Lie .. one from you Ricther is that the president has the Authority to spend money. Under the Constitution that Authority is given to the Congress. and the Congress alone.. They are the only Body that has the power to Pass Laws.. or Pass Budgets...

the Truth is . It is the Democrats that are the Spenders..

by a better then 3 to 1 margin when either party Controls all of congress.. Facts are Facts . and you can't dispute them.

http://i44.tinypic.com/34g1xu1.jpg

Powers of Congress

Congress, as one of the three coequal branches of government, is ascribed significant powers by the Constitution. All legislative power in the government is vested in Congress, meaning that it is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws. Executive Branch agencies issue regulations with the full force of law, but these are only under the authority of laws enacted by Congress. The President may veto bills Congress passes, but Congress may also override a veto by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Article I of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress and the specific areas in which it may legislate. Congress is also empowered to enact laws deemed "necessary and proper" for the execution of the powers given to any part of the government under the Constitution.

Part of Congress's exercise of legislative authority is the establishment of an annual budget for the government. To this end, Congress levies taxes and tariffs to provide funding for essential government services. If enough money cannot be raised to fund the government, then Congress may also authorize borrowing to make up the difference. Congress can also mandate spending on specific items: legislatively directed spending, commonly known as "earmarks," specifies funds for a particular project, rather than for a government agency.

Both chambers of Congress have extensive investigative powers, and may compel the production of evidence or testimony toward whatever end they deem necessary. Members of Congress spend much of their time holding hearings and investigations in committee. Refusal to cooperate with a Congressional subpoena can result in charges of contempt of Congress, which could result in a prison term.

The Senate maintains several powers to itself: It ratifies treaties by a two-thirds supermajority vote and confirms the appointments of the President by a majority vote. The consent of the House of Representatives is also necessary for the ratification of trade agreements and the confirmation of the Vice President.

Congress also holds the sole power to declare war.

referenced from http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch

The poster must be smoking the funny stuff if he really believes what he is saying.

I think too many of you are predicting with your heart, not your mind. Republicans will pick up more than 50 seats in the house. In the senate they will probably end up 1 short. We live in the Jacksonville area and there are a lot of people motivated to push the Dems out. The deficit and health care seem to be the biggest issues. And by the way, regardless of what Obama says, our medicare advantage insurance was eliminated.

J. Richter "Besides the truth is that; Republicans Congress or President) ALWAYS spend more than Democrats, ALWAYS create less jobs, and ALWAYS increase the deficits by more."

Nice try at a 'spin', but the FACTS belie your claims. Here is the record;

Since it's Congress that sets the Budget and controls legislation and spending, let's take a look at how the Republicans and Democrats did when they controlled Congress. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2006, 6 years under Bill Clinton, and 6 years under G W Bush, a total of 12 years. The Democrats have controlled Congress for the last 4 years, 2007 – 2010. The results;

Republican Congress - 6 years under Clinton;

The economy (GDP) grew by 37.6% (6.27%/yr).

Employment increased by 11.9 Million jobs.

Surpluses averaged $23 Billion per year.

Republican Congress - 6 years under Bush;

The economy (GDP) grew by 37.4% (6.23%/yr).

Employment increased by 7.5 Million jobs.

Deficits averaged only $231 Billion per year.

Democrat Congress – Last 4 years;

The economy (GDP) grew by about 7.5% (1.87%/yr).

Employment DECREASED by 5.7 Million jobs.

Deficits averaged $866 Billion per year.

Judge for yourself.

Your graph is shamelessly doctored and I have pointed it out to you many times Steve.

- The axes is doctored and artificially spaced to present an illusion. Notice what is supposed to be uniformly spaced axis is artificially condensed in 2008 to create an illusion of more spending.

- Your lines are all blue even for Republican congress

- The lines have slopes that dont follow the data

- The period of the data does not even match the regimes. Congress tenures go from January to January!!!

- Some of the data is wrong and tuned to what you want it to say.

Who in the world with any honor presents a graph after it has been pointed out that the axes are not uniform

Here is the TRUE CBO graph by congress:

http://i54.tinypic.com/2e49c8h.png

The only correlation is by President (who propose most of the spending and the agenda - bailout, prescription bill, two wars, tax cuts):

http://i55.tinypic.com/e84ll1.png

Steve,

Funny but when Ronnie Ray-Guns left he had the largest deficit in US history. It wasn't until george bush (jr) came along that the record was broken. bushie DOUBLED the national debt in eight years. Both Ray-Guns and bushie INCREASED the size of the US government unlike any other President. Yes facts are facts; unfortunately your post doesn't contain any.

J Richter

Not only have you never proved one time that anything in the Graph i have provide is wrong. NOT ONCE. and just because you say its wrong doens't make it so.. . It Clearly shows What party Controlled congress when. Who the president was at the Time and the Amount each CONGRESS SPENT>.

You are the typical Liberal you have zero proof. but what you say. when someone provides you with PROOF POSITIVE and the GRAPH and AMOUNTS you claim its Doctored. you are pathetic...

Imwhitewolf..

Tell me . What party held Congress durning those spikes in Deficts.. OH. yes. thats correct. The Democrats controlled congress. The Congress who under Constitutional provision are the only Ones that have a Right to authorize any Spending.

You are worse than pathetic Steve and completely lacking in any integrity when I clearly show you that, just for simplicity (and you can click your pathetic useless graph again and check it):

- your axes are wrong. Congress goes from January to January

- your axes are wrong. The intervals are not uniform even though they are labelled as such.

You are a disgrace to all the true intellectual conservatives that actually believe what they claim and want to prove it with truth and facts.

Pietro and J Richter: Sure hope you guys are right. Some races will be very, very close.

Mark Murray and company: What say you on the House and Senate...Numbers please.

I agree with you, Pietro, about the land-line polls. Many people have only cell phones so getting an honest sense of where people stand is close to impossible and far less accurate than even two years ago.

I, too, have felt that the polls must be inaccurate. It is incomprehensible to me that the majority of voters in this country would fall for what I am hearing from the Teabaglicans. All I have heard for policy from them is cut taxes and cut spending. What that means is tax cuts for the 2% of the country that don't need them and reducing social programs and protections that benefit the 97% that are struggling. How can that be a formula for success for anyone but the 2%?

DREAM ON!

Pollsters don't directly correct for the landline only effect. They correct for the demographic differences between their sample (people with landlines) and the the population (likely voters). This means they decreases the amount of weighting for over represented demographic groups and increases the weighting for under represented demographic groups.

What this doesn't address is differences between landline voters and cell phone only voters that are independent of other demographic characteristics.

If we could somehow poll all voters of the same age, race and income level (or whatever other demographic categories pollsters use) and split them into two groups: landline and cell phone only. If there were no real differences between how the two groups responded to the polls, then we could be confident that the fact the a poll is landline only does not make it inaccurate.

But what if there were significant difference between these two groups? That would mean that not having a landline would be a statistically significant indicator of your response to a poll independentof other demographic characteristics. That would mean that the pollsters methods of correcting for landline only polls are not acurate and all the polls we are seeing are misleading.

Hey guys, what you don't seem to understand is this. It doesn't matter who wins tomorrow and controls Congress. Why? If the rethuglicants remain in the minority in the Senate then they will continue to be the party of NO and nothing will be accomplished. If they take the majority in the Senate it will be by such a slim majority that they will get nothing accomplished.

I'm a Dem and I sincerely hope the rethugs get control of both chambers. Why? In 2012, when the economy hasn't improved under their watch then they'll get the blame. Sad to think that way isn't i? Unfortunately the rethuglicant conduct in the Senate during the last two years has been so atrocious, they have been guided by nothing but trying to score political points with the voters, too many of whom seem to have a seriously short memory.

Clara: Do you really think Blunt will lose?

I just can't tell. There is NO WAY he wins St. Louis or Kansas City; but the rural vote is SO unpredictable. I know people throughout and they say Robin has a strong showing in some of the moderate counties; but there is an entire area that Blunt owns. It really is TOO close to call. I suspect like what happened in 2006, I will go to bed convinced Claire McCaskill lost - and wakeup with the city returns being enough to carry her over! This is what keeps me motivated to call and knock and in general HOPE that we take this seat. The Carnahan name is beloved in this state. Thanks to Roy's nitwit son, Matt - Blunt shouldn't even have a prayer; but Tea Party is strong in this state and any 'fear' of government interference fires them up.

In summary, I just can't tell. But I don't think it's over by a long shot!

I hate to say it, but Missouri is no longer the home of Truman. Missouri only votes Democrat when there is a HUGE African American turnout, and that's not going to happen. Without it, Missouri is just Arkansas. There are not enough union members left. Many moved to the Kansas side to avoid the property taxes that ran the KCMO schools.

Clara,

Just one of many.

imwhitewolf

I don't understand your inference? The seat in reference here is currently held by a retiring Republican,...this 'hope' is a take away,...why do you think it's 'one of many'?

Jody - I agree with your assessment in Alaska. Asyou can see, the GOP is trying to 'control' her and she is like a viper in the henhouse. Whomever she 'bites' will become toxic to the GOP. Because of this sort of thing, we will PROBABLY see the GOP lose yet another set to political infighting.

Get used to this sort of thing happening more often between Sarah Palin and the GOP. It is going to get UGLY and the GOP is going to be ripped apart.

Jody and Pietro,

You both are correct. Alaska has more than 50% non-partisans voters and Republicans only represent 1/3 of the registered voters. A lot of money has poured into Alaska but the Democrat Scott McAdams only had about $17,000 total to start the general election to be tied with the two Republicans in the final hours.

Santa's Helper - OK. Good information to know. Let's hope that the Tea Party/GOP infighting will garner a Democratic Senator.

This is another unintended consequence of the Tea Party, IMHO.

Agreed.

T Welch, although I am a conservative, I find comments by Pietro to be intelligent and well thought out. Very rational presentations by him. For a lib, a good guy (LOL).

Pietro, I believe your predictions are completely off-base (damn conservative intuition!). The republicans should pick-up 47-50 House Seats and take control; the Senate should see the Dems hold a very slim majority; best estimate 51-49 (taking into account independent who will caucus with Dems)

I am also glad to see productive comments and not the usual hate-mongering (and yes, I get emotionally involved when I read extremely slanted or off-base comments by some!).

Better that we disagree on substance than argue over political ideology.

Bill N AZ - I think that your 'pickup' in the House is overstated if you are using 'available' polling data to make your prediction(s). With that being said, I really have no issue or problem with the GOP taking over the house IF Rep. Boehner is NOT the new Speaker ofthe House. With his history here in Ohio, I would not trust that man to do anything. If the Republicans nominate someone else (and not Cantor either), then I would have less of an issue with a Republican takeover.

However, I believe the numbers are overstated. I believe that the House and Senate will stay in Democratic hands.

As far as the Senate is concerned, I do not see much movement there EXCEPT that Joe Lieberman will probably caucus with the Republicans. That would mean that Vice President Biden would need to be present to cast the tie-breaking votes if necessary.

Again, Bill N AZ - I agree with you - let's disagree on substance (you have a 50-50 chance of actually being right). Whenever you argue ideaology, it gets more and more nasty. Besides - has anyone REALLY changed someone's ideaology on a blog?

solo più tardi, il mio amico ...

Pietro,

Next time you & friend head to AZ, let me know. I'll bet you a beer or two that the House will go Republican.

Later to you also my friend!

Bill

Bill N AZ - buongiorno Billl, Sembra che ti devo due birre!

Great post on first thoughts today.

Buongiorno Pietro.....I think if/when you make it out to AZ, we can sit around a campfire and drink at least the two beers (I'll share - LOL). My wife is glad the elections are over; I think I have been driving her nuts with my research. I have to admit I did not remotely imagine the huge change in the House. Now the question is - can some sanity return to the FedGov and to the voting populace? IF the rhetoric that is manifested on this, and other political blogs continues, sadly, the answer is 'NO'. The same individuals who believe they are 100% certain that their personal or their political party agenda is the only direction to be followed continue to demean anyone who is not in lock step with their views. First and foremost WE must understand that WE are Americans - I would hate to have everyone be a mirror image of me! My views, my life experiences, my likes and dislikes make me who I am. Hell! If everyone had my views, everyone would be bored stiff and creativity would die. I had mentioned in a previous post to you that I have incredible ethnic diversity within my family. My wife still chuckles when we discuss how some family resolutions to differences have been attained (usually ending in a night or two in jail or the hospital....followed by everyone getting together for dinner and drinks and everyone still friends). She just can't understand that the love of family doesn't mean that the arguments can't become very loud and a few noses get bloodied (literally and figuratively). I think she doesn't grasp that we understand an opinion is an opinion and that after all is said and done, we are still family and love one another. We get over 'it' very fast. Unfortunately, the current political divisions within the US populace puts party before country... bloody noses don't heal in this climate.

Looking forward to future conversations with you. I figure I have another 10-15 years left in these old bones, and I will learn something from you.

Bill N AZ - you are on. I am a man of my word. Due birre - coming right up!!

I appreciate your posts and I have learned much already from you, even if your politics is different from mine. That is what this whole exercise is all about.

I'll let you know when I am in AZ again.

solo più tardi, il mio amico...

Even the economists have stated the stimulus worked AS HAVE the GOPers in their districts and states, proudly declaring how many jobs the money they didn't want created. There are those who think for themselves and those who only believe what they think.

I predict that unfortunately we will continue to have to listen to NJNB's hallucinations that the world is going to end and it's ALL President Obama's fault!

And when things don't work out to her liking come Wednesday morning we will all get to witness what a nuclear meltdown feels like!

I agree!

Take what?

The front of the line at the unemployment office.

No Gas! after they get destryed at the polls!

Okay, I looked up my prediction Ron and I have seven that are accurate - but I confirmed that my house outlook was rosier than I initially thought. I only had us losing 20. That seems kinda' funny now; but hey, those microphones were HUGE and INCESSANT, who knew?

Predictions are fun; but not nearly as fun as SPIN!

Not very.

My point exactly. I could accept the results of these polls IF I knew that the statistical sample was a REAL sample and not skewered one way or another.

As someone mentioned earlier... people have been OVER polled and at this point nothing is for certain!