posted on January 2, 2007 05:45:59 PM new
What the Democrats want to do in the first 100 hours they control Congress.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
What the other side is doing during the first 100 hours below.
In 100 hours, the top five oil companies will take in $4.3 billion in profits.
In 100 hours, $1.1 billion will be spent on the war in Iraq.
In 100 hours, the public debt will grow by $4.9 billion.
In 100 hours, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies will gain $2.6 billion in profits.
In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each.
edited to add: [b]YEP, even the old WA Post is reporting that the dems are already BREAKING their promises of working WITH the republicans.
Again....they'll say anything to get elected...once elected they do what they KNEW they'd do before they lied to the voters. tsk tsk tsk
Guess this is what we have to look forward to under a democratic house and senate leadership. tsk tsk tsk
Democrats To Start Without GOP
InputQuick Passage of First Bills Sought
By Lyndsey Layton and Juliet EilperinWashington Post Staff WritersTuesday, January 2, 2007; A01
As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.
House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours.
They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.
But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.
Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders.
A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.
The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power.
The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems.
Yet in attempting to pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years.
Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.
"There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."
House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively.
They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.
Once again....it was the republicans that weren't working TOGETHER - but THEY were going to change that....lol...
but now things are SO different....they don't believe they need to work together either.
No surprise to me...but hope it is to other voters who will remember this for '08.
First the three ethics issues...before they even are sworn in...and now this 'back peddling'.
tsk tsk tsk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 2, 2007 08:57 PM ]
posted on January 2, 2007 09:18:32 PM new
Liar_k,
The Dems are blocking out the repugs for a short time to get some work done. The Dems want to pass laws early on that help the majority of Americans. While the Dems start working for the majority of Americans in their first 100 hours below is what repugs that Liar_k supported are doing.
In 100 hours, the top five oil companies will take in $4.3 billion in profits.
In 100 hours, $1.1 billion will be spent on the war in Iraq.
In 100 hours, the public debt will grow by $4.9 billion.
In 100 hours, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies will gain $2.6 billion in profits.
In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each.
Liar_k you are trying to spin the wrong issue lame brain. Thanks for my laugh of the day
posted on January 2, 2007 09:36:59 PM new
Given the republican history of Bipartisanism, I doubt the democrats will allow the republicans to participate any more than the republicans allowed the democrats to participate for the last 12 years. Right or wrong, payback is a Birch.
posted on January 2, 2007 10:03:37 PM new
Oh but I disagree.
They RAN on this 'we're going to change things and WE'RE going to do differently than the republicans did'.
LOL obviously just a lie.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 3, 2007 05:31:11 AM new
Liar_k,
Guess what you can disagree all you want but the Dems will block out the repugs for a short time to get important work done for the majority of Americans.
Can you say cut back on tax cuts to the rich?
Can you say investigations into Iraq and phone taps?
Yes Liar_k the swagger and bullishness is gone for the repugs.
posted on January 3, 2007 06:11:13 AM new
The only thing they're working on is who gets the best seats in the dining hall and who gets which office closest to the bathroom.
posted on January 3, 2007 07:11:20 AM newCan you say cut back on tax cuts to the rich?
Translation. Tax hikes for all. The demomorons cleverly called this a tax roll back. In reality, it's a tax hike. But the liars got away with it in this election. The next two year will expose them for what they really are.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The current Demomoron motto.
posted on January 3, 2007 07:13:21 AM new
Well....some are more 'full of it' than others and NEED to be closer to the restrooms.
=================
Bush calls on Democrats to work with him
'Political' legislation will lead to stalemate, he says in op-ed column
WASHINGTON - President Bush, facing a Democratic-controlled Congress for the first time, is urging lawmakers to work with his administration and warning that "political statements" in the form of legislation would result in a stalemate.
"Together, we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don't expect us to tackle, let alone solve, in the partisan environment of today's Washington," Bush wrote in a guest column for The Wall Street Journal posted on the newspaper's Web site Tuesday night.
"To do that, however, we can't play politics as usual," he said. "Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve."
Bush, while sounding a tone of bipartisanship on the eve of the new session of Congress that begins Thursday, repeated long-held positions on the war in Iraq, tax cuts and other issues often criticized by Democrats. He has vetoed only one bill, but he reminded readers that the Constitution calls on the president to use his judgment in deciding which bills to sign into law.
'Next two years can be fruitful'
"If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate," Bush wrote. "If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for our nation. We can show the American people that Republicans and Democrats can come together to find ways to help make America a more secure, prosperous and hopeful society."
Bush planned to meet with his Cabinet to discuss domestic priorities on Wednesday and to court key lawmakers at a social reception that evening. He is under pressure to announce a new Iraq strategy, although officials say he is still making decisions and will not reveal any changes this week, and is expected to say he is sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 3, 2007 07:17 AM ]
posted on January 3, 2007 11:17:36 AM new
I can't believe how unpatriotic and anti American people like Liar_k,and stonehead are. These 2 don't mind spending 350 billion dollars on Bushy's invasion of Iraq but don't want to spend a few of their dollars to help other Americans right here at home. Like Hello New Orleans,hello health insurance,hello stem cell research,hello lower drug prices,hello oil companies and finally here we come self serving greedy people.
The good news is other Patriotic Americans made their views insignificant. Liar_k and stonehead need to understand their religious backed new-con experiment in government crumbled and failed and they got left behind.
When will the investigations start about what more and more Americans are calling Bushy's crimes?
posted on January 3, 2007 03:49:09 PM new
Oh boy.....looks like SOME on the radical left are going to be SURE the dem party does what they promised to do.....and why they voted to put them in power.
Doesn't look like they're going to 'quietly' accept them changing their minds....LOL LOL LOL
from today's Washington Business Journal
Protesters disrupt press conference on lobbying reform
Washington Business Journal - 3:07 PM EST Wednesday
by Kent Hoover
Washington Bureau Chief
House Democrats tried to unveil their lobbying reform package today, but their press conference was drowned out by chants from anti-war activists who want Congress to stop funding the Iraq war before taking on other issues.
Led by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier, the protesters chanted "De-escalate, investigate, troops home now" as Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., began outlining the Democrats' plans to ban lobbyist-funded travel and institute other ethics reforms.
The press conference was held in the Cannon House Office Building in an area open to the public.
Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting.
Sheehan says she has nothing against lobbying reform, but she and her fellow anti-war activists want Democrats to know they will keep pressuring Congress to end the war in Iraq.
"We wanted the Democrats to know they're back in power because of the grass roots," Sheehan says.
The anti-war activists held their own Capitol Hill press conference earlier in the day before deciding to attend the lobbying reform press conference as well.
Before the chanting started, Sheehan got a hug from Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 3, 2007 04:07:16 PM new
You're too COWARDLY to go after anyone old "waco"peepa. Don't fool yourself.
Anyone who wants to give a VICTORY to AQ and our enemies in Iraq...is nothing more than a COWARD.
And you fall right in that catagory. You're just full of hot air...and that's no threat to anyone or anything.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 3, 2007 08:18:24 PM new
hey all just look how upset Liar_k has become since her new-con government has failed. Liar_k knows we are coming after her purse. Yes!!!
We will make her a patriotic sharing American if she likes it or not.
No reason to be upset Liar_k just think of the good you will do for your the fellow Americans. You should be proud not angry.
Mark this date down tomorrow 1/4/07 the beginning of a better America for the majority.
posted on January 4, 2007 06:32:14 PM new
At least the Dems still remember how to put on a dog and pony show for their supporters.
It astounds me how gullible these whack pack idiots are. Take the minimum wage.
The minimum wage is already scheduled to go up, so if it goes by without a veto, you can hear these dopes already cackling.
Some info on the minimum wage:
1) The vast majority of people classed as "working poor" earn more than the min. wage.
2) Less than .6% of American workers earn the minimum wage. Of that tiny percentage, the vast majority are not poor. Only 1 in 5 is below the poverty line. More than 60% work part time and have an avg household income of >$60K.
3) More than half min wage earners are under 25 and more than a quarter are 16-19. Many are students or part-timers.
4) 60% of min wage workers work in restaurants and bars and have untaxed income.
A mostly meaningless boondoggle that almost always backfires. Tell the restaurant owner to give a waitress $1, he simply charges her for her uniform rental.
posted on January 7, 2007 02:42:05 PM new
LOOKS LIKE WE WILL GET SOME WORK OUT OF THIS CONGRESS ALONG WITH HELP TO WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS SEE BELOW.
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
January 4, 2007.
Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, before Monday, May 14, 2007, the hour of daily meeting of the House shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; noon on Tuesdays; and 10 a.m. on all other days of the week; and from Monday, May 14, 2007, until the end of the first session, the hour of daily meeting of the House shall be noon on Mondays; 10 a.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays; and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.
A BILL
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE.
(a) In General- Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
`(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than--
`(A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the date of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007;
`(B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
`(C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day;'.
LOOKS LIKE WE WILL GET SOME WORK OUT OF THIS CONGRESS ALONG WITH HELP TO WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS.
A BILL
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
`SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo) .
`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.
H.R.1
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
posted on January 7, 2007 02:55:35 PM new
Some will NEVER get the concept that raising the min. wage doesn't help the 'poor' at all. But rather the middle class get to pay MORE for what they buy....as do those teenages who all got/might get these wonderful pay increases.
Heck...some of them might even decided to not stay in high school....as they can earn such a GREAT salary by quitting.
It's a bad deal for everyone.
=========
But have the DEMS started working on DEFUNDING our troops yet? Have they DEMANDED A withdrawal date for our troops to come home?
Last time I read they were ONLY in disagreement about whether MORE troops need to be sent or not....NOT withdrawing.
Or are they avoiding that serious issue....AND the IRAN issue and the N. KOREA issue... and pussy footing around with subjects they think they'll get more republican agreement upon?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 7, 2007 03:20:57 PM new
Whack pack members are easily confused by numbers like the statistics for the minimum wage I posted.
I hope peeps isn't going to post on every bill proposed.
I was reading some interesting stats on the veto from AP:
The odds on vetoes always have favored presidents, no matter which party controls Congress. There have been 2,551 presidential vetoes since George Washington became president in 1789. Only 106 have been overridden.
Even more bills might draw vetoes if not for a procedural rule in the 100-member Senate that makes it hard for contentious legislation to pass without 60 votes _ instead of a simple majority of 51. Thus, Republicans should be able to keep many veto-threatened bills from even making it to Bush.
In the Senate, the Democratic advantage is just 51-49, made up of 49 Democrats and two independents who usually vote along with the Democrats. In the House, the Democrat-Republican breakdown is 233-202.
Once a president vetoes a bill, lawmakers have 10 days (excluding Sundays) in which to override it. Overturning a veto takes a two-third majority of those present and voting in both chambers. If all 100 senators vote, a veto-override requires 67. If all 435 House members are voting, 290 votes are needed.
Bush's only veto was a rejection of legislation in July to increase federal money for embryonic stem-cell research. The bill had much bipartisan support, but not enough.
The House voted 235-193 to override his veto _ 51 short of the 286 that would have been needed (two-thirds of the total votes of 428). Because only one chamber is needed to sustain a veto, the Senate did not have to act. Bush's action stood.
Bush's one veto is a little misleading. Actually, he has made more than 140 veto threats since taking office.
In many cases, Republican leaders just modified the legislation to make it more to Bush's liking. In other instances, he added "signing statements" flagging parts he disputed on constitutional grounds.
Why has not he issued more vetoes? Because he usually got what he wanted from the Republican Congress.
Now, all has changed.
"It's far more likely that he's going to veto spending bills than in the last Congress. He won't be taking on his own party," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who closely follows Congress.
Bush's predecessors used the veto far more than he has so far.
Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, vetoed 44 bills in his single term and had only one overridden. President Clinton vetoed 37 bills in eight years and two were overridden. President Reagan vetoed 78 bills over eight years and nine were overridden.
President Ford, laid to rest last week after a state funeral at which he was praised for practicing the art of political compromise, vetoed 66 bills in 2 1/2 years and had 12 overridden.
That ties with President Truman (1945-53), who also had 12 overrides _ of 250 vetoes. The only president with more overrides was Andrew Johnson (1865-69), with 15 of his 29 vetoes overturned.
posted on January 7, 2007 05:27:27 PM new
I know he'd like to have the 'line item' veto...but seriously doubt that will ever come about.
But I do hope he uses his veto power like no President has ever done before. Set new records on using his veto power.
Especially when it comes to taking away our ability to fight terrorism...here or abroad.
I truly don't expect that the dems will be able to get much passed in Congress when the republicans aren't in agreement with them.
And I'm also wondering if that one dem senator who had a [I believe] brain hemmorage will be able to return to his seat. If not that again changes the 51-49 power...it would be 49-49 with our VP as the tie breaker. I think I'm going to love watching this 110th Congress. lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 7, 2007 08:31:39 PM new
I sure am going to show the difference between the new-con 109th Congress and the 110th Congress run by Democrats. You can bet on it.
desquirrel
No confusion on my part about minimum wage. I just said you need to work someplace for MINIMUM WAGE or SHUT UP ABOUT IT.
Liar_k, I also hope Bushy uses his veto power a lot,if so America will surely have a Democrat in the White House in 2008. YES!!!
You new-cons just don't get it. Its people like desquirrel and Liar_k that woke up a sleeping Giant for the 2006 elections and that Giant is not going to sleep again.
The vast majority of Americans will be watching every move Bushy and his gang make. That is Bushy's gang that is not already out of power or in jail. LOL
The only other administration to completely crumble so quickly in my life time was another CRIMINAL'S administration named Nixon.
posted on January 7, 2007 08:59:40 PM new
Oh, we "get it". Just merely pointing out the ravings about future accomplishments are tiresome. Let us all know after something happens.
Tell us again about the poverty stricken minimum wage earners.
posted on January 8, 2007 08:01:22 AM new
"Its people like desquirrel and Liar_k that woke up a sleeping Giant for the 2006 elections and that Giant is not going to sleep again."
Its about time he got his lazy fat ass outta bed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on January 8, 2007 08:18:23 AM new
Well, at least the "sleeping giant" will work a FIVE DAY WEEK unlike those lazy slob Repugs who had a hard time managing four!
"""political statements" in the form of legislation would result in a stalemate. """
For the "duh,slobber, drool" righties in here that simply means anything bush doesn't like will get vetoed.
posted on January 8, 2007 09:35:47 AM new
"Bring them on" the veto's that is. The Democrats want more republican lawmakers kicked out of power and a Democrat President in 2008.
Remember 2008 is just a "comma in history" away and the giant will be watching every move the republicans make. YES!!!
JUST LOOK AT THE MESS MIXING RELIGION WITH POLITICS BROUGHT AMERICA UNDER BUSHY.
Are YOU a Bunghole?