Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Condor who wrote (1395)	10/30/2002 7:18:19 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

If I understand it, presently the party in power is not the party that the Pres. belongs to? We have a bicameral legislature.. With proportional representation in the House of Representatives (currently majority republican) and equal representation in the Senate (2 senators per state). Any legislative bill can be initiated by either side, but it requires both the Senate and Congress's approval on a piece of legislation before being presented to the President to be signed into law, or vetoed. Having both the Senate and House being Republican would be an interesting scenario... They'd better "make some magic" with the economy, or they'll be facing a devastating amount of justifiable criticism in the future... And you can be sure the Democrats will spend considerable time doing just that, while holding out their hands for their "hush money" from the republican leadership. What's interesting is that, the president doesn't even have to be a member of either dominant party in congress. Some presidential candidates have run as independents, or from third parties.. There is something to be said for Canada's government with regard to electing a party who's leader is the prime minister... But I think there's more potential for no-confidence votes and politicking that can be more destabilizing... The writer's of the US constitution designed our system with a maximum of checks and balances so that policy had to be more of a consensus, and comply with constitutional dictates. It seems to work pretty well thus far... But that's not to say other systems work equally well, so long as they have a dedicated civil service staff to carry the ball when governments are dissolved as is currently occurring in Israel. Hawk

To: Condor who wrote (1395)	10/30/2002 11:44:58 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6901

The election can go three different ways - the House and Senate can go majority Republican, majority Democrat, or split (as it is now). If it's still split (both parties have control of one part of Congress), not much will change. If both the House of Representatives and the Senate go Democrat, they will pass a lot of laws that favor the Democrat position, and Bush will have to go along or veto them. If both the House of Representatives and the Senate go Republican, they will pass a lot of laws that favor the Republican position, and Bush won't veto them. This would be the most radical change from what we have now. Most voters like to keep them split because things change very, very slowly, and they keep to the middle in order to find common ground. I kind of like them split, myself. That minimizes the trouble they can cause. I don't trust them any further than I can throw them, and that includes Republicans.