BIG DAY MONDAY - March 26th

[UNT90]

--Well I do blame Congress [remember the GOP controled both houses for the first six years and still one house now] and they were the one that passed the tax cut in 2001 (which then was signed) then did not reverse itself when we invaded Iraq in order to pay for the war expense. Always before in America, taxes went up in a wartime situation... as for Bush he doesn't get all the blame... but he did sign those bills... and he did urge Congress to invade Iraq to rid it of WMD ... which have never been found.

The last years of that administration....?? Not one year then was the budget balanced.... it went up every year... go look if you doubt me. It still is going up... Congress will do nothing... one controls one house and the other one the other... can't get anything done.

The budget spending never tripled... I agree he should have gone after a balanced budget more but tax revenue was way down due to 2008 economy drop [unemployment and lost stock value of 2008 will do that] ... that made things even harder to accomplish and efforts was made to stop the recession from getting worse and other problems... it did... just hasn't improved as much as hoped. A split Congress isn't helping any.

Pres Obama had a super majority in Comgress his 1st two years in office. A filllabuster proof supermajority, and he wasted it on a huge entitlement program, which he barely got through a supermJority of his own party in congress.

I know you don't want to consider the bailout a "budget item," but that is simply playing a shell game. Overall spendIng has absolutely almost tripled from Bush to Obama, at a time when revenue, like you say, has been decreasing.

Fact is, Pres, Obama makes Pres. Bush look like a Pennypincher, and that takes some huge doings to accomplish.

Edited March 28, 2012 by UNT90

[KRAM1]

"Fact is, Pres, Obama makes Pres. Bush look like a spendthrift, and that takes some huge doings to accomplish".....to quote UNT90

And I will add...TRUE, SIR, so very true!

[Coffee and TV]

Pres Obama had a super majority in Comgress his 1st two years in office. A filllabuster proof supermajority, and he wasted it on a huge entitlement program, which he barely got through a supermJority of his own party in congress.

Listen, you people can argue all day about who the deficit belongs to, but I will correct this little tidbit.

The Senate was still split 59-40 until Franken was certified the winner in Minnesota in December 2009 if I remember correctly. Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old seat in January of 2010. Not only that, but unless you've got 100 Senators on your side, the rules of the Senate are so quirky that in some cases any 1 Senator can put a hold on a bill in so many ways. To say Obama had a filibuster proof majority is technically correct, but it was nowhere close to 2 years.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Listen, you people can argue all day about who the deficit belongs to, but I will correct this little tidbit.

The Senate was still split 59-40 until Franken was certified the winner in Minnesota in December 2009 if I remember correctly. Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old seat in January of 2010. Not only that, but unless you've got 100 Senators on your side, the rules of the Senate are so quirky that in some cases any 1 Senator can put a hold on a bill in so many ways. To say Obama had a filibuster proof majority is technically correct, but it was nowhere close to 2 years.

Owned

[Cr1028]

Listen, you people can argue all day about who the deficit belongs to, but I will correct this little tidbit.

The Senate was still split 59-40 until Franken was certified the winner in Minnesota in December 2009 if I remember correctly. Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old seat in January of 2010. Not only that, but unless you've got 100 Senators on your side, the rules of the Senate are so quirky that in some cases any 1 Senator can put a hold on a bill in so many ways. To say Obama had a filibuster proof majority is technically correct, but it was nowhere close to 2 years.

Directly from Franken's Senate website bio:

In 2008, Al was elected to the Senate as a member of the DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) Party from Minnesota, and was sworn in July of 2009 following a statewide hand recount

Paul Kirk filled Kennedy's seat from his death until February 4, 2010 when Scott Brown took over.

That looks like 7 months of unchecked power to me, not 1 or 2 months. Plenty of time to ram what you want through Congress.

Scott Brown's election was the only reason the house was forced to pass the Senate bill because they couldn't force anything they wanted through the Senate without the Supermajority.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Cr1028

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Directly from Franken's Senate website bio:

Paul Kirk filled Kennedy's seat from his death until February 4, 2010 when Scott Brown took over.

That looks like 7 months of unchecked power to me, not 1 or 2 months. Plenty of time to ram what you want through Congress.

Scott Brown's election was the only reason the house was forced to pass the Senate bill because they couldn't force anything they wanted through the Senate without the Supermajority.

Double-owned

[Coffee and TV]

That looks like 7 months of unchecked power to me, not 1 or 2 months. Plenty of time to ram what you want through Congress.

Scott Brown's election was the only reason the house was forced to pass the Senate bill because they couldn't force anything they wanted through the Senate without the Supermajority.

Sort of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Congress#Party_summary

In July Franken was sworn in, and then in August Ted Kennedy died. In September Kirk took his seat until Scott Brown won it back in February. And this is counting Lieberman as a Democrat, who does caucus as one, but not always reliably a Democrat.

Either way, it wasn't 2 years, and just because you have 60 votes doesn't mean there's the unchecked power as you describe.

[Cr1028]

Sort of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Congress#Party_summary

In July Franken was sworn in, and then in August Ted Kennedy died. In September Kirk took his seat until Scott Brown won it back in February. And this is counting Lieberman as a Democrat, who does caucus as one, but not always reliably a Democrat.

Either way, it wasn't 2 years, and just because you have 60 votes doesn't mean there's the unchecked power as you describe.

You have got to be kidding. Lieberman is only an "independent" because he lost a primary. That is all.

Also, could you tell me which Republican voted for the Affordable Healthcare Act? I can't remember which it was. Since there was not unchecked power, surely one of them had to have voted yes in at least one of the houses, right?

[Coffee and TV]

You have got to be kidding. Lieberman is only an "independent" because he lost a primary. That is all.

Right. Which is why he backed McCain in 2008, no?

Also, could you tell me which Republican voted for the Affordable Healthcare Act? I can't remember which it was. Since there was not unchecked power, surely one of them had to have voted yes in at least one of the houses, right?

If Obama had unchecked power over the Senate they wouldn't be debating mandates on the Supreme Court right now, it would be single-payer, or at the very least, a public option.

[Cr1028]

If Obama had unchecked power over the Senate they wouldn't be debating mandates on the Supreme Court right now, it would be single-payer, or at the very least, a public option.

If Scott Brown loses that special election, we may very well have had a public option. The loss of the supermajority forced them to backdoor the original Senate version(a house tax break bill that was gutted). If Ted Kennedy doesn't die, they continue to negotiate the house vs senate bills. When Scott Brown is elected, it is a moot point and they are forced to vote on the bill the Senate already had passed.

[UNT90]

Listen, you people can argue all day

uh... exactly what do you mean by this...

[Coffee and TV]

If Scott Brown loses that special election, we may very well have had a public option. The loss of the supermajority forced them to backdoor the original Senate version(a house tax break bill that was gutted). If Ted Kennedy doesn't die, they continue to negotiate the house vs senate bills. When Scott Brown is elected, it is a moot point and they are forced to vote on the bill the Senate already had passed.

Well, that's complete speculation and impossible to gauge. There very well would have been defections from other Dems had he gone for a public option: Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu, or the Arkansas Democratic senators.

[Censored by Laurie]

uh... exactly what do you mean by this...

Well done.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

"Fact is, Pres, Obama makes Pres. Bush look like a spendthrift, and that takes some huge doings to accomplish".....to quote UNT90

And I will add...TRUE, SIR, so very true!

--Absolutely...!! I suppose he knows spendthrift means a person who is careless with their money.... hahaha..

[UNT90]

--Absolutely...!! I suppose he knows spendthrift means a person who is careless with their money.... hahaha..

That's what I get for posting in a hurry. Pennypincher was the term I was looking for.

Soulda just let it go

[Cr1028]

Well, that's complete speculation and impossible to gauge. There very well would have been defections from other Dems had he gone for a public option: Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu, or the Arkansas Democratic senators.

He couldn't have paid off the defectors again?

Oh, and Lieberman was pining for a cabinet position. That is why he endorsed McCain.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Cr1028

[FirefightnRick]

He couldn't have paid off the defectors again?

Oh, and Lieberman was pining for a cabinet position. That is why he endorsed McCain.

Geez, you have a good memory. I had forgotten about some of the peculiars in all that.

Rick