The eventual effects of deregulation

[zappasguitar]

Being honest about what? Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house for four years from 2007 - 2010. The House controls the purse strings. Harry Reid has been Senate Majority Leader for six years. What am I missing?

Four full years my ASS...


Finally...the TRUTH:


Of course, as we all know too well, having majority control of both house of Congress doesn’t necessarily mean much if the opposition in the Senate decides to filibuster your legislation, and without a consistent caucus of 60 votes to overcome a cloture vote, legislation can be effectively blocked.

That leads to the question of how long the Democrats actually had a filibuster proof majority in the 111th Congress. As this chart from Wikipedia reveals, it wasn’t for a very long period of time at all:

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/di...have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

 

[cawacko]

Four full years my ASS...


Finally...the TRUTH:


Of course, as we all know too well, having majority control of both house of Congress doesn’t necessarily mean much if the opposition in the Senate decides to filibuster your legislation, and without a consistent caucus of 60 votes to overcome a cloture vote, legislation can be effectively blocked.

That leads to the question of how long the Democrats actually had a filibuster proof majority in the 111th Congress. As this chart from Wikipedia reveals, it wasn’t for a very long period of time at all:

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/di...have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

When did we start defining 'controlling Congress' as only having a filibuster proof majority?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

He's dong the best he can...he's been severely hamstrung due to Rightie refusal to properly fund OSHA.

So again... They were able to pass a massive healthcare bill, but you claim they couldn't raise funding for OSHA?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Because they didn't control Congress for four years.

I mean come on, when do you think we might start being honest about that tired point?

You flat out lie, then ask for an honest discussion?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

When did we start defining 'controlling Congress' as only having a filibuster proof majority?

When Zappa realized that the dems did control congress for the four years.... He decided to move the goalposts.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

When did we start defining 'controlling Congress' as only having a filibuster proof majority?

When the Republicans started filibustering everything.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I mean, I just smoked a joint and I answered that in a microsecond. What's next, I have to tie both my hands behind my back and peck out my replies with my nose in order to give you guys a chance?

 

[NOVA]

Just show me one instance of over regulation resulting in a blast that destroyed half a town and I will concede the point.

I don't believe we've come anywhere NEAR anything resembling OVER regulation.

Give it up Buffoon.....you've been schooled by 3 or 4 or 5 post already and still whining....

 

[NOVA]

When the Republicans started filibustering everything.

whooo, whoooo....everything ?

 

[Steelplate]

over the last 7 years, we've had a democrat president and a dem majority in the house followed by a conservative majority in the house. you want to place the blame on your 'enemy' party and then mock when you get called out on your shit. again, you're pathetic.

Does the word....FILIBUSTER ring a bell?

He's pathetic? Gimme a break. You guys are just plain mentally disabled from massive doses of propaganda induced brainwashing.

 

[Steelplate]

whooo, whoooo....everything ?

Everything they could.

 

[sedan]

I mean, I just smoked a joint and I answered that in a microsecond. What's next, I have to tie both my hands behind my back and peck out my replies with my nose in order to give you guys a chance?

 

[Steelplate]

Four full years my ASS...


Finally...the TRUTH:


Of course, as we all know too well, having majority control of both house of Congress doesn’t necessarily mean much if the opposition in the Senate decides to filibuster your legislation, and without a consistent caucus of 60 votes to overcome a cloture vote, legislation can be effectively blocked.

That leads to the question of how long the Democrats actually had a filibuster proof majority in the 111th Congress. As this chart from Wikipedia reveals, it wasn’t for a very long period of time at all:

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/di...have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

I know...I get tired of hearing this outright lie repeated over and over. But conservatives never let facts get in the way of their propaganda.

 

[cawacko]

I know...I get tired of hearing this outright lie repeated over and over. But conservatives never let facts get in the way of their propaganda.

So Nancy Pelosi wasn't Speaker of the House and Harry Reid wasn't Majority Senate Leader, gotcha. It's interesting Mrs. Pelosi lives on my street maybe 8 blocks away so I receive mail from her. It always mentioned her as Speaker of the House. Can't believe I bought that propaganda the whole time.

 

[Steelplate]

So Nancy Pelosi wasn't Speaker of the House and Harry Reid wasn't Majority Senate Leader, gotcha. It's interesting Mrs. Pelosi lives on my street maybe 8 blocks away so I receive mail from her. It always mentioned her as Speaker of the House. Can't believe I bought that propaganda the whole time.

What in the HELL does that have to do with anything? So, by that rationale John Boehner can do whatever the fuck he wants....and Harry Reid can in the Senate.

You're an idiot.

 

[Phantasmal]

So Nancy Pelosi wasn't Speaker of the House and Harry Reid wasn't Majority Senate Leader, gotcha. It's interesting Mrs. Pelosi lives on my street maybe 8 blocks away so I receive mail from her. It always mentioned her as Speaker of the House. Can't believe I bought that propaganda the whole time.

Name dropping, again, Cawako.

 

[cawacko]

What in the HELL does that have to do with anything? So, by that rationale John Boehner can do whatever the fuck he wants....and Harry Reid can in the Senate.

You're an idiot.

Wow.

What does that have to do with anything? Well it has been stated by several people that Pelosi was Speaker of the House for four years. You said it was a lie and propaganda.

Would you like to tell me who was in charge of the house and who was in charge of the Senate from 2007 - 2010? I hate being an idiot and not knowing.

 

[cawacko]

Name dropping, again, Cawako.

Without question!

 

[Steelplate]

Wow.

What does that have to do with anything? Well it has been stated by several people that Pelosi was Speaker of the House for four years. You said it was a lie and propaganda.

Would you like to tell me who was in charge of the house and who was in charge of the Senate from 2007 - 2010? I hate being an idiot and not knowing.

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with Pelosi or Reid. It has to do with you idiots lying through your teeth that there was a "bulletproof majority".

 

[cawacko]

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with Pelosi or Reid. It has to do with you idiots lying through your teeth that there was a "bulletproof majority".

No one has said anything in this thread about a bulletproof majority except you. I would suggest taking a deep breath and calming down for a minute. You are taking this way too personal. The issue was funding of OSHA and Democratic control of Congress which controls the purse strings. That's what was stated.