Democrats CONTROL Congress and have since 2007

[Meister]

And to the extent you have (or haven't) shown any cause and effect, you might as well be claiming that the economic decline was caused by Bush decided to implement a surge in Iraq.

Or, you could claim that things began to improve dramatically in Iraq in 2007, just after the Democrats took over Congress.

...see how easy that is?

Your boy Obama gave us this chart that unequivocally shows the economy start to tank after Dems took over Congress

Bush stole the election 6 years before!!!!!!!!

Your own Messiah shows how badly Dems screwed the economy!!
http://www.barackobama.com/images/issues/economy/jobs_graph_large_feb10.gif[/IMG[/QUOTE]

Stop being a childish troll.[/QUOTE]

Stating facts isn't trolling, NY.

 

[driveby]

The Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since January 2007. This constant refrain from the left that somehow the Republicans are blocking legislation is ridiculous. Since January 2009 the Democrats have had as many as 265 Democrats in the House and as many as 60 votes in the Senate.

Yet we keep getting told by brain dead morons that Republicans have somehow blocked some legislation.

Let me do the math for you, shall I?

It takes 218 votes in the House to pass a bill, There are 257 Democrats currently in the House. Leaving 178 Republicans. Even if EVERY Republican votes against a bill it still requires that 40 Democrats ALSO vote against the bil in order for it to fail. Republicans have NO power in the House at all.

It takes 51 votes in the Senate to pass a Bill. Even if every Republican voted against the bill it would require that 9 democrats vote against the bill. The only power Republicans have is filibuster and until a week ago they did not even have that as the Democrats had 60 votes. And there are several Liberal Republicans in the Senate. Filibuster will not work on everything.

Even after Brown was elected the Democrats had the votes to pass Health Care. The Republicans could not stop them.

Republicans have not blocked ANYTHING, they have not OBSTRUCTED any legislation. That is solely on the Democrats.

The OP is simply ridiculous. The Dems could not overcome Bush's veto until very late and cannot overcome the GOP senatorial stance that has filbustered successfully 91 times, a 50% increase over its use in earlier terms.

I won't reply again because the OP is flawed fatally.

Liberal activists pretending to be republicans are fuckin' retarded..........

 

[sboyle24]

The President is not a dictator. If the USA hands control of the peoples house to Marxists, the Capital Markets will adjust to respond accordingly, that is why and how our decline started at the end of 2006 and I've previously posted about 8 metrics to show it.

And to the extent you have (or haven't) shown any cause and effect, you might as well be claiming that the economic decline was caused by Bush decided to implement a surge in Iraq.

Or, you could claim that things began to improve dramatically in Iraq in 2007, just after the Democrats took over Congress.

...see how easy that is?

Your boy Obama gave us this chart that unequivocally shows the economy start to tank after Dems took over Congress

Bush stole the election 6 years before!!!!!!!!

Your own Messiah shows how badly Dems screwed the economy!!

The dems taking congress affected the fact that war and lazy consumerists drained our economy? Not sure I see the connection.

In fact, I doubt it is your statement in bold is provable.

 

[Rambunctious]

This is what happens when Dems take over.
An important angle in the IndyMac failure that may get lost in ominous headlines tonight and tomorrow: federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank's failure. In simple language, federal regulators blamed Schumer for a run on the bank.
And then well you know the rest. Your 401k DOWN
Schumer started the whole thing, he pulled the card from the house of cards and then we got Obama.

 

[Toronado3800]

The Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since January 2007. This constant refrain from the left that somehow the Republicans are blocking legislation is ridiculous. Since January 2009 the Democrats have had as many as 265 Democrats in the House and as many as 60 votes in the Senate.

Yet we keep getting told by brain dead morons that Republicans have somehow blocked some legislation.

Let me do the math for you, shall I?

It takes 218 votes in the House to pass a bill, There are 257 Democrats currently in the House. Leaving 178 Republicans. Even if EVERY Republican votes against a bill it still requires that 40 Democrats ALSO vote against the bil in order for it to fail. Republicans have NO power in the House at all.

It takes 51 votes in the Senate to pass a Bill. Even if every Republican voted against the bill it would require that 9 democrats vote against the bill. The only power Republicans have is filibuster and until a week ago they did not even have that as the Democrats had 60 votes. And there are several Liberal Republicans in the Senate. Filibuster will not work on everything.

Even after Brown was elected the Democrats had the votes to pass Health Care. The Republicans could not stop them.

Republicans have not blocked ANYTHING, they have not OBSTRUCTED any legislation. That is solely on the Democrats.

The Democratic Party suffers from a less organized coalition. This makes them "less effective" than the Republicans I suppose. Not that I'm much for the group think of political machines, but the Dems seem unable to get their members to fall in step.

Seems the threat of a filibuster from the Republicans was enough to block somethings. Or the obviousness of a veto from Bush before.

I'd filibuster an attempt by Republicans to use the power of big government to determine my right to die, so I'm not calling out Republicans.

 

[mal]

associalisticpress.com©... Calling The Associated Press out for the Socialists that they are!

^My Score Card on the Dems from September 2008...



peace...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Sarge, your doublethink in this thread is glaringly obvious.

Double think? Your one of the ones that INSISTS Bush had total control of the Government when he was President. The Republicans never had more then 55 Senators as I recall.

It is real simple. EVEN IF every republican in Congress voted no, they could not stop a single bill from passing. Not one. And Pelosi and Reid have not ask for their input or their opinion on a single issue. Nor until Brown won had Obama.

The numbers do not lie. The only people stopping the democrats are the Democrats.

Bush never had the ability that obama has to force any bill through if he could get his entire party to vote for it. He had to depend on democrats support. Obama does not have to depend on republican support (well now with scott brown he needs at least 1)

The Democrats have been in control of congress, which controls the budgets, since 2006.

What am I getting wrong here?

Yup I didn't think anyone would challenge this statement.

SOOOOOO what does that say about the people who b lame everything on bush in regards to the economy?

 

[Meister]

Double think? Your one of the ones that INSISTS Bush had total control of the Government when he was President. The Republicans never had more then 55 Senators as I recall.

It is real simple. EVEN IF every republican in Congress voted no, they could not stop a single bill from passing. Not one. And Pelosi and Reid have not ask for their input or their opinion on a single issue. Nor until Brown won had Obama.

The numbers do not lie. The only people stopping the democrats are the Democrats.

Bush never had the ability that obama has to force any bill through if he could get his entire party to vote for it. He had to depend on democrats support. Obama does not have to depend on republican support (well now with scott brown he needs at least 1)

The Democrats have been in control of congress, which controls the budgets, since 2006.

What am I getting wrong here?

Yup I didn't think anyone would challenge this statement.

SOOOOOO what does that say about the people who b lame everything on bush in regards to the economy?

Did you see that cricket over there, Plymco?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg[/ame]

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This constant refrain from the left that somehow the Republicans are blocking legislation is ridiculous.

I don't think you know how Congress works.

 

[beowolfe]

The Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since January 2007. This constant refrain from the left that somehow the Republicans are blocking legislation is ridiculous. Since January 2009 the Democrats have had as many as 265 Democrats in the House and as many as 60 votes in the Senate.

Yet we keep getting told by brain dead morons that Republicans have somehow blocked some legislation.

Let me do the math for you, shall I?

It takes 218 votes in the House to pass a bill, There are 257 Democrats currently in the House. Leaving 178 Republicans. Even if EVERY Republican votes against a bill it still requires that 40 Democrats ALSO vote against the bil in order for it to fail. Republicans have NO power in the House at all.

It takes 51 votes in the Senate to pass a Bill. Even if every Republican voted against the bill it would require that 9 democrats vote against the bill. The only power Republicans have is filibuster and until a week ago they did not even have that as the Democrats had 60 votes. And there are several Liberal Republicans in the Senate. Filibuster will not work on everything.

Even after Brown was elected the Democrats had the votes to pass Health Care. The Republicans could not stop them.

Republicans have not blocked ANYTHING, they have not OBSTRUCTED any legislation. That is solely on the Democrats.

If you hadn't noticed, unlike republicans, democrats are known for NOT walking in lockstep. Trying to corral democrats is sort of like herding cats. Each one will have their own opinion and vote accordingly. Heck, they will even stop legislation proposed by their own leadership. If only the GOP would act like that, then we could remove this partisian poison from our nation.

 

[Toronado3800]

beowolf, a good point. I find more diversity with Republicans than their representatives.

An isolated example is

My Christian neighbor who votes Republican because he hates abortion, remembers the PMRC and thought they were good, and stuff like that. He also is against the death penalty and would vote against it if he had a chance.

 

[CaliforniaAl]

Agreed entirely. The Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for their failures.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Agreed entirely. The Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for their failures.

and no one to congratulate but themselves on their successes, such as last night's healthcare vote .

 

[Polk]

The Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since January 2007. This constant refrain from the left that somehow the Republicans are blocking legislation is ridiculous. Since January 2009 the Democrats have had as many as 265 Democrats in the House and as many as 60 votes in the Senate.

Yet we keep getting told by brain dead morons that Republicans have somehow blocked some legislation.

Let me do the math for you, shall I?

It takes 218 votes in the House to pass a bill, There are 257 Democrats currently in the House. Leaving 178 Republicans. Even if EVERY Republican votes against a bill it still requires that 40 Democrats ALSO vote against the bil in order for it to fail. Republicans have NO power in the House at all.

It takes 51 votes in the Senate to pass a Bill. Even if every Republican voted against the bill it would require that 9 democrats vote against the bill. The only power Republicans have is filibuster and until a week ago they did not even have that as the Democrats had 60 votes. And there are several Liberal Republicans in the Senate. Filibuster will not work on everything.

Even after Brown was elected the Democrats had the votes to pass Health Care. The Republicans could not stop them.

Republicans have not blocked ANYTHING, they have not OBSTRUCTED any legislation. That is solely on the Democrats.

Except that it doesn't, in practical terms, take 51 votes for a bill to pass the Senate. The minority can prevent a vote unless the measure has 60 votes.

 

[Polk]

Sarge, your doublethink in this thread is glaringly obvious.

Double think? Your one of the ones that INSISTS Bush had total control of the Government when he was President. The Republicans never had more then 55 Senators as I recall.

It is real simple. EVEN IF every republican in Congress voted no, they could not stop a single bill from passing. Not one. And Pelosi and Reid have not ask for their input or their opinion on a single issue. Nor until Brown won had Obama.

The numbers do not lie. The only people stopping the democrats are the Democrats.

They can't prevent a bill from passing, but they can prevent the bill from being voted on in the first place.

 

[Polk]

Look bipartisan?

do you realize that being bipartisan requires you to compromise.

On WHAT have the republicans been willing to compromise on?

Nothing. They stated throughout the process that even if all of their demands were met, they'd still all vote against the bill.

 

[Polk]

Look bipartisan?

do you realize that being bipartisan requires you to compromise.

On WHAT have the republicans been willing to compromise on?

Are we talking about the same bill that was spawned behind closed doors, with no republicans invited? Is that how you define bipartisan?

Behind closed doors? There were months upon months of negotiation between the "Gang of Six".

 

[Crowley]

The democrats finally have absolutely no excuse to refrain from pushing through every single party line they espouse, but of course they still pander to the interests of the corporate elite. For instance, Obama included all of those measures in the health care "reform" bill that were supposed to get the republicans to agree to it. None did, and yet he still kept them in. For example, the one on federal funds to abortion. Because of that, people who are getting federal aid will not be allowed to get health care packages that include abortions. So he's basically cutting social spending on the people that need it, and making nifty little perks for the people who keep him in office with votes to make sure that they're distracted from this/don't care. The democrats control congress - and it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference than if they republicans did.

 

[Toronado3800]

I disagree. We would have seen an even more watered down version of healthcare reform, if any, if Republicans held the majority.

If the Democrats had a more efficient party machine which could get everyone in lock step with the master then more bills would get pushed through. As it is, their ranks aren't as unified.