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

[Meathead]

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

It is pointless to ask someone to choose between two things which are exactly the same. For example, are you not an imbecile or not?

Are you black?

 

[easyt65]

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

NO CREDIBILITY! OBAMA PROVEN WORST GDP OF ANY PRESIDENT! FAIL!

The ACA has collected enough to pay for irself, pay back the $500 million Obama took from medicare to pay towards the ACA just to lower the bogus estimate, and to repay back the hundreds of millions that went into and is still going into the failed ACA web site!? HELL NO!!!

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself?

 

[easyt65]

FAIL!

 

[Dad2three]

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

It is pointless to ask someone to choose between two things which are exactly the same. For example, are you not an imbecile or not?

Are you black?

Your dodge noted Bubs

 

[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

NO CREDIBILITY! OBAMA PROVEN WORST GDP OF ANY PRESIDENT! FAIL!

The ACA has collected enough to pay for irself, pay back the $500 million Obama took from medicare to pay towards the ACA just to lower the bogus estimate, and to repay back the hundreds of millions that went into and is still going into the failed ACA web site!? HELL NO!!!

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself?

More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Shocking

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

My budget is real. Bush failures don't excuse obama's failures.
You suffer from Stockholm syndrome. You worship your captures for easing up on punishment. Five steps back followed by one step forward is not improvement.

 

[Dad2three]

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

My budget is real. Bush failures don't excuse obama's failures.
You suffer from Stockholm syndrome. You worship your captures for easing up on punishment. Five steps back followed by one step forward is not improvement.

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20% of GDP and 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut) . Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.


DUBYA TOOK US FROM 20% OF GDP REVENUES TO LESS THAN 15% (KOREAN WAR LEVELS) AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING TO 25%



How the Deficit Got This Big


In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.





Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

My budget is real. Bush failures don't excuse obama's failures.
You suffer from Stockholm syndrome. You worship your captures for easing up on punishment. Five steps back followed by one step forward is not improvement.

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20% of GDP and 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut) . Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.


DUBYA TOOK US FROM 20% OF GDP REVENUES TO LESS THAN 15% (KOREAN WAR LEVELS) AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING TO 25%



How the Deficit Got This Big


In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.





Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Bush has nothing to do with the Obama energy policy that has undermined our economy over the past seven years. In fact, Bush took the steps, energy wise, that set the table for a robust economy. Obama intentionally reversed that.

 

[RandomVariable]

(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!!

This is God's country. Obama does not care for either one very much.

Any minute of any day Obama wants to cancel the regular schedule programming and speak his mind he can. So if you want to blame anyone for this mess start at the top.

 

[Conservative65]

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's
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!

His agenda needed blocking.

 

[Conservative65]

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

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

 

[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?

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.

We've seen what putting an unqualified black man in a government job did to the country.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

That involves simple math and the left can't do even that.

 

[Dad2three]

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

My budget is real. Bush failures don't excuse obama's failures.
You suffer from Stockholm syndrome. You worship your captures for easing up on punishment. Five steps back followed by one step forward is not improvement.

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20% of GDP and 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut) . Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.


DUBYA TOOK US FROM 20% OF GDP REVENUES TO LESS THAN 15% (KOREAN WAR LEVELS) AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING TO 25%



How the Deficit Got This Big


In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.





Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Bush has nothing to do with the Obama energy policy that has undermined our economy over the past seven years. In fact, Bush took the steps, energy wise, that set the table for a robust economy. Obama intentionally reversed that.

OBAMA REVERSED IT? Oh that's why gas is avg less than $2 a gallon? You fukkn crazy dumbass!

Dubya set the table huh? HOW? By gutting tax revenues AS he blew up spending and cheered on the Banksters bubble? lol'

 

[Dad2three]

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!

His agenda needed blocking.

Haven't learned from 35 years of "trickle down" huh? Fukkn morons!

 

[Conservative65]

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!

His agenda needed blocking.

Haven't learned from 35 years of "trickle down" huh? Fukkn morons!

I've learned a long time ago that what Democrats support has failed every time it's been tried. Thinking handing one person another person's money will motivate them to do better has costs this country $22 trillion dollars over 50 years with NO success.

 

[Dad2three]

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

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

REALLY? I remember Clinton handing Dubya a projected $5+ trillion surplus with 20+ million private sector jobs created, yet Dubya handed Obama a projected debt of $19 trillion with the economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and the economy tanking 9%+ (and a loss of private sector jobs of 1+ million in just Dubya's 8 years, not counting the 4+ million under Obama's first 14 months)

 

[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.

We've seen what putting an unqualified black man in a government job did to the country.

Sure Bubba, sure. It was because he was black huh?


Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

 

[Conservative65]

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

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

REALLY? I remember Clinton handing Dubya a projected $5+ trillion surplus with 20+ million private sector jobs created, yet Dubya handed Obama a projected debt of $19 trillion with the economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and the economy tanking 9%+ (and a loss of private sector jobs of 1+ million in just Dubya's 8 years, not counting the 4+ million under Obama's first 14 months)

I remember food stamp usage increasing by 70% under Obama despite claims that things are better.

 

[Conservative65]

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's
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.

We've seen what putting an unqualified black man in a government job did to the country.

Sure Bubba, sure. It was because he was black huh?


Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

It was because he was unqualified to do the job yet elected to meet a concept you Liberals wanted.

My ideology has worked for me because I choose to work instead of expecting someone else to work so it can be handed to me.