The Facts About Obama's Economic Record

[pinqy]

The percentage of older workers has gone up slightly since the Boomers started retiring, but part time workers aren't counted in the workforce numbers. Only full time workers are included.

Where on earth did you get that idea? It's not true.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans

Exactly, when govt has all the power business/govt becomes fascist or crony capitalist. Obamacare is another perfect example. There are 4000 lobbyists for each Senator. Liberalism begs for corruption.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans

and nothing on Democrats because Democrats, being commie and stupid, were content to let Freddie go on running wild buying up all the sub prime and Alt A mortgages in the entire world.

 

[Dragonlady]

Fannie and Freddie weren't buying up all the subprime mortgages, that would be Goldman Sachs, ING, and the other Wall Street banks, who used bailout money to pay bonuses to the assholes who created the bubble in the first place.

Don't you ever get tired of lying about Republicans Eddie? Or do you just put on your knee pads and thank them for screwing you over yet again?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fannie and Freddie weren't buying up all the subprime mortgages,

actually dear they held 31 million of them which was 76% of all the Alt A and subprime mortgages

Barney Frank before crisis:
"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank



Barney Frank after crisis:

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"

 

[Faun]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's. I challenged you to cite the bill Democrats filibustered in the Senate, which was the only way they could have blocked the majority party Republicans, and you couldn't find a single one.

Oh, and have you learned yet what happened to the one bill passed in the House?

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans who were originally in favor of the regulatory bill, to change their support and to oppose the Hagel Regulatory bill, this is why it was never brought to the floor and passed with the Republican majority...

Rampant Corruption Plagues Washington Why Fannie and Freddie Are Not Completely to Blame for the Credit Crisis Writing Program Boston University
For example, one freshly exposed lobbying scandal showed that, in 2005, Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm about $2 million to put an end to potential legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae. The legislation, put forth by a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, would have overhauled the regulatory system currently in place.13 At the time, most Republican senators supported the bill. Unknown to Hagel and the senators who supported his plan, DCI, the consulting firm, was undermining his efforts by targeting and convincing various Republican senators to drop support for Hagel’s bill. In the end, there was not enough Republican support to warrant even bringing it to the floor for a vote

That can't be true! According to the nutty right, Democrats blocked majority party Republicans from passing reform.

........ of course, I'm still waiting for the first rightard to prove it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's. I challenged you to cite the bill Democrats filibustered in the Senate, which was the only way they could have blocked the majority party Republicans, and you couldn't find a single one.

Oh, and have you learned yet what happened to the one bill passed in the House?

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans who were originally in favor of the regulatory bill, to change their support and to oppose the Hagel Regulatory bill, this is why it was never brought to the floor and passed with the Republican majority...

Rampant Corruption Plagues Washington Why Fannie and Freddie Are Not Completely to Blame for the Credit Crisis Writing Program Boston University
For example, one freshly exposed lobbying scandal showed that, in 2005, Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm about $2 million to put an end to potential legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae. The legislation, put forth by a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, would have overhauled the regulatory system currently in place.13 At the time, most Republican senators supported the bill. Unknown to Hagel and the senators who supported his plan, DCI, the consulting firm, was undermining his efforts by targeting and convincing various Republican senators to drop support for Hagel’s bill. In the end, there was not enough Republican support to warrant even bringing it to the floor for a vote

That can't be true! According to the nutty right, Democrats blocked majority party Republicans from passing reform.

........ of course, I'm still waiting for the first rightard to prove it.

dear, Republicans tend to be far more conservative than Democrats so any capitalist reforms to keep Fan /Fred from buying all the world's Sub prime and Alt A mortgages was obviously Republican.

Do you understand now?

 

[Faun]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's. I challenged you to cite the bill Democrats filibustered in the Senate, which was the only way they could have blocked the majority party Republicans, and you couldn't find a single one.

Oh, and have you learned yet what happened to the one bill passed in the House?

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans who were originally in favor of the regulatory bill, to change their support and to oppose the Hagel Regulatory bill, this is why it was never brought to the floor and passed with the Republican majority...

Rampant Corruption Plagues Washington Why Fannie and Freddie Are Not Completely to Blame for the Credit Crisis Writing Program Boston University
For example, one freshly exposed lobbying scandal showed that, in 2005, Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm about $2 million to put an end to potential legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae. The legislation, put forth by a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, would have overhauled the regulatory system currently in place.13 At the time, most Republican senators supported the bill. Unknown to Hagel and the senators who supported his plan, DCI, the consulting firm, was undermining his efforts by targeting and convincing various Republican senators to drop support for Hagel’s bill. In the end, there was not enough Republican support to warrant even bringing it to the floor for a vote

That can't be true! According to the nutty right, Democrats blocked majority party Republicans from passing reform.

........ of course, I'm still waiting for the first rightard to prove it.

dear, Republicans tend to be far more conservative than Democrats so any capitalist reforms to keep Fan /Fred from buying all the world's Sub prime and Alt A mortgages was obviously Republican.

Do you understand now?

I understand that in a debate about baby boomers retiring, you trotted out numbers of 18-64 year olds.

I also understand that Conservatism is a failed ideology. At its most basic premise, it insists if a Conservative policy fails, it must have been a Liberal policy. The more one avoids personal responsibility, the more Conservatism one is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I also understand that Conservatism is a failed ideology..

exactly, China just switched to conservative capitalism from liberalism and instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty!! East Germany did far better than West Germany too. And Cuba does better than FLA.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it insists if a Conservative policy fails, it must have been a Liberal policy..

dear, give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here.

 

[Faun]

it insists if a Conservative policy fails, it must have been a Liberal policy..

dear, give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here.

Trickle down economics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it insists if a Conservative policy fails, it must have been a Liberal policy..

dear, give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here.

Trickle down economics.

100% stupid of course since trickle down is not a conservative policy let alone one that failed and is termed a liberal policy by conservatives.

Do you grasp that a liberal lacks the IQ for discussion?

so once again dear, give your best example or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here or to support anything you say.

 

[Faun]

it insists if a Conservative policy fails, it must have been a Liberal policy..

dear, give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here.

Trickle down economics.

100% stupid of course since trickle down is not a conservative policy let alone one that failed and is termed a liberal policy by conservatives.

Do you grasp that a liberal lacks the IQ for discussion?

so once again dear, give your best example or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here or to support anything you say.

Of course it's Conservative policy. You're ability to comprehend that is not really required. But like I said, the core tenet of Conservatism is rebranding any Conservative policy that fails as Liberal. You know, just like you're doing now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Of course it's Conservative policy.

if it is show us a conservative who agrees or admit to being a liar and stupid

 

[mikegriffith1]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's. I challenged you to cite the bill Democrats filibustered in the Senate, which was the only way they could have blocked the majority party Republicans, and you couldn't find a single one.

Oh, and have you learned yet what happened to the one bill passed in the House?

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans who were originally in favor of the regulatory bill, to change their support and to oppose the Hagel Regulatory bill, this is why it was never brought to the floor and passed with the Republican majority...

Rampant Corruption Plagues Washington Why Fannie and Freddie Are Not Completely to Blame for the Credit Crisis Writing Program Boston University
For example, one freshly exposed lobbying scandal showed that, in 2005, Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm about $2 million to put an end to potential legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae. The legislation, put forth by a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, would have overhauled the regulatory system currently in place.13 At the time, most Republican senators supported the bill. Unknown to Hagel and the senators who supported his plan, DCI, the consulting firm, was undermining his efforts by targeting and convincing various Republican senators to drop support for Hagel’s bill. In the end, there was not enough Republican support to warrant even bringing it to the floor for a vote

That can't be true! According to the nutty right, Democrats blocked majority party Republicans from passing reform.

........ of course, I'm still waiting for the first rightard to prove it.

Uh, it's a matter of historical fact that anyone can verify via the Congressional Record. Democrats had enough votes in the Senate to block anything that required a super-majority. How can you not know this?

 

[Faun]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's. I challenged you to cite the bill Democrats filibustered in the Senate, which was the only way they could have blocked the majority party Republicans, and you couldn't find a single one.

Oh, and have you learned yet what happened to the one bill passed in the House?

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans who were originally in favor of the regulatory bill, to change their support and to oppose the Hagel Regulatory bill, this is why it was never brought to the floor and passed with the Republican majority...

Rampant Corruption Plagues Washington Why Fannie and Freddie Are Not Completely to Blame for the Credit Crisis Writing Program Boston University
For example, one freshly exposed lobbying scandal showed that, in 2005, Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm about $2 million to put an end to potential legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae. The legislation, put forth by a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, would have overhauled the regulatory system currently in place.13 At the time, most Republican senators supported the bill. Unknown to Hagel and the senators who supported his plan, DCI, the consulting firm, was undermining his efforts by targeting and convincing various Republican senators to drop support for Hagel’s bill. In the end, there was not enough Republican support to warrant even bringing it to the floor for a vote

That can't be true! According to the nutty right, Democrats blocked majority party Republicans from passing reform.

........ of course, I'm still waiting for the first rightard to prove it.

Uh, it's a matter of historical fact that anyone can verify via the Congressional Record. Democrats had enough votes in the Senate to block anything that required a super-majority. How can you not know this?

Wow. That's one of the sloppiest surrenders I've ever seen here.

The challenge wasn't for to show there were at least 41 Democrat Senators who could then invoke a filibuster to block the majority party Republicans ...

... it was for you to prove they actually did filibuster to block the majority party Republicans.

 

[Faun]

Of course it's Conservative policy.

if it is show us a conservative who agrees or admit to being a liar and stupid

Ronald Reagan.

 

[edthecynic]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's. I challenged you to cite the bill Democrats filibustered in the Senate, which was the only way they could have blocked the majority party Republicans, and you couldn't find a single one.

Oh, and have you learned yet what happened to the one bill passed in the House?

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans who were originally in favor of the regulatory bill, to change their support and to oppose the Hagel Regulatory bill, this is why it was never brought to the floor and passed with the Republican majority...

Rampant Corruption Plagues Washington Why Fannie and Freddie Are Not Completely to Blame for the Credit Crisis Writing Program Boston University
For example, one freshly exposed lobbying scandal showed that, in 2005, Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm about $2 million to put an end to potential legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae. The legislation, put forth by a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, would have overhauled the regulatory system currently in place.13 At the time, most Republican senators supported the bill. Unknown to Hagel and the senators who supported his plan, DCI, the consulting firm, was undermining his efforts by targeting and convincing various Republican senators to drop support for Hagel’s bill. In the end, there was not enough Republican support to warrant even bringing it to the floor for a vote

That can't be true! According to the nutty right, Democrats blocked majority party Republicans from passing reform.

........ of course, I'm still waiting for the first rightard to prove it.

Uh, it's a matter of historical fact that anyone can verify via the Congressional Record. Democrats had enough votes in the Senate to block anything that required a super-majority. How can you not know this?

Except the reform bills were blocked in the GOP controlled House, for the most part, where only a majority vote is needed. The Rare Senate bill was blocked by the GOP Senate majority leader refusing to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Of course it's Conservative policy.

if it is show us a conservative who agrees or admit to being a liar and stupid

Ronald Reagan.

dear, show where Reagan agrees and I'll pay you $10,000.

Bet??? or admit with your silence or attempts to change subject to being an typical brain dead liberal.