Now we know. It's the Tea Party's fault!!!

[Annie]

Got ahead of myself there. The Times article is correct. They don't mention a one-year super majority. You did. You were the one wrong.

Really?

Yeah. You're wrong. The Democrats never had a super majority during the 111th Congress.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, they did, for 6 months as the poster I responded to was correct. Thanks for that.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Really?

Yeah. You're wrong. The Democrats never had a super majority during the 111th Congress.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, they did, for 6 months as the poster I responded to was correct. Thanks for that.

Oh, then you can help us out and tell us which 6 months the Democrats had 60 members in Senate.

Thanks.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Really?

Yeah. You're wrong. The Democrats never had a super majority during the 111th Congress.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, they did, for 6 months as the poster I responded to was correct. Thanks for that.

Actually, let me ask you. Do you know what a super majority is? Because it sounds like you think it's any time the GOP has less than 41 members in the Senate. That's not correct.

 

[BillyV]

Yeah. You're wrong. The Democrats never had a super majority during the 111th Congress.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, they did, for 6 months as the poster I responded to was correct. Thanks for that.

Oh, then you can help us out and tell us which 6 months the Democrats had 60 members in Senate.

Thanks.

Technically, you are correct; there were never 60 Democrats in the Senate; there were 58 Democrats and two independents - Bernie Sanders, whose biggest beef with Democrats is they aren't "left" enough, and Joe Lieberman, formerly a Democrat (who ran as an independent when his party failed to nominate him) and certainly no enemy of the President's agenda. So yeah, in truth they had a supermajority, from July of 2009 until February of 2010, with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to throw in occasionally when they needed to label something as "bipartisan".

 

[Annie]

Yeah. You're wrong. The Democrats never had a super majority during the 111th Congress.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, they did, for 6 months as the poster I responded to was correct. Thanks for that.

Actually, let me ask you. Do you know what a super majority is? Because it sounds like you think it's any time the GOP has less than 41 members in the Senate. That's not correct.

Nope. Whichever party, 60 votes. Am I missing something here?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Listen, jackazz Pub Dupe dittohead MORON. They had a supermajority for less than 6 months, half of that they were out of session. The Pubs had 130 filibusters in those 2 years. Biden could well be right. The braindead "no compromise, Un-American" Tea Party did nothing but sap confidence, block normal GOP jobs bills, and believe a lot of crap. Loudmouth BAD CITIZENS like YOU.

What he said ...

And, besides. There is no The Tea Party. All there really is is a bunch of whiners who don't know anything except wearing funny hats and voting for anyone who screeches loud enough to cover the FACT that he's a raving loon who sold his soul to the Koch brothers.

The damn fool baggers have done and continue to as much damage as they can.

We can only hope there are some rw's who still read and think for themselves. Those people will vote for idiots like Dead Beat Dad Walsh or Nutbagger West or the other ignorant, racist, obstructionists again.

 

[bripat9643]

Everything the Dems were able to do has worked perfectly thanks, while everything the GOP has done has been a disaster for years.

Let me get this straight: your serious?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

It was a combination of that, as well as the fact that they didn't pass legislation on job creation, but rather abortion, DOMA and persecution of gays.

"Job creation" is a liberal euphemism meaning "another massive spending program."

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps we could refocus a bit here?

With the two members who were not officially Democrats but who caucused consistently with the Democrats, Harry Reid had a super majority in the Senate for more than a full year. Scott Brown was scheduled to be seated in the Senate in February 2010. Harry Reid was under heavy pressure to delay that seating until after the Obamacare vote. Why? So he wouldn't screw up the super majority that existed.

But regardless of whether a super majority existed or not, the Democrats were successful early in 2009 in passing an unconscionable appropriations bill that broke numerous campaign promises Obama had made regarding earmarks, transparency, etc. and which most Republicans voted against. The Democrats were successful in passing a stimulus package that all but the most fanatical leftists now realize was a total fraud related to the promises made for it. The Democrats were successful passing Obamacare that every Republican voted against and which was not popular in the general public. The debt ceiling was successfuly voted to be raised twice.

But after all that, it is the Tea Party's fault that the Democrats were not able to create jobs and get the economy moving?

Anybody who believes that, could I please invite to look over a nice brochure I have of a number of bridges I would like to sell you.

 

[Stephanie]

What's friggen rich here..Is Reid is whining about what the people voted for when putting in the members of the Tea Party..How the Progressives-Democrats would like to FORGET the elections of 2010

lets finish the job come November people

 

[Buford]

What's friggen rich here..Is Reid is whining about what the people voted for when putting in the members of the Tea Party..How the Progressives-Democrats would like to FORGET the elections of 2010

lets finish the job come November people

Save America from the sickness.

 

[naturegirl]

The recovery (if you want to call it that) started after the 2010 elections...........well, well, well.

 

[skookerasbil]

The more appearances by Biden, the better. Go.......go..........go. Team Obama cant get him out there enough for me!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Obama has offered 4.1 TRILLION in cuts and Boehner and Pubs ran for the hills. He also wants to tax (ONLY) the bloated rich. You are totally duped.

Screwing with the Debt Limit only caused a a four month stall in the recovery and a rating cut. BAD GOVERNMENT by brainwashed a-holes.

but winning assholes s0n...........all this Keynesian crap is about to get mothballed in about 5 months. And cant wait for election night to see miserable, angry, jealous losers like you crying in your beer. Gonna be a fucking hoot in fact!! Make sure to show up here on electrion night pal............. I'll be on after Ive finished watching ePiC levels of misery over on MSNBC.

After that, you'll have to remove that gay battleship from your avatar.

 

[blackhawk]

According to Joe Biden, the economy would be fixed if it just hadn't been for that nasty old Tea Party. (Presumably we would also have a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, the millionaires would have been humbled, corporate welfare would be ended, and everybody would be healthy, wealthy, and wise too??????)

Vice President Joe Biden admitted to a group of supporters in New Hampshire this afternoon that the President would have been able help the economy "much, more" if the Tea Party hadn't taken the House.

Biden showed the audience the Obama campaigns chart of job growth during the President's first term in office and accused the Tea Party for stalling the recovery, because of the debt limit fight.
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing economy | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Of course we dont want to mention the two years that President Obama had a super majority in the Senate, a healthy majority in the House for his first two years while he ran up trillion dollar plus deficits and passed a healthcare bill that now a large majority of Americans want repealed and the Supreme Court will probably declare unconstitutional. And he didn't do a damn thing to fix the economy.

Their still letting Biden talk dam that's like playing Russian Roulette with bullets in five of the six chambers.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama has offered 4.1 TRILLION in cuts and Boehner and Pubs ran for the hills. He also wants to tax (ONLY) the bloated rich. You are totally duped.

Screwing with the Debt Limit only caused a a four month stall in the recovery and a rating cut. BAD GOVERNMENT by brainwashed a-holes.

but winning assholes s0n...........all this Keynesian crap is about to get mothballed in about 5 months. And cant wait for election night to see miserable, angry, jealous losers like you crying in your beer. Gonna be a fucking hoot in fact!! Make sure to show up here on electrion night pal............. I'll be on after Ive finished watching ePiC levels of misery over on MSNBC.

After that, you'll have to remove that gay battleship from your avatar.

I remember them calling for armed insurrection after they got their clocks cleaned in the 2010 election.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Perhaps we could refocus a bit here?

With the two members who were not officially Democrats but who caucused consistently with the Democrats, Harry Reid had a super majority in the Senate for more than a full year. Scott Brown was scheduled to be seated in the Senate in February 2010. Harry Reid was under heavy pressure to delay that seating until after the Obamacare vote. Why? So he wouldn't screw up the super majority that existed.

But regardless of whether a super majority existed or not, the Democrats were successful early in 2009 in passing an unconscionable appropriations bill that broke numerous campaign promises Obama had made regarding earmarks, transparency, etc. and which most Republicans voted against. The Democrats were successful in passing a stimulus package that all but the most fanatical leftists now realize was a total fraud related to the promises made for it. The Democrats were successful passing Obamacare that every Republican voted against and which was not popular in the general public. The debt ceiling was successfuly voted to be raised twice.

But after all that, it is the Tea Party's fault that the Democrats were not able to create jobs and get the economy moving?

Anybody who believes that, could I please invite to look over a nice brochure I have of a number of bridges I would like to sell you.

1) You guys are wrong again. Even if you count the two Independents as Democrats, which right there means the Democrats never had a super majority, then there were only 60 votes for a few months.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is recent history. How can you all be so wrong about it?

2) Prior to Scott Brown being seated there were 57 Democrats and 2 Independents. They could not form 60 votes without GOP help. What are you talking about delaying seating him for the Obamacare vote?

3) Look at the chart that I previously posted. Look at the numbers from the BLS. Job growth was increasing steadily up until a couple months after the TPers came in to office, and then it dropped. Why did it drop shortly after the TPers took office?

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps we could refocus a bit here?

With the two members who were not officially Democrats but who caucused consistently with the Democrats, Harry Reid had a super majority in the Senate for more than a full year. Scott Brown was scheduled to be seated in the Senate in February 2010. Harry Reid was under heavy pressure to delay that seating until after the Obamacare vote. Why? So he wouldn't screw up the super majority that existed.

But regardless of whether a super majority existed or not, the Democrats were successful early in 2009 in passing an unconscionable appropriations bill that broke numerous campaign promises Obama had made regarding earmarks, transparency, etc. and which most Republicans voted against. The Democrats were successful in passing a stimulus package that all but the most fanatical leftists now realize was a total fraud related to the promises made for it. The Democrats were successful passing Obamacare that every Republican voted against and which was not popular in the general public. The debt ceiling was successfuly voted to be raised twice.

But after all that, it is the Tea Party's fault that the Democrats were not able to create jobs and get the economy moving?

Anybody who believes that, could I please invite to look over a nice brochure I have of a number of bridges I would like to sell you.

1) You guys are wrong again. Even if you count the two Independents as Democrats, which right there means the Democrats never had a super majority, then there were only 60 votes for a few months.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is recent history. How can you all be so wrong about it?

2) Prior to Scott Brown being seated there were 57 Democrats and 2 Independents. They could not form 60 votes without GOP help. What are you talking about delaying seating him for the Obamacare vote?

3) Look at the chart that I previously posted. Look at the numbers from the BLS. Job growth was increasing steadily up until a couple months after the TPers came in to office, and then it dropped. Why did it drop shortly after the TPers took office?

Who put out the chart you peviously posted?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Perhaps we could refocus a bit here?

With the two members who were not officially Democrats but who caucused consistently with the Democrats, Harry Reid had a super majority in the Senate for more than a full year. Scott Brown was scheduled to be seated in the Senate in February 2010. Harry Reid was under heavy pressure to delay that seating until after the Obamacare vote. Why? So he wouldn't screw up the super majority that existed.

But regardless of whether a super majority existed or not, the Democrats were successful early in 2009 in passing an unconscionable appropriations bill that broke numerous campaign promises Obama had made regarding earmarks, transparency, etc. and which most Republicans voted against. The Democrats were successful in passing a stimulus package that all but the most fanatical leftists now realize was a total fraud related to the promises made for it. The Democrats were successful passing Obamacare that every Republican voted against and which was not popular in the general public. The debt ceiling was successfuly voted to be raised twice.

But after all that, it is the Tea Party's fault that the Democrats were not able to create jobs and get the economy moving?

Anybody who believes that, could I please invite to look over a nice brochure I have of a number of bridges I would like to sell you.

1) You guys are wrong again. Even if you count the two Independents as Democrats, which right there means the Democrats never had a super majority, then there were only 60 votes for a few months.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is recent history. How can you all be so wrong about it?

2) Prior to Scott Brown being seated there were 57 Democrats and 2 Independents. They could not form 60 votes without GOP help. What are you talking about delaying seating him for the Obamacare vote?

3) Look at the chart that I previously posted. Look at the numbers from the BLS. Job growth was increasing steadily up until a couple months after the TPers came in to office, and then it dropped. Why did it drop shortly after the TPers took office?

Who put out the chart you peviously posted?

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

 

[Foxfyre]

1) You guys are wrong again. Even if you count the two Independents as Democrats, which right there means the Democrats never had a super majority, then there were only 60 votes for a few months.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is recent history. How can you all be so wrong about it?

2) Prior to Scott Brown being seated there were 57 Democrats and 2 Independents. They could not form 60 votes without GOP help. What are you talking about delaying seating him for the Obamacare vote?

3) Look at the chart that I previously posted. Look at the numbers from the BLS. Job growth was increasing steadily up until a couple months after the TPers came in to office, and then it dropped. Why did it drop shortly after the TPers took office?

Who put out the chart you peviously posted?

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

Anybody with a computer can make a graph and claim that it comes from anywhere. So the source of any particular graph posted is pertinent for those who are interested in the truth rather than just interested in having others think they are right.

What did you think of my previous post re the problem with assessing unemployment figures that would also apply to job creation numbers? And do you dispute that the 'official' unemployment has held steady and or decreased AFTER the GOP regained power in the House? If so, will you give them the credit for bringing down unemployment?

If you don't see it that way, please break down for me the private sector jobs including in your chart and what government intiatives created those. And then compare the private sector jobs created with the government jobs created.

Once you have completed that assignment, then perhaps you might have a credible argument that the Tea Party has prevented job creation or that the Obama Administration has done anything to create anything other than government jobs.