How the Republican Government shutdown works

[francoHFW]

But that wasn’t the only signal. A few other examples:

• Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said. The Vice President said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

“So I promise you — and the President agreed with me — I never thought we were going to get Republican support,” Biden said.

• One Obama aide said he received a similar warning from a Republican Senate staffer he was seeing at the time. He remembered asking her one morning in bed, How do we get a stimulus deal? She replied, Baby, there’s no deal!


“This is how we get whole,” she said with a laugh. “We’re going to do to you what you did to us in 2006.”

• David Obey, then chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, met with his GOP counterpart, Jerry Lewis, to explain what Democrats had in mind for the stimulus and ask what Republicans wanted to include. “Jerry’s response was, ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play,’ ” Obey told me. “Exact quote: ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was, It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch.”

Lewis blames Obey and the Democrats for the committee’s turn toward extreme partisanship, but he doesn’t deny that GOP leaders made a decision not to play. “The leadership decided there was no play to be had,” he says. Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

You know what's amusing, Dad? That Joe Biden wasn't intelligent enough to know that the Democrats didn't NEED any support from the GOP. They had huge majorities. Who cares what the GOP did? Axelrod pretending that the Republicans somehow did something to screw up Barry's plans is LAUGHABLE! How exactly were they going to be able to do that when they didn't have the votes?

Don't understand (of course you do, but your a LIAR) THAT SENATE NEEDED 60 VOTES TO MOVE LEGISLATION? lol

Gee, Dad...how did Obama get his stimulus passed with no House Republicans voting for it? How did he get his ACA passed with no House Republicans voting for it? Amazing that the Democrats were able to pass THOSE things without any Republican votes yet you want us to believe they couldn't pass immigration reform or measures that Obama was calling for to fix the economy?

Those 2 nice GOP ladies from Maine voted for the stimulus and ended their careers. The Dems DID have 60 votes for a couple weeks and passed ACA. Dumbass.

 

[Oldstyle]

All Dad's "proven" is that the Democrats held huge majorities for the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency with super majorities being held long enough to pass the ACA which no Republican voted for and a majority of the American people didn't want to see passed!

What is a "myth" is that the GOP could have stopped anything the far left progressives in the Obama camp wanted to push through if it weren't for the Blue Dog Democrats balking. The people who ended their careers by voting for the ACA were in fact those Blue Dogs...almost all of them were defeated in 2010 by an electorate who sent a loud and clear message to Washington that a far left agenda was NOT what they wanted! Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi hung their fellow Democrats out to dry by strong arming them into voting for ObamaCare.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats never had a super majority in Congress under Bush ....EVER
Bush blocked any legislative effort from the Democrats. You are welcome to post any legislation pushed through by the Democrats that caused an economic meltdown

Republicans never had a super majority under Bush either, which means they needed to make an agreement. The Democrats were zero compromise, gimme my way

You must have completely missed out on the Bush era

Yes the Democrats compromised. In fact, they gave Bush a 9-11 card where he could get any legislation he wanted passed in the name of fighting terrorism. He even got the wars he asked for
When the economy crashed during the Great Bush Recession of 2008, Democrats gave him stimulus funding, TARP and auto company and bank bailouts....When Obama came in and asked for the same thing....not a single Republican voted for it

Considering that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid drew up the Obama Stimulus behind closed doors with no GOP input and it was filled with Democratic pork is that really a shock? It wasn't REALLY the same as what Bush asked for to address the recession. I believe in fact that 3 Republicans voted for it anyways. Snow, Collins and Arlen Spector (before he changed parties?)

Democrats compromised with Bush
Republicans refused to compromise with Obama

When was it that Obama ever compromised with the GOP? It wasn't when he first got into office...that's for sure! Or have you forgotten their first sit down where Barry lectured the GOP leaders on how "elections have consequences...I won"?

So for two years Obama tells the GOP leadership to go sit in the hall while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid cobbled together deals behind locked doors...and only when you lose the first mid-term in the biggest political turn around in modern political history...only THEN do you turn around and say..."hey, no hard feelings...let's be friends!"

The rank and file of the GOP loathes Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi! Those GOP lawmakers don't simply disagree with the policies of Barry, Harry and Nancy...they hate them personally for the way they acted when the Democrats had all the power. That hatred is something Obama fostered.

When did he compromise?

When he set aside half the 2009 Stimulus for tax cuts and put the money in the hands of the states
When he agreed to delay the end of the Bush tax cuts for a year

How about when he held a healthcare summit with Republicans and asked....What can I do to get you to support this bill? What do you want to put in? To a man, they replied....Tear it up and start over

 

[rightwinger]

But that wasn’t the only signal. A few other examples:

• Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said. The Vice President said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

“So I promise you — and the President agreed with me — I never thought we were going to get Republican support,” Biden said.

• One Obama aide said he received a similar warning from a Republican Senate staffer he was seeing at the time. He remembered asking her one morning in bed, How do we get a stimulus deal? She replied, Baby, there’s no deal!


“This is how we get whole,” she said with a laugh. “We’re going to do to you what you did to us in 2006.”

• David Obey, then chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, met with his GOP counterpart, Jerry Lewis, to explain what Democrats had in mind for the stimulus and ask what Republicans wanted to include. “Jerry’s response was, ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play,’ ” Obey told me. “Exact quote: ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was, It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch.”

Lewis blames Obey and the Democrats for the committee’s turn toward extreme partisanship, but he doesn’t deny that GOP leaders made a decision not to play. “The leadership decided there was no play to be had,” he says. Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

You know what's amusing, Dad? That Joe Biden wasn't intelligent enough to know that the Democrats didn't NEED any support from the GOP. They had huge majorities. Who cares what the GOP did? Axelrod pretending that the Republicans somehow did something to screw up Barry's plans is LAUGHABLE! How exactly were they going to be able to do that when they didn't have the votes?

Don't understand (of course you do, but your a LIAR) THAT SENATE NEEDED 60 VOTES TO MOVE LEGISLATION? lol

Gee, Dad...how did Obama get his stimulus passed with no House Republicans voting for it? How did he get his ACA passed with no House Republicans voting for it? Amazing that the Democrats were able to pass THOSE things without any Republican votes yet you want us to believe they couldn't pass immigration reform or measures that Obama was calling for to fix the economy?

Measure Obama called for? WHILE the economy was dumping 700,000+ jobs a month and had lost 9%+ the previous Dubya quarter?


But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Sens. Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter voted COUNTRY OVER PARTY REMEMBER?

Give it up

The Republican propaganda machine has dictated that Republicans will proclaim Obama had a Super Majority for the first two years.
No facts are going to change their minds

 

[Oldstyle]

But that wasn’t the only signal. A few other examples:

• Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said. The Vice President said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

“So I promise you — and the President agreed with me — I never thought we were going to get Republican support,” Biden said.

• One Obama aide said he received a similar warning from a Republican Senate staffer he was seeing at the time. He remembered asking her one morning in bed, How do we get a stimulus deal? She replied, Baby, there’s no deal!


“This is how we get whole,” she said with a laugh. “We’re going to do to you what you did to us in 2006.”

• David Obey, then chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, met with his GOP counterpart, Jerry Lewis, to explain what Democrats had in mind for the stimulus and ask what Republicans wanted to include. “Jerry’s response was, ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play,’ ” Obey told me. “Exact quote: ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was, It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch.”

Lewis blames Obey and the Democrats for the committee’s turn toward extreme partisanship, but he doesn’t deny that GOP leaders made a decision not to play. “The leadership decided there was no play to be had,” he says. Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

You know what's amusing, Dad? That Joe Biden wasn't intelligent enough to know that the Democrats didn't NEED any support from the GOP. They had huge majorities. Who cares what the GOP did? Axelrod pretending that the Republicans somehow did something to screw up Barry's plans is LAUGHABLE! How exactly were they going to be able to do that when they didn't have the votes?

Don't understand (of course you do, but your a LIAR) THAT SENATE NEEDED 60 VOTES TO MOVE LEGISLATION? lol

Gee, Dad...how did Obama get his stimulus passed with no House Republicans voting for it? How did he get his ACA passed with no House Republicans voting for it? Amazing that the Democrats were able to pass THOSE things without any Republican votes yet you want us to believe they couldn't pass immigration reform or measures that Obama was calling for to fix the economy?

Measure Obama called for? WHILE the economy was dumping 700,000+ jobs a month and had lost 9%+ the previous Dubya quarter?


But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Sens. Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter voted COUNTRY OVER PARTY REMEMBER?

I never made the claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years. I simply pointed out that they had huge majorities in both the House and Senate for two years with substantial portions of time when they did in fact have super majorities.

You've tried and failed to paint a picture where the GOP had the ability to stop Obama. That has always been simply a fabrication perpetrated by the left to excuse his shortcomings. Barack Obama didn't fail to pass immigration reform because the GOP blocked him from doing so...that was a choice he made not to do immigration reform. He didn't fail to get the single payer health care that he wanted so badly because the GOP blocked his plans...he couldn't get the Blue Dog Democrats to go along with that. The infrastructure spending part of his stimulus didn't fail because of GOP obstructionism...it failed because Pelosi and Reed turned the stimulus into their very own private "pork fest".

 

[Oldstyle]

The knee jerk response from each of you Obama supporters to why he's had such an "underwhelming" Presidency is because he was obstructed by the GOP. The facts however don't support that conclusion. The Democrats won huge majorities in the 2008 election and Obama took office with not only those huge majorities to work with but with an almost overwhelmingly positive support from the majority of Americans. The reason why that support evaporated before the next mid term elections isn't because of GOP obstruction...that support evaporated because of what Obama, Pelosi and Reed chose to DO and not to do with all of the power that they'd been given! The Democrats (to use Barry's description) got "shellacked" in the 2010 mid terms and it was because of what the progressive wing of the Democratic Party had done...NOT because of what the GOP had done!

 

[bravoactual]

You forget that Obama had two years of total control, and did nothing. Also the memorials remained opened during Clinton's shut down. What's your point?

Got it, you''ll double down on the lie. Shocking


A fleeting, illusory supermajority

t’s in Republicans’ interest right now to characterize the Democrats’ congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don’t have any excuses.

The stimulus wasn’t big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There’s no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.




I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.

Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]

Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans. (as the us economy had dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008 and was losing 700,000+ jobs a month!)

A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Oh well then that proves Obama isn't a leader. Clinton still got things done with a republican majority. Reagan got things done with a democrat majority. Obama couldn't do anything with a democrat majority. Lol

Where have you been all summer?

Obama got plenty of things done with a Republican majority. They might be pouting about it....but he got things done

Why is it Republicans never get anything done?

Being Republicans they do not know how.

It is true

republicans no longer know how to legislate. They are so bullied by the rightwing media and extreme right that they are afraid to do anything

Doing nothing is preferred to having to deal with the Democrats to reach an agreement

Republicans only know how to Bitch, Whine, Moan and Complain.

The last original idea the Republicans had died from lonelyness.

What the Republicans lack in intellectual honesty they more than make up for with their distinct lack original thought.

 

[Oldstyle]

Got it, you''ll double down on the lie. Shocking


A fleeting, illusory supermajority

t’s in Republicans’ interest right now to characterize the Democrats’ congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don’t have any excuses.

The stimulus wasn’t big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There’s no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.




I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.

Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]

Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans. (as the us economy had dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008 and was losing 700,000+ jobs a month!)

A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Oh well then that proves Obama isn't a leader. Clinton still got things done with a republican majority. Reagan got things done with a democrat majority. Obama couldn't do anything with a democrat majority. Lol

Where have you been all summer?

Obama got plenty of things done with a Republican majority. They might be pouting about it....but he got things done

Why is it Republicans never get anything done?

Being Republicans they do not know how.

It is true

republicans no longer know how to legislate. They are so bullied by the rightwing media and extreme right that they are afraid to do anything

Doing nothing is preferred to having to deal with the Democrats to reach an agreement

Republicans only know how to Bitch, Whine, Moan and Complain.

The last original idea the Republicans had died from lonelyness.

What the Republicans lack in intellectual honesty they more than make up for with their distinct lack original thought.

Fiscal responsibility isn't exactly an "original" thought!

 

[Dad2three]

Oh well then that proves Obama isn't a leader. Clinton still got things done with a republican majority. Reagan got things done with a democrat majority. Obama couldn't do anything with a democrat majority. Lol

Where have you been all summer?

Obama got plenty of things done with a Republican majority. They might be pouting about it....but he got things done

Why is it Republicans never get anything done?

Being Republicans they do not know how.

It is true

republicans no longer know how to legislate. They are so bullied by the rightwing media and extreme right that they are afraid to do anything

Doing nothing is preferred to having to deal with the Democrats to reach an agreement

Republicans only know how to Bitch, Whine, Moan and Complain.

The last original idea the Republicans had died from lonelyness.

What the Republicans lack in intellectual honesty they more than make up for with their distinct lack original thought.

Fiscal responsibility isn't exactly an "original" thought!

Nor one the GOP/CONservatives have practiced in 35+ years!

 

[rightwinger]

Oh well then that proves Obama isn't a leader. Clinton still got things done with a republican majority. Reagan got things done with a democrat majority. Obama couldn't do anything with a democrat majority. Lol

Where have you been all summer?

Obama got plenty of things done with a Republican majority. They might be pouting about it....but he got things done

Why is it Republicans never get anything done?

Being Republicans they do not know how.

It is true

republicans no longer know how to legislate. They are so bullied by the rightwing media and extreme right that they are afraid to do anything

Doing nothing is preferred to having to deal with the Democrats to reach an agreement

Republicans only know how to Bitch, Whine, Moan and Complain.

The last original idea the Republicans had died from lonelyness.

What the Republicans lack in intellectual honesty they more than make up for with their distinct lack original thought.

Fiscal responsibility isn't exactly an "original" thought!

When have Republicans ever shown fiscal responsibility?

When they started two wars and cut taxes to pay for it?

 

[kaz]

Bubba, I care YOU made a posit you've been unable to back up when the GOP shutdown Gov't!

Exactly, you want to bicker over something you don't give a shit about. You admit it makes no difference to you, so why do I want to debate it? For what purpose? You don't even care, you agree you don't care. Homey don't play that game. But for a debate that does matter to you, as long as it matters to me too, you know where to go. Peace out, Holmes

Got it, No you can't back up your posit, again. Thanks anyways Bubba,

No, as always, you don't got it. You confirmed you don't give a shit, it makes no difference to you. You like to bicker. I get tired of bickering with you idiots. If you decide you care let me know. Otherwise stay at the kiddie table and bicker with the other kiddies to your heart's content

 

[Oldstyle]

Where have you been all summer?

Obama got plenty of things done with a Republican majority. They might be pouting about it....but he got things done

Why is it Republicans never get anything done?

Being Republicans they do not know how.

It is true

republicans no longer know how to legislate. They are so bullied by the rightwing media and extreme right that they are afraid to do anything

Doing nothing is preferred to having to deal with the Democrats to reach an agreement

Republicans only know how to Bitch, Whine, Moan and Complain.

The last original idea the Republicans had died from lonelyness.

What the Republicans lack in intellectual honesty they more than make up for with their distinct lack original thought.

Fiscal responsibility isn't exactly an "original" thought!

When have Republicans ever shown fiscal responsibility?

When they started two wars and cut taxes to pay for it?

So tell what's worse...spending a whole bunch of money to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan and rid Iraq of a sadistic sociopath like Saddam Hussein?

Or spending a whole bunch of money while handing over control of much of the Middle East to ISIS and failing to get rid of a sadistic sociopath like Assad?

What's worse...successfully spending a whole bunch of money on stimulus and TARP programs that kept the banks from going under and our economy from cratering?

Or spending a whole bunch of money on a stimulus program that was supposed to create "shovel ready" jobs but didn't?

Trust me, I wasn't happy with the way George W. Bush spent taxpayers money...but at least we got something back from all that money he was spending! With Barry we spend far more money and get far less in return. The Barack Obama Administration is the perfect storm of ineptitude, sheer ignorance and total naivete.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gee... so this is dad23's meltdown of the day?

Me thickest it must be Truthmatters reincarnated.... makes about as much sense.

The rights inability to back up their posits, where I do, with credible links AND logic, is noted Bubba!

Blow it out yer azz little boy... you make no sense whatsoever. You sound as if you're 16 or so.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

We need to double the bureaucracy, and double federal spending....

For the people Comrades !!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Being Republicans they do not know how.

It is true

republicans no longer know how to legislate. They are so bullied by the rightwing media and extreme right that they are afraid to do anything

Doing nothing is preferred to having to deal with the Democrats to reach an agreement

Republicans only know how to Bitch, Whine, Moan and Complain.

The last original idea the Republicans had died from lonelyness.

What the Republicans lack in intellectual honesty they more than make up for with their distinct lack original thought.

Fiscal responsibility isn't exactly an "original" thought!

When have Republicans ever shown fiscal responsibility?

When they started two wars and cut taxes to pay for it?

So tell what's worse...spending a whole bunch of money to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan and rid Iraq of a sadistic sociopath like Saddam Hussein?

Or spending a whole bunch of money while handing over control of much of the Middle East to ISIS and failing to get rid of a sadistic sociopath like Assad?

What's worse...successfully spending a whole bunch of money on stimulus and TARP programs that kept the banks from going under and our economy from cratering?

Or spending a whole bunch of money on a stimulus program that was supposed to create "shovel ready" jobs but didn't?

Trust me, I wasn't happy with the way George W. Bush spent taxpayers money...but at least we got something back from all that money he was spending! With Barry we spend far more money and get far less in return. The Barack Obama Administration is the perfect storm of ineptitude, sheer ignorance and total naivete.

At a cost of 7000 American lives and $3 trillion in tax dollars, it was not a better idea to topple the existing dictatorships, create civil wars and create a power vacuum that allowed Iran and ISIS to emerge as regional powers

And yes, I would rather spend money to stimulate the American economy and create jobs for Americans than nation build half way around the world

 

[LogikAndReazon]

More shovel ready "stimulus" !!!
Civil fucking servants to the rescue !

Too comical

 

[rightwinger]

More shovel ready "stimulus" !!!
Civil fucking servants to the rescue !

Too comical

Civil fucking servants rescued the financial sector and auto companies from collapsing
So much for unlimited free trade

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Civil servants rescued nothing. They were responsible for the crisis and then stole taxpayer money to bailout private industry.

The companies iin trouble should have been allowed to fail, consolidate and recover through normal business operations, not sustained because of abysmal and in certain cases criminal activity.
But hey, civil servants need to seem to be doing something important.

 

[rightwinger]

Civil servants rescued nothing. They were responsible for the crisis and then stole taxpayer money to bailout private industry.

The companies iin trouble should have been allowed to fail, consolidate and recover through normal business operations, not sustained because of abysmal and in certain cases criminal activity.
But hey, civil servants need to seem to be doing something important.

We saw what happens when you let the Conservative ideal of an unrestricted free market to take hold. Speculation, shoddy financing, insider trading
Created a nice bubble that brought down the worlds economy when it burst

It was the civil servants who put together a rescue package

 

[LogikAndReazon]

We only needed more "regulators"....

Lol