Originally posted by KunsooWrong. Obama had the first half of his term with congress in his back pocket. And what did he accomplish Kunsoo ?!
Exactly. And that's what Rock is commenting on. The Republicans stonewalled everything Obama tried to do, so it's their economic record in reality. But many voters don't dig that deep. That's the point of the comment.
Originally posted by KunsooYou missing an important part!
Exactly. And that's what Rock is commenting on. The Republicans stonewalled everything Obama tried to do, so it's their economic record in reality. But many voters don't dig that deep. That's the point of the comment.
O'Bama had both the House and the Senate the first two years!
Republicans could not even stop the O'Bamacare!
Sincerely,
Harri / Luck
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214780
Originally posted by whodeyThey tried. Not one Republican vote for it, despite the fact that it was originally a Republican proposal. He got that through, but little else as the Republicans broke all records for filibusters.
I just loved how they stonewalled Obamacare.
Classic.
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooActually one Republican did vote for it. Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La). Where it squeeked by in the House 220-215.
They tried. Not one Republican vote for it, despite the fact that it was originally a Republican proposal. He got that through, but little else as the Republicans broke all records for filibusters.
39 Dems opposing it btw.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
The Senate however, was 60-39 w/one Republican not voting ,Bunning (R-KY).
Originally posted by KunsooOh come on, Obama could have done much more with his majority during the first two years. He didn't because he doesn't know jack about economics and has incompetent advisors, otherwise he would've pushed through a big tax hike for the wealthy, which would have been both good for the economy and popular with the people (esp. Dem voters).
They tried. Not one Republican vote for it, despite the fact that it was originally a Republican proposal. He got that through, but little else as the Republicans broke all records for filibusters.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou'd be surprised how many Democrats would have voted in the House against a "big" tax increase for the wealthy. And at least one of the Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. group of "moderate" Democrats would have probably joined the inevitable Republican filibuster.
Oh come on, Obama could have done much more with his majority during the first two years. He didn't because he doesn't know jack about economics and has incompetent advisors, otherwise he would've pushed through a big tax hike for the wealthy, which would have been both good for the economy and popular with the people (esp. Dem voters).
The idea that Obama could have gotten anything he desired through the Congress in his first two years is fanciful and/or deceitful.
Originally posted by utherpendragonThat House vote wound up to be meaningless; the House had to vote on the Senate version in toto in March through the reconciliation process because the election of Scott Brown meant that any joint conference committee would certainly be filibustered. The House vote that mattered was 219-212 with no Republicans voting "aye". http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
Actually one Republican did vote for it. Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La). Where it squeeked by in the House 220-215.
39 Dems opposing it btw.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
The Senate however, was 60-39 w/one Republican not voting ,Bunning (R-KY).
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214780
Originally posted by utherpendragonHealth care which will hopefully evolve into socialized medicine. Finance reform. Saving GM. Enough of a stimulus to keep us out of the depression Bush caused. Unfortunately, in 2010, everything stopped dead.
Wrong. Obama had the first half of his term with congress in his back pocket. And what did he accomplish Kunsoo ?!
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214780
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, especially as some of the Dems are basically republican. Obama had to give up the public option to appease Lieberman, Baucus, et al.
You'd be surprised how many Democrats would have voted in the House against a "big" tax increase for the wealthy. And at least one of the Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. group of "moderate" Democrats would have probably joined the inevitable Republican filibuster.
The idea that Obama could have gotten anything he desired through the Congress in his first two years is fanciful and/or deceitful.
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooActually it's worse then that; because of the vehement opposition of the Senate "moderates" to the public option, the Senate refused to even take up the House version. From wiki:
Yeah, especially as some of the Dems are basically republican. Obama had to give up the public option to appease Lieberman, Baucus, et al.
The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[157] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[158] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[159] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Background
This had major consequences when the Senate failed to include a severability clause (which the House bill contained) almost certainly due to inadvertence: an error that could not be corrected once Scott Brown got elected and reconciliation process had to be used. This gave the SCOTUS a real opportunity to scuttle the entire act rather than just kill the individual mandate; a path that 4 justices were willing to take though it made a mockery of past precedents regarding severability analysis.