Skip to main content

View Diary: People unemployed for six months or more face serious discrimination (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  when the GOP had no say? (0+ / 0-)

    when was that, exactly?

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 08:18:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  All of 2009-10 (0+ / 0-)

      When we had the White House; 58-60 Senate seats and the House where majority rules. Bush 43 never had numbers like that. And he got his agenda through the first two years. And both 43 and 44 had crisis, 43 nine months in, 44 from day one. 43 took advantage of his to an extreme that we are still morally and financially paying for. 44 let his go by the wayside in search of compromise with his own party. The GOP had zero say the first two years.

      •  58-60 Senate seats? ROFL!!! (0+ / 0-)

        close only counts with horseshoes and handgrenades--in the filibuster-happy Senate of the first Obama term, 58 votes was definitely NOT the same as 60

        tell you what.  why don't you look up how many weeks we had 60 members of the D caucus in the Senate (which is not the same as 60 guaranteed votes, by the way).

        i know the answer already but i'll give you a hint.  it was definitely not "all of 2009-2010".  Not even close.

        Welcome to the reality based community, 983134.  What you think you know, what you have heard repeated on talk shows, what you have said over drinks with friends, what biased media outlets have told you, all that is not good enough here.  If you are going to fit in at dK, you have to start paying closer attention to political facts.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 01:53:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How many seats did we have? Link? (0+ / 0-)

          Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 never had the majority's Obama enjoyed. Look it up. The days of 70+ seats to one party are gone buddy. Every prez but this one has done more with less.

          When they were sworn in:

          Reagan: Senate 53(R); 46(D); 1(I)...House 242(D); 192(R); 1(I)
          Bush 41: Senate 55(D); 45 (R)...House 260(D); 175(R)
          Clinton: Senate 57 (D); 43 (R)...House 267(D); 167(R)
          Bush 43: Senate 50(D); 49(R); 1(I)...House 221(R); 212(D); 2(I)
          Obama: 58 (60 Veto proof for 72 days)...House 257(D); 178(R)

          You are making excuses, look at what the GOP was working with. We have no excuses.

          Think about what Bush 43 pushed through that Congress. Reagan had divided government and look what he pushed through. You have to fight for what you want. And we knew going in with Clinton and Obama that southern Dems are not progressive, but northern Repubs were not right wing but were there when the party needed them.

          So what you are saying is that progressives need 80+ seats to get our agenda passed. Come back to reality.

          By the way, there was a time when Kos was the reality based community. Defending Obama at all cost has made that claim ridiculous.

          •  ok you at least are finally admitting (0+ / 0-)

            that we did not have full control for "all of 2009 and 2010".

            good start.

            I am already aware of the respective majorities the last five presidents had when they were sworn in.

            every one of the last four presidents "did more with less" is literally true, i suppose, but meaningless, because what you are saying is everyone of the last four presidents

            did more with less OPPOSITION.

            Well, sure.  Anybody can do more with less opposition.

            Why do people have such a hard time acknowledging that the nature of the opposition has changed for this president?

            every prez but this one had an opposition party willing to make at least SOME effort to govern.   only this prez had to put up with an opposition party who was determined not to pass ANYTHING.

            Reagan and Bush 41 and Clinton and Bush 43 did not have an opposition party who decided to filibuster EVERYTHING.

            i am obviously NOT saying we need 80 seats to govern.  That's crazy talk.  But since the Rs started their filibustering ways, we need 60 votes for everything.

            And even when we had 60 members of the caucus we did not have 60 VOTES.  Dems are not as lockstep as Rcons are.  Obama NEVER had a "veto proof" (perhaps you mean filibuster proof?) 60 votes because of blue dogs like Nelson, and LIEberman and others.  Never.

            I am not making excuses or defending Obama at all costs.  I just push back against folks who say "he had control of both houses of congress for two years" because anyone paying attention knows that is a false statement.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 06:14:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are going to see what you want (0+ / 0-)

              we do not hold our pols responsible, unlike the GOP. I will leave you with this. Remember 58-60 seats. Don't be a Sheep. You do not need 60+. Warren or Hillary will you.

              Isaac Chotiner: You don’t think Elizabeth Warren makes a villain out of Wall Street?

              Chuck Schumer: I am just going to leave it at what I said.

              Isaac Chotiner: Forget Warren then. Is this a problem for your party?

              Chuck Schumer: You don’t want to go after them for the sake of going after them. The left-wing blogs want you to be completely and always anti–Wall Street. It’s not the right way to be.

              Isaac Chotiner: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case?

              Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                                                    ***

              He is talking about us, but especially sheep like you, who will not hold him accountable.

              •  i have no idea what you want that quote to mean (0+ / 0-)

                i have no idea why you are bringing Hillary and EW into this

                If we don't need 60+ then you know something I don't know about the Senate

                i am not seeing what I want, I am seeing the truth.  did i say anything that was not true?  did I say anything that was just my opinion?

                now if you want to hold people responsible, that's a good idea.  but we have to do more than just jaw about it.  we have to finance competing candidates and get them elected.  that's the only thing that matters.

                Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:50:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site