Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
You got the house big woop...now what? You gonna cut social security? Well no because you told seniors you wouldn't. You're going to cut medicare? Well, no, you told seniors you wouldn't. Are you going to cut defense spending? Are you fcking high? You're going to cut other spending or kill ObamaCare? If you can get anything past the Senate conference more power to you and Obama's veto (as if that's going to be an option).
They over promised and they won't deliver. Buckle up Buck, it's going to be time to play hardball and we got more chips and defense spending bills to attach shit to. Yeeha!
|
In terms of political strategy (who cares about the f***in country, politics is all that counts), the House is a far better win then the Senate. The House initiates all money bills, so if the Republicans are smart (which they aren't), they can lay out grand scheme plans, and incorporate enough to win maybe 2-3 democratic senators. What this does, is allow them to show they have a plan that works (yeah right) and put the President in the blocking/obstructionist position.
For arguments sake, lets say House Republicans put a plan out that 30 Repub vote no on, but 10 Dem vote yes.
It goes to the Senate, where they get 47 Repub votes and 4 Dem votes.
It comes out of conference with "bi-partisan" support of maybe 15 House Dems and 5 Senate Dems.
Now, if Pres Obama signs it, he gives the Republican party a victory, for leading in the country back to the right direction, but if he vetoes it, and the Senate fails to overturn it due to staunch liberal posturing, then the Republicans can claim that the far left is trying to keep the country on the wrong path.
Far better would be to either
a) lose both the senate and house, and Pres Obama can be the defender of the poor from the big evil conservatives.
Or
b) have won the house, and lost the Senate, where the Republicans would again be seen as the obstructionist party.
In the end
it will all be ssdd.