|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 17, 2010 8:48:16 GMT -8
>>>You cannot rationalize away the fact that Republicans won't extend unemployment benefits, because they view recipients of that benefit to be shiftless and lazy. You cannot rationalize away your willingness to refuse rights to people.<<< Republicans do not have the votes to refuse whatever the congressional majority wants to do. You need to look to your own demagogues if you are not getting what you want tinyurl.com/2afyr2jWithout sixty votes the Democrats cannot overcome "NO". You know what senate rules are as well as I do. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 17, 2010 11:09:46 GMT -8
>>>You cannot rationalize away the fact that Republicans won't extend unemployment benefits, because they view recipients of that benefit to be shiftless and lazy. You cannot rationalize away your willingness to refuse rights to people.<<< Republicans do not have the votes to refuse whatever the congressional majority wants to do. You need to look to your own demagogues if you are not getting what you want tinyurl.com/2afyr2jWithout sixty votes the Democrats cannot overcome "NO". You know what senate rules are as well as I do. Oh? How did health care get passed? I suggest you pay closer attention. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 17, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -8
>>>You cannot rationalize away the fact that Republicans won't extend unemployment benefits, because they view recipients of that benefit to be shiftless and lazy. You cannot rationalize away your willingness to refuse rights to people.<<< Republicans do not have the votes to refuse whatever the congressional majority wants to do. You need to look to your own demagogues if you are not getting what you want tinyurl.com/2afyr2jWithout sixty votes the Democrats cannot overcome "NO". You know what senate rules are as well as I do. You didn't read the article, I guess. 2 repubs voted yes, and one Dem voted no. All the opposition asked for was a compromise to offset the cost. Reid didn't want to do that, so to me it's on him and his party. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 17, 2010 13:44:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 17, 2010 13:58:31 GMT -8
Interesting thoughts and maybe close to a bullseye! |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 17, 2010 14:49:28 GMT -8
Without sixty votes the Democrats cannot overcome "NO". You know what senate rules are as well as I do. Oh? How did health care get passed? I suggest you pay closer attention. They got sixty votes to invoke cloture and prevent a Republican filibuster. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 17, 2010 15:01:29 GMT -8
Without sixty votes the Democrats cannot overcome "NO". You know what senate rules are as well as I do. You didn't read the article, I guess. 2 repubs voted yes, and one Dem voted no. All the opposition asked for was a compromise to offset the cost. Reid didn't want to do that, so to me it's on him and his party. Yet, miraculously, sixty votes were cast in favor of cloture or the bill would not have been passed. Date Measure Subject Filed By Dec 19 H.R.3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Reid Date Vote Result Dec 23 60 - 39 No. 395 I www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htm |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 17, 2010 15:19:38 GMT -8
You didn't read the article, I guess. 2 repubs voted yes, and one Dem voted no. All the opposition asked for was a compromise to offset the cost. Reid didn't want to do that, so to me it's on him and his party. Yet, miraculously, sixty votes were cast in favor of cloture or the bill would not have been passed. Date Measure Subject Filed By Dec 19 H.R.3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Reid Date Vote Result Dec 23 60 - 39 No. 395 I www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htmRespectfully, one of us is confused... If you go back through the thread, you'll find I was referring to THIS: Dems refuse compromise to extend unemployment benefits |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 17, 2010 15:37:55 GMT -8
Respectfully, one of us is confused... If you go back through the thread, you'll find I was referring to THIS: Dems refuse compromise to extend unemployment benefitsYes, some democrats are to blame, depending on the issue. But nothing gets passed without sixty votes and Republicans, by and large, withhold forty of those sixty, leaving absolutely no room for error. Republicans know that getting sixty votes is many times more difficult than getting fifty one. They will not compromise and (almost) none will vote for any Democratic bills, figuring that the public will fail to see their complicity in the gridlock. They figure that they win if the rest of us lose. Well, I hold them responsible, those bastards, even as I am angry at Obama for not sticking them for it. So, by making sixty votes a necessity, the Republicans leverage their power even though they are in the minority. The Republicans know the game and they are creating a situation where no compromise is possible and perfection must be achieved to pass anything. If I were a business sob and I had 58 or 9% of the voting stock I would be dictator of the firm. But, in the U.S. Senate it takes sixty votes to take a dump. And. . .you know this as well as I, because you may not think like me, but you are a smart person. So don't play dumb and blame it on the Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 17, 2010 15:52:06 GMT -8
Respectfully, one of us is confused... If you go back through the thread, you'll find I was referring to THIS: Dems refuse compromise to extend unemployment benefitsWe are at cross purposes. All I am saying is that nothing gets passed without sixty votes. Republicans know that getting sixty votes is many times more difficult than getting fifty one. Its kind of like mass increasing as you approach the speed of light. So, by making sixty votes a necessity, the Republicans leverage their power even though they are in the minority. The Republicans know the game and they are creating a situation where no compromise is possible and perfection must be achieved to pass anything. And. . .you know this as well as I, because you may not think like me, but you are a smart person. So don't play dumb and blame it on the Democrats. They had enough Republican votes to put them over the top. Reid refused to compromise, so a principled Democrat voted NO. If finding the bucks to cover the bill is asking for "perfection", well good for perfection. Don't try to pretend that using the 60 vote cloture requirement is something the Democrats never used. They did it all the time. One reason the Republicans have lost support is because they are gutless... they always get rolled. Even when they held a majority. Their constituency is sick of it. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 18, 2010 6:58:18 GMT -8
We are at cross purposes. All I am saying is that nothing gets passed without sixty votes. Republicans know that getting sixty votes is many times more difficult than getting fifty one. Its kind of like mass increasing as you approach the speed of light. So, by making sixty votes a necessity, the Republicans leverage their power even though they are in the minority. The Republicans know the game and they are creating a situation where no compromise is possible and perfection must be achieved to pass anything. And. . .you know this as well as I, because you may not think like me, but you are a smart person. So don't play dumb and blame it on the Democrats. They had enough Republican votes to put them over the top. Reid refused to compromise, so a principled Democrat voted NO. If finding the bucks to cover the bill is asking for "perfection", well good for perfection. Don't try to pretend that using the 60 vote cloture requirement is something the Democrats never used. They did it all the time. One reason the Republicans have lost support is because they are gutless... they always get rolled. Even when they held a majority. Their constituency is sick of it. The democrats have cooperated more often in my opinion. Take for example that stupid tax cut in 2001. A principled Democrat who votes to stop unemployment is in my opinion a piece of . . . ., just like the callous Republicans who did it. Recipients of unemployment are not lazy shiftless or undeserving. The money that goes into unemployment benefits the economy. I say let the tax cuts expire and support the citizens of this country who cannot find a job. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 18, 2010 12:38:32 GMT -8
They had enough Republican votes to put them over the top. Reid refused to compromise, so a principled Democrat voted NO. If finding the bucks to cover the bill is asking for "perfection", well good for perfection. Don't try to pretend that using the 60 vote cloture requirement is something the Democrats never used. They did it all the time. One reason the Republicans have lost support is because they are gutless... they always get rolled. Even when they held a majority. Their constituency is sick of it. The democrats have cooperated more often in my opinion. Take for example that stupid tax cut in 2001. A principled Democrat who votes to stop unemployment is in my opinion a piece of . . . ., just like the callous Republicans who did it. Recipients of unemployment are not lazy shiftless or undeserving. The money that goes into unemployment benefits the economy. I say let the tax cuts expire and support the citizens of this country who cannot find a job. What a crock. All the Democrats had to do was compromise to get the bill. They refused, and Reid moved on to other things. The Dems just wanted to have something to demagogue, they don't give a hoot about the consequences to the people they hurt, in fact they hope to be able to benefit by it. As far as the tax cuts go, the Democrat meme was "Tax Cuts for the Rich", and it was the same kind of slimy lie that this one is about the unemployment bill. Today's SF Chronicle (not quite a right-wing rag, btw) has a front page article about "Bush's tax cuts..." Below the lede you find stuff like this: "A decade of tax cuts worth more than $3 trillion that were enacted under former President George W. Bush are set to excpire Dec. 31, potentially socking the average family of four with a $2,200 bill and landing a hard blow to the weak economy." "Extending the tax cuts would add $3.1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. About three-quarters of that - $2.4 trillion - would go to middle and lower income taxpayers. The other $700 billion would go to the affluent." (emphasis added) (later in the article "affluent" is described as $200K per year) My how things change. Well, actually nothing "changed". Especially Democrats being demagogic, manipulative liars. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 18, 2010 14:11:32 GMT -8
The democrats have cooperated more often in my opinion. Take for example that stupid tax cut in 2001. A principled Democrat who votes to stop unemployment is in my opinion a piece of . . . ., just like the callous Republicans who did it. Recipients of unemployment are not lazy shiftless or undeserving. The money that goes into unemployment benefits the economy. I say let the tax cuts expire and support the citizens of this country who cannot find a job. What a crock. All the Democrats had to do was compromise to get the bill. They refused, and Reid moved on to other things. The Dems just wanted to have something to demagogue, they don't give a hoot about the consequences to the people they hurt, in fact they hope to be able to benefit by it. As far as the tax cuts go, the Democrat meme was "Tax Cuts for the Rich", and it was the same kind of slimy lie that this one is about the unemployment bill. Today's SF Chronicle (not quite a right-wing rag, btw) has a front page article about "Bush's tax cuts..." Below the lede you find stuff like this: "A decade of tax cuts worth more than $3 trillion that were enacted under former President George W. Bush are set to excpire Dec. 31, potentially socking the average family of four with a $2,200 bill and landing a hard blow to the weak economy." "Extending the tax cuts would add $3.1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. About three-quarters of that - $2.4 trillion - would go to middle and lower income taxpayers. The other $700 billion would go to the affluent." (emphasis added) (later in the article "affluent" is described as $200K per year) My how things change. Well, actually nothing "changed". Especially Democrats being demagogic, manipulative liars. I could not find your source. Would you post it? I like to be a well informed demagogic, manipulative liar. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 18, 2010 14:25:34 GMT -8
What a crock. All the Democrats had to do was compromise to get the bill. They refused, and Reid moved on to other things. The Dems just wanted to have something to demagogue, they don't give a hoot about the consequences to the people they hurt, in fact they hope to be able to benefit by it. As far as the tax cuts go, the Democrat meme was "Tax Cuts for the Rich", and it was the same kind of slimy lie that this one is about the unemployment bill. Today's SF Chronicle (not quite a right-wing rag, btw) has a front page article about "Bush's tax cuts..." Below the lede you find stuff like this: "A decade of tax cuts worth more than $3 trillion that were enacted under former President George W. Bush are set to excpire Dec. 31, potentially socking the average family of four with a $2,200 bill and landing a hard blow to the weak economy." "Extending the tax cuts would add $3.1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. About three-quarters of that - $2.4 trillion - would go to middle and lower income taxpayers. The other $700 billion would go to the affluent." (emphasis added) (later in the article "affluent" is described as $200K per year) My how things change. Well, actually nothing "changed". Especially Democrats being demagogic, manipulative liars. I could not find your source. Would you post it? I like to be a well informed demagogic, manipulative liar. ;D It was in today's print edition. It will be available electronically at 4am Tuesday: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/18/MN231EDLET.DTL |
|
