Here's what's going to happen after the election

[ProSense]

Scenario 1: Democrats retain control of Congress and work with Republicans try to move the Democratic agenda forward.

Scenraio 2: Republicans gain control and Democrats do whatever they need to do to try to get something done.

I prefer the first scenario, but whatever happens, we'll have to live with it. Whatever happens, President Obama has two years remaining in his first term as of January 20.

[ibegurpard]

1. Here's what I expect from them: opposition to republican policy

If I don't see that I will CONTINUE to point it out.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. What about repukes get control, and stonewall everything...

[ProSense]

4. That's scenario 2

It's not new. It was this way before the 2006 election. Democrats will do what they need to do.

[Ken Burch]

50. It's not worth passing stuff if it has to be to the right of what's been passed so far

The difference between right-wing bills and center-right bills(and the Republicans would demand that everything be more than half conservative before they'd consider working with us, and then STILL wouldn't work with us)is meaningless.

Nothing could ever be worth passing anything as evil as the "welfare reform" bill again.

What Democrats will "need to do" is to wage all-out war against what the GOP will propose. That's our ONLY chance. The last two years proved that there's no such thing as bipartisanship anymore. And the Nineties proved that compromising with the Right only guarantees we can never get Congress back while the compromising is going on.

We can't still be Democrats and let MORE abortion restrictions be imposed, or let more restrictions on contraceptive sales.

We can't still be Democrats if we let any more cuts in social services go through.

We can't still be Democrats and let any more "free trade" pacts go through, since the Nineties proved those only benefit the rich.

We can't still be Democrats if we let anything at all be done to weaken Social Security or Medicare.

And we can't still be Democrats if we go to war against Iran.

Those are absolutes, and nothing could make up for abandoning those as absolutes.

[quakerboy]

18. Naw

Repukes get control, and successfully pass most of their agenda, economically, while probably stalemating on social issues.

[Exilednight]

43. If repugs get control, then they will have to compromise with Dems to get their .............

legislation passed. Then, even if it's passed, Obama still has to sign it. This, if repugs gain control, will be the real test for Obama. If he signs a single piece of repug legislation that does not hold something of real value to Democrats, then it will provide proof positive that Obama has really lost touch with his base, and will have pretty much tossed away the possibility of a second term.

[dflprincess]

45. No they won't.

There will always be blue dog "Democrats" who will vote with them.

[Exilednight]

51. I agree about the blue dogs, but Repugs aren't going get a super

majority in the Senate, even with the blue-dog vote.

And, like I stated above, the real test is when it crosses Obama's desk.

[quakerboy]

47. They will have to compromise with

the likes of Joe Lieberman. And I see no sign that Obama is in a vetoing mood for the republican fiscal desires, as long as it means he can claim a victory and sign a law into being.

Like I said, Republican fiscal agenda and social stalemate.

[BrklynLiberal]

53. Right...the way they worked with the Dems during pres shit-for-brains disaster years.

NOT!

[geckosfeet]

3. I expect republicon domination - just a little more ruthless than it is now.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. First up: slashing Social Security

Both sides seem to agree on THAT!

[ProSense]

7. You've resigned yourself to believing that's the case. So what

are you going to do: vote or stay home and watch it happen?

Either way, see the OP.

[dflprincess]

6. How about this

Democrats retain control of Congress and, as they have done the past two years, cave into Republican demands to ensure that any "reform" bill passed is as weak as possible and, in cases such as the insurance bill, nothing more that a reenforcement of the status quo. Having achieved their goals, Republicans continue to vote against final passage of the bills. This will be especially helpful to them when they vote against Democratic cuts to Social Security.

The working and middle classes continue to lose ground.

[ProSense]

8. " Democrats retain control of Congress and, as they have done the past two years"

That's the first scenario, which doesn't change the characterization anyone has of elected Democrats.

[dflprincess]

14. No the OP said "work with Republicans"

I predict that even if they retain the majority, they will continue to let Republicans run the show.

[ProSense]

15. "they will continue to let Republicans run the show"

"Let" implies that Democrats have to allow Republicans to do something, which means working with them. You can say they run the show, but they're not really happy with how health care reform turned out.

[dflprincess]

23. The Republicans are plenty happy with the insurance bill

the only thing they didn't get was the "sell across state lines" thing.

The Republicans know when the shit finally hits the fan and people figure out that the only "reform" they got was mandated premiums that will keep them paying more & more to the same old crooks while their access to care gets harder they'll win big by reminding the public that they never supported this - and it won't matter at all that the Republicans had no ideas at all.

And no, "letting" the Republicans run things is not the same as working with them. Rolling over without putting up a fight is not "working with" them.

[ProSense]

27. Yeah, they're so happy they want to repeal it. n/t

[dflprincess]

28. It's their new Roe v Wade

How long have they been talking about overturning that? Yet, when they controlled the White House, Congress and had too many conservatives on the court they did nothing about it.

They won't repeal the insurance bill but they may make a few changes - like letting the crooks sell across state lines so they can all "move" to the states with the least regulation so their shoddy products can get even worse.

[ProSense]

29. So you don't think they really want to?

Really?

[ibegurpard]

30. mandates aren't going anywhere

all those "regulations" you tout sure will though.
That's what happens when the only systemic "reform" you enact is to preserve the status quo...all the details can be changed, ignored, and repealed.

[ProSense]

31. "all those 'regulations' you tout sure will though."

Wall Street reform gives regulators power over executive pay


Yeah, I'm still pro-regulation.

[ibegurpard]

35. as usual, you deliberately pretend to misunderstand

regulations can be changed.
we're stuck with systemic changes.
we changed the system to preserve the status quo.
the good things you keep trying to be positive about will be gone but the systemic change will stay.

edited for clarity, not that it will make any difference.

[ProSense]

37. "regulations can be changed." Regulation:

Glass-Steagall

Someone should have told FDR.

[ibegurpard]

38. you're right

and that's exactly what's going to happen with healthcare "reform."

[ProSense]

39. Yeah,

nothing should ever be regulated because someday someone might attempt to and succeed at repealing it.

Now what?

[ibegurpard]

42. It's like constitutional amendment vs. statute

yes, constitutional amendments can be changed but it's much more difficult than a statute.
We got a statute.
edit: they got the amendment

[dflprincess]

32. No they don't

because they'd lose the talking point as well as being able to claim it wasn't their fault when people figure out that nothing really changed and they're just paying more for "coverage".

Just like they would have lost abortion as a wedge issue if they had ever actually done anything to outlaw it.

[ProSense]

33. So there's nothing to be concerned about?

Then why are people so worried and constantly talking about the right and abortion rights?

If Republicans are not serious about doing any regressive, then what's all the fuss about?

I tend to take Republicans' positions on the issues seriously (see Arizona, Nebraska and some other states).

[dflprincess]

34. The insurance bill benefits their pals at UHG, Aetna, Cigna, etc

they are not going to repeal that.

[ProSense]

36. The bill provides coverage to 32 million Americans.

That's a huge number. It will save tens of thousands of lives, another huge number.

So what about Roe v. Wade, are you still saying that Republicans have no desire or intention to repeal that ruling?

[dflprincess]

40. If the Republicans really wanted to repeal Roe v Wade they would have done so

they've had plenty of opportunity.

And "coverage" has nothing to do with care. Premiums are going up as are out of pockets expenses. It does no good to have "coverage" if you still can't afford to see a doctor - "coverage" does not save lives, being able to get care does. The number of uninsured may drop at first but the number of underinsured will explode. Most the people who have declared bankruptcy because of medical bills had "coverage". The insurance bailout does nothing to change that.

The bill is designed to do one thing and that is to transfer billions of private and public dollars to the insurance companies and it does that well.

[ProSense]

41. What do you think they're

trying to do in Nebraska?

Do you really believe that if given the chance, Republicans wouldn't attack Roe v. Wade? Really?

[dflprincess]

44. They run against Roe v Wade for federal offices

Bush ran against it. In 8 years they did nothing. This year, at both the state & federal level the insurance bill seems to have taken Roe's place. They're not going to actually do something and lose the "issue" - especially when repealing the insurance bailout would cost their friends money.

[ibegurpard]

46. they WILL change or repeal all the regulatory measures though

bet on that

[depakid]

9. Look at 1995-97 and you'll get a good idea of what's in store

The difference being that the US economy won't be looking up substantially by the time the 2012 presidential campaign.

[ProSense]

12. "the US economy won't be looking up substantially by the time the 2012 presidential campaign."

What exactly does that have to do with electing Democrats or Republicans?

Do you expect it to look up if Republicans take control of Congress?

[depakid]

16. It means that 2012 will be a very different dynamic than 1996

increasing the chances that Obama will be a one term president.

Note: Even though Clinton won the presidency against a sacrificial lamb- Republicans maintained their control over Congress for another 10 years.

David Michael Green puts it a bit more harshly than I would, but sums up the gist of it:

..like Clinton before him, Obama will be relentlessly hounded by congressional investigations into every manner of bogus scandal that the fevered minds of the closeted perverts on the right can dream up to keep the administration reeling.

Unlike Clinton, however, there will be one big difference. I often said, back in the day, that the only thing that kept the American public from immolating Wild Bill, and the only thing that kept the Senate from convicting him in his impeachment trial, was that the economy was jumping at the time and Americans were therefore fat, dumb and happy. Today, however, they're merely fat and dumb, and even the fat part isn't a good thing in this case.

The public could not possibly be more surly - apart that is, from how surly they'll be in a year or two. Obama has been as idiotic a president as could be created if you sat down with the intention of making one, and they will be happy to watch him get savaged him when they have a chance.

By bringing timidity and compromise with criminals to bear against multiple severe crises, and by refusing to fight for anything, he has launched a vicious cycle that is sucking him inexorably down, and us with him: He fails to solve the problems, the public gets angry and frustrated, his party loses elections, the right accuses him of everything from being a socialist to a fascist, he says nothing in response, the public gets angrier and more frustrated, his party loses more elections, they are then even more unable to govern than before, the public is about to explode in anger and frustration, he moves to the right and thereby offers even less of a solution to these crises than the non-solutions already on display, and ... so on. And so on, again. Rinse and repeat.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/05-0

[ProSense]

17. The OP has nothing to do with 2012 or 1996. n/t

[quakerboy]

19. You are absolutely right

the past has nothing to do with the future, and events that occur in the near future have nothing to do with events further in the future. There is no "cause and effect". Its all just random happenstance.

[ProSense]

24. What?

The OP is speculation about November and what is likely to happen in the next Congress.

If you want to speculate about 2012, go right ahead.

When the hell has speculation ever been relevant in defining the past and future when the event in question isn't even a past one?

[FBaggins]

10. They could also split.

Would make for some interesting conference negotiations, if little else.

[FrenchieCat]

11. That's what the media pundits would prefer......

and are working hard to achieve.

Makes for better news.

[ProSense]

13. If Republican take control

it will be a split.

[babylonsister]

20. In both scenarios, Dems try to work with rethugs. That is what

we do.

Sorry, I don't want to be a rethug, so I approve this approach, however painful it might be.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Democrats retain control of Congress and work with Republicans

More of the same bipartisan bullshit that has gotten us ZERO from the GOP.

[ProSense]

22. "More of the same bipartisan bullshit that has gotten us ZERO from the GOP." What do you want from

the GOP?

Dems have gotten things done without them.

[IndianaGreen]

25. FRAK the GOP. FRAK those that appease the GOP.

FRAK those that think they can work with the GOP or be nice to them!

You can't work with fascists!

[ProSense]

26. You don't have to

They are, however, members of Congress.

[Sherman A1]

48. Scenario 1 or 2

Working people get screwed.

[ProSense]

52. You're right, the first thing President Obama did in office was

ensure that working people got "screwed."

Tax cuts for individuals
Total: $237 billion

$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.<29>
$70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.<29>
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
$14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
$6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.<41>
$4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
$4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
$4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.


Education
Total: $100 billion

$53.6 billion in aid to local school districts to prevent layoffs and cutbacks, with flexibility to use the funds for school modernization and repair (State Fiscal Stabilization Fund)<43>
$15.6 billion to increase Pell Grants from $4,731 to $5,350
$13 billion for low-income public schoolchildren
$12.2 billion for IDEA special education
$2.1 billion for Head Start
$2 billion for childcare services
$650 million for educational technology
$300 million for increased teacher salaries
$250 million for states to analyze student performance
$200 million to support working college students
$70 million for the education of homeless children



Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training)
Total: $82.2 billion

$40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec. 31, and increase them by $25 a week
$19.9 billion for the Food Stamp Program
$14.2 billion to give one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions.
$3.45 billion for job training
$3.2 billion in temporary welfare payments (TANF and WIC)
$500 million for vocational training for the disabled
$400 million for employment services
$120 million for subsidized community service jobs for older Americans
$150 million to help refill food banks
$100 million for meals programs for seniors, such as Meals on Wheels
$100 million for free school lunch programs


Housing
Total: $14.7 billion <50>

$4 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for repairing and modernizing public housing, including increasing the energy efficiency of units.
$2.25 billion in tax credits for financing low-income housing construction
$2 billion for Section 8 housing rental assistance
$2 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to purchase and repair foreclosed vacant housing
$1.5 billion for rental assistance to prevent homelessness
$1 billion in community development block grants for state and local governments
$555 million in mortgage assistance for wounded service members (Army Corps of Engineers)
$510 million for the rehabilitation of Native American housing
$250 million for energy efficient modernization of low-income housing
$200 million for helping rural Americans buy homes (Department of Agriculture)
$140 million in grants for independent living centers for elderly blind persons (Dept. of Education)
$130 million for rural community facilities (Department of Agriculture)
$100 million to help remove lead paint from public housing
$100 million emergency food and shelter for homeless (Department of Homeland Security)


link


He did it again when he signed the state aid bill.

[golfguru]

49. Hello Michele n/t