Not in the One Party Congress they are not. And that is the problem. One hopefully solved by the pending election and then fully resolved two years hence.
Yes, it is. Even in the House - which has passed over 300 bills that were killed in the Senate by the Republican abuse of the filibuster.
You say they're not. Why don't you post the number of people in the progressive caucus, and then the number of members of Congress, and we'll see who's right.
You won't. Because you rely on just carpeting bombing with falsehoods to argue.
And what is with the name calling?
There's no 'name calling'. I didn't call you a poopyhead, didn't comment on your genetic flaws, nothing that wasn't a comment about your posts.
There were two: one that your posts reflect ignorance, and the other that you post Rupert Murdoch propaganda. Both are easily demonstrated.
You may not like the truth, but as Harry Truman said, 'I don't give Republicans hell, I just tell the truth about them and they think it's hell.'
But instead of addressing the issues - your ignorance and propaganda parroting - you try to make a (false) attack instead to distract from the problems with your posts.
As your ideology is being decimated by its failure to deliver any result but a monstrous national debt and favored Party payoffs
No, you don't get to sneak your next lie in by putting it in the 'assumption' part of your comments.
The Democrats haven't got done as much as they should - again in large part by progressives not having a majority. But they have gotten a hell of a lot done anyway, as I've posted some lists before, and the larger issue is they're a whole lot better than the Republicans who are out to hurt Americans, period, for the benefit of a few. To return us to the extraction of wealth to the top from everyone else, weaken the economy, serve corporate agendas and so much more that they have done.
Government can never reduce poverty since it does not produce, but only consumes and squanders wealth.
Do I need to add idiocy to the description of your comments? They reinforce the comment on ignorance, as well.
They're beneath reply - like someone who argues that the Masons run everything or other such irrational nonsense.
Clearly government policy has a huge effect on wealth, poverty, and related matters, not because it 'produces things', but because it's the referee for the system.
Your argument is like saying that a quarterback's statistics aren't affected by the game's rules, because the NFL rulemakers don't throw the football.
Read the summary of Johnson again. For just one example, massive investment in education by *the government* has an impact on the economy in coming decades.
Lyndon Johnson's silly "war" on poverty
Cutting the percent of Americans under the poverty line that had held steady in the low 20's for a long time by a third to where it's held steady since isn't 'silly'.
Rather the word 'silly' for that reflects only on your being a blind ideologue with nothing but falsehoods for the discussion.
The War on Poverty was in reality a State-sponsored war on opportunities for the poor and on all Americans.
You're a worse ideologue than the truest believer who wrote for Pravda.
Let's contrast your parroted ideology on 'war on opportunity... for all Americans' with the paragraph I bolded above with the facts:
Most importantly, the Johnson administration presided over the longest upward curve of prosperity in the history of the nation. More than 85 months of unrivaled economic growth marked this as the strongest era of national prosperity. The average weekly wage of factory workers rose 18 percent in 4 years. Over 9 million additional workers were brought under minimum-wage protection. Total employment, increased by 7.5 million workers, added up to 75 million; the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest point in more than a decade.
Really, I'm guilty of not attacking your falsehood-filled posts with the language they deserve.
Facebook
Twitter