Senate Repubs Vote Against Own Proposal

Sunday, January 31, 2010

A month ago, a bipartisan group of senators asked Obama for his "strong support" for a commission to solve the national debt crisis. "We don't recommend this special process lightly," they wrote, calling it "the best way to reach a lasting bipartisan solution that will put our nation back on a sound long-term fiscal path." Seven Republicans who backed the measure voted against it last Tuesday -- Sen. Mike Crapo, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jim Inhofe, Robert Bennett, John McCain, Sam Brownback and John Ensign.

Posted by rcade at 07:53 PM | 76 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Amazon.com Widgets

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

rcade

Private E-mail
Visit Home Page

Joined 2003/04/04
Visited 2010/03/16

Status: editor

MORE STORIES

Cornell Gets Rep as 'Suicide School' (4 comments) ...

Study: 60% of US Adults are Drinkers (15 comments) ...

Court Upholds Sanctions on Birther Lawyer (9 comments) ...

Tiger Woods Will Return at Masters (23 comments) ...

Saletan: Fearing to Lose is No Way to Lead (17 comments) ...

Retort: The Tuesday Nooner (32 comments) ...

People Leave Unique Trail of Germs (14 comments) ...

Retort: The Monday Nooner (61 comments) ...

Edwards' Mistress Gives First Interview (52 comments) ...

Ladies and Gentlemen, Start Your Brackets (26 comments) ...

Memphis Police Sold Guns Used in 2 Shootings (39 comments) ...

Justice Thomas' Wife Starts Tea Party Lobby (132 comments) ...

Jesse Ventura's Censored 9/11 Piece (163 comments) ...

Retort: The Sunday Nooner (9 comments) ...

National Geographic Covers Sperm (13 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

So . . . we need to save Obama from Democrats, and elect Republicans. Is that what the NYT is saying?

#1 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-31 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a bunch of loons.

The party of no voting against their own bill.

However this is not the first time McCain has voted against his own legislation.

Republican is a mental disorder.

#2 | Posted by JimmyWallback at 2010-01-31 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm pissed at the Dems, too, but the Republicans!?!? WTF!?!?

#3 | Posted by Scrumplet at 2010-01-31 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

My first question would be whether it's the same bill and if it is why the heck have they changed their minds.

#4 | Posted by matsop at 2010-01-31 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The party of no voting against their own bill.

However this is not the first time McCain has voted against his own legislation

I seem to remember the tax cheat Charlie Rangel voting against his own legislation.

#5 | Posted by timbci at 2010-01-31 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

why the heck have they changed their minds.

Because they will oppose anything Obama supports.... even if it is their own bill.

Mental illness.

#6 | Posted by JimmyWallback at 2010-01-31 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Makes one wonder what pork was added to the bill that made the republicans vote "NO"? At the end of the day, regardless of the D or R at the end of the name, they will look out for themselves and their buddies and that's it. "Our" representatives are no longer representing "us", just their special interests.

#7 | Posted by OUR_ZERO at 2010-01-31 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

A great example of being careful of what you ask for, you just might get it.

#8 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2010-01-31 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7 OZ

I've heard this from just about everyone, liberal or conservative. But will the system change itself just because the people they're supposed to be representing demand it?

#9 | Posted by Scrumplet at 2010-01-31 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

My first question would be whether it's the same bill and if it is why the heck have they changed their minds.

They were signatories and cosponsors of the bill. It is the same bill.

Read the article.

#10 | Posted by YAV at 2010-01-31 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Read the bill, sponsors, cosponsors, etc. here:

www.votesmart.org

#11 | Posted by YAV at 2010-01-31 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ahh. The old "bait and switch" game.

#12 | Posted by OUR_ZERO at 2010-01-31 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

URGENT GOP Bill:

Outlaw TV cameras anytime Obama and the GOP are together. Amendments that will be offered include making it a felony to use the phrase "PWNED" when referring to any GOP/Obama meeting where the GOP are called out on their facts and phony rhetoric.

#13 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-31 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does that mean their behavior bothers you, Matsop? Do you find them anything less than the party of NO when they vote against what they pleaded for and put forth and signed and cosponsored?

Are people finally getting the message that no matter what, no matter if you gave the GOP EXACTLY what they want, they are going to vote NO as long as Obama is President?

#14 | Posted by YAV at 2010-01-31 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Republicans can't make up their minds. They had no trouble creating massive debt and deficits all by their lonesomes yet now bitch endlessly about what they themselves created as though they weren't responsible.

They've have 'misplaced' 2001-2009, which, listening to their phony rhetoric, seem to have disappeared in a cacophony of lock step, Twilight Zone rhetoric that sucked uneducated masses in and didn't leave a trace of credibility behind.

#15 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-31 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

sucked uneducated masses in and didn't leave a trace of credibility behind

Sort of like all the uneducated masses voting for Dear Leader?

Pot/Kettle

#16 | Posted by OUR_ZERO at 2010-01-31 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Whatever you say. You a fan of Kim Jung Il or something?

#17 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-31 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

OUR_ZERO

So, you voted for the party who left this country in a smoking heap? THAT'S not what any educated person would do. Less educated voted for McCain while college graduates supported Obama. College students went for Obama by a mile.

"The only age group where McCain prevailed was 65 and over, and that by just a 10-percentage-point margin, 54 percent to 44 percent, the exit polls showed."

www.cnn.com

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-31 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does that mean their behavior bothers you, Matsop? Do you find them anything less than the party of NO when they vote against what they pleaded for and put forth and signed and cosponsored?

Are people finally getting the message that no matter what, no matter if you gave the GOP EXACTLY what they want, they are going to vote NO as long as Obama is President?

#14 | Posted by YAV

I'll call out both parties when I feel they're not acting in good faith---just because I've been hard on Obama doesn't mean I'm a partisan---the reason I've been hard on Obama is not acting like a leader and allowing Reid/ Pelosi to do their thing--by the way, I still believe a healhcare bill will be passed and it'll be because the repubs were the party of no and Obama will now incorporate some of their ideas in the bill--he wants a bill so bad he can taste it--I'm a conservative/moderate with no party affiliation and if Obama sheds his ideologue personality for working at healthcare bipartisanly and not shoving it down the American people's throat (with some of their misguided ideas) then more power to him.

#19 | Posted by matsop at 2010-01-31 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama is indeed a smart pol. He is playing chess while the right is playing checkers. What he is doing is using a Clinton technique that drove the right crazy. He's coopting some decent Rethug/Conservative ideas (though pay-go was really a dem idea originally), and using them to whack the right bloody. You recall how Clinton used his hiring of 100,000 cops to squelch the right's claim that they were the law and justice party. He did the same with welfare reform.

Dems can use these votes, especially the pay-go vote to hammer the Rethugs. Plus Obama's populist stance against the banks, telling them that they need to repay the taxpayers for bailing them out. What's nice is that the Dems can also use these issues to drive a wedge between the Rethugs and the Teabaggers. After all, if the Teabaggers are non-partisan citizens who are gathering to object to debt, deficits and taxes, then they have to make the Rethugs pay for these votes! They should like pay-go, a deficit commission, the banks paying back the taxpayers. Otherwise the Teabaggers are just a bunch of scrotum sucking hypocrites, who are really just unhappy that the president is an educated black man who is ten times smarter than all the members of their family tree combined. Of course from what I saw this past summer, most of the Teabagger family trees don't seem to branch much.

#20 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2010-01-31 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're funny when you're drunk, Slinger.

#21 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-31 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

College students went for Obama by a mile.

www.cnn.com

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Usually the most naive voter and very easy to be swayed by platitudes and sweet talk like "hope and change".

#22 | Posted by matsop at 2010-01-31 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unlike, of course, the voter who thinks that Obama is an illegal alien Marxist terrorist plant.

#23 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-01-31 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not Matsop, college students are the most educated, and informed group of voters. They tend to be far more up on what's happening politically than is the standard voter who doesn't really start to pay attention until about six months before an election. They're not easily swayed, they tend to be more idealistic which is why they tend to vote Democratic. The key to getting that block of votes out is to give them a candidate or issue that gets them motivated to go to the polls.

Rightiswrong, I wasn't drunk when I wrote that. Other than the insults, the rest was true. Refute it if you can, but it was pretty common knowledge what Clinton was doing in the 90's, and it looks to me like that's what Obama's doing now.

#24 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2010-01-31 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

They've done the same thing numerous times with the Health Care bill.

They stick all sorts of shit in the bill and then vote against it.

#25 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-02-01 03:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Usually the most naive voter and very easy to be swayed by platitudes and sweet talk like "hope and change".

#22 | Posted by matsop at 2010-01-31 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

College students are the most naive? Really?

Seems many of you still call the President a Muslim and still think he's going to take your guns away.

....but it's the people in college that are naive....not the lazy trailer trash. Sure.

#26 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-02-01 03:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

maybe its time to fire that shot heard around the world again

#27 | Posted by indianajim at 2010-02-01 05:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

The most educated???? OK. In November of this year 1/4 of college students will have been in college for 8 weeks.Another 1/4 will have been in school for 2 full semesters. Your statement is complete bullshit. The onlt thing that is right is they tend to be must more idealistic. Of course, that changes when people start working and paying rent and taxes

#28 | Posted by timbci at 2010-02-01 05:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

#24 | Posted by _Gunslinger

They tend to vote Democrat because up until this point in their lives someone else paid their way. Why change now.

#29 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2010-02-01 06:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

The onlt thing that is right is they tend to be must more idealistic.

We would expect this kind of a knee jerk reaction from someone who never graduated high school. Mumble onward, but it sounds like just more sour grapes.

#30 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-02-01 06:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama is indeed a smart pol. He is playing chess while the right is playing checkers . . . drove the right crazy . . . and using them to whack the right bloody.
#20 | Posted by _Gunslinger_

his Olympic strategy, re-tested in Va, NJ, Ma . . . soon to be used in Burris' Illinois
Senate race has indeed caught the GOP of guard - - -

hell, the GOP expected to be irrelevant for 10 yrs . . . the ONE's agenda resurrected 'em in 10 months

hell II, re that Orig Post Bill . .
I asked my Congressman & Senators to vote NO on everything til we can re-place them (1 repub & 2 dems) - - I expect alot of my neighbors are also asking the same

we've seen enough of these clowns

#31 | Posted by markh at 2010-02-01 06:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

The onlt thing that is right is they tend to be must more idealistic.

We would expect this kind of a knee jerk reaction from someone who never graduated high school. Mumble onward, but it sounds like just more sour grapes.

#30 | Posted by RingMaster

Son you just sound stupid saying that.I have nothing to be sour about. I remember being in college when CLinton ran and I almost fell for his bullshit. In 1992 I was a junior in college. The prior Summer I had just got involveed in the Sons of the Confederacy and was just starting to get to know the doctrine

#32 | Posted by timbci at 2010-02-01 06:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#21 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-31 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag: Pathetic but not unexpected

#33 | Posted by 2008 at 2010-02-01 07:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

The prior Summer I had just got involveed in the Sons of the Confederacy and was just starting to get to know the doctrine.

#32 | Posted by timbci at 2010-02-01 06:52 AM | Reply | Flag: Son you just sound stupid saying that.

#34 | Posted by 2008 at 2010-02-01 07:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Deficits are like abortion for Republicans, just something to whine about but never actually do anything about.

"Of course, that changes when people start working and paying rent and taxes"

Yeah, I've known lots of folks like that, they went to State Universities heavily subsidized by taxpayers which kept tuition very low then, once they had their degree, started voting against all those taxes that gave them a leg up. Our kids today pay very high tuition to try and get an education because our generation was a bunch un ungrateful, unpatriotic, short sighted fools. We may have reduced our tax burden but in doing so we also upset the apple cart of the American economy. I know I get a laugh when every former right wing tool I know falls into foreclosure, discovers the joys of unemployment or finds out the pleasure of going without health insurance. Don't say it can't happen to you right wing tools, famous last words have a way of coming back and biting you in the ass.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-01 08:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

" is why the heck have they changed their minds"

ah! Reminds me of a time long ago (2004) when Changing Ones Mind on a Subject was a Bad Thing in WingDing World!

"Flip-Flop" is what they would Chant in Unison!

So much for "principle" I guess!

#36 | Posted by redneckville at 2010-02-01 08:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Almost fell for clinton's bullshit"

You mean like getting a surplus in the budget?

You almost fell for that but instead smartened up for bush to destroy any semblance of a surplus for years to come.

Please. Its obvious that the sons of the confederate losers have brain washed you. Hillarious hahah

#37 | Posted by klifferd at 2010-02-01 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds like the bill was introduced as a way to kill the time Democrats would otherwise have to pursue other initiatives which the GOP would also vote against.

#38 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-02-01 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

#37 | Posted by klifferd at 2010-02-01 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag

Questions for the dumb ass named Kliffered:

1) Who controlled congress when the budget 'surplus' was 'discovered'?

2) Who has controlled congress for the last 3 years when the budget deficit has grown the fastest?

#39 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2010-02-01 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Daily ranting from a hate filled bitch.
#38 | Posted by midtowncowboy

Nothing hate-filled in that comment, huh, rhinestone?

#40 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-02-01 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Aw, Midnight Cowboy being Abusive again when none of those intermittent brain farts he calls "thoughts" manage to surface among the sludge.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-01 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, are we to assume that the remaining 39 nay votes were dems? Damn party first obstructionists. Indicates to me that dems are clearly against anything bipartisan as this bill clearly was by the sponsorship it received.

Wouldn't this have been an easy bone to throw the chairman? Wouldn't this have been a cheap token for them to throw around during elections... ?

#42 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2010-02-01 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the bill was so great, how come the 60 dem votes in the senate didn't pass it?

#43 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-01 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

The FAIL is strong his this one, Luke.

#44 | Posted by axe at 2010-02-01 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Timbicile is too busy 'infiltrating' his local gay S&M scene to pay attention to current events. Give the poor 'patriot' a break.

#45 | Posted by axe at 2010-02-01 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Dems that voted against it = GOOD
Republicans that voted against it = BAAAAAAAAAAAD

Damn, that makes it clear.

#46 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-01 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

17 Republicans and 36 Democrats voted for this! That's 53 Senators.

Seems to me there are 60 Democrats in the Senate, as we speak! This is why they asked President Obama to get behind their proposal, to get enough Democrats to pass it!

The Republicans, on their own, can't do it with 40 votes. Don't blame the Republicans for this one! They tried!

#47 | Posted by dogen at 2010-02-01 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Congressman Crapo (R). Seems redundant
to me.

#48 | Posted by tiger150 at 2010-02-01 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Midtown cow

Bush I started suplus. Clinton maintained it and improved it and bush II took that surplus and tossed it away and it will take a long time to get it back with the deficits created by bush II and his congress.

In the mean time politics have become more pointlessly divisive due to morons like yerself.

In the end you and timbicile are the dumbass partisan hacks.

#49 | Posted by klifferd at 2010-02-01 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

republicans = worthless bags of obstructionist shit.
democrats = worthless bags of spineless shit.

#50 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2010-02-01 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rightiswrong, I wasn't drunk when I wrote that. Other than the insults, the rest was true.
#24 | Posted by _Gunslinger_

* * *

Okay. So tell me--do you thing gay people are disgusting? Or just what they do to each other?

#51 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-01 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

hell, the GOP expected to be irrelevant for 10 yrs . . .

They still are. Nobody, least of all the drudge "conservatives', will vote FOR anything they stand for, just AGAINST anything the Dems do.

#52 | Posted by northguy3 at 2010-02-01 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, that's because everything you try to do is stupid.

Happy to help!

#53 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-01 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

They've done the same thing numerous times with the Health Care bill.

They stick all sorts of shit in the bill and then vote against it.

There are logical reasons to do that. One would be to delay the passage of a bill they think is bad for America. Another would be to amend a bill they think is bad for America to make it less bad in the event it does pass, without their help.

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2010-02-01 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

These republicans didn't vote against the bill to block Obama - they voted against it to protect themselves. They sense what is going on in the country and are trying to protect their own ass.

#55 | Posted by laj at 2010-02-01 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Both sides are guilty of voting against this commission and everyone knows why...because any honest evaluation of the deficit and its causes will reveal what everyone already knows but don't want to admit....tax cuts have created the debt. Reaganomics is synonymous with debt. If you have supply side economics you will have debt. That's why George Bush Sr. called it Voo Doo Economics.
Now, many in Congress on both sides of the aisle are afraid to confront the reality in an election year. Hell, some of the REpublicans are still pretending more tax cuts are what is needed, they are just liars though, even they know better.

#56 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-01 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

danni,

Everyone doesn't know that tax cuts created the debt. A lot of people believe that cutting taxes grows the economy which in the end brings in more revenue. This same group would argue that raising taxes could slow economic growth and actually bring in less revenue (Obama actually conceded this point).

Obama doesn't want to extend the tax cut for the wealthy which is projected to increase revenue by 330Bil over ten years. So how exactly did losing 330Bil in revenue over the last 10 years create trillion dollar deficit? Even assuming that the cuts didn't spur greater economic activity and an increase in revenue.

We had a small recession in 2001 when Bush came into office and 9/11 made it into a deeper recession (lost revenue). Throw in the dotcom bust (lost revenue) and we start spending more money on defense (increase spending) and you have your deficit. Nevermind that Clinton and the Republicans spent money left and right in the late 90's assuming the party would last forever.

#57 | Posted by laj at 2010-02-01 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hell, some of the REpublicans are still pretending more tax cuts are what is needed, they are just liars though, even they know better.

#56 | Posted by danni
* * * *

If you pick up tomorrow's newspaper, you'll see that Obama is doing the same thing. Cutting taxes. Cutting taxes to get businesses to hire people. Cutting taxes to pay people to put solar panels on their roofs. Cutting taxes to convince people to borrow money to buy a house or a car.

Be sure to tell the White House how upset you are.

#58 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-01 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

" A lot of people believe that cutting taxes grows the economy which in the end brings in more revenue."

But anyone claiming that for the Bush tax cuts would flunk out of Econ 101.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-01 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We had a small recession in 2001 when Bush came into office..."

No, we didn't.

"...and 9/11 made it into a deeper recession (lost revenue)."

Again, no recession. And "lost revenue" isn't the definition of a recession.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-01 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danforth,

recession.org

Lost revenue isn't the definition of a recession but a recession usually means lost revenue.

"But anyone claiming that for the Bush tax cuts would flunk out of Econ 101."

Was the revenue that the govt received less in 2008 than 2003?

#61 | Posted by laj at 2010-02-01 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Republicans, on their own, can't do it with 40 votes. Don't blame the Republicans for this one! They tried!"

Ha! Yes, 17 of them voted for it. That's really trying. Fuckin' ironic given that no one does lockstep better than the Republican party. Let's see, 17/40=42.5%. Seems to me that they didn't manage to get together on this one. More than half voted no, including some of the cosponsors. Unless the bill was changed, this makes no sense.

+++++

"If you pick up tomorrow's newspaper, you'll see that Obama is doing the same thing. Cutting taxes. Cutting taxes to get businesses to hire people. Cutting taxes to pay people to put solar panels on their roofs. Cutting taxes to convince people to borrow money to buy a house or a car."

And which of those are equivalent to the "tax cuts for the wealthy" that Bush was guilty of? Seriously, are they the same? If so, then we lefties who rant against Bush on this topic should rant against Obama for similar evils. If they're not the same, then you're just conflating taxes to try to score. (The last two hardly seem quantifiable as "tax cuts for the wealthy." And even the first, not so much. Gee gosh, Obama is following through on a campaign promise. Why don't you spend some digital ink to acknowledge that and admit that he's not a total liar? Hm?)

#62 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-02-01 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"recession.org"

Early 2001 doesn't fit the classical definition of two contracting quarters. Once you begin changing the definition to meet the political agenda, you've lost the debate.

"Was the revenue that the govt received less in 2008 than 2003?"

Factored for inflation, something you have to do to pass an Econ 101 midterm? Yes.

And the base year is TY 2000, not TY 2003.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-01 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Senate Repubs Vote Against Own Proposal"

When you dress a bulldog in a pink tootoo and put lipstick on him, how do you vote for that?

#64 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-01 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#49 | Posted by klifferd

Yr -- increase in DEBT(Billion)
90 -- 255
91 -- 376
92 -- 400
93 -- 347
94 -- 281
95 -- 281
96 -- 251
97 -- 188
98 -- 113
99 -- 79
00 -- 69
01 -- 133
02 -- 420

I don't know where you went to school but there was an increase in the debt every year. Last decrease was in 61.

#65 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-01 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ok, now it's getting ridiculous.

#66 | Posted by fresno500 at 2010-02-01 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can you be more specific, Fresno?

#67 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-02-01 07:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

When you vote against YOUR OWN proposal, I think it speaks for itself about the depth of obstructionism.

It's getting ridiculous.

#68 | Posted by fresno500 at 2010-02-02 08:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

dont remember a thread about congressman WIENER putting up an amendment during house cap and trade committe just so he could go after republicans because after his time was up and they voted, he voted NO........on his own amendment...

more proof that all of these pricks waste our money

#69 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-02-02 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

"more proof that all of these pricks waste our money"

Finally, you admit that it's not just dems! Holy cow. Now I'll wait for the next thread or post, where you blame all dems or insist that one dem's action is indicative of corruption by all dems. : )

#70 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-02-02 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are people finally getting the message that no matter what, no matter if you gave the GOP EXACTLY what they want, they are going to vote NO as long as Obama is President?

#14 | Posted by YAV at 2010-01-31 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag Morionic comotose in patient
substitute Dems and Bush and you have the playbook of the dems!

#71 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2010-02-02 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not so, Reinsure, the Dems went along very neatly with the War Powers Act, the PATRIOT Act, and NCLB. I'm sure there are more examples. I can't say that what YAV said is true, but it does seem that way.

#72 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-02-02 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the immortal words of Groucho Marx,
"whatever it is, I'm against it".

#73 | Posted by tiger150 at 2010-02-02 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#38 | HAGBARD_CELINE

Answers for dumb ass named Hagbard Celine: Well if you want to be honest about the nature of budget deficits related to Democratic and Republican leadership, it's actually one of the easier things. Obama has run the biggest deficit in recent history as a percentage GDP. Prior to him the next biggest deficits were at various points during the Reagan administration. There was a sizable deficit throughout his entire administration. During Bush Sr.'s administration is the next biggest series of deficits, followed by Ford and Bush Jr. These were all Republicans except for Obama. Carter did run some unremarkable but steady deficits. During Clinton's ENTIRE administration deficits were decreased and then became a surplus. Starting with his first year in office deficits declined, not just when Republicans controlled the legislature. This is what are called facts. Look them up.

#74 | Posted by AHBritton at 2010-02-04 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry HAGBARD_CELINE, I meant to direct that @ #39 | POSTED BY MIDTOWNCOWBOY

#75 | Posted by AHBritton at 2010-02-05 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

#63 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

As far as I can tell the "classical" definition of a recession came from a 1974 column by Julius Shiskin. The National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." So you can decide to use a definition created by some economist Shiskin, or the broader definition by the semi-official organization the NBER. Either way it's arbitrary. And whichever measure you use, you can't act all high and mighty if you don't even know where that definition came from. Seriously people, we're on the internet. It's ridiculously easy to do research. Try t every once in a while.

#76 | Posted by AHBritton at 2010-02-05 06:20 AM | Reply | Flag: