The Party of "Do Nothing"

[Full-Auto]

The Republicans had 8 long years, 6 of them with majorities in both Houses of Congress, to reform the tax code.

If the situation was reversed, and there was a Reopublican in the White House, do you think their Treasury Secretary's response would have been any different?

Based on the last 4 years, the Republican House aren't interested in passing any progressive legislation that might improve the economy and benefit the Democrats on November 6th.

So the mini stim was the answer............

 

[bripat9643]

The Republicans had 8 long years, 6 of them with majorities in both Houses of Congress, to reform the tax code.

If the situation was reversed, and there was a Reopublican in the White House, do you think their Treasury Secretary's response would have been any different?

Based on the last 4 years, the Republican House aren't interested in passing any progressive legislation that might improve the economy and benefit the Democrats on November 6th.

"Progressive" legislation doesn't improve the economy. Obama and the Dims have already thoroughly demonstrated that. By blocking all of Obama's ill-conceived tax and spend legislation, House Republicans have done more to help get Obama reelected than he could hope for, no matter how much money he raises.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Point of fact, the Dems need 60 votes to be able to have the vote where they need 51 because the GOP filibusters everything.

And the Dems do not have 60.

Wrongo! You can't filibuster budget bills. They only need 51 votes to pass.

Yup. Was thinking of something else.

 

[bripat9643]

When have they ever been shy about saying they want it repealed? So does most of America.

When the Republicans told the Democrats to rewrite the health bill the response from Obama and the Dems was "you are obstructing" when the Dems in the Senate refuse to even send to committee budget bills from the House, that is according to Obama and the Democrats governance.

The only reason the Republicans wanted the Healthcare bill rewritten was so that they could delay it until the Dems no longer had a Congressional majority. They did the same thing with Clintons healthcare bill and then stalled it for 15 years

 

[rightwinger]

When have they ever been shy about saying they want it repealed? So does most of America.

When the Republicans told the Democrats to rewrite the health bill the response from Obama and the Dems was "you are obstructing" when the Dems in the Senate refuse to even send to committee budget bills from the House, that is according to Obama and the Democrats governance.

The only reason the Republicans wanted the Healthcare bill rewritten was so that they could delay it until the Dems no longer had a Congressional majority. They did the same thing with Clintons healthcare bill and then stalled it for 15 years

Of course we know that....Republicans have no desire for Americans to have affordable healthcare.

That is why they have blocked it for 20 years

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course we know that....Republicans have no desire for Americans to have affordable healthcare.

That is why they have blocked it for 20 years.

Actually, republicans want healthcare only for Americans who can afford it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If the Republicans actually thought tax reform was a priority, where were they when the GIP had a president in the White House for 8 long year and with majorities in both Houses of Congress for 6.

Do you think that a GOP Treasury Secretary's response would have been any different, if the situation was reversed and there was a Republican president sitting in the White House?

Based on the last 4 years, John Boehner and the Republican House aren't the least bit interested in passing any progressive legislation that might improve the American economy and benefit the Democrats on November 6th.

The republicans only controlled both Houses for 4 years. And during those 4 years the Budget wasn't a problem.

 

[percysunshine]

Point of fact, the Dems need 60 votes to be able to have the vote where they need 51 because the GOP filibusters everything.

And the Dems do not have 60.

Wrongo! You can't filibuster budget bills. They only need 51 votes to pass.

" You Lie" would have been a more apt response....chuckle

 

[Trajan]

So when exactly did the democrats lose their guts? How come they don't have the balls to say that we're never going to cut spending, we're never going to change the entitlement programs unless it's to make them bigger, and we don't care one iota how high the debt/deficits grow.

Because that’s not their goal, that’s a partisan contrivance.

It’s Congress’ responsibility to address the issues of spending and deficits, with the House taking lead, not the Executive.

Now, if the House were to come up with a responsible, comprehensive plan, one that doesn’t attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, working class, and disabled, and devoid of partisan idiocy, the Administration would likely enter into talks in good faith to turn such a plan into law.

C'mon dude, this is ridiculous. There's no excuse for the Senate to put out their own plan and at least try to work out a compromise with the House version or the President's. The Senate only needs 51 votes to pass a budget, and they got 53. Don't be laying this on the House, they did send up a budget, whatever you think about it. So did the president, as ridiculous as it was; the Senate voted down last year's version 97-0, this year's version would probably result in the same outcome. What we have here is rank cowardice and irresponsibility on the part of the Senate, in the military we called it dereliction of duty.

they've been laying it on thick with the do nothing congress jazz for so long clayton doesn't realize hes been had.

 

[Trajan]

Because that’s not their goal, that’s a partisan contrivance.

It’s Congress’ responsibility to address the issues of spending and deficits, with the House taking lead, not the Executive.

Now, if the House were to come up with a responsible, comprehensive plan, one that doesn’t attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, working class, and disabled, and devoid of partisan idiocy, the Administration would likely enter into talks in good faith to turn such a plan into law.

C'mon dude, this is ridiculous. There's no excuse for the Senate to put out their own plan and at least try to work out a compromise with the House version or the President's. The Senate only needs 51 votes to pass a budget, and they got 53. Don't be laying this on the House, they did send up a budget, whatever you think about it. So did the president, as ridiculous as it was; the Senate voted down last year's version 97-0, this year's version would probably result in the same outcome. What we have here is rank cowardice and irresponsibility on the part of the Senate, in the military we called it dereliction of duty.

Point of fact, the Dems need 60 votes to be able to have the vote where they need 51 because the GOP filibusters everything.

And the Dems do not have 60.

they say it, you buy it. reconciliation, the byrd rule...remember? 50 is the benchmark. apparently not, to you, do your own reading, thinkprogress and media matters is a lousy information source.

 

[Trajan]

If the Republicans actually thought tax reform was a priority, where were they when the GIP had a president in the White House for 8 long year and with majorities in both Houses of Congress for 6.

Do you think that a GOP Treasury Secretary's response would have been any different, if the situation was reversed and there was a Republican president sitting in the White House?

Based on the last 4 years, John Boehner and the Republican House aren't the least bit interested in passing any progressive legislation that might improve the American economy and benefit the Democrats on November 6th.

The republicans only controlled both Houses for 4 years. And during those 4 years the Budget wasn't a problem.

not exactly true, but they did clear budgets, the rules changed in 1974, the dems have not fulfilled their duty period, as stipulated by the rules there in, that much is certain.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If the Republicans actually thought tax reform was a priority, where were they when the GIP had a president in the White House for 8 long year and with majorities in both Houses of Congress for 6.

Do you think that a GOP Treasury Secretary's response would have been any different, if the situation was reversed and there was a Republican president sitting in the White House?

Based on the last 4 years, John Boehner and the Republican House aren't the least bit interested in passing any progressive legislation that might improve the American economy and benefit the Democrats on November 6th.

The republicans only controlled both Houses for 4 years. And during those 4 years the Budget wasn't a problem.

not exactly true, but they did clear budgets, the rules changed in 1974, the dems have not fulfilled their duty period, as stipulated by the rules there in, that much is certain.

The Republicans only controlled both houses from 2003 to 2006 and for 6 months in 2001. Care to tell us how bad the deficit was during those years?

 

[logical4u]

Point of fact, the Dems need 60 votes to be able to have the vote where they need 51 because the GOP filibusters everything.

And the Dems do not have 60.

Wrongo! You can't filibuster budget bills. They only need 51 votes to pass.

That is how the "Obama care" was passed. The senate did not have enough votes even with the majority. It was done in an under-handed way, the way of the dems.

 

[jgarden]

The republicans only controlled both Houses for 4 years. And during those 4 years the Budget wasn't a problem.

not exactly true, but they did clear budgets, the rules changed in 1974, the dems have not fulfilled their duty period, as stipulated by the rules there in, that much is certain.

The Republicans only controlled both houses from 2003 to 2006 and for 6 months in 2001. Care to tell us how bad the deficit was during those years?

107th Congress (2001-2002)
House - 222 Republicans, 210 Democrats
Senate - 50 Republicans, 50 Democrats (Dick Cheney, VP, serves as Speaker and decicing vote)

108th Congress (2003-2004)
House - 229 Republicans, 205 Democrats
Senate - 51 Republicans, 49 Democrats

109th Congress (2005-2006)
House - 222 Republicans, 201 Democrats
Senate - 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

 

[Oddball]

Because that’s not their goal, that’s a partisan contrivance.

It’s Congress’ responsibility to address the issues of spending and deficits, with the House taking lead, not the Executive.

Now, if the House were to come up with a responsible, comprehensive plan, one that doesn’t attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, working class, and disabled, and devoid of partisan idiocy, the Administration would likely enter into talks in good faith to turn such a plan into law.

C'mon dude, this is ridiculous. There's no excuse for the Senate to put out their own plan and at least try to work out a compromise with the House version or the President's. The Senate only needs 51 votes to pass a budget, and they got 53. Don't be laying this on the House, they did send up a budget, whatever you think about it. So did the president, as ridiculous as it was; the Senate voted down last year's version 97-0, this year's version would probably result in the same outcome. What we have here is rank cowardice and irresponsibility on the part of the Senate, in the military we called it dereliction of duty.

they've been laying it on thick with the do nothing congress jazz for so long clayton doesn't realize hes been had.

I'm beginning to believe that he's a paid DNC apparatchik, like Pinkbeard.

 

[bripat9643]

When have they ever been shy about saying they want it repealed? So does most of America.

Of course we know that....Republicans have no desire for Americans to have affordable healthcare.

That is why they have blocked it for 20 years

Obamacare does nothing to lower the cost of healthcare. In fact, it increases the cost for most Americans so some freeloaders and illegal aliens can get it for nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

Point of fact, the Dems need 60 votes to be able to have the vote where they need 51 because the GOP filibusters everything.

And the Dems do not have 60.

Wrongo! You can't filibuster budget bills. They only need 51 votes to pass.

That is how the "Obama care" was passed. The senate did not have enough votes even with the majority. It was done in an under-handed way, the way of the dems.

They had a Senate majority...how is that underhanded?

The Republican filibuster was underhanded

 

[rightwinger]

When have they ever been shy about saying they want it repealed? So does most of America.

Of course we know that....Republicans have no desire for Americans to have affordable healthcare.

That is why they have blocked it for 20 years

Obamacare does nothing to lower the cost of healthcare. In fact, it increases the cost for most Americans so some freeloaders and illegal aliens can get it for nothing.

Those who have health insurance don't have to worry about losing their house if they get sick

Republicans don't give a shit

 

[RetiredGySgt]

not exactly true, but they did clear budgets, the rules changed in 1974, the dems have not fulfilled their duty period, as stipulated by the rules there in, that much is certain.

The Republicans only controlled both houses from 2003 to 2006 and for 6 months in 2001. Care to tell us how bad the deficit was during those years?

107th Congress (2001-2002)
House - 222 Republicans, 210 Democrats
Senate - 50 Republicans, 50 Democrats

108th Congress (2003-2004)
House - 229 Republicans, 205 Democrats
Senate - 51 Republicans, 49 Democrats

109th Congress (2005-2006)
House - 222 Republicans, 201 Democrats
Senate - 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats

Ok dumb ass, we have another one.

107th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The dems controlled the Senate from June 2001 until Nov 2002 because a Republican changed to Independent and caucused with the Dems. Pretty simple concept. They only ost it in Nov 2002 because Wellstone died.

 

[bripat9643]

Obamacare does nothing to lower the cost of healthcare. In fact, it increases the cost for most Americans so some freeloaders and illegal aliens can get it for nothing.

Those who have health insurance don't have to worry about losing their house if they get sick

Republicans don't give a shit

People who can't afford health insurance probably can't afford to own a home either.

The evidence shows that Democrats wouldn't donate a dime of their own money to help people without insurance, so it's obvious they don't give a shit. They always want someone else to pay the cost of their schemes.