By the numbers--Democrats vs Republicans

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Note to barts: PLEASE add a laugh emote.

For the umpteenth time, Angry Citizen is a very old moniker I picked up that has nothing to do with politics or debate in general.



Republicans threatened to end extended unemployment benefits in the middle of the goddamned Great Recession in order to keep the Bush tax cuts for another two years: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...enate-GOP-says

Reaaallllyyy shows where their loyalties lie.

I would also like to point out that bush was the first leader in the history of the world to lower taxes during wartime.

That might have something to do with the current mess we are in.

Obama might have handled it better, but he didnt. And as you say AC, the republicans stood in the way at every fucking turn with their filibusters ready to go:

[minorwork]

December 2010, lame duck Dem majorities in both houses, Dem president who but had to do NOTHING for the Bush tax cuts to be rescinded. Dem's cannot avoid charges of actively prolonging the cuts.

[Yarn]

The economic crisis may not be Obamas fault but being stuck in the mud instead of rebounding properly is all Obama.

No one else has escaped it, so the idea that it was possible to do so in 2 or 4 years is improbable self-serving speculation. Furthermore, the fillibuster meant nothing could pass the senate without 60 votes. Policy wasn't controlled by the white house, it was controlled by swing voters in the senate-ie moderates and those fishing for pork.

[keywish]

Note to barts: PLEASE add a laugh emote.

For the umpteenth time, Angry Citizen is a very old moniker I picked up that has nothing to do with politics or debate in general.



Republicans threatened to end extended unemployment benefits in the middle of the goddamned Great Recession in order to keep the Bush tax cuts for another two years:

Reaaallllyyy shows where their loyalties lie.

So your idea to help the economy was to take more money out of the private sector so it could disappear into government and almost 2 years of unemployment benefits was not enough for you.

By making up your own facts I wasn't referring to the tax cuts or the unemployment benefits. I was referring to the strange idea that increasing taxes or giving more than 99 weeks of unemployment benefits would help the economy. If unemployment benefits are good to spur economic growth then sign me up for 10 years worth. I could use a long vacation.

[keywish]

No one else has escaped it, so the idea that it was possible to do so in 2 or 4 years is improbable self-serving speculation. Furthermore, the fillibuster meant nothing could pass the senate without 60 votes. Policy wasn't controlled by the white house, it was controlled by swing voters in the senate-ie moderates and those fishing for pork.

That is so untrue. if that were the case then nothing would ever pass as there is very rarely a filibuster proof majority in both houses or even one, though the republicans will get at least one in the next round.

And the reason that no one has escaped it is because they are all following the same socialized clamp down on business government model that Obama has put forth. not only that but America is still the world leading economic power and the rest of the world would be hard pressed to leave the recession without us any way.

Dems in the mud. thats what we have been for over 3 years now.

[keywish]

I would also like to point out that bush was the first leader in the history of the world to lower taxes during wartime.

That might have something to do with the current mess we are in.

Obama might have handled it better, but he didnt. And as you say AC, the republicans stood in the way at every fucking turn with their filibusters ready to go:

How many filibusters were there?

ZERO. nada. zip. none. cero. null.

So maybe there were threats to filibuster but you are saying that in 2008 and 2009, the democrat plans in the senate sucked so bad that they could not even get one rhino to go along with them. Out of all the great laws the democrats wanted to pass they could not even get one rhino on their side. there were only 41 republicans. Hell. Olympia Snow might as well have run under D.

One republican to change sides and they couldn't do it.

And you say the republicans had power to hold everything up for 2 years.

stop taking the sleeping pills because you have dreamed quite enough.

[minorwork]

No one else has escaped it, so the idea that it was possible to do so in 2 or 4 years is improbable self-serving speculation. Furthermore, the filibuster meant nothing could pass the senate without 60 votes. Policy wasn't controlled by the white house, it was controlled by swing voters in the senate-ie moderates and those fishing for pork.

How do you filibuster against doing NOTHING, that the House, Senate, and President had to do thus enabling the recension of the Bush Tax Cuts in that lame duck session December, 2010? No action and the tax cuts given the Evil 1% Empire would have been done away with. The sun was in their eyes, the filibuster, yeah, it was the filibuster.

[Yarn]

That is so untrue. if that were the case then nothing would ever pass as there is very rarely a filibuster proof majority in both houses or even one, though the republicans will get at least one in the next round.

I didn't say nothing could get done, I said that nothing could get done without a 60 vote super majority in the senate. Republicans voted unanimously against all major parts of Obama's agenda after the stimulus. The Republicans had 40 votes before Scott Brown and 41 after him. Several democrats were either moderates and/or abused their positions to fish for pork, and the result was that very little, besides a bastardized version of health care and financial regulations got done and even that took forever. To claim Obama had free reign is to exploit ignorance.

Pretty much everything else of significance has been compromises with the Republicans.

And the reason that no one has escaped it is because they are all following the same socialized clamp down on business government model that Obama has put forth. not only that but America is still the world leading economic power and the rest of the world would be hard pressed to leave the recession without us any way.

The countries that are faring best, ie Scandenavia, are among the most socialist on the planet. Even Germany is far to the left of Obama. There is no apparent correlation between how left a democracy is and how well it is faring. No doubt government plays a role, but that role is more complicated than merely size.

[Yarn]

How do you filibuster against doing NOTHING, that the House, Senate, and President had to do thus enabling the recension of the Bush Tax Cuts in that lame duck session December, 2010? No action and the tax cuts given the Evil 1% Empire would have been done away with. The sun was in their eyes, the filibuster, yeah, it was the filibuster.

The tax cut extension was part of a compromise whereby the Republicans acquiesced and allowed unemployment benefits to be extended and stopped stonewalling things like the START treaty and ending don't ask don't tell. The democrats only want the Bush tax cuts ended for the wealthy, not for the middle class, but the Republicans were threatening to block any partial extension.

What does that have to do with the filibuster? Except for the treaty, without the filibuster the Republicans had no leverage because they couldn't have blocked anything. The Democrats could've just gone ahead and done whatever they wanted.

So the filibuster does factor in, however the fact the Democrats extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for various favors from the GOP does show that ending those tax cuts is not the Dems top priority. As well, in 2009, given how fucked up the credit markets were, they didn't want to take the risks associated with raising taxes on investors. In 2010, they were more willing, but still perhaps hesitant.

[truthreality]

What the hell does dems in the mud mean?

Some people should pick up a history book. The Clinton years where beautiful. The economy was thriving. Republicans fucked up big time with their spending decisions.

Now everyone wants to blame Obama because inherited a kingdom with debt? Even FDR couldn't fix the hole the Republicans created.

[minorwork]

What the hell does dems in the mud mean?

Some people should pick up a history book. The Clinton years where beautiful. The economy was thriving. Republicans fucked up big time with their spending decisions.

Now everyone wants to blame Obama because inherited a kingdom with debt? Even FDR couldn't fix the hole the Republicans created.

The Bush tax cut was NOT good Keynesian policy when an economy is tanking thanks to Clinton's tax increases the first two years he was in office? AND his signature that shitcanned the last vestiges of Glass Steagall in '98, or was it '99 that let the derivatives drive the housing bubble to bursting and is being done again by J.P. Morgan's Jamie Dimon's crapgame management style that happened in spite of the New Banking Act? It's all a result of both parties' shaking down banks, business, unions and even foreign nations for campaign contributions and to think it's not is....

[truthreality]

The Bush tax cut was NOT good Keynesian policy when an economy is tanking thanks to Clinton's tax increases the first two years he was in office? AND his signature that shitcanned the last vestiges of Glass Steagall in '98, or was it '99 that let the derivatives drive the housing bubble to bursting and is being done again by J.P. Morgan's Jamie Dimon's crapgame management style that happened in spite of the New Banking Act? It's all a result of both parties' shaking down banks, business, unions and even foreign nations for campaign contributions and to think it's not is....

Yes tax cuts are a brilliant idea when you decide to invade a country with a war that costs the economy 3 trillion dollars.

You can say whatever you want but the fact of the matter is the economy flourished under Clinton.