Thu, Mar 5, 2015, 8:16 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Caterpillar Inc. Message Board

  • elstockjock elstockjock Nov 8, 2012 9:59 PM Flag

    A history lesson for dumb Republicans

    No! Obama Did Not Control Congress His First Two Years!


    Can we, once and for all, put that lie to rest? People I actually like and respect heard this on Fox (to be precise, you probably heard it the last time on “Morning Joe” with Joe Scarborough in mid-April of this year) and keep repeating it. But I don’t care if you heard it in Sunday School (and in Kansas… you may have) – it’s a lie.

    Before I accuse anybody of being unbelievably forgetful, I will admit that I can’t remember what I had for breakfast today. Being forgetful is not a crime. Lying is sometimes a crime, but when you lie on internet political blogs, that’s not a crime. However, it should tug at your conscience a bit.

    Let’s take a trip back to 2008.

    And let’s brush up on some basics. First, did you forget that the President needed 60 votes to pass legislation? The healthcare bill is a good example of that. There were NOT 60 Democrats in the Senate. Remember that? So there had to be reconciliation.

    What about the Stimulus? Again, there was NOT 60 Democratic votes to pass it. Reconciliation did not work. It was blocked by the Republicans, and Obama traded job-creating for tax cuts. Remember those tax cuts he let go on? Yep, traded for job creation - which it did accomplish as much as the baby stimulus that he was able to get would allow.

    Is it all coming back to you now? How about this: It was Obama’s inaugural dinner. Senator Kennedy suffered a seizure. It’s kind of hard to work when you’ve had a seizure. He went back to Massachusetts.

    Old news is so much fun to go back and read about. Here’s one I had forgotten, too. Al Franken had not yet been seated because the previous senator had challenged the election. Mein Gott, that went on forever with no way for him to vote in the Senate.

    With Kennedy in Massachusetts and Franken in purgatory, awaiting his chance in the hell that is Congress, that left just 58 votes in the Senate. Memory Refresher: It took 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The Republicans were already playing dirty politics and would not work across the aisle with the Democrats.

    By the way, that was 56 Democrats and 2 Democratically-minded Independents. Not 58 Democrats.

    Then, in April 2009 – good news. Republican Arlen Spector switched to Democrat. That gave the Democrats 60 seats with which to discourage a Republican filibuster (their most prized procedure at the time). But… oh no… we forgot, Al Franken was still in Purgatory out there in election recount turmoil. So… back to 59 votes.

    We can pause here to lovingly remember the filibuster I just mentioned. Republicans made history during that time by using it more than any time ever before. Reminder (because this can get confusing): It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The Democrats only had 59 at this point… technically. One of those votes was the very ill, Senator Kennedy. He did cast one vote during that time.

    Then, Senator Byrd was admitted to the hospital.

    Then Al Franken was sworn in but Byrd was still in the hospital and Kennedy was too sick to ever vote again.

    Senator Byrd finally returned, but Kennedy did not.

    It wasn’t until August- 2009 that Senator Kirk was appointed to Kennedy’s seat, and finally they had the 60 votes.

    That filibuster-proof 60 votes lasted exactly 4 months – Not 2 years. Not 1 year. Not 6 months.

    Just 4 months – from August 2009 to February 2010 - when Scott Brown was sworn in.

    But here’s a fact that nobody can deny:

    Republicans had the presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2001 – 2007.

    For six years, Republicans had total and complete and undeniably absolute control over everything.

    And how did that work out in the final analysis?

    It doesn’t bear repeating. You know the answer to that as well as I do. Six years to screw up the whole country – nay, the entire damned world!

    And you whine because Obama could not fix it all in four months?

    Alright, I expect you to whine. But from this point on there is no excuse for lying. Not now that you know the truth.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • From Wikipedia:

      "Senate
      The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[180] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[181] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[182] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

      Passage in the Senate was temporarily blocked by a filibuster threat by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who sided with the Republican minority. Nelson's support for the bill was won after it was amended to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[148] The compromise was derisively referred to as the "Cornhusker Kickback"[183] (and was later repealed by the reconciliation bill). On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, all but one Republican voting against and one senator (Jim Bunning, R-Ky.) not voting.[184]

      On January 19, 2010, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate, having campaigned on giving the Republican minority the 41st vote needed to sustain a filibuster, even famously signing autographs as "Scott 41."[148][185][186]"

      60 votes were required to block the filibuster, not to pass the bill. Clearly the Democrats controled all three portions of the government. No lies, just the facts.

      Sentiment: Hold

      • 3 Replies to richoncat
      • "60 votes were required to block the filibuster, not to pass the bill. Clearly the Democrats controled all three portions of the government. No lies, just the facts."

        Common sense Rich. If you intend to pass legislation with an obstructionist Republican Senate you need the 60 votes to override their attempt to stop the bill. No lie, just common sense.

      • Here's a novel idea maybe the House & Senate can try and assist the President in a Jobs Recovery Bill ?

        No ?

        Why do you guy's think the Republicans lost the Election it shouldn't have been any surprise at all !

      • In the US Senate, ordinarily there are a total of 100 seated Senators. 50% of 100 is 50. A simple majority is 50% + 1, thus the fewest number of votes required for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate is 51.
        For several months during 2009, Minnesota had only 1 Senator as Candidate Al Franken was not seated due to the close election. Therefore, the US Senate had only 99 seated Senators. 50% of 99 is 49.5 which made a tie vote impossible. Thus, the fewest number of the votes necessary for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate was 50. During the period of time after which Senator Al Franken was seated, but before Senator Edward Kennedy passed away, the US Senate had 100 Senators. 50% of 100 is 50, thus the fewest number of votes required for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate was 51. However, since Senator Edward Kennedy passed away, the US Senate currently has only 99 seated Senators. 50% of 99 is 49.5 which makes a tie vote impossible. Thus, the fewest number of the votes necessary for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate is 50.
        Having said this however, the US Senate has the ability to bring things to a standstill with a filibuster. Historically, a filibuster would take the form of a group of Senators agreeing to prevent a bill from passing by preventing it from ever coming up for a vote. They would prevent the vote from taking place by talking about the bill. Strategically, they would not want other Senators to figure out that they were attempting to filibuster because if they lost the floor to someone not opposed to the bill, that person could simply call for the vote to take place. However, if enough Senators have agreed to continue to filibuster, they could prevent the vote from taking place indefinitely by reading from the phone book and yielding the floor only to one another.
        I bring this up because the rules of the Senate currently include a more practical variation on the power of the filibuster. Those opposed to a bill coming up for a vote can prevent the vote simply by proposing and debating countless amendments to the bill. This strategy allows them the benefit of a filibuster without the risks associated with being seen as an obstructionist or with the physical and emotional strain of having to read continuously for days on end. The only way to stop the endless proposal and debate of amendments to a particular bill and bring it to an immediate vote is with a successful vote of cloture. For such a vote to be successful, it must be supported by three fifths of the seated Senators which currently would be 60.
        Im

        Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_votes_in_senate_needed_to_pass_a_bill#ixzz2BjwHqRtp

    • Elstock, again your you're dead wrong and warped minded as usual! He did have the backing of congress for 2 years. Almost completely destroying Obamas chances of getting reelected, jamming that stupid health insurance down our throat.Which everyone keeps calling health care!

      • 3 Replies to benwaw58
      • That destroyed his chances of getting reelected ?

        LOL 4 MORE YEARS YOU #$%$

      • Don't get me wrong. I can accept your dislike of Obamacare, as everyone has their own right to like or dislike it, however every president for decades has paid nothing more than lip service to the idea and none, including two term Mr. Bush moved on it. The rest of the world has implemented various versions for years, while we only continue to support wars.

        Good plan or not is debatable, but Mr Obama didn't sit on the sidelines, and for that I give him credit.

      • I bring this up because the rules of the Senate currently include a more practical variation on the power of the filibuster. Those opposed to a bill coming up for a vote can prevent the vote simply by proposing and debating countless amendments to the bill. This strategy allows them the benefit of a filibuster without the risks associated with being seen as an obstructionist or with the physical and emotional strain of having to read continuously for days on end. The only way to stop the endless proposal and debate of amendments to a particular bill and bring it to an immediate vote is with a successful vote of cloture. For such a vote to be successful, it must be supported by three fifths of the seated Senators which currently would be 60.

    • "...almost completely destroying Obamas chances of getting reelected, jamming that stupid health insurance down our throat."

      Huh? Been channeling Fox New again, Ben? Sheesh, I thought you new better than that.

    • After Bush I think you guy's better just get used to the idea of a Democrat in the White House !

    • "Dumb" implies that we can't speak which makes you "Stupid"!

 
CAT
81.51-0.22(-0.27%)Mar 5 4:02 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Geron Corporation
NASDAQThu, Mar 5, 2015 4:00 PM EST
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.
NASDAQThu, Mar 5, 2015 4:00 PM EST
Orbital ATK, Inc.
NYSEThu, Mar 5, 2015 4:02 PM EST