Where did the lie that Obama had congressional super majorities come from?

[Jaskalas]

If you can't make use of the backlash against Bush, you'll never get anything done. Swings are usually less extreme, super majorities extremely rare. This country is ungovernable so long as that Senate rule is in place.

 

[Matt1970]

If Obama just let a few Republicans in on writing these Bills like every other administration has done, he would get some Republican votes. When you write Bills behind closed doors, you piss off the entire other side, and usually end up with steaming piles of partisan crap for Bills.

 

[PokerGuy]

This country is ungovernable so long as that Senate rule is in place.

No, the senate rule is fine, we need people in office (congress and the white house) that can work together.

 

[Schmide]

If Obama just let a few Republicans in on writing these Bills like every other administration has done, he would get some Republican votes. When you write Bills behind closed doors, you piss off the entire other side, and usually end up with steaming piles of partisan crap for Bills.

Even worse when you do it in broad daylight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57449400/anti-abortion-rider-attached-to-dhs-spending-bill/

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote:
Host of Fox News, Chris Wallace, made the incorrect assertion during an interview Sunday that President Barack Obama had a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 votes) in the Senate for two years.

The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.

It was an amazing thing the Messiah got ObamaCare through in that short 133 day window that Republicans were shut down.

 

[shira]

I dislike republicans too, but you should know that the House does NOT have anything like a fillibuster and the house only requires a 50%+1 vote for laws. You cannot block legislation in the house with a minority vote. So it is true during that 7 week peroids the democrats could have passed basically anything.

A majority in the House is irrelevant. A companion bill must pass the senate, which requires a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes.

As long as Republicans have 41 votes in the Senate, essentially nothing can be accomplished unless the Republicans cooperate.

 

[shira]

No, the senate rule is fine, we need people in office (congress and the white house) that can work together.

If Republicans refuse to consider any budget deal that includes tax increases, then no "compromise" is possible.

 

[shira]

If Obama just let a few Republicans in on writing these Bills like every other administration has done, he would get some Republican votes. When you write Bills behind closed doors, you piss off the entire other side, and usually end up with steaming piles of partisan crap for Bills.

So, you're claiming that a long term budget deal that includes tax increases is possible, as long as Republicans are included in writing the bill? Is that REALLY what you're claiming?

Go talk to Grover Norquist.

 

[hal2kilo]

If Republicans refuse to consider any budget deal that includes tax increases, then no "compromise" is possible.

:thumbsup:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If Republicans refuse to consider any budget deal that includes tax increases, then no "compromise" is possible.

If Democrats refuse to consider any budget deal that excludes tax increases, then no "compromise" is possible.

 

[Matt1970]

A majority in the House is irrelevant. A companion bill must pass the senate, which requires a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes.

As long as Republicans have 41 votes in the Senate, essentially nothing can be accomplished unless the Republicans cooperate.

You mean like all the budgets the Senate Democrats keep passing?

 

[monovillage]

The biggest lie is the title of this thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

Democrats had majority in the House and Senate for 2 years under Obama...they held all leadship positions and completely controlled the legislative process. Nobody said they had supermajority. It appears that you are conflating "control" with "supermajority".

Lacking 60 votes in the Senate, they remained vulnerable to the whims or the Repub minority, who had a lot of whims & the stated goal of paralyzing the govt in support of their own feed the rich status quo.

Repubs were so bitter & jealous that they took the part of the lying woman in the tale of Solomon, two women & the baby. If they couldn't run the country, they'd be damned if they'd let anybody else do it.

The facts-

 

[FuzzyBee]

The biggest lie is the title of this thread.

Interesting - I thought the process was to lock posts with factually false troll thread titles.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Facts have a liberal bias.

Facts are facts which others claim for their own, unless it turns our to be a mistake then it's someone elses fault.

 

[her209]

So I guess it's not completely a lie...Democrats did actually enjoy a supermajority in the Senate for 133 days as well as a near supermajority for the remainder of the 2 years.

Face it, Dems could have accomplished a lot during this 2 year period if they focused on jobs and our economy instead of cramming Obamacare down our throats.

Its a complete lie. 133 days != 2 years.

🙄

 

[Jhhnn]

Its a complete lie. 133 days != 2 years.

🙄

Nor, as we've seen, are all Dems "progressive". Blue dogs are a lot like Repubs, and proved unreliable wrt any progressive agenda.

Those 133 days were not like FDR's first 100 days, at all, because the depth of the economic calamity inflicted by Repub ideology was not fully appreciated at the time. After 3 years of misery, FDR had a mandate to act. Obama didn't have that kind of mandate, ever.

 

[Matt1970]

Lacking 60 votes in the Senate, they remained vulnerable to the whims or the Repub minority, who had a lot of whims & the stated goal of paralyzing the govt in support of their own feed the rich status quo.

Repubs were so bitter & jealous that they took the part of the lying woman in the tale of Solomon, two women & the baby. If they couldn't run the country, they'd be damned if they'd let anybody else do it.

The facts-

That's what happens when you write bills without one single Republican involved behind closed doors and then tell the people we need to pass the bill so people can read what's in it.

If they couldn't run the country, they'd be damned if they'd let anybody else run it into the ground.

Fixed that for you.

 

[monovillage]

Interesting - I thought the process was to lock posts with factually false troll thread titles.

Maybe no one "officially" reported the thread title. I didn't.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

No, the senate rule is fine, we need people in office (congress and the white house) that can work together.

So given your GOP won't compromise at all, what do you expect to happen?

The Dems have met the GOP more then half-way on most major items, and been rebuffed.

Perhaps you should re-evaluate your support for the GOP if you actually believe what you wrote?

Or are you defining "compromise" to mean, "give me 100% of what I want"? LOL

 

[monovillage]

So given your GOP won't compromise at all, what do you expect to happen?

The Dems have met the GOP more then half-way on most major items, and been rebuffed.

Perhaps you should re-evaluate your support for the GOP if you actually believe what you wrote?

Or are you defining "compromise" to mean, "give me 100% of what I want"? LOL

Bullshit. It was Obama and Rahm that started this whole cycle of "fuck you we won the election"

*EDIT* to show a change in the quote and to link it.

With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-...lapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635#.UEuGsa5SR7h

 

[her209]

Nor, as we've seen, are all Dems "progressive". Blue dogs are a lot like Repubs, and proved unreliable wrt any progressive agenda.

Those 133 days were not like FDR's first 100 days, at all, because the depth of the economic calamity inflicted by Repub ideology was not fully appreciated at the time. After 3 years of misery, FDR had a mandate to act. Obama didn't have that kind of mandate, ever.

While the Blue Dogs did derail some bills, the 111th Congress still got quite a few bills enacted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Major_legislation

Major legislation

Enacted

January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
July 21, 2010: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
July 29, 2010: Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act, Pub.L. 111-223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965
January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847
January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111-348, H.R. 81
January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Bullshit. It was Obama and Rahm that started this whole cycle of "fuck you we won the election"

*EDIT* to show a change in the quote and to link it.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-...lapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635#.UEuGsa5SR7h

While I realize you won't change your mind no matter what facts I present, I suggest you look at the history of the ACA, and also at the budget crisis and raising of the debt ceiling. Obama gave in to the GOP well over halfway in both cases. That is matter of public record.

And ACA was a GOP proposal to begin with, how do you explain that?

So again, when the GOP is unwilling to give in even 1%, how do you compromise? My guess is in your mind it means "do exactly what the GOP wants", but that isn't compromise.

And is pokerguy going to comment on how he supports the GOP despite them being in direct opposition to what he claims he wants?

 

[Throckmorton]

Democrats had majority in the House and Senate for 2 years under Obama...they held all leadship positions and completely controlled the legislative process. Nobody said they had supermajority. It appears that you are conflating "control" with "supermajority".

Do you know what a filibuster is? Just playing dumb?

 

[Jhhnn]

That's what happens when you write bills without one single Republican involved behind closed doors and then tell the people we need to pass the bill so people can read what's in it.

"If they couldn't run the country, they'd be damned if they'd let anybody else run it into the ground."

Fixed that for you.

It's improper to alter quotes.

Not allowing the chief executive his due wrt appointments is also improper, something senatorial Repubs have done with great glee, along with using every procedural trick available to paralyze the govt of the people. They then blame Obama for inaction, and their scatterbrained base gobbles it up.

Speaking of running the country into the ground, how did that ownership society work out? Refusing to enforce/ lessening existing financial regulations? Going to war in two places while cutting taxes at the same time? Gitmo? Patriot Act?

I mean, holding UI benefits hostage to extended fat cat tax cuts was in the interests of the nation, right? The contrived debt ceiling fracas did us a whole lot of good, too, huh? All that in the depths of the greatest Repub induced depression since 1929.