I find myself wanting a combative federal government that bickers over every bill. Hopefully, that way only good ones, which can get a majority among the different political philosophies, will be passed. Is my strategy sound, or do I have a screw loose?
I would consider a Republican President with Democrats keeping control in '08, but recent history says that doesn't work so good. At least in the late '90's, Clinton and a Republican Congress balanced the budget. So maybe there's hope.
2007-10-26 23:58:27 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
You are not messed up. You basically don't want one party shoving its doctrine down the throat of America. By having each party controlling one branch of government, there is a certain balance to the process.
2007-10-27 00:04:17 · answer #1 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your last line was "Clinton and a Republican Congress balanced the budget".
Clinton won his first term on the platform that he would balance the budget.
When he submitted his great proposal, it was so full of pork spending and virtually nothing to show, that it was rejected by Congress.
Thank God for the Republican controlled Congress who put the budget on track.
2007-10-27 18:23:20 · answer #2 · answered by kNOTaLIAwyR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
surely. This time that is going to likely be much greater of a sweep. in spite of the undeniable fact which you're ignoring some thing else. Obama is leaving the arriving republican administration and incurable disaster. the subsequent administration after *them* will probable be thoroughly socialist simply by fact the republican administration would be charged with an impossible activity of cleansing up the Obama mess and could seem as mess ups. the human beings will react with widespread lack of expertise. the present mess became specifically simply by conflict and in part simply by Bush and democratic congress spending for the period of the top of his term. Bush shares approximately 0.5 the blame and the democratic congress throughout the time of his 2d administration merits the different 0.5 when you consider that all spending originates in congress. in spite of the undeniable fact that we'd additionally be out of the mess by utilising now with out forthcoming socialism it is mind-blowing worry into marketers and organizations. no person desires to hire-that is in basic terms too costly to have workers.
2016-10-14 04:38:10 · answer #3 · answered by esquinaldo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, you don't have a problem. I'm guessing that you don't have complete trust in one party because if one party controls all branches of government, it would be bad for the USA (again, I'm reading between the lines) since one party will have all the power. We need a balance and it's been proven that the US works better when we have a split government (Rep pres/Dem Congress or Dem pres/Rep Congress). Thanks!
2007-10-27 16:20:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the only thing wrong with you is that you are misguided. It will take time for the GOP to take over Congress. In the mean time, do you really want to chance having all of the socialist and entitlement giving policies to pass into law? The worst thing that could happen to this country is for a Democrat to take over the White House. Taxes will skyrocket; the quality of healthcare will plummet but the line for a flu shot will be around the block; we will be overrun with illegal immigrants; and like another poster said below - we will quickly decline into a 3rd world county. Please don't be naive enough to think otherwise.
2007-10-27 02:39:00 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I disagree with you. There is nothing good about any left wing liberal loony being in power anywhere.
Clinton's balanced budget claim was a myth. He gave the Bush administration bogus financial data when he left office.
Mr. Clinton got us higher taxes and a recession. We could balance the budget if the Congress were to cut spending. There is no way to put the curbs on 535 greedy little buggers.
2007-10-27 00:08:06 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are living in the past.....you need to come into the future.
A passive, socialist President will not be good for America.
If you are non-hispanic (black or white American) your children will be pushed aside for the new minority and affirmative action will reward them and you punish your children.
And then there is the healthcare overload, social security implosion.....the US will start their decline to a 3rd world country.......
2007-10-27 01:55:18 · answer #7 · answered by USA 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You might be on to something there. There's no way we can out them both so an imbalance of power with a Dem for president might just work!
2007-10-27 00:03:45 · answer #8 · answered by charlesdclimer 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
doesn't matter which party takes over, it matters who takes over. someone has to show that they are willing to work with the other side to come up with good ideas and solutions. there is no way around it. I like huckabee because he has showed this willingness to work with dems and come up with big ideas. He cares more about people than he does about party, and that is really refreshing to me.
2007-10-27 05:12:23 · answer #9 · answered by deceptive truth 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
my opinion is ....yes
consider the results of the last democratic president.
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
and then of course with the democrats of the pelosi/reid regime we have
757gate
the non taxpaying territorial vote grant
the jefferson bribery scandal
the ridiculous harry reid all nighter
the ridiculous nancy pelosi stunt in syria
29 BILLION dollars in pork spending tied to the defense of this country with the justification "we didnt get our chance with the republican budget"
edwards, pelosi, and clinton...EXACT QUOTE...we have no choice but to raise taxes
36000 carded requests for pork spending WIITHOUT DEBATE authored by pelosi
defense of this country tied to...no im not making this up...peanut storage
and thats what you "want"???\
thats scary...real scary.
2007-10-27 00:32:54 · answer #10 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋