely be elected President-for-life.

I'm 46, born April 06, 1962. I'm as qualified as Barack Osama.

We can start this in November. Just remember to write in "Stu Pidasole" as your choice for Prez.

Or you can "PM" me for my real name and write that in.

Thank you and "Your Deity goes here" Bless. Hate to put it like that, but there's tons of ass kissing needs to be done in order for me to be the ruler of "All that is good and fair".

Ace Hippie

06-26-2008, 08:47 PM

I'm 46, born April 06, 1962. I'm as qualified as Barack Osama.

It also means you're probably overqualified to post on a forum like this.

We can start this in November. Just remember to write in "Stu Pidasole" as your choice for Prez.

Or you can "PM" me for my real name and write that in.

I might have to do the latter - else I'll get confused and think I need to vote for "Stupid Asshole", and vote for Al Sharpton or Karl Rove or my nextdoor neighbor.

Thank you and "Your Deity goes here" Bless. Hate to put it like that, but there's tons of ass kissing needs to be done in order for me to be the ruler of "All that is good and fair".

Bow down to your overlord (and mine)! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2.jpg)

TheAwesome

06-26-2008, 10:10 PM

See, all of this debate over "Well, we won't have the oil until such and such a date," is silly. We were trying to drill back in 2001. Hindsight is 20/20.

Another interesting point I heard brought up recently regards OPEC and their refusal to up production. It's hard to get someone else to up their production of oil when we ourselves won't even attempt to drill for our own oil. So I can understand why OPEC is apprehensive about upping oil production.

Like kevinsmith said, it's a two pronged approach. We need to produce more domestic oil, which will help to lower oil futures (we aren't even feeling the effects of the $130/barrel oil yet...those are just the oil futures). And even though the price of gas is dropping for the moment (it's gone down about 10 cents a gallon in the past two weeks, here atleast), if it gets back down to a semi-reasonable amount (3.50, 3.60) people are going to go back to their old driving habits and we'll be even worse off.

Everyone just needs to stop sitting on their hands and do something.

shade

06-26-2008, 10:32 PM

Democrats have continued the war in Iraq!

I love how it says they passed a war spending bill, and a whopping 1-5% of it was for puppies!!!

ROFLStomp

06-26-2008, 10:33 PM

So the moral of the story kids is....The Democrats haven't fulfilled their promises...

Methuser

06-26-2008, 10:40 PM

So the moral of the story kids is....The Democrats haven't fulfilled their promises...

I guess it's easier to just say that rather than the long explanation of the truth.

Welcome to the New Nation where the people opress themselves and become their own dictator.

Spike Lee

06-26-2008, 10:44 PM

Democrats have continued the war in Iraq!

I love how it says they passed a war spending bill, and a whopping 1-5% of it was for puppies!!!

They were going to get vetoed and they did not have 2/3 majority to overrule the veto. What do you suggest they do? Squabble or at least provide better funding for our troops to be protected.

Ace Hippie

06-26-2008, 10:44 PM

See, all of this debate over "Well, we won't have the oil until such and such a date," is silly. We were trying to drill back in 2001. Hindsight is 20/20.

You're missing the point. It's not "We won't have oil until 2018, so let's not do it", it's that "we won't have the oil right away, so we shouldn't expect our prices to miraculously go down". The problem isn't that people are considering drilling, it's that they mistakenly view drilling as a cure-all.

Like kevinsmith said, it's a two pronged approach. We need to produce more domestic oil, which will help to lower oil futures (we aren't even feeling the effects of the $130/barrel oil yet...those are just the oil futures). And even though the price of gas is dropping for the moment (it's gone down about 10 cents a gallon in the past two weeks, here atleast), if it gets back down to a semi-reasonable amount (3.50, 3.60) people are going to go back to their old driving habits and we'll be even worse off.

Oil prices passed $140/barrel today, actually.

Anyway, as I noted in my reply to kevinsmith, I'm not actually completely opposed to drilling, I am opposed to the commonly espoused idea that if all we do is drilling, we'll be okay. Optimally, we'll need to get our oil supply to last long enough to transfer to other sources, as reducing our oil consumption has benefits on top of financial ones (i.e. reducing our dependency on quasi-friendly regimes like the Saudis, environmental, etc.)

Everyone just needs to stop sitting on their hands and do something

Well, yes. The problem is that there's little incentive for anyone to do anything so long as their positions are safe (i.e. incumbents are generally safe, so they won't do too much to risk their positions). Combine that with an apathetic public who complains but rarely actively acts on their complaints, and so on, and you've got yourself a nice little mess.

2ndAmendment

06-27-2008, 12:42 AM

Does anyone else find it ironic that "Meth User" is an Obama supporter??

Awesome-o

06-27-2008, 12:43 AM

In canada the minimum wage is adjusted every year for inflation. It's a non-issue for everyone but the NDP.

Go canada!

theC

06-27-2008, 01:11 AM

In canada the minimum wage is adjusted every year for inflation. It's a non-issue for everyone but the NDP.

Go canada!

That is not universal and it is mandated by each province.

Mr. Heskey

06-27-2008, 02:49 AM

Why are you pointing that out. It's stupid to point that out mainly because it only does one thing and that is imply fault. The rise of gas prices started in well before 2006, the economy is tanking as of a result of actions before 2006.

DURR.... IM JUST SAYING DURRR

Read my post buddy. But then again you've taken an irrational hatred to anything I say, write, or think. So I really give no shit as to what you say.

Yuseke

06-27-2008, 10:00 AM

Does anyone else find it ironic that "Meth User" is an Obama supporter??

Does anyone find it ironic that only morons use someone's username as a way to attack their credability?

ROFLStomp

06-27-2008, 10:08 AM

Does anyone find it ironic that only morons use someone's username as a way to attack their credability?

I don't know, if my name was like RepublicanRob, or DemocraticDan, do you think people would attack my name and say my posts are biased?

Stu Pidasole

06-27-2008, 10:10 AM

Does anyone find it ironic that only morons use someone's username as a way to attack their credability?

Happens to me all the time. You just learn to ignor it.

bergshadow

06-27-2008, 12:36 PM

About 125 Dems in the House, and an even smaller percentage in the Senate, belong to this faction that is supposed to have taken over in 2006 and changed everything.

The Dem leadership is compromised and corrupted, has been for years.

And they are faced with an extremely powerful and totally cynical, essentially fascistic executive branch.

Look at the the telcom immunity vote in the House, and you can see why any fundamental revolt that was supposedly promised in 2006 (in fact a vanishingly slim Party majority without ideological coherence, which even so had some beneficial effects) was an illusion.

You can't fix what's happened to the government of the United States in a single off-year Congressional election cycle.

ROFLStomp

06-27-2008, 01:01 PM

shade

06-27-2008, 05:15 PM

They were going to get vetoed and they did not have 2/3 majority to overrule the veto. What do you suggest they do? Squabble or at least provide better funding for our troops to be protected.

How about you think about that one more time.

You are complaining that Bush would veto a war spending bill.

Sounds like that would end the war to me. On this issue, congress has the ultimate power.

The democratic congress can end the war whenever they want - they don't actually want to. Wake up.

MelL

06-27-2008, 05:53 PM

Methuser

06-27-2008, 06:12 PM

How about you think about that one more time.

You are complaining that Bush would veto a war spending bill.

Sounds like that would end the war to me. On this issue, congress has the ultimate power.

The democratic congress can end the war whenever they want - they don't actually want to. Wake up. I have to cave and finally say this. I am so fed up with all the conspiracy theories coming from the Paul supporters.

The candidates are interchangablle.
The candidates were chosen by the media.
The republican and democratic party are one in the same.
The republicans and democrats want a one world government.It's fringe and it's getting old.:rollseyes

Azwethinkweizm

06-27-2008, 06:30 PM

Americans voted in Democrats to end the war in Iraq, why do you think we have a lameduck president?

They have extended the war in iraq so therefore, they aren't doing their job.

Stu Pidasole

06-27-2008, 06:51 PM

How about you think about that one more time.

You are complaining that Bush would veto a war spending bill.

Sounds like that would end the war to me. On this issue, congress has the ultimate power.

The democratic congress can end the war whenever they want - they don't actually want to. Wake up.

The only thing missing from this to make it complete, is the reason behind why they don't want to.

Knowing the election season was not far away, I'm guessing the reason is that they want to wait until we have a Democratic President, so they get ALL the glory. I say this only because I've heard one Dem say that they supported the FairTax and that the Dems would only push for it if there is a Dem Prez in office, again to get all the glory.

On a personal note, I think the Dems are going to have to wait at least 4 more years before they are going to have the power they so desperately crave.

ROFLStomp

06-27-2008, 07:19 PM

The only thing missing from this to make it complete, is the reason behind why they don't want to.

Knowing the election season was not far away, I'm guessing the reason is that they want to wait until we have a Democratic President, so they get ALL the glory. I say this only because I've heard one Dem say that they supported the FairTax and that the Dems would only push for it if there is a Dem Prez in office, again to get all the glory.

On a personal note, I think the Dems are going to have to wait at least 4 more years before they are going to have the power they so desperately crave.

yep, they are waiting (or hoping) for Barack Obama to get elected so all of his "change" can purify the lands, and with him, end the Iraq war. But I know, that regardless of whether Mccain or Obama gets into office, the war will not end until the region is stable. Obviously I agree with Mccains position more, but Obama/congress will wait for it to be stable, pull out the troops, and then take all the credit for themselves.

Spike Lee

06-27-2008, 09:03 PM

How about you think about that one more time.

You are complaining that Bush would veto a war spending bill.

Sounds like that would end the war to me. On this issue, congress has the ultimate power.

You got me on this. They werre pretty spineless

The democratic congress can end the war whenever they want - they don't actually want to. Wake up.

But you lost on this.

Frosty

06-27-2008, 10:04 PM

Americans voted in Democrats to end the war in Iraq, why do you think we have a lameduck president?

They have extended the war in iraq so therefore, they aren't doing their job.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats realize that should they end the war, a huge power vacuum would likely be left in Iraq (and Afghanistan, should it end there). The U.S. can't afford that right now because they're in too deep.

Also, I highly doubt Congress can circumvent the White House. I'm sure the Bush administration would find ways around it.

shade

06-28-2008, 12:29 AM

I have to cave and finally say this. I am so fed up with all the conspiracy theories coming from the Paul supporters.This is a conspiracy how?? It is simple: Democrats lied to you so you would vote for them.

So now accusing the government of lying is a conspiracy? So I guess you are a conspiracy theorist if you say Bush lied to get us in to the war?

So, why do democrats support the war? There are a number of reasons. As one person already mentioned, it gives them a good issue to get votes on during the election.

Another simple reason is that it gives them a lot power to spend for any pork they want. All they have to do is give the president his war and they can load it down with a hundred billion of other spending and they know Bush wont veto it.

A third very simple reason is Israel. I promise you that a good many of the democrats are onboard with the idea of "reshaping the middle east" and "defending Israel" even if they don't say so publicly.

So that makes me a conspiracy theorist? You are weak for having to resort to lame ad hominems.

And in response to people who say congress does not have the power to simply end the war, you are wrong. Plain and simple. Yes, soldiers will always get their paychecks. But if you cut off all the "marginal spending" such as the fuel, ammo (stop buying bombs from Lockheed, etc) the war will end. If you don't pay to replace blown up vehicles, jet fuel, etc, its over. If all it took was soldier salaries, why do you think bush asks for $100-300 billion every few months? Without that money the war is over.

The democrats LIED to you so you would vote for them. And you are a tool for not seeing it and especially for defending them.

Methuser

06-28-2008, 12:55 AM

The democrats LIED to you so you would vote for them. And you are a tool for not seeing it and especially for defending them.

Personal attack. Reported.

Anyway I don't remember seeing any ads anywhere during the 2006 elections where democrats promised to swoop in and end the war in Iraq. Not one.

And since I presented the challenge for someone to prove that the Democratic congress made the promise of immediate Iraq withdrawal.

Not one member has shown said proof.

My local senator didn't have any ads to "get us out of Iraq right now!!"

The blame game isn't workin' out for ya there Shade. Keep looking into the thermite residue though. That might pan out.

Mojoe77

06-28-2008, 01:27 AM

Personal attack. Reported.

Anyway I don't remember seeing any ads anywhere during the 2006 elections where democrats promised to swoop in and end the war in Iraq. Not one.

And since I presented the challenge for someone to prove that the Democratic congress made the promise of immediate Iraq withdrawal.

Not one member has shown said proof.

My local senator didn't have any ads to "get us out of Iraq right now!!"

The blame game isn't workin' out for ya there Shade. Keep looking into the thermite residue though. That might pan out.

I posted this for you earlier, but here it is again: Representative Kanjorski on the Iraq war promise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5lHXkrdQ8&feature=related).

shade

06-28-2008, 01:49 AM

Personal attack. Reported.

Anyway I don't remember seeing any ads anywhere during the 2006 elections where democrats promised to swoop in and end the war in Iraq. Not one.

And since I presented the challenge for someone to prove that the Democratic congress made the promise of immediate Iraq withdrawal.

Not one member has shown said proof.

My local senator didn't have any ads to "get us out of Iraq right now!!"

The blame game isn't workin' out for ya there Shade. Keep looking into the thermite residue though. That might pan out.

:uhoh::dunce::eek:

Oh I guess they campaigned on extending the war for 100 years instead :ohnoes:

Thanks for wasting my time typing.

wra

06-28-2008, 02:29 AM

As requested, here are some of the promises Congressional Democrats promised.

Promise: “Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices…join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.” – Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, April 19, 2006

Promise: “Democrats promise to hit the ground running on energy issues if they win control of the House or Senate. Responding to voters’ concerns about $3-a-gallon gasoline and the soaring cost of home-heating oil, Democratic leaders in both chambers have ranked energy as one of their top priorities for the next Congress.” – “Energy Reserving a Front Burner,” National Journal, September 9, 2006

Promise: “To free America from dependence on foreign oil, we will achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 6

Broken Promise: During the first six months of the Democrat-controlled Congress, no energy independence legislation has been passed by the House, much less sent to the President’s desk. But 228 Democrats voted to impose more than $6.5 billion in new taxes on small and independent American energy producers, which will lead to less domestic supply, higher prices for consumers, and an increase in America’s dependence on foreign sources. – Roll Call Vote #40, January 18, 2007

Promise: “Double the percentage of renewable fuels sold in America. Make sure that… cellulosic sources, such as switch grass are a key part of that increase.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 10

Broken Promise: “Currently, according to the ethanol industry’s list of producers in the United States, none of the ethanol comes from cellulosic… and even if commercial plants can be built, the process may still prove too expensive to compete with corn ethanol.” – “Will Cellulosic Ethanol Take Off?” Technology Review, February 27, 2007

Promise: “Democrats stand for… finding meaningful solutions to our energy crisis. We will make America more competitive and not heap mountains of debt on future generations.” – Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Conference, June 16, 2006

Broken Promise: “The main challengers to U.S. economic power – Brazil, Russia, India and China – have overtaken the United States in dominating the global energy industry, according to a new study by Goldman Sachs.” – Study: “‘BRICs’ Overtake U.S. in Energy,” Associated Press, Tuesday, June 26, 2007. House Democrats weakened U.S. energy competitiveness by voting to repeal the American-energy production initiatives crafted by Republicans as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act and instead replacing them with new bureaucratic roadblocks that undermine efforts to increase domestic energy supplies for consumers in the future. – Roll Call Vote #40, January 18, 2007

Promise: “Senate Democrats. . .are renewing their effort to require electric utilities to produce more power from renewable sources such as wind and solar. . . [M]any House Democrats. . .are on record supporting a renewable standard. . .House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. . . ‘believes that we need to increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewables in the United States above where we are today,’ a Pelosi aide said.”– “Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard,” Congressional Quarterly Green Sheets, May 25, 2007

Broken Promise: “Wind energy advocates say the [House Democrats’] bill could significantly cripple the burgeoning industry, and they brand the measure ‘anti-wind.’ A release from the American Wind Energy Association last month said the [House Democrats’ ] plan could ‘essentially outlaw’ the generation of electricity from new wind power plants in the United States.” – “A Pesky proposal for Wind Power Plants,” Associated Press, June 4, 2007

Promise: “Democrats will energize America by declaring energy independence … That is our commitment.” – Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Annual 2006 Take Back America Conference, June 14, 2006

Broken Promise: During their first six months, House Democrats have declared only that they are incapable of governing when it comes to matters such as energy policy. Instead of passing comprehensive legislation as promised to make America less dependent on foreign energy sources, House Democrats have offered legislation that would make energy independence more difficult by “dissuad[ing] U.S. refiners from investing billions to expand refining capacity to meet rising demand. Instead of lower prices. . .the legislation could cause higher prices by unintentionally capping or restricting domestic refinery capacity.” – “Wrong Direction,” Houston Chronicle Editorial, June 24, 2007

Promise: “‘We made history and now we will make progress for the American people,’ [Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)] said. ‘We will not be dazzled by money and special interests.’” – “Hoyer Wins House Majority Leader Race, Giving Pelosi First Setback,” Fox News, November 16, 2006

Broken Promise: “Powerful Interest Groups Stymie Democrats’ Energy Bill.” – Headline, CNN Politics, June 18, 2007

http://republicanleader.house.gov/brokenpromises/p_security.html

There are many here and of course this is a biased website so I tried to select the ones without as much retoric but I only made it through one page ;).

But it does have direct promises mostly from Pelosi, the House Leader as requested.

Chupacabra

06-28-2008, 03:56 PM

want to hear a joke?...Nancy Pelosi

bergshadow

06-28-2008, 10:27 PM

This is a conspiracy how?? It is simple: Democrats lied to you so you would vote for them. The Dems elected on promises to immediiately end the war, etc, are not even a large, controlling majority of the Dems.

Again, look at the telcom bill vote: there are only about 125 House Dems even in this faction that you guys seem to think had promised to upend the White House and defy the entrenched Congressional powers.

There are many Congressional Dems who have, in fact, attempted to do what you claim all of them promised. They are simply too few, and too low in seniority and power.

shade

06-28-2008, 10:29 PM

The Dems elected on promises to immediiately end the war, etc, are not even a large, controlling majority of the Dems.

Again, look at the telcom bill vote: there are only about 125 House Dems even in this faction that you guys seem to think had promised to upend the White House and defy the entrenched Congressional powers.

There are many Congressional Dems who have, in fact, attempted to do what you claim all of them promised. They are simply too few, and too low in seniority and power.

Pelosi made many of the claims, and she is at the top and can generally dictate to the lower people.

Nancy Pelosi: ROFL

bergshadow

06-28-2008, 11:30 PM

Pelosi made many of the claims, and she is at the top and can generally dictate to the lower people. I doubt she "dictates" to the likes of Tim Walz. http://www.mncampaignreport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=682

As observed: the faction of Dems that ran and won office in a spirit of revolt is not in control of even the Dem Party, let alone Congress.

They have failed because they are too few, not because they have betrayed their base or their principles.

shade

06-28-2008, 11:39 PM

I doubt she "dictates" to the likes of Tim Walz. http://www.mncampaignreport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=682

As observed: the faction of Dems that ran and won office in a spirit of revolt is not in control of even the Dem Party, let alone Congress.

They have failed because they are too few, not because they have betrayed their base or their principles.

You know they are not even trying. Only a couple people like Kucinich are even attempting to live up to their campaign promises.

It is business as usual in congress. Screw the american people by funneling their money to special interests. Dems or reps, it does not matter.

bergshadow

06-28-2008, 11:57 PM

Only a couple people like Kucinich are even attempting to live up to their campaign promises. 127 House Dems voted against the Dem leadership, the entire Republican Congress, the increasingly disturbing fascistic Executive Branch, and the prevailing mode of the national media, in the telcom bill polling.

That's more than a couple. The Dems are seriously split, and Pelosi represents only one faction.

shade

06-29-2008, 02:07 AM

127 House Dems voted against the Dem leadership, the entire Republican Congress, the increasingly disturbing fascistic Executive Branch, and the prevailing mode of the national media, in the telcom bill polling.

That's more than a couple. The Dems are seriously split, and Pelosi represents only one faction.

I hope you buy a gun while you still can. This fascism is real and doesn't seem to be going anywhere any time soon. I met some crazy people at the republican convention. One lady literally said we need to re-write the Quran. Anti-fascist liberals will be the first to go and they won't be able to defend themselves because they have been brainwashed into not owning guns.

Some serious shit is going to go down sooner or later. Make sure you have guns, rice, and beans.