Pentagon warned Tuesday the US Army will not be able to pay its soldiers beyond June 15 unless Congress acts soon on a stalled request from the administration for war funding.
It was the latest salvo in a long-running impasse between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the administration over a 108-billion dollar request to fund US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2008 fiscal year.
Does the Democrat controlled Congress want Soldiers to ruin their credit rating, get their houses and cars repossessed, and starve their children?
You haven't seen me cheerleading for Bush. Democretins hold the reins now and they're doing a miseable job of it. Stop the blame Bush game and put up or shut up democrat controlled Congress. Filthy whiners.
Since it can't be Bush's fault, does that mean it's Congress'? Or, vice versa?
How many Democrat presidents have been the cause of all our problems compared to Republican presidents?
Offhand, I'd say all Democrat presidents have caused all of our problems, and the Republican presidents have been blameless because they had some Democrat Congresses which was at fault.
Is that a fair assessment in your world?
I never disputed that they don't control the agenda. But they don't control Congress, otherwise all their bills would be passed. Since they aren't, that proves that they don't have control.
I used to find you interesting to have discussions with, too, but once you decided to start rejecting plain facts, and decided that your political allegiance trumps reality, that all went to hell.
BTW, did you ever find out about those wealthy families funding the assault on the "death tax," or are you still in denial about that as well?
When's the last time a bill written by a Republican got to the floor of the Senate? Answer--the 109th Congress. That's control, no matter how you try to spin it.
No Senator can vote for--or against--a bill that the Democratic Party leadership refuses to discharge from committee, and that's been the fate of every bill introduced by a Republican in the Senate during the 110th Congress.
Sen. Bernie Sanders describes himself as a socialist. He votes the straight Democratic party line and is proud of the fact that he's never voted for a bill introduced by a Republican. Hardly independent--he's simply an extreme-left Democrat and the national Democratic Party acknowledges that by refusing to support their own "challengers" for his seat.
Why stop at 60 senators? Veto-proof majority is 67. Why stop there? Maybe you'll feel secure when the Democratic Party is declared the only legal party in the US and everyone who wasn't a registered Democrat prior to 1994 is deprived of citizenship.
It used to be worth debating with you. You've gone too stupid to be worth bothering with--you're on my ignore list from here on out.
Here you go, Square. Straight from the Senate:
Party Division in the Senate
110th Congress (2007-2009)
Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
Total Seats: 100
Note: Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an Independent, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.
He may claim whatever he wants to claim. Go the the U.S. Senate web page, and the numbers are there for the world to see. 49 Democrats; 49 Republicans; 2 Independents. Twist and shout, buddy, it's a fact. Talk about liars!
Control over what legislation gets to the floor is not control over the Senate. You might as well argue that the doorman with the key has control of the Senate.
If you regard one Independent as "Democrat" because he votes along those lines, you can certainly consider Lieberman to be a "Republican" because he does the same thing.
In any case, you're dodging the simple question. Do the Democrats control the Senate? No, they do not. Obviously, 49/49 is too clear-cut for you, Square, because you're doing everything you can to not address that simple fact.
Bernie Sanders can't be counted as an independent--he has voted the way the Democratic Whip suggested on every bill since he was first elected to Congress. He calls himself a socialist and considers Ted Kennedy to be a right-winger. The Democratic Party in his home state hasn't supported the official Democratic candidate for any office Bernie Sanders was running for since 1984, and managed to avoid even running a candidate in 1994. Oh, there's an official Democratic candidate but he/she receives no funding and no campaign assistance from the state or national Democratic parties. Sanders is about as "independent" from the Democrats as your nose is from your face.
In any case, what matters is who gets to appoint committee chairment, and that's determined by which caucus holds the majority. With Lieberman and Sanders caucusing with the Democrats, the Democrats control all the committees and get to determine what bills advance to the floor--this means Republican-written bills always die in committee.
Getting a bill to the floor doesn't guarantee it will be passed, but certainly any bill which never makes it to the floor won't get passed. Once a bill gets to the debate stage, presumably Senators vote their constituents' desires and their consciences, which may mean that some Republicans will vote for a Democrat-sponsored bill and may mean that some Democrats may vote AGAINST a Democrat-sponsored bill. Both parties are really "big tents" and the ranges of political viewpoints within each party label are considerable. The cloture vote on the conference committee version of the Clinton Health Care Bill was not along straight party lines--some Democrats voted against and IIRC some Republicans voted for cloture.
Math doesn't lie, but Washington lawyers frequently do.