Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kon]

If Obama gets reelected, he sure is going to inherit a mess. I'm guessing he won't blame the mess on the previous president though since he will be the previous president.

He'll probably blame it on the Senate like he did four years ago. Oh, wait, four years ago he didn't blame it on the Senate because he inherited the mess, in part, from a Democratically controlled Senate of which he himself was a member. But maybe he can blame it on the Senate this time. Wait, the Senate has been controlled by Democrats the last 6 years. He can't blame it on them.

So, he'll blame on the House like he did four years ago. Wait, he didn't blame it on the House four years ago because four years ago, he inherited the mess, in part, from a Democratically controlled House. This time he will be able to blame it on the House though because the House has been controlled by Republicans two of the last six years. Yeah, that's it! Those damn Tea Partiers! They messed up everything! Those bastards!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

[Kon]

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

The Tea Party didn't stop the House from passing budgets and bills to address the deficits. They passed budgets, unlike the Senate that hasn't passed a budget in, what, three years? Who's fault is it that the Senate hasn't passed  budgets? Perhaps a leadership problem in the Senate and Presidency?

And, yes, "picking up your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials." Isn't that what Obama did? During the dept ceiling debate, they were apparently on the verge of an agreement that would have raised taxes by $800Billion. Obama then went and talked to Pelosi and came back and said, no, he wanted $1.2Trillion in tax increases. Thank God the Republicans said no to that. Obama has refused to compromise, unlike Bill Clinton did.

[Luke_Prowler]

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

The Tea Party didn't stop the House from passing budgets and bills to address the deficits. They passed budgets, unlike the Senate that hasn't passed a budget in, what, three years? Who's fault is it that the Senate hasn't passed  budgets? Perhaps a leadership problem in the Senate and Presidency?

[Citation Needed]

[Shadowlord]

The House doesn't allow filibusters requiring 60 votes to get past, either - which currently allow anyone in the Senate to shut down anything on a whim.

(If you say "SUPERMAJORITY FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS" I'll smack you with a cluebat (because that is a lie))

[Nadaka]

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

The Tea Party didn't stop the House from passing budgets and bills to address the deficits. They passed budgets, unlike the Senate that hasn't passed a budget in, what, three years? Who's fault is it that the Senate hasn't passed  budgets? Perhaps a leadership problem in the Senate and Presidency?

That is exactly what they have done. Passing a budget that you know will fail is masturbatory.

Saying otherwise doesn't make it true no matter how much you want it to.

And making such statements to people who make it a hobby of fact checking and verifying sources is really rather pointless.

[Kon]

The House doesn't allow filibusters requiring 60 votes to get past, either - which currently allow anyone in the Senate to shut down anything on a whim.

(If you say "SUPERMAJORITY FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS" I'll smack you with a cluebat (because that is a lie))

So, Obama only needed to get a single Republican vote to get a bill passed. Surely he could have compromised enough to get a single vote. It' a damn good think the Dems didn't have a supermajority. Our economy would be far worse if they had.

[MaximumZero]

I can 100% confirm Red King's analysis of the Midwestern Hate Cycle. Because seriously, Iowa and Kansas? Fuck 'em.

Nenjin just took the lead in Nebraska polling by 4 points.

[Nadaka]

The House doesn't allow filibusters requiring 60 votes to get past, either - which currently allow anyone in the Senate to shut down anything on a whim.

(If you say "SUPERMAJORITY FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS" I'll smack you with a cluebat (because that is a lie))

So, Obama only needed to get a single Republican vote to get a bill passed. Surely he could have compromised enough to get a single vote. It' a damn good think the Dems didn't have a supermajority. Our economy would be far worse if they had.

Obama compromised his ass off. There wasn't a single republican willing to compromise on passing anything, even budgets they had previously proposed themselves.

[Sheb]

Yeah, you just need to look at the Payroll Tax Cut to see how the GOP manage to fail so hard.

[Kon]

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

The Tea Party didn't stop the House from passing budgets and bills to address the deficits. They passed budgets, unlike the Senate that hasn't passed a budget in, what, three years? Who's fault is it that the Senate hasn't passed  budgets? Perhaps a leadership problem in the Senate and Presidency?

That is exactly what they have done. Passing a budget that you know will fail is masturbatory.

Saying otherwise doesn't make it true no matter how much you want it to.

And making such statements to people who make it a hobby of fact checking and verifying sources is really rather pointless.

So, the House passed budgets every year. Normally, the Senate would pass a budget too, and they would have a committee work out a compromise. The Dems chose to not even try to do that. And, they didn't need 60 votes to pass a budget -- just 51. Surely the liberals could have at least compromised enough to get 51 Democratic Senators to vote on a budget.

Fact checking? What have I said that is untrue?

[GlyphGryph]

One: The Senate only had 56 democrats, and 2 independents. He would need all of those PLUS 2 Republicans.

When the primary goal of the Republican's was publicly stated to be "guarantee Obama is not re-elected", there's not a whole lot he can compromise with.

Every time he gave them what they asked, they'd move the goalposts. And you're assuming that the Democrats were in lockstep behind him - not all democrats like Obama, not all Democrats are liberal.

Sure, one could argue he still failed to sway the other side into agreeing with him, but it wasn't just a case of "one Republican". That's absurd.


Pre-edit: Actually... wait. Are budget rules different than other laws here? I don't actually remember - did they really only need 51?

[mainiac]

So, Obama only needed to get a single Republican vote to get a bill passed. Surely he could have compromised enough to get a single vote.

Maybe, just maybe the republicans are obstructionists who would never support Obama no matter what?  Here's a handy way to see if they are.  We look for major legislation proposed by Obama that was based on republican ideas and see how they react to it.  This would be the 100% compromise position, where there was literally no room left for Obama to compromise.

So there was this law proposed by the heritage foundation, introduced by Bob Dole and reintroduced by Barack Obama.  It's called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Seeing as this is a democrat proposing an idea based 100% on conservative principals... what sort of reception did it get?  Oh yeah, they called it fascism.

The reason Obama couldn't get 1 republican Senator on board is because there is not 1 republican Senator with integrity.  Every single one of them put party before country.  Every single one.

But I'm sure it's Obama's fault that republicans care more about their party then their country.

[Shadowlord]

Pre-edit: Actually... wait. Are budget rules different than other laws here? I don't actually remember - did they really only need 51?

He's suggesting they should have used reconciliation, I believe.

[Kon]

One: The Senate only had 56 democrats, and 2 independents. He would need all of those PLUS 2 Republicans.

When the primary goal of the Republican's was publicly stated to be "guarantee Obama is not re-elected", there's not a whole lot he can compromise with.

Every time he gave them what they asked, they'd move the goalposts. And you're assuming that the Democrats were in lockstep behind him - not all democrats like Obama, not all Democrats are liberal.

Sure, one could argue he still failed to sway the other side into agreeing with him, but it wasn't just a case of "one Republican". That's absurd.


Pre-edit: Actually... wait. Are budget rules different than other laws here? I don't actually remember - did they really only need 51?

The Senate could have passed their own budget with 51 votes -- the Republicans couldn't stop them from doing that. If the Senate and House then came up with a compromise budget bill, the Senate would have needed 60 to send that bill to the President.