The Party of "Do Nothing"

[thereisnospoon]

Recently before Congress Treasury Secretary Geithner responded to a question from Rep. Paul Ryan saying, "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."

As Guy Benson at Townhall put it:
Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office. What a disgrace. Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the "do nothing," intransigent, "party of no."

Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog > Which is the "Do Nothing" Party?


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.

Most politicians, without regard to the jersey they wear will do what is politically expedient before they act on conscience.
As voters, our job is to select the candidates which we believe are most likely to be less politician and more of a statesman.
At the end of the day, Moderates suck.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

In 2001 the Republicans had something bigger than a Senate Majority.......they had 9-11. Bush was given free hand to do anything he needed to fight terrorism. Resisting the Republican bills, even if they had little to do with fighting terrorism was labeled as unpatriotic

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From the link.
The following is what happened and is viewable on the chart at the link.
On June 6th 2001 the Republicans went from 50 to 49 losing their tenuous hold on the Senate. The defector went independent and caucused with the Dems who then had 49 and 2 Independents nullifying the position of Vice President as tie Breaker.

This remained true until a break in late October 2002 when Wellstone died and the Republicans regained control of the Senate in November when the Break was over.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

In 2001 the Republicans had something bigger than a Senate Majority.......they had 9-11. Bush was given free hand to do anything he needed to fight terrorism. Resisting the Republican bills, even if they had little to do with fighting terrorism was labeled as unpatriotic

And yet they refused to place into office any of his Judges, Ambassadors or other Executive appointees , ya Bush had complete control alright. Remind us again how 59 Senators did not control the Senate from 2009 to 2011. But somehow 49 did in 2001 and 2002.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

those groups are precisely the ones who's backs SHOULD be burdened. Social spending is over 50% of the US federal budget and climbing.
Entitlement spending has gone out of control. It is used not to cure the ills of the poor, but to insure the recipients keep those who render the giveaways continued power in government.
This is another example of the need for Congressional term limits and the outlawing of Congress' Lame Duck Sessions. Which is where most irresponsible spending is generated.
No is suggestion cutting off social spending. However there is an urgent need to rein it in.
If those rowing the boat have to do with less, so should those riding in the boat. It's simple arithmetic.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

This is a democrat political strategy that allows them ( Obama as well) to blame the GOP for the lack of a budget bill....These people actually believe the American people are going to buy this nonsense.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

The ACA passed the Senate with 60 votes.

 

[jgarden]

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.

Dick Cheney (R) became Vice President of the United States, with the tie-breaking vote.

James Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and caucused with Democrats.

Paul Wellstone (D) died.

Dean Barkley (I-MN), who didn't caucus with either party, took Wellstone's seat.

Jim Talent (R) took Jean Carnahan's (D) seat, but there was no reorganization as Senate was out of session.

Phil Gramm (R) resigned

Senator-elect John Cornyn (R) was appointed to complete Gramm's term

The shifting of seats in the Senate during the 107th Congress is even complicated than the "Retired "dumb ass" GySgt;4838494" would have us believe.

107th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

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.

In 2001 the Republicans had something bigger than a Senate Majority.......they had 9-11. Bush was given free hand to do anything he needed to fight terrorism. Resisting the Republican bills, even if they had little to do with fighting terrorism was labeled as unpatriotic

And yet they refused to place into office any of his Judges, Ambassadors or other Executive appointees , ya Bush had complete control alright. Remind us again how 59 Senators did not control the Senate from 2009 to 2011. But somehow 49 did in 2001 and 2002.

Permanent filibuster by Republicans. Dems used it selectively

 

[daveman]

Recently before Congress Treasury Secretary Geithner responded to a question from Rep. Paul Ryan saying, "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."

As Guy Benson at Townhall put it:
Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office. What a disgrace. Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the "do nothing," intransigent, "party of no."

Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog > Which is the "Do Nothing" Party?


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.

Damn...that's a good one

Geitner nailed it and sent Ryan packing.
The Ryan plan is nothing but partisanship developed to sooth the Republican base

So what do you call the Obama budget?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Don't any of you ever get tired and bored? You must.

 

[daveman]

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.

There is no Constitutional provision for the government to be in the healthcare business.

 

[Cuyo]

What do you expect from a tax cheat who finds himself in charge of the IRS?

It ain't just Geithner, it's the whole democratic party from Obama on down. Too scared to lay it out there, they talk the talk about cutting deficits and then they come out with a bullshit budget that counts money we weren't going to spend over the next 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan as spending cuts!

If they told the truth: we, the dems are trying to eliminate the Constitution, and replace it with an elite bunch of democrats as dictators, they would never be elected again. When they say: let's get those evil rich people, their followers miss it.

What a potent bit of stupidity. Is there nothing that daveman won't 'Thank?'

 

[Cuyo]

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

Zackly. They talk about proposed HC solutions, then they're in power and nothing happens.

The debate only takes place when Dems are in control.

 

[rightwinger]

Recently before Congress Treasury Secretary Geithner responded to a question from Rep. Paul Ryan saying, "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."

As Guy Benson at Townhall put it:
Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office. What a disgrace. Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the "do nothing," intransigent, "party of no."

Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog > Which is the "Do Nothing" Party?


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.

Damn...that's a good one

Geitner nailed it and sent Ryan packing.
The Ryan plan is nothing but partisanship developed to sooth the Republican base

So what do you call the Obama budget?

I call it reality in 2012

Congress cannot accomplish the simplest task. Expecting them to pass a budget is unrealistic.

Just another case of Republicans giggling because they have created a deadlock that Obama cannot get around

 

[Cuyo]

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

Nonsense. Around half disapprove, and half of those because it doesn't go far enough. ~25% take you're 'overreach' position.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

There is no Constitutional provision for the government to be in the healthcare business.

Or to go to the moon either

 

[Cuyo]

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.

No, if you research, I think you'll find the initial Senate version passed in the normal course of events, and only the recon bill passed with a simple majority.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Based on your idiotic posts, I've concluded that you don't understand a lick of what "Obamacare" actually is.

 

[Greenbeard]

Based on your idiotic posts, I've concluded that you don't understand a lick of what "Obamacare" actually is.

Certainly based on this thread the major Medicare reform component doesn't seem to be recognized. Nor did I notice any mention of the enormous decline in Medicare spending growth in the two years since its passage.