How the Republican Government shutdown works

[Vandalshandle]

That is called "anarchy". Do a Google on that, and see where it leads.

Smaller government does not equal "anarchy"...an over-reaching government equals "tyranny".

And in case you hadn't noticed the bigger our government gets the more our streets seem to be filled with anarchy.

No, I have not noticed that at all. Presumably, our government is much larger than it was in 1968, and in that year, there were race riots everywhere,assassinations, and hard hats fighting anti-war demonstrators in the streets. In fact, in my home city of Atlanta, a huge part of the city did not leave their homes during MLK's funeral, because we were afraid that there would be armed insurrection.

The riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King were a specific reaction to the death of an icon. The anarchy that we have in our streets now is the direct result of a cradle to the grave sense of entitlement that our big government nation now demands. If Big Brother doesn't give me free stuff...I'm going to take to the streets and riot. That's the essential message of Occupy Wall Streeters.

Whatever, old.... it is all so hopeless, isn't it? {sigh}

"Whatever"? That's your reply?
It's not hopeless but it's approaching that point rather quickly. We've reached a tipping point where more people are taking out then are putting in...I know that you liberals hate math when we're talking about "people" but some things aren't really that hard to grasp.

I know. It has been hopeless since Nixon was in office. The multi-millionaires, and billionaires, like Trump and Romney, are pushed into the corners.

What will they do? Oh! What will they do?

 

[Oldstyle]

Smaller government does not equal "anarchy"...an over-reaching government equals "tyranny".

And in case you hadn't noticed the bigger our government gets the more our streets seem to be filled with anarchy.

No, I have not noticed that at all. Presumably, our government is much larger than it was in 1968, and in that year, there were race riots everywhere,assassinations, and hard hats fighting anti-war demonstrators in the streets. In fact, in my home city of Atlanta, a huge part of the city did not leave their homes during MLK's funeral, because we were afraid that there would be armed insurrection.

The riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King were a specific reaction to the death of an icon. The anarchy that we have in our streets now is the direct result of a cradle to the grave sense of entitlement that our big government nation now demands. If Big Brother doesn't give me free stuff...I'm going to take to the streets and riot. That's the essential message of Occupy Wall Streeters.

Whatever, old.... it is all so hopeless, isn't it? {sigh}

"Whatever"? That's your reply?
It's not hopeless but it's approaching that point rather quickly. We've reached a tipping point where more people are taking out then are putting in...I know that you liberals hate math when we're talking about "people" but some things aren't really that hard to grasp.

I know. It has been hopeless since Nixon was in office. The multi-millionaires, and billionaires, like Trump and Romney, are pushed into the corners.

What will they do? Oh! What will they do?

It's funny you bring up Tricky Dick because in many ways this Administration reminds me quite a bit of the Nixon Administration. It's the whole "the end justifies the means thing" that's been going on. The stonewalling of investigations. The using of the IRS to target political enemies is about as Nixonian as it gets.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?

 

[rightwinger]

It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?

The wonders of Reagnomics....concentrate wealth at the top and watch it trickle down

 

[Faun]

And don't even TRY and trot out that statistical smoke and mirrors routine about percentage of increase over those that came before.

You're a fucking imbecile. The post I responded to used percentages. The post I responded to claimed Obama doubled the debt of every president from Washington to Bush. That's a percentage.

I point out the same about Reagan and suddenly to you rightards, using percentages is "smoke and mirrors."

Funny how you didn't accuse the poster I responded to of resorting to "smoke and mirrors."

 

[Faun]

Yes, you conservatives suck at math and history, I agree with that. When did Republicans "take credit" for the money the incompetent Obama spent shutting down government? I don't remember when you did that. But if you say so, you probably did. At least you are now. Conservatives are idiots, stop listening to Faux News and believing whatever they tell you

Conservatives are idiots and bad with math and history?

Liberals pretty much agree that the economy started going south under Bush his last 2 years in his final term in office. THIS was the economic decline Obama and Liberals claim Obama 'inherited'. Liberals also pretty much agree that whoever controls Congress controls the purse strings, and therefore the economy / budget as well....unless it is THEY who control Congress / the purse strings.

During Bush's 1st 6 years in office 9/11 occurred, the economic aftermath of 9/11 happened, and 2 wars were fought. No 'economic decline' was experienced, but approx. 2 1/2 Trillion was added to the debt...in 6 (SIX YEARS)...during a time when there was a pretty close split in Congress. (2 1/2 trillion in 6 years in approx. 1/3rd of the debt Obama added in his 1st 4 years!)

Democrats secured a Super-Majority Control of Congress, controlling the purse strings / budget the last 2 years of Bush's administration...during which time the Liberals say the economy started going south. During this 1 1/2 - 2 year period another 1 1/2 TRILLION was added to the debt...in only 2 years. WHAT was the difference between Bush's 1st 6 years and his last 2? Oh yeah, Democrats took over Congress! They held this Super Majority control of Congress through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office.

The economic decline Obama claims to have inherited came from 2 years of Liberal control of the budget and 2 more years of horrendous fiscal irresponsibility. For instance, while supposedly in a declining economy Obama and the Liberals passed the tremendously FAILED Stimulus bill, a nearly $1 TRILLION addition to the nation's debt in one shot that contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-ONLY pork, continued such horrible programs as 'Cash for Clunkers' that ended up hurting the economy/poor & middle class families, and ended up costing OVER $742,000 PER JOB Obama claimed to have created / saved!

In Obama's 1st 4 years he set US records for 'monthly', 'annual', and 'total' deficit spending - adding over $6 trillion to the US debt in ONLY 4 years, more debt added than by EVERY US President from Washington to Bush COMBINED, single-handedly securing the 1st US Credit rating down-grade by refusing to accept more budget cuts to prove he was serious about reducing the deficit as he was warned, and added a record number of job-creation / business-strangling regulations.

These are DOCUMENTED, HISTORICAL FACTS which speak for themselves. Responding with opinion or personal attacks do not effect me at all because you are arguing with these documented history / facts, not me.

The final statistical and historical fact is that Obama is ARGUABLY the worst President in US history. Personally, though, I would award that title to the racist LBJ, the man who started the whole liberal program of 'Economic Slavery' that has been used to oppress blacks, ensure more and more Americans remain UN-successful and dependent on the government, and that they continue to vote for the liberal politicians who will keep the 'free' money and handouts flowing.

So NO you can't present ANY bills the Dems passed 2007-2009 to change Dubya/GOP policy that created Dubya's recession. Thanks

Hint Ronnie Raygun TRIPLED every other US Prez debt AND Dubya doubled every other US POrez debt (while he lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs).. lol

I said W was the same as Obama, moron. As for Reagan, tax receipts doubled under him and the majority of spending increases were actually Tip and the Democrats. Double wasn't enough for them

Stop kazzing. In real figures...

1981: $715b
1987: $796b
1989: $853b
2009: $1054b
2015: $1661b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2015 - Federal State Local Data

Increase of tax revenues under Obama: 58%

Increase of tax revenues under Reagan:

After 6 years: 11%
After 8 years: 19%

Leave it to a kazzer like you to call a 19% increase, a 100% increase.

 

[Faun]

The truth is that Obama couldn't get all the Democrats to go along with the far left agenda he wanted to pass! It wasn't the GOP that put the brakes on the Barry, Harry and Nancy Show. That was taking place because Blue Dog Democrats were looking at what the progressives of their party wanted to pass and shaking their heads because they KNEW they would get slaughtered for voting that way come the 2010 mid-terms.

Yes, I agree you didn't address the GOP plan, outlined and posted of the GOP obstruction planned for Obama from 2008!

You're pathetic. I've already pointed out that it didn't matter what "plan" the GOP outlined and posted to stop Obama and the Democrats in 2008 because they simply didn't have the votes to do so yet you keep right on pretending that wasn't the case.

So your earlier posit, that it was a year later before GOP obstruction became the norm, was BS. Got it!

It was a year later that Mitch McConnell made his remark. Are you always this clueless? Once again...IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE GOP DID THAT FIRST YEAR...THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF are you talking about? Democrats needed 60 votes to end a filibuster by Republicans -- and they didn't have that until September 24th, 2009. And even that was only until Brown was sworn in a few months later.

 

[Faun]

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".

Kazzer. You said Republicans didn't have the votes to prevent Democrats from passing whatever they wanted during Obama's first two years in office.

The only way that statement is true is if Democrats held a super majority for Obama's first two years.

You have no honor; which is why you refuse to own up to your lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

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".

Kazzer. You said Republicans didn't have the votes to prevent Democrats from passing whatever they wanted during Obama's first two years in office.

The only way that statement is true is if Democrats held a super majority for Obama's first two years.

You have no honor; which is why you refuse to own up to your lies.

The GOP didn't have the votes to prevent the Democrats from passing the Affordable Care Act! If they couldn't stop THAT ( which they hated and the public overwhelmingly didn't want as well!) then how can you claim that the GOP had the votes to stop him from passing immigration reform or massive tax increases?

 

[Oldstyle]

It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?

The wonders of Reagnomics....concentrate wealth at the top and watch it trickle down

"Trickle down" was never a tenant of Reaganomics because it doesn't exist except as a left wing talking point! Profits have always trickled up in free markets...not down.

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth is that Obama couldn't get all the Democrats to go along with the far left agenda he wanted to pass! It wasn't the GOP that put the brakes on the Barry, Harry and Nancy Show. That was taking place because Blue Dog Democrats were looking at what the progressives of their party wanted to pass and shaking their heads because they KNEW they would get slaughtered for voting that way come the 2010 mid-terms.

Yes, I agree you didn't address the GOP plan, outlined and posted of the GOP obstruction planned for Obama from 2008!

You're pathetic. I've already pointed out that it didn't matter what "plan" the GOP outlined and posted to stop Obama and the Democrats in 2008 because they simply didn't have the votes to do so yet you keep right on pretending that wasn't the case.

So your earlier posit, that it was a year later before GOP obstruction became the norm, was BS. Got it!

It was a year later that Mitch McConnell made his remark. Are you always this clueless? Once again...IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE GOP DID THAT FIRST YEAR...THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF are you talking about? Democrats needed 60 votes to end a filibuster by Republicans -- and they didn't have that until September 24th, 2009. And even that was only until Brown was sworn in a few months later.

So what you've just admitted is that for a few months the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and could have passed whatever they wanted...correct? So why didn't they raise taxes on the wealthy and redo immigration?

 

[Faun]

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".

Kazzer. You said Republicans didn't have the votes to prevent Democrats from passing whatever they wanted during Obama's first two years in office.

The only way that statement is true is if Democrats held a super majority for Obama's first two years.

You have no honor; which is why you refuse to own up to your lies.

The GOP didn't have the votes to prevent the Democrats from passing the Affordable Care Act! If they couldn't stop THAT ( which they hated and the public overwhelmingly didn't want as well!) then how can you claim that the GOP had the votes to stop him from passing immigration reform or massive tax increases?

You moron -- that was during the 4 months Democrats had a super majority. You know, what you claimed they had for two years.

 

[Faun]

Yes, I agree you didn't address the GOP plan, outlined and posted of the GOP obstruction planned for Obama from 2008!

You're pathetic. I've already pointed out that it didn't matter what "plan" the GOP outlined and posted to stop Obama and the Democrats in 2008 because they simply didn't have the votes to do so yet you keep right on pretending that wasn't the case.

So your earlier posit, that it was a year later before GOP obstruction became the norm, was BS. Got it!

It was a year later that Mitch McConnell made his remark. Are you always this clueless? Once again...IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE GOP DID THAT FIRST YEAR...THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF are you talking about? Democrats needed 60 votes to end a filibuster by Republicans -- and they didn't have that until September 24th, 2009. And even that was only until Brown was sworn in a few months later.

So what you've just admitted is that for a few months the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and could have passed whatever they wanted...correct? So why didn't they raise taxes on the wealthy and redo immigration?

They did pass what they wanted -- healthcare. They didn't raise taxes because we had just come out of a recession. Deportations were at an all-time high. They focused on healthcare since Republicans were clearly going to block it if they could.

 

[Oldstyle]

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".

Kazzer. You said Republicans didn't have the votes to prevent Democrats from passing whatever they wanted during Obama's first two years in office.

The only way that statement is true is if Democrats held a super majority for Obama's first two years.

You have no honor; which is why you refuse to own up to your lies.

The GOP didn't have the votes to prevent the Democrats from passing the Affordable Care Act! If they couldn't stop THAT ( which they hated and the public overwhelmingly didn't want as well!) then how can you claim that the GOP had the votes to stop him from passing immigration reform or massive tax increases?

You moron -- that was during the 4 months Democrats had a super majority. You know, what you claimed they had for two years.

I've never claimed that the Democrats had super majorities for two years. What I said was that they had majorities in the House and Senate for two years and super majorities for enough time that if they'd wanted to they could have passed anything they desired and the Republicans couldn't have done a thing about it!

That's reality. Yet time after time after time...both this Administration and liberals everywhere blame the GOP for Barack Obama's inability to get things accomplished! My question...once again...is how could the GOP not stop ObamaCare (which they hated) yet they COULD stop the rest of Barry's agenda? That doesn't make a bit of sense.

The truth is...the far left wing of your party couldn't get moderate Democrats to vote for that agenda. It wasn't the GOP who stopped the Barry, Harry and Nancy Show...it was Blue Dog Democrats who flat out told those three idiots that raising taxes on anyone in the middle of a recession didn't make sense from an economics stand point because it would bring an already weak recovery to a screeching halt. Those same Blue Dogs also told the leaders of the Democratic Party that increasing the costs to US businesses by pushing Cap & Trade legislation was going to be a jobs killer and they wouldn't go along with that either.

 

[Oldstyle]

So they "focused" on healthcare...even though the number one concern of Americans back in 2009 wasn't healthcare but jobs and the economy? So at a time when the American people were begging for their elected officials to do something that would create jobs...Barry, Harry and Nancy decided that what THEY would focus on was seeing if they could get single payer healthcare passed something that was expected to COST jobs?

And then they wondered why they got their asses handed to them in the mid-terms...

 

[ninja007]

First, congressional conservatives, mostly in the House but sometimes with the assistance of a senator or two (especially Ted Cruz), find something they're really mad about and threaten to do something drastic.

The conservatives say unless they get what they want, they'll withhold their support for the next CR that will keep the government operating.

Their leaders, understanding the history of government shutdowns, tell them that it really won't accomplish anything and will only hurt Republican goals.

The insurgent conservatives get lots of support from right-wing talk radio, telling them to stand up for principle and stick it to all those Washington insiders.

Eventually, the CR passes, usually with the support of Democrats. The conservatives say that their leaders have betrayed them.


How the upcoming government shutdown fight will help Donald Trump

Rinse, repeat


.

Overall, the statistics might surprise: Of the 17 shutdowns in America’s history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight.

Read more at: Government Shutdowns: A History | National Review Online

 

[Faun]

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".

Kazzer. You said Republicans didn't have the votes to prevent Democrats from passing whatever they wanted during Obama's first two years in office.

The only way that statement is true is if Democrats held a super majority for Obama's first two years.

You have no honor; which is why you refuse to own up to your lies.

The GOP didn't have the votes to prevent the Democrats from passing the Affordable Care Act! If they couldn't stop THAT ( which they hated and the public overwhelmingly didn't want as well!) then how can you claim that the GOP had the votes to stop him from passing immigration reform or massive tax increases?

You moron -- that was during the 4 months Democrats had a super majority. You know, what you claimed they had for two years.

I've never claimed that the Democrats had super majorities for two years. What I said was that they had majorities in the House and Senate for two years and super majorities for enough time that if they'd wanted to they could have passed anything they desired and the Republicans couldn't have done a thing about it!

Stop lying. Yes, you said they had a super majority for Obama's first year (*my apologies, you said first year, not first two years)...

"IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE GOP DID THAT FIRST YEAR...THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That's reality. Yet time after time after time...both this Administration and liberals everywhere blame the GOP for Barack Obama's inability to get things accomplished! My question...once again...is how could the GOP not stop ObamaCare (which they hated) yet they COULD stop the rest of Barry's agenda? That doesn't make a bit of sense.

Your question is retarded. You don't realize that because you're a conservative. The only reason the Republicans couldn't stop ObamaCare is because Democrats passed it while the Democrats had a super majority. If not for that, Republicans would have blocked that too.

The truth is...the far left wing of your party couldn't get moderate Democrats to vote for that agenda. It wasn't the GOP who stopped the Barry, Harry and Nancy Show...it was Blue Dog Democrats who flat out told those three idiots that raising taxes on anyone in the middle of a recession didn't make sense from an economics stand point because it would bring an already weak recovery to a screeching halt. Those same Blue Dogs also told the leaders of the Democratic Party that increasing the costs to US businesses by pushing Cap & Trade legislation was going to be a jobs killer and they wouldn't go along with that either.

Either you're too stupid to comprehend or too senile to remember. Against the wishes of his own party, Obama struck a deal with Republicans to keep the Bush tax cuts for an additional 2 years in exchange for Republican support to extend unemployment benefits. You really can't anything right, can you?

Bush Tax-Cut Deal With Jobless Aid Said to Be Near

 

[Faun]

So they "focused" on healthcare...even though the number one concern of Americans back in 2009 wasn't healthcare but jobs and the economy? So at a time when the American people were begging for their elected officials to do something that would create jobs...Barry, Harry and Nancy decided that what THEY would focus on was seeing if they could get single payer healthcare passed something that was expected to COST jobs?

And then they wondered why they got their asses handed to them in the mid-terms...

Stop lying. They did focus on jobs. They passed ARRA a month into Obama's first term.

 

[Oldstyle]

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".

Kazzer. You said Republicans didn't have the votes to prevent Democrats from passing whatever they wanted during Obama's first two years in office.

The only way that statement is true is if Democrats held a super majority for Obama's first two years.

You have no honor; which is why you refuse to own up to your lies.

The GOP didn't have the votes to prevent the Democrats from passing the Affordable Care Act! If they couldn't stop THAT ( which they hated and the public overwhelmingly didn't want as well!) then how can you claim that the GOP had the votes to stop him from passing immigration reform or massive tax increases?

You moron -- that was during the 4 months Democrats had a super majority. You know, what you claimed they had for two years.

I've never claimed that the Democrats had super majorities for two years. What I said was that they had majorities in the House and Senate for two years and super majorities for enough time that if they'd wanted to they could have passed anything they desired and the Republicans couldn't have done a thing about it!

Stop lying. Yes, you said they had a super majority for Obama's first year (*my apologies, you said first year, not first two years)...

"IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE GOP DID THAT FIRST YEAR...THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That's reality. Yet time after time after time...both this Administration and liberals everywhere blame the GOP for Barack Obama's inability to get things accomplished! My question...once again...is how could the GOP not stop ObamaCare (which they hated) yet they COULD stop the rest of Barry's agenda? That doesn't make a bit of sense.

Your question is retarded. You don't realize that because you're a conservative. The only reason the Republicans couldn't stop ObamaCare is because Democrats passed it while the Democrats had a super majority. If not for that, Republicans would have blocked that too.

The truth is...the far left wing of your party couldn't get moderate Democrats to vote for that agenda. It wasn't the GOP who stopped the Barry, Harry and Nancy Show...it was Blue Dog Democrats who flat out told those three idiots that raising taxes on anyone in the middle of a recession didn't make sense from an economics stand point because it would bring an already weak recovery to a screeching halt. Those same Blue Dogs also told the leaders of the Democratic Party that increasing the costs to US businesses by pushing Cap & Trade legislation was going to be a jobs killer and they wouldn't go along with that either.

Either you're too stupid to comprehend or too senile to remember. Against the wishes of his own party, Obama struck a deal with Republicans to keep the Bush tax cuts for an additional 2 years in exchange for Republican support to extend unemployment benefits. You really can't anything right, can you?

Bush Tax-Cut Deal With Jobless Aid Said to Be Near

You just accused me of lying...and then apologized for that not being the case in the same paragraph! Get your shit together! The person who lied was you when you accused me of saying the GOP had super majorities for the first two years of Barrack Obama's presidency. Now you've backed off that lie to make another one claiming that I said they had super majorities the entire first year of Obama's presidency which I didn't say either. All I did say was that the GOP couldn't stop Obama's agenda that first year because they didn't have the votes to do so when the Democrats DID have super majorities in place.

 

[Oldstyle]

So they "focused" on healthcare...even though the number one concern of Americans back in 2009 wasn't healthcare but jobs and the economy? So at a time when the American people were begging for their elected officials to do something that would create jobs...Barry, Harry and Nancy decided that what THEY would focus on was seeing if they could get single payer healthcare passed something that was expected to COST jobs?

And then they wondered why they got their asses handed to them in the mid-terms...

Stop lying. They did focus on jobs. They passed ARRA a month into Obama's first term.

That wasn't a jobs bill for America. That was a liberal bailout for Public Sector employee unions...propping them up with Federal money so they didn't get laid off while the rest of American workers DID!