# WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU.



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Again .. do I think that the Republicans have earned our continued permission to control both the House and the Senate in Washington?

Not only no, but hell no.

The best that can be said of the Republicans now is that they're not Democrats :eyeroll: , though they seem to be trying to erase any differences as fast as they can. Republicans in control for two more years --- spending and increasing the size of government --- is an acceptable outcome next week only because the alternative is so much worse.

Here is one of the plans that the Democrats have for you and your bank accounts if and when they get the control that they think is their birthright.

I want to share with you another delicious little morsel the Democrats have waiting for you if they ever gain the political power they so ardently desire.

* It's called "imputed income." If you are a home owner, pay attention. This concerns your wallet and your bank account. *

Let me start this off with a few points that I don't think you will dispute. Democrats are the party of big government. Democrats are the party of the social welfare state. Democrats want to make more and more Americans dependent on government because they know that the higher the degree of dependency the weaker the people and the stronger the government. It goes without saying that the stronger and more powerful government becomes, the stronger and more powerful the politicians who control that government become. This isn't rocket science here.

Money in the hands of the people who earned it contributes to their personal independence. Independent people don't need politicians. Money taken from those who earn it and then used to build the government social welfare state robs people of their independence. Democrats love this scenario. *They want you to be dependent on government. * To do that they need to take your money and use it to grow the federal welfare state.

This is why Democrats just love the idea of tax increases.

To be sure, Democrats know that all of their rhetoric about raising taxes on the rich and the rich "paying their fair share" resonates well with their voter base. Playing to wealth envy will always earn votes ... but nothing earns votes quite like dependence on government. Creating that dependence, though, is an expensive proposition. To cover the tab the Democrats have to drain every penny from your pocket that they can -- right up to the point that you decide it's time to revolt.

Democrats will tell you that they only want to raise taxes on the so-called "rich." Nancy Pelosi will probably come up with some figure in the $200,000 or $250,000 range to describe "rich" when she and her Democrat pals start to work on their tax increase plans. But here's a warning. If you happen to fall below that "rich" category, you're in their crosshairs as well. They have various schemes in the works to put you smack in the middle of the "rich" category, and thus set you up for some pretty substantial tax increases.

One such scheme targets homeowners. *It's called "imputed income," and its a brilliant and devious idea on how to tax your home ownership.*
Here's how it works.

Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years. For 20 years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time. Your monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month. Remember, it's a 20-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much, much less. There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest.

The very fact that you're living in such a nice home, and paying so little, attracts the interest of Democrats. They know that there are a lot of people in your neighborhood that paid a lot more for their homes than you did, and their mortgage payments are a lot higher. Not only that, but there are other people renting homes in your neighborhood and they're paying much more than you are every month. It's obvious that you're enjoying some great economic benefit due to the fact that you've owned your home for so long and your payments are so low. *Well, where there's an economic benefit, there must be a tax! * :******:

*Enter the concept of imputed income!*

Under this wonderful plan,* first floated by Clinton Democrats before the voter revolution of 1994*, the government would figure out how much your home would rent for every month. To do this they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any information that they can develop on current sale and rental prices up and down your street.

Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will --- determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month. That would add up to $39,000 a year. But the IRS discovers that you're only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent. Well, there's that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term home ownership. The economic benefit of your home ownership is the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying. Do the math.

*You're getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits! * 

The Democrat plan is simple.

Just take that $32,400 and add it to your taxable income on your next tax return. Then you get the privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership. The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so to speak. Your neighbors had to pay taxes on the full $39,000 they're paying to live down the street ... now you're having to do the same. After all ... it's only fair, right! uke:

Just remember this. Democrats actually believe that the best use for every single penny you earn is for it to be spent by government for what they love to call the "common good." They will grudgingly allow you to keep enough of your earnings to avoid your participation in a full-scale tax revolt. A good Democrat knows that only Democrats and the government know what is good for you, and that you will be so much better off and your life oh so much better if you will just succumb to the power of government and it's ability to care for you much better than you can care for yourself.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

GREAT POST, Bobm!

What does it tell YOU, that it's gone a full week without a reply?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Just some lingo for some of you that can't remember when democrats were in power before, very very important, *INVESTMENT means TAX*= BOHICA


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I havent replied, but I've been explaining this to a few people I know. All are quite shocked to hear they would actually consider something like this.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Heres some more of the Dems handiwork

*Prevent any overhaul of Social Security*

Convince wrinkled citizens that the evil Republicans want to take away their Social Security. It's an old trick, tried and true. The Democrats have rolled this one out every single election, telling voters that the evil Republicans have a "secret" plan to reduce Social Security benefits as soon as they are reelected.

Just what legislative agenda does the Democrat Party plan to pursue now that they have gained control of the Senate, the House and soon the presidency?

Here are just some of the goodies the Social Democrat Party has in store for the people of America.

*Remove a majority of voters from responsibility for income taxes .*

This is the biggie - and they've made no attempt to hide their goals here. The Democrats have been working on this plan for decades --- with no small amount of help from the cowardly Republicans uke: .

The idea is simple. Using "refundable" tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers. Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. The Democrats are close to their goal. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts - and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich. Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress.
Its not about helping the poor it is about political power.

*Shift Social Security and Medicare Taxes to the "Rich"*

Payroll taxes, as you know, are basically Social Security and Medicare taxes. The Democrats have almost achieved their goal of shielding the so-called "poor" from any income tax liability at all. But --- the poor saps still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Democrats conveniently ignore the fact that these same people will get full Social Security and Medicare benefits when they reach the magic age ... and those benefits must never be touched! It's OK, though, to excuse these people from the responsibility of actually having to pay the premiums for these insurance and retirement benefits. So ..... the next element of the Democrats' Secret Plan! The elimination of payroll taxes for the poor!

This is a plan that was put forth by Democrat Robert Reich 
on Fox News Channel on July 31, 2002. The idea is to, as Reich puts it, "lift the tax burden off the poor" by eliminating payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of income. Here's how you do it. The Democrats pass a law which says that nobody has to pay any payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of their income. Bingo -- the poor now have a completely free ride! *They are now life-long, dedicated Democratic voters. *

But wait! Isn't that going to cost the government money? Are you kidding? Of course it's not! It's not going to cost the government money because they're simply going to raise the salary cap for Social Security taxes by enough to cover the lost revenues! Right now the cap is around $88,000 on Social Security taxes. To cover the shortfall Reich says they will just raise the salary cap by $15,000 ... to $103,000 a hear. Reich forgets, though, that there is no cap on Medicare taxes, so raising the cap by $15,000 would not recover the Medicare taxes lost by excluding the first $15,000 in income. In reality the Democrats would have to raise the salary cap by about $19,000. They would just round it off to $20,000.

So, there you go. Shifting the burden for the cost of Social Security and Medicare for low income earners onto high income earners. The Democratic way. :eyeroll:

*Massive increase in Social Security taxes *

Social Security is a mainstay when it comes to Democrat vote-buying. Social Security was, is and always will be nothing more than a giant income redistribution scheme designed to create dependency on government and loyalty to the program's protectors in congress. The more money you pour into Social Security benefits, the more the wizened class loves you, depends on you and will be dedicated to keeping you in office. The Democrats need massive new funding sources to pay expanded Social Security benefits --- but they must get that money without raising Social Security taxes on the middle and lower income groups. The solution? The Democrats have a "secret plan" to expand the wage base for Social Security taxes. Right now you only pay these taxes on the first $88,000 or so of income. Give the Democrats the power and watch that wage base jump to $100,000, $200,000 and beyond. The eventual Democrat Party goal is to have people pay Social Security taxes on every penny they earn ... no matter how much that is. There will no comparable increase in benefits for the high income earners. The extra money will be used to keep the Democratic middle and low-income constituency happy.

*End the home mortgage interest deduction*

Democrats have been after this income tax deduction for decades. They call it a "subsidy." Now the more intelligent among us will clearly understand that allowing someone to keep more of the money that they earn can hardly be called a "subsidy."  :roll:

But we're talking about the more intelligent among us. These people aren't likely to be voting for Democrats anyway!

As soon as the Democrats manage to gain control of the federal government they will move to eliminate this "subsidy for the rich." They know that there will be little adverse political fallout. After all -- the mortgage interest deduction is only valuable to people who actually pay income taxes AND who itemize their deductions. Democrats have already succeeded in removing most of their core constituency from the income tax rolls --- so what is there to lose?

When the Democrats ride into power you had better be prepared to kiss that mortgage interest deduction -- and a lot more of your money -- a fond farewell.

*Socialized Medicine*

They already tried this with Hillary Care. It failed. Democrats aren't discouraged by failure. They just try and try again until they finally get you to swallow the poison pill. There are two basic reasons the Democrats are working so hard for complete government control of this huge segment of our economy. 
One, of course, is power.

Health care comprises about 15% of our national economy. If the government can seize control of this large a segment of our economy a giant step toward a socialist economy will have been achieved. The second reason is control. Think about it. If you control a person's access to healthcare ... you effectively control that person.

Right now the Democrats have had to put their plans for socialized medicine on hold. Those pesky Republicans in the House and the White House have been making things tough. Democrats have had to be satisfied with just sitting up there in the Beltway blocking any efforts to introduce competition into the medical marketplace. Now their in control so its goning to happen.

Democrats live in quaking fear of free market competition. This was one of the reasons they worked so hard to defeat Bush's economic stimulus plan. There was a provision in that plan that would allow laid-off workers to go out into the marketplace to find health insurance. They would then be allowed a tax credit to cover the cost of that health insurance premium. Democrats wanted federal funds to be paid to employers to encourage employers to extend health insurance benefits to laid-off workers. Democrats knew that if private individuals ventured into the free marketplace to find health insurance they might just find that free market competition could deliver a superior insurance product at a reduced price. Obviously these socialists couldn't let that happen! :******:

*Tax your pension funds*

This idea first received serious consideration in the early Clinton years. As soon as the Republicans took control of the Congress the idea disappeared. Right now it's being "secretly" incubated by Democrats to be hatched now that they have regained control. The idea is simple.

There are trillions of dollars out there in various private pension and 401K plans. All of these trillions of dollars are earning interest for (gasp!) private investors and individuals and not for the government! To make matters worse - most of these private pension and 401K plans are owned by the evil, hated upper income earners.

The "secret" plan? *A one-time 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all private pension and 401K retirement plans.* This money would be paid into the general fund of the federal government and used to fund various social programs for low and middle-income earners.

Is this a dangerous plan for Democrats? Not really. The plan would take money chiefly from those who earn enough money to actually pay income taxes and contribute to pension plans. These people do not make up the core of Democratic voters.

*Tax your pension contributions also*

After the Democrats levy their 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all pension and 401K plans, they intend to follow up with a tax on all future contributions to these plans. The theory is that "rich" people shouldn't be allowed to contribute that money to these plans tax free when "poor" people don't have that opportunity.

*Economically Targeted Investments -- controlling your pension fund investments.*

Here we are, right back at your pension funds and 401K funds again. Again --- *there is so much money in these funds, trillions of dollars, that the Democrats just can't leave them alone.*

All of this money just sitting there and not one penny of it is being used to buy votes for Democrats. So --- here comes the idea of Economically Targeted Investments. "ETIs" the Democrats call them, and they're a huge part of the Democrat agenda.* All they needed is control in Washington and they now have it with that wimp George never veto anything Bush to help them*

Here's the deal. The government grants various tax breaks to these retirement plans. As you know, or as you should know, tax breaks are usually granted to force some individual or corporation to act and behave in some manner pleasing to government uke: .

The Democrats plan to change the rules on pension and 401K accounts. Instead of just investing these funds in stocks and bonds, fund managers will be required by the government to invest these funds in certain investments dictated by government -- by Democrats. *In this way the governments can fund some of their spending schemes, but without using government funds.*

The Democrats will simply pass laws requiring fund managers to invest in corporations building low income housing; or companies who are hiring workers off welfare roles. Other "allowed" investments will be in such things as environmental protection, waste recycling and other causes popular with the left. In short order the Democrats will have rules in place which state that these pension funds cannot be invested in companies that are "unfriendly" to unions. To a Democrat ... any company with a non-union workforce is "unfriendly" to unions. Corporations who have affirmative action programs will get the nod. Companies who hire and promote on merit will not.

All of this will mean that the Democrats can claim credit for spending on some of their favorite programs without going to the taxpayers. They can just, in effect, use pension money. *The end result, of course, is lower returns on pension fund investments -- and lower pension benefits to retirees. That doesn't bother the Democrats, though. The less money you have to retire on the more dependent on government you will be.[/b]

Force employers to pay for "family leave."

Right now the Family Leave Act requires employers to give employees about 12 weeks of unpaid "family leave" to take care of certain family events and emergencies, such as having a baby, illness, death or some other situation. The key here is that the family leave is unpaid. The Democrats want employers to continue to pay the employees while they take their extended vacation. The Democrats "secret" plan is to begin with a law requiring payment of about one-half of the employee's salary. This will give Democratic candidates the opportunity to campaign in future years on the basis of increasing the percentage paid to those on family leave. Paying people for not working --- a Democrat staple. :eyeroll:

Seizure of property of those who flee Democratic tyranny 

As Democrats work diligently for more control over our economy and increase levels of income redistribution many high-achieving Americans are making plans to run. The greater the confiscation of wealth becomes the more people start looking for other countries in which to base their businesses. Democrats have a plan to impose confiscatory taxes on any Americans who try to move their wealth or their business interests out of this country.

Government paid childcare for majority of voters

The absolute last thing a Democrat would ever do would be to suggest to anyone that they shouldn't have a baby they can't afford to raise. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Democrats know that children are the absolute more important thing in the lives of millions of Americans. They have been working for decades to impose ever more expensive rules and regulations on private child care agencies. They have also been working to raise taxes to the point that it is difficult beyond reason to raise a child on the income of one working parent. Thus ... the necessity of child care. If the government steps in and provides the funds for that child care then, to that extent, the parents become just that much more dependent on government ... and Democrats.

Government control of all childhood education (indoctrination) Democrats are the party of big government. Democrats are more than thrilled with the increased propensity of many Americans to look to government for the solution to virtually all problems they face in their daily lives. Democrats know that to teach people that they can expect the government to be there to solve all of their problems you have to start with the children. 

Catholic schools can be expected to teach their students that Catholicism is good. Jewish private schools are going to sing the praises of Judaism. Christian schools will teach the children that Jesus is really cool. Government schools? 
Government schools will promote what? Government! 

Thus, Democrats see a clear need to keep as many children in government education programs as possible.

The plan? Continue to work against any ideas that would make it easier for parents to remove their children from government schools. This means working against such ideas as vouchers or tax credits to help parents afford the cost of private schools. They will also work to add increased regulations to parents who make the decision to home school their children.

Government imposed limits on executive income

This one is really going to have to wait until Democrats have a solid control of the federal machine. The Social Democrat party has plans to institute limits on executive compensation. The idea is to impose confiscatory corporate income taxes on companies who pay their top executives more than X-times the compensation paid to the lowest-paid employees.

Repealing the Second Amendment

Yes they do support it, clearly and without a doubt, remove the guns and you control the society!

Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea? Well, there's a reason. Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms. Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed. Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.

Destroy talk radio

Democrats aren't fond of talk radio. They know that Rush Limbaugh played a huge role in the voter revolution of 1994. Leftists realize that almost all successful talk radio shows are hosted by people who do not share their political views. They will try to neutralize talk radio through regulation. Since Democrats love the "fair" word so much, they'll try to resurrect something called the "Fairness Doctrine." 

How would this law work? Well, for example, a talk show host would not be allowed to voice opposition to a particular Democrat goal without finding some Democrat to go on the air to defend that goal. Talk radio soared in listenership and popularity following the death of the Fairness Doctrine. 
Democrats know that talk radio can once again be pushed into the radio background with new regulations that stifle conservative and libertarian voices. And the country just gave them the first step to total regain of power :******: :eyeroll: 
You should be aware that at a recent meeting of the Democratic Party of Oregon a resolution was adopted to use the power of government and the "fairness doctrine" to reign in those horrible right wing talk show hosts.

I'm glad I'm voted a straight libertarian ticket at least I don't have to feel I contributed to this mess we are sliding into.

George Bush isn't a conservative hes just like his father and with the exception of the war on terror hes a spineless liberal disgrace, the repubs in congress are worse only concerned with personal power and the hell with the country ,the Dems are the worst of all and now in charge. The libertarians have some good ideas but they have no political chance so I hate to ponder where its going to end up. 

This countrys best times are behind it and most of our citizens haven't a clue.*


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've posted that before ... it is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared from the outset.

It isn't like this is anything new among that list ...

It's simply called "Socialism"


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

i find it funny that the only people in the US that don't 
pay income taxes are the people who make the laws regarding
income tax. if you didn't already know it, yes our lovely and honest
senators and reps do not pay income taxes. funny!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

* Liberalism is just another word for Socialism.*


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

crna said:


> i find it funny that the only people in the US that don't
> pay income taxes are the people who make the laws regarding
> income tax. if you didn't already know it, yes our lovely and honest
> senators and reps do not pay income taxes. funny!


That is not correct. The actually do pay income taxes on their congressional salaries. However they do have some special perks such as a $3,000 deduction for maintaining a second home. But, they do pay taxes.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I know it seems easy and obvious to "Blame The Deomocrats" ...

but as Ben Franklin said ... It's "We The People" who are to blame ...

So as you look at the Democrats and cast "Blame" it would also be a good idea to look around your Neighborhood as well.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "


You ever just feel its just a matter of time. Already we have whole classes of people who do not belive hard work will better their lives, they belive everything is a scam and a lie and its all about what you can get for yourself!! 
:eyeroll:

Well if Ben was right the end has come a wile back!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I see a lot of dire predictions being posted. Most of them are things that have been attempted in the past by the Democrats. They may come to pass and they may not. I'm not so sure the Democrats are going to push some of the extreme liberal measures they have tried in the past. Compromise may be the order of the day now. Some you may like, some you may not like. The Democrats want the Presidents seat. To get that they must prove themselves to the majority of voters that they are better than the Republicans. The Republicans want the House and Senate back, plus they want to keep the Presidency. So both parties have two years to prove themselves. It just may be possible that the American people may be the real winners these next two years.................... not saying we will be but, just maybe.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Gohon, you obviously subscribe to the glass is half-full mentality. I've read your stuff, and you're very well versed on the various topics, so I'm going to cautiously agree that maybe some good will come from this. I think as far as reminding Republicans what it means to be a Republican, maybe some already has.

I only hope that what the glass is half full of, though, is healthy for us all!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Doomsday politics!! Blah,blah,blah! "Imputed income???" Never heard of it and now that I have can't imagine that it will ever come to pass. Social security reform??? Heard that campaign speech before and it never came to pass so if there is reform....well! Ah yes dooms day politics, keep telling us how rotten things will be after the election because we were told how good things would be in the previous elections by the party that was sent home to pack their bags. I don't even know why I respond to garbage like this but I guess there are those who are too simple to see through this kind topic.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Social security reform??? Heard that campaign speech before and it never came to pass


That's because it was blocked by, you guessed it...... the Democrats. Talk about simple minded....... :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Gohon said:


> I see a lot of dire predictions being posted. Most of them are things that have been attempted in the past by the Democrats. They may come to pass and they may not. I'm not so sure the Democrats are going to push some of the extreme liberal measures they have tried in the past. Compromise may be the order of the day now. Some you may like, some you may not like. The Democrats want the Presidents seat. To get that they must prove themselves to the majority of voters that they are better than the Republicans. The Republicans want the House and Senate back, plus they want to keep the Presidency. So both parties have two years to prove themselves. It just may be possible that the American people may be the real winners these next two years.................... not saying we will be but, just maybe.


I think you are exactly right.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Bob, if you are waiting for imputed income to be taxed you might want to pack a lunch.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I didn't make it up, the Dems were stopped by the republicans last time. In two years when the Dems get the presidency they will bring it back up and there will be no stopping them.

There is no limit to the thirst the congress has for our hard earned money


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I have been lead to believe this new crop of Democrates are not the same left wing nuts we have been accoustom to.

It is my understanding that a new "different" sort was purposfully rounded up to run and win ...

I am clinging to the hope that there is truth to that and atleast some amoung them will defy traditional Liberal Politics to some noticable degree ...

If I turn out to be right about this it would be evidence that those Gentlemen who wrote our Constitution and placed their faith in The People did so with good reason.

I for one have my "fingers crossed" ...

but I don't have my "eyes blindfolded"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I for one have my "fingers crossed" ...
> 
> but I don't have my "eyes blindfolded"


Excellent advise DecoyDummy. The blindfolds of partisanship are evident on this site. Remember Militant Tiger? He was totally blind to anything good about conservatism and could see only good in liberal ideals. As often as I get ticked about Bush not being tough on the border I am often accused of being partisan. You have to be partisan to think that after some of my comments. I often say I don't see myself as republican, but rather conservative. I am for conservative ideals whether they are exhibited by democrat or republican, or any other party that may come to exist.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

its been one week,

Murtha ( corrupt as hell,should be in prison) wants to cut and run from Iraq,

The one that has him tagged with the title of one of the most corrupt members of congress involves payouts to former staffers and his brother, a registered lobbyist. Yet he is Pelosi choice for a pet dog :eyeroll: its unbelieveable

for those with a short memeory the scandal goes something like this.

John Murtha is on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. His brother is a lobbyist for several companies that have business with the government. In 2004, a $417 billion defense bill was passed that went through John Murtha's committee, and you can guess what happened next. It turns out that bill benefited at least 10 companies represented by Murtha's brother. At a minimum it is a violation of House ethics rules and at a maximum is outright political corruption. 
House ehtichs rules thats a oxymoron what abad joke and the joke is on us :roll:

But John Murtha is no stranger to political corruption.

Remember the Abscam case? This was the 1980 corruption case where the FBI took down a U.S. Senator, 6 members of the House and the mayor of Camden, New Jersey, among others. Turns out John Murtha made an appearance on that famous surveillance tape. *When offered a $50,000 bribe, Murtha said "I'm not interested...at this point." *At this point? 

Perhaps he was going to be interested....just not yet. Somehow, Murtha got a pass. Of course the Dems were running congress back then also uke:

Next Rubin wants to raise taxes, and unending Democrat theme of course they will call it contributions or some other clever code word and the Dems out in lala land like DJ will go along with it. :roll:

Plainsman,
You ever notice non of those worthless congressmen on either side ever consider cutting spending the republicans give it lip service and the Dems don't even do that, its maddening......

Next Henry Waxman wants to have a bunch of hearings which are unfounded, wont go anywhere, and are totally politcally motivated to embarass Bush ( reminds me of the idiot repubs investigating the Lewinsky affair when the Dorale chinese technology transfer incident is ignored :eyeroll: because they republican felt it was too complicated for the public to understand) *sadly judging from the election they are probably correct. *

Who cares about the country in wartime no less, obviously not Waxman :******:

And not to be ignored Pelosi and Levin want to stop warrantless eavesdropping from KNOWN terrorist supporting foriegn countries.

Yeah they are a lot different alright uke:

The one thing the Dems are is a disiplined organized gang( I do mean gang) of ideologs unlike the idiots on the republican side that can't keep their people in line and let a bunch of rinos disrupt their ajenda.

If you really follow this stuff it will drive you nuts...


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bobm

Just understand ... I was not referring to the old tried and true "Stalwarts" you just named.

I am referring to the new crop who have not done anything in Washington other than stand on the steps of the Capitol to have their picture taken representing the "Newly Elected ... Arrivals"


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

And they will tow the line,

or else

They are junior members with no say in anything.
Their only benefit from the conservative viewpoint is they were handpicked to be conservative far more conservative than the rest of the Dems and as such cannot vote on controversial social issues without their respective conservative districts throwing them out so that will hold back the libs in congress a little. They can't afford to have votes on those issues and hold their thin majority.

maybe, if anyone is paying attention, which I see little sign of


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, we were told the new democrats were more conservative, but Clinton claimed that in his first run for the White House also. I would guess it will not last long. I think one taste of power and they will fall into line with Nancy like trained dogs. The only silver lining to this cloud is the last election may have taught the republicans something, and I am sure the liberals will make fools of themselves before 2008.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bobm

My thought is simply this ...

If the Democratic Party came to realize they need a different breed of candidate in order to get the party lines in their favor ... From where I sit, That's a good thing.

If this "New Crop" can begin to shift the tide ... From where I sit, That's a good thing.

If it turns out that America makes a statement that the ideals of Reid, Schumer and Durbine are not the future of America ... From where I sit, that's a good thing.

There has to be a beginning for every change and if this is it ... From where I sit, That's a good thing

As I said ... I sit with my fingers crossed and my eyes wide open.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

The biggest problem I have with American Politics right now is simply ...

No one is able/willing to see anything good that might be achieved based on the facts before our eyes.

Someone in the Democratic Party seems to have maybe seen a little light ...

I am willing to Hide and Watch

Hell ... Any way you slice it, you can't change the election results ...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the facts before our eyes, if you believe they will do what they have said they plan to, they are the same old democrats.

Congress ( either side ) is comprised of out of touch arrogant power mad people. The Dems will over reach because they actaully think they won when the facts are the Repeublicans lost again because of their arrogance and thinking their gerrymandering would protect them from the electorate.

But if you want to be optimistic thats fine, it never hurts.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bobm ... last post here on this thread for me ...

You do keep reverting back to the Old Tried and True Liberal Dogs that have been there for years ...

I am looking at (and hoping to see) some signs of change from the "New" folks as things progress.

I know as well as anyone on the board what we expect from the Old Dogs.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

We all know a LEOPARD never changes it's spots! uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If believe Hillary is turning conservative, and the "new" democrats will remain moderate I have some swamp land for sale.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I've got all the swamp land I can use thank you.............. But, your half right anyway. We'll have to wait for a few months to see if the other half is true.

Didn't get to watch any of it, but it sounds like the Generals testifying today at hearing on Iraq, pretty much gave the Democrats a ear full on how stupid it would be to set a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. I doubt they liked that at all.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

We all know what happens to General officers that don't say what they want to hear :dead:


----------

