More Myths of Obamanomics

[The Rabbi]

... Those two caucused with the democrats. Leiberman voted along party lines over 90% of the time. Unreliable?

100% is reliable. 90% isn't.

90% is reliable, esp when it rose to 100% on domestic matters.
The spin of the Left is hysterical. They totally control government and then try to weasel out of blame when they inevitably fuck things up.

 

[The Rabbi]

No.

The Democrats didn't have 60 seats, counting the two I's, until Al Franken was seated on July 7th, 2009. At the same time, Ted Kennedy was not voting because of his medical issues. Once Kennedy passed, Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24th, 2009 to give the Democrats 60 votes which they held until Scott Brown was seated on Feb 4th, 2010.

The Democrats had 60 votes for about 19 weeks which includes a 2 week break between sessions.

You're splitting hairs. The truth is the Dems controlled the instruments of power in toto. They passed all the legislation they wanted with zero input from the GOP. So any claims that things suck because of teh GOP is simply a lie.

Splitting hairs? No. You said they had a filibuster proof majority for 2 years when they didn't. They didn't pass all the legislation they wanted to because they couldn't get it through the Senate for most of those 2 years.

What a joker. yeah tell me which pieces of legislation the GOP blocked. Be specific.

 

[Meister]

You're splitting hairs. The truth is the Dems controlled the instruments of power in toto. They passed all the legislation they wanted with zero input from the GOP. So any claims that things suck because of teh GOP is simply a lie.

Splitting hairs? No. You said they had a filibuster proof majority for 2 years when they didn't. They didn't pass all the legislation they wanted to because they couldn't get it through the Senate for most of those 2 years.

What a joker. yeah tell me which pieces of legislation the GOP blocked. Be specific.

Probably "cap & Trade". That was a real winner for them if it had passed, not so much for Americans

 

[Meister]

... Those two caucused with the democrats. Leiberman voted along party lines over 90% of the time. Unreliable?

100% is reliable. 90% isn't.

90% isn't reliable?
Are you just being a screwball?

100% is just "lockstep" no matter if it's bad or good. Those are called Obamabots, or, I refer to them as "goons".

 

[Joe Steel]

100% is reliable. 90% isn't.

90% isn't reliable?

...

100% is just "lockstep" no matter if it's bad or good. ...

That's what it takes when we're talking about filibusters and legislation.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. It's not just Bush's fault. It's the Republicans' fault, too. They obstructed the recovery measures the Democrats tried to implement. Don't blame only George Bush.

By the way, the article you linked is behind a pay wall. What's the point of linking it?

Which recovery efforts did they obstruct?

Certainly none during the first two years of the recovery.

But since then?

What efforts?

The stimulus. It was far smaller than it had to be.

It was the largest that had been discussed. It grew after the administration's initial proposal. How big would it have to be?? A trillion dollars wasnt enough??

 

[The Rabbi]

100% is reliable. 90% isn't.

90% isn't reliable?

...

100% is just "lockstep" no matter if it's bad or good. ...

That's what it takes when we're talking about filibusters and legislation.

Please show me where any Dems joined the GOP in a filibuster during those 2years. I'll wait.

 

[AceRothstein]

You're splitting hairs. The truth is the Dems controlled the instruments of power in toto. They passed all the legislation they wanted with zero input from the GOP. So any claims that things suck because of teh GOP is simply a lie.

Splitting hairs? No. You said they had a filibuster proof majority for 2 years when they didn't. They didn't pass all the legislation they wanted to because they couldn't get it through the Senate for most of those 2 years.

What a joker. yeah tell me which pieces of legislation the GOP blocked. Be specific.

Here is a full list for you.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > 111th

 

[The Rabbi]

Splitting hairs? No. You said they had a filibuster proof majority for 2 years when they didn't. They didn't pass all the legislation they wanted to because they couldn't get it through the Senate for most of those 2 years.

What a joker. yeah tell me which pieces of legislation the GOP blocked. Be specific.

Here is a full list for you.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > 111th

Please show which ones harmed the economy. Also which ones were not resubmitted subsequently.
It will be hard to win this argument, given the blatant fact is that as Rahm Emmanuel said, Fuck 'em, we've got the votes.

 

[Joe Steel]

90% isn't reliable?

...

100% is just "lockstep" no matter if it's bad or good. ...

That's what it takes when we're talking about filibusters and legislation.

Please show me where any Dems joined the GOP in a filibuster during those 2years. I'll wait.

That's not important. The threat of a filibuster is what's important. One side won't introduce legislation if they think it successfully will be filibuster. That's bad politics. As long as Lieberman and Nelson were a threat they controlled the legislation brought up for a vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's what it takes when we're talking about filibusters and legislation.

Please show me where any Dems joined the GOP in a filibuster during those 2years. I'll wait.

That's not important. The threat of a filibuster is what's important. One side won't introduce legislation if they think it successfully will be filibuster. That's bad politics. As long as Lieberman and Nelson were a threat they controlled the legislation brought up for a vote.

Where did Lieberman or Nelson threaten a filibuster of any Democrat legislation? Be specific.

 

[Joe Steel]

That's not important. The threat of a filibuster is what's important. One side won't introduce legislation if they think it successfully will be filibuster. That's bad politics. As long as Lieberman and Nelson were a threat they controlled the legislation brought up for a vote.

Where did Lieberman or Nelson threaten a filibuster of any Democrat legislation? Be specific.

They didn't have to threaten a filibuster or threaten to join a filibuster explicitly. All they had to do was make clear to Senate leadership they were ideologically opposed to some piece of legislation. They could do that in floor speeches or casual conversations without being explicit.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's not important. The threat of a filibuster is what's important. One side won't introduce legislation if they think it successfully will be filibuster. That's bad politics. As long as Lieberman and Nelson were a threat they controlled the legislation brought up for a vote.

Where did Lieberman or Nelson threaten a filibuster of any Democrat legislation? Be specific.

They didn't have to threaten a filibuster or threaten to join a filibuster explicitly. All they had to do was make clear to Senate leadership they were ideologically opposed to some piece of legislation. They could do that in floor speeches or casual conversations without being explicit.

So let me get this straight: You're suggesting that the reason the economy sucks is because Joe Lieberman and/or Ben Nelson (the same one who was bought off for Obamacare) stopped the Democrats' wonderous plans for the economy by having a conversation in the Senate Men's Room. Is that about it?
I couldn't make that up if I tried.

 

[Joe Steel]

... They didn't have to threaten a filibuster or threaten to join a filibuster explicitly. All they had to do was make clear to Senate leadership they were ideologically opposed to some piece of legislation. They could do that in floor speeches or casual conversations without being explicit.

So let me get this straight: You're suggesting that the reason the economy sucks is because Joe Lieberman and/or Ben Nelson (the same one who was bought off for Obamacare) stopped the Democrats' wonderous plans for the economy by having a conversation in the Senate Men's Room. Is that about it?

I couldn't make that up if I tried.

Apparently you can't understand it either.

I never said it was the reason for Republican obstruction of the Democrats' economic policy. I was explaining your error to you. The Democrats might have had nominal control of Congress by virtue of counts by D or R. As a practical matter, however, they didn't. The Republicans always had a very good chance of filibustering legislation because they couldn't count on Lieberman or Nelson.

 

[The Rabbi]

... They didn't have to threaten a filibuster or threaten to join a filibuster explicitly. All they had to do was make clear to Senate leadership they were ideologically opposed to some piece of legislation. They could do that in floor speeches or casual conversations without being explicit.

So let me get this straight: You're suggesting that the reason the economy sucks is because Joe Lieberman and/or Ben Nelson (the same one who was bought off for Obamacare) stopped the Democrats' wonderous plans for the economy by having a conversation in the Senate Men's Room. Is that about it?

I couldn't make that up if I tried.

Apparently you can't understand it either.

I never said it was the reason for Republican obstruction of the Democrats' economic policy. I was explaining your error to you. The Democrats might have had nominal control of Congress by virtue of counts by D or R. As a practical matter, however, they didn't. The Republicans always had a very good chance of filibustering legislation because they couldn't count on Lieberman or Nelson.

Pretty much what I wrote. And yeah, it doesnt pass the laugh test the second time either.
Remind me how many times previous either one of them supported a Republican filibuster.

 

[Joe Steel]

I never said it was the reason for Republican obstruction of the Democrats' economic policy. I was explaining your error to you. The Democrats might have had nominal control of Congress by virtue of counts by D or R. As a practical matter, however, they didn't. The Republicans always had a very good chance of filibustering legislation because [the Democrats] couldn't count on Lieberman or Nelson.

Pretty much what I wrote.

It's nothing at all what you wrote.

 

[The Rabbi]

I never said it was the reason for Republican obstruction of the Democrats' economic policy. I was explaining your error to you. The Democrats might have had nominal control of Congress by virtue of counts by D or R. As a practical matter, however, they didn't. The Republicans always had a very good chance of filibustering legislation because [the Democrats] couldn't count on Lieberman or Nelson.

Pretty much what I wrote.

It's nothing at all what you wrote.

It's exactly the same. And it still doesn't pass the laugh test.