Thursday, November 13, 2008

Democratic Socialism has Officially Come to America

Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced that the government would not be buying troubled bank assets, as was the original intent of the $700 billion bailout when it was sold to the American people and congressional Republicans. Instead, the fed will be using the money to buy shares in the troubled banks.

Sec. Paulson said the change in direction is designed to provide much needed cash to the banks. In reality it's nothing more than the nationalization of a portion of the U.S. banking industry. Something congressional Republicans and moderate Democrats would not have supported had Paulson informed them that that was his true intent.

To an effort to further transform the U.S. from a capitalist democracy to a socialist one, Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats, which includes President-Elect Obama, are moving forward with a bailout plan for U.S. automakers. In the plan, the big 3 will be given government loans in exchange for shares in the companies. If approved, the plan will nationalize the American auto industry.

In both cases the shares of stock the government will receive are to be classified as voting share stock. This gives the government special voting and veto rights on business decisions made by the companies.

In an effort to offload pension and labor obligations onto taxpayers, labor unions like UAW and giant corporations like GM and GE are also pushing hard for the federal government to nationalize the health care industry. While it's true that there needs to be some major reforms in the troubled sector, nationalization is the least likely to succeed option. In Canada and the U.K., nationalized health care had the unforeseen affect of dramatically driving up costs and creating very long waits for services as people who once moterated their use of the health care system flocked to providers to partake in the now "free" services. [1]

The socialist reforms feared by many of those who opposed an Obama presidency are coming far faster than anyone could have possibly imagined. By the time President Obama takes office on January 20th, 2009, two major industries in the U.S. will likely be partially nationalized, a move that goes far beyond 'spreading the wealth'. By the time he leaves office, how many more industries will the government have its grubby little hands in?


Comrade Cool said...


Such bellyaching is no good for the whole of the People's State. You would be wise to start supporting the State's advances now while your actions go unpunished.

Warm Apple Pie said...

James, what I love about you is you bemoan the socialist curtain dropping ON THE REPUBLICANS ADMINISTRATION'S WATCH!!!! It should be Bush's picture next to Hitler and Marx. Hold your party accountable, before you sit in judgment on your neighbor's party.

You elected Bush. Bush appointed Paulson. Sleep in the bed you made.

James said...

Bush did appoint Paulson, a chicago democrat. Another case of Bush reaching across the isle only to have his hand bit.

Bush is a disaster. He surrounded himself with neo-coms. He believed Paulson when he went to capital hill and said, "the sky was falling unless you give me power to do whatever I like."

Republicans in congress tried to block it, but the pork was too good and some caved and allowed its passing. Bush is for now holding strong on the auto bailout, but he will cave as he does.

I will say this again, Paulson is a Chicago Democrat, not a Republican. They gave him too much power and he's used it to nationalize banks. Pelosi and Obama are the ones screaming to nationalize the big three.

Republicans haven't had power in Washington for 2 years. Atleast be honest about that.

Thankfully, most of the neo-coms are returning back to their original democratic party and we can hopefully be rid of them once and for all.

Anonymous said...

Pie- Bush became a lame duck in 2006.

Jack Knowledge said...

Your claim that Paulson is a "Chicago Democrat" is both absurd and patently false. He is a Republican.

Paulson served in the Nixon Administration as Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense 1970 to 1972, and then as as Staff Assistant to Nixon from 1972 to 1973 (during Watergate).

He worked at Goldman for 32 years, then was nominated by Bush to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Take a look at his campaign contributions for political causes and candidates. Over his entire life he's donated $336,250 to Republicans, and $13,990 to Democrats. Out of the hundreds of contributions he's made, you have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a single contribution to a Democrat.

To suggest that Barack Obama, who isn't even in office yet is practicing Democratic Socialism, using this Republican President and Republican Secretary of the Treasury's actions as "evidence" is absurd.

I heard Limbaugh blathering about the "Obama Recession" the other day. Not the Bush Recession, you know, the guy who has been president for 8 years and flushed our economy down the toilet with unpaid for tax cuts, unlimited spending, unnecessary war, etc., not that guy, but the guy who hasn't taken office yet? Please. Is this what we have to look forward to for the next 8 years under Obama?

Remember, when the economy went south in 2001 Republicans claimed it was Clinton's fault, not Bush's, claiming the president's policies can't affect the economy so quickly. But now, even before Bush has left and Obama is months away from being sworn in, Republicans are blaming the economy on him. Too funny.

James said...

Nice try.

First, I have never said the state of the current economy is Democrats' fault, except as far as the Clinton's changes to the CRA goes and Barney Frank and congressional Democrats refusal to admit their social enegineering practices failed dramatically inducing the subprime mortgage crisis.

The problem with the economy is complex. Neo-com freetrade agreements have eroded manufacturing and technology jobs. The democrat induced subprime mortgage crisis has collapsed the banking sector and the war in Iraq has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars.

Paulson is not a registered democrat, that is true, but a democrat he still is:

Not only is he an enviornmental zealot, he also helped create an Acorn subsidiary.

While he worked for Republicans, and only while he worked for them, he contributed to their campaigns. Prior to that he donated exclusively to the liberal elite. PLus, his wife donated thousands to Democrats during the period in which Paulson was donating to Republicans. Conveniently she donated more Democrats and Democrat organizations than he did to Republicans... I leave it to you to draw your own conclusion as to what that means.

Paulson was only appointed Treasury Sec. in 2006, during Bush's lame duck tenure. And let's not forget that Congress has been controlled by democrats since 2006. Which means Paulson's appointment had to be confirmed by the Democrat controlled senate, severely limiting Bush's choices for a "republican" secretary of the treasury.

It is Pelosi who put forth the auto bailout that will nationalize the auto industry. Bush opposes the idea. It is Obama who is pushing hard for that same auto bailout. In fact, he lobbied President Bush himself for the bailout during his Oval office visit early this week.

It was Democrats who pushed for the $700 billion bailout, led by Paulson. Republicans fought it, that is until Democrats started dealing out the pork to buy votes and the media put the fear of god into the public. Paulson said it was for troubled assets, but instead used it to buy stock in the banks to partially nationalize them.

In September, Paulson said he would work with Obama on transition, a historically unprecendented move, and just a few days ago Obama reaffirmed Paulson's involvement with helping the future president select his new economic team. Thus, it's no coincidence that Jon Corzine, the Democrat Paulson inherited Goldman Sachs from, is topping Obama's list for Treasury secretary.

To say Obama is to blame for the current economic problems would be an outright lie. No one is making that claim, here or otherwise, and to use that as some sort of strawman arguement shows your desire to burry your head in the sand to your party's involvement. Having said that, it is clear Obama plans to follow Pelosi's lead and continue down the road to Democratic socialism. By his own words he wants to spread the wealth. Nationalization of industry goes far beyond spreading the wealth.

Banks have already been nationalized, Democrats are pushing for the auto industry and health care. These are facts that you can verify in every major paper in the world.

If not democratic socialism, than what would you call it?

Pat Bateman said...

Did you bother to actually READ the links you posted? Let me put up a few quotes culled directly from them without any editorializing:

-Paulson was a generous Republican contributor and prodigious Bush fundraiser (over $100,000) in the 2004 cycle

-WHEN he first got into politics, US Treasury secretary Henry Paulson was no doubt prepared to be called some unpleasant things by his opponents. But it is unlikely he anticipated being attacked as a "communist" by some erstwhile friends. Yet in one short week, the hurricane blowing through the US financial markets has seen the 62-year-old transformed from staunch Republican and lifelong free-marketeer to "new communist" in the eyes of an increasingly sceptical public.

-Paulson has always been a Republican ("a Rockefeller", rather than "a DeLay" Republican, as Newsweek put it), but a capitalist rather than a conservative ideologue.

Your evidence of him being a "secret Democrat" is that his wife has been a Dem supporter, he supports environmental causes and he earlier donated to select Democratic candidates in the pre-Bush years? Nice work. I'm a Democrat but I have supported Michael Bloomberg in the New York mayoral race - does that make me a secret Republican? Or does it mean sometimes you think the best man or woman for the job is not from your own party?

As you point out, "most of the Paulson family's Democratic contributions come from the secretary's wife, Wendy, who has supported Hillary Clinton." Where in either of those articles did it mention that she donated more to the Dems than he did to the GOP? If it did, I must have missed that part. Or was that "fact" simply fabricated?

Here are some facts for you that are beyond contestation: Henry Paulson serves the President of the United States. Though he has agreed to work with Congress (which he is not, since the "oversight" positions in the bailout plan have yet to be filled even though more than a third of the $700 billion bailout money has been spent already) and help aid the transition to Obama's administration, Paulson answers to George W. Bush, the current President of the United States of America.

There simply can be no debate about that. He serves at the pleasure of the President. He is a member of the Cabinet. You can spin-doctor the rest however you please, but you cannot change that fact. If Henry Paulson does something you are unhappy about, Henry Paulson is an extension of the Executive Branch of the US government, which, unless I mistake quite, is still run by a staunch Republican for the next two months. Direct your rancor where it belongs.

As for the rest of your "facts" about Paulson being a secret Democrat, perhaps you should more carefully read the articles you post. Y'know, the ones where they say he's been a lifelong Republican and such.

Best regards.

James said...

Oh, I can read. Maybe your problem is you don't know what some of these terms mean. Let me help out your feeble democrat mind.

Rockefeller Republican - were a faction of Republicans who held moderate to liberal views. Historically Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They typically favored New Deal programs, welfare...—usually promising to run them more efficiently than the Democrats.

I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not 1970 anymore. He holds Democrat ideals, not Republican.

We can debate Paulson's RINO status all you want, but the fact you seem to not be able to get through your heads is that he holds Democrat ideals, not conservative Republican ones. This is why Bush chose him in 2006. Because he knew he needed a more left leaning Republican to get through the Democrat senate confirmation. But again, this post isn't about Hank Paulson, it's about the Democrats moving to nationalize industry.

I notice how you quoted the Rockefeller Republican stuff, but conveniently left this stuff out:

"the former Goldman Sachs CEO does not act or sound much like a conservative Republican"

"Paulson marched to his own drummer last Tuesday by naming Eric Mindich, chairman of Eton Park Capital Management, to head the Asset Managers' Committee of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. A former Goldman Sachs colleague of Paulson's, Mindich is a top-level Democratic fundraiser. He was in Sen. John Kerry's inner circle for the 2004 presidential campaign and backs Sen. Barack Obama for 2008."

"He contributed to Bill Clinton in 1992, Democrat Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign, the feminist Emily's List and Wall Street's favorite Democrat, Chuck Schumer."

"he is regarded in his own administration as less a true Republican secretary than a transition to the next Democratic Treasury"

Anonymous said...

this bickering misses the point. who voted for the bailout? that's what you should be asking.

house vote:
dems: 140 yeas
gop: 65 yeas

senate vote:
dems: 49 yeas
gop: 25 yeas

who are the ones pushing for a bailout for ford and gm?



Pat Bateman said...

Ha. I love the "Republican in Name Only" stuff. Makes me giggle when you reject members of your own party - the party of "inclusion" as you would have the American people believe, and not of elitism - because they are more centrist than you. Way to factionalize your own fractured party.

This is a man who has been a champion of free market economics for his entire career. That, above all else, is why he was chosen and that is the most Republican of all economic ideals... and one that normally I don't necessarily disagree with, I hasten to add.

The man has done a stunning about-face - but HE has done it. Congress did not make him do it. The devil did not make him do it. He decided - this lifelong champion of the free markets - that this was the best course. Oh, and another thing...

HE is a wing of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Say it with me: Executive Branch. He is already in his Cabinet position. He is not subject to a confirmation process anymore. It is long after his confirmation that he suddenly has decided that buying bank stocks is the way to go with the taxpayer's money. He has no oversight - zero - at this point, and he is a member of the Republican-run Executive Branch of government.

Frankly, I'm not sure how this doesn't get through to Republicans, but clearly you guys are grasping at straws based on being roundly rejected by the American people last week, so I understand your frustration. He could be a RINO, a full on Democrat or even the reincarnation of Karl Marx - he still reports to the President of the United States. He's not operating as a rogue agent. The President has the power, if memory serves, to remove a cabinet member - like Mr. Paulson - AT WILL. Thus, if Mr. Paulson was doing something that staunch conservative Republican President George W. Bush did not approve of, he could usher him out with the White House trash.

I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp. Mr. Paulson serves the President. Not Congress. Not the Speaker. Not the DNC. Not the Socialist Party. He answers to one person - and that person's Republican cred is not in any doubt, is it?

You are angry about the auto bailout? Okay, no problem. Go to town. Have at it, hoss. But the financial bailout is the brainchild of Henry Paulson, Republican (at least in name) and servant to a very very Republican master. And no amount of factual Gerrymandering is going to change that fact.

James said...

As if democrats don't like calling blue dog democrats DINO's.

James said...

Bush a very, very Republican? LOL. Bush allowed himself to be transformed into a neo-coms because he puts too much trust in his advisors. Just like he did with paulson.

Do a little research would you.

Who started the neo-con movement? What are their beliefs?

You seem to ignore the fact that it was democrats who wrote the bailout bill, democrats who voted to give Paulson blind power, and Democrats who doled out the pork to get republican support they needed to try and hide their fault.

Bush did sign the garbage bill... but it would never have made it to his desk without the democrat leadership driving it.

I don't get what you don't understand about lame-duck. How you can just ignore that your party has had control for two years and every bill signed into law since January 20, 2006 has been a result of Democrats.

Bush has no power left. All he can do is sign a law or veto it. And because Bush is an idiot he never vetos anything.

You falsly claim Bush could just can Paulson... right. In the middle of the economic crisis? What do you think that would do to markets? To the dollar? To consumer confidence?

Face it. Democrats made the bed and now they'll have to lay in it.

Jack Knowledge said...

So the bailout is a democratic bailout because Dems voted for it out of a nefarious desire to give government control over the means of production, while the 90Republicans who voted for it only did it against their will because they were bribed with pork? Got it. It's all clear now. We'll continue to ignore that the Republican Secretary of the Treasury and Republican Chairman of the Federal Reserve proposed the plan with the full consent of the Republican President who urged its passage.

As for the false distinctions you draw re: Paulson being not a Republican because he is not a "conservative Republican," I question whether you mean that no republican is an actual Republican if he is not a Conservative Republican. Is that what you're saying? One cannot be an environmentalist and a "real" Republican? Teddy Roosevelt might disagree. One cannot be a "real" Republican if one is a moderate Republican? Arlen Spector, Susan Collins, Tom Ridge, Chuck Hegel and many many others might disagree. George H.W. Bush might too.

Is the point simply that Paulson, despite who he works for, who he votes for, who he contributes to and how he identifies himself cannot really be a Republican because he is not a Conservative Republican? If that's true, it's both illustrative of the problems facing the GOP and rather frightening.

As to the conclusions I would draw about Paulson donating to Republicans and his wife donating to Democrats, heck, I'm an Occam's Razor guy, I'd conclude that he is a Republican and she is a Democrat. One need look no further than Mary Matalin and James Carville to see how this works.

Pat Bateman said...

Well said, JK. And James, I would answer your question thusly:

Yes, in the midst of an economic meltdown, if Bush were truly a Republican with belief in the free market's ability to correct everything and weather every storm, he would can Paulson no matter what the result if he believed Paulson to be acting against the best interests of the country and free market Capitalism.

You demonstrate your lack of understanding by the question. It is incumbent upon him to do so WITHOUT regard for market conditions if he believes the market survives and endures because that is the nature of the free market. Your question demonstrates that you simply do not grasp the issue.

As for all those bills that were passed since 2006 that put us in this economic position, please reference which bills it is you're talking about. Did the Dems support the bailout? Absolutely, they did. But Democrats believe in more regulation of government as a general rule - they are not acting against type. George Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, an avowed free-marketer, is the one asking "please sir, may I have some more?" And George Bush, staunch Republican, is not only allowing it but actively supporting it. If you're upset that we're spending this money on buying stock in financial companies, why are you directing your rancor at Democrats, who consistently favor more government intervention? They're not playing against type here. Reacting to a financial emergency by government intervention is an example of Democrats doing what Democrats mostly believe should be done.

Your boy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is, along with his employee Henry Paulson, the one who has gone rogue. Want to get mad? Don't necessarily blame you. But get mad at them instead.

Exonerating Bush by calling him stupid and saying he trusts advisors who work for him in an at-will employment context is not a sufficient response, James. It simply isn't.

James said...

I'll ask again the question you seem to be working so hard to avoid.

Banks have already been nationalized, Democrats are pushing for the auto industry and health care. These are facts that you can verify in every major paper in the world.

If not democratic socialism, than what would you call it?

Jack Knowledge said...

Not ignoring the question. In fact, it's the exact question I've been addressing the entire time. Paulson is a Republican. Bernanke is a Republican. Bush is a Republican. The 90 Republicans in the House and Senate who voted for the bailout are Republicans.

So, yes, Democrats have played a big role in passing the bailout, and yes, Democrats are involved with considering further plans to save other industries from potentially cataclysmic collapse, but so are Republicans. It's not Democratic Socialism, because its not a Democratic plan or a Democratic bailout. Everyone is in this thing together.

If you want to split hairs and say that the banks and the mortgages etc is Republican Socialism, and any unlikely bailout of the auto industry is Democratic Socialism, seems silly to me, but ok.

And Obama's health care plan (a) has nothing to do with the financial bailouts of the banks, and (b) is not socialism.

If anyone is avoiding a question it's you in refusing to answer how Bush/Paulson/Bernanke's plan amounts to "Democratic" anything.

James said...

Wow! I don't even know what to say to that. You don't even know what democratic socialism is...

It has nothing to do with red or blue. It's a philosphy of goverment. Here, read all about it:
"democratic socialism simply refers to all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one"

Maybe you need to be reminded how congress works. Watch this little ditty:

President Bush doesn't make bills. Your democrat lead congress does.

The democrat led congress created the bill in a democrat committee which was brought to floor by democrats, passed by democrats, and which gave Paulson a blank check to socialize portions of the banking industry.

Republicans are partially to blame, no doubt. But you seem so miss that is was Democrats who had full control and democrats who created and signed off on the bill.

It is Pelosi who came up with the auto bailout plan which again socializes the big 3 giving government ownership. It is Obama that is pushing for it. No republican in site on this one, so stop folling yourself.

Is it not part of the democrat party platform to atleast partially nationalize healthcare, part of Obama's plan? Yes, it is.

So, we have a banking nationalization pushed by democrats and signed into law by Bush. You have the auto nationalization being pushed for by Democrats, and healthcare nationalization being pushed for by democrats.

I'll ask again. If not democratic socialism, than what is it?

Jack Knowledge said...

If you're saying little d "democratic socialism," I disagree, but that erroneous characterization of the bailout doesn't get my ire up. If you're using "democratic" in the big d sense "Democratic socialism," that's not just wrong, it's dumb, for the reasons I've already mentioned a bunch of times.

I didn't open your link, but I assume it's something snide like a School House Rock. I'm not technically a congressman anymore (damned IMs to pages), but I [almost] finished 8th grade, so I know how a bill becomes a law.

In the case of the bailout of the financial industry, Bush (R), Paulson (R) and Bernanke (R) got together, told Congress and the American people that failure to act immediately would be catastrophic, then pitched a plan to Congress. Congress made some adjustments, put in some plans for oversight (Republican plans always leave out oversight, though Congrees has grossly neglected their duty to date) and it was passed by Congress, including 90 Republicans, and signed into law by President Bush, a Republican.

Point is, if you're talking about a political philosophy regarding small d democratic socialism, you're wrong, because this isn't socialism any more than Social Security, Medicare, VA Hospitals, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system, unemployment insurance or anything else. The banks would have failed had the government not acted, and that would have been catastropic for the entire world economy. If you're talking about democratic socialism with a capital D, you're analysis is not just wrong, it's blind.

Pat Bateman said...

Well, gee whiz James, I'm not sure, because nobody seems to know what "Democratic Socialism" actually means:

"Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term."

But since you've been so kind as to use the definition that you find most compelling, we know which strain you have chosen. However, why don't you read this very entry level description of its history and see if you think that's what we're headed for... I mean, really.

If so, there's really nothing further to discuss because that's adorable.

However, I'll tell you what... why don't you tell us, the simpletons, what YOU think we should do about the American automobile, banking and healthcare industries? What's your take, James? Stop pointing fingers and throwing around terms you don't entirely understand and why don't you clue us in on what the solutions should be. Go.

James said...

Maybe if you would spend five seconds reading this site and not just bloviating about a comment you'd have seen the countless posts about what we should do about some of these issues.

You are the ones who came here throwing the fingers around. If you read the actual post this comment thread is about there is no blame placed on republican or democrats accept to denote pelosi and obama are pushing for the auto bailout and the democrats have long pushed for national healthcare.

Are you really so blind by your devotion to all thing Democrat that you can't see that government ownership in banks, auto manufacturers, and quite possibly in the future health care isn't socialism?

Wasn't it one of you leftwingbats that asked on another post if Obama was socialist what industries is he talking about nationalizing?

Now that he is doing just that you magically for get that nationalizing industry is one of the key factors to socialism.

Give me a break.

Pat Bateman said...

Ha. Man, that was rich. I don't even have an adequate response. Bravo, James. Kudos to you. Enjoy your weekend... while you still have one. That sound you hear is jackbooted feet stomping the inexorable march towards socialism in America.

I wasn't aware that President Obama had nationalized anything as of yet. All hail our great and benevolent leader-elect, who rules from a bully-pulpit of zero actual authority until January 20th.

Sigh. If you're mad about the government buying shares in our banking industry, point the finger at your commander in chief and his lackey Mr. Paulson. If you're mad about the plan - likely to fail, I might add - to bail out the auto industry, by all means point your flying fickle finger of fate at Congressional Dems. If you're upset about the prospect of nationalized healthcare - point at nobody because that has not actually happened, except in the hysterical world where Obama is going door to door taking your freedom and your guns and putting you on a plow in the commune. You are a worker bee. We are now fighting Oceana.

If you think any of this starts a march towards socialism in this country, point yourself towards a liquor cabinet, because either your working definition of socialism is as loose as [redacted for content], or you misunderstand the underpinnings of socialism. Either way, my advice son: start drinking heavily. Because working is the curse of the drinking class.

Warm Apple Pie said...

What's your view of "Democratic Socialism?"

. . .

In what respect, Charlie?

James said...

Jesus, why is it so hard for you to comprehend simple facts. You just make up crap that were never said to try and argue.

Show me where I said Obama nationalized anything? He has advocated for doing so with the Auto bailout that pelosi put forward. That's just a fact. There's no disputing that.:,0,3553771.story

The auto bailout is unlikely to pass before Jan. 20th., but based on the banking situation, it's not impossible. January 21 is a different matter and all bets will be off. Obama and his virtually fillibuster proof senate can and will pass an auto bailout.

As for health care, it hasn't yet been nationalized, but it is on Obama's 100 day plan. At least a partial nationalization is anyway.

How do you not understand that?

I've had enough of dealing with trolls today.

James said...

Warm apple pie,

"What [is] your view of "Democratic Socialism?"


Depends on what your meaning of is is.

Anonymous said...

"Democrats Push Auto Industry Relief in Congress"

"Democrats' Plans For US Auto Bailout Face Doubts"

"Democrats Plot Detroit Rescue"

"Obama backs £33bn loans for car industry"

"US House Speaker backs auto industry aid"

All it takes is 10 seconds to Google the headlines.

Yup. I see Bush and Republicans all over this one.

Why not get to the nitty-gritty? Regardless of whoever bails out the auto-industry, how long do you think they will stay a float? Think: stay a float without more handouts? So, um, yeah... that means the taxpayers get a nice big waste of money...

...courtesy of? Yup. Bush! Hell I sprained my ankle and I KNOW that fucker is responsible one way or another.

I think these Obama-worshippers are funny. They'll be 75 years old and still blaming Bush because they're constipated. Shit, Obama could have the military nuke Russia and dem-lovers would blame Bush for it.

Sons of bitches, I want my free gas and mortgage too.

I want a serious fuckin' tax cut - regardless of whether or not I pay taxes to begin with. And I want the government to pay for it.

So here's the ultimate challenge. Words now don't mean shit. It's the "change" we had better see come the end of January. With a completely Dem-controlled congress and president, there had better not be any in-bred feuding going on. There will be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER THAT ANY LAW NEEDING TO BE PASSED SHOULD EVER TAKE LONGER THAN A FEW DAYS. We'll see if the Dems are a united bunch, all bent on "change" or were they just bending us all over the table again? These worthless turds are either going to pass a whirlwind of legislation that will make the patriot act look perfectly innocent, or they're going to sit on their asses and continue to preach about how bad Bush was and how they can't do a damn thing because Bush fucked it up so bad. (Which isn't an excuse at all since they have the power to pass anything they want)

LOL - suckers.