Poll_Blind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:48 AM
Original message |
LOL! Remember when we had the House, Senate AND Presidency and still couldn't get shit done? |
|
:rofl: :cry: :rofl: :cry:
PB
|
dkf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:50 AM
Response to Original message |
1. We passed a crappy health care insurance reform bill. |
Poll_Blind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. Sadly, there is that. I'm just waiting till that shit kicks in full-swing. |
|
I can only imagine how that's going to go down. I hope for the best on that one, even though it is weaksauce, but I'm not holding my breath.
As an American, it's rape-a-doodle-do 24/7.
PB
|
Proles
(229 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
53. Maybe if the insurance companies |
|
rack up prices as a result of the bill, people will start demanding a public option?
Or... maybe a repeal, who knows.
|
Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. That will be undone. Count on it. n/t |
cascadiance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
10. And we had to "use" budget reconciliation for that, which screwed us... |
|
from the standpoint that we would have been far better off to use budget reconciliation to pass a PROPER extension of the tax cuts instead along with a full two year extension of unemployment benefits, and a budget (to keep the right from constantly bitching about that). Maybe we could have done HCR with it too, who knows.
But one wonders why those other issues were ignored when we "used" budget reconciliation earlier, to give Dems the excuse of having to pass that mess which is largely responsible for the size of the deficit now that is giving the Rethugs the rationale to cut that much more!
Bushco was smart when they used budget reconciliation to pass tax cuts originally.
|
Recursion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
64. You have to have an intervening budget pass to use reconciliation again |
|
That's probably one of the reasons the GOP has been so dead-set against passing another budget.
|
Kolesar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
47. My disabled brother will have subsidies to buy "insurance". What's wrong with that? |
|
Would you prefer that he not have that benefit??
|
DesertFlower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:50 AM
Response to Original message |
Autumn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:51 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Well now we probably see why. |
|
Same shit, different day.
|
mwrguy
(396 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:51 AM
Response to Original message |
4. How the hell does that happen? |
Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:54 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Yet they get EVERYTHING they want AND a jar of Nutella |
|
with a slim majority in the House...
|
XemaSab
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
d_b
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:55 AM
Response to Original message |
7. just wait until the gop has control of them |
|
I'm sure they'll run into the same problem.
|
Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Oh fuck no. They declare mandates and political capital and issue executive orders |
|
as horrid as it all is....they get their agendas done.
|
gateley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:58 AM
Response to Original message |
11. If we ever get back on top, God I hope they've learned to stop |
|
fucking around and realize these asshats aren't playing games.
|
Zorra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:01 AM
Response to Original message |
12. The Senate should have ended the filibuster on Jan. 21, 2009. |
|
Instead, they just kept on getting whupped by republicans.
It was a tragic lack of insight, foresight, and common sense by Senate leadership.
The country may never recover from this mistake.
|
joshcryer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
cherokeeprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
42. The country could recover from this mistake any time Congress begins anew. n/t |
kenny blankenship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:03 AM
Response to Original message |
13. On the bright side, if the Repukes manage to create a dictatorship of the House |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 01:06 AM by kenny blankenship
then one day, probably not too long from now, when people are aghast at what Republican stupidity and belligerence has wrought, WE will have the House.
Remember 2006 and 2008? Democrats won big basically by losing to the Republicans for 3 straight elections. The Pukes had a one party government that was very unified ideologically and programatically under Bush the Lesser. They got their way. And because their way is stupid, they fucked things up so hard and fast that by 2008 they looked to be headed for the garbage dump of history on a rocket sled. They lost two elections and ALL the power, and it wasn't because of anything Democrats did to trip them up, nor anything we did to persuade the people we better represented them. The Republicans under Bush had to implement their program simply because nothing stood in their way anymore. They started to enjoy their "permanent Republican majority" and exercised power without inhibitions, and the people eventually realized it was not in their interest.
Next time we get the power, there may be a hell of a lot more power to get, and a hell of a lot fewer excuses to hide behind. And so we had better DO THINGS IN THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST. Instead of dedicating the party to servicing the corporate dong.
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:05 AM
Response to Original message |
14. Do you mean the 49 DAYS that we had a true majority in the Senate? |
|
After Obama was sworn into office there were ONLY 49 days when we had sixty dem votes in the Senate (which as we all know it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture on all bills due to GOP obstruction).
Senator Franken was sworn in July 2009, and Senator Kennedy died in August 2009.
So, yeah - we had total control for 49 days.
|
Poll_Blind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
16. If the Repukes had the Triple Crown, they'd fuck the world in an afternoon. |
|
Forty-nine days is not long enough?
:rofl:
PB
|
Bonobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
23. So you have redefined the word "majority" to mean 60% now instead of 51%? |
|
"True majority"? what kind of revisionist crap is that?
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #23 |
24. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture in order to get bills passed. |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 02:11 AM by Tx4obama
You can't get shit done with 51 votes.
Haven't you noticed all the GOP obstruction in the Senate the past two and a half years?
60 senate dems = a true majority 51 senate dems = a useless majority
p.s. It was NOT me that redefined the word "majority" to mean 60% now instead of 51% - it was the GOP.
|
Bonobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #24 |
25. Actually there is only one definition of majority and |
|
that 60 vote bullshit is extra-constitutional and could have been overcome if the Dems had any balls.
It SHOULD have been and WOULD have been if the Dems didn't still want it there for there own purposes.
|
eomer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #24 |
29. They could have used the budget reconciliation process, which requires only 50 votes in the Senate. |
|
There are many things they could have done through reconciliation. In the past it has been used to raise taxes, to raise the debt ceiling, to create entire new federal programs, and many major changes.
Rather than use it, Obama and Congressional Democratic leadership tried to pretend it away, to make people believe there was nothing they could do. Much as you're doing now. But it's not true; they could have done lots of things with just 50 votes.
|
Obamanaut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #24 |
30. Aren't many of the senate rules open to change at the beginning of each |
|
session, and haven't the rules been essentially unchanged for a while, even when the dems have been the 'real' (more than half) majority?
|
eomer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #30 |
33. They didn't need any rule changes but rather the desire to work for us instead of corporate donors. |
|
They could have done everything we needed on the economic side because it is all budget-related and therefore could have been done in the budget reconciliation process with just 50 votes in the Senate. The rest of what we needed could have been done by the President alone, like ending the wars, not starting new wars, not continuing and extending Bush's state secrets claims, not continuing secret detention sites, not continuing the war on our Constitutional rights, and on it goes...
|
liberalmuse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:13 AM
Response to Original message |
17. We NEVER had the House, people. |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 01:14 AM by liberalmuse
Please. If there had been a comfortable majority, then we would likely have a better health care bill, but it's BS to say we had even close to that.
|
Obamanaut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
32. "comfortable" majority? Isn't a majority still pretty much more than |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 07:20 AM by Obamanaut
half? If it is, then yes, the dems DID have the House.
And the Senate, and the White House. And recently, too.
|
avaistheone1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #32 |
39. Yes, the Dems had the majority. |
jeff47
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
59. You may want to try counting again. (nt) |
WillyT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:22 AM
Response to Original message |
18. Yeah... Their Were Enough Republicrats/Democons To Fuck The Whole Enchilada... |
Skittles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:26 AM
Response to Original message |
|
on that piece of fucking GARBAGE health care "reform"
|
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:43 AM
Response to Original message |
20. He needed 60 votes!!!$" |
Kolesar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
48. Yeah, that's why the climate bill failed. Are you happy about that, bluebear |
|
You have something to whine and wail about. I know that whining and wailing is worth something to some people.
|
sabrina 1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:47 AM
Response to Original message |
21. How many of them are there? One thing I've learned from |
|
all this, NOT COMPROMISING WORKS! I hope I never hear the word 'compromise' again, or 'bi-partisanship'.
Another thing I learned this week which was amazing also, Democrats STAND UNITED when they WANT TO.
I hope I never hear that 'you can't herd cats' again either. Apparently you can after all.
|
Poll_Blind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
|
What you said. Especially about the "herding cats" bit, which I am beyond sick of.
PB
|
Raksha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:55 AM
Response to Original message |
22. Right -- now GOP has the House majority ... and they win everything -- !!! What farce!! |
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
28. The GOP is NOT winning 'everything'. n/t |
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
46. Not yet -- !! But Obama's permitted them to take emphasis off economy/jobs and stimulus -- !! |
|
It's the same game-playing we saw with Lieberman -- the Superman who ran all of
Congress and Obama!!
|
Proud Liberal Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
58. Most of their "winnings" have died in the Senate |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 03:19 PM by Proud Liberal Dem
which, thankfully, does still have the filibuster so that a bunch of rabid Republicans and a few Blue Dogs can't slink the RW agenda through Congress (though, of course, won't be able to prevent a WH veto). All the House is doing, aside from this current "crisis" over the debt ceiling, is a bunch of symbolic votes that accomplish nothing and set themselves up for the 2012 election. They won't actually be able to get anything signed into law until or unless they get the Senate and WH back under their control in 2012. The questions for us are 1.)Do we want to help or hinder THAT from happening? and 2.)How do we stop that from happening? :shrug:
|
McCamy Taylor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 02:14 AM
Response to Original message |
26. You mean 1993? No universal health then either. 1977? What ever happened to the ERA? |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 02:17 AM by McCamy Taylor
The only two times we had clear majorities were in the 1930s with FDR and in the 1960s with LBJ. A whole lot of legislation got passed each time.
The moral is Dems have to work harder. A bare majority is not enough.
And for that matter how did that whole outlawing abortion thing work out for the GOP when they controlled the WH and Congress in 2005?
|
JI7
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 02:14 AM
Response to Original message |
27. that's because there are many parts of the country where only Conservatives can win |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 02:16 AM by JI7
majority was because of blue dogs. republicans won because those blue dogs mostly lost in the last election.
i don't know why people find this so difficult to understand.
but things were still better than with republicans having any control.
for more change and more liberal change you would need to convince the voters in those districts that mostly vote conservative to support liberal policies and therefore vote for more liberal members. but that is hard work so most people don't do it.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
54. Doubt there ever was a "Southern Strategy" ... think there has only been Diebold computers ... !! |
|
Southerners couldn't be that stupid!!
|
jeff47
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
60. No, there are many parts of the country where we only try conservative politics |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 04:41 PM by jeff47
Nobody knows if a progressive populist would do well, because the DNC and other establishment run in fear of such people.
Polling indicates they'd do quite well in such conservative places.
|
RagAss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 07:19 AM
Response to Original message |
31. Ah yes...the good old days ! |
Poll_Blind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #31 |
36. Indeed. Nomatter who gets elected, we get every turn in the barrel. |
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
55. True -- we might think of giving up the Prez and Senate -- and just control the HOUSE ... !!! |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 03:01 PM by defendandprotect
They Democrats could finally run government -- !!!
:evilgrin:
From what I've seen over decades, whenever Democrats have had control, they've
turned the keys to government over to GOP --
That was true as far back as Sen. George Mitchell turning Senate over to Bob Dole!!
And it was true in 1976 when Democrats colluded with the GOP -- while they had full
control over government -- to overturn the tax code for the benefit of the rich!
See Wm. Greider on that one -- "Who Will Tell The People?"
|
Brickbat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:20 AM
Response to Original message |
37. Seriously. It makes me sick to think about it. |
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:21 AM
Response to Original message |
38. Our fucking system is a joke. Puppets all. |
dameocrat67
(442 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message |
cherokeeprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message |
41. But we didn't have 200 Senate seats! You can't get anything accomplished unless you control 200 |
katnapped
(938 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #41 |
43. And only on things where Republicans won't yell |
|
Otherwise you compromise, people!
:sarcasm:
|
Poll_Blind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #41 |
44. You're right! At a MINIMUM, 200 Senate seats, 900 House seats an BOTH presidencies. |
cherokeeprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #44 |
52. That's how you do it. n/t |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:52 AM
Response to Original message |
45. Democrats do not march in lockstep |
|
I see that boast here often.
If you do not have to be in lockstep with the President, then why does every Democrat who gets elected?
|
gulliver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Fifteen people are on a beach. Twelve will try to construct the best sandcastle they can. The other three will try to keep them from doing it. Rules will be like football in terms of physical contact. Both sides get buckets for water and sand.
Hypothesis: The sandcastle will not be very good.
|
Poll_Blind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #49 |
50. That's an unconvincing and defeatist metaphor. |
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #49 |
57. It's more than theory -- violence and aggression will take us backwards every time ... |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-11 03:04 PM by defendandprotect
that's the only way the right wing can rise --
and the only way it has rise over the last 50 years of rw political violence
which not only took JFK, but our people's government, as well -- !!
Easy to destroy -- building something is more difficult!
:)
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
blkmusclmachine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 04:44 PM
Response to Original message |
61. It's 11-Dimensional Chess. See how well it's worked so far? |
bobdawg
(48 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 05:09 PM
Response to Original message |
62. and now a minority of the minority |
|
are calling all the shots.
our government is a sham.
|
southerncrone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 11:21 PM
Response to Original message |
63. Pissed away opportunities....will hurt Dems & country for decades. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 04:58 AM
Response to Original message |