The Mucca Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 The point I was making is that it's us who shout "hooray" for our senator when he brings home the $400 million pork project to his home state, it's us that want our SS and our Medicare, it's us that scream about cuts and it's us that howls about taxes. Oh yeah - and it's us that focuses on the NEXT election as soon as the previous one is over so legislators spend less than half their time doing what we elected them for in the first place and more than half their time fund raising to go through the whole charade again. Yes it is our SS, we pay for, we also pay medicare tax. As far as shouting hooray for our pork, I don't because it only increases our taxes down the road. The gubments problem is that they tell you that they pay for it, that's a crock, the taxpayers pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) So you're willing to admit this, and still rail on "obstructionism"? Please elucidate? Why SHOULDN'T a bill be stopped if it doesn't do the MAIN thing which is being sold as the reason for the bill? I am railing against participating in the process that COULD have included these provisions and resulted in a better bill. Please try and keep up. I do NOT like the current bill, and I am mad as hell that both parties have been wasting time on this bill instead of actually doing something to address what health care reform NEEDS. Addressing cost containmnet first and foremost. Being obstructionist is ALSO refusing to work together to get a bill that at least gives a pump-fake toward solving problems. Having one party ram something through without input is generally a poor way to run a railroad . . . no matter what party does it. refusing to do your fracking job of governing= being obstructionist to creating progress and tangible change. American people want to see a real drop in their insurance costs. Hopefully all politicians will start listening and do something about it. Clinton tried, but was shot down by the right, GWB never wanted to address the issue, and now the left trots out a bill that doesnt address a lot of core issues, but the right cares more about the next election cycle than participating in what could have been a real acheivement for our country. Sad really . . . . WV, did you equally rail on GWb and call him the . . .. I dont know . . Bushmessiah when he was in office in keeping with your anarchist theme? Edited March 2, 2010 by bpwallace49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 WV, did you equally rail on GWb and call him the . . .. I dont know . . Bushmessiah when he was in office in keeping with your anarchist theme? He probably didn't rail quite as much as Bush wasn't the statist Obama is, nor did Bush have the majorities Obama did and still does. Having said all that WV took plenty of shots at Bush particularly in regard to the Patriot Act, but also in other areas. WV is a true libertarian with no real party affiliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 He probably didn't rail quite as much as Bush wasn't the statist Obama is, nor did Bush have the majorities Obama did and still does. Having said all that WV took plenty of shots at Bush particularly in regard to the Patriot Act, but also in other areas. WV is a true libertarian with no real party affiliation. That is why I was clarifying. There are a lot of shots at the current admin, but I was wondering if hw was equally against Bush and the crap he passed/pulled as it pertains to civil liberties and starting wars. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 , nor did Bush have the majorities Obama did and still does. Anybody know the numbers to this? I was pretty sure Bush had control of both houses. I just don't know by what numbers. I was pretty annoyed they controlled both houses and couldn't even pass something on social security (that probably won't be there when I retire). I mean, that system doesn't really seem all that complicated. Stop allowing congress to use it as a slush fund and give people some kind of opportunity to control their own investments (even a small portion). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 nor did Bush have the majorities Obama i call bullship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 That is why I was clarifying. There are a lot of shots at the current admin, but I was wondering if hw was equally against Bush and the crap he passed/pulled as it pertains to civil liberties and starting wars. Thanks! IMO, the only real thing shrub got right was letting slick willie's gun ban sunset. That and on-balance I like the guy he put up as chief justice of SCOTUS. Other than that, I see slick willie as being better than shrub was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 the largest republican majorities in congress during the bush administration were 55-44 in the senate and 232-201 in the house. the house right now is 254-178, and the senate is 59-41 right now if you count sanders and lieberman, and the republicans only had 40 for most of the last year or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 the largest republican majorities in congress during the bush administration were 55-44 in the senate and 232-201 in the house. the house right now is 254-178, and the senate is 59-41 right now if you count sanders and lieberman, and the republicans only had 40 for most of the last year or so. Now post the filibuster statistics under Bush vs Obama... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Now post the filibuster statistics under Bush vs Obama... Below is some assistance for you...you misleading pig.... After singing the sweet song of bipartisanship with the GOP, Obama proceeded to pander to the bruised feelings of Senate Democrats, assuring that it was the mean Republicans who had managed to bottle up his grand plans for reform: Today President Obama told Senate Democrats that they had faced “enormous procedural obstacles that are unprecedented..” “You had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and 1960s combined. That’s 20 years of obstruction jammed into just one.” Not exactly. A filibuster is the successful blocking of legislation in the Senate by forcing a failed cloture vote. How many failed cloture votes occurred in 2009? Hugh had to get his abacus to count them all up: This is astonishing. A filibuster is the successful use of 41 or more votes to prevent the closing of debate. There wasn’t a single filibuster in 2009. Not one. The president will say anything to advance a narrative that makes him a victim of obstruction. It is clear that 2010 will be spent pivoting from his 2009 mantra of Bush’s fault to his campaign year blasts at the “do nothing Republicans.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Below is some assistance for you...you misleading pig.... A filibuster is the successful blocking of legislation in the Senate by forcing a failed cloture vote. How many failed cloture votes occurred in 2009? Hugh had to get his abacus to count them all up: This is astonishing. A filibuster is the successful use of 41 or more votes to prevent the closing of debate. There wasn’t a single filibuster in 2009. Not one. And you call Grunge misleading? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 And you call Grunge misleading? I may be slow this morning, but how is what he posted misleading? Between Grunge and Caddy, who was incorrect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Oh SOOO sorry. The THREAT of filibuster. Nobody's going to hold a meaningless vote when the opposition has said they will obstruct it. Pig? Nice one Zeke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I may be slow this morning, but how is what he posted misleading? Between Grunge and Caddy, who was incorrect? See below Oh SOOO sorry. The THREAT of filibuster. Nobody's going to hold a meaningless vote when the opposition has said they will obstruct it. Clearly this was what was meant and any sentient being would know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 See below Clearly this was what was meant and any sentient being would know that. Wow if only you were so understanding when a conservative misspoke. I look forward to you jumping to my defense the next time bp, EGOP, bushwhacked jumps on a syntax error I make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 See below Clearly this was what was meant and any sentient being would know that. Clearly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share Posted March 3, 2010 Oh SOOO sorry. The THREAT of filibuster. Nobody's going to hold a meaningless vote when the opposition has said they will obstruct it. social security reform died in 2005 because they didn't have 60 votes in the senate. and immigration reform, and several nominees. that's just the way it has always worked, if you can't get 60 votes in the senate your chit don't become law. this has worked in the past to prevent factions from pushing through narrow partisan legislation. the 1964 civil rights act passed the senate with 73 votes. the social security act passed 77-6. medicare passed 70-24 bush's medicare expansion passed 76-21 NCLB passed 91-8 politicians have, up until now, realized that to pass anything really important and get the american people to buy in, you have to have a pretty broad consensus. I know you will try your damndest to spin it as somehow common and sensible to take over 1/6 of the american economy on a narrow partisan vote, but the facts just aren't on your side. you may like it simply because you agree with the policy being rammed through, but I can absolutely guarantee it would make you nauseous if, like a majority of the rest of the country, you didn't agree with the policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 social security reform died in 2005 because they didn't have 60 votes in the senate. and immigration reform, and several nominees. that's just the way it has always worked, if you can't get 60 votes in the senate your chit don't become law. this has worked in the past to prevent factions from pushing through narrow partisan legislation. the 1964 civil rights act passed the senate with 73 votes. the social security act passed 77-6. medicare passed 70-24 bush's medicare expansion passed 76-21 NCLB passed 91-8 politicians have, up until now, realized that to pass anything really important and get the american people to buy in, you have to have a pretty broad consensus. I know you will try your damndest to spin it as somehow common and sensible to take over 1/6 of the american economy on a narrow partisan vote, but the facts just aren't on your side. you may like it simply because you agree with the policy being rammed through, but I can absolutely guarantee it would make you nauseous if, like a majority of the rest of the country, you didn't agree with the policy. Whoa whoa whoa hold on. I didn't even say I was FOR the reconciliation process or even FOR this bill. My point was simply pointing out the obstruction that is meant to make Obama look bad and the focus on the political side of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share Posted March 3, 2010 Whoa whoa whoa hold on. I didn't even say I was FOR the reconciliation process or even FOR this bill. My point was simply pointing out the obstruction that is meant to make Obama look bad and the focus on the political side of it. the fillibuster wasn't invented in 2009. as I said, neither bush, nor any other modern president before him has pushed major legislation through without 60 senate votes. the 60 vote threshold for major legislation has always been a political reality, not something dreamed up by a particularly surly republican minority in the 111th congres. any white house propaganda to the contrary is just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 the fillibuster wasn't invented in 2009. as I said, neither bush, nor any other modern president before him has pushed major legislation through without 60 senate votes. the 60 vote threshold for major legislation has always been a political reality, not something dreamed up by a particularly surly republican minority in the 111th congres. any white house propaganda to the contrary is just that. Can we agree that the threatened use of the filibuster has grown increasingly more common over time and is now, with a 59 seat Democratic majority / 41 seat Republican minority, at an all-time high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Can we agree that the threatened use of the filibuster has grown increasingly more common over time and is now, with a 59 seat Democratic majority / 41 seat Republican minority, at an all-time high? um...no. You have no evidence of that. Not that it matters to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share Posted March 3, 2010 Can we agree that the threatened use of the filibuster has grown increasingly more common over time and is now, with a 59 seat Democratic majority / 41 seat Republican minority, at an all-time high? it's perhaps a little more prominent right now, because the party divide in the senate has been right around that 60-40 line this whole session. this has led the democratic leadership to craft legislation thinking they can get to that 60 vote threshold without crossing the aisle at all, and that has led republicans to be especially unwilling to break ranks. but the 60 vote threshold is the same as it has ever been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share Posted March 3, 2010 can we agree that no major social legislation has ever passed the senate with less than 70 votes (let alone 60, let alone 51)? and that breaking that tradition to ram through a bill that every poll says the american people are opposed to is a pretty unique and significant development with major implications? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 can we agree that no major social legislation has ever passed the senate with less than 70 votes (let alone 60, let alone 51)? and that breaking that tradition to ram through a bill that every poll says the american people are opposed to is a pretty unique and significant development with major implications? I'll agree to that if we can also agree we shouldn't be having equally important decisions made by the SCOTUS by 5-4 rulings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share Posted March 3, 2010 I'll agree to that if we can also agree we shouldn't be having equally important decisions made by the SCOTUS by 5-4 rulings... I'm not sure how there's an alternative. in a court case, you either rule for one party or the other. passing legislation is completely different. way to try and completely change the subject though. can't say I blame you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.