Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Romney will cost us more out of our pocketbooks on education, healthcare, Medicare, birth control  & more.  Please don't fall for the exact same tpolicies which got us into this mess.  We'd have made more progress if Repubs would have cooperated in solving this crisis rather than waging political attacks.

by on Oct. 22, 2012 at 6:03 PM
Replies (21-30):
brandydesiree
by Bronze Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Democrats, Not GOP, Mostly Controlled Congress Under Obama


Instead of accepting responsibility for the nation’s ills, Obama apologists regularly blame Republicans in Congress for blocking the president’s recovery agenda. This contention ignores the fact that the GOP controlled only one half of Congress for one half of Obama’s term. Democrats have run the Senate for his full term, and controlled the House of Representatives for half that term.

 

In other words, during Obama’s time in office Democrats exerted 75 percent of Congressional control. He got approval for his stimulus package, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank banking regulation, and all his major initiatives. If he had really wanted to hike taxes on the rich, he easily could have done so in his first two years in office. When it comes to his failures as president, Obama has no one to blame but himself—and his own party.

111th Senate

111th Senate

Yea, they held the majority for more than 133 days. He only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days. However, a budget can not be filibustered if they have the simple majority of both the house and the senate. Therefor, there is no valid reason in which the Democrats could not have passed a budget.


Quoting trippyhippy:

Quoting brandydesiree:

Oh, please. Obama had Congress in his front pocket the first two years of his admin, and all he did was push Obamacare. Why should the Repubs give into a budget that isn't bi-partisan? If the economy was such a priority for Obama he had two years to push a budget through, even without the Republican support, just like he did with Obamacare. And furthermore, your birth control cost about the same amount as two gallons of gas. Think with your freaking brain and not your uterus.


Actually it was 133 days, not two years.


Jesse8
by Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Remember Scott Brown?  Also Susan Collins voted for the bill , & she wasn't the only Repub.

mommom2000
by Bronze Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM
1 mom liked this

While your numbers are correct the way you are looking at how congress works is flawed.  Yes the democrats held the majority in the house and in the senate for two years, but the party of no decided to use record breaking filibuster on the bills that were proposed.  Even if those bills were helpful, they admitted there number one priority was to see Obama fail, not help the American people. When a bill is filibustered you then need the super majority in the Senate to pass anything, they Democrats held the super majority for exactly 26 days of Obama's presidency.  You are right if the republicans were to use the constitution as it was intended they would have had the majority vote for two years, but they through the majority vote right out the window to stop anything from getting done, this is why they are called the do nothing congress.  The right keeps saying they held the majority for 2 years, and this statement keeps making me laugh how misinformed the voting public is.

Quoting brandydesiree:

Oh, another excuse....somebody was sick so his hands were tied. From 2008-2010 there were 255 Democrats and 179 Republicans in the House. The Senate had 57 Democrats and 41 Republicans. I'm sure that losing Kennedy's seat to a Republican hurt the Dems so bad. And still even without that seat, and however much time it took to get Al Franken in, Dems still had the majority. Your logic is flawed.

Quoting Bookwormy:

Count the time it took to actually get Al Franken in. Count the time that Kennedy was ill & then died. Count the time he was replaced by a Republican. Not 2 years of supermajority; do the math.


Quoting brandydesiree:

So, do you care to explain how Obamacare got passed without a single Republican vote...and yes, it does add up. Nov 2006-Nov 2010, Democrats controlled Congress, in which two years they were under Barrack Obama.


Quoting Bookwormy:

Look at the numbers. He didn't have a supermajority. Your inability to count does not equal 2 years.





Quoting brandydesiree:

Oh, please. Obama had Congress in his front pocket the first two years of his admin, and all he did was push Obamacare. Why should the Repubs give into a budget that isn't bi-partisan? If the economy was such a priority for Obama he had two years to push a budget through, even without the Republican support, just like he did with Obamacare. And furthermore, your birth control cost about the same amount as two gallons of gas. Think with your freaking brain and not your uterus.



 


 


mommom2000
by Bronze Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM
1 mom liked this

Trickle down economics is and has been proven to be a complete failure. The numbers don't lie, facts are facts. How the average American can look at this type of plan and still believe in it is beyond me. I guess when you have a TV station shoving these falsehoods down your throat year after year, the public buys it.

MomTiara19
by Silver Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 9:09 AM
1 mom liked this

You are correct.

Romney voters have no concern for ordinary issues of regular people just trying to get by and have a chance to succeed.

I often wonder what would happen if they lost their job,had a child that was disabled?Romney wont be there....he just borrows money from his momma or fires hard working Americans to profit his millionaire self.

All about the trickle down.We never got the trickle in 30 years.....but we got the down right!!

http://viduku.com/2012/10/why-obama-now-animated-video-advocates-for-obama-re-election/

 

chazmom01
by Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM
1 mom liked this

No he did not that's when the republicans used the filibuster and blocked him. 375 bills that Obama has tryed to get pass republicans blocked this way?Everything now needs a super majorty now to pass.Look it up and you will see.

Quoting brandydesiree:

Oh, please. Obama had Congress in his front pocket the first two years of his admin, and all he did was push Obamacare. Why should the Repubs give into a budget that isn't bi-partisan? If the economy was such a priority for Obama he had two years to push a budget through, even without the Republican support, just like he did with Obamacare. And furthermore, your birth control cost about the same amount as two gallons of gas. Think with your freaking brain and not your uterus.


brandydesiree
by Bronze Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Sorry, but you can not filibuster a budget if it has the soft majority of both the senate and the house, so unless a lot of democrats in the house voted against the budget also, there is no excuse for them failing to pass a budget.


Quoting chazmom01:

No he did not that's when the republicans used the filibuster and blocked him. 375 bills that Obama has tryed to get pass republicans blocked this way?Everything now needs a super majorty now to pass.Look it up and you will see.


Quoting brandydesiree:

Oh, please. Obama had Congress in his front pocket the first two years of his admin, and all he did was push Obamacare. Why should the Repubs give into a budget that isn't bi-partisan? If the economy was such a priority for Obama he had two years to push a budget through, even without the Republican support, just like he did with Obamacare. And furthermore, your birth control cost about the same amount as two gallons of gas. Think with your freaking brain and not your uterus.



Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
brandydesiree
by Bronze Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM
I understand how filibusters work. And I know that you can't filibuster a budget if it has the soft majority in both the senate and the house. Democrats controlled both, so unless some of the dems voted against the budget in the house, there is no way to filibuster it.


Quoting mommom2000:

While your numbers are correct the way you are looking at how congress works is flawed.  Yes the democrats held the majority in the house and in the senate for two years, but the party of no decided to use record breaking filibuster on the bills that were proposed.  Even if those bills were helpful, they admitted there number one priority was to see Obama fail, not help the American people. When a bill is filibustered you then need the super majority in the Senate to pass anything, they Democrats held the super majority for exactly 26 days of Obama's presidency.  You are right if the republicans were to use the constitution as it was intended they would have had the majority vote for two years, but they through the majority vote right out the window to stop anything from getting done, this is why they are called the do nothing congress.  The right keeps saying they held the majority for 2 years, and this statement keeps making me laugh how misinformed the voting public is.


Quoting brandydesiree:


Oh, another excuse....somebody was sick so his hands were tied. From 2008-2010 there were 255 Democrats and 179 Republicans in the House. The Senate had 57 Democrats and 41 Republicans. I'm sure that losing Kennedy's seat to a Republican hurt the Dems so bad. And still even without that seat, and however much time it took to get Al Franken in, Dems still had the majority. Your logic is flawed.


Quoting Bookwormy:

Count the time it took to actually get Al Franken in. Count the time that Kennedy was ill & then died. Count the time he was replaced by a Republican. Not 2 years of supermajority; do the math.



Quoting brandydesiree:


So, do you care to explain how Obamacare got passed without a single Republican vote...and yes, it does add up. Nov 2006-Nov 2010, Democrats controlled Congress, in which two years they were under Barrack Obama.



Quoting Bookwormy:

Look at the numbers. He didn't have a supermajority. Your inability to count does not equal 2 years.






Quoting brandydesiree:


Oh, please. Obama had Congress in his front pocket the first two years of his admin, and all he did was push Obamacare. Why should the Repubs give into a budget that isn't bi-partisan? If the economy was such a priority for Obama he had two years to push a budget through, even without the Republican support, just like he did with Obamacare. And furthermore, your birth control cost about the same amount as two gallons of gas. Think with your freaking brain and not your uterus.




 



 




Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
mommom2000
by Bronze Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM
1 mom liked this

You weren't clear in yur first paragraph. You mad a blanket statement about Obama being in congresses pocket for 2 years.  This is a statement many on your side make all the time, and this is a false statement.  If you want to just talk about a budget we can do tha to, this post was about trickle down.

 

Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.

Does the lack of a budget resolution matter? Jim notes that budget resolutions are supposed to set limits on discretionary spending in appropriations bills and facilitate changes in taxes and entitlements via reconciliation instructions or via allocations to authorizing committees. But nowadays, discretionary spending caps have already been set by the Budget Control Act (which ended the debt ceiling standoff) and there is little or no prospect of cross-party agreement on tax or entitlement policies. Moreover:

With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.

So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture. The fact that the House managed to pass a budget last year, including a major overhaul of Medicare, reflects its different rules that allow it to deem the budget resolution to have taken effect. But it didn't ultimately matter: the provisions in its budget, including the Medicare changes, were not binding on the Senate.

Quoting brandydesiree:

I understand how filibusters work. And I know that you can't filibuster a budget if it has the soft majority in both the senate and the house. Democrats controlled both, so unless some of the dems voted against the budget in the house, there is no way to filibuster it.


Quoting mommom2000:

While your numbers are correct the way you are looking at how congress works is flawed.  Yes the democrats held the majority in the house and in the senate for two years, but the party of no decided to use record breaking filibuster on the bills that were proposed.  Even if those bills were helpful, they admitted there number one priority was to see Obama fail, not help the American people. When a bill is filibustered you then need the super majority in the Senate to pass anything, they Democrats held the super majority for exactly 26 days of Obama's presidency.  You are right if the republicans were to use the constitution as it was intended they would have had the majority vote for two years, but they through the majority vote right out the window to stop anything from getting done, this is why they are called the do nothing congress.  The right keeps saying they held the majority for 2 years, and this statement keeps making me laugh how misinformed the voting public is.


Quoting brandydesiree:


Oh, another excuse....somebody was sick so his hands were tied. From 2008-2010 there were 255 Democrats and 179 Republicans in the House. The Senate had 57 Democrats and 41 Republicans. I'm sure that losing Kennedy's seat to a Republican hurt the Dems so bad. And still even without that seat, and however much time it took to get Al Franken in, Dems still had the majority. Your logic is flawed.


Quoting Bookwormy:

Count the time it took to actually get Al Franken in. Count the time that Kennedy was ill & then died. Count the time he was replaced by a Republican. Not 2 years of supermajority; do the math.



Quoting brandydesiree:


So, do you care to explain how Obamacare got passed without a single Republican vote...and yes, it does add up. Nov 2006-Nov 2010, Democrats controlled Congress, in which two years they were under Barrack Obama.



Quoting Bookwormy:

Look at the numbers. He didn't have a supermajority. Your inability to count does not equal 2 years.






Quoting brandydesiree:


Oh, please. Obama had Congress in his front pocket the first two years of his admin, and all he did was push Obamacare. Why should the Repubs give into a budget that isn't bi-partisan? If the economy was such a priority for Obama he had two years to push a budget through, even without the Republican support, just like he did with Obamacare. And furthermore, your birth control cost about the same amount as two gallons of gas. Think with your freaking brain and not your uterus.




 



 


 



duets
by Bronze Member on Oct. 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM
1 mom liked this

Face it people, the current "Trickle" UP, ain't working so well...... budgets lavish vacations, while folks (American's)  are losing  jobs, homes, retirement funds, in order to survive!!!!! 

[Reality...NV, leading the nation in foreclosures, UNemployment.]

Shame on them.....Shelley Berkley included !!!

tsk tsk

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)