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.
ROFL are you honestly trying to say that Brown's term is up this year? Your "facts" are getting better by the minute. Kennedy's seat, now Brown's seat isn't up for re-election until 2012.
"Well, let's see. He was last elected to the Senate in November 2006. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor in May 2008. Do you see the point there, or should I proceed to explain it further?" HAHAHA ~ go ahead and edit your post.
You should have quit while you were behind. You are only making matters much worse for yourself at this point. Given that Senators serve a term of six years and that Senator Kennedy was last elected in November 2006, it would follow that the seat would next regularly be up for election in 2012.
The point that has completely escaped you this time was that if Kennedy last ran for election in November 2006 and was not diagnosed with his cancer until May 2008, then this statement -- made by you -- is a logical absurdity...
Not our fault your party doesn't know when to quit. BTW, thanks to Kennedy for running again knowing full well he wouldn't last the duration of his term.
First of all for the last 3 years the Dem's have had control of congress. when the republicans had control of congress and the dems did not agree with a policy what did the Dem's do? On privatization o SS what did the Dem's do ? Did they offer help? They offered a filibuster and to say no.
When revising history, try not to be so specific. In 2003, the Medicare Advantage debate had no filabuster. It was talked about, but not used. The Repubs, on the other hand, had to resort to back room dealings and payoffs, to get enough Repubs to pass the Advantage bill in the House. Even many Repubs knew that, awarding this huge private subsidy in Medicare, was going to result in the very hemorrhaging we have seen in Medicare ever since.
When revising history, try not to be so specific. In 2003, the Medicare Advantage debate had no filabuster. It was talked about, but not used. The Repubs, on the other hand, had to resort to back room dealings and payoffs, to get enough Repubs to pass the Advantage bill in the House. Even many Repubs knew that, awarding this huge private subsidy in Medicare, was going to result in the very hemorrhaging we have seen in Medicare ever since.
So we agree the minority will do what it takes to make sure they are heard. for the last year the Dems had complete power. Why do they blame Bush and the republicans
Among the pieces of legislation that have been blocked include a bill that would have amended the 1964 Civil Rights act to allow employees to file charges of pay discrimination;
A half truth that makes some people look bad without any explanation of the facts. All the bill would have done is "clarify" that the discrimination occurs each time the employee gets paid, not just up on hiring or promotion, and eliminate the time limit for filing such a suit. Employees are perfeclty able under current law to file such a lawsuit, but they must do so within 180 days of the last discriminatory act (their last paycheck.) This bill would have eliminated any time limitations and let people decide a year, two years, even five years later, to sue because they suddenly believed they had been underpaid. What would have been the positive result of such an amandment to the Act?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
an expanded economic stimulus package;
more taxpayer money being spent on more useless programs that have had little to no positive effect on the economy. They believed it should be stopped, and knew that the majority in Congress wasn't going to listen to what was actually being said. So they took the legal action available to them to stop the bill. Smart move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
an act that would have allowed children of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for more than five years the chance to gain legal status;
It's a shame that some in Congress think that it's acceptable, even desirable, to reward people for managing to keep their illegal infiltration of our country secret. And even worse that they think that reward should be preferential treatment regarding citizenship. (Personally, I think that if we identify an illegal alien, that person should be barred, either for a period of time or FOREVER, from ever obtaining citizenship. But that's a different matter.) Again, if this could only be blocked by filibuster, so be it.
They cant.. the fact that you cant get your people to the voting floor for whatever reason is NOT the Republicans fault.
No one has suggested that it's the Republican's fault. This is just the case that you prefer to address over the one actually at hand, to wit, the complete inaccuracy of your earlier claim of Republican inability to stop anything the Democrats want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Dont blame the minority party for the majorities failure, maybe they needed better healthcare coverage.. Ooh wait, they indeed have that government plan.. Dam good plan I hear...
Yeah, same plan that's available to all civilian federal employees. Premiums just went up an average of 8.8%, a little better than three times the general cost-of-living increase. I guess trial lawyers must have won a lot more multi-billion dollars settlements of frivolous lawsuits than usual...
Sucks when its being done to you...Bush had same problem last 2 yrs of his Presidency.
Can you run that by us again? All the obstructing that was done in the 110th Congress (and it did set records) was done by Senate Republicans. Bush was a Republican. How did this constitute a problem for him, again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrymac
..O wait.....Thats exactly when the economy started to tank....hmmmmm...........Your a fool!
Don't know much about the economy, do you. The housing market cracked in the Spring of 2006. The escalating problems reached the credit markets in a major way by the Summer of 2007, then engulfed the broader economy in the Fall of 2008. Republicans did nothing much along the way other than to march around proclaiming that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Right. Democrats had control of the House. Thereafter, they confronted a wall of partisan Senate filibusters and Presidential veto threats. Maybe you should click the Refresh button on your connection to reality.
Must be why they won in VA, NJ, MA and are leading in quite a few other polls and Democrats are retiring left and right . . . .
Just for the record, despite the fact that there are many fewer of them to start out with, more Republicans than Democrats are retiring from the House and from the Senate. More Republican governors are not seeking reelection than Democrats as well. Your confusion on the matter goes to show the power and sway that disinformationists can have over an uncritical populace.,..
Last edited by saganista; 01-29-2010 at 07:55 AM..
No, I posted the facts which, in a lack of any knowledge or understanding of the matter, you took to be mere opinion. Without being able to produce any sort of supporting evidence at all, you then engaged in your snarky little belittling of those facts, only to have the official published version of them thrown in your face. Bottom Line: You lose. Again.
Again, confusing opinion for fact, no matter how much you wish it to be true, does not make it so.
You stated that the repuclican substitute for the Pelosi bill (H.R. 3962) would actually be MORE EXPENSIVE. Here's your quote:
Quote:
It would insure fewer than 10% of the people that the majority plan would, but it would still be MORE EXPENSIVE.
(emphasis yours)
I then provided you with the CBO cost estimates for each and proved you wrong. Apparentely you didn't read post #41.
Here's the CBO quote regarding Pelosi bill:
Quote:
The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for
the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects
a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges
(and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small
employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of
penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on
revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion
to their total cost.
And here's the CBO quote regarding the Republican alternative:
Quote:
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the amendment would result in
a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $68 billion over the 2010–2019 period.
That estimate reflects a projected net cost of $8 billion over 10 years for the
provisions directly related to insurance coverage; that net cost reflects a gross cost
of $61 billion that is partly offset by about $52 billion in additional revenues
associated with the coverage provisions. Over the same period, the other provisions
of the amendment would reduce direct spending by $49 billion and increase tax
revenues by $27 billion.
The only facts you actually hit on correctly were the number of insured, which I never argued that point with you.
Just for the record, despite the fact that there are many fewer of them to start out with, more Republicans than Democrats are retiring from the House and from the Senate. More Republican governors are not seeking reelection than Democrats as well. Your confusion on the matter just goes to show the power and sway that disinformationists can have over an uncritical populace.,..
What he said was not incorrect. You seem to take real enjoyment in belittling other posters. So what if there are more republicans retiring or not seeking reelection when compared to democrats? The point of his post is that republicans are filling those vacancies at a greater rate than democrats. One need only look at the recent election of republican in VA, NJ, and MA. If you don't feel those elections were politically significant, given the wide margin win Obama enjoyed in those states just one year prior, well you're entitled to that flawed opinion.
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.
