Super Congress?

Originally posted by wittywonka
In the deficit reduction debate, yes. In the health care overhaul, no.

The GOP most certainly gave input about the health care legislation. It was the Dems who did not need their input and wanted things their own way.

So if two sides cannot come to an agreement, then why is one side demonized while the other voted for sainthood?

Originally posted by whodey
Threatenging the purse strings of the statist this go round was perhaps one of the most frightening events they had encountered for some time. Naturally, they propose new legislation to bypass this threat. With Rhino's like Boehner and McConnel at the helm, the country is almost gauranteed to never vote for a balanced budget.

And by "threatening the purse strings" you mean threatening to send us into default, of course.

And you do realize that the threat alone set the downgrade into motion, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/06/credit.rating.reaction.cnn/index.html?hpt=po_t2

Chambers said the slowness at raising the debt ceiling and the political infighting led to the move. In announcing the downgrade, S&P cited "political risks, rising debt burden; outlook negative."

So the Republican's managed to achieve a talking point for reelections, and you got your talking point for the board. Congratulations to you and your fellow Republican counterparts for getting exactly what you wanted.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And by "threatening the purse strings" you mean threatening to send us into default, of course.

And you do realize that the threat alone set the downgrade into motion, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/06/credit.rating.reaction.cnn/index.html?hpt=po_t2

[b]Chambers said the slowness at raising the debt ceiling and the poli ...[text shortened]... lations to you and your fellow Republican counterparts for getting exactly what you wanted.

Before this all started it was made clear to Washington that what was needed is about a $4 trillion cut in spending. They did not achieve this.

BTW, you really must stop saying "Republicans". The new lingo is that the Tea Party caused the Republicans to not agree to tax increases because they do not negotiate. However, no one in the Tea Paty is happy about a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt celing. It looks to me like the Tea Party "negotiated".

Make no mistake, both parties have had and do have a spending problem Therefore, I think there to be a cabal to demonize them anyway possible. I saw this even in the last election as the GOP disdained the Tea Party. Even Obama said that the current spending was not sustainable, but did not flinch. It is only when concerned citizens come along and fight to put an end to it that they are demonized, while those that are responsible for the mess now have a scapegoat. All I can say is, "Baa, baa".

Originally posted by whodey
Before this all started it was made clear to Washington that what was needed is about a $4 trillion cut in spending. They did not achieve this.

BTW, you really must stop saying "Republicans". The new lingo is that the Tea Party caused the Republicans to not agree to tax increases because they do not negotiate. However, no one in the Tea Paty is happy a ...[text shortened]... ose that are responsible for the mess now have a scapegoat. All I can say is, "Baa, baa".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BATNA

Originally posted by whodey
The GOP most certainly gave input about the health care legislation.

What, like, their preference of an individual mandate-system over a single-payer system?

Originally posted by normbenign
I'm glad James Madison, wrote much of the Constitution, not you. The provisions you don't like serve well for a variety of reasons. Democracy is as dangerous as tyranical dictatorship.

Of course, their is no supermajority requirement in the Senate in the Constitution. Maybe you should read it, Norm.

It looks like the Republicans have appointed six staunch conservatives who signed Grover Norquist's lame-brained pledge, while Reid has appointed three Milquetoast moderates, including Max Baucus who killed the public option when he took over the health care reform process. Murray, who is the most "liberal" of them, is heavily funded by military industry, so she won't be rushing to cut military expenses.

We're still waiting on Pelosi, but my hopes aren't up. It'll all be cuts to social security and medicare. Once again, the middle class eats it.