The GOP is desperate for a failing economy......sic

[Conservative65]

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.

Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?

They don't control a thing unless the Senate takes it up. You do know it takes both houses?

Oh right NOT like the Prez can veto or anything right? lol

HINT PREZ POLICY IS #1 . Whether it's Ronnie, Clinton, Dubya or Obama! Regardless of which party has Congress. HONESTY. Try it ONCE!

How's that black assed shit burger tasting boy?

 

[Dad2three]

No, dad, NOT weird. As a result, the record-setting deficit-spending ended, no more massive debt was added to the $6 trillion in new debt added on by Obama, and the annual budgets became balanced...which Obama has tried to take credit for.

The GOP says, 'YOU'RE WELCOME', Dad!

Oh right, thanks to Obama getting more revenues with ACA and increasing taxes on the top .08% of US he got US out of Dubya's les than 15% of GDP back at where Ronnie gutted it 17% of GDP, BUT STILL MUCH LOWER THAN CARTERS 19.6% OR CLINTON'S 20%. Where do you think it needs to be at?

 

[Dad2three]

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.

Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?

They don't control a thing unless the Senate takes it up. You do know it takes both houses?

Oh right NOT like the Prez can veto or anything right? lol

HINT PREZ POLICY IS #1 . Whether it's Ronnie, Clinton, Dubya or Obama! Regardless of which party has Congress. HONESTY. Try it ONCE!

How's that black assed shit burger tasting boy?

You showing why the GOP gets less than 80% of the minority vote IS appreciated Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

(sigh)....sometimes as american's we have to shake our heads in complete and total disbelief of a party, ie the GOP-igs who refuse to work with the president to get shit done for this country, simply because??????. Is it because they're against his policies, is it because they have a better direction or is it because anything that brings success to this black president with unilateral cooperation is a death sentence to these nuts back home with their supporters????

I'm am absolutely amazed when I hear these neo nuts whine about our economy, which started off in the double digits and now lingers at almost 4%. I am amazed at how these morons don't mind spending yet more trillions overseas to fight a war, WE WILL NEVER WIN, but will speak on the poor getting a couple a hundred to eat.

Now these morons are desperate to find the perfect fool, ie House Leader, who not only won't work with Obama, who not only will sanction their already lame dismal congressional record of 0% effectiveness thus far this year, but who will try his or her best to derail the successes of the OBama administration, because....PUTTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST IS A FOREIGN ENTITY TO NUTS WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.

God please help save this country from the GOP Trash heap, and their ignorant supporters, please!!

We already have a failing economy you moron.

Sure.

No rebuttal. You must be a democrat.

If by "failing" you meant the most consecutive months of private sector job growth EVER, cutting Dubya's deficits by 2/3rds and slowly getting US out of Dubya's mess, YES!

 

[Meathead]

Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!

CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's

Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!

CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.

Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?

You're a dingbat. The Republicans took over in the House in 2011 and the Senate in 2015. Seeing that it's 2015, Democrats have controlled the House for 2 years of the Obama administration, the Senate for 6 and obviously the presidency for almost 7. In other words Republican have had control of the House for less than 5, the Senate for 8 months and 0 for the presidency.

That accounts for the sluggish economy and the booming deficit.

 

[easyt65]

No, dad, NOT weird. As a result, the record-setting deficit-spending ended, no more massive debt was added to the $6 trillion in new debt added on by Obama, and the annual budgets became balanced...which Obama has tried to take credit for.

The GOP says, 'YOU'RE WELCOME', Dad!

Oh right, thanks to Obama getting more revenues with ACA and increasing taxes on the top .08% of US he got US out of Dubya's les than 15% of GDP back at where Ronnie gutted it 17% of GDP, BUT STILL MUCH LOWER THAN CARTERS 19.6% OR CLINTON'S 20%. Where do you think it needs to be at?

You are arguing with me by using Obama's LIES, that the ACA has cost 'nothing' and has actually 'PAID FOR ITSELF?!?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

(sigh)....sometimes as american's we have to shake our heads in complete and total disbelief of a party, ie the GOP-igs who refuse to work with the president to get shit done for this country, simply because??????. Is it because they're against his policies, is it because they have a better direction or is it because anything that brings success to this black president with unilateral cooperation is a death sentence to these nuts back home with their supporters????

I'm am absolutely amazed when I hear these neo nuts whine about our economy, which started off in the double digits and now lingers at almost 4%. I am amazed at how these morons don't mind spending yet more trillions overseas to fight a war, WE WILL NEVER WIN, but will speak on the poor getting a couple a hundred to eat.

Now these morons are desperate to find the perfect fool, ie House Leader, who not only won't work with Obama, who not only will sanction their already lame dismal congressional record of 0% effectiveness thus far this year, but who will try his or her best to derail the successes of the OBama administration, because....PUTTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST IS A FOREIGN ENTITY TO NUTS WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.

God please help save this country from the GOP Trash heap, and their ignorant supporters, please!!

We already have a failing economy you moron.

Sure.

No rebuttal. You must be a democrat.

If by "failing" you meant the most consecutive months of private sector job growth EVER, cutting Dubya's deficits by 2/3rds and slowly getting US out of Dubya's mess, YES!

People make and have less, everything costs more. Net? Failure.

 

[easyt65]

Dad, Just STOP, MAN - You lost ALL credibility when you regurgitated Obama's LIES about how the ACA was NOT going to cost a dime and how it was going to pay for itself, even suggesting it HAS and we are somehow benefitting from breaking even / the profit!.

 

[easyt65]

Dad, you say Bush's GDP of less than 15% is horrible and that Democtats 'saved' us from that?!

Like I said, you have NO credibility:

From CNNBusiness.com:

"Blame It on Global Cooling? Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record"

"Obama’s seven first quarters as president are at a combined average of NEGATIVE 0.43%.Obama is the only president in the history of America’s recorded economic measurement to accomplish this..."

MORE OBAMA 1STS / RECORDS....WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!

MORE:

"Latest GDP Report Proves that Obama is Purposefully Destroying America"

 

[Dad2three]

CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's

CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.

Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?

You're a dingbat. The Republicans took over in the House in 2011 and the Senate in 2015. Seeing that it's 2015, Democrats have controlled the House for 2 years of the Obama administration, the Senate for 6 and obviously the presidency for almost 7. In other words Republican have had control of the House for less than 5, the Senate for 8 months and 0 for the presidency.

That accounts for the sluggish economy and the booming deficit.

 

[Dad2three]

No, dad, NOT weird. As a result, the record-setting deficit-spending ended, no more massive debt was added to the $6 trillion in new debt added on by Obama, and the annual budgets became balanced...which Obama has tried to take credit for.

The GOP says, 'YOU'RE WELCOME', Dad!

Oh right, thanks to Obama getting more revenues with ACA and increasing taxes on the top .08% of US he got US out of Dubya's les than 15% of GDP back at where Ronnie gutted it 17% of GDP, BUT STILL MUCH LOWER THAN CARTERS 19.6% OR CLINTON'S 20%. Where do you think it needs to be at?

You are arguing with me by using Obama's LIES, that the ACA has cost 'nothing' and has actually 'PAID FOR ITSELF?!?

ACA didn't bring in taxes or not? CBO say getting rid of it increases the deficits?



PLEASE argue otherwise? lol

 

[Meathead]

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.

Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?

You're a dingbat. The Republicans took over in the House in 2011 and the Senate in 2015. Seeing that it's 2015, Democrats have controlled the House for 2 years of the Obama administration, the Senate for 6 and obviously the presidency for almost 7. In other words Republican have had control of the House for less than 5, the Senate for 8 months and 0 for the presidency.

That accounts for the sluggish economy and the booming deficit.

Democrats have been calling the shots since 2009. Own up to their failure and be the loser that fate intended.

 

[Dad2three]

(sigh)....sometimes as american's we have to shake our heads in complete and total disbelief of a party, ie the GOP-igs who refuse to work with the president to get shit done for this country, simply because??????. Is it because they're against his policies, is it because they have a better direction or is it because anything that brings success to this black president with unilateral cooperation is a death sentence to these nuts back home with their supporters????

I'm am absolutely amazed when I hear these neo nuts whine about our economy, which started off in the double digits and now lingers at almost 4%. I am amazed at how these morons don't mind spending yet more trillions overseas to fight a war, WE WILL NEVER WIN, but will speak on the poor getting a couple a hundred to eat.

Now these morons are desperate to find the perfect fool, ie House Leader, who not only won't work with Obama, who not only will sanction their already lame dismal congressional record of 0% effectiveness thus far this year, but who will try his or her best to derail the successes of the OBama administration, because....PUTTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST IS A FOREIGN ENTITY TO NUTS WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.

God please help save this country from the GOP Trash heap, and their ignorant supporters, please!!

We already have a failing economy you moron.

Sure.

No rebuttal. You must be a democrat.

If by "failing" you meant the most consecutive months of private sector job growth EVER, cutting Dubya's deficits by 2/3rds and slowly getting US out of Dubya's mess, YES!

People make and have less, everything costs more. Net? Failure.

THAT can't be true, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies??? Come on, get honest

 

[Meathead]

ACA didn't bring in taxes or not?

How could anyone possibly answer a question like this, even if they wanted to?

 

[Dad2three]

Dad, Just STOP, MAN - You lost ALL credibility when you regurgitated Obama's LIES about how the ACA was NOT going to cost a dime and how it was going to pay for itself, even suggesting it HAS and we are somehow benefitting from breaking even / the profit!.

Got it, I give CREDIBLE LINKS, you stick with OPINIONS

What Would Be the Major Effects of Repealing the ACA?
CBO and JCT estimate that repealing the ACA would have several major effects, relative to the projections under current law:

Including the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period. That estimate takes into account the proposal’s impact on federal revenues and direct (or mandatory) spending, incorporating the net effects of two components:

• Excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback—as has been done for previous estimates related to the ACA (and most other CBO cost estimates)—CBO and JCT estimate that federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period if the ACA was repealed.

Budgetary and Economic Effects of Repealing the Affordable Care Act

 

[easyt65]

No, dad, NOT weird. As a result, the record-setting deficit-spending ended, no more massive debt was added to the $6 trillion in new debt added on by Obama, and the annual budgets became balanced...which Obama has tried to take credit for.

The GOP says, 'YOU'RE WELCOME', Dad!

Oh right, thanks to Obama getting more revenues with ACA and increasing taxes on the top .08% of US he got US out of Dubya's les than 15% of GDP back at where Ronnie gutted it 17% of GDP, BUT STILL MUCH LOWER THAN CARTERS 19.6% OR CLINTON'S 20%. Where do you think it needs to be at?

You are arguing with me by using Obama's LIES, that the ACA has cost 'nothing' and has actually 'PAID FOR ITSELF?!?

ACA didn't bring in taxes or not? CBO say getting rid of it increases the deficits?



PLEASE argue otherwise? lol

FAIL! WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY...DOCUMENTED...PROVEN!

'OBAMA INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA'

YOU - NO CREDIBILITY! BUH-BYE!

 

[Dad2three]

ACA didn't bring in taxes or not?

How could anyone possibly answer a question like this, even if they wanted to?

THE FULL QUESTION YOU POS

:
ACA didn't bring in taxes or not? CBO say getting rid of it increases the deficits?



PLEASE argue otherwise? lol


Budgetary and Economic Effects of Repealing the Affordable Care Act

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That there are some on the partisan right who want the economy to falter for some perceived partisan gain is beyond dispute – we see evidence of that on this very forum.

 

[Dad2three]

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

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.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.

Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?

You're a dingbat. The Republicans took over in the House in 2011 and the Senate in 2015. Seeing that it's 2015, Democrats have controlled the House for 2 years of the Obama administration, the Senate for 6 and obviously the presidency for almost 7. In other words Republican have had control of the House for less than 5, the Senate for 8 months and 0 for the presidency.

That accounts for the sluggish economy and the booming deficit.

Democrats have been calling the shots since 2009. Own up to their failure and be the loser that fate intended.

I agree, since 2009 Dems have called the shots AND the GOP has made it priority one to block EVERYTHING on Obama's agenda!

 

[Dad2three]

No, dad, NOT weird. As a result, the record-setting deficit-spending ended, no more massive debt was added to the $6 trillion in new debt added on by Obama, and the annual budgets became balanced...which Obama has tried to take credit for.

The GOP says, 'YOU'RE WELCOME', Dad!

Oh right, thanks to Obama getting more revenues with ACA and increasing taxes on the top .08% of US he got US out of Dubya's les than 15% of GDP back at where Ronnie gutted it 17% of GDP, BUT STILL MUCH LOWER THAN CARTERS 19.6% OR CLINTON'S 20%. Where do you think it needs to be at?

You are arguing with me by using Obama's LIES, that the ACA has cost 'nothing' and has actually 'PAID FOR ITSELF?!?

ACA didn't bring in taxes or not? CBO say getting rid of it increases the deficits?



PLEASE argue otherwise? lol

FAIL! WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY...DOCUMENTED...PROVEN!

'OBAMA INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA'

YOU - NO CREDIBILITY! BUH-BYE!

Oh right, NOT Dubya who put US here after getting handed a $5+ surplus, or Harding/Coolidge great depression, but Obama, the guy with the RECORD 67 months private sector jobs growth and gutting Dubya's deficits by 2/3rds!