Indeed, truer words were never written. Unfortunately, the most blind are the ones who use them to excuse their blindness.
If Trump wins. Or loses
- Thread starter rcscwc
- Start date
None of that happened, in real life. That is all fictional - made up.wellwisher said:
No, it isn't. Look it up.joe said:
The total time the Dems had even a nominal majority during the sessions in the House and Senate during Obama's tenure was a couple of years - about one budget cycle - and it did not include Obama's first 100 days in office - the critical agenda setting time, if you recall. And a nominal majority in the Senate - once achieved, later - proved ineffective against the immediate Republican adoption of the filibuster as a way to prevent all government action (see the "Restaurant Caucus").
It's also misleading - in the extreme - to refer to the Democrats as essentially a monolithic Party with a single agenda and common organization, as the Republicans were. The Blue Dogs, for example, were a substantial and influential group. There were conservative Dems - there were no liberal Reps.
When the Tea Party was first self-labeled, almost all the government borrowing on the books had been done and was being done by Republicans, to cover tax cuts for the wealthy and the enormous costs of war - the same people who formed the largely fictional media operation called the "Tea Party", with the announced mission of cutting taxes for the wealthy some more.wellwisher said:
It was their own borrowing they now held to be a threat. The concerned citizens you refer to were mostly - the bulk of the financing, the organizers of the Fox News publicity campaign - a few very wealthy Republican men who wanted more tax cuts and further deregulation of their industries.
Last edited:
LOL....well, your ignorance and arrogance never ceases to amaze. I suggest you heed your own advice. I suggest you look it up. It's a fact. When Obama was sworn into office, he did have a Democratic Congress. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. That's why they were able pass a fiscal stimulus package and save the auto industry. That's why they were able to rescue the economy. That's why they were able to pass Obamacare.
Do not understand what you read? Do you not understand what you write? Apparently, that is the case. You have just contradicted yourself. You have just confirmed what you first denied. Democrats did have control of Congress and the administrative branch as I asserted and you later denied. This is just oh so typical of you Iceaura. You are so disconnected and all over the place. For a time Obama had a filibuster majority in the Senate. That's how Obamacare was passed in the Senate.
And who said Democrats were a monolithic party? You should try being honest someday.
Last edited:
Except, that's just flat out not true. The United States has been indebted virtually every year of its existence. The nation was born in debt. Were it not for debt, there would be no United States. Debt financed the US revolution. Keep in mind current US debt level is significantly inflated/overstated by some accounting quirks which didn't exist in previous periods.
Democrats and Republicans have also acted to pay down US debt. The real question here is has the US lost the ability to responsibly govern itself? Republicans don't want to increase taxes on the nation's wealthiest residents. In fact they don't want them to pay any taxes at all e.g. the Kochs in Kansas. Historically, that's how the nation has paid down its debts. It increased taxation especially on its richest residents. There was a time when the highest US tax rate was 94%. Today, it's 39.6%. The capital gains rate was 40%, now it's 20%. And that's only on income that's actually taxed as income. Today, much income isn't taxed at all e.g. Trump and Romney.
Below is a chart depicting US Debt over time:
Historically, the US public debt as a share ofgross domestic product(GDP) has increased during wars and recessions, and subsequently declined. The ratio of debt to GDP may decrease as a result of a government surplus or due to growth of GDP and inflation. For example, debt held by the public as a share of GDP peaked just after World War II (113% of GDP in 1945), but then fell over the following 35 years. In recent decades, however, aging demographics and rising healthcare costs have led to concern about the long-term sustainability of the federal government'sfiscal policies.[4]
On July 29, 2016, debt held by the public was $14 trillion or about 76% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[5][6][7][8]Intragovernmental holdings stood at $5.4 trillion, giving a combined total gross national debt of $19.4 trillion or about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[7]$6.2 trillion or approximately 45% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were the China and Japan at about $1.25 trillion for China and $1.15 trillion for Japan as of May 2016.[9]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...States&usg=AFQjCNFO6xE0wkYej97w9moOlXCubfFh3w
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
wellwisher said:
wiki said:
In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.
from the cbo:
On January 20, 2009, the national debt stood at 10.6 trillion dollars;
A fresh estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects this year’s deficit – the annual budget shortfall – will spike to 590 billion dollars. That’s higher than a previous estimate, and up 35 percent over last year.
Further, the CBO’s numbers show the total national debt hitting 20 trillion dollars next year.
OK not quite a double
darned close
ice said:
wiki said:
In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.
from the cbo:
On January 20, 2009, the national debt stood at 10.6 trillion dollars;
A fresh estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects this year’s deficit – the annual budget shortfall – will spike to 590 billion dollars. That’s higher than a previous estimate, and up 35 percent over last year.
Further, the CBO’s numbers show the total national debt hitting 20 trillion dollars next year.
OK not quite a double
darned close
Last edited:
Ok, I was being deceptively technical about the election date - "when he was elected" was November of 2008 - but to a purpose: the notion that Obama's election marked "the beginning of the doubling of the national debt", or that Obama's policies and administration made any significant enlarging contribution to the current US national debt, is completely false.
And the difference is not subtle: the contribution to the national debt made unavoidable by the sitting Congress and President in the last half of 2008 alone was probably larger than what Obama has been responsible for in his entire tenure.
Deceptive cherrypicking: That was not the significant date - W's budget still had a full year to run and two to effect, W's bailouts had not been fully entered into the budget, and W's incurred military obligations had many more years to come due.sculptor said:
If you insist on being dishonest enough to assign to Obama every dollar of debt incurred by the US during his budget tenure as he dealt with the Iraq War and the economic crash of 2007/8, you still have this: http://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
Under W's budgeting and warmaking, 2002 - 2011, the US debt more than doubled (6-14 trillion) with a mean increase of about 1 trillion per year (you can use 2010, 6-13 trillion, with the same basic result). Under Obama's budgeting, 2010 - 2019 (you can use 2018 if you prefer) it is projected to jump another 50% only, still about a trillion per year but largely driven by inertia from the big launch of 2003 and explosion in 2008.
Takehome: Reagan, Bush, and W, were the architects of the current US debt balloon. Period. The entire US debt problem is fundamentally and essentially a Republican Party creation, and should be blamed wholly on them for clarity, without bothering to quibble about the minor contributions of this or that Democratic politician.
Historically, wars and recessions ended. The word "subsequently" is key, there.cosmic said:
I'm not sure what your point is. But yes, the government has paid down its debt historically per my previously referenced chart, and it still can. And I would note you should also take out the debt held by the Federal Reserve which amounts to about 2.8 trillion dollars. So the actual US debt is about 11 trillion dollars. And taxation is at historic lows. So there is plenty of room to increase taxes especially on America's richest residents. Higher taxation on America's wealthiest would also be very good for the economy. It would stimulate growth and mitigate out wealth inequality problems.
Current US debt levels are very manageable. The potential problem for the US is the future. And the good news is a Republican Congress and a Democratic president raised taxes on America's wealthiest citizens 3 years ago and they raised them significantly. That's good news. That was the right thing to do, and there is much more room to raise taxes. Taxes on America's wealthiest citizens are still far below Reagan era tax rates.
Uh, no: Obama had a potential filibuster-proof number of Dems and Independents in the Senate from July 7, 2009 (Franken sworn in) until February 4, 2010 (Brown sworn in). That surprised me, when I looked it up - I had remembered it as closer to a year.joe said:
But things weren't even that good: http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucin...-did-not-control-congress-his-first-two-years
Four months, at the end of his first year, is how much time Obama had when there were 60 votes in the Senate that weren't Republican. And that interval was fraught - he had immediate troubles, it was over the holidays, etc. So all the good stuff had to be negotiated past a Republican filibuster - most of it never saw daylight.
So if we assume that Social Security will never need to call in its bonds, and we assume that effective taxes on rich people can be raised to Reagan era levels by the Congress and President we will have, the incoming US debt levels are manageable.joe said:
Otherwise, they might not be.
There are two problems with raising taxes on the rich. The first is the IRS tax code has 70,000 pages of deductions to more than offset any ceremonial increase in rates. Raising the tax rates on big business does not mean anything, when you have so many deductions. This is a scam. All a tax rate increase does is squeeze out small business and create more jobs for tax attorneys. The tax code is written to money launder campaign contributions.
Real taxes will first need to simply the tax code, like the Cruz and others have suggested. The tax code can be reduced to one page. Simplification can get rid of the IRS and allow an honest tax system, where tax rates means something more than smoke and mirrors for money laundering. This is resisted by the Democrats who seem to like to this scam. Under Obama the rich got ricer than any time in US history, even while the Democrats pretended to hate the evil rich. Wall Street now give more money to the Democrats than Republicans because they are so cooperative.
The second problem with taxing the rich, is they will pass on the cost to the middle class, through higher prices and loss of jobs. If you own a business and your expenses go up, you can't run your company in the red, like big government can. If there is little or no profit you need to find ways to cut costs. This will mean higher prices for the consumer, loss of benefits for the employees. It can also mean fewer jobs, with the workers remaining, having to work harder with fewer hours. If this is not allowed, you may need to go overseas. The result has been the middle class has declined and has not seen a raise during the Obama years, while government has become more wasteful and redundant than anytime in history.
Big government is wasteful and redundant, since it does not have to earn money. Government, by law, gets to shake down money from the citizens, while allowing itself to operate in the deep red. Government needs someone like Trump, who will run government like a business, instead of a slush fund. Something like the 5 of the top 7 wealthiest counties in the US, are suburbs of Washington, even though the government is $trillions in debt. This is not right.
What I would do is make all government based job raises and job growth dependent on what is happening to the middle class. The middle class has not seen a wage increase in 8 years, so all the government employees will should see their wages and job levels regressed to 8 years ago. If government needs a wage increase or needs to grow, the leaders need to see this first happen in the middle class. The government should be expected to run in the black, without having to shake down the citizens. Maybe we can tax the government like a business and give a tax break to the citizens; no rigged crooked system like Trump says.
Real taxes will first need to simply the tax code, like the Cruz and others have suggested. The tax code can be reduced to one page. Simplification can get rid of the IRS and allow an honest tax system, where tax rates means something more than smoke and mirrors for money laundering. This is resisted by the Democrats who seem to like to this scam. Under Obama the rich got ricer than any time in US history, even while the Democrats pretended to hate the evil rich. Wall Street now give more money to the Democrats than Republicans because they are so cooperative.
The second problem with taxing the rich, is they will pass on the cost to the middle class, through higher prices and loss of jobs. If you own a business and your expenses go up, you can't run your company in the red, like big government can. If there is little or no profit you need to find ways to cut costs. This will mean higher prices for the consumer, loss of benefits for the employees. It can also mean fewer jobs, with the workers remaining, having to work harder with fewer hours. If this is not allowed, you may need to go overseas. The result has been the middle class has declined and has not seen a raise during the Obama years, while government has become more wasteful and redundant than anytime in history.
Big government is wasteful and redundant, since it does not have to earn money. Government, by law, gets to shake down money from the citizens, while allowing itself to operate in the deep red. Government needs someone like Trump, who will run government like a business, instead of a slush fund. Something like the 5 of the top 7 wealthiest counties in the US, are suburbs of Washington, even though the government is $trillions in debt. This is not right.
What I would do is make all government based job raises and job growth dependent on what is happening to the middle class. The middle class has not seen a wage increase in 8 years, so all the government employees will should see their wages and job levels regressed to 8 years ago. If government needs a wage increase or needs to grow, the leaders need to see this first happen in the middle class. The government should be expected to run in the black, without having to shake down the citizens. Maybe we can tax the government like a business and give a tax break to the citizens; no rigged crooked system like Trump says.
It doesn't matter how many times you write "Uh, no", it will not change reality. It will not change the truth. It won't change the fact that Democrats held both houses of Congress when Obama was sworn into office, and they held those majorities until the next next election cycle.
Well, now you are moving the goal post. No one controls congress. No president controls Congress. That's kind of the whole point of having divided powers. We have a democracy, not an autocracy. The unfortunate fact for you is Democrats did for a 2 year period control both houses of Congress. Democrats made the rules, and for a time, owing to a coalition with Independents, Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Democrats made the rules. If Democrats wanted to change the rules they could have, and they subsequently did change the filibuster rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
You can assume whatever you want and you do, but that will not change any of relevant facts. Debt service at 2% of GDP isn't by any definition unmanageable especially when you consider the fact that tax rates are at historic lows. As previously stated, it doesn't matter what the government calls its internal fund transfers. It doesn't change the government's liabilities. It's just a funds transfer.
You two are like watching a ping-pong game...
As best as I can tell, this seems like a succinct chronology:
One particular lie, often stated by right-of-center advocates, is the statement...."if Barack Obama wanted to increase taxes on the rich, stop the wars, pass a budget...blah, blah.....he could have chosen to do so because he had "total control" of the House and Senate for two full years."
Sometimes the "two full years" is omitted from the statement......but the lie is spread nevertheless, by the "total control of Congress" phrase.
Let's clear that all up, shall we?
Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.
Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).
Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.
But legislation does not become law without the Senate.
The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.
"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.
On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)
The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.
An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.
Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.
In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.
The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.
The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
Are there any errors in there?Sometimes the "two full years" is omitted from the statement......but the lie is spread nevertheless, by the "total control of Congress" phrase.
Let's clear that all up, shall we?
Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.
Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).
Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.
But legislation does not become law without the Senate.
The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.
"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.
On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)
The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.
An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.
Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.
In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.
The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.
The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
And you really think that makes sense? Here is the thing, this "small business" deception is getting a little old. Koch Industries and its many related companies are not small businesses. It's a multi-billion dollar international business enterprise. But yet it is marketed to the public as a "small business". Don't you think that's more than a little dishonest?
Income taxes are based income. If companies have no income, they have no taxes. Further, I don't see anyone on any side arguing for higher corporate tax rates. So that's straw man argument. The US tax code is overly complex, but it's overly complex for a reason and it's not a good reason or a fair reason. Again, this is a bit of a straw man because both sides agree in principal on tax code simplification. But Republicans thus far have been unwilling to work with Democrats in order to simplify the tax code.
Further the problem isn't with deductions. That's a canard. The problem is in defining what is and isn't income and what income is taxable and what income isn't taxable and how various income streams are taxed. Not all income is taxed equally. Some types of income are tax free or tax advantaged.
You have a lot of jumbled thinking and thoughts going on in your head. The tax code has nothing to do with campaign contributions or the laundering of money. I find it more than a bit ironic to hear Republicans complain about campaign finance after many years of destroying rules intended to provide campaign finance transparency and destroying limitations on campaign contributions. Thanks to Republicans e.g. Citizens United, our elections now are awash in unlimited secret money.
Both sides have agreed in principal to tax code simplification. If Republicans were serious about tax code simplification, if Cruz were serious about tax code simplification, they would have done something to simplify the tax code. He would have worked with Democrats who also want to simplify the tax code. But Cruz and his fellow Republicans in Washington have done nothing to simplify the tax code and they control both houses of Congress. It's their job to write the tax code. So why haven't they simplified the tax code? Republicans have controlled Congress for the last 6 years and they have done nothing to simplify the tax code.
No matter who is POTUS, the rich get richer. You could have said the same for Baby Bush, or Ronald Reagan. The rich always get richer. So pointing your finger at Obama here is more than a little disingenuous. The rich got richer under Reagan and at the time the rich had never been richer. That has been true for every POTUS.
Well, that's just factually or historically not true. Where is your evidence for this assertion? When has that ever happened? It hasn't. What you have done here is just mindlessly repeat Republican Party dogma. You have no evidence to support this assertion because that evidence doesn't exist. Your assertion is blatantly false. The rich have no power to unilaterally raise prices. That kind of power is illegal under the antitrust laws. But in the conspiracy laden world of right wing fanatics and secret cabals I can understand why people like you believe this crap and why the people who fund your party e.g. the Koch brothers want you to believe this crap.
Again, that's just Republican Party nonsense. As previously pointed out to you historically businessmen have made very poor presidents. The government isn't a business, and running government as a business is a recipe for disaster. And the government does earn money, but it isn't a for profit entity. It it were, we would all be in trouble. Because government would be an all powerful entity, and if you believe in freedom and if you enjoy your freedom, that's not a good thing. The founding fathers understood that, that's why they created divided powers.
Well now you have something - kinda sort of . Tying government raises especially the salaries of elected officials and senior government officials to the well-being of the middle class is an idea I have long championed. But the government shouldn't be expected to always run in the "black". There are times when government needs to run in the red e.g. the Great Recession. The government should always be expected to do what is right for the nation and therein lies the rub. How do you define what is good for the nation? Unfortunately, people are people and they can easily be misled e.g. the ultra so called "conservative movement as represented by the Donald.
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Let's revisit obama's 1st 2 years.
It seemed that he wanted to do things in a bipartisan way through consensus.
Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi (who wanted to create"air force 3" for her personal use)was doing everything she could to piss off the opposition and keep them pissed off.
Was she being obstructionist? Was she just playing a power game?
It seems that the net effect was to cripple Obama's prospects of effecting any change.
Your thoughts?
It seemed that he wanted to do things in a bipartisan way through consensus.
Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi (who wanted to create"air force 3" for her personal use)was doing everything she could to piss off the opposition and keep them pissed off.
Was she being obstructionist? Was she just playing a power game?
It seems that the net effect was to cripple Obama's prospects of effecting any change.
Your thoughts?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
The interests of self-defense, or war crimes, or crimes against humanity.
I don't see how anything Pelosi did was in any way wrong or obstructionist. The opposition was pissed off from day one. Remember, the opposition held a secret meeting in a Washington restaurant to form an opposition strategy, the strategy of resistance. Republicans agreed to oppose anything Obama attempted to do even if that meant opposing their own legislation. And Republicans carried out the opposition.
Last edited:
I think it would be helpful to review the conversation. Iceaura’s obfuscation has muddied the waters.
Wellwisher wrote:
“When Obama was first elected, the Democrats held majorities in the House, Senate and Executive branches. This allowed Obama and the Democrats to set the agenda, which led to the beginning of the doubling in the national debt.” - Wellwisher
And I wrote:
While it is true that when Obama was sworn into office, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch of government, it's not true that they were responsible for doubling the national debt. And this has been previously explained to you numerous times, so this is flat out dishonesty on your part.
And Iceaura wrote:
“None of that happened, in real life. That is all fictional - made up.” – Iceaura
Iceaura is clearly in error. Democrats were clearly in the majority in both houses of Congress in 2009 and clearly in control of Congress. They controlled both houses of Congress. They set the agenda. They made the rules. If they wanted to change the filibuster rules, they could have, and they subsequently did. Contrary to Iceaura’s assertion, this was never about Obama. It was about political party control of Congress.
Iceaura is now arguing that because Democrats didn’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate when Obama was sworn into office, Democrats didn’t control the Senate. That’s not only factually incorrect, it’s patently absurd. Other than Iceaura, I don’t know anyone who would argue that point. Just because the majority party doesn’t have a filibuster proof majority, it doesn’t mean they aren’t in control of the Senate. The majority can change the filibuster rules as Democrats did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Events_of_November_2013
Using Icearua’s argument, Republicans haven’t controlled Congress for the last 2 years and that’s just factually incorrect. It’s absurd. It’s a weird interpretation of reality. According to Iceaura’s assertion neither party has controlled congress since 1979. Because that’s the last time a political party had a super majority in the Senate (2009 exempted).
Iceaura’s assertion is just patently absurd. Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress for the last 2 years even though they didn’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. They have had majorities in both houses of Congress. They have made the rules. They have set the agenda. They have and continue to control both houses. Contrary to Icearua’s “reasoning” that’s just a matter of record.
Just because the majority party doesn’t have a filibuster proof majority, a super majority in the Senate, it doesn’t mean the majority party doesn’t control of Congress as Iceaura has asserted.
I know Ice's style - I don't often engage with him because I don't have two weeks to spend arguing over what the definition of "is" is.
I just thought I would post the record - but do carry on...
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Let's say the Democrats were in control. They got an economy from Bush that was the worst since the Great Depression. That's no time to increase taxes or cut spending and pay off the debt.