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.
Actually, the left wingers are smart but the Democratic Party in Congress aren't Left-wing but are centrists.
Obama overwhelmingly was elected by voters who wanted him to boldly fulfill his campaign promises of reforming health care and bringing the nation a public option.
That's odd, because Obama didn't campaign on a "public option".
Seems to me, a lot of folks voted for Obama on things they think
he ran on....anti war president comes to mind as well.
So folks think Obama will support a public option, so they campaign for him. But when the Senate does not push for a public option, Obama just says “I didn’t campaign on the public option.”
Russ Feingold stated “lack of support from the administration.”
If you wanted "real" healthcare reform" or an anti war President, you
folks should have voted for Dennis Kucinich
I don't think DEMS know what they got, with Obama
They just loved "the feeling" of the election....
The Class AAA Blame Artist has blamed everyone and everything under the sun for our fiscal morass. But nothing stands out more than his extreme dislike for wealthy Americans and their perceived lack of contribution via taxes.
So why didn't Obama and Democrats remedy this Achilles Heel while they had a Super-Majority? Why would he wait to put so much emphasis on a singular tax policy when he's politically impotent?
Is this guy stupid or what?
Same reason he didn't secure gay marriage when he had the super majority....
So the dems could have passed a bill to cut Bush tax cuts and chose instead to go for obama care
You are just being intentionally dense. Every bill that goes to the President for signature must receive at least a majority in both Houses. Certain bills, because of Senate rules, require 60 votes. The Bush-tax-cut repeal by the Democrats would have faced filibuster by the GOP. You don't want to hear that but that's the fact Jack.
You are just being intentionally dense. Every bill that goes to the President for signature must receive at least a majority in both Houses. Certain bills, because of Senate rules, require 60 votes. The Bush-tax-cut repeal by the Democrats would have faced filibuster by the GOP. You don't want to hear that but that's the fact Jack.
You are speaking from both sides. Obama care passed both houses, and went to reconciliation.
They could have done the same thing with Bush tax cuts .
they had the majority to get a bill though both houses in health care you can not say the same coalition could not have cut the bush tax cuts
Politics 101; people in power don't always do what they say they're going to do. Obama certainly wouldn't be the first.
Not the first, no, but that's irrelevant. He could have done alot more during his first two-years due to the super-majority that he had in addition to the reconciliation process which would have allowed tax legislation to pass with just 51 votes. So not only did he squander a super-majority, he squandered an opportunity that could have taken place with 9 fewer votes (51 vs 60).
All talk you call it......I call it ignorance on the front end and demogoguery on the back end.
Well, they have to keep up their phony outrage somehow I suppose.
So, instead of griping endlessly about make-believe Obama agendas to void the contitution, outlaw Christianity, and imprison all registered Republicans in government re-education camps, now they're actually complaining about items on his agenda that he didn't accomplish. Items they oppose.
Well, they have to keep up their phony outrage somehow I suppose.
So, instead of griping endlessly about make-believe Obama agendas to void the contitution, outlaw Christianity, and imprison all registered Republicans in government re-education camps, now they're actually complaining about items on his agenda that he didn't accomplish. Items they oppose.
No, we're wondering out loud why the Administration is focused on demogoguery instead of "progress?" Progress could have been made in the first two years on the issues he's demogogued in the last 12+ months. It makes no sense that he chose this route. One can only conclude that he intended to make his first-term Agenda an actual re-election campaign instead of actually taking advantage of the mechanism to put put it into action (ie. Congressional legislation) while he had the opportunity.
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.
Conservos... SO unhappy
