It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Return of Checks and Balances?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:34 AM
GO MODERATES! The pressured are now applying the pressure.

WASHINGTON -- Moderate Republicans yesterday handed their leaders two embarrassing setbacks on Capitol Hill, stopping a $50 billion package of controversial budget cuts in the House and an extension of the president's tax cuts in the Senate.

The day's events illustrated the power of the small but stubborn group of Republican moderates on both sides of the Capitol who have balked at the efforts of GOP leaders to scale back funding for social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps while advancing a $70 billion extension of President Bush's tax breaks, which primarily benefit higher earners.

I know they are looking forward to '06 and what their constitutents are going to do. Seems the rats are all jumping the USS G-dub and manning life boats. Don't know how long this is going to last but as long as the poll numbers are low think Bush is in for a long winter.

House leaders made a huge concession to those moderates late Wednesday night when they agreed to remove -- at least for now -- a provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Twenty-six Republicans pressured their leaders to remove the provision in a letter this week

Moderate Republicans hand GOP leaders setbacks


posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:29 AM
I don't believe this is what Checks and Balances were all about. What I get out of this story, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that Republican Leaders in the House and Senate (which is both legislative branch) are being hindered by Republicans within the House and Senate.

To my understanding, Checks and Balances were a way to keep the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches from gaining more power over the other.

For example, the President can appoint a Judge, but Congress can say no. (I'm not sure if this example is true or not, but you get the idea... hopefully)

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:36 AM
You are right technically, but the thread is about moderates standing up to the leadership in the republican party and offering some opposition in the otherwise opposition-less state of one party rule that we are trapped in now. Hence the use of "checks and balances"--oh well.

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:40 AM
Well at least now we know that Republicans don't ALLvote Republican. Is it this way on the Big Elephant side too?

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:51 AM
You mean the democrats (we are asses, I mean, donkeys)?

They voted for the war and I believe that cost them '04. If they learned anything they will stop trying to please everyone and open up some real dialogue. Compromise, and then, maybe we will have both sides voting on the only real side...the side of what's right for America.

Saphie in '08!

I'm starting to sound like a politican.

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 12:31 PM
I'll vote for you if you can throw me some kickbacks...

About the symbolism of the two parties... I honestly thought they were all jack......umm... donkeys.

mod edit to remove quote of previous post

[edit on 12-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

new topics

top topics

log in