Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This meme is so popular on CD that I should program my response on an F-key.
The Dems didn't completely control the Senate. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.
The Dems never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. The Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th. Democrats' 60-vote majority in Senate: So close and yet so far - latimes.com
The fact is, Mr. Obama's job legislation was requested after the period where Democrats lost the 60 vote working super-majority. Thus, the GOP Senators have been delaying the legislation in a hope to weaken the economy so Mr. Obama looks worse.
No sir. While there are a very few democrats that have crossed party lines, there are also an equal number of republicans who have done so as well. Democrats certainly held 58 dem seats as well as 2 independents that you named who caucus with the democrats. for the first 2 years Democrats had utter control of congress and in fact Mr. Obama used that control to pass the largest and most unpopular legislation in American History (the healthcare bill).
Lets also note that BUDGET bills are not subject to cloture. All you need is a simple majority which democrats certainly had in the Senate and still have today.
The FACT is Mr. Obama had all the political capital in the world in 2009 and he wasted it on the healthcare debacle while leaving the economy in shambles. It is a LIE to suggest that Mr. Obama was stymied by republicans when he held the largest majority in congress in maybe a generation! Even if republicans have used the filibuster, there is a way to break them. There has never been a filibuster that lasted more than about 25 hours.
Correction, Obama had seven months before Ted Kennedy died and he lost his filibuster proof Senate. Result? Record GOP filibuster.
Many of these so called 'filibusters' aren't actually filibusters or are made up. In example, you can't filibuster a budget and yet Democrat politicians have accused Republicans in the Senate of having filibustered the budget or threatened to filibuster the budget. The reality is, Obama's has a crappy budget that the Democrats didn't want, but they refused to propose their own on paper.
Many of these so called 'filibusters' aren't actually filibusters or are made up. In example, you can't filibuster a budget and yet Democrat politicians have accused Republicans in the Senate of having filibustered the budget or threatened to filibuster the budget. The reality is, Obama's has a crappy budget that the Democrats didn't want, but they refused to propose their own on paper.
Good point! Mr. Obama's most recent budget was voted 0-97 in the senate. do we really want a president who's own budget proposal cannot get a single dem to support it?
and you are SERIOUSLY RIGHT. It is impossible to filibuster bugest items in the senate. it is against the rules. budget items (spending bills) are the things that BHO says he cannot get coopration on.
No, what you said was that Obama couldnt get anything passed after 7 months due to filibusters, you were wrong..
14 months, or 15 months, what difference does it make, since it was AFTER 7 months
LOL, I get it you're not wrong even when you're WRONG.
Why do you keep asking a question that you know the answer? In fact, its been answered several time. Reconciliation of the different house and senate versions of the ACA did not need 60 votes because it was NOT subject to a filibuster attempt.
Last edited by buzzards27; 06-15-2012 at 10:59 AM..
LOL, I get it you're not wrong even when you're WRONG.
Why do you keep asking a question that you know the answer? In fact, its been answered several time. Reconciliation of the different house and senate versions of the ACA did not need 60 votes because it was subject to a filibuster attempt.
You continue to be wrong, as others continue to point it out to you.
The fact that there was a filibuster attempt, does not mean you still dont need a 60 vote to pass the bill into law without special waivers.
Furthermore, the fact that they only need 50 votes to pass the bill, kind of throws your argument out of the water that they couldnt pass bills because they only had 58 votes.
You continue to be wrong, as others continue to point it out to you.
The fact that there was a filibuster attempt, does not mean you still dont need a 60 vote to pass the bill into law without special waivers.
Furthermore, the fact that they only need 50 votes to pass the bill, kind of throws your argument out of the water that they couldnt pass bills because they only had 58 votes.
Or dont you know that 58 is more than 50
NICE TRY, but the reconciliation was the only way ACA avoided a filibuster. Anything else the R's didn't support them selves didn't pass thru the senate.
NICE TRY, but the reconciliation was the only way ACA avoided a filibuster. Anything else the R's didn't support them selves didn't pass thru the senate.
All bills have to pass through the Senate
you continue to just post nonsense to validate the lies you are posting..
NICE TRY, but the reconciliation was the only way ACA avoided a filibuster. Anything else the R's didn't support them selves didn't pass thru the senate.
Nice try, you are distorting the truth. Cloture is not a filibuster. Cloture sets a time limit for the bill and can be used even if no filibuster is in progress or threatened. The Democrats have in fact brought on clotures, despite no filibusters, as a way to limit debate (kind of ironic since Obama promised to be the most transparent president ever and we get stuck with having to vote for it to know what is in it and told enough debate time for a vote!)
The fact remains that Democrats have filibustered at similar rates to Republicans in the past, which is why Democrats keep lying about filibusters - showing clotures and pretending that Republicans filibustered the budget.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
