Too bad the common American doesn't know the difference between enhanced investments and cutting discretionary spending...lots of common Americans in here.
Educated, employed Democrats are called "Independants". That is despite the current administration. Let me know when unemployment and housing foreclosures drop.
Employment has always been the last thing to improve after a reccesion. It was true in the last recession, under a repbulican president. This is especially true now, since manufacturing is a smaller part of the job market than it used to be.
*Sigh* So, enhancing investments. Most of you probably know there are several agencies within the federal government that are responsible for providing funding through loans and grants for projects such as infrastructure, energy, food systems, etc. USDA, Commerce, Interior, Transportation, HUD, etc. all have programs. Congress INVESTS in these programs with taxpayer dollars, and will always invest in them. Within these agencies, there are officials who direct strategy before allocating funds to a particular program. With the emphasis on energy, infrastructure, and food systems, most of these agencies are dedicating funding to those type projects. The next two fiscal years will probably see increased emphasis...so the money that these agencies would have received anyway, will likely be directed in greater percentages to those type projects. Discretionary spending is your earmarks, emergency appropriations, etc., that come straight from congress to a specific project...or from congress to an agency for a specific project. There is a difference. A big one. They do not contradict each other, regardless of what party said it...or set it.
He called for a freeze is discretionary spending and increased investment so not to add to the deficit. If we keep discretionary spending where it is and increase funding to programs we will increase spending. The context of what he said implies more spending, bigger deficits, and more debt.
It isn't the size of the majority so much as the size of the win - 63 seats. That's a huge turnover. In 1994 the Republicans only won 54 seats. The GOP also won 6 seats in the senate, and for the Senate that is a large number. Also, quite a number of legislatures went Republican. That is why the GOP can speak of a mandate. It would have been very tough to win a large majority in the house considering the # of seats the Republicans would have had to win.
