I find it odd why you need a super majority to pass certain things.

That is never the case in a Parliamentary system.

In otherwords... you were wrong.  They HAD a super majority.

Aside from which yes, you need a supermajority to override a preisdential veto.

How being able to override a presidential veto helps you pass a Presidents agenda though I can't really see.  Which you know... was the whole point of this discussion.

The Democrats could of passed anything... and what they did pass was an unhelpful unpopular bill that lost them their supermajority.

Your essentially bashing republicans for not getting behind things not even all Democrats are behind.

A.  It shouldn't take a super-majority to get things passed.  This has never consistently been the case until January 2009 and was not the intention of the Constitution.

B.  I actually take it as a postive that the Democratic party as a whole didn't just turn into a rubber stamp for the president and/or Pelosi and Reid.  A few hundred Congresspeople and Senators in one party should NOT be lockstep on every idea/policy/bill.  That's quite dangerous.  There are too many votes along party lines now, and though I disagreed with some of the no votes - and some of the yes votes - I respected that some people are willing to break form the party and cast their own votes.  That's their job.  (Now, the REASON for doing it at times was bad.  TO protect their jobs versus what they thought was right, but that's another discussion.)

C.  As for "compromise"  - - the GOP says we want $50.  The Dems say you can have $30.  Gop says "No. $50."  Dems say "$40".  GOP says " Still want $50."  Obama says, "Fine.  Give them $50 in exchange for a minor progressive policy point."  GOP says "Now it's $1000."    And then the GOP, especially Boehner and McConnell, says the Dems don't want to compromise.  We've seen this a hundred times during this administration.  It's completely disingenuous.  

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013452-503544.html

It does matter.  People hated it.  And they place the blame at his feet.  I offer my parents as proof.

I don't disagree that it would've been done anyway in some form, for the same reason that the stimulus was also necessary.  But the American public largely doesn't understand either maneuver, or the auto companies, for that matter.  

A) I agree.  Which is why more reasonable bills should be proposed.

B) No arguements here again.

C) That's only true if you listen to purely democrat sources.  For example in the "Grand Bargain" if you listen to the Republican side, they say that after they had a deal, Obama insisted they double the amount of tax increases with zero increase in cuts.

As for the Supercomitee.  All i've heard about that is the Democrats were refusing to adress the structural problems of medicaid and medicare... and the republicans were unwilling to accept tax increases unless the democrats did do this.

Somewhere after the whole "Party of No" thing started, the democrats started intentionally obstructing things themselves for political reasons.

I mean, the republicans get blamed for Killing Obama's job bill... when Obama's job bill wasn't even popular with demcrats.  It had one sponsor, and that sponsor sponsored it on behalf of the president.

No one wanted to attach their name to it and a lot only voted for it, because they new the republicans were going to vote against it.

Consider this

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/05/obama-s-jobs-bill-vote-blocked-by-reid-over-lack-of-democratic-support.html

But again - as the article suggests, mostly the Dems weren't voting for it NOT because they thought it was bad policy, but for the fact that the GOP has convinced their constituents that government spending/stimulus/all spending is bad and those in swing districts are more concerned about their jobs than the country.  

I don't buy your argument on the compromise bit.  When you're quoting Karl Rove's take on the events (and you are), I'm always skeptical.  

The fairest thing would be to edit filibuster rules such that you actually have to fucking filibuster, and not just scuttle votes with the mere threat of it

Granted, i'd also force congress to be in session every day out of the year except major holidays with each congressman getting 2 weeks of vacation days. All of these "airplane commuters" have to relearn connection to one another rather than endless pandering to their bases

Stimulus was a failure overall, as the whole point of stimulus is not too simply save jobs. Thats the least it is suppose to do.

Maybe it needed to be bigger...

Nevertheless, everyone forgets that Keynesian theory assumes that when a govt engages in stimulus spending it can easily afford it. This is due to the fact, that govts ran balanced or perhaps surplus budgets in economic expansionary times.


Very few countries did, nonetheless we all engaged in the stimulus spending but we just made our debt situation worse and are now falling into a debt trap.

Meaning we stimulate and then get into a massive debt problem then end up with massive cuts that in the end erode all the benefits of the stimulus.

It just makes me go ??????????????????????????????????????

Imo the past is the past, the debt problem needs to be dealt with or we will just suffer in the future. No more stimlus is needed as it will not have an effect and is something we can no longer afford.

A) No, I actually wasn't quoting Karl Rove.

I was quoting John Boehner's take on the events, which, I don't see why that should be taken with the same level of scruitny as "White house sources" which are the equivlent of the Democratic Karl Rove.  (White house sources were controlled by Rove during bush, and by democratic campaign guys now.)

B) The article suggests nothing of the sort.  Your just viewing it that way through your bias.  They quote democrats worried about elections but in no way talk about the GOP convincing their constiutints that all government spending/stimulus is bad.  They are saying a number of thier constiutients think that way though because... that's basically how independents have always thought.

I mean your arguement seems to be that we should be passing unpopular laws of dubious value most americans don't want just because the president wants it done?

C) Even if the republicans DID convince voters that, republicans are at fault for argueing their points too effectivly?

D) Your post ignores the very real fact that it's not the republicans holding back this stuff.  It's just perceived that way.

I'd note after this,  Reid wasted time reintorducing the bill even AFTER he was sure he didn't have enough votes.

So, your claim that the Democrats had a supermajority for two years and could have done anything still stands? The democrats had a very brief supermajority in the Senate at the end of 2009 for a couple of months. That is the window when they passed the signature legisation of the 111th congress. That you think that these couple of months means that "the Democrats could of passed anything they" speaks volumes.

My point is that the idea that the democrats have had extended control of the entire governement is completely false and a misrepresentation, which is pretty much the argument I made at the beginning of my involvement here: The political debate is frequently being hijaked by inaccurate talking points and outright false information.

And one final point, and I hate doing this especially since you are getting targeted for the sins of many, but please don't type 'could of'. Pretty please? I normally hate grammar policing but this growing cancer on the English language really burns my eyes. Feel free to use either 'could've' or 'could have', but 'could of' needs to be gone.