Question: If Obama had an 83% dem congress do you think he'd negotiate anything on SS and Medicare?

[uponit7771]

FDR had an 83% dem congress at one time during his term, LBJ had a 69% dem congress at one time during his term and Carter had somewhere in the low 60s.

Do you believe Obama would negotiate anything with the GOP if dems had a CONTROLLING** share of progressives in congress?

Regards

**(IE > 60 PROGRESSIVE senate votes and controlling house votes)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I'm afraid so. nt

[FreakinDJ]

2. Not a Chance

[uponit7771]

3. wow

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. He's a born mediator. Wants to make everyone happy. This time is not the time to mediate. nt

[LoZoccolo]

4. No, and remember that in 2010 certain of the left was bragging about reducing

the number of Democrats in the House of Representatives.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. He negotiated the hell out of Health Care when we had a good majority in both houses.

While we still had a majority he negotiated and signed the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts.

If we don't let our elected representatives know when they step over the line, then there is no line and they do what they want.

[uponit7771]

9. Key word is CONTROLLING, not "good share"

[Ozymanithrax]

20. So, if we can not pass a bill by 60%, we should surrender to the other side?

I understand the need for compromise in governing. I don't understand the need to drop ones pants and crap all over the poor, the elderly, and the working class.

Cuts to Medicare and Social Security are unacceptable. Cuts that make them more efficient take money from the hands of people who need that money. Cutting the deficite by 4 trillion over twelve years will require cuts now in programs people use now, not in some can kicked down the road for twenty years.

The Deficite Commission said 22% would be necessary. Is that number good for you?

[alsame]

6. It depends on who those 83% were. Not all Dems of today

are like those in the FDR and LBJ days. In fact, very few are.

[uponit7771]

10. Progressives, I'll change the op

[gkhouston]

7. You go to undeclared war with the Congress you have. Or, perhaps, despite it. n/t

[still_one]

8. Does it matter? Is that the sign of a leader? Only if he has the majority he will fight for

something?

Funny that the republicans don't do things that way

[uponit7771]

12. Come on people, the "republicans do it" is a little tired

[still_one]

17. My point is the republicans fight for what they believe in, the Democrats don't /nt

[QC]

11. Probably. n/t

[uponit7771]

18. So you think congress wouldn't overide him? Thx

[rug]

13. If he had 100 Senators and 435 Representatives he'd say it was sun spots.

[ThomWV]

14. Yes - he'd feel compelled to represent "all Americans" and make concessions not required.

It seems to me he has it in his head that he has to serve all interests, not just those who elected him. While I agree with that to some extent it I still don't think he should make decisions that include things he knows will do damage, in the hope the good outweighs the bad.

[kctim]

15. Depends

On how many are Democrats and how many are liberals.

[Autumn]

16. I think so.

bipartisanship is very important to him.

[vi5]

19. I absolutely do.

I don't have a bit of hesitation in saying that.

But it's a moot point since we all know that those kind of majorities are never going to happen. So it's very easy for the "thank you sir, may I have another" crowd to say "If we only had that it would be great!!" because they know it's never going to happen.

[LWolf]

21. Yes.

He's made it clear from the beginning that his kind of change involves working with Republicans.

Too bad it doesn't involve working with and for the left.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Yes. His one principle is postpartisanship.

Whatever is in the middle is where he aims.