Democrats CONTROL Congress and have since 2007

[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?

No Republicans invited? I guess you missed the months and months of "Gang of Six" talks.

 

[Polk]

Because the democrats realize that's it's an election year, they have lost 3 out of 4 elections so far, and they want it to look bipartisan.
I think that may be the answer to your question.

No that has absolutely nothing to do with my question. Why were the Republicans demanding no reconciliation?

I want to hear the genius OP answer this one. Fat chance.

Because the American people don't want this bill by overwhelming numbers. It doesn't address lowering costs, lowering premiums. Also, they may want to feel like they have some leverage when a bill is presented so that it stays bipartisan.

What do you think the motive is NY?

A bipartisan bill isn't possible. That requires both parties working together, and the GOP has said from the start that they will oppose HRC no matter what.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because the American people don't want this bill by overwhelming numbers. It doesn't address lowering costs, lowering premiums. Also, they may want to feel like they have some leverage when a bill is presented so that it stays bipartisan.

What do you think the motive is NY?

The motive to get reconciliation off the table? To facilitate/guarantee obstruction by the Republican minority.

Of course, that's it.

How can it not be it? How complicated is it to figure out the 41 Republicans' motive to keep things from being passed with 51 votes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, P.S.,

in 2007 and 2008, it took 2/3 of Congress to override a presidential veto.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're retarded. What was the cause and effect?

Democrats war on free enterprise and loathing of capitalism and multiple attempts to defeat our own military on the battlefield

DUH!

Bush was president in 2007/2008. How many vetoes did Congress override in 2007 - 2008?

Give me that number.

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.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

The most professional liars always have a germ of truth in their lies. That is just too professional a lie for YOU to have crafted it.

The Dems did not have a filibuster proof Senate in 2007 and 2008 and the GOP set a record for filibusters in 2007 and 2008.

So tell us, what legislation did the Dems get past the GOP filibusters and Bush's veto pen that crashed the economy in 2007 and 2008???????????????????????????????????????????

The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.
Samuel Butler

 

[Meister]

The motive to get reconciliation off the table? To facilitate/guarantee obstruction by the Republican minority.

Of course, that's it.

How can it not be it? How complicated is it to figure out the 41 Republicans' motive to keep things from being passed with 51 votes?

It's not as simple as you think. Yopu trust politicians a lot more than I do. What I see is a bipartisan bill by the senate, then goes to congress and they gut it, put in what they want, and have the 51 votes to pass it.

 

[CGerg72]

Adam Kinzinger and Steve Stivers are running against Democratic incumbents in Illinois' 11th district and Ohio's 15th district, respectively. Both Democratic incumbents supported cap and trade legislation, which causes businesses to reduce employments opportunities; not a good strategy in two districts crippled with unemployment. Also, they both support the excessive health-care revolution, against the interests and opinions of their constituents. Furthermore, Debbie Halvorson voted and fought for Obama's health-care package without hosting a single town-hall meeting to measure the feelings of her district. The bloated spending bills furthered by the extreme Democrats will only make a bad situation worse and a majority of the American people do not support these initiatives. Particularly, in the district's of interest. It is time for Representatives that will defend the interests of their district's to do the representing. Representatives like Adam Kinzinger and Steve Stivers.

 

[beowolfe]

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.

On the surface, it would appear that you are correct. And the simple minds will cheer you on. But the numbers are not everything, they are not even what you have described them to be. In the House, you are correct, and the House Dems have pass pretty much whatever they have wanted to pass.

The Senate is a different animal. Let's look at your claim to the Dems having 60 votes. There are 58 Dems, 40 Reps, and two independents (one of which is Lieberman who since 9-11 has turned pretty much into a republican or at the least a not reliable Dem vote). Also, when is the last time you saw Dems do ANYTHING in lockstep (and I'm not sure I'd want them to if my experience with the GOP is the example).

Secondly, in the Senate, unlike in the House, there is a little thing called a filibuster. You can't get to the point where 51 votes can pass a bill if you can't get past the filibuster and the number of filibusters has increased dramatically since the GOP lost congress. Senate operations have always been difficult for simple minds to understand. They are burdened with the outdated concept that the senate operates on a majority rule premise. It doesn't. It operates on a 60% rules premise. It takes 60 votes of the senate to vote to proceed to the step where 51 votes can pass a bill. BTW, rember when Chaneney threatened the 'nuclear option' when the GOP had control of the senate? And the Dems were screaming foul? Well that's because the Dems were filibustering something or the other and the GOP couldn't get to the point where 51 votes could passed the bill.

So, for you, and a whole lot of Dems, their supposed control in the senate was and is an illusion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

On the surface, it would appear that you are correct. And the simple minds will cheer you on. But the numbers are not everything, they are not even what you have described them to be. In the House, you are correct, and the House Dems have pass pretty much whatever they have wanted to pass.

The Senate is a different animal. Let's look at your claim to the Dems having 60 votes. There are 58 Dems, 40 Reps, and two independents (one of which is Lieberman who since 9-11 has turned pretty much into a republican or at the least a not reliable Dem vote). Also, when is the last time you saw Dems do ANYTHING in lockstep (and I'm not sure I'd want them to if my experience with the GOP is the example).

Secondly, in the Senate, unlike in the House, there is a little thing called a filibuster. You can't get to the point where 51 votes can pass a bill if you can't get past the filibuster and the number of filibusters has increased dramatically since the GOP lost congress. Senate operations have always been difficult for simple minds to understand. They are burdened with the outdated concept that the senate operates on a majority rule premise. It doesn't. It operates on a 60% rules premise. It takes 60 votes of the senate to vote to proceed to the step where 51 votes can pass a bill. BTW, rember when Chaneney threatened the 'nuclear option' when the GOP had control of the senate? And the Dems were screaming foul? Well that's because the Dems were filibustering something or the other and the GOP couldn't get to the point where 51 votes could passed the bill.

So, for you, and a whole lot of Dems, their supposed control in the senate was and is an illusion.

MORON alert. I don't EVER want to read where YOU have claimed Bush had control of the Senate while he was President. Since he never had more then 55 Senators.

 

[rdean]

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.

On the surface, it would appear that you are correct. And the simple minds will cheer you on. But the numbers are not everything, they are not even what you have described them to be. In the House, you are correct, and the House Dems have pass pretty much whatever they have wanted to pass.

The Senate is a different animal. Let's look at your claim to the Dems having 60 votes. There are 58 Dems, 40 Reps, and two independents (one of which is Lieberman who since 9-11 has turned pretty much into a republican or at the least a not reliable Dem vote). Also, when is the last time you saw Dems do ANYTHING in lockstep (and I'm not sure I'd want them to if my experience with the GOP is the example).

Secondly, in the Senate, unlike in the House, there is a little thing called a filibuster. You can't get to the point where 51 votes can pass a bill if you can't get past the filibuster and the number of filibusters has increased dramatically since the GOP lost congress. Senate operations have always been difficult for simple minds to understand. They are burdened with the outdated concept that the senate operates on a majority rule premise. It doesn't. It operates on a 60% rules premise. It takes 60 votes of the senate to vote to proceed to the step where 51 votes can pass a bill. BTW, rember when Chaneney threatened the 'nuclear option' when the GOP had control of the senate? And the Dems were screaming foul? Well that's because the Dems were filibustering something or the other and the GOP couldn't get to the point where 51 votes could passed the bill.

So, for you, and a whole lot of Dems, their supposed control in the senate was and is an illusion.

MORON alert. I don't EVER want to read where YOU have claimed Bush had control of the Senate while he was President. Since he never had more then 55 Senators.

You have to admit, Bush was really good at using the "You are with us or with the terrorists" card. Real good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democrats war on free enterprise and loathing of capitalism and multiple attempts to defeat our own military on the battlefield

DUH!

Bush was president in 2007/2008. How many vetoes did Congress override in 2007 - 2008?

Give me that number.

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?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush was president in 2007/2008. How many vetoes did Congress override in 2007 - 2008?

Give me that number.

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!!

 

[namvet]

the craps are gone in Nov and they know it. the reign of terror is coming to an end

 

[WillowTree]

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?

you talking about the one they had to BUY the votes for??? Meister.. remember TM don't matter much..

 

[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?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Are you still pretending to be a Republican?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Bush's veto? What the fuck is that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!!
http://www.barackobama.com/images/issues/economy/jobs_graph_large_feb10.gif[/IMG[/QUOTE]

Stop being a childish troll.