Shared Political Power?

Republicans, Democrats, or shared power?

  • Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate.

  • Democratic President, Democratic House, Democratic Senate.

  • Shared power. One party shouldn't control everything.

  • Actually, there is no option 4. However this option is government mandated.


Results are only viewable after voting.
I think the country does better when the branches share power.

I also think the country would benefit from some changes to long standing Congressional rules that make some of the bureaucratic stalling less easier to accomplish.

It is the moderates of both parties that really get things done. It was really 14 Senators who changed things so the judicial nominees could get voting on throughout the last 5 years.

Sometimes you are in power and enjoy the fruits of that, other times you don't. Sometimes the difference is so minute that the moderates have to be the deciding voice.

That's how a democracy ought to work in my opinion.
 
richiebaseball said:
Term limits. They don't have to be law for them to happen. Don't keep voting the same ones in. There should be no such thing as a "career politician". Next time the primaries come around, take a long look at the other guys/gals running against that incumbent.


That would be dandy if the "newbies" were allowed to have any power whatsoever. Even junior senators have to wait forever to introduce a bill or for their support to have any clout. With term limits, just when the person you actually like finally gets some power and would actually get things done, he/she would have to leave.
 
I voted for shared because without it, there are no checks and balances to our government and no compromises for the best of the country. It becomes all about one party's or one branch's power and that is when the corruption sets in. (Like JennyMominRI quoted)
 

That would be dandy if the "newbies" were allowed to have any power whatsoever.

If they all had a limited amount of time to serve, nobody would be there long enough to get that much seniority. There is no earthy reason why some of these guys have been there 20-30 years or more.

The other thing I wish we had was a requirement that anyone running for office has to have worked in an actual job for at least 5 years. No career politicians. I never want to have another President who has never paid a mortgage. (Bill Clinton said his house in NY was the first house he owned-how could someone like that what it's like to pay 30% of your income on your housing?) I'd like to see the Senate and the House seats be taken by teachers on sabbatical, soldiers on leave, office workers, factory workers-REAL people who know what it's like to work hard and struggle to make ends meet. It's a real pipe dream, I know because politics has always been run by the aristocracy-the founding fathers were hardly "regular folk".
 
Fitswimmer said:
If they all had a limited amount of time to serve, nobody would be there long enough to get that much seniority. There is no earthy reason why some of these guys have been there 20-30 years or more.

The other thing I wish we had was a requirement that anyone running for office has to have worked in an actual job for at least 5 years. No career politicians. I never want to have another President who has never paid a mortgage. (Bill Clinton said his house in NY was the first house he owned-how could someone like that what it's like to pay 30% of your income on your housing?) I'd like to see the Senate and the House seats be taken by teachers on sabbatical, soldiers on leave, office workers, factory workers-REAL people who know what it's like to work hard and struggle to make ends meet. It's a real pipe dream, I know because politics has always been run by the aristocracy-the founding fathers were hardly "regular folk".


When they change the way things are run on Capitol Hill, then I will vote for term limits. Btw, Bill Clinton grew up dirt poor. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, grew up in quite a different atmosphere.
 
I found this interesting. The Libertarians at the Cato Institute have some some interesting ideas. http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-03.html
Our federal government may work better (less badly) when at least one chamber of Congress is controlled by a party other than the party of the president. The general reason for this is that each party has the opportunity to block the most divisive measures proposed by the other party. Other conditions, of course, also affect political outcomes, but the following types of evidence for this hypothesis are too important to ignore:

Point One. The rate of growth of real (inflation-adjusted) federal spending is usually lower with divided government.....

Point Two. The probability that a major reform will last is usually higher with a divided government because the necessity of bipartisan support is more likely to protect the reform against a subsequent change in the majority party.

The Reagan tax laws of 1981 and 1986, for example, were both approved by a House of Representatives controlled by the Democrats and have largely survived. The major potential reforms of agriculture, telecommunications, and welfare in 1996 were approved by Clinton and a Republican Congress, although only the welfare reform has survived subsequent legislative and regulatory changes. The primary exception to this pattern, of course, is the Great Society. My judgment, however, is that the prospect for a major reform of the federal tax code, Medicare, or Social Security will be dependent on more bipartisan support than now seems likely in a united Republican government.

Point Three. The prospect of a major war is usually higher with a united government, and the current war makes that clear.

Each of the four major American wars in the 20th century, for example, was initiated by a Democratic president with the approval of a Congress controlled by Democrats. The war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president with the support of a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern and has already proved to be the only use of U.S. military force lasting more than a few days that was initiated by a Republican president in over a century.
The GOP control of the White House and Congress has been a disaster. Divided government and checks and balances good. Control by one party with no checks and balances bad.
 
richiebaseball said:
Should Republicans or Democrats control the White House and both Houses of Congress or should that power be shared?
We should give up the idiotic notion of parties. It's just a way of trying to wrap up a person's entire belief system in one little term. It's dumbing down choices:

"Oh, you're a Republican -- then you believe _____, _____, and ____."
Uh, maybe half of those things.
"How can you agree with ____? You call yourself a Democrat!"
No, I call myself a thinking person.

Neither party serves the people anymore. Both parties exist simply to perpetuate themselves. Sadly, a politician who doesn't align himself with one of the parties has no chance of election and -- if he is elected -- no chance of effecting any change whatsoever. A lone politician who doesn't "play the game" has no power.
 
Fitswimmer said:
The other thing I wish we had was a requirement that anyone running for office has to have worked in an actual job for at least 5 years. No career politicians. I never want to have another President who has never paid a mortgage. (Bill Clinton said his house in NY was the first house he owned-how could someone like that what it's like to pay 30% of your income on your housing?) I'd like to see the Senate and the House seats be taken by teachers on sabbatical, soldiers on leave, office workers, factory workers-REAL people who know what it's like to work hard and struggle to make ends meet. It's a real pipe dream, I know because politics has always been run by the aristocracy-the founding fathers were hardly "regular folk".
Interesting idea; however, those of us who live in the real world don't have time or money to get ourselves elected.
 
Chicago526 said:
I'm a Dem and put "shared control".
Shared control sounds really good in theory, but in reality both parties spend more time fighting "the enemy" than helping the American people.
 
MrsPete said:
Shared control sounds really good in theory, but in reality both parties spend more time fighting "the enemy" than helping the American people.

But that hasn't been the case, at least not recently. Regan (a republican) and Clinton (a democrat) both had to deal with a Congress that had the other party in control, and a lot under both administrations got done. They didn't work harmoniously 100% of the time, of course, but compared to the current administration, they were work-horses!
 
richiebaseball said:
Term limits. They don't have to be law for them to happen. Don't keep voting the same ones in. There should be no such thing as a "career politician". Next time the primaries come around, take a long look at the other guys/gals running against that incumbent.


Huh? The country would go broke ponying up the money needed to pay the retirement, health care and on, and on, and on, benefits for all who had served. :rotfl2:

Just kidding (not really as I believe there should be no benefits after service), I really do believe we should have term limits.
 
I wonder if this is still relevant.
According to this piece, the Democrats may well hold control of Congress for a while. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...c26,1,4328628.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
There is strong evidence that November's Democratic sweep may be more than a one-shot reaction to an unpopular president and his war--it might be one of those pivotal elections leading to a lasting, long-term majority in the Congress and potentially the presidency.

Democrats took control of Congress, making history by taking 30 House and six Senate seats without losing a single incumbent or open race. This was especially impressive against a House so gerrymandered that 95 percent of incumbents tend to keep their seats. In all, nearly 58 percent of the total national congressional vote went to the Democrats, as did more than 55 percent of the Senate vote (if you include votes cast for two independents who caucus with the Democrats).

Further, another dozen House seats that stayed Republican were decided by extremely narrow margins--many under 1,000 votes. In 2008 those seats will again be vulnerable, especially in the larger turnout expected in a presidential year, although a few of this year's upsets could revert back.

Yes, voters reacted against the war and corruption, but also the two-tiered economy, with its increasing income inequality. Many of the incoming senators and House members ran and won on populist economic issues, which have long been a unifying Democratic theme--downplaying some of the more divisive social issues. Though this economy looks good by traditional yardsticks, it clearly doesn't work for large numbers of middle- and working-class families.

Economics was the glue that bound together Franklin Roosevelt's coalition and it promises again to solidify a majority in the coming years.

Demographic change also is working to the Democrats' advantage as more and more Latinos and Asians register and vote. Republicans made heavy inroads into the Latino vote in 2004, capturing close to 45 percent for George W. Bush, but blew it all and more this year with their torrent of anti-immigrant campaigning. Democrats won 70 percent of the Latino vote and are likely to retain that and gain more in years ahead. This is a factor not only in the Southwest, but also in the Midwest.

Adding to Republican problems, they will have to defend 22 of the 33 Senate seats up in 2008, including four or five vulnerable senators such as Minnesota's Norm Coleman. They also face the possible retirement of perhaps four more senators, leaving open seats that always are more competitive.

Significantly, Democrats won a majority of the governorships, bringing their total to 28. They won control of 23 state legislatures to 17 for the GOP, while nine states have split bodies. In 15 states Democrats have the governorship and both houses. What this means is they can control the next redistricting--even gerrymandering--and the electoral process itself.
2008 is a long time from now in political terms but I like the trends that I see.
 
2008 is a long time from now in political terms but I like the trends that I see.

So the trends point toward Democrats keeping control of Congress, right?
And the trends point toward Democrats having a very good chance at getting the White House, right?
And you like these trends, right?

But in this public poll you like the idea of shared power and that one party shouldn't control everything. Of course this poll was started before the 2006 elections in which Democrats pulled off an unlikely upset and took both Houses of Congress, something I'm guessing you didn't think was likely so you felt pretty safe in voting for shared power.

I agree, 2008 is a long time from now in political terms but I can already tell where the hypocrites will be trending.
 
Quite a bit early but a bit of good news for those truly believing in shared power.

John Edwards (D) went to New Orleans today and formally launched his 2008 campaign for the White House. A just released Rasmussen Reports poll shows Edwards trailing Rudy Giuliani (R) 49% to 41% in a general election match-up. Forty-seven percent (47%) have a favorable opinion of the Democrats' 2004 Vice Presidential nominee while 41% have an unfavorable view.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20061229/pl_rasmussen/edwardsgiuliani20061229
 
I have always thought (well at least as long as I have thought about politics) that if there is a Dem President there should be a Rep House and Senate and Vice Versa.
 
I'm open to any candidate, as long as their last name isn't Bush.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom