What happened to all the changes?

[Firehorse]

Obama, for the first two and a half years was able to pass anything that he (and his party) wanted. There were things on his table that his party cared about, those things that he inherited and those things that happened sense.

My question is simple, what happened?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but what remember is Obamacare and Gays serving opening in military now.*

That's it

Did I miss something?

Two years with the ability to pass whatever you want and that's all we got?

Two years free reign to fix all that is wrong with the country.*

Housing market ... Nope
Deficit ... Nope
Wall street fraud ... Nope
Recession ... Nope
Job market .... Nope
Energy independance ... Nope
Gitmo closed forever ... Nope
Troops out of [ insert country name ] ... Nope
Ending of racial tensions ... Nope
Social security .... Nope

In truth, Obama care doesn't kick in till 2014 ... So ...

Medical coverage .... Nope

That's a lot of "Nope" for having free reign and promising change.

So my question is this ... Why didn't much more happen?*

I would think that when you own every house of government, that you could make some serious headway in tackling those issues that are hot buttons, and fix them to your liking because what the otger party wants doesn't matter as they don't have the votes to stop you.*

Why is gitmo still open? Why is the rest of the countries issues still an issue after one party had complete control?*

 

[Oddball]

Hope became Nope.

 

[WatertheTree]

Only thing that sucks more then Obama is

 

[code1211]

Obama, for the first two and a half years was able to pass anything that he (and his party) wanted. There were things on his table that his party cared about, those things that he inherited and those things that happened sense.

My question is simple, what happened?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but what remember is Obamacare and Gays serving opening in military now.*

That's it

Did I miss something?

Two years with the ability to pass whatever you want and that's all we got?

Two years free reign to fix all that is wrong with the country.*

Housing market ... Nope
Deficit ... Nope
Wall street fraud ... Nope
Recession ... Nope
Job market .... Nope
Energy independance ... Nope
Gitmo closed forever ... Nope
Troops out of [ insert country name ] ... Nope
Ending of racial tensions ... Nope
Social security .... Nope

In truth, Obama care doesn't kick in till 2014 ... So ...

Medical coverage .... Nope

That's a lot of "Nope" for having free reign and promising change.

So my question is this ... Why didn't much more happen?*

I would think that when you own every house of government, that you could make some serious headway in tackling those issues that are hot buttons, and fix them to your liking because what the otger party wants doesn't matter as they don't have the votes to stop you.*

Why is gitmo still open? Why is the rest of the countries issues still an issue after one party had complete control?*

You must have something there. The Big 0 probably wanted his slogan to be

"Nope on Change",

but when it came back from the printer with millions of bumper stickers and posters it said

"Hope and Change"

and they just went with it.

You have a behind the scenes expose' coming out soon?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yeah Blue dog dems who voted with republicans didn't exist. They "could've" passed anything if the dems voted in lockstep like the repubs. But since they don't and won't your point if null and void of reality.

 

[code1211]

Only thing that sucks more then Obama is

I miss the days of the old Strategery. Learning new words is fun and exciting hobby. Every time W gave a speech, it was likely he'd come up with a combination of words that would make Yogi Berra scratch his head.

On the other hand, the Big 0 has visited 57 states, so he has creativity in the realm of geography. Also in Constitutional Law and how to ignor it. That's less amusing than it is terrifying, but still, it's something.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that believed that Americans were smart and capable and that we didn't need to invade another country every 16 months?

Which party's members would vote for a candidate who demanded of us citizens to "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country!"

I've got a feeling that those folks are not in his party today.

 

[percysunshine]

Bombing Libya is new.

 

[code1211]

Yeah Blue dog dems who voted with republicans didn't exist. They "could've" passed anything if the dems voted in lockstep like the repubs. But since they don't and won't your point if null and void of reality.

Right. Gridlock is the complete and total fault of the minority party that could be utterly ignored and swept aside in the House and that only needed ONE VOTE to cross over to the Dems in the Senate and the measure would pass.

Are you high? The only thing that was desired by the Democrats to not pass anything.

If you are buying the claim that the Republicans were stopping anything, you're just the kind of voter the Dems are looking for.

For 240 years, bills have passed with comprimise legislation and the Dems just couldn't seem to make that happen when all they needed was to entice ONE VOTE.

ONE VOTE.

 

[Oddball]

Only thing that sucks more then Obama is

Really?....That's the best you can say in favor of Boiking?

Are your standards really that low?

That 'splains a lot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Did I miss something?

Yes, the US Constitution – Article II says nothing about the president being a dictator ruling via fiat.

Congress is responsible for addressing the Nation’s issues, the House takes lead.

During 2009 and 2010 Senate republicans successfully blocked much of the Administration’s proposed legislation. The GOP became known as the ‘Party of No.’

In 2011 the House assumed Senate republicans’ obstructionist role.

As stated by the Senate Minority Leader, the GOP’s primary goal is to ‘get rid of Obama,’ not create jobs or address the economy. To realize that goal the GOP leadership reasoned that by preventing measures that might heal the economy the president would be blamed for the continued high unemployment and fail to win re-election.

Indeed, the GOP feared that if they joined the president in implementing measures to address the economy, economic growth might result and jobs created, increasing the president’s chances in November 2012.

For the GOP it’s about winning back the WH, not what’s best for the Nation.

You should now be up to speed.

 

[Greenbeard]

A bit of perspective on just this subject from someone with some experience in this area:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c87Zg6D8ck]Change[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Did I miss something?

Yes, the US Constitution – Article II says nothing about the president being a dictator ruling via fiat.

Congress is responsible for addressing the Nation’s issues, the House takes lead.

During 2009 and 2010 Senate republicans successfully blocked much of the Administration’s proposed legislation. The GOP became known as the ‘Party of No.’

In 2011 the House assumed Senate republicans’ obstructionist role.

As stated by the Senate Minority Leader, the GOP’s primary goal is to ‘get rid of Obama,’ not create jobs or address the economy. To realize that goal the GOP leadership reasoned that by preventing measures that might heal the economy the president would be blamed for the continued high unemployment and fail to win re-election.

Indeed, the GOP feared that if they joined the president in implementing measures to address the economy, economic growth might result and jobs created, increasing the president’s chances in November 2012.

For the GOP it’s about winning back the WH, not what’s best for the Nation.

You should now be up to speed.

For two years Democrats in Congress did not need a single GOP vote to pass legislation. Their biggest problem was their own membership. Remember the Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase?
The Dems ran in '06 and '08 on changing the system, fiscal responsibility, and "the most ethical congress in history." They have failed at every turn. Dems are interested in power for Dems are their union thug supporters. THey have no interest in what is good for Americans. If they did they never would have passed the Porkulus Bill.

 

[editec]

Its not just the TEA PARTY asking THOSE questions, Fire.

The left, that is to say the REAL left, started asking those questions, fairly soon after O took office.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Code are you saying blue dog dems didn't vote w/ repubs?

 

[The T]

Did I miss something?

Yes, the US Constitution – Article II says nothing about the president being a dictator ruling via fiat.

Congress is responsible for addressing the Nation’s issues, the House takes lead.

During 2009 and 2010 Senate republicans successfully blocked much of the Administration’s proposed legislation. The GOP became known as the ‘Party of No.’

In 2011 the House assumed Senate republicans’ obstructionist role.

As stated by the Senate Minority Leader, the GOP’s primary goal is to ‘get rid of Obama,’ not create jobs or address the economy. To realize that goal the GOP leadership reasoned that by preventing measures that might heal the economy the president would be blamed for the continued high unemployment and fail to win re-election.

Indeed, the GOP feared that if they joined the president in implementing measures to address the economy, economic growth might result and jobs created, increasing the president’s chances in November 2012.

For the GOP it’s about winning back the WH, not what’s best for the Nation.

You should now be up to speed.

For two years Democrats in Congress did not need a single GOP vote to pass legislation. Their biggest problem was their own membership. Remember the Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase?
The Dems ran in '06 and '08 on changing the system, fiscal responsibility, and "the most ethical congress in history." They have failed at every turn. Dems are interested in power for Dems are their union thug supporters. THey have no interest in what is good for Americans. If they did they never would have passed the Porkulus Bill.

Pelosi and the Statist Democrats lost the House as a result.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They didn't need any GOP votes but they did need blue dogs to vote with the dems which didn't happen. But if you ignore hat then yeah, it's easy to repeat that narrative. Reality is a little different tho.

 

[code1211]

Code are you saying blue dog dems didn't vote w/ repubs?

I'm saying that the Democrat Cuacuses had a majority in the House and and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate until the death of Senator Kennedy. Following that, all they needed to do was put together legislation that would attarct one single Republican vote in the Senate to pass anything.

The fact that they could not handle this speaks volumes on the quality of legislation and leadership that the Dems promoted.

Why are you asking about the Blue Dogs? Are they democrats or not? Do they caucus with the Dems or not? Do the serve as Democrats on committees or not?

If the legislation proposed is so heinous that only the socialist wing of the party will accept it without bribes, kickbacks, special favors or threats, what does that tell YOU about the legislation proposed?