What will Democrats do after they win?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If the Democrats do take the House, what changes might be made in America's public policies?

First, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has promised that election of a Democratic House would insure "a rollback of the [bush] tax cuts."

[...]

Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, "the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs." But that progress doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates.

[...]

Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for "preventing the privatization of social security" is in the Democratic National Committee's "6-Point Plan for 2006." Democrats don't trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds--better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together."

[...]

"Reducing dependence on foreign oil" is a good Democratic goal, and there are a number of ways to accomplish it. Building more nuclear power plants is one. Offshore drilling for oil and natural gas is another. Oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf and Alaska could replace foreign oil imports for 25 years, and there is a known 19-year OCS supply of natural gas.

But liberal Democrats are opposed to all of these solutions.

[...]

The Democratic alternative is to eliminate the $18 billion the oil companies now get in various business tax deductions and thereby impose a higher income tax on them.

As for the war in Iraq, Mr. Rangel observed that "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" In other words, end it by simply defunding it. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania calls for "immediate redeployment of U.S. troops" and intends to run for majority leader if the Democrats take control of the House. Ninety percent of House Democrats opposed the terrorist surveillance program, and 80% voted against the recent terrorist interrogation legislation.

[...]

Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has indicated she would like to put Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida in charge of the House Intelligence Committee. As a federal judge, he was impeached in the House by a 413-3 vote, and removed from the bench by the Senate for bribery, corruption, and perjury. Rep. Hastings would lead the oversight of America's antiterrorism policies.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/p...t/?id=110009141

[almaty 19]

a good start..

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, "the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs." But that progress doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates.

And how much has the deficit increased during the same period?

[cmartyn 0]

Yes, on top of the trillion and a half they printed and handed out. I know currency is designed to lose value over time but hokey smokes.

[Fandango 1,439]

We have until at least 2012 to find out

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We have until at least 2012 to find out

Lisa,

You don't think there will be a Speaker Pelosi in January 2007?

I think there will be. I'm betting on the GOP holding on to the Senate though.

[mybackpages 0]

We have until at least 2012 to find out

Lisa,

You don't think there will be a Speaker Pelosi in January 2007?

I think there will be. I'm betting on the GOP holding on to the Senate though.

The talking heads on tv and radio would have us believe Nacy Pelosi is the one to fear, but republicans are more worried about who will chair key committees. Rep. Waxman on the committee for government reform for one. It's easier to throw about nancy as a liberal from San Francisco than it is to address real threats to the republican strong hold

[*Robert* 2]

Since Hell will have frozen over, and there will be no more people with brains... I don't think the Democrats will have a whole lot to do except end the war in Iraq and make trade agreements with North Korea.

[rclouse 0]

Since Hell will have frozen over, and there will be no more people with brains... I don't think the Democrats will have a whole lot to do except end the war in Iraq and make trade agreements with North Korea.

You forgot "and surrender to Al Qaeda".

[*Robert* 2]

Since Hell will have frozen over, and there will be no more people with brains... I don't think the Democrats will have a whole lot to do except end the war in Iraq and make trade agreements with North Korea.

You forgot "and surrender to Al Qaeda".

Sorry... I forgot that one, but thanks for reminding me!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, "the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs." But that progress doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates.

Did Investors Business Daily also point out by what numbers poverty grew during that time period? Or how many Americans actually lost access to health insurance? Or full time jobs with actual fringe benefits? Despite all this additional wealth, a lot more Americans have a lot less to show today than they had before Bush took office. It's not like everyone - or even most - get a piece of the pie anymore.

Edited October 25, 2006 by ET-US2004

[I'm Gone 60]

It will just be more of the same with higher taxes. I guess no one remembers the House Bank or Dan Rostenkowski or Jim Wright.

Edited October 25, 2006 by mdyoung