Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[francoHFW]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

The GOP blocks all that. Thanks. Most places already do your first paragraph. Unknown on the GOP propaganda service...

No they don't. Infact GWB increased benefits.

Irrelevant to the point. Dems were behind that of course.

 

[francoHFW]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

The GOP blocks all that. Thanks. Most places already do your first paragraph. Unknown on the GOP propaganda service...

It's really just a matter of requirements and accountability. No one receiving assistance should be offended that they're required to give something back to the community. They should actually do it with pride and enthusiasm. Giving back is good for the soul.

And possibly the biggest problem is that Government writes the checks and gives $Billions away in Freebies, but doesn't take an active role in finding jobs for recipients. Assisting in finding work would be a very wise investment for Government. It would eliminate the several Thousands who claim they can't find jobs. If they're able-bodied and refuse work, their assistance should end.

GOP blocks that of course. Investment I don't think so...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And, yet, here's a "Democrat/Progressive" endorsing exactly that - that public service be a part of public assistance. However do you explain me, in light of your gross over-generalization? I think it's hilarious how you characterize the agenda. We support immigration reform, because we need illegals - who can't vote - to vote. We support women's issues, not because it's right, but because we secretly hate women, and think they are too stupid to use birth control, but we need their vote. We support public assistance, because we're buying poor people's vote with free stuff.

Do you see a pattern here? While we progressives perceive issues of morality, and ethics, all you fake conservatives see is ways to sway voting blocks. One of us is certainly more focused on identity politics, than serving the people...

It's like I've said over and over: Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats. When you are a victim of poverty, you need a Democrat. When Republicans waged this supposed War on Women, you are a victim of Republican sexism. When Republicans want to throw your illegal ass out of the country, you are a victim of Republican racism. The list goes on and on.

Nearly everything the Democrat party does is to gain or maintain power. Oh sure, make it not look that way, but with Democrats, there is always an ulterior motive behind everything they do. Sometimes it's right in front of your face, other times you have to look behind what they set in front of you, but it's there, trust me, it's there.

 

[Czernobog]

And, yet, here's a "Democrat/Progressive" endorsing exactly that - that public service be a part of public assistance. However do you explain me, in light of your gross over-generalization? I think it's hilarious how you characterize the agenda. We support immigration reform, because we need illegals - who can't vote - to vote. We support women's issues, not because it's right, but because we secretly hate women, and think they are too stupid to use birth control, but we need their vote. We support public assistance, because we're buying poor people's vote with free stuff.

Do you see a pattern here? While we progressives perceive issues of morality, and ethics, all you fake conservatives see is ways to sway voting blocks. One of us is certainly more focused on identity politics, than serving the people...

It's like I've said over and over: Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats. When you are a victim of poverty, you need a Democrat. When Republicans waged this supposed War on Women, you are a victim of Republican sexism. When Republicans want to throw your illegal ass out of the country, you are a victim of Republican racism. The list goes on and on.

Nearly everything the Democrat party does is to gain or maintain power. Oh sure, make it not look that way, but with Democrats, there is always an ulterior motive behind everything they do. Sometimes it's right in front of your face, other times you have to look behind what they set in front of you, but it's there, trust me, it's there.

That's just it. I don't trust you. You are clearly a partisan hack who only sees things in terms of "Us and Them", and is convinced that so does everyone else. It's that skewed world view that gave rise to Donald Trump, and has been the cause of the obstructionism that Republicans have employed to make sure nothing gets done in nearly a decade.

 

[TooTall]

Regarding social security, if you get back more than you paid, it is an entitlement.

Also, do not forget to count the trillions in Obamacare costs. So far $2 trillion.

ObamaCare: $2 Trillion In Spending, $643M In Taxes, Insurance For $50k a Head - Breitbart

Regarding social security, if you get back more than you paid, it is an entitlement.

Isn't social security included in the 0.7%?

I don't believe so. Social security is retirement insurance. It is not public assistance. Everyone wants to act like it is. I recieve public assistance, because I am poor, not because I made any sort of contribution.

If I didn't make any contribution to Social Security, I don't receive any social security, when I retire. You can call it an "Entitlement", or a public assistance program, all you like. It's just not.

Social Security is welfare. There is no "trust fund." Government is simply taxing taxpayers and giving the money to people who didn't earn it just like every other welfare program

Social Security is part of FICA, Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act. What is it that you don't understand about insurance? You pay the premiums and collect the benefits according to the terms of the law.

When you pay premiums to buy "insurance," most of your money goes into a poo and if you have a loss then your money is paid back to you from that pool.

Your social security taxes swere spent as they came in. Nothing was saved.

How does a grown man in the United States not know how insurance works and the difference between an insurance payment and a tax? Pathetic. Government schools failed you, my friend. I'd say you're barely functional, but unfortunately you're not funtional at all.

Wow, you believe politicians. Don't take telemarketing calls. Seriously ... don't ... What a sucker

When the government passes a law and calls it Insurance it doesn't have to be like life Insurance. Are you really that stupid?

 

[dblack]

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

I agree. They need to enforce the rules they already have in place.

Enforcement is part of it, but the existing rules don't work anyway. Require recipients to perform some sort of Community Service, and then get Government to take the lead role in finding them work. If an able-bodied recipient refuses work offered, their assistance should be ended. We just need to have some real Welfare Reform.

Heh... sure. This from the poster who claimed:

Poor silly naive folks. You'll get just enough scraps to barely get by. It's called 'control.' You'll grovel at Big Brother's feet giving thanks for the tiny scraps he allows you. He's not about making Citizens 'happy.' He's about making sure they're well-behaved slaves for him and his Corporate Elite buddies. It'll be just enough scraps to keep you grovelling and begging for more.

Big Brother is not your friend, and he never will be. Americans better start getting that. Him and his Globalist Elite brethren only need you to be obedient slaves, and head off to die in their endless wars. Poor folks are just meat for their Permanent War Meat Grinder. This nation has more than enough wealth to effectively care for its old and poor. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. My advice is, don't depend on Big Brother to save you. He doesn't care about you. Do your best to make it on your own. Depend only on yourself.

Fakey, is that you? Fess up!

I stand by my comments. There is no 'American Dream.' Like George Carlin said, "They call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

I was referring to your comments on 'Big Brother' government control. You made it sound like you didn't like it much. Yet you seem eager to give it ever more power to control us. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[dblack]

When the government passes a law and calls it Insurance it doesn't have to be like life Insurance. Are you really that stupid?

Exactly. It's like when government passes a law and calls it a mandate, but it's really a tax. Or was that the other way around? It does get confusing!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's just it. I don't trust you. You are clearly a partisan hack who only sees things in terms of "Us and Them", and is convinced that so does everyone else. It's that skewed world view that gave rise to Donald Trump, and has been the cause of the obstructionism that Republicans have employed to make sure nothing gets done in nearly a decade.

You're damn right. That's why we put Republicans in charge of Congress: to make sure Democrats don't get anything done.

They had two years to get things done, and what did they do? Ruin healthcare for many of us. Put us further and further into debt with these Socialist programs while at the same time, creating record government dependents. Attack our banks so that credit worthy customers have to pay more for services so that the lowlifes who generally vote Democrat don't get charged late fees on their loans and credit cards. Even cigarette smokers seen huge increases in the cost of their tobacco.

So Americans had about enough of that, and we put Republicans in charge TO stop DumBama--not work with him.

 

[JBond]

Yeah, if Government's gonna take the lead role in writing the checks, it should also take the lead role in assisting in finding employment for recipients. If the work is refused, the assistance will end. We need real Welfare Reform. Right now it's just a chaotic free-for-all.

If it were up to me, you wouldn't be able to collect a dime until you were fixed first. One of the problems with our system is that it encourages poor people to have more children we have to support. The more kids, the more food stamps, the larger HUD home in the suburbs, the larger the welfare check and so on.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class children will generally end up as middle-class adults. Same holds true for the upper-middle-class and the wealthy. And yes, it's even true for the poor.

Because (so it seems) poor people have more children on average than working people, HTF are we supposed to solve poverty that way?

A liberal friend of mine suggested an Escalade for every vasectomy. He seriously believes the cost benefit would be a plus for tax payers. No idea if he is correct.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, if Government's gonna take the lead role in writing the checks, it should also take the lead role in assisting in finding employment for recipients. If the work is refused, the assistance will end. We need real Welfare Reform. Right now it's just a chaotic free-for-all.

If it were up to me, you wouldn't be able to collect a dime until you were fixed first. One of the problems with our system is that it encourages poor people to have more children we have to support. The more kids, the more food stamps, the larger HUD home in the suburbs, the larger the welfare check and so on.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class children will generally end up as middle-class adults. Same holds true for the upper-middle-class and the wealthy. And yes, it's even true for the poor.

Because (so it seems) poor people have more children on average than working people, HTF are we supposed to solve poverty that way?

A liberal friend of mine suggested an Escalade for every vasectomy. He seriously believes the cost benefit would be a plus for tax payers. No idea if he is correct.

Would it include spinner wheels?

 

[kaz]

Regarding social security, if you get back more than you paid, it is an entitlement.

Isn't social security included in the 0.7%?

I don't believe so. Social security is retirement insurance. It is not public assistance. Everyone wants to act like it is. I recieve public assistance, because I am poor, not because I made any sort of contribution.

If I didn't make any contribution to Social Security, I don't receive any social security, when I retire. You can call it an "Entitlement", or a public assistance program, all you like. It's just not.

Social Security is welfare. There is no "trust fund." Government is simply taxing taxpayers and giving the money to people who didn't earn it just like every other welfare program

Social Security is part of FICA, Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act. What is it that you don't understand about insurance? You pay the premiums and collect the benefits according to the terms of the law.

When you pay premiums to buy "insurance," most of your money goes into a poo and if you have a loss then your money is paid back to you from that pool.

Your social security taxes swere spent as they came in. Nothing was saved.

How does a grown man in the United States not know how insurance works and the difference between an insurance payment and a tax? Pathetic. Government schools failed you, my friend. I'd say you're barely functional, but unfortunately you're not funtional at all.

Wow, you believe politicians. Don't take telemarketing calls. Seriously ... don't ... What a sucker

When the government passes a law and calls it Insurance it doesn't have to be like life Insurance. Are you really that stupid?

Government doing something and calling it a word doesn't make that word true. It makes people like you who believe them stupid. You should read 1984, dumb ass.

Too Tall's logic. They are saying the truth, government called it the Ministry of Truth!!!!

Your money was spent, nothing was saved. What government is giving you is other people's money. The word for that is welfare, no matter what your beloved government calls it

 

[Czernobog]

That's just it. I don't trust you. You are clearly a partisan hack who only sees things in terms of "Us and Them", and is convinced that so does everyone else. It's that skewed world view that gave rise to Donald Trump, and has been the cause of the obstructionism that Republicans have employed to make sure nothing gets done in nearly a decade.

You're damn right. That's why we put Republicans in charge of Congress: to make sure Democrats don't get anything done.

They had two years to get things done, and what did they do? Ruin healthcare for many of us. Put us further and further into debt with these Socialist programs while at the same time, creating record government dependents. Attack our banks so that credit worthy customers have to pay more for services so that the lowlifes who generally vote Democrat don't get charged late fees on their loans and credit cards. Even cigarette smokers seen huge increases in the cost of their tobacco.

So Americans had about enough of that, and we put Republicans in charge TO stop DumBama--not work with him.

Socialist Programs?!?! Surely you're not talking about the ACA!!! That was one of the worst power grabs for private industry in the last century! There is nothing remotely socialist about the ACA. Why do you think so many progressives are so pissed off?! We had an opportunity for real reform; for true universal healthcare, and, in his zeal to "get along" with the very party that promised to do nothing but oppose him on the very eve of his inauguration, caved, and gave us the gift to Big Insurance that is the ACA.

And, by the way, "They had two years", isn't exactly true either. You guys keep wanting to rewrite history, as if Democrats had free reign for the first two years of Obama's administration. Except that isn't how it was.

Now, Democrats had total control of the House, of that there can be no argument. But the Senate? That's another story entirely. The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon. On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats. Except that's not really even accurate, as one of those seats was Ted Kennedy's, who collapsed on inauguration night, and never returned, and Al Franken, who wasn't confirmed, and didn't get seated until July of 2009. Meanwhile Arlen Specter changed parties, yay us! Unfortunately, a month later Robert Byrd got sick, and was also out until July. Now, paul Kirk did temporarily fill Kenedy's seat, but that wasn't until late Semptember.

Now for anyone keeping track, that makes it Democrats 59, Republicans 41. To demonstrate how important this was, this was when Obama's stimulus package was passed. Now, it is true that not a single Republican voted for it. However, it would never have gotten off the Senate floor, had not three Republicans broken ranks in the cloture vote; Specter, Snowe, and Collins. So you guys can actually thank Republicans for the existence of that stimulus package.

Now, Kirk did give Democrats the 60 votes they needed to break any Republican filibuster. Woohoo! Democrats had total control of Congress - for four ******* months! That was when Scott Brown - a Republican - took over Kennedy's seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

 

[TooTall]

I don't believe so. Social security is retirement insurance. It is not public assistance. Everyone wants to act like it is. I recieve public assistance, because I am poor, not because I made any sort of contribution.

If I didn't make any contribution to Social Security, I don't receive any social security, when I retire. You can call it an "Entitlement", or a public assistance program, all you like. It's just not.

Social Security is welfare. There is no "trust fund." Government is simply taxing taxpayers and giving the money to people who didn't earn it just like every other welfare program

Social Security is part of FICA, Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act. What is it that you don't understand about insurance? You pay the premiums and collect the benefits according to the terms of the law.

When you pay premiums to buy "insurance," most of your money goes into a poo and if you have a loss then your money is paid back to you from that pool.

Your social security taxes swere spent as they came in. Nothing was saved.

How does a grown man in the United States not know how insurance works and the difference between an insurance payment and a tax? Pathetic. Government schools failed you, my friend. I'd say you're barely functional, but unfortunately you're not funtional at all.

Wow, you believe politicians. Don't take telemarketing calls. Seriously ... don't ... What a sucker

When the government passes a law and calls it Insurance it doesn't have to be like life Insurance. Are you really that stupid?

Government doing something and calling it a word doesn't make that word true. It makes people like you who believe them stupid. You should read 1984, dumb ass.

Too Tall's logic. They are saying the truth, government called it the Ministry of Truth!!!!

Your money was spent, nothing was saved. What government is giving you is other people's money. The word for that is welfare, no matter what your beloved government calls it

ALL insurance payouts come from other peoples money. If you buy a term life policy for $500,000 and die 2 years later, your beneficiary gets $500,000. You didn't pay that much in did you, so it must come from other peoples money.

 

[Boss]

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

Obamacare (deemed a massive tax by SCOTUS) was passed into law with ZERO Republican votes. So, it seems to me the Democrat Congress WAS able to pass that without Republicans... ergo: They could ostensibly pass anything they pleased. What YOU need to do is stop lying and running away from the reality of that. Only really stupid people will buy your bullshit... but then, that's what you rely on, right?

 

[JBond]

That's just it. I don't trust you. You are clearly a partisan hack who only sees things in terms of "Us and Them", and is convinced that so does everyone else. It's that skewed world view that gave rise to Donald Trump, and has been the cause of the obstructionism that Republicans have employed to make sure nothing gets done in nearly a decade.

You're damn right. That's why we put Republicans in charge of Congress: to make sure Democrats don't get anything done.

They had two years to get things done, and what did they do? Ruin healthcare for many of us. Put us further and further into debt with these Socialist programs while at the same time, creating record government dependents. Attack our banks so that credit worthy customers have to pay more for services so that the lowlifes who generally vote Democrat don't get charged late fees on their loans and credit cards. Even cigarette smokers seen huge increases in the cost of their tobacco.

So Americans had about enough of that, and we put Republicans in charge TO stop DumBama--not work with him.

Socialist Programs?!?! Surely you're not talking about the ACA!!! That was one of the worst power grabs for private industry in the last century! There is nothing remotely socialist about the ACA. Why do you think so many progressives are so pissed off?! We had an opportunity for real reform; for true universal healthcare, and, in his zeal to "get along" with the very party that promised to do nothing but oppose him on the very eve of his inauguration, caved, and gave us the gift to Big Insurance that is the ACA.

And, by the way, "They had two years", isn't exactly true either. You guys keep wanting to rewrite history, as if Democrats had free reign for the first two years of Obama's administration. Except that isn't how it was.

Now, Democrats had total control of the House, of that there can be no argument. But the Senate? That's another story entirely. The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon. On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats. Except that's not really even accurate, as one of those seats was Ted Kennedy's, who collapsed on inauguration night, and never returned, and Al Franken, who wasn't confirmed, and didn't get seated until July of 2009. Meanwhile Arlen Specter changed parties, yay us! Unfortunately, a month later Robert Byrd got sick, and was also out until July. Now, paul Kirk did temporarily fill Kenedy's seat, but that wasn't until late Semptember.

Now for anyone keeping track, that makes it Democrats 59, Republicans 41. To demonstrate how important this was, this was when Obama's stimulus package was passed. Now, it is true that not a single Republican voted for it. However, it would never have gotten off the Senate floor, had not three Republicans broken ranks in the cloture vote; Specter, Snowe, and Collins. So you guys can actually thank Republicans for the existence of that stimulus package.

Now, Kirk did give Democrats the 60 votes they needed to break any Republican filibuster. Woohoo! Democrats had total control of Congress - for four ******* months! That was when Scott Brown - a Republican - took over Kennedy's seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

This tard thinks three votes equals all Republicans. Sigh...

 

[Czernobog]

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

Obamacare (deemed a massive tax by SCOTUS) was passed into law with ZERO Republican votes. So, it seems to me the Democrat Congress WAS able to pass that without Republicans... ergo: They could ostensibly pass anything they pleased. What YOU need to do is stop lying and running away from the reality of that. Only really stupid people will buy your bullshit... but then, that's what you rely on, right?

Yeah. It passed the Senate December 24th, 2009. During the only 4 months that Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. You'll notice that during an entire two years, the only two pieces of legislation that you Republicans can find to ***** about is the Stimulus package, which only happened because three REPUBLICANS chose to break ranks, and break the filibuster, and the ACA, which only passed the Senate because it came to the floor during the only four months of that entire first two years when Democrats actually had a filibuster proof senate.

Why wasn't there a flood of other "socialist" legislation to come pouring out of the Obama administration? Because, contrary to the retarded narrative that just won't die, while Democrats had a majority in the Senate for those two years, for the majority of that two years they didn't have control of the Senate. That would have been the obstructionist Republicans with their ever-present filibuster.

 

[Czernobog]

That's just it. I don't trust you. You are clearly a partisan hack who only sees things in terms of "Us and Them", and is convinced that so does everyone else. It's that skewed world view that gave rise to Donald Trump, and has been the cause of the obstructionism that Republicans have employed to make sure nothing gets done in nearly a decade.

You're damn right. That's why we put Republicans in charge of Congress: to make sure Democrats don't get anything done.

They had two years to get things done, and what did they do? Ruin healthcare for many of us. Put us further and further into debt with these Socialist programs while at the same time, creating record government dependents. Attack our banks so that credit worthy customers have to pay more for services so that the lowlifes who generally vote Democrat don't get charged late fees on their loans and credit cards. Even cigarette smokers seen huge increases in the cost of their tobacco.

So Americans had about enough of that, and we put Republicans in charge TO stop DumBama--not work with him.

Socialist Programs?!?! Surely you're not talking about the ACA!!! That was one of the worst power grabs for private industry in the last century! There is nothing remotely socialist about the ACA. Why do you think so many progressives are so pissed off?! We had an opportunity for real reform; for true universal healthcare, and, in his zeal to "get along" with the very party that promised to do nothing but oppose him on the very eve of his inauguration, caved, and gave us the gift to Big Insurance that is the ACA.

And, by the way, "They had two years", isn't exactly true either. You guys keep wanting to rewrite history, as if Democrats had free reign for the first two years of Obama's administration. Except that isn't how it was.

Now, Democrats had total control of the House, of that there can be no argument. But the Senate? That's another story entirely. The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon. On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats. Except that's not really even accurate, as one of those seats was Ted Kennedy's, who collapsed on inauguration night, and never returned, and Al Franken, who wasn't confirmed, and didn't get seated until July of 2009. Meanwhile Arlen Specter changed parties, yay us! Unfortunately, a month later Robert Byrd got sick, and was also out until July. Now, paul Kirk did temporarily fill Kenedy's seat, but that wasn't until late Semptember.

Now for anyone keeping track, that makes it Democrats 59, Republicans 41. To demonstrate how important this was, this was when Obama's stimulus package was passed. Now, it is true that not a single Republican voted for it. However, it would never have gotten off the Senate floor, had not three Republicans broken ranks in the cloture vote; Specter, Snowe, and Collins. So you guys can actually thank Republicans for the existence of that stimulus package.

Now, Kirk did give Democrats the 60 votes they needed to break any Republican filibuster. Woohoo! Democrats had total control of Congress - for four ******* months! That was when Scott Brown - a Republican - took over Kennedy's seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

This tard thinks three votes equals all Republicans. Sigh...

This tard thinks those three Republicans made the stimulus package possible. And, guess what? They did.

 

[JBond]

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

Obamacare (deemed a massive tax by SCOTUS) was passed into law with ZERO Republican votes. So, it seems to me the Democrat Congress WAS able to pass that without Republicans... ergo: They could ostensibly pass anything they pleased. What YOU need to do is stop lying and running away from the reality of that. Only really stupid people will buy your bullshit... but then, that's what you rely on, right?

Yeah. It passed the Senate December 24th, 2009. During the only 4 months that Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. You'll notice that during an entire two years, the only two pieces of legislation that you Republicans can find to ***** about is the Stimulus package, which only happened because three REPUBLICANS chose to break ranks, and break the filibuster, and the ACA, which only passed the Senate because it came to the floor during the only four months of that entire first two years when Democrats actually had a filibuster proof senate.

Why wasn't there a flood of other "socialist" legislation to come pouring out of the Obama administration? Because, contrary to the retarded narrative that just won't die, while Democrats had a majority in the Senate for those two years, for the majority of that two years they didn't have control of the Senate. That would have been the obstructionist Republicans with their ever-present filibuster.

Says that party of Harry Reid. Obstructionism was perfected by that loser.

 

[Czernobog]

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

Obamacare (deemed a massive tax by SCOTUS) was passed into law with ZERO Republican votes. So, it seems to me the Democrat Congress WAS able to pass that without Republicans... ergo: They could ostensibly pass anything they pleased. What YOU need to do is stop lying and running away from the reality of that. Only really stupid people will buy your bullshit... but then, that's what you rely on, right?

Yeah. It passed the Senate December 24th, 2009. During the only 4 months that Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. You'll notice that during an entire two years, the only two pieces of legislation that you Republicans can find to ***** about is the Stimulus package, which only happened because three REPUBLICANS chose to break ranks, and break the filibuster, and the ACA, which only passed the Senate because it came to the floor during the only four months of that entire first two years when Democrats actually had a filibuster proof senate.

Why wasn't there a flood of other "socialist" legislation to come pouring out of the Obama administration? Because, contrary to the retarded narrative that just won't die, while Democrats had a majority in the Senate for those two years, for the majority of that two years they didn't have control of the Senate. That would have been the obstructionist Republicans with their ever-present filibuster.

Says that party of Harry Reid. Obstructionism was perfected by that loser.

Oh yay. The Peewee Herman "I know you, but what am I?" defense.

Toddle off into a corner to play with yourself, you sophomoric imbecile.

 

[JBond]

That's just it. I don't trust you. You are clearly a partisan hack who only sees things in terms of "Us and Them", and is convinced that so does everyone else. It's that skewed world view that gave rise to Donald Trump, and has been the cause of the obstructionism that Republicans have employed to make sure nothing gets done in nearly a decade.

You're damn right. That's why we put Republicans in charge of Congress: to make sure Democrats don't get anything done.

They had two years to get things done, and what did they do? Ruin healthcare for many of us. Put us further and further into debt with these Socialist programs while at the same time, creating record government dependents. Attack our banks so that credit worthy customers have to pay more for services so that the lowlifes who generally vote Democrat don't get charged late fees on their loans and credit cards. Even cigarette smokers seen huge increases in the cost of their tobacco.

So Americans had about enough of that, and we put Republicans in charge TO stop DumBama--not work with him.

Socialist Programs?!?! Surely you're not talking about the ACA!!! That was one of the worst power grabs for private industry in the last century! There is nothing remotely socialist about the ACA. Why do you think so many progressives are so pissed off?! We had an opportunity for real reform; for true universal healthcare, and, in his zeal to "get along" with the very party that promised to do nothing but oppose him on the very eve of his inauguration, caved, and gave us the gift to Big Insurance that is the ACA.

And, by the way, "They had two years", isn't exactly true either. You guys keep wanting to rewrite history, as if Democrats had free reign for the first two years of Obama's administration. Except that isn't how it was.

Now, Democrats had total control of the House, of that there can be no argument. But the Senate? That's another story entirely. The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon. On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats. Except that's not really even accurate, as one of those seats was Ted Kennedy's, who collapsed on inauguration night, and never returned, and Al Franken, who wasn't confirmed, and didn't get seated until July of 2009. Meanwhile Arlen Specter changed parties, yay us! Unfortunately, a month later Robert Byrd got sick, and was also out until July. Now, paul Kirk did temporarily fill Kenedy's seat, but that wasn't until late Semptember.

Now for anyone keeping track, that makes it Democrats 59, Republicans 41. To demonstrate how important this was, this was when Obama's stimulus package was passed. Now, it is true that not a single Republican voted for it. However, it would never have gotten off the Senate floor, had not three Republicans broken ranks in the cloture vote; Specter, Snowe, and Collins. So you guys can actually thank Republicans for the existence of that stimulus package.

Now, Kirk did give Democrats the 60 votes they needed to break any Republican filibuster. Woohoo! Democrats had total control of Congress - for four ******* months! That was when Scott Brown - a Republican - took over Kennedy's seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

You guys really need to quit repeating this narrative of "Obama had two years..." like he had free reign over Congress during his entire first two years in office. Because the reality just doesn't bear that narrative up.

This tard thinks three votes equals all Republicans. Sigh...

This tard thinks those three Republicans made the stimulus package possible. And, guess what? They did.

How old are you? Your ability to reason is childlike. So the Voting Rights Act is solely the responsibility of Republicans. Got it.

Obama threatened his own party members to vote for the ACA or else. The entire plan was Democrat all the way. Obama and his minions understood the importance of creating yet another entitlement plan to increase dependency on the government. The three "Republicans" that voted for closure are liberals regardless of who they claim to caucus with.