How much influence will the Democrats actually have?

oh wait... that's sort of already what they do isn't it? :wink:

My wife was thinking about that last night. If the Dems get rid of the tav breaks Bush put in, we will go back to owing taxes again instead of getting a refund. Sad days ahead maybe.

Mainly the marriage penalty tax and dependent tax credit for those at home that care.

Owing money in April has little to do with how high your taxes are but how well you plan for paying them. Its not like the tax rate is a sudden suprise that you didn't know about until then.

I doubt it. Whenever repealing tax cuts have been talked about it's been about the top percent, the ultra-rich who really don't need them (but who are powerful enough that it's in Republicans' best interest to keep them happy).

And cjhsa, you really think Bush knows how to spend money better than you do?

yeah, it's not like a Republican congress that can keep raising the debt ceiling.

I see you've bought into the big lie of the left. We cannot help you.

There's been a lot of blather and will likely continue to be about who controls what. A simple majority does not guarantee control of either house, and it is a very important distiction to make for those whose governments use the Westminister system.

In Parliament (and the Parliaments of English-speaking countries which use the Westminister system), the Chief Executive is also a sitting member of the House, and controls the party. This is not true in the United States. In a Westminister system, an elected representative can actually be thrown out of his (or her) party for bucking the system. This just happened in Canada when a member of the Tory caucus (the Conservatives who have a minority government) was expelled from the party because of disparaging remarks he had made about the Prime Mininster and the government on his blog.

In the United States, a member of the Congress can voluntarily change his party allegiance, or become independent. Or he or she can be removed by the state party organization, but only after the expiration of the term he or she is serving. The national party organization can't kick anyone out. In the Washington system, members of either party frequently vote their constituency, even if that means they vote against the measures of the party. Therefore, having a simple majority in the House of Representatives is no guarantee that either party can force every measure on their agenda. A Republican from a farm state is going to vote against a measure seen by his constituents as anti-farm, even if the national party supports the measure. A Democrat from an affluent district might well vote against an increase in the minimum wage, even if the national party is pushing the measure. You just don't see such defections in the Westminster system unless the government is heading for a fall. It is fairly common in Washington, however.

The Senate is even more a case of a simple majority meaning nothing in the way of control. The Constitution allows both houses to make their own procedural rules, and the Senate's rules require three-fifths of the quorum (60 members if all Senators are present) to end debate and proceed to a floor vote. The filibuster is alive an well in any Senate in which the majority party does not have 60 or more members, and can be used to block votes on bills or appointments. The so-called "nuclear option" refers to a parliamentary procedural precedent which allows a member to move a point of order, and end debate on a simple majority vote. It is called the "nuclear option" because invoking that point of order successfully would likely lead the minority party to obstruct all business for the rest of the session--both parties like having the prospect of filibuster in any case in which they are in the minority, so no one wants to raise that point of order.

That would be the only case in which the Congress would actually be grid-locked. Politicians earn their living by accomodation and compromise. This is even more true in Washington, where party members routinely vote their constituency, whether or not the party approves the measure. Pundits who talk about grid-lock are blowing smoke. Neither party controls the House without a comforatable margin beyond the simple majority, and neither party controls the Senate without a comfortable margin beyong three-fifths, or even two-thirds, given that appointments require a two-thirds vote. Neither party has completely controlled the Congress since early in Lyndon Johnson's second term, and it is a very uncommon event in Congressional history.

The essence of politics in the United States Congress is and always has been compromise and horse trading. When the voters aren't looking, those boys and girls get busy scratiching backs and calling in favors. And it is extremely rare that any majority leader can consistently rely upon the votes necessary to assure passage of their agenda. Both parties always will rely upon compromise and political dickering.

I'm not exactly asking for help...

Finding something substantial on that was hard, just tried, not enough keywords (or not enough that I could think of). We do have this from Dean yesterday, weird timing but the substance seems to support what I'm saying:



http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2366396#2366396

I heard Pelosi say very plainly that yes, the tax burden will probably increase - on the very rich.

You mean the ones who already pay 95% of the taxes?

Snood, I hope you win the lottery. I'd love to see the change.

subpoena power is major.

People who whine about tax increases conveniently forget that when the Shrub first got into office, the majority of people responding to polls stated that they didn't find the tax burden onerous, and didn't see the need for a tax cut.

It's hilarious, though, to see the tax and spend Republican whine about shifting the tax burden from the working and middle class to the leisure set.

I'd phrase it as "borrow and spend" Republicans.

What's hilarious is to see set make a ridiculous and uninformed statement like that. Apparently he/she doesn't work.

Well, I work and I agree with his statement. Anyone who looks at the math will agree.

Cycloptichorn

Do you hope I win the lottery too?

(That has to be one of the nicest posts you have ever posted.)

Good point . . . Drew gets to pay for the Shrub's party, not Drew's Dad . . .

If so many were not unemployed, your statement may not be so ridiculous.

Did you train at the Microsoft school of the double negative?

I read an excellent summary explaining it in enough detail to surpass generalisations but still in a way I could understand it... but where...