NationStates Jolt Archive

Politicians not keeping their campaign promises? My word, what is the world coming too?

Despite their campaign promises, it looks like Democrats still don't have the balls to do what they say they would do.

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+leaves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F2007-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats will unveil a 2008 budget today that would boost spending for uninsured children, students and veterans without cutting funds for defense or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The budget also would not roll back any of President Bush's tax cuts after 2010, when they are set to expire. It says the tax cuts can be extended if they are paid for.

The spending plan, to be voted on Thursday by the Senate Budget Committee, is more specific about its additions than its subtractions. Most decisions on how to pay for new spending or tax cuts are left to the committees that will turn the budget blueprint into legislation.

"We do not tell them how to raise the money," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the budget panel. "We do not tell (them) how to spend the money."

In fact, the budget is most notable for what it would not do, despite Democrats' attacks: reduce Bush's war spending or tax cuts. Senate Democrats do not want to be seen as hurting troops or taxpayers. House Democrats will unveil their proposal next week.

Politicians not keeping their campaign promises? My word, what is the world coming too?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! I must go write a stern letter to the editor of my local newspaper. :rolleyes:

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! I must go write a stern letter to the editor of my local newspaper. :rolleyes:

Your winnings, sir...

Democrats this, republicans that, bitch, whine, bitch, whine.

You know, this is why I prefer dictatorships. That I'm in charge of.

Despite their campaign promises, it looks like Democrats still don't have the balls to do what they say they would do.

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+leaves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F2007-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660

Wow...I'm truly shocked. Truly! It's not like its the same thing all other politicians pull! Oh no, this is much more devious, much more sinister. Quick, cue the mustache twirling villain!

They're politicians. They're supposed to break promises.

See, this kind of resignation is why the world sucks.

They're politicians. They're supposed to break promises.

Your winnings, sir...

Linky :D (http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Park/6771/Images/cr109.jpg)

You know, this is why I prefer dictatorships. That I'm in charge of.
Indeed.:D And when you're not in charge, so much the better since whatever goes wrong isn't your fault (unlike in a representative government, where you quite literally "get what you vote for...":p).

So we can't rely on the Democrats or Republicans. Third parties can't win. So where does that leave us?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants it is it's natural manure" Thomas Jefferson


So how does one go about starting a revolution?

I believe it was Goebbels that had no balls at all . . .

Democrats are cowardly, and Republicans are evil. It's the truism of modern American politics.

As usual, Eve, you leave out anything that doesn't fit in with your bullshit spin. The other thing you leave out is any detail of exactly "The Democrats" said they would actually do. I remember individual Democrats making promises as to what they would try to do, but you know as well as anyone that individual Congresspeople aren't capable of doing much on their own, short of holding up legislation.

The budget resolution sets the parameters for the tax and spending bills that comprise the federal budget. It does not have to get passed, and it does not require the president's signature. But without it, the budget process in Congress usually breaks down, as it did last year when Republicans failed to pass most appropriations bills.

Highlights of the plan:

•This year's $248 billion budget deficit would rise to $249 billion next year. By 2012, it would be replaced by a $132 billion surplus.

•The Children's Health Insurance Program would get up to $50 billion more over five years, about $45 billion more than Bush proposed and enough to insure all eligible children. Education programs would get about $6 billion more than Bush proposed next year, and veterans programs would rise by about $3.5 billion.

•The Defense and State departments would get the full $142 billion Bush seeks in 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats also kept Bush's proposed $481 billion defense budget, a $49 billion boost over this year.

•Tax rates would not be increased, but the budget would seek to clamp down on tax cheats and offshore tax shelters to raise new revenue. The alternative minimum tax, which targets the rich, would not raise taxes on the middle class for two years — one year more than Bush proposes.

Democrats are cowardly, and Republicans are evil. It's the truism of modern American politics.

I thought Democrats were wishywashy and Republicans were idiots . . .

Politicians are lying scum. Your point?

Yep! "Poli" = latin for "many." "Tics" = bloodsucking arachnids ;)

See, this kind of resignation is why the world sucks.

Well, what choice have we got?

Politicians are lying scum. Your point?

I would have liked to see Iraq funding scaled back, but the fucking Blue Dogs got in the way of that. I'm a commited Dem, but I want to see someone with the backbone to tell the Blue Dogs where they can shove it replace Pelosi at this point.

Still, as Nazz points out, they will not raise taxes. They are just closing loopholes that should be shut, and getting rid of ways that cheapskates unwilling to do their parts hide their money. Sounds good to me.

I would have liked to see Iraq funding scaled back, but the fucking Blue Dogs got in the way of that. I'm a commited Dem, but I want to see someone with the backbone to tell the Blue Dogs where they can shove it replace Pelosi at this point.

Still, as Nazz points out, they will not raise taxes. They are just closing loopholes that should be shut, and getting rid of ways that cheapskates unwilling to do their parts hide their money. Sounds good to me.

Instead of cutting funding for the war, which would quite rightly be seen as hurting the troops, couldn't they just revoke authorization for the use of military force? After all, the president can't wage war without congressional authorization.

Instead of cutting funding for the war, which would quite rightly be seen as hurting the troops, couldn't they just revoke authorization for the use of military force? After all, the president can't wage war without congressional authorization.

Because nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes. That means you need 10 Republican Senators to cross the aisle, and that's not likely to happen.

Instead of cutting funding for the war, which would quite rightly be seen as hurting the troops, couldn't they just revoke authorization for the use of military force? After all, the president can't wage war without congressional authorization.

I said scaled back. I meant that I'd like to see enough money to sustain a withdrawal, but no more. There's a difference.

And yes, I'd love to see a revocation of the AoMF, but once again, the Blue Dog DINOs would oppose that.

Another reason why I basically never vote Democrat.. just to beat that dead horse a bit more. Although yes, it is nice knowing that an election loss to a Democrat doesn't mean much. Aside from raising taxes, they don't generally accomplish much of anything.

A modern Democrat's purpose is to hector their party leaders until Republicans take notice and finally decide whether to co-opt the issue or ignore it. Seems that way oftentimes at least.

A modern Democrat's purpose is to hector their party leaders until Republicans take notice and finally decide whether to co-opt the issue or ignore it. Seems that way oftentimes at least.

Just like a modern Republican's job is to fuck up the economy so bad that only the rich are making money, fuck up foreign relations so bad that a large portion of the world now hates us who liked us before, fuck up and send our troops to die in a war which is managed so poorly that we have to send soldiers with PTSD into combat, and fuck up health care so bad that only the wealthy can get it. Seems that way oftentimes, at least.

Instead of cutting funding for the war, which would quite rightly be seen as hurting the troops, couldn't they just revoke authorization for the use of military force? After all, the president can't wage war without congressional authorization.

Because nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes. That means you need 10 Republican Senators to cross the aisle, and that's not likely to happen.

This seems like a Brier patch thing to me. Enough campaigning Democratic congresspeople entertained that as an option, and mostly as a last option.

Now Republicans are basically calling them chicken for not going for it right off the bat because they are going to sell it as the Democrats Don't Support our Troops, they're loaded for it-hell, I wouldn't be suprised if the posters are already made. What's left is for the Republicans to continuously goad the Democrats into going for it and then let the empty rhetoric flow.

Because nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes. That means you need 10 Republican Senators to cross the aisle, and that's not likely to happen.

Why not? Aren't the Democrats riding that "election momentum"?

Or is that already vaporized?

Just like a modern Republican's job is to fuck up the economy so bad that only the rich are making money, fuck up foreign relations so bad that a large portion of the world now hates us who liked us before, fuck up and send our troops to die in a war which is managed so poorly that we have to send soldiers with PTSD into combat, and fuck up health care so bad that only the wealthy can get it. Seems that way oftentimes, at least.

See, at least under Republican leadership you can come up with a litany of misinformed complaints.. Democrats don't ordinarily accomplish enough of their goals to give the opposition ammunition, or even concrete examples of major Democrat bungling.. ;)

Take Bill Clinton.. rarely took that jump to the left, signed the Defense of Marriage act and NAFTA into law against the wishes of his base.. didn't give me much opportunity to vent that adolescent rage.. :(

See, at least under Republican leadership you can come up with a litany of misinformed complaints.. Democrats don't ordinarily accomplish enough of their goals to give the opposition ammunition, or even concrete examples of major Democrat bungling.. ;)

Bullcrap. Or did you miss the first hundred hours of Democratic control?

Take Bill Clinton.. rarely took that jump to the left, signed the Defense of Marriage act and NAFTA into law against the wishes of his base.. didn't give me much opportunity to vent that adolescent rage.. :(


Gee... Bill Clinton, competant, intelligent, good with the economy. Or... George W, incompetant, untrustworthy, shit with the economy.

Hmm...

Bullcrap. Or did you miss the first hundred hours of Democratic control?

Gee... Bill Clinton, competant, intelligent, good with the economy. Or... George W, incompetant, untrustworthy, shit with the economy.


I think we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion here.. I did witness the much-hyped "first hundred hours," which I might generously categorize as "symbolic." Not that symbolism isn't a legitimate end, but we were talking about results, I believe. Although I can appreciate putting limits on "gifts" given to Congressmen, that affects both sides of the aisle equally, i.e. by slightly altering the standard mode of bribery.. but the effort, however symbolic, is nice, I'll admit.

I really (really) don't want to rehash Bush v. Clinton, but if you really believe it's so black-and-white, then.. uh.. that's even more reason not to rehash Bush v. Clinton.. :p I'm not going to try and squeeze water from a stone.

Gay Marriage Amendment. Flag Burning Amendment.

Election promises unfulfilled by Bush.

Both sides do not answer their promises.

Despite their campaign promises, it looks like Democrats still don't have the balls to do what they say they would do.

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+leaves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F2007-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660

Yep. Just like I predicted was going to happen. The Dems are not stupid as to cut funding for Iraq and Afghanistan for it will give the 2008 elections right back to the Republican Party.

Democrats this, republicans that, bitch, whine, bitch, whine.

Pretty much.

They're politicians. They're supposed to break promises.

No. They are supposed to keep their promises. That is why people elect them. They make a promise, they are expected to keep it. This one though, was bound to fail and has been proven right.

However, in this case, there won't be a backlash as there would have been if they actually gone through with their promises.

As usual, Eve, you leave out anything that doesn't fit in with your bullshit spin. The other thing you leave out is any detail of exactly "The Democrats" said they would actually do. I remember individual Democrats making promises as to what they would try to do, but you know as well as anyone that individual Congresspeople aren't capable of doing much on their own, short of holding up legislation.

WAIT? They want to increase the Federal Deficit? HOLY SHIT!!!

Its not like its much better in the UK

Tories this

Labour that

Same shit different name

hence we get some of the worst electoral turnout in Europe

This seems like a Brier patch thing to me. Enough campaigning Democratic congresspeople entertained that as an option, and mostly as a last option.

Now Republicans are basically calling them chicken for not going for it right off the bat because they are going to sell it as the Democrats Don't Support our Troops, they're loaded for it-hell, I wouldn't be suprised if the posters are already made. What's left is for the Republicans to continuously goad the Democrats into going for it and then let the empty rhetoric flow.

which is a very good strategy. Damned if they do and damned if they don't go through with said proposal.

Why not? Aren't the Democrats riding that "election momentum"?

Or is that already vaporized?

In reality, there really was not much of a momentum to begin with.

Why not? Aren't the Democrats riding that "election momentum"?

Or is that already vaporized?

You're not stupid Eve, even though you act like it sometimes.

So how does one go about starting a revolution?

Nah I'm happy with New Jersey as it is. Although the United Counties of New Jersey sounds like paradise. No New York dumping trash on us, No federal government burying toxic waste in our land. Yeah.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted;12427958]So we can't rely on the Democrats or Republicans. Third parties can't win. So where does that leave us?

Third parties fourth or fifth parties can win

but only if you vote for them

Third parties fourth or fifth parties can win

but only if you vote for them

Technically your correct but the two parties are established parties that

a) Have financial backing

b) have an electoral base

c) field enough candidates

All these provide barriers to entry

UK is no better no matter how hard the Lib Dems (me included!) try

I believe it was Goebbels that had no balls at all . . .

:D

*whistles the Colonel Bogey March*

Third parties fourth or fifth parties can win

but only if you vote for them
If only it were that simple. The one great bipartisan success story in US politics is the limiting of easy ballot access to the two big parties. If you're not one of the big two, you have to jump through hoops just to get on the ballot in many states, even for local races, and then you have to have the funding to actually compete in those races. You won't get any help from institutional donors because you have nothing to offer them--if you did, you'd be in one of the big two parties. And because you're not in one of the big two parties, the stereotype you have to overcome is that you're a radical of some kind, a stereotype that is often true, sadly. So to say that all you have to do is vote for them is simplistic in the extreme--you also have to get other people to vote for them as well, and that's the hard part.

If only it were that simple. The one great bipartisan success story in US politics is the limiting of easy ballot access to the two big parties. If you're not one of the big two, you have to jump through hoops just to get on the ballot in many states, even for local races, and then you have to have the funding to actually compete in those races. You won't get any help from institutional donors because you have nothing to offer them--if you did, you'd be in one of the big two parties. And because you're not in one of the big two parties, the stereotype you have to overcome is that you're a radical of some kind, a stereotype that is often true, sadly. So to say that all you have to do is vote for them is simplistic in the extreme--you also have to get other people to vote for them as well, and that's the hard part.

But it IS that simple... *Points at Ventura*

As usual, Eve, you leave out anything that doesn't fit in with your bullshit spin.

now that is a truly shocking prospect - if you can't trust fascists and wingnuts, who's left?

now that is a truly shocking prospect - if you can't trust fascists and wingnuts, who's left?

Generally, moonbats are considered to be left.

Why do you ask?

:p

But it IS that simple... *Points at Ventura*

Ventura actually proves another point--most successful third party candidates in the US have one of two characteristics. They're either immensely wealthy and can self-fund, like Michael Bloomberg in New York, or they're famous for some other reason, and their movements die when they leave public life, like Ventura or his mentor Ross Perot.