Democrats Criticize Bush--on package they voted for.

[SDW2001]

"It's galling to think that taxpayers' stimulus checks will be lining the pockets of OPEC. The sad truth is that the average American family will spend almost their entire stimulus check on higher gas prices this year," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.
OPEC is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
"Unless the administration gets OPEC to increase oil supply, American consumers are going to be in for a scorching summer of $4 gasoline with no relief in sight," Schumer said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080426/D9098HRG0.html

Let me get this right: A bi-partisan stimulus package was passed, which the vast majority of Dems voted for. The package they voted for is the package that is going to take effect. One caveat: Gas prices are now a good 10% higher than they were.

Their reaction?

"It's galling to think that taxpayers' stimulus checks will be lining the pockets of OPEC.

and

"Unless the administration gets OPEC to increase oil supply,

Wait...wasn't it Nancy Pelosi herself that said this in April 2006?



In a press release dated April 24, 2006, Pelosi said, “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” The letter cited policies put in place during the GOP control of Congress that the Speaker claimed had raised prices on American consumers to benefit oil companies.

The House GOP leaders’ letter points out that the price of gasoline has spiked $1.18 since Democrats took over in January and stands at $3.51.



http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-gop-challenges-pelosi-for-gas-price-plan-2008-04-22.html

The GOP has called them on it:


Two years ago this week, you stated that House Democrats had a ‘commonsense plan’ to ‘lower gas prices,’ ” the letter said. “In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that you reveal this ‘commonsense plan’ so we can begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this strain.”


So really...where is this plan of theirs? Congress has done absolutely nothing. What about domestic drilling? What about nuclear power? What about adding refineries, relaxing ethanol requirements/regional blending requirements, suspending the gas tax, seeking more oil from Mexico and Russia? How about ANY action at all? Do I blame the administration? Yes...they've not shown much leadership on this either. But Congress has done jack.

Btw, my rebate will go to the SDW 3G iPhone fund, but yeah...I'm just sayin'.

[@_@ Artman]

Btw, my rebate will go to the SDW 3G iPhone fund, but yeah...I'm just sayin'.

http://codebloo.net/stuff/picard-headesk.jpg

[Flounder]

I'll be spending my rebate in Italy.

[Jubelum]

I'll be spending my rebate in Italy.

:lol: Perfect.

[trumptman]

I'll be spending my rebate in Italy.

What he fails to mention is Italy is the stage name of a high dollar hooker in Michigan.:lol::D

[SDW2001]

That's actually Guybrush Threepwood's mom's name.

Small world.

Shawn fades back, he cuts left, cuts right..charges...and..and...GOOOOAAALLLL!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[addabox]

(Guybrush ponders the mysterious inner workings of Apple Outsider, continues drinking)

[BRussell]

[
So really...where is this plan of theirs? Congress has done absolutely nothing. What about domestic drilling? What about nuclear power? What about adding refineries, relaxing ethanol requirements/regional blending requirements, suspending the gas tax, seeking more oil from Mexico and Russia? How about ANY action at all? Do I blame the administration? Yes...they've not shown much leadership on this either. But Congress has done jack.

Btw, my rebate will go to the SDW 3G iPhone fund, but yeah...I'm just sayin'.The House passed it. Senate Republicans blocked it, like everything else (except a few things that got past McConnell and then Bush vetoed). That's fine, those are the rules, but it's disingenuous to claim "Congress" (i.e., "the Democratic party") hasn't done anything when in reality the Republicans are blocking everything Democrats do, even things Republicans agree with.

[SDW2001]

The House passed it. Senate Republicans blocked it, like everything else (except a few things that got past McConnell and then Bush vetoed). That's fine, those are the rules, but it's disingenuous to claim "Congress" (i.e., "the Democratic party") hasn't done anything when in reality the Republicans are blocking everything Democrats do, even things Republicans agree with.

Oh I see. It's the "The Mean Republicans Have Blocked Everything" line.


Next.

[Flounder]

That's actually Guybrush Threepwood's mom's name.

Small world.

And for $600, she's letting me bring the goat and raspberry jam to the party.

Jackpot!

[BRussell]

Oh I see. It's the "The Mean Republicans Have Blocked Everything" line.


Next. It's simply the truth. You (and the Republicans you quote) suggested that Congressional Democrats didn't do what they said they would do. But they did. If you want to place blame where it should be placed, I'm with you. If you want to blame Pelosi, then you're not being accurate.

[SDW2001]

Come on guys, I thought Democrats were Ready to Lead™. Apparently they are just Ready to Blame Republicans™.

[SDW2001]

Are you suggesting Democrats have veto-proof margins?

I'm suggesting that part of leadership is getting the votes needed to pass bills.

[BRussell]

They've actually been more successful in the House.

It's the timid Senate (with oodles of Dems from "red" states and not much of a margin to work with) that's been the disappointing half. It's the rules of the two chambers more than anything. Republicans only need 41 in the Senate to block what they want. You need a majority in the House.

This senate, since Jan. 2007, set the record for the most filibusters in senate history. They basically just blocked everything. It's the story of this Congress, but of course no one will report on it and as a consequence some people may even believe the bullshit that SDW is peddling.

And I don't see why it would change if Obama became president. The only thing that will change it is if Republicans lose a few more senators, which everyone is predicting will happen.

[Jubelum]

I love gridlock in government. Limits the damage they can do to the country. :smokey:

[SDW2001]

It's the rules of the two chambers more than anything. Republicans only need 41 in the Senate to block what they want. You need a majority in the House.

This senate, since Jan. 2007, set the record for the most filibusters in senate history.

Actually, from what I found that's not accurate. The GOP threatened to filibuster and the Dems backed off instead of letting them do it.

They basically just blocked everything. It's the story of this Congress, but of course no one will report on it and as a consequence some people may even believe the bullshit that SDW is peddling.

Hmmm...so the Dems really reached out then. Righto. They certainly didn't obstruct when they were in the minority, hmm?



And I don't see why it would change if Obama became president. The only thing that will change it is if Republicans lose a few more senators, which everyone is predicting will happen.

They won't have to deal with the veto though.

[Fellowship]

Oil is a problem and so is the weakening US $.

The US needs a major project to change / evolve our energy policy.

Inflation is an issue and the stimulus package is hardly a hedge.

Fellows

[hardeeharhar]

That's a function of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

Most western european governments lack that.

I'm all for consolidating the two.
That's odd...

I tend to think separations of power is a good thing tm...

[BRussell]

Actually, from what I found that's not accurate. The GOP threatened to filibuster and the Dems backed off instead of letting them do it.

There are never any real filibusters any more. Instead they count cloture votes, and by that measure, my understanding is that this is the most obstructionist senate in US history. Again, those are the rules, but you can't blame democrats for republican's filibusters.

[addabox]

Sigh. Remember when SDW was a militant supporter of the "straight up or down vote"? It's basic democracy, dude!

I only note this because I'm intellectually dishonest.

[BRussell]

Sigh. Remember when SDW was a militant supporter of the "straight up or down vote"? It's basic democracy, dude!

I only note this because I'm intellectually dishonest.

But that was different.

[vinea]

Sigh. Remember when SDW was a militant supporter of the "straight up or down vote"? It's basic democracy, dude!

I only note this because I'm intellectually dishonest.

Thank the Gang of 14 for avoiding that idiocy. Is there a Moderate Party I could join?

[SDW2001]

Sigh. Remember when SDW was a militant supporter of the "straight up or down vote"? It's basic democracy, dude!

I only note this because I'm intellectually dishonest.

But that was different.

Actually, it was much different. I'll say it yet again: I do not oppose filibusters in general. I never have. What I opposed was judicial filibusters. Those are totally different animals. A lot of the nominees that came up would have passed. Secondly, the Dems were using the tactic to essentially rewrite the Constitution. There are specific places where super majority is needed, though confirming judicial nominees is not one of them. Other than for judicial nominees, the filibuster is an accepted tool of the opposition.

[BRussell]

Actually, it was much different. I'll say it yet again: [B] I do not oppose filibusters in general. I never have. Hmm, that contradicts what I remember. Are you saying that if I looked back in the AI archives, I wouldn't find something like this:

In fact, I think the filibuster needs to be done away with completely. It has no purpose in our system. It makes things inefficient. The majority should be allowed to exercise its rights, whomever that is...Reps or Dems. There are enough checks and balances in the rest of the system so that we don't need to listen to Harry Byrd read hillbilly poetry for 17 hours. :p


What I opposed was judicial filibusters. Those are totally different animals. A lot of the nominees that came up would have passed. Secondly, the Dems were using the tactic to essentially rewrite the Constitution. There are specific places where super majority is needed, though confirming judicial nominees is not one of them. Other than for judicial nominees, the filibuster is an accepted tool of the opposition.Filibsuters aren't in the constitution at all, for legislation or judicial nominees or anything else. It's just a long-standing part of the senate rules.

[addabox]

Hmm, that contradicts what I remember. Are you saying that if I looked back in the AI archives, I wouldn't find something like this:

:p


Filibsuters aren't in the constitution at all, for legislation or judicial nominees or anything else. It's just a long-standing part of the senate rules.

Remember also that many, many more of Bush's judicial nominations were confirmed than Clinton's, so the idea that there was some kind of unconscionable abuse of power that made those particular filibusters extra deplorable is nonsense.

But that's SDW world in a nutshell: a massively obstructionist Republican minority uses the Dem's narrow margins to stop everything they can and it's an example of Democratic fecklessness, a Dem minority uses the filibuster to hold up a few of Bush's more egregious nominees and it's a constitutional crisis.

[SDW2001]

Hmm, that contradicts what I remember. Are you saying that if I looked back in the AI archives, I wouldn't find something like this:

:p

That's actually not in opposition to what I've posted. I just wasn't clear. As long as we have filibusters, then I think the opposition can certainly use them. I just don't support them doing so on judicial nominees. If I had my choice, I'd like to see filibusters eliminated completely.




Filibsuters aren't in the constitution at all, for legislation or judicial nominees or anything else. It's just a long-standing part of the senate rules.

Thanks, genius. I know that. The point is a filibuster--particularly one for a judicial nominee--ensures that 60 votes are needed to confirm instead of 51. There are places where a super majority is called for, but confirming judicial nominees isn't one of them.