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.
The latter scenario is the path Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) chose to take. He asked for the Senate’s unanimous consent to require 60 votes for each of the nine amendments. Since no senators objected, that’s where the bar is set.
Harry Reid, is a Democrat, right?
And once again, 46 + 5 = 51, which would have been enough to send it to the House had Democrats not been incompetent and failed so myserably.
There's no "haha." Do you even try to understand this stuff? Reid did that because the R's said they'd filibuster every single amendment to the bill, drawing out the debate for months (you need 60 votes for cloture, or to end debate, for each amendment introduced.). They set unanimous consent instead at 60 votes to speed things up. If they would have set it at 51%, the R's would have had a field day loading it up with pro gun lobby amendments that would have forced a majority of democrats to vote against it. This way they had a clean vote on record, because the D's knew it wasn't going to pass because of the R's from the start.
The R's won that vote, but now that vote against the bill can (and already is) being used against them in states that are more suburban vs. hard core rural R. You can win a battle but lose a war--this was stupid strategy by the R's.
I see you've backed off the "Haser" Rule stupidity you were trying to claim earlier...good lord.
And now, because I have a real business vs. a pretend one, I need to get back to work.
What you are failing to understand is people do not like Obama's policies of tax and spend. They know it will not work. Do you expect people to just bend over and take it because he is Obama. Give it a break, no one will. Not everyone views Obama as some god like savior because he isn't. On a side note, anyone who does not pay taxes and have skin in the game does not have an opinion that reflects those who do.
The idea that Obama has policies of tax and spend, exists only in the minds of right-wingers and is not in reality.
This is the spend policies during Bush's tenure:
This is the spend policies during Obama's tenure:
On the popularity of Obama's tax plan, you are wrong. His plan is very popular:
Quote:
But on the specific measures that might be part of a compromise, public opinion favors Obama's views. Fully 68 percent said Obama "has a mandate" from the November election to cut taxes on families earning less than $250,000 per year; 65 percent said he has a mandate for "increasing taxes on the wealthy and reducing federal spending." Obama Has 'Mandate' to Increase Taxes on Wealthy: Poll
Have any idea when professor Obama is going make good on his promise to keep unemployment below 8%?
No?
Didn't think so.
You know, after four and a half years, this 8% unemployment, crashing currency and declining wages **** is getting pretty old.
"in 1983 the recovery surpassed its previous peak in gross domestic product very rapidly from the recession's trough. Growth rose by 4.5% in 1983, 7.2% in 1984 and 4.1% in 1985, and it kept climbing through the rest of the 1980s."
There's no "haha." Do you even try to understand this stuff? Reid did that because the R's said they'd filibuster every single amendment to the bill, drawing out the debate for months (you need 60 votes for cloture, or to end debate, for each amendment introduced.). They set unanimous consent instead at 60 votes to speed things up. If they would have set it at 51%, the R's would have had a field day loading it up with pro gun lobby amendments that would have forced a majority of democrats to vote against it. This way they had a clean vote on record, because the D's knew it wasn't going to pass because of the R's from the start.
The R's won that vote, but now that vote against the bill can (and already is) being used against them in states that are more suburban vs. hard core rural R. You can win a battle but lose a war--this was stupid strategy by the R's.
I see you've backed off the "Haser" Rule stupidity you were trying to claim earlier...good lord.
And now, because I have a real business vs. a pretend one, I need to get back to work.
There very much is a haha, because my very first posting to you was to show you have 46 + 5 = 51, enough needed to get the bill to a vote, now you're moving the goal post into whining because if they had followed normal procedures, the Republicans would have added to the bill..
Yeah, we wouldnt want that, would we? And your reply, yes, blame the Republicans because Democrats had a "my way or the highway" that they couldnt even get 1/2 of the Senate to vote for..
Since unemployment has been under 8% since Oct 2012, I guess he has.
yeah, because everyone knows those people who cant find jobs and stopped looking, (i.e. arent being counted any longer), dont matter. You'll just hand them more welfare so they can stimulate the economy, because thats a far better choice than a real job..
hahahahaha....
hey, btw if government spending stimulated, then shouldnt unemployment be climbing now that the sequester kicked in? Your theories are proven wrong over, and over, and over, and you cant even admit it..
While the Tea Party is losing strength as a separate movement, the Tea Party caucus of the GOP is going strong.
After three years of observing these folks, I have determined that they don't want to create jobs, jobs, jobs, ignite the economy, or erase the debt. Their primary goal is to discredit and defame President Obama. They won't do ANYTHING for Americans that might benefit him politically. It is all a bit silly now, as Obama won reelection, so their hatefulness has no strategic purpose. I've never seen anything like it. I suppose the McCarthy era was kind of like this, but that is before my time.
I would not put all Republicans in this camp at all, but the TP caucus is truly a national disgrace. And if republicans want to provide national leadership again, they will have to DO something besides try to screw the other guy and bring our country to its knees in the process.
You figured that out all by yourself huh? Well you must be the S M R T est feller walking! I bow to your brilliance! I am in awe of the power of your intelect!
Or maybe Im just laughing at you...
What the Tea Patty wants is really simple. WE want spending to fall in line with revenue. It really is not difficult to figure that out.
You figured that out all by yourself huh? Well you must be the S M R T est feller walking! I bow to your brilliance! I am in awe of the power of your intelect!
Or maybe Im just laughing at you...
What the Tea Patty wants is really simple. WE want spending to fall in line with revenue. It really is not difficult to figure that out.
Yep, imagine that, wanting the government to spend within their means without taxing the citizens into oblivion. Obama and his simpletons just can not understand the simple things in life.
Yep, imagine that, wanting the government to spend within their means without taxing the citizens into oblivion. Obama and his simpletons just can not understand the simple things in life.
Imagine suddenly becoming concerned about it when a black guy with a funny name was voted into office.
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.
Do you even try to understand this stuff? Reid did that because the R's said they'd filibuster every single amendment to the bill, drawing out the debate for months (you need 60 votes for cloture, or to end debate, for each amendment introduced.). They set unanimous consent instead at 60 votes to speed things up. If they would have set it at 51%, the R's would have had a field day loading it up with pro gun lobby amendments that would have forced a majority of democrats to vote against it. This way they had a clean vote on record, because the D's knew it wasn't going to pass because of the R's from the start. 
