obama blasts congress for inaction

General Buck Turgidson said:
Reid decided. That's awesome. It's not as though the Republicans have required record-breaking numbers of cloture votes on pretty much everything.
Click to expand...

the only House legislation Reid allows to get to the floor are the one's he's made sure will be voted down......he's even made sure Obama's budgets get voted down so they won't have to go through the reconciliation process....
 
Darla said:
Your grammar is impeccable. I always mean to mention that. Has anyone else ever noticed this about Onceler? It's actually impeccable.
Click to expand...

LOL - thanks. I work hard at it. I generally have a hard time with "it's" versus "its," but I think I nailed it in that last post.
 
Darla said:
Truman won an election this way. I don't know if it can as effective because of the polarization we have among the voters now (which I'm not entirely convinced is all that much worse than it always has been, but I'm not certain). But it has worked in the past.
Click to expand...

A lot of things that worked for FDR and Truman don't work today.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the only House legislation Reid allows to get to the floor are the one's he's made sure will be voted down......he's even made sure Obama's budgets get voted down so they won't have to go through the reconciliation process....
Click to expand...


You said that Reid decided that nothing would go to a vote in the Senate, not that Reid is not bring up House bills for a vote (which isn't what you would expect to happen anyway with a Republican House and Democratic Senate). In a sane world, the Republican House would pass its version by majority vote. The Democratic Senate would pass its version by majority vote. And then the differences would be worked out in conference committee. But it doesn't work that way because the Senate Republicans filibuster everything. So we end up with nothing.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You said that Reid decided that nothing would go to a vote in the Senate, not that Reid is not bring up House bills for a vote (which isn't what you would expect to happen anyway with a Republican House and Democratic Senate). In a sane world, the Republican House would pass its version by majority vote. The Democratic Senate would pass its version by majority vote. And then the differences would be worked out in conference committee. But it doesn't work that way because the Senate Republicans filibuster everything. So we end up with nothing.
Click to expand...

Of course the senate doesn't just throw the Republicans version of the bill up for vote. Durrr. The Republicans wouldn't do that either.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You said that Reid decided that nothing would go to a vote in the Senate, not that Reid is not bring up House bills for a vote (which isn't what you would expect to happen anyway with a Republican House and Democratic Senate).
Click to expand...

ah my mistake.....true, the Senate has probably named hundreds of post offices and federal buildings.....it's just that they haven't passed inconsequential things like budgets and solutions to our economic problems......

General Buck Turgidson said:
In a sane world, the Republican House would pass its version by majority vote. The Democratic Senate would pass its version by majority vote. And then the differences would be worked out in conference committee. But it doesn't work that way because the Senate Republicans filibuster everything.
Click to expand...

except you can't filibuster budgets.....Reid won't let the senate vote on a budget BECAUSE differences would then be worked out in a conference committee.....he doesn't dare let this happen because he knows he can't control 100% of the Democrats and reduced spending would happen.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
ah my mistake.....true, the Senate has probably named hundreds of post offices and federal buildings.....it's just that they haven't passed inconsequential things like budgets and solutions to our economic problems......
Click to expand...

Yes, it was indeed your mistake.


PostmodernProphet said:
except you can't filibuster budgets.....Reid won't let the senate vote on a budget BECAUSE differences would then be worked out in a conference committee.....he doesn't dare let this happen because he knows he can't control 100% of the Democrats and reduced spending would happen.....
Click to expand...

The Senate voted on several budgets within the past month. It just didn't pass any. You're wrong about pretty much everything. Also, too, the parties already agreed to spending levels for 2013. No need to pass a budget resolution. Just pass the appropriations bills.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
ah my mistake.....true, the Senate has probably named hundreds of post offices and federal buildings.....it's just that they haven't passed inconsequential things like budgets and solutions to our economic problems......



except you can't filibuster budgets.....Reid won't let the senate vote on a budget BECAUSE differences would then be worked out in a conference committee.....he doesn't dare let this happen because he knows he can't control 100% of the Democrats and reduced spending would happen.....
Click to expand...

He lets them vote on the budgets, when it's unanimously against.
 
I would really like out political system to see some fundamental change, starting by getting the corporations out of politics.
 
Damocles said:
It would take a change to the constitution.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The states could all pass laws that basically so that contrary to what you may have heard, corporations really aren't people. And that would be that. The likelihood of that happening is about none. Or, the Supreme Court could come to its fucking senses.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The claim, Damo, was that Reid wouldn't let the Senate vote on a budget. That's just not true. There's no point in arguing it.
Click to expand...

Hence my point. Obama's proposed budgets have received zero votes from any Democrat in the Senate. The last one went down 97-0.

Your point was that the budgets get filibustered but that's just spouting nonsense, you cannot filibuster a budget.
 
Damocles said:
Hence my point. Obama's proposed budgets have received zero votes from any Democrat in the Senate. The last one went down 97-0.
Click to expand...

You have no point. Pretty much everything you ever write is wrong in some respect or another.

Also, too, pretending that Republican gimmicks are something other than Republican gimmicks is asinine. Enjoy. Just don't expect me to take anything you say seriously.
 
Obama's speech today

"The private sector has been doing a good job at creating jobs," Obama said. "State and local government hiring has been going in the wrong direction."
Click to expand...
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-private-sector-job-growth-2012-6#ixzz1xER9uayC

Leave aside "the private sector has been doing a good job at creating jobs. I'd argure it's not; so - so at best. but take a look at the rest of the phrase.

What's the "wrong direction?" State and local jobs are disappearing as the STIMULUS money is run out.
Stimulus is deficit spending. You can have a checkbook full of blank checks, but it doesn't mean you have money to back it.

Keep writing those checks, you're broke, and overdrated ( in debt in this analogy).

Q? > HOW DOES GOV"T JOBS GROW WEALTH?? :palm:
It creates jobs, but no tangible increase in assets. The economy is "complex', and i understod the need for the stimulus that kept us from literally going into another depression.

Eventually though, adding $1T + a year in debt leads to...lots of 'bad stuff' :rolleyes: ( I'm not gonna list them).

We also have that future fact that we're headed off a fiscal cliff ( future unfunded mandates)
So please, someone explain to me that the anemic growth we're getting in GDP is going to boost with more "public sector jobs".

Private sector jobs create wealth ( however unevenly distributed). What do "public sector jobs create?OK. jobs, but nothing added to the economy.
The checkbook just gets more in the red.

Keynesianism is pumped dry, the purpose of Keynesianism is to stimulate growth, not just "jobs"
Keep adding debt, and factor in the unfunded mandates coming up, and we're "forward" -right off the fiscal cliff.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The Senate voted on several budgets within the past month. It just didn't pass any. You're wrong about pretty much everything. Also, too, the parties already agreed to spending levels for 2013. No need to pass a budget resolution. Just pass the appropriations bills.
Click to expand...

ah, no need to do what they are supposed to do when liberals don't care what they do.........on the other hand, liberals complain that the House, which IS doing something, isn't doing something.......ironic, isn't it......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top