• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Obama voters only!

Vote now:


  • Total voters
    57

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,650
Reaction score
37,793
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I wouldve thought that too...but all the polls say the opposite that obamas base is more excited about him than romneys....by all the polls I mean rasmussen and gallup

well yeah - conservatives aren't excited about Romney. but they are broken-glass voters to vote against Obama. in 2008, democrats were broken-glass to vote for Obama. Harder for them to get up to do that again, and they seem to not be achieving it thus far.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
they aren't. But the conservative base is excited about firing President Obama. More so, I think, than the Democrat base is excited about reelecting him.

Excited about the thought of it, most of them don't seem to believe in it or the guy that would replace him.
 

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
well yeah - conservatives aren't excited about Romney. but they are broken-glass voters to vote against Obama. in 2008, democrats were broken-glass to vote for Obama. Harder for them to get up to do that again, and they seem to not be achieving it thus far.

I think the dynamic has changed...I think obama has picked up support in areas that he did not have in 2008...and some segments hes margin has widened....in contrast hes lost some of what he had in 2008...youth enthusiasm for one and the far left has dampened towards him.
I do believe he will pick up votes from independents and some moderate GOP that are appalled by the war on labor that the teaparty is waging...
 

Flippinfunky

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
883
Reaction score
242
Location
Seattle, WA (Raised in SW Oklahoma)
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I answered somewhat sure only because I worry about another rigged election...if they did it once, they'll do it twice. Based on who Obama is, I'm very sure.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,650
Reaction score
37,793
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think the dynamic has changed...I think obama has picked up support in areas that he did not have in 2008...

where?!?

you may want to check out what has happened in the intervening time period

and some segments hes margin has widened

where?!?

in contrast hes lost some of what he had in 2008...youth enthusiasm for one and the far left has dampened towards him.
I do believe he will pick up votes from independents and some moderate GOP that are appalled by the war on labor that the teaparty is waging...

Brother I think you are living a pipe-dream. Even in Wisconsin labor issues aren't even at the forefront of the Walker Recall.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the debt ceiling thing as a whole hurt the "tea party" brand. Being so unwilling to compromise that they would rather have our country not pay our bills was not good.

It hurt my opinion (and a lot of other hardline Tea Partiers) of the Tea Partiers in the House because they did compromise and it hurt them with everyone else because they wouldn't initially. I think they tried to be what they were elected not to be, moderate, and it hurt them. They should have either drawn the line in the sand like they promised they would when they were campaigning or given in early to avoid all of the grandstanding and speculation that occured. As it is, they failed both ways. They failed to keep their campaign promises and allowed the media to demonize them. We'll see what they do this time around.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
111,032
Reaction score
56,923
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Employment is improving more because people are getting discouraged and dropping out all together. Hard to sell that as a win. Economy improving? Growth is anemic, and may not even exist, once you take into account real inflation that includes the pocket-book expenses of food and energy. I would suspect that the only people who think that the economy is really getting that much better are those who are looking for it to. And Europe's problems have only just begun; that will be a slug we take to the face some time over the summer/fall.

But Obama should be cleaning up in Wisconsin. I'm going to hold to my prediction that Walker wins the recall and that puts Wisconsin in play in November.

U6 unemployment is dropping as well as U3, which means that overall the employment picture is improving. Growth is slow, but there, and much better than the shrinking that was happenening not long ago. I would think the only people denying that the economy is improving are those who don't want it to for political gains.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
U6 unemployment is dropping as well as U3, which means that overall the employment picture is improving. Growth is slow, but there, and much better than the shrinking that was happenening not long ago. I would think the only people denying that the economy is improving are those who don't want it to for political gains.

Meh, I wouldn't say it's improving either. It's stagnant. I think unemployment improving has just as much to do with people dropping out of the workforce all together as it does with jobs being found.
The economy is improving at a slow rate. Definitely not at the rate I think it should considering the money spent to improve it. But I will not deny it is improving slightly. Gas prices are hurting it more than anything and there isn't much President Obama can do about that.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
111,032
Reaction score
56,923
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Meh, I wouldn't say it's improving either. It's stagnant. I think unemployment improving has just as much to do with people dropping out of the workforce all together as it does with jobs being found.
The economy is improving at a slow rate. Definitely not at the rate I think it should considering the money spent to improve it. But I will not deny it is improving slightly. Gas prices are hurting it more than anything and there isn't much President Obama can do about that.

If it was just people dropping out of the workforce U6 would not be improving. The thing is, we are not spending money right now to improve the conomy, which is slowing recovery(cpwill's head just exploded at those words, but they are true).
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If it was just people dropping out of the workforce U6 would not be improving. The thing is, we are not spending money right now to improve the conomy, which is slowing recovery(cpwill's head just exploded at those words, but they are true).

That's the thing. U6 assumes those people still want to work instead of just receive neverending unemployment.
We have spent trillions of dollars with nothing but a bump in economic growth. President Obama's and the Dem's theory of economic growth has failed. Like I said, I'll give him the pass that is gas prices. Other than that, it has failed. Especially with the record debt we have accumulated. I firmly believe that if he had it his way, we'd be at about 17.5 to 18 trillion in debt by the end of his first term. That's astronomical.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
111,032
Reaction score
56,923
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That's the thing. U6 assumes those people still want to work instead of just receive neverending unemployment.
We have spent trillions of dollars with nothing but a bump in economic growth. President Obama's and the Dem's theory of economic growth has failed. Like I said, I'll give him the pass that is gas prices. Other than that, it has failed. Especially with the record debt we have accumulated. I firmly believe that if he had it his way, we'd be at about 17.5 to 18 trillion in debt by the end of his first term. That's astronomical.

It was a bump because it did not last, and in fact we then went the other direction. Debt is a real problem, but debt is a problem that is not today and that growth reduces. Further, not spending on infrastructure projects is a false savings, since spending does have to happen on those. The smart thing is bust out roadwork and the like when the economy is doing poorly, then you can spend less when the economy is full burn and pay off that money spent. GDP for 2011 was ~15 trillion. 1 % growth is therefore about 150 billion. You can see that it won't take terribly long to pay off the infrastructure work done during recessions/downturns. To give you an idea, while the stimulus was in effect, GDP growth was about 1 % higher than it is now, which suggests that the stimulus accounted for about 150 billion in growth(very very roughly). That 150 billion gets tacked onto to this year as well(since without that growth GDP would be 150 billion lower, so in 2 years, we have gained 300 billion in GDP from that stimulus(vast oversimplification to illustrate the point.

The idea is to get through recessions fast, get the economy burning again, then pay for it. What happened instead is that the get the economy burning got sidetracked by a congress that all of a sudden was worried about spending that they never cared before(a cynical person would suggest this was for political reasons, with further evidence by those same people's reaction to the automatic spending cuts). The other thing to remember is that the US is not going to go broke today, tomorrow, next year, or even next decade unless something catastrophic happens outside of what we can predict. We do have to fix the debt. When the economy is good, you pay off the spending from when the economy us bad. We also have to understand that a problem 50 + years in the making is not going to be solved overnight, nor does it have to be. If spending grows slower than the economy, then the problem will, slowly but surely, go away. If you slowly cut spending while the economy is good, that speeds things along.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It was a bump because it did not last, and in fact we then went the other direction. Debt is a real problem, but debt is a problem that is not today and that growth reduces. Further, not spending on infrastructure projects is a false savings, since spending does have to happen on those. The smart thing is bust out roadwork and the like when the economy is doing poorly, then you can spend less when the economy is full burn and pay off that money spent. GDP for 2011 was ~15 trillion. 1 % growth is therefore about 150 billion. You can see that it won't take terribly long to pay off the infrastructure work done during recessions/downturns. To give you an idea, while the stimulus was in effect, GDP growth was about 1 % higher than it is now, which suggests that the stimulus accounted for about 150 billion in growth(very very roughly). That 150 billion gets tacked onto to this year as well(since without that growth GDP would be 150 billion lower, so in 2 years, we have gained 300 billion in GDP from that stimulus(vast oversimplification to illustrate the point.

The idea is to get through recessions fast, get the economy burning again, then pay for it. What happened instead is that the get the economy burning got sidetracked by a congress that all of a sudden was worried about spending that they never cared before(a cynical person would suggest this was for political reasons, with further evidence by those same people's reaction to the automatic spending cuts). The other thing to remember is that the US is not going to go broke today, tomorrow, next year, or even next decade unless something catastrophic happens outside of what we can predict. We do have to fix the debt. When the economy is good, you pay off the spending from when the economy us bad. We also have to understand that a problem 50 + years in the making is not going to be solved overnight, nor does it have to be. If spending grows slower than the economy, then the problem will, slowly but surely, go away. If you slowly cut spending while the economy is good, that speeds things along.

All that sounds great in theory. But when you have a Senate approving bills that allow millions to be spent on researching shrimp running on treadmills and funding for Pakistani Sesame Street, it doesn't work. Our gov't always says they will use the model you describe, but they never do. Why? Because they can't help themselves. They have to spend money. If money is raking in, politicians seek more for their districts. They don't have the simple yet effective attitude that you have.
 

Mlinsenbigler

New member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'm interested in how you're feeling about this year's election.

Are you pretty sure he'll win or not so much? Vote please!

If it were put to popular vote Obama wins hands down, but this isn't the case. We have a two party system which has become hyper-partisan, so it doesn't matter how well Obama is governing or how bad Romney is campaigning, if your a D your most likely going to vote D, if your and R your probably going to vote R... It's scary to think Mitt Romney could be the next leader of the free world.
 

Mlinsenbigler

New member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
That's the thing. U6 assumes those people still want to work instead of just receive neverending unemployment.
We have spent trillions of dollars with nothing but a bump in economic growth. President Obama's and the Dem's theory of economic growth has failed. Like I said, I'll give him the pass that is gas prices. Other than that, it has failed. Especially with the record debt we have accumulated. I firmly believe that if he had it his way, we'd be at about 17.5 to 18 trillion in debt by the end of his first term. That's astronomical.

Here is what Obama's policies have done for the US economy. The Bikini Graph is back: 115,000 jobs added, unemployment drops to 8.1% | | The Political CarnivalThe Political Carnival I agree it is at a slow rate but unfortunately the House of Reps. (who carry the power of the purse) are only trying to balance the budget on one half of the ledger with cuts, cuts, cuts; cuts to education, cuts to healthcare, cuts to social security, cuts to unemployment benefits, cuts that hurt those who are already hurting. While giving tax breaks to already wealthy Corps. CEOs and CFOs. (here is a break down of how Ds versus Rs give tax breaks; perhaps not relevant but this is a political forum http://ecosquared.wordpress.com/201...d-increase-taxes-on-the-wealthiest-americans/ ). Really we need an all of the above approach. Cut spending, increase tax revenue (ideally by ending all of the Bush-Obama tax cuts), restructure and consolidate federal programs, eliminate tax breaks for oil companies and businesses that send jobs overseas, give tax breaks for those businesses that bring jobs back to American soil, and stimulate the economy by contracting private companies to improve infrastructure (roads, bridges, mass transit, energy grid). We need to stop holding the President responsible for what should be the Congresses job.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All that sounds great in theory. But when you have a Senate approving bills that allow millions to be spent on researching shrimp running on treadmills and funding for Pakistani Sesame Street, it doesn't work. Our gov't always says they will use the model you describe, but they never do. Why? Because they can't help themselves. They have to spend money. If money is raking in, politicians seek more for their districts. They don't have the simple yet effective attitude that you have.
They did reduce spending the late 90's, though I admit that's a rare example if you're looking over the last 30 years. People also complained about the cuts to military spending during that same period. *shrug*
 

Pirvaya

Banned
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
63
Reaction score
31
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No one needs to tell Republicans they'll lose the 2012 Presidential election. They've known this since 2010, if not 2008. McCain was two gonads and a chestful of medals better than Mitt. All of us saw what happened there. This is why every single one of us, left or right, can name at least three Republicans who would be markedly better candidates than Romney or any of the other "dwarves". Between now and November we're going to watch the best campaigner of our time--just ask John McCain & Hillary Clinton--against someone who jumps the shark on a daily basis. This won't be pretty.

Indeed, this is the only election that Democrats should not be worried about. Unless a 72-year-old Hillary Clinton runs in 2016, the Democrats are likely to lose the White House after Obama's second term due to a paucity of bench strength. They should be concentrating on filibuster-proofing the Senate and, if not winning the House, bloodying enough Tea Party noses to get them thinking of accountability. Even gubernatorial races are important here; the DNC's too-little-too-late approach in Wisconsin is baffling, to say the least.

***
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is what Obama's policies have done for the US economy. The Bikini Graph is back: 115,000 jobs added, unemployment drops to 8.1% | | The Political CarnivalThe Political Carnival I agree it is at a slow rate but unfortunately the House of Reps. (who carry the power of the purse) are only trying to balance the budget on one half of the ledger with cuts, cuts, cuts; cuts to education, cuts to healthcare, cuts to social security, cuts to unemployment benefits, cuts that hurt those who are already hurting. While giving tax breaks to already wealthy Corps. CEOs and CFOs. (here is a break down of how Ds versus Rs give tax breaks; perhaps not relevant but this is a political forum The President’s plan is solid: increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans « Ekos² ). Really we need an all of the above approach. Cut spending, increase tax revenue (ideally by ending all of the Bush-Obama tax cuts), restructure and consolidate federal programs, eliminate tax breaks for oil companies and businesses that send jobs overseas, give tax breaks for those businesses that bring jobs back to American soil, and stimulate the economy by contracting private companies to improve infrastructure (roads, bridges, mass transit, energy grid). We need to stop holding the President responsible for what should be the Congresses job.

When spending is out of control, cuts are what is needed. You speak of things that hurt the poor and help the wealthy yet want to end the Bush tax cuts. That makes no sense. The President is held responsible for one reason, in my view. His party controls the Senate. I have not seen him, not once, say a word about the Senate not passing a budget, arguing and pandering just like the House has been accused of doing, or pushing them accept anything the House pushes to them. He always lays it at the feet of the House simply because his party is the minority there. Find me a quote where President Obama criticizes Harry Reid because I haven't seen it. You don't need to find me one where he criticizes John Boehner because he does it weekly.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm interested in how you're feeling about this year's election.

Are you pretty sure he'll win or not so much? Vote please!

I think that Obama will win big; not because everybody loves him, but to show the Republicans how wrong they are.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They did reduce spending the late 90's, though I admit that's a rare example if you're looking over the last 30 years. People also complained about the cuts to military spending during that same period. *shrug*

And it all started with, of all people, Newt Gingrich taking a stand and allowing the gov't shut down. Maybe one day we'll look back at Boehner in the same light lol.
I'm glad you brought up military spending. I have no issue with our spending being cut. But the problem is that the big time programs never get cut. The F-22's of the world stay around because they bring jobs to politician's districts in 46 states. The things that go are the projects for troops. Stuff like research and procurement of better body armor, squad level weapons (rifles, machine guns, etc), and general equipment that makes troops more effective in combat are the things that get cut. Barracks stop being built, chowhalls get closed, and maintenance of existing equipment goes to the way side. That's why you hear so much about the 90's era military cuts. Because we, at the ground level, feel the hurt on that. Not the Lockheed-Martin's or the General Dynamics of the world. They do just fine. When new jets, which we don't need, are being researched while we are duct taping our flak jackets closed, it becomes a sour spot for us.
Finally, and the thing that really pisses me off about military cuts, is how quickly they happen in relation to everything else. As soon as you hear talk of having to "buckle down" and stop spending, all eyes turn to the military like the eye in Lord of the Rings. It's ridiculous. The reason this happens, I believe, is because we are the one group of people who cannot rise up and protest against the gov't for the money they take. Sure, civilians act like they are pissed about it but what does it really do to them? Do they have to sleep in mold infested barracks like us? Do they have to eat in roach infested chowhalls like us? Do they have to stack 3 to a room into barracks rooms designed for 2? Do they break down on the side of the road everytime they try to take their "company vehicle" out? No, they don't. They just see cuts in military spending as another political pressure point that they must argue for because it's the party line. All of those things I mentioned happened during the good years. Imagine how it will be during the bad.
 

Wiggen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
15,438
Reaction score
6,040
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You forgot the other thing that gets cut - and that's training. Massive weapons systems hardly ever get cut, even if the Pentagon or the military don't want them. When I was in the service, it was always training that took the hit, and I'm guessing it's no different now.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You forgot the other thing that gets cut - and that's training. Massive weapons systems hardly ever get cut, even if the Pentagon or the military don't want them. When I was in the service, it was always training that took the hit, and I'm guessing it's no different now.

Yep, you're right. For instance, my last unit could only afford to go to "the field" once every 3 months by the time I left. Imagine if a computer tech was told he could only fix a computer once every 3 months. He'd lose the edge real quick. Only when he loses the edge, it doesn't get people killed.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You forgot the other thing that gets cut - and that's training. Massive weapons systems hardly ever get cut, even if the Pentagon or the military don't want them. When I was in the service, it was always training that took the hit, and I'm guessing it's no different now.
Sadly, that seems to be the case in every institution, public and private, including the Fed budget for society (education). Go figure.
 

Mlinsenbigler

New member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
When spending is out of control, cuts are what is needed. You speak of things that hurt the poor and help the wealthy yet want to end the Bush tax cuts. That makes no sense. The President is held responsible for one reason, in my view. His party controls the Senate. I have not seen him, not once, say a word about the Senate not passing a budget, arguing and pandering just like the House has been accused of doing, or pushing them accept anything the House pushes to them. He always lays it at the feet of the House simply because his party is the minority there. Find me a quote where President Obama criticizes Harry Reid because I haven't seen it. You don't need to find me one where he criticizes John Boehner because he does it weekly.

I agree with you man, we need spending cuts. But those spending cuts shouldn't come from programs that the sick, poor, and unemployed need for basic necessities of life, if we are just going to go ahead and add another 1.5 trillion dollar to the debt because Congressional Rs. want to give a huge tax break to the WEALTHIEST people in our society (Bush/Obama tax cuts). And we can't only look at cuts to solve the problems we are facing. I mean look at Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, they all cut, cut, cut their governments and now they are on their way to bring down the Euro-zone. They needed to, and we need to, stimulate the economy, consolidate government programs, and like you said cut the wasteful spending. But the beef I have is that one side (Rs) won't even acknowledge the only way we are going to close the gap in the deficit and ultimately lower the national debt is by increasing taxes. I know taxes is a dirty word to some people but the reality is if your worried, actually truly, worried about the debt and deficit you HAVE TO increase taxes. Tax revenue collection under Pres. Obama has reaches a 62 year low, that means taxes have not been this low since 1950.. I don't understand why you would hold the Pres. responsible for the Senate? We have three different branches of government, all with a specific job, the Pres. does not run the Senate, he is not the boss of Reid or Boehner. All and all I think the Pres. is a civil person, even when he is criticizing someone, not like most R's who call his a "Liar" or "the most Leftist president in US history" or insist that "Pres. Obama is wants the economy to fail". The Presidents constitutional responsibilities are as commander-and-chief of the US Military to over see foreign policy, not economic policy. The Congress is responsible for the problems pertaining to our fiscal policies and our overall economy. And even so, the Senate Ds wouldn't be able to pass a budget when the Rs would just filibuster because they don't want history to show that when Ds were running things they got stuff done. I probably couldn't find a quote of Pres. Obama criticizing Reid, could you find a quote of Boehner criticizing, McConnoll for leading the Senate in filibuster history, probably not because those (both Rs and Ds) bastards kiss each others arses.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't understand why you would hold the Pres. responsible for the Senate? We have three different branches of government, all with a specific job, the Pres. does not run the Senate, he is not the boss of Reid or Boehner. All and all I think the Pres. is a civil person, even when he is criticizing someone, not like most R's who call his a "Liar" or "the most Leftist president in US history" or insist that "Pres. Obama is wants the economy to fail". The Presidents constitutional responsibilities are as commander-and-chief of the US Military to over see foreign policy, not economic policy. The Congress is responsible for the problems pertaining to our fiscal policies and our overall economy. And even so, the Senate Ds wouldn't be able to pass a budget when the Rs would just filibuster because they don't want history to show that when Ds were running things they got stuff done. I probably couldn't find a quote of Pres. Obama criticizing Reid, could you find a quote of Boehner criticizing, McConnoll for leading the Senate in filibuster history, probably not because those (both Rs and Ds) bastards kiss each others arses.

The reason I go after President Obama for that is he is constantly railing against Boehner. I'm not defending Boehner as much as criticizing the President for blatant partisanship. The Senate has gotten NOTHING done during his Presidency but you don't hear about that. All your hear from him is the House this, the House that. The House is passing a budget every year. That's not something special, it's something they are supposed to do by law. The Senate, by law, is supposed to as well. No one notices that, especially him. He continues to criticize the House and Tea Partiers for what he calls "bailing out the rich" when the Senate can't even execute the most basic of required functions. That's my problem concerning that issue. He should use his power as a way to push the Senate to do what it's supposed to do. He doesn't because his party controls it.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He doesn't because his party controls it.
By only one vote both this year and last year. Republicans in the Senate voted against Republican House budgets so it's obvious the Republicans in the Senate do the same thing as their Democrat neighbors. Expecting 100% solidarity in politics is a pipe dream.
 
Top Bottom