Posted on Nov 5, 2014
Republicans Win Back Congress: What does this mean moving forward?
17.1K
50
88
8
8
0
After the Republican victory in this mid-term election, taking control of the Senate and increasing their majority in the House, what do you personally expect to see happen when they take control in January?
I think we will finally begin to see legislation start to move forward, I think we may get some form of immigration reform brought to the president and the public and I think we will see where "WE" as a nation are headed. I also think that we may be in for some nasty "fights" between the Legislative and Executive branches over policy both foreign and domestic.
Interested to see what my fellow RPers think/feel about the shape of things to come.
I think we will finally begin to see legislation start to move forward, I think we may get some form of immigration reform brought to the president and the public and I think we will see where "WE" as a nation are headed. I also think that we may be in for some nasty "fights" between the Legislative and Executive branches over policy both foreign and domestic.
Interested to see what my fellow RPers think/feel about the shape of things to come.
Posted in these groups: 
Congress
Office of the President (POTUS)
Congress Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 21
3
3
0
Honestly, I would like the GOP, to give the military a higher pay raise for what they do for America. 1% pay raise is ok, but inflation is ever more increasing.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
SFC William Swartz Jr, I agree with you. I'm hoping the Congress gets some things done. And I hope both they and the President are willing to compromise to move our country forward.
(3)
(0)
SFC Boots Attaway
With Reid no longer going to be Senate Majority Leader maybe just maybe some of the 300+ bills the house passed will be voted on by the Senate. It is a shame that one can be so small as to just sit on bills passed by one house just because it is controlled by a different party.
(2)
(0)
SPC Anthony Rock
So I'm guessing you're willing to call Boehner small, as well, since he did the exact same thing?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I hope they (congress) neutralizes what Obama wants to do in the next two years. I am Latino, and Did not Vote for this Moron either time. I was in During Carter, and this guy makes Carter look like Einstein. This country has lost alot of respect around the world, this economy should be booming but with a socialist minded leader we are where we are, hopefully That will Change. I believe a deal was made with the Mexican Government to release The Marine, you will see amnesty for all very soon. God Bless All!
(2)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
PO3 JoseLuis Breton thank you for your service brother and I agree with your sentiments about his socialist lean as well as where our economy should; I pray you are wrong about the amnesty, but I wouldn't put it past him unfortunately.....
(1)
(0)
First and foremost the Rinos need to except the Tea Party. It is not dead and will continue to be a factor.
Second they need to realize this is a mandate against the policies of POTUS. And we need to get America back on track. Move some of the bills up that Harry was blocking. And prevent POTUS from circumventing the constitution.
I have to believe that finally maybe we can accomplish something. And maybe even stop the butchering of the our military.
Second they need to realize this is a mandate against the policies of POTUS. And we need to get America back on track. Move some of the bills up that Harry was blocking. And prevent POTUS from circumventing the constitution.
I have to believe that finally maybe we can accomplish something. And maybe even stop the butchering of the our military.
(2)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
Most of the gains made by Republicans in the house were from moderate candidates which will allow Boehner more freedom to not have to worry about pleasing the Tea Party line.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Agreed but they need to except the likes of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Steve Scalise (who is at least the House Majority Whip) to name a few.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
SFC William Swartz Jr
I think we will have even more grid lock, which really is not a bad thing. We have a larger problem when they actually start growing government. What we need is good pruning. We need a giant swing back to local control of school, medical care, welfare….I think you are getting an idea where my heart is? The farther the money is moved from the people, the greater the waste and abuse. Democrats and Republicans, at the Federal level, both want to move that control to the Federal government. That is bad for all Americans; it is just that most are not knowledgeable enough to know this.
I think we will have even more grid lock, which really is not a bad thing. We have a larger problem when they actually start growing government. What we need is good pruning. We need a giant swing back to local control of school, medical care, welfare….I think you are getting an idea where my heart is? The farther the money is moved from the people, the greater the waste and abuse. Democrats and Republicans, at the Federal level, both want to move that control to the Federal government. That is bad for all Americans; it is just that most are not knowledgeable enough to know this.
(2)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
I was not a big fan of Joni before I saw all the groups lined up against her. They are all border line hate groups in my book, and if they were against her, I decided I might have to be for her. She is are first female combat veteran elected to Congress....that I am aware of.
I am opposed to all the current definitions because when one learns the truth you find they 180* of their true definitions.
I am opposed to all the current definitions because when one learns the truth you find they 180* of their true definitions.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I truly hope you are right. I am sick of the fighting between the parties and I feel the President is the main culprit.
I will say I did not vote for him but when he took office I said well we finally have a person who can truly say we have moved past racism and voted who we as a nation felt was our best choice. He had such a great chance to unite this country and instead he has made race relations worse.
Sad such a waste
I will say I did not vote for him but when he took office I said well we finally have a person who can truly say we have moved past racism and voted who we as a nation felt was our best choice. He had such a great chance to unite this country and instead he has made race relations worse.
Sad such a waste
(2)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
Unfortunately for our nation, I think you are correct, the past 6 years have been the most divisive I can remember since I started paying attention to things back in the early '80s mostly due to the manner in which the administration has charted it's course....
(1)
(0)
SPC Anthony Rock
I have a different take. On the eve of Obama's election, Republicans were solidly about making Obama a one term president as opposed to working for the good of the nation. Obama getting fed up with it and giving them the middle finger some time in 2011 didn't help the situation. So, here we are.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
SFC Swartz--"winning back" now merely means another game of Capture the Flag by the majority of the moment. It means little more than "procedural power to block" actions of one party over another, so we come full circle in the Stealth Congress of recent years. Rather, it should mean the ability for true statesmen/women to get things done; not the theater of political rhetoric about why we cannot get things done because we lack statesmen.
(1)
(0)
SSG Jim Foreman
We would hope they will write a blank check for defense, but we know that's not going to happen.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I am terrified that the Republicans will do what the Democrats did in 2008 when they got the majority all over: Swagger around and flood Capitol Hill with hubris.
There's a ton of real problems in this country and I have the sinking feeling that we're going to be focusing on dumb crap again, like re-launching a 50 member committee to re-investigate Benghazi or hold up the entire legislative process because Ted Cruz wants to outlaw Dr Seuss books (so he doesn't get up and make an ass of himself by missing the entire point of the book).
Our problems in D.C. are by no means partisan. It is widespread, deep-rooted, and the result of an uneducated electorate who prefers entertainment as opposed to governing. Veterans and service members will continue to get the shaft because no Representative or Senator has ever lost their job due to their attitude on the military. Maybe they'll cut taxes, but that's hardly a guarantee it will help anybody, especially if they cut in a way that allows their lobbyists and prime donators to keep money while keeping middle and lower-class families sucking buttermilk.
I have no hope of change or reform or even common sense entering D.C. anytime soon, especially with only 1 of my 2 favorite lawmakers in power (John Huntsman got the shaft during the primaries for not being crazy enough, Elizabeth Warren continues to tell the Democratic party to shove it).
I'm HOPING they prove me wrong, because I feel this country is by no means on its way out. It just needs an adjustment, a tweak here and there.
Hopefully our 24 hour news stations can stop trying to out-fear their audiences long enough and help out with being a solution instead of an instigator.
There's a ton of real problems in this country and I have the sinking feeling that we're going to be focusing on dumb crap again, like re-launching a 50 member committee to re-investigate Benghazi or hold up the entire legislative process because Ted Cruz wants to outlaw Dr Seuss books (so he doesn't get up and make an ass of himself by missing the entire point of the book).
Our problems in D.C. are by no means partisan. It is widespread, deep-rooted, and the result of an uneducated electorate who prefers entertainment as opposed to governing. Veterans and service members will continue to get the shaft because no Representative or Senator has ever lost their job due to their attitude on the military. Maybe they'll cut taxes, but that's hardly a guarantee it will help anybody, especially if they cut in a way that allows their lobbyists and prime donators to keep money while keeping middle and lower-class families sucking buttermilk.
I have no hope of change or reform or even common sense entering D.C. anytime soon, especially with only 1 of my 2 favorite lawmakers in power (John Huntsman got the shaft during the primaries for not being crazy enough, Elizabeth Warren continues to tell the Democratic party to shove it).
I'm HOPING they prove me wrong, because I feel this country is by no means on its way out. It just needs an adjustment, a tweak here and there.
Hopefully our 24 hour news stations can stop trying to out-fear their audiences long enough and help out with being a solution instead of an instigator.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SPC Rock, you make some good points, but I think you miss a few as well. Both parties continue to elect extremists, at the expense of anyone who might be willing to compromise. As far as Elizabeth Warren goes, she's at the top of the extremist nutcase list in my book.
Taxes didn't go down in the last 6 years, and the chasm between rich and poor widened. But I don't expect that to change under the Reps. They will spend just as much (or almost as much) and just as shamelessly as the Dems. On the other side, I expect to see the Dems, who spent the last 6 years wailing that the Reps wouldn't "compromise" (i.e. cave in) will now be just as obstructionist and oblivious to the hypocrisy.
You bewailed the lobbyists and prime donators, and I agree with you, EXCEPT that no one seems to recognize that UNIONS are among the biggest funders of campaign spending. Google it. Last time I did, 14 of the top 20 contributors to political campaigns were unions. Democrat wailing about campaign finance reform isn't about anything except a bigger voice for the groups that support them.
1) We need less money influence, but that must include unions along with corporations, and it must include George Soros along with the Hunt brothers.
2) We need the line item veto. Even Barrack Obama would make a difference by cutting out all the back room dealing - you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours, that gets us into the spending mess we are in. With the line item veto, you could never be sure that you were going to get your pork, just by voting for the other guy's pork.
3) For years now liberal economists have been telling us the government must spend, when the country is in a recession. But when times are good, Congress (all sides) spend like drunken sailors. (No, that's not fair to the sailors, since they aren't quite that profligate, but it's the closest description I can think of.) We need a LOCK BOX that no one in government can dip into, much like Texas' Rainy-Day fund, with specifically defined controls to get us through hard times. (In other words, we need a government that can think beyond the next election.)
4) We need to stop mortgaging our children's future. That doesn't mean balanced budget NOW, but it does mean that the government needs to have a budget (just like you and I do) and they have to find a way to make it sensible (just like you and I do.) You can borrow money, for a house or for education, and the government must be able to as well, but we can't continue to borrow a trillion dollars per year just so the government can be irresponsible.
5) We need to eliminate the Capital Gains tax and tax investment income as ordinary income. This is THE REASON that Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's tax rates are lower than their secretaries. Capital Gains are taxed at the LOWEST US tax rate, which means that the richest people in this country (those who make their money in the stock market) pay the lowest tax rate. And the funny thing is, BOTH MAJOR PARTIES are shielding these people (the 1%; donors to their campaigns; even they themselves) from paying their fair share.
6) We need tax breaks for companies that keep their workers in the US, and perhaps even increased taxes based on the percentage of workers who are not in the US. Let other countries worry about their own jobs; we need jobs here too.
7) We need education funding restricted to the jobs this country needs, doctors, engineers, teachers, mathematicians, economists, scientists, and so on. We have more than enough lawyers and Burger King managers. The way our tax dollars are spent needs to be an INVESTMENT with some kind of return to the country, not a giveaway.
8) We need to recognize the fundamental conflict of interest in allowing lawyers write laws that benefit their class more than the country. Because of this conflict of interest, we need to ban holders of a law degree at any level from holding legislative office. (They can still be in the judiciary or the executive branch.) Consider, if you have a toothache, do you go to a lawyer? If you need a road built, is a lawyer the first thing you think of? Why do we keep sending the people LEAST qualified to fix anything to Congress? Shouldn't we be sending doctors, economists, engineers, people who actually UNDERSTAND and can fix problems to Congress in place of people who can only write a law to regulate something they don't understand?
Taxes didn't go down in the last 6 years, and the chasm between rich and poor widened. But I don't expect that to change under the Reps. They will spend just as much (or almost as much) and just as shamelessly as the Dems. On the other side, I expect to see the Dems, who spent the last 6 years wailing that the Reps wouldn't "compromise" (i.e. cave in) will now be just as obstructionist and oblivious to the hypocrisy.
You bewailed the lobbyists and prime donators, and I agree with you, EXCEPT that no one seems to recognize that UNIONS are among the biggest funders of campaign spending. Google it. Last time I did, 14 of the top 20 contributors to political campaigns were unions. Democrat wailing about campaign finance reform isn't about anything except a bigger voice for the groups that support them.
1) We need less money influence, but that must include unions along with corporations, and it must include George Soros along with the Hunt brothers.
2) We need the line item veto. Even Barrack Obama would make a difference by cutting out all the back room dealing - you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours, that gets us into the spending mess we are in. With the line item veto, you could never be sure that you were going to get your pork, just by voting for the other guy's pork.
3) For years now liberal economists have been telling us the government must spend, when the country is in a recession. But when times are good, Congress (all sides) spend like drunken sailors. (No, that's not fair to the sailors, since they aren't quite that profligate, but it's the closest description I can think of.) We need a LOCK BOX that no one in government can dip into, much like Texas' Rainy-Day fund, with specifically defined controls to get us through hard times. (In other words, we need a government that can think beyond the next election.)
4) We need to stop mortgaging our children's future. That doesn't mean balanced budget NOW, but it does mean that the government needs to have a budget (just like you and I do) and they have to find a way to make it sensible (just like you and I do.) You can borrow money, for a house or for education, and the government must be able to as well, but we can't continue to borrow a trillion dollars per year just so the government can be irresponsible.
5) We need to eliminate the Capital Gains tax and tax investment income as ordinary income. This is THE REASON that Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's tax rates are lower than their secretaries. Capital Gains are taxed at the LOWEST US tax rate, which means that the richest people in this country (those who make their money in the stock market) pay the lowest tax rate. And the funny thing is, BOTH MAJOR PARTIES are shielding these people (the 1%; donors to their campaigns; even they themselves) from paying their fair share.
6) We need tax breaks for companies that keep their workers in the US, and perhaps even increased taxes based on the percentage of workers who are not in the US. Let other countries worry about their own jobs; we need jobs here too.
7) We need education funding restricted to the jobs this country needs, doctors, engineers, teachers, mathematicians, economists, scientists, and so on. We have more than enough lawyers and Burger King managers. The way our tax dollars are spent needs to be an INVESTMENT with some kind of return to the country, not a giveaway.
8) We need to recognize the fundamental conflict of interest in allowing lawyers write laws that benefit their class more than the country. Because of this conflict of interest, we need to ban holders of a law degree at any level from holding legislative office. (They can still be in the judiciary or the executive branch.) Consider, if you have a toothache, do you go to a lawyer? If you need a road built, is a lawyer the first thing you think of? Why do we keep sending the people LEAST qualified to fix anything to Congress? Shouldn't we be sending doctors, economists, engineers, people who actually UNDERSTAND and can fix problems to Congress in place of people who can only write a law to regulate something they don't understand?
(0)
(0)
SPC Anthony Rock
Oh my god you hit the nail on the head SGM.
I don't know why people have such a need to elect CEO's when all CEO's have been good at the past few decades is crashing the economy, sending jobs to China, and observing that loss of human life in acceptable because fixing the problem would hurt profits.
We need to stop putting anti-Science people in charge of science positions.
We need to stop allowing companies to have as much influence on our government when they base the majority of their operations in other nations. Want to offshore or put your HQ in Bulgaria? Banned from lobbying.
We need to reduce taxes for small companies.
And yes, we do need to spend during harsh times. The problem, as you so correctly noted, was that we spend during the GOOD times as well.
I don't agree with everything you feel, but it's nice to have a civil discussion about this.
I don't know why people have such a need to elect CEO's when all CEO's have been good at the past few decades is crashing the economy, sending jobs to China, and observing that loss of human life in acceptable because fixing the problem would hurt profits.
We need to stop putting anti-Science people in charge of science positions.
We need to stop allowing companies to have as much influence on our government when they base the majority of their operations in other nations. Want to offshore or put your HQ in Bulgaria? Banned from lobbying.
We need to reduce taxes for small companies.
And yes, we do need to spend during harsh times. The problem, as you so correctly noted, was that we spend during the GOOD times as well.
I don't agree with everything you feel, but it's nice to have a civil discussion about this.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
I'm not sure I agree with you on CEOs, if only because CEOs are not elected, but I agree with you on corporate taxation.
Federal corporate income tax is imposed at graduated rates. The lower rate brackets apply to lower rates of income when compared to higher tax brackets that coincide with higher rates of taxable income. All taxable income is subject to tax at 34% or 35% where taxable income exceeds $335,000. This is the highest rate of any of the world's developed economies and is a major factor in driving jobs overseas. It's also why big corporations spend a lot of energy on tax strategies to move income overseas so it will be taxed at a lower rate.
This disproportionally affects small US businesses, who can't outsource or offshore jobs, so they pay a much larger share of the tax than big businesses do. Ireland gets by with a 12.5% corporate tax rate. So what is my solution?
Reduce the US Corporate tax rate to 30%, but offer a tax abatement of 15% times the percentage of US workers, and eliminate most if not all other loopholes for overseas employment and income. For the US small businesses, (who have exclusively US workers) this would result in a 15% tax rate. Big businesses would pay 30% if all their workers were overseas, which would encourage them to return jobs to the US.
Federal corporate income tax is imposed at graduated rates. The lower rate brackets apply to lower rates of income when compared to higher tax brackets that coincide with higher rates of taxable income. All taxable income is subject to tax at 34% or 35% where taxable income exceeds $335,000. This is the highest rate of any of the world's developed economies and is a major factor in driving jobs overseas. It's also why big corporations spend a lot of energy on tax strategies to move income overseas so it will be taxed at a lower rate.
This disproportionally affects small US businesses, who can't outsource or offshore jobs, so they pay a much larger share of the tax than big businesses do. Ireland gets by with a 12.5% corporate tax rate. So what is my solution?
Reduce the US Corporate tax rate to 30%, but offer a tax abatement of 15% times the percentage of US workers, and eliminate most if not all other loopholes for overseas employment and income. For the US small businesses, (who have exclusively US workers) this would result in a 15% tax rate. Big businesses would pay 30% if all their workers were overseas, which would encourage them to return jobs to the US.
(1)
(0)
SPC Anthony Rock
I'll clarify. I think CEO's for private companies would work well, but CEO's for publicly traded companies wouldn't. The difference being publicly traded companies now no longer need a CEO for ensuring smooth operation at the company, but maximum return for shareholders. If smooth operations just so happen to coincide with maximum returns, then all is well.
I still believe if a company is going to offshore their HQ, then they should no longer be allowed to lobby the federal government. Toyota, for instance, has created an American division of their automobiles here, complete with an entirely separate corporate structure and factories. Toyota of America can lobby the Fed, but Toyota of Japan cannot. If they want to offshore their HQ to Ireland or something, then they lose whatever benefits that go along with being an American company, including being able to be traded in our stock market.
I do agree with you on the taxes as well. That sounds entirely reasonable. We need to take the boot off of the neck of small business, because the giant corps need competition to keep them honest.
I still believe if a company is going to offshore their HQ, then they should no longer be allowed to lobby the federal government. Toyota, for instance, has created an American division of their automobiles here, complete with an entirely separate corporate structure and factories. Toyota of America can lobby the Fed, but Toyota of Japan cannot. If they want to offshore their HQ to Ireland or something, then they lose whatever benefits that go along with being an American company, including being able to be traded in our stock market.
I do agree with you on the taxes as well. That sounds entirely reasonable. We need to take the boot off of the neck of small business, because the giant corps need competition to keep them honest.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Well I'm concerned over numerous issues, I mostly want to know which state I'm going to be living in when I get out as more continue to legalize marijuana. I do not want or need any more adverse risks to my health due to public exposure.
(1)
(0)
CW4 Ray Montano
Kristin, did you actually write that? I guess you will never set foot in Key West, FL, as the smell of cigars occasionally overshadow the smell of the ocean. DEA should have never make MJ a schedule one drug and only did so because of the influence of the Tobacco industry. As noted by Brad, alcohol has enjoyed the moment, since the end of prohibition. Ok, I feel the need to note that I have never (I mean never) smoked MJ. Been working for the US for over 35 years, so it was never really an option. The ingestion of any foreign matter into the body had bad written all over it, but I do not care. There are scientific findings that support the use of MJ for medical conditions, but I don't care (well not as much as I don't card about the first one). What I do care about is the millions of dollars being spend to investigate, arrest, charge, prosecute, convict, and sustain people for MJ related offenses. I also care about the revenue (i.e., tax) that comes with the legal sale of a substance that is, at worst, no more harmful than Bacardi. Tell you one thing, don't ever read about all the unseen particles that float in an otherwise tobacco odor free environment; it will make you want to hold your breath.
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
It's not those everyday particles that cause the most damage. For you, marijuana may be beneficial to an extent, but marijuana is a vasoconstrictor so those with low blood volume/blood pressure would have negative side effects. Marijuana is also harmful to those with multiple chemical sensitivity. There are many veterans that have BOTH, and both conditions are associated with illnesses obtained in the Gulf. So no I won't be moving anywhere smoking marjuana is legal unless it is strictly regulated, because I do not trust people to be considerate and smoke in the privacy of their own homes.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Rick Ponton
TO ME IT MEANS HONOR HONESTY AND INTEGRITY THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP ME GOD
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
My fear is business as usual. Time will tell, however, history during this administration is that they are not willing to work with Republicans. I look to see them making life as rough as possible for the republicans
(1)
(0)
LCpl Rick Ponton
IT MEANS HONOR HONESTY AND INTEGRITY THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP ME GOD
(0)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
CW4 Ray Montano I agree with you. I see more of a bipartisan effort to divide America. The best way to do that is keep the American people arguing about which side is best.
I have a philosophy that it is never good for one side to control the legislative and executive branches.
I think the biggest problem we are facing is the war of ideologies. Neither side is willing to back down from what they think is right. I think if we can have a congress that is willing to be more united in doing what is best than we have a chance to get this country back on track
It has been six years under the current administration. Obama's announcement the other day, in my honest opinion, is an admission of guilt that he has not been listening to the American people. It took a defeat at the polls for him to wake up and say. "America I hear you."
I have a philosophy that it is never good for one side to control the legislative and executive branches.
I think the biggest problem we are facing is the war of ideologies. Neither side is willing to back down from what they think is right. I think if we can have a congress that is willing to be more united in doing what is best than we have a chance to get this country back on track
It has been six years under the current administration. Obama's announcement the other day, in my honest opinion, is an admission of guilt that he has not been listening to the American people. It took a defeat at the polls for him to wake up and say. "America I hear you."
(0)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
I also think in 2012 the voters began showing their displeasure with the democratically controlled congress. Their was a change in power in the House, and it almost happened in the Senate also.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google