The Republican Congress
In your opinion, what has the republican congress done to create or pass legislation since Obama has been president?
Way to go peoplepower73. This question looks like a set up. Any way I answer some one is going to attack me! But that's happens a lot anyway.
But, I'll try to answer your question: The whole American political process has not kept up with the times. The media has taken over the minds of half the public. So people seem robotic with pre-recorded responses about the issues of the day. And the issues of the day--what we talk about--is controlled by the media. And the media is owned by rich people who want this gridlock in Congress to keep going. It pays them grandly.
Politicians who go along with the gridlock thing will have easy reelections. Those who buck it will have to face tough election battles.Too much to keep track of.
Some good. Some bad. Some that don't really matter.
Here's some:
http://www.congress-summary.com/B-112th … s_Seq.htmlThe Republican Congress has not and will not pass legislation that would benefit people, that would make President Obama succeed, and the Republicans at least the Tea Party Republicans WANT President Obama to fail (they said so) and they think if the President fails, All the voters will blame hiim and vote in ALL Republicans. The Republicans don't realize that a lot of voters understand what they are doing and will not vote for them.
What a lot of people don't realize that is the President fails, America fails, we the people fail.
I think the Tea Party Republicans have the Parasites in the brain as Au fait talks about, that is controlling what they do and what they say.Give them some credit. They passed the Drywall Safety Act. I've been sleeping like a baby ever since.
In general terms, here is a good source. It has the current docket, how many Bills have been enacted into Law, whether it was a Senate bill (S) or a House bill (H.R.) and if you click on the particular bill it will have it's original author.
This year, 9 bills have been signed by the President. 5 are Senate bills and 4 are House bills, however, to hit the President's desk they had to pass both Chambers.
There are 123 passed resolutions. (you can see each one here as well).
source: http://www.govtrack.us/
It would be nice if they would say whether it was republicans or democrats who sponsored each bill.
Have you looked?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/Doesn't really matter, if it passed that means it went through the R controlled house. You said create or pass.
Really does matter, if a motion passes with just enough Republican votes and all Democrat votes for example then calling it a Republican action is dishonest/incorrect.
No, he asked what the Republicans have done to create OR pass. If Rs vote for it, then they are doing something to PASS it. Fulfills the requirements set forward by the OP.
If everybody carefully read the question this is what I said: "In your opinion, what has the republican congress done to create or pass legislation since Obama has been president?" The key phrase here is "In your opinion." I appreciate the links to the congressional data bases. If they had a way for sorting democrats from republicans that would help. I was more after what your perception of the republican house and senate was doing during Obama's terms in office. My perception is all the republican congress has done is try to block almost every bill Obama has tried to pass. If they have created or passed bills that have not been very consequential. Again this is my perception. Your thoughts?
If your perception is that Republicans block every bill Obama tries to pass then the Republicans, in my opinion are doing a good job. Obama is not a legislator. He has no authority to create laws. He can suggest anything he wants, however.
Obama is not the boss of Congress and cannot tell them what to do.
Now, on to blocking bills. Have you seen Harry Reid accept anything for a vote that started in the Republican House? It seems that everything in Congress is on a deadlock because the House won't vote on Senate bills, and the Senate is not voting on House bills.
As soon as both sides get their head out of the sand maybe the country will move in that "Forward" direction that Obama wants...
Hopefully NOT to "fundamentally change" what has worked for over 200 years (well, better than most other countries, anyway).I hear smaller government if it's for the benefit of the rich. I see plans that would limit goverment involvement with helping the poor, and the rich or well off love it. Can't have it both ways in my opinion. If you don't want big government, get rid of all the programs, not just those in place to help the rich!
"Republicans want smaller government for the same reason Crooks want fewer cops: It's easier to get away with murder" ____ James Carville
James Carville is an idiot and that's on a good day.
I notice you keep saying "Republican Congress" while dismissing the fact that the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Both houses make up congress, not just one. Careful, your bias is showing.
Obama has submitted a budget (albeit late) the last three years and each time could not get even one DEMOCRAT to vote for it in the senate much less a republican. Even his own party knows this guy is a joke and is in way over his head.
The Democrat controlled senate has not even bothered to pass a budget for the past what? Three years? Even though they are legally obligated to do so. Harry Reid doesn't want you knowing how much they want to spend and on what.
So maybe a better question is why does the DEMOCRAT controlled senate block almost everything the House sends them that is designed to try to get the economy moving again?
Let me answer that for you: They are running interference for Obama because they know that if the economy get better with Republican ideas being implemented it would reveal Obama for the incompetent that he is.I'm talking strictly about republican congressman in both the house and the senate. How would you express that? The budget is for goods and services that have already been appropriated but not paid for. It's called the debt ceiling. The republican game plan is they will not approve an increase in the debt ceiling unless there are no tax increases and entitlement programs are cut. This is just another way of protecting the super rich and corporations and balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor.
When Grover Norquist who is not even a government official, makes the republicans congressman sign a pledge to not increase taxes, that's blockage. And it's also a protection racket, because he will make sure they will not get re-elected. He is that powerful.
What has the republican house sent to the senate that is designed to get the economy moving again? I know Paul Ryan's ten year plan, that is just that a plan. How about privatizing social security, that's another good one? How about lowering taxes for the wealthy, that's another good one?
You last paragraph tells me that you have been drinking the kool aid! How about this for an answer: If Obama is a success, it will make the republicans look bad. They will and have blocked anything Obama has tried to pass to get back into office, even at the expense of the populous.Taxes have been increased on everyone, you seem to think that Republicans in the house can somehow pass legislation on their own. Did you read the post you responded to?
Trust me, Obama needs no ones help to look bad.
He is not now, nor was he ever qualified to hold the office of President. He is woefully out of his depth, has no understanding of economics and is purely a partisan hack.
People say he inherited a mess. Ok. Let's say he did. He has made bad things worse, created many more problems on his own and has no idea how to fix any of it.lol
No the Budget is not called the debt ceiling. The Budget is called the Budget. I know since the Democrats and the President haven't felt the need to offer one or operate under one since Obama took Office it could get confusing, but they are NOT interchangeable.SassySue1963, President Obama has presented a BUDGET to the Congress every year, which the Republicans ignore, and other people believe that he did not present one. The President's Budget will not make it through Congress as long as the Republicans have a Super Majority vote strangle hold. Unless every Republican Congressman loses his seat in 2014.
The Republicans ignore??!!! LOL
He can't get a single vote from Republicans OR Democrats his last three budget because they were off in fantasyland. 99-0 in the DEMOCRAT controlled Senate for the last one, that's how serious his own party takes him.lmao
Do you even know enough about politics to make comments here? I mean claiming the GOP has a Super Majority Stranglehold on Congress shows a complete ignorance of such.
The Democrats control the Senate currently. We'll begin your education there. The Senate has not passed one budget. Those are Democrats, you know, the President's own party.
Furthermore, both chambers of Congress were controlled by the Democrats for the President's first 2 years. Yet, we still did not see a budget. Again, Democrats. No budget.
Join us in the real world.
.Before you try to teach someone about politics you first would need to know what you are talking about and, you don't..
Really? Before you attempt to appear more knowledgeable than you are on an internet forum, you should at least make an attempt to use Google to educate yourself.
Congressional make-up of both Chambers of Congress from 2006 to current:
2007 - 2009 49 dems/49 GOP 2 independents
2009 - 2011 57 Dems/ 41 GOP
2011- 2013 51 Dems/47 GOP
current Senate 54 Dems/45 GOP
House
2007 - 2009 233 Dems/198 GOP
2009 - 2011 256 Dems/178 GOP
2011 - 2013 193 Dems/242 GOP
current House 201 Dems/234 GOP
source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
Hmmm...certainly looks as if the Congressional majority in both Chambers from 2007 - 2011 was held by Democrats. I mean, last I checked in real world math majority was the Party with the most members.
Now let's check the budget part.
April 29, 2009 – The last time the Democrat-led Senate adopted a budget resolution. Also the last time the Majority brought a budget plan to the floor.
Here's the source http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican … 46ecec6a51
It includes an entire timeline. Yep. April 29,2009. Nothing since then except for the spending monstrosity the WH just proposed in March of this year.Shyron, you really show an absolute lack of knowledge in this area, maybe you should stop before you look even more foolish.
Just because you say something is so does not mean it is so, those facts just keep getting in the way, don't they?? LOL
What you said was 100% and verifiably wrong and shows a complete lack of basic knowledge about politics and congress.practice what you preach Sassy, practice what you preach.
lol
Nice vague sentences. Perhaps you'd like to actually contribute some factual information? Or are you unable to do so?
Go ahead. Really. Elaborate what you claim. What is incorrect? What about your statement was correct? Provide actual facts to back it up as well.
After all, I've proven what I claimed with sources. Not so for you. Educate yourself.The compromises are made when the bills are still in committee not when they go up for final vote. That's why the health care laws had to be re-written so many times. It was all about compromise. That's when Obama set the limit on not taxing the rich at 250K and the republicans raised it to 500K, that's what passed, That's a compromise. Then when it comes up for final vote, the republicans always vote against it. John Bohener and I quote "NO, H**L NO."
We were talking about the failure of this President and the Democratic majority of the Senate to bring a Budget proposal to the floor of the Senate since April 29 2009.
But let's examine your premise shall we?
"The Republicans always vote against it"
Well, Obama's 2012 budget received a 97-0 vote in the Senate. That means every Democrat voted against it as well.
2013 received a 99-0 vote in the Senate against. Again, all the Democrats voted against it too.
Hmm....interesting.
As for your little so-called "compromise" we'll have to be honest and say that neither you nor me knows that any such thing took place. They were closed door meetings and both sides claim the other reneged on the deal.
Ms. sassy
An Overview of the 2013 Legislative Session: Supermajority Split Decided Many Things
Commenting on one of several pieces of legislation to gain national attention during the 2013 session of the Tennessee General Assembly, Gov. Bill Haslam blamed the failure of his education reform priority of the year on "infighting among advocates."
If you consider Republicans as advocates for a standard set of policy principles, the same might be said for many other bill failures in the debut performance of the 108th General Assembly, the first since Reconstruction with the GOP holding a "supermajority" -- more than two-thirds of the seats in both the House and Senate.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2013 … egisl.html
"A supermajority Congress's real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority." _____Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 22, making the case against a supermajority Congress (and, by extension, the filibuster).
Today, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, "60 votes are required for just about everything." Ezra Klein has more on the history of the filibuster at the Washington Post, including the efforts of star lawyer Emmet Bondurant, who plans to argue against its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: This isn’t what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/supermajorityFor the first part, why are you talking about a State Legislature? I really don't care what, how, when,why or whom did what in Tennessee. I don't live there.
Obviously, for the purposes of a Budget, the GOP did NOT hold a super majority the first 2 years of this President's first term because ObamaCare passed the Senate with 60 votes when not one single, solitary GOP member voted yes. Therefore, if they were so inclined to pass a Budget, one would have been passed in that time without needing GOP approval. So...sorry, it's still incorrect.
Also, might I just point out that there is no filibuster allowed on budget bills.
"Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues."
BZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Sorry, incorrect again. The GOP cannot prevent the Senate from bringing to the floor a Budget plan. Nor can they filibuster to prevent a vote. Nor is 60 votes required for passage.
I'm proud of you for figuring out how to use Google though.Sassy: Read this, especially Article 1 Section 5
http://peoplepower73.hubpages.com/hub/W … t-Used-forI know what it is and what they were trying to imply. The point is twofold though peoplepower.
1. Filibusters are not allowed on budget matters.
2. For the first 2 years, the GOP did not hold a super majority as proven by the passage of ObamaCare without one single solitary GOP vote.
so the question remains, why haven't we had a budget under our current Administration?Because Democrats live in a fantasy world where they can spend as much as they want on whatever they want and the money supply is endless
I think you need to practice what she preached.
Lie detector: It was Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Miss., budget Amendment to the President's budget request; the Sessions amendment was voted down 99-0.
A similar effort from Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-SC, was rejected in the House 414-0.
“This is what Sen. Sessions has presented as being the president’s budget,” he said, indicating the much slimmer document.
“I think it’s readily apparent there is a big difference between the president’s budget, which I hold in my hands, and what Sen. Sessions has presented as being the president’s budget. This is not the president’s budget. So, of course, we’re not going to support it. It’s not what the president proposed.”
The White House official said the Sessions and Mulvaney’s bills were mere GOP stunts to get Democrats on record opposing ‘the President’s budget’” as well as distracting from what the House Republican budget would do, which the official described as “protect(ing) massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires while making the middle class and seniors pay.”
According to Fox News?
Published March 28, 2012
FoxNews.com
Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama's budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.
The budget was offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., to show how few votes the president's budget might get.
House Republicans last tried this same tactic in 2000 on President Clinton's budget.
From Ted Barrett and Alison Harding, CNN
updated 11:13 AM EDT, Sat March 23, 2013
The Democrat-controlled Senate passed its first formal budget proposal in four years early Saturday after hours of non-stop voting that started Friday evening.
The non-binding plan for the 2014 budget calls for a trillion dollars in tax increases and passed 50 to 49. No Republicans voted for the bill, and four Democrats voted against it.
It now goes to the House, where it is expected to be shot down. Senators recently voted down a budget proposal passed by the Republican-controlled house.Sen. Jeff Sessions R- ALABAMA
You can't even get that right LOLYou need to re-read my reply. Sen. Sessions R-Miss. as it states in my rejply to you.
No, he was saying Senator Sessions is not from Miss. but from Alabama, which is in fact correct.
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … r-do-they/
This is where I got my information on Mississippi vs Alabama.
However that does not matter the point is that the Bill was session's not President Obama's that did not pass 99-0, and you are using a red herring Mississippi vs Alabama to distract from this fact that it was Session's bill.Being wrong on MS vs. AL is the least of your mistakes.
Why did Sen. Sessions bring the bill to the floor using Obama's numbers? Because Reid would not allow the bill Obama sent over to come to the floor, he knew it would get soundly defeated, Sessions thought the president should get an up or down vote on his proposals LOL. He got it 99-0 #failagain
What in the world are you on about? There is only one Sen. Sessions, and he is from Alabama.
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/
"The Democrat-controlled Senate passed its first formal budget proposal in four years early Saturday after hours of non-stop voting that started Friday evening."
Note the words in bold. Elected in 2009, we're currently in 2013. The Senate, a Democrat majority for that entire time, has never passed a budget proposal under this President.
"The non-binding plan for the 2014 budget calls for a trillion dollars in tax increases and passed 50 to 49. No Republicans voted for the bill, and four Democrats voted against it."
And well look at that. They didn't need 60 votes to do it. 50 to 49. Imagine. They could have done this every year for the last four years WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE.
I rest my case.
"It now goes to the House, where it is expected to be shot down. Senators recently voted down a budget proposal passed by the Republican-controlled house."
You should just be grateful that there is someone in Congress who isn't trying to pick your pockets clean like the Democrats.Current U.S. practice
Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues.And your point? Would you like a recitation of the exact rule?
How about just the part about how the debate works?
"Budget Reconciliation Cannot Be Filibustered
Reconciliation is an extremely powerful procedural vehicle in the budget process because it enables a Congressional majority to circumvent the 60 vote filibuster option in the Senate. Only a majority vote is needed in the Senate to adopt a budget resolution that calls for the reconciliation process, and only a majority vote is required to adopt the reconciliation bill that Congress considers to carry out the instructions in the budget resolution. A reconciliation bill is subject to strict rules in the Senate because of its filibuster-proof status. These rules limit the scope of a reconciliation bill so that only certain policies may be considered under the expedited process."
Or are you replying to the fact they didn't need 60 votes to do it?
I do recall that YOU claimed the following:
"President Obama has presented a BUDGET to the Congress every year, which the Republicans ignore, and other people believe that he did not present one. The President's Budget will not make it through Congress as long as the Republicans have a Super Majority vote strangle hold. Unless every Republican Congressman loses his seat in 2014."
those are your words explaining why we have not operated under any budget since this President took Office. Clearly, as budget bills fall under reconciliation rules, it does not matter because the Democrats have held a Senate majority the entire length of this Presidency, and the House held a Democrat majority for the first 2 years of his first term. Still, no budget. So how you going to blame the big bad GOP? Which was the entire point.
You were the one arguing that the reason we haven't seen a budget from this Administration was all the Republican's fault because they had a stranglehold on Congress. Clearly, that isn't the case.
For future reference it would be helpful if you could manage to actually ask a question, respond to something or just do more than repeat a portion of a post and its source. Just so, you know, someone other than yourself would know what point you're attempting to make.
P.S. If you were thinking "aha! you don't know why they didn't need 60 votes!" sorry , once again. If you just look over and up a bit you'll see I already used the reconciliation argument earlier.
An interesting question. Having control of the House does not wield power, control of the Senate does. WHat can the Repubs do? Nothing, there were over 2963 bills tabled by Reid, bills never even considered. Perhaps if a few were allowed to come to the floor we could have had a budget, or job projects. But since those are not in Dems best interest, they just squash anything a Repub brings up. .
What has the republican house sent to the senate that is designed to get the economy moving again? I know Paul Ryan's ten year plan, that is just that a plan.
Of course it is a plan, all budgets and ideas are plans. Success depends on how they are implemented, well if they are designed to be successful. Obamacare was a plan, we all see how that is turning out. But we all could see it was a failure, well, liberals could not they still think it is great as they praise it. .
You last paragraph tells me that you have been drinking the kool aid! How about this for an answer: If Obama is a success, it will make the republicans look bad. They will and have blocked anything Obama has tried to pass to get back into office, even at the expense of the populous.
Seems that is right out of the Dem playbook, Dems blocked everything they could in order to make Bush look bad so they could win the next election even if it was at the expense of the populous. Now that they are in office it is really at the expense of the populous. Tax Tax Tax, regulate regulate regulate.American View: Here is what Mitch McConnell said: "Our job is to make Obama a one term president." Here is what Boehnor said about the passing the Health Care Bill. "No and Hell no." Senator Mitch McConnell, R from KY, has voted in favor of a filibuster 319 out of a total of 721 opportunities. This amounts to an obstruction record of 44.2%..
Thanks you People, I made a bet with my friend for $20 and even wrote down what your response was going to be, I nailed it.
Curious, why is it obstruction when McConnell says it, but it is patriotic when Pelosi and Reid said it?
How can McConnell obstruct anything? He is not in charge of the Senate, Reid is. Reid controls whether or not a bill comes to the Senate floor for debate and vote. As I stated earlier, look at how many bills did blocked or tabled from coming to the floor. That is the definition of obstruction.Are you forgetting there are two houses of congress. One is the senate and the other is the house of representatives. Mitch McConnell is the Minority Leader of the republican controlled house. When the Senate votes for a bill. It has to go to the house for a vote. If the house votes against it. It is blocked. The purpose of a filibuster is to obstruct a bill by delaying it and causing it to pass with at least 60 votes as a super majority. This is from the Atlantic Weekly: "Since the Democrats regained majority control of the Senate six years ago, the Republicans under Mitch McConnell have applied filibuster threats (under a variety of names) at a frequency not seen before in American history. Filibusters used to be exceptional. Now they are used as blocking tactics for nearly any significant legislation or nomination. The goal of this strategy, which maximizes minority blocking power in a way not foreseen in the Constitution, has been to make the 60-vote requirement seem routine.
As part of the "making it routine" strategy, the minority keeps repeating that it takes 60 votes to "pass" a bill -- and this Orwellian language-redefinition comes one step closer to fulfillment each time the press presents 60 votes as the norm for passing a law."Are you forgetting there are two houses of congress.
Really? Two Chambers of Congress, Wow, who would have guessed that.. Are You aware which chamber holds the power? Generally speaking, bills come from the House first then go to the Senate, it happens this way maybe 95% of the time. As said previously, Reid just tables them, obstruction.
Now yes McConnell and others have threatened to filibuster , no more than Dems did under Bush. It is just a tactic. You should read a article I wrote about Reid being an obstructionist. If you do you will see how Reid uses Cloture as the bill is introduced to ensure no debate but a vote on bills. Talk about closing the door on discussion.
Republicans still don't get that whole context thing do they?
Yes she is.
And it's so enjoyable watching her do so!
Owning the forum? With snide commentary, completely ignoring the OP, and turning this into a bash Obama thread? Maybe if this was 6th grade...
No with those pesky things known as facts. Or as democrats call them, things we wish weren't true because they make us sad.
Facts are pesky little things aren't they? Especially when they are in print and recorded for posterity.
I did not "bash" Obama. I simply stated the truth. We have not had a budget passed by the Senate under this President. Are you disputing that fact?
Oh and when did I ignore the OP? He posted a response, I answered. In fact, my very first post was directly to the OP (who was the one who brought up the entire budget topic I might add).O.K. Here is how it goes. There is always a budget. That's how the government appropriates things. The problem is they don't pay for it in the fiscal year it is appropriated. If they appropriated more than they budgeted for it's called a deficit. If they appropriated less, it's called a surplus. In order to pay for what was appropriated they have to raise the debt ceiling.
It's the debt ceiling that doesn't get passed and the republicans in congress that we will not approve the increase in the debt ceiling until taxes are lowered for the wealthy and the entitlements are cut. Obama had congress put together a committee to find away to do it and they couldn't. But they did come up with the sequester that no one thought would happen. Be careful what you wish for you might get it. End of story.By the way, that was a bi-partisan committee that could not agree and one of the provisions of the committee was if there was no agreement, then the sequester would be enacted.
You mean the Simpson-Bowles Commission that he completely ignored after forming it to give him recommendations? THAT Bi-partisan committee??
You mean the Simpson-Bowles commission whose deficit reduction plan is the basis for the Obama deficit reduction plan and whose plan is supported even by Nansy Pelosi?
Obama reducing deficits, that's rich. Obama couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
The deficit has been reduced by more than half a trillion dollars from the last Bush budget (2009) to this year.
80 Billion, not even a drop in the bucket.
Half a trillion as in 500 Billion.
Follow the links form it if you don't like wikipedia.
2009 last Bush budget: 1.413 Trillion,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Unite … ral_budget
2013 latest Obama budget: 901 Billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Unite … ral_budget
Total reduction over four years is over half a trillion dollars.
I have no idea where you get 80 billion from.
You are obviously tragically ignorant of what you are discussing.
Are you worried that it goes against your narrative of a socialist president?
Peoplepower, that simply is not correct.
The debt ceiling is simply the limit on the amount of money the Government may borrow before it must go back to Congress to get authorization to borrow more. Period. It is not a budget in any fashion.
No we have not had a budget any year of this Administration. We have passed those Emergency Funding Measures, so that the Government can keep functioning. They are not the same as the budget.
The "sequester" came straight from our President, then he wants to turn around and talk about how "horrible" it is. It was a plan straight from the WH.
Hey, it isn't just taxes on the wealthy though I know that's the nice spin the liberal media likes to tell you. The latest budget proposal raises taxes on nearly ALL Americans and that was from the CBO. Not to mention small business. You think that's going to help our economic funk? That is what the Republicans vote against. Not to mention that it contains no provisions to balance the budget nor reduce the deficit.Sassy: Here we go again. Please read this. http://peoplepower73.hubpages.com/hub/W … he-Deficit
smh
Yes here we go again.
The Debt Ceiling is just that. It deals strictly with the existing debt and obligations of the Government. It is about the debt, not obligations, of the country. It does not fund any programs, for instance. It strictly governs how much the Treasury can borrow to pay on legal obligations, in other words, all our existing loans. That is not a budget. That is revolving credit account where every time you need money, the Bank raises your limit. The problem? The Government never makes a principle payment.
The Budget, like in any household, is about attempting (on a large scale, so as much as is possible) living within the means of the US Government. In other words, reducing the deficit and at the very least, balancing the budget so the deficit does not keep rising at its current speed.
The Emergency Funding Measures simply finances all the programs and paychecks the Government hands out. They are not a budget.
And don't forget when Bush wanted to raise the debt ceiling Obama himself called it a failure of leadership. When Obama wants to do the same though....not so much.
Are all things exactly the same? No, so why would you expect the same conclusions. Even if they were, is there any reason not to expect, or want, someone to change their opinion over time and as they see and experience things from an entirely different perspective? Sometimes flip-flops are flip-flops. Sometimes they are wisdom. It's useful to identify the difference.
You are right things are never the same when Obama does it.
I'm not the one who needs to admit there is a double standard.
One thing I have noticed in the time Obama has been on the national scene is, for some odd reason, he always seems to be the exception to every rule.
Bio in 1991 Publisher Pamphlet saying he was born in Kenya? Oh, sorry, he was the only one of more than a dozen authors in the same publication who didn't write his own bio. But just him. Oopss, sorry about that.
Selective service card? Yes his was the only one of hundreds of sample from the same post office, same year, same month to have a 2 digit year date rather than 4 digits like all the other control samples. Just him, he's the exception.
When Bush wanted to get the debt ceiling raised Obama said "This is a failure of leadership.." Now when OBAMA is the leader and he wants the same, he's the exception, his leadership didn't fail at all. Just him, he's the exception.Yes, we are all impressed with your ability to name-call. Got anything above a 2nd grade level, or just more crap you read off of bumper stickers?
I don't see anyplace I called him a name.
But if I was going to call him a name it would be incompetent commie loser. Or something like that.Even besides the direct insults (e.g. "couldn't poor piss out of a boot"), you are doing nothing but attacking someone's character. Even were we to accept that there is this double standard, who cares? What is the relevance to the topic at hand? That is name-calling too. Attacking the person without having a purpose or point except seemingly to slander.
I beg to differ, I am attacking his terrible lack of character.
Yeah, because 7.6% unemployment or more for all of his presidency is such a sterling economic record.
Or where you referring to the "Recovery Summer" that wasn't? Or maybe all those Shovel ready jobs perhaps? I know, I know, it's the 400,00 'almost immediately' form oBamacare.......ummm....wait.
Cash for clunkers? Solyndra? Ener1? I know it's the algae running our cars right, right??? 4 dollar gas??? Gotta be one of those!!!
Maybe it's the 48 million people on food stamps???
Yep, amazing economic record I'll tell ya boy!!!
The OP's questions are: "In your opinion, what has the republican congress done to create or pass legislation since Obama has been president?" and "What has the republican house sent to the senate that is designed to get the economy moving again?"
Your response was, "I know since the Democrats and the President haven't felt the need to offer one or operate under one since Obama took Office it could get confusing." and from that point you have commented upon the failures of the Democrats, which has nothing to do with the question.
Nothing necessarily wrong about pointing out budget failures, but you are being entirely one-sided. Budgets haven't been passed in 6 of the last 8 odd fiscal years. Why? well, I imagine because those are election years. For those 6 failed budget years, one was a Democratic Congress, two were mixed, and three were Republican Congresses.
Of course, now the Senate has passed a budget, and what's the first thing the GOP did? They prevented Reid from setting up a budget conference...
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b … onference-No budget has been passed since April 29, 2009. The Republican's have not held a majority of the Senate in that entire time. The Democrats held the majority within the Senate for that entire period, and held a majority of both Chambers for 2 years during that period.
My response was to the OP's post claiming that the debt ceiling and the budget were the same thing.
Those are just facts. Completely verifiable. The argument that was being made was because the GOP had a super majority which indicates the use of the filibuster. That is incorrect because the filibuster cannot be used for budget bills.
So let's see now....suddenly the Senate, after holding the majority for the last 5 fiscal years, decides to finally pass a budget and because the GOP doesn't want to keep digging in the people's empty pockets, THEY are the bad guys? Who's being one sided? lmao
Here are the reasons the budget conference resolution was not agreed to at this time:
1. ""There’s no expectation, at all, of a successful conference. The president already said that his budget was his final offer — and it’s a trillion dollars in taxes off," a Senate GOP aide explained."
Let's see, so the President already said "take it or leave it". What good with a conference do?
2. Ryan wants a “framework” in place first, which he argues could help avoid an embarrassing public deadlock. Such a framework would steer the committee toward a down payment on reducing the deficit, Ryan argues.
Hmmm...I guess that's a bad thing?
3. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that it is customary to make such arrangements before staring a conference and pointed out that under House rules, if the committee were to fail to resolve differences after 20 days, any member could gum up the House floor with motions to instruct conferees.
In other words, it is customary to set up rules of order prior to a conference. Yet, the Democrats don't want to take the time to do that in this instance.
The most telling information to me however, is the following:
"The House-passed budget cuts $4.6 trillion in spending on top of the $1.2 trillion sequestration cuts already scheduled to take effect, and it balances in 10 years.
The Senate-passed budget has $975 billion in new taxes, does not balance, and does not cut spending when the fact it turns off sequestration is taken into effect."
Let's see now......more taxes, more spending, no plans to balance the budget, turns off sequestration and does not cut any spending......is that a good budget proposal to you?
Please take note that all of the above information came from your own posted source.
To keep on topic of budget but address the original question:
The House has passed 12 appropriation bills in 2012 and not one was introduced onto the Senate floor.
"Sen. Corker says it has been more than three years since Congress passed a budget and that this year, not a single appropriations bill has made it the Senate floor. The record shows that he has his facts straight."
source: http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/sta … get-more-/
You'll also note within that source that it does address the other times the Government worked without a budget. Three times, the GOP held the majority and one time, Democrats held the majority. The difference between those times and now? None of those were in consecutive fiscal years. So a stop gap measure was just that...a stop gap.
I realize that the 99-0 vote was a forced vote by the GOP. You do realize though, that in essence it means the Senate ignored the President's budget proposals altogether rather than vote on them because they were irresponsible and would not pass.The last budget passed was FY2010 by the 111th Congress who then failed to pass one for FY2011, so they only held a majority for one of those years without a budget. FY2012 and FY2013 have been the Republican controlled House 112th Congress.
I didn't read his comments as saying that. I think his point has been that the GOP has been using the debt ceiling to hold the budget process hostage, but I'll let him comment on that.
I didn't say anyone was bad-guys or good-guys. Such emotional attachments are a hindrance to objective conversation. I think the vast majority of Washington is an abject failure. Passing a budget is a fundamental (non-optional) duty of their occupation.
I think the GOP has pretty much said that as well. But by your logic, one could just as easily ask what good a Senate budget will do. If it's doomed to fail, why try? That hasn't been acceptable to the GOP so far. They've gone on and on about the Senate not passing a budget. If "what good will it do" isn't a legitimate excuse for the Senate than it shouldn't be good enough for the GOP. Shut up and do your job, is my only response to that (and it goes equally for everyone).
In other words, he wants a framework in place beforehand that will help insure that he gets what he wants (a down payment on reducing the deficit). Bad thing? No, but it is stupid. It's like asking to get a free 7 points before walking into a football game.
I also always love the way they code things. One minute they are hopping up and down about the lack of transparency of the President (as they should), but then the next they're advocating closed-door behind-the-scene meetings in order to *wink wink* "avoid an embarrassing public deadlock." I'm sorry, but I don't know how anyone takes that guy seriously.
Well, first, the fact that he would characterize the efforts of the minority party as "gum[ming] up the House floor" says a lot about Mr. Boehner. Secondly, I don' think there's anything customary about it. I'd be curious if anyone had information about that being customary or ordinary. Either way, I don't personally want it to go that way. Do you? Put it all out in the open and get it done already. Why would anyone want it happening in back hallways?
It doesn't matter if it's a good budget proposal to me, or to you. It's the budget proposal put forth by the representatives of half the country. "I don't like it, therefore we shouldn't even talk about it," is in part, I think, a big chunk of our problem.
I think this quote is right on point: "... the GOP found itself a little like the dog that had chased the car – but then didn’t know what to do with it." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 … 13136.htmlIt's the budget proposal put forth by the representatives of half the country. - Not exactly. It is the budget proposal put forth by the President, and 50 Senators voted yes. 49 still voted no.
I don't know where you thought I was advocating any back-door meetings. You talked about the GOP stalling the budget committee and Ryan is working with a Democratic Representative to get such a committee. What they don't want is going in without any points of order at all because then anyone (not just one Party, and Boehner didn't mention any specific Party) can then bring such motions to the House floor and I have no doubt that members of both Parties would begin doing exactly that.
The House has passed several budgets and appropriations bills that never see the Senate floor. Which was the initial discussion. The claim being that the House never votes on anything the Senate proposes, but it works both ways. It was a very one sided discussion ignoring completely the other side of the coin.
We all know they all play their little games. ALL of them. At the end of the day though, give me the ones who would like to let me keep something of what I work hard to obtain.Well for the sake of the argument, let's just assume Boehner and Ryan actually care about something other than themselves. Do you really imagine that any of these buffoons can work out anything in a private pre-conference conference? It seems to me that they have essentially proven that they can't accomplish anything when they are allowed to hide in the dark. And it isn't like they don't know each other's position. In some other situation I might agree with their point, that hammering out a framework might make the process go better, but for me personally, I'm tired of the whole sorry lot of them. Put them out in public and force them to make a deal or suffer the consequences. The sooner the better. In fact if it were up to me, I'd give them one day. One day or they all lose their jobs and are tarred and feathered. Enough is enough.
One day when they are already in session, or one day to get your fat-cat a$$es
back to town and vote on a budget, or don't bother coming back at all?
I do agree with you about the entire light of day thing.
Just look at the supposed budget deal between Boehner and the President. Now each side claims the other reneged on what was promised and we have no way of knowing what went down.
In fact, I actually had a post right after the election saying this is what the GOP should do going forward. Everything out in the open.
However, IF there is going to be a budget committee, it does need to have a framework established in order for it to even have a chance at being successful.
Sassy: If you know so much, why don't you write more hubs. I checked your profile. You have 16 hubs. It's easy to tell people they are wrong. Anyone can find anything they want on the internet to support any argument they want. I have seen your comments in so many forums and hubs and i think you enjoy telling people they are wrong. You have miss-understood just abut everything I have said about the budget and the deficit. I never said the budget and the debt ceiling was the same thing. Did you even read my hub?
This is a forum where mis-information is being bantered about. I have to write a Hub if I want to correct such misinformation and I am somehow wrong if I don't write a Hub? And how would that get to the people reading such misinformation here in this forum? Hmmm....
You'll notice I wasn't commenting anywhere here for quite awhile. Life happens.
The debt ceiling is simple. The President wants a blank check and the GOP won't give him one. He doesn't want to have to ask Congress to raise the debt limit. That should make anyone cringe.
Again, a budget (while not entirely at this point because we haven't had one for so long) goes a long way to avoiding the entire debt ceiling fiasco. The GOP used the debt ceiling to attempt to get this Administration to work with a budget and cease all the chaos and emergency funding crap everyone had to go through because we had no budget.
Again, it is like having a revolving credit account where you can raise your own credit limit whenever the mood strikes you. That is what the Democrats want. Without ever making a payment, which is where a budget that reduces the deficit and at least takes aim at balancing the budget comes in play.Sassy: Again you have twisted things. This is what I said from the comment above yours: "If you know so much, why don't you write more hubs. I checked your profile. You have 16 hubs. It's easy to tell people they are wrong. " I never said you are somehow wrong if you don't write a hub. But I'm not surprised that you would say that because you do take comments and then twist them to your advantage.
The government has a budget. It's just like any budget. It has income and it has expenses. If the expenses exceed the income it is called a deficit. If the income exceed expenses it is called a surplus. The only difference is because of fiscal accounting practices, they have to wait to the end of the fiscal year to pay for what they spent the money on. That is called raising the debt ceiling. Obama wanted to balance the budget by raising taxes and cutting spending. The republicans want to do it by cutting spending only. It's pure and simple. Here is the National Debt Clock which includes the largest budget items. http://www.usdebtclock.org/#
You have taken this forum way off track by arguing about the budget. It was supposed to be about: the following "In your opinion, what has the republican congress done to create or pass legislation since Obama has been president?
Because of your zeal to prove people wrong, you have taken this forum way off on a tangent. Thank you very much!Sassy: Again you have twisted things. This is what I said from the comment above yours: "If you know so much, why don't you write more hubs. I checked your profile. You have 16 hubs. It's easy to tell people they are wrong. " I never said you are somehow wrong if you don't write a hub. But I'm not surprised that you would say that because you do take comments and then twist them to your advantage.
The government has a budget. It's just like any budget. It has income and it has expenses. If the expenses exceed the income it is called a deficit. If the income exceed expenses it is called a surplus. The only difference is because of fiscal accounting practices, they have to wait to the end of the fiscal year to pay for what they spent the money on. That is called raising the debt ceiling. Obama wanted to balance the budget by raising taxes and cutting spending. The republicans want to do it by cutting spending only. It's pure and simple. Here is the National Debt Clock which includes the largest budget items. http://www.usdebtclock.org/#
You have taken this forum way off track by arguing about the budget. It was supposed to be about: the following "In your opinion, what has the republican congress done to create or pass legislation since Obama has been president?
Because of your zeal to prove people wrong, you have taken this forum way off on a tangent. Thank you very much!But she succeeded in proving people wrong.
Maybe you should go back and read, if it still isn't obvious then I don't know what to tell you.
Your the one who said it not me. i have nothing to prove.
You asked how I gave you directions to find out how, are you not interested in reading?
Actually, I kept trying to tie the 2 subjects together If you'd actually read the comments you'd know that.
Just for one example, above I said this:
"To keep on topic of budget but address the original question:
The House has passed 12 appropriation bills in 2012 and not one was introduced onto the Senate floor. "
Which addresses your initial question. It includes a source for that information as well.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your statement. Word for word your statement was "If you know so much, why don't you write more Hubs?"....which, from it's tone in print seems to imply you don't write Hubs, you don't know anything. Read it aloud to yourself as if it's addressed to you and see if it doesn't seem that way. I apologize if that intent wasn't behind the statement. Tone can be tricky to discern in print.
I thought forums were for discussion. Isn't that their purpose? We've discussed the budget, yes, but also as it relates to the Senate & House and what each Chamber has and has not done, etc.
Sue could not have said it any better.
Sue for PRESIDENT 2016!Yes, we'd actually have a budget every year and we'd be working to balance that budget.
Something the budget the President proposed does not do nor does it include any spending cuts.
We'd have a President that actually listened to the people, even if I thought what I wanted was a good idea, rather than shoving things down their throats by throwing money at the States Senators represent to insure a yes vote.
It would be a horrible world."Something the budget the President proposed does not do nor does it include any spending cuts." What do you call chained CPI for social security?
Sure the sequester furloughed the air traffic controllers. As soon as congress found they were going to have to wait for flights, it was re-instated. That's what happens with spending cuts.Get rid of the ineffective Department of Education.
No, that's what happens when pressured by the President to"make it hurt" for the people. I guess we can see what kind of President he wants to be remembered as.
Answer me this, President claims to have made 4 trillion plus in cuts so far. Amazingly, no one lost their jobs with those cuts, yet for a mere $85 billion, the Fed government is on a collision course with employment hell. Nothing but BS and we all know it. So why is it they cannot make cuts without cutting jobs?
Just following Simpson Bowles report would net several hundred billion dollars and no jobs lost. AMAZING!!!
IDK.
I'm seeing that Ted Cruz is angling for a run in 2016.
Lawdy, Lawdy.Hahahahahaahahaha
I can see it now...
"With 1 percent of precincts reporting, CNN calls the election in the favor of whoever is running against him...."
"But Republicans said they used all of the president’s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins … -0-senate/Good update on the the GOP Congress has -- or has not -- been doing since Obama's reelection.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … ory_1.html
My "favorite" paragraph:
"The culture of opposition displayed by House Republicans is reinforced by the party’s political apparatus. A Republican strategist recently told me that the national party committees have threatened their candidates with a loss of funding unless their campaigns are built primarily around attacks against their opponents. They are not interested in spending money on positive ads or ideas, this strategist told me."
The party of "NO" marches toward 2014 and 2016.And yet Harry Reid refuses to let ANY jobs bill sent to him by the House get to the Senate floor for consideration. Who is the party of NO??
7.5% Unemployment is good enough, right? Ahhh, the soft racism of lowered expectations huh?You realize that if it weren't for redistricting and population density, the GOP would be extinct right now...
Maybe Reid isn't allowing votes on bills because they are all full of terrible ideas?Oh don't even. That is so much BS. The Democrats continually try to redraw the lines here in order to make the rural counties not have any pull. They did the same thing in California recently too.
Yes I'm sure they are ALL terrible ideas. Really? Whatever.And no, not "whatever". If the GOP were committed to making this country better we would have common sense gun legislation, immigration reform and maybe even tax reform.
Instead, the GOP can't even be bothered to read the bills that the Obama sends to the House.Banning guns is not common sense. Banning abortion and gay marriage is common sense.
If the DNC were committed to making this country better, they would have some decency to do so.Based on what? And you can't say the Bible.
Do you hear yourself? You are the very definition of bias and blind idolization.
In 2012, the House passed 12 appropriation bills. NONE of them saw the Senate floor.
As for gun control, it didn't pass the Senate. You know, the Chamber dominated by Democrats. How is that the House and the GOP holding it up?Sassy: It did pass the senate with a simple majority of 54 to 46 votes. However, because of the GOP threatening to use a filibuster, the new rules are that it requires a super majority of greater than 60 votes so that they won't filibuster. That's a blockage tactic by the GOP. The reason Reid voted against it was, new rules, it gives him a chance to re-introduce the bill. Welcome to new rules. And please don't call me any names.
Four Democratic Senators voted no. Four Republican Senators voted yes.
Yes Reid voted no for procedural reasons.
Yes we all know when the GOP does it, it's "obstructionist" but when the Democrats do it, it's great. Things we've learned since President George Bush.
If a Democrat and a Republican do the same thing, the Democrat is right and the Republican is wrong.
An interesting little survey from law enforcement on the gun control proposals: they say it will do nothing to keep anyone safer.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislatio … -thoughts/No, you actually have it wrong. If GOP suggests a measure then it is the right thing. If Obama suggests the same measure it is wrong and let's block it.
For example: Obama’s sabotaged jobs bill that he tried to attract Republican support by packing it with Republican provisions. For instance, some GOP senators had come up with the idea of creating jobs repairing America’s decaying infrastructure through an independent, privately bankrolled fund. A good idea, but once Obama embraced it, the Republicans naturally deemed it a bad one. Then they blame Obama for it.You mean like the jobs bill Obama kept saying in his SOTU address that they should "pass right away" and that Harry Reid would not allow to come to the senate floor?
The one where Sen. McConnell tried to bring to a vote and 'Ol Harry blocked him too? That one?? LOL
Just wanted to give him and up or down vote like he asked for you know? Now why oh Why would Harry Reid block such a thing if it was going to be so darn good for our economy and jobs????
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … pport.htmlUmmm, what other jobs bill has Obama proposed?? I don't know of any but the one I mentioned. And he could not even get his own party to bring it up for a vote. Funny how that seems to happen to him time and again ain't it?
Guess that's what you get when you put a political neophyte in the White House.Ok, maybe you meant Obama's deficit reduction plan.....that Harry Reid block from being considered.
He does this so often it's hard to keep track. He sure doesn't seem to like Obama's proposals much.
http://thehill.com/video/senate/271255- … ction-planThe reason Reid blocked it is because McConnell wanted to make Obama's job bill an amendment to his Russian Trade Bill. Thereby minimizing the value of Obama's job bill. Here is the whole article for all to read.
“Last week [Treasury] Secretary [Timothy] Geithner brought up a proposal that was so unserious,” McConnell said on the floor, “I would like to see if my Democratic friends would like to support it.”
McConnell suggested that the Senate vote on what he called the president’s “ridiculous” plan as an amendment to the Russian trade bill that is being considered.
Reid, however, objected to McConnell’s suggestion, saying the Russian trade bill, H.R. 6156, is about job creation, not political stunts from Republicans.
“The purpose of this bill is to protect American jobs,” Reid said. “Are we going to get serious here and legislate or is this more of the political stunts that the Republican leader is going to pull today?”
I'm not sure you understood what you were posting. By the way, the new rule is when there is a threat for a filibuster in the senate, it requires 60 votes to get it passed without the filibuster. And the when the Senate Majority Leader votes no, it gets to be brought up again. That's why Reid votes no on some of these bills. That's why he voted no on background checks.Ah peoplepower. Really? by the Democrats own admission it was an election time facade to force the vote on the entire package.
"Republicans said they have always preferred negotiating the package piece by piece and said the vote was an effort to turn the debate into a political bludgeon.
They note that both chambers will vote this week on new free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, deals supported by both parties and advocated by Obama for months.
The House this week will also mull a plan to provide new training dollars for veterans entering the workforce, similar to part of Obama’s plan that would give businesses tax credits to hire vets.
“This whole exercise, by their own admission, is a charade that’s meant to give Democrats a political edge in an election that is 13 months away,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said of the vote on the package."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/ … ll-blocked
In other words, they wanted to vote on the good and leave the bad but no, we can't have that can we?
No you mean the one where the GOP wanted time to debate and vote on amendments and Reid said no. He was warned that if amendments were not even considered it would not pass. So it didn't.
Yeah, real "compromise" there by the Democrats.What do you guys do, just pick and choose what you want out of article and then spin what it actually said? McConnell wanted to amend the bill with the repeal of health care reform. Are you forgetting that bill is now law that was ruled upon by the supreme court? He also wants to extend the Bush tax cuts. That train has left the station. Why would they want to that? Here is what the article said for everybody to read:
"The Bring Jobs Home Act would provide a 20% tax break for the costs of moving jobs back to the United States and would rescind business expense deductions available to companies that are associated with the cost of moving operations overseas. (I see that as a good thing!)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, had warned Democrats before the vote that his party would want to amend the bill -- possibly with hot-button issues like repealing the health care reform law or extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded that those amendments were not germane to the bill and he would not allow votes on them.
In addition, Republican aides called attention to opposition by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, who generally support Republicans."
I think you guys posts links and then comment hoping that people don't actually read and understand the article. Of course Reid would say no to McConnell's proposal. That's just a way the GOP gets them to say no, knowing that they would turn it down and make them look like they are the obstructionist. I want to thank you and SuperKev because now I'm beginning to understand the GOP game plan. They present ridiculous proposals knowing that they would not be approved by democrats and then they call them the obstructionist...thank you!peoplepower,
Here you go. A list of bills out of the House that never saw the light of day on the Senate floor. The entire point is it is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black on obstruction. Many of these Bills are even bi-partisan efforts out of the House. Reid doesn't just block any GOP effort but anything at all coming out of the House.
Like I said, if the GOP does it bad, if the Democrats do it, it's alright.
http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs/tracker
It lists them all by actual H.R. number so they can even be looked up. Sure, some of them are "eh" but some are viable. Just think if perhaps one or two could have made it to the Senate floor for debate and amendments, the Congress as a whole might have accomplished something.
I read the summary of the Coal Mining Bill. Specifically, the bill would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing regulations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act that do the following:
Adversely impact U.S. coal mining employment;
Cause a reduction in coal revenue to governments through regulation of coal mining;
Reduce the amount of coal available for domestic consumption or export;
Designate any area as unsuitable for surface coal mining and reclamation operations; and
Expose the U.S. to liability for taking the value of privately owned coal through regulation."
Translation, they will sacrifice safety to increase their bottom line by deregulation.
How about all the people that were killed in the coal mines because owners were not complying with regulations?
Have you analyzed all these bills? Or do you expect me to do it? I could say the same thing you said: Just think if one or two of Obama's proposals could of been passed by the house, Congress as a whole might have accomplished something.
I will bet you dollars to doughnuts, if you analyzed those bills, they were not for the greater good of the country, but either for political reasons or to increase companies bottom lines by deregulation.I said, and I repeat :
"some of them are "eh" but some are viable". Did I say they were all fantastic bills? No I didn't. Why should I analyze them for you? That isn't for me to do for you, that is for you to do yourself. Have you analyzed ALL of the proposals brought forth from the President? No you haven't. You've taken the talking points and left the other 400 pages of crap out.
The Bills never make it out of the Senate. Why? Because it isn't about debate and amendments and compromise. It is about passage just as the Democrats want it. They don't want to debate anything nor allow amendments to be voted upon. They want it strict and to the letter of what was proposed. The few that make it to the House are then discussed and amended and returned to the Senate, what happens? Never see the floor.
That isn't compromise. That is dictatorship.
You want the GOP to roll over and play dead because you have this idea that anything from the head of the President or the Democrats is great while anything the Republicans put forth must be crap because it came from the GOP.
I have no such delusions of grandeur of either the GOP or the Democrats.
"I will bet you dollars to doughnuts, if you analyzed those bills, they were not for the greater good of the country, but either for political reasons or to increase companies bottom lines by deregulation."
You see, you make judgements without even being informed. Your original question was "what has the Republican Congress (should say House) created or passed". You thought it would be nothing and it is all the big bad GOP being obstructionist. When faced with the reality that Reid and the Senate engage in the same game you fall back on your old bias. The GOP is evil and nothing that comes out of there can be good.
Would you like me to analyze all 123 resolutions that have actually made it through the entire process? A mixture of both Senate & House bills? Or the 9 Bills that the President signed and were enacted into Law? Four House Bills and Five Senate bills? Perhaps I can just go through the entire docket for both Chambers for you?
Why is that my job?I didn't ask you to analyze those bills. Here is what I said: "Have you analyzed all these bills? Or do you expect me to do it?" Again you have twisted my words.
I thought people would realize when I referred to Republican Congress they would understand that it meant the republican house and senate. I'm sure they did, but it seems like it was only the conservatives that criticized me for that.
You say I'm uninformed unlike you who posts links and either doesn't read them or misinterprets what they say. In your last paragraph I can say the same thing about you. You think the democrats are evil, especially Obama and nothing that comes out of there is any good.
Do you deny that the republican party wants Obama to look weak by preventing him from getting anything passed? Take a look at this video ad by the RNC about Obama's last press conference.
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/29731 … wn-family-You asked the original question, you've been provided the answers. So, yes, I expect you to analyze them. If indeed you wanted an honest and accurate answer to your original question.
There have been other answers provided as well. If you truly want to know what the GOP has created, you'd need to analyze the legislation that has been provided.
I don't think they are evil. I simply think we've seen the evidence that the policies they keep on proposing over and over do not work.
Do you deny that Reid won't even consider anything out of the GOP because he wants them to look weak and is hoping for a stranglehold on both Chambers come mid-terms? Because that is what is going on in the Senate.
I'm saying it works both ways and that both sides are doing it.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/38573 … und-checks
This explains it well.And if it had gotten past obstruction in the Senate...
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29292 … trol-bill-
Would you be so kind as to list the bills Obama sends to the House.
Would you be so kind as to list all the bill Repubs do not read.
GOP not for immigration reform? Who blocked it from ever making progress under Bush? WHo was the last President that had some immigration reform? Was it Reagan?
And maybe with 43 months of 8+% unemployment in this administrations history we should try some new ideas since obviously the Democrats have none that are working. What do ya think??
How is that on the president? Maybe businesses should stop scapegoating Obama and start hiring?
Remember when Unemployment got to 6% under GWB and Nancy Pelosi went in front of the cameras cackling "Where are the jobs Mr. President?"
Good times.What's your point? I wouldn't have blamed Bush for the economy either. Although his handling of the wars after 9/11 was laughable, it wasn't his fault that 9/11 happened in the first place. As for the complete collapse of the financial sector, that too is too large to blame on the president alone.
Superkev: You do realize that 7.5% unemployment means that 92.5 % of the people are working, right?
It's not that simple actually. That 7.5% is only those filing for benefits. It does not count those for whom benefits have been exhausted nor the underemployed, those working 2, sometimes 3, part-time jobs because they cannot find anything full time.
It also does not count those who have simply stopped looking and taken an early retirement.
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/t … z2SKgrtIm8
Sure this is an article talking about the unemployment rate this time last year, but the explanation still holds true.
A more recent one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzn … ket-bulls/I read the article: Here is the key part of it: "These numbers added together suggest that the true unemployment level– when part-time workers are included– is 14.3%–meaning that one in seven of every potential full-time employee in the U.S. economy is not able to earn a proper living wage–and thereby contribute to the snails-pace of economic growth.
In the first sentence, he says these numbers suggest. That means it's his opinion and does not have hard facts. Even at 14,3%, there is still 85.7% of the people working!...no name calling please!Oh stop it with the "no name calling" please unless you can find somewhere I've called you a name. It is a false implication.
Sure it's his opinion, and hundreds of other opinions. Available at your fingertips with one second on Google search. Not one report of real unemployment numbers goes below 14%. Not one from anywhere.
The point is the consistent and long term high unemployment. The longest in our history short of the Depression. If the policies were working (and he got everything he wanted those first 2 years, and the GOP gave him some more in 2011) why is it stuck? A .2% (yes that is a decimal point there) is hardly a sign of a healthy economy. We all know what happens when the DOW does what it is currently doing as well. It crashes.You said it kid. "short of the depression." The financial meltdown was a depression and it will take time to recover. If you remember, right after the meltdown, many businesses closed. Why, because banks stopped loaning short term money that many businesses require for operating capital. They still have not loaned that money because they can make more money playing in the highly risky derivatives market with your money and mine.
Unemployment during the Great Depression hit a high of 25% in 1933. By 1940 it was down to 15%. Sure it was still higher than today, but was dropping at a recognizable rate.
It's been 5 years and unemployment has dropped a mere .2% since this President took Office. Hardly an indicator that any economic effort of this Administration has been successful.
In 2010 (for fiscal year 2011) , the President asked for and received another $900 billion in stimulus money. A reluctant House passed the measure (after overwhelming Senate approval) and decided to give the President what he requested. What did it do? Nothing.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 … artner=RSS
Perhaps the Republicans are simply tired of failed policies. Did that ever occur to anyone? No, because the Democrats are always right.
In 2011 the House passed 25 jobs bills. They were never even allowed to be voted on in the Senate. Reid ignored them.
http://www.speaker.gov/general/25-house … n-senate-0
Yes the actual list is from the Speaker's site however, it does list what the bills are and what is included in them which is why I used that source.
The Dow does not always crash.
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.htmlActually, what your chart shows is that every single time it hits a record high like now, it does crash. Where did it reach a record high and not crash? Unless there is something there I am reading incorrectly.
In the past 10 years or so it has crashed more due to the irresponsibility of Wall Street or some fluke occurrence such as 9/11.
Not sure that burden rests on any president. Although, if we are going to blame Obama for a stock market crash that hasn't happened yet, I'll just note that G.W Bush oversaw two of the worst stock market collapses in American history in less than 8 years.I didn't blame anyone at all for the crashes. We were talking economics and the current state of such and I was merely saying that historically when the Market hits those records in such a short time, it has always crashed.
I don't know if a crash is an inevitable result of a bull market. The last two crashes were the result of things that should never have happened.
And you realize when unemployment under Bush was % to 5% meant that 95% to 96 % of Americans were working. Just saying since you were just saying 92.5% is acceptable for liberals.
And you realize that 9.6 MILLION people have dropped out of the workforce and workforce participation is the lowest it's been since the 1940's, right?
Sure, but what about people working for themselves, starting online businesses or making money outside of a traditional business structure? I fail to believe that all of those people are just sitting on the couch doing nothing.
But you don't know that do you? Those are the numbers and they reflect a failed administration as so much of what Obama's tenure does.
You've really got two choices with Obama, either he doesn't know how to fix things, or he plain doesn't want to.
I am of the mind that he was simply unqualified to be POTUS in the first place and has not a clue what to do to solve this ongoing crisis. The man is not a leader, not a legislator and is a failed lawyer.
Either way, he has had 5 years to make things better but they continue to get worse. He had a majority in both houses in his first two years, and instead of getting the economy moving again, he chose to shove healthcare down our throats. He said it would cost 900 Billion, it's now up to 2.6 Trillion and calls are to throw MORE money at it as it's looking like a train wreck about to happen as implementation draws closer.
Cloward-Piven anyone??
Anything from the Washington Post on the GOP is not a "good" anything. It is biased and slanted.
Or can I post something from Fox News and quote it for truth and fact and say it's a "good" update on how the President has done his job so far his second term?Democrats were the party of NO when Bush was president. Did you make such a fuss then?
Let us not be a hypocrite please.
Related Discussions
- 148
The Government Shutdown
by Mike Russo 10 years ago
Read this article from the NY Times. It's about a well planned, highly funded conspiracy to shutdown the government if Obama Care is not defunded. Please share this with everybody you know. The republican extremists are not playing by the rules of democracy and are making a...
- 54
Why Are Republicans So Out Of Touch?
by LucidDreams 11 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans watch Fox news. Not sure if you have noticed, they can't even get along with each...
- 491
The 118th Republican House
by Scott Belford 5 months ago
After several days, for the first time in over 100 years, the Republicans chose a speaker. But only after proving once again they don't know how to govern. In the process, the speakership was neutered, rendered essentially powerless. McCarthy gave away the farm in order to...
- 160
What is YOUR analysis, opinion, and synopsis of President Barack Obama
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
- 20
Obama: No ‘radical’ budget fix needed
by bahersadek 13 years ago
Fighting back against Republican calls for greater spending cuts, President Obama said Friday that the government doesn’t need to make major changes to get its budget back on track and called for that solution to include some trims coupled with tax increases.“Here’s the good news: that it turns out...
- 73
Name the ways that America is worse under President Obama? President
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...