Let me demonstrate the utter hypocrisy of the libs on this board

[WVPATX]

They rail against the House Freedom Caucus because of their unwillingness to compromise with Obama and the Dems.

Yet, after Obama was elected, he convened a meeting of all House and Senate leaders to discuss an economic stimulus. Paul Ryan presented Republicans ideas to Obama. He looked at Ryan and said "Elections have consequences." The Dems, passed their stimulus without any Republican ideas incorporated.

Now let's look at Obamacare. The Dems had 60 votes in the Senate and didn't need Republicans. They passed Obamacare in the Senate. The House with a Dem majority passed their version of Obamacare. But then, a catastrophe happened. The Dems lost the Senate seat in Mass, when Scott Brown was elected. Rather than negotiate and compromise with moderate GOP Senators (e.g. Collins, Stowe), Obama and the Dems used reconciliation to pass what only the Dems wanted. Not a single Republican vote was garnered.

And now, Libs on this board and Dems in general have the audacity to complain about House Republicans who were elected to thwart Obama's agenda. How rich.

 

[mule_eer]

Every time someone on the left points to W when someone on the right complains about something Obama has done, the folks on the right jump on them about it. We aren't going to get anything accomplished until we get people who are willing to negotiate on both sides of the aisle. And thwarting someone else's political agenda and pushing to shut everything down are 2 completely different things. Our credit rating wasn't downgraded because we were borrowing lots of money. It was downgraded because our government dysfunctional while needing to borrow money to meet obligations. I see lots of blame to go around with respect to that, but the simple truth is that we should never be in a situation where we can't pay our bills. It's doubly worse when the reason we can't pay our bills is because we are arguing amongst ourselves.

 

[WVPATX]

Every time someone on the left points to W when someone on the right complains about something Obama has done, the folks on the right jump on them about it. We aren't going to get anything accomplished until we get people who are willing to negotiate on both sides of the aisle. And thwarting someone else's political agenda and pushing to shut everything down are 2 completely different things. Our credit rating wasn't downgraded because we were borrowing lots of money. It was downgraded because our government dysfunctional while needing to borrow money to meet obligations. I see lots of blame to go around with respect to that, but the simple truth is that we should never be in a situation where we can't pay our bills. It's doubly worse when the reason we can't pay our bills is because we are arguing amongst ourselves.

Do you admit to the utter hypocrisy of the Libs on this issue? BTW, we were not downgraded because of the shutdown.

 

[mneilmont]

Every time someone on the left points to W when someone on the right complains about something Obama has done, the folks on the right jump on them about it. We aren't going to get anything accomplished until we get people who are willing to negotiate on both sides of the aisle. And thwarting someone else's political agenda and pushing to shut everything down are 2 completely different things. Our credit rating wasn't downgraded because we were borrowing lots of money. It was downgraded because our government dysfunctional while needing to borrow money to meet obligations. I see lots of blame to go around with respect to that, but the simple truth is that we should never be in a situation where we can't pay our bills. It's doubly worse when the reason we can't pay our bills is because we are arguing amongst ourselves.

What is the reason we cannot pay our bills? Do we spend too much or not collect enough? That should not be a difficult question.

Congress has a little vote facing them before the end of the calendar year. They have bills maturing and NSF to pay those bills. Do you increase current debt limits(just to pay the bills short term)? Or do you hold fast on the current debt limit in hopes you can pay current borrowing with long term borrowing? Further, knowing damn good and well you cannot make the payment when it comes due down the road?

Added problem, a budget that has half a trillion deficit spending. Do you go along with accumulating more borrowing just to pay operating cost this fiscal year? You are already reasonably sure you cannot pay current long term obligations and now we need to add another half trillion?

Do you as congressman ever face up and admit that this process cannot continue? If you are not convinced yet, look at budget for the next 10 years and see nothing but deficit spending every year up to a trillion dollars.

 

[mneilmont]

you can pay current borrowing with long term borrowing? Further, knowing damn good and well you cannot make the payment when it comes due down the road?

Should be - With Longer term borrowing or refinance with longer terms normally higher rates.

 

[Keyser76]

My party ain't never been like yours is now, hypocrisy? I'd say more like denial on your part. When David Brooks says the GOP is ungovernable is that hypocrisy from the left? When Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan is too far left for the freedom caucus is that hypocrisy from the left? Why can't your party elect a leader? You think the Freedom Caucus is popular among their GOP peers in the House?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

My party ain't never been like yours is now, hypocrisy? I'd say more like denial on your part. When David Brooks says the GOP is ungovernable is that hypocrisy from the left? When Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan is too far left for the freedom caucus is that hypocrisy from the left? Why can't your party elect a leader? You think the Freedom Caucus is popular among their GOP peers in the House?

Keyser is being witty. Everyone see it? Some knee slappers in there.

 

[WVPATX]

My party ain't never been like yours is now, hypocrisy? I'd say more like denial on your part. When David Brooks says the GOP is ungovernable is that hypocrisy from the left? When Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan is too far left for the freedom caucus is that hypocrisy from the left? Why can't your party elect a leader? You think the Freedom Caucus is popular among their GOP peers in the House?

I notice you didn't rebut a single point I made. Let me give you another. Obama declares the Iran deal an Executive Agreement not a treaty. A treaty requires 2/3 approval in the Senate. So the Republicans in the Senate capitulate and agree to turn the Constitution on its head and require a 2/3 vote to defeat the deal. Sounds like compromise, right?

What did the Dems do? They filibustered the vote and no vote was taken. The Iran deal included a time limit for the Senate to act. When it did not act, the deal was deemed approved. No vote was taken. No Senators on the record.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[WVPATX]

Keyser is being witty. Everyone see it? Some knee slappers in there.

The Dems hated the filibuster. Now that they are in the minority, they seem to love it. Funny how that works. I remember when the Dems had the Senate. The House GOP would pass bills that the Senate would never take up. Yet the GOP is labeled by the media as obstacles to compromise.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

They rail against the House Freedom Caucus because of their unwillingness to compromise with Obama and the Dems.

Yet, after Obama was elected, he convened a meeting of all House and Senate leaders to discuss an economic stimulus. Paul Ryan presented Republicans ideas to Obama. He looked at Ryan and said "Elections have consequences." The Dems, passed their stimulus without any Republican ideas incorporated.

Now let's look at Obamacare. The Dems had 60 votes in the Senate and didn't need Republicans. They passed Obamacare in the Senate. The House with a Dem majority passed their version of Obamacare. But then, a catastrophe happened. The Dems lost the Senate seat in Mass, when Scott Brown was elected. Rather than negotiate and compromise with moderate GOP Senators (e.g. Collins, Stowe), Obama and the Dems used reconciliation to pass what only the Dems wanted. Not a single Republican vote was garnered.

And now, Libs on this board and Dems in general have the audacity to complain about House Republicans who were elected to thwart Obama's agenda. How rich.

That's ******** revisionist history.

The Affordable Care Act was modified numerous times to incorporate Republican suggestions.

 

[WVPATX]

That's ******** revisionist history.

The Affordable Care Act was modified numerous times to incorporate Republican suggestions.

How many Republicans voted for it? Obamacare was passed exactly as I wrote it. Through reconciliation without a single Republican vote. That's not compromise. That's domination.

 

[mule_eer]

The Dems hated the filibuster. Now that they are in the minority, they seem to love it. Funny how that works. I remember when the Dems had the Senate. The House GOP would pass bills that the Senate would never take up. Yet the GOP is labeled by the media as obstacles to compromise.

Like the 40-some bills that repealed ACA. The Senate never took those up.

I know those bills aren't the only ones that the Senate didn't take up, but that was a 2-way street. The House sat on some bills the Senate passed over too. Both sides are at fault for that kind of stuff.

One of the rule changes that came into the Senate was one that allowed them to table bills that they couldn't agree to bring up for a vote. I heard an interview with Daschle a couple of years ago. He suggested that they remove that rule. His logic was that forces the Senate to do work - either work to continue a filibuster or work to actually take a vote on the bills that come to them. He said that the rule was intended to let the Senate get work done even if something contentious was passed to them, but now it's being abused in such a way that they don't get any work done anyway.

 

[mneilmont]

That's ******** revisionist history.

The Affordable Care Act was modified numerous times to incorporate Republican suggestions.

You have a different version from the liberal side to offer? Would you care to share? Obama -led by Harry Reid - snookered the political process to pass Obamacare, IMO.

 

[WVPATX]

Like the 40-some bills that repealed ACA. The Senate never took those up.

I know those bills aren't the only ones that the Senate didn't take up, but that was a 2-way street. The House sat on some bills the Senate passed over too. Both sides are at fault for that kind of stuff.

One of the rule changes that came into the Senate was one that allowed them to table bills that they couldn't agree to bring up for a vote. I heard an interview with Daschle a couple of years ago. He suggested that they remove that rule. His logic was that forces the Senate to do work - either work to continue a filibuster or work to actually take a vote on the bills that come to them. He said that the rule was intended to let the Senate get work done even if something contentious was passed to them, but now it's being abused in such a way that they don't get any work done anyway.

I have never stated that the GOP hasn't obstructed, of course they have. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Dems. You're right, both sides obstruct. The Dems hated the filibuster but now they love it. The Republicans loved the filibuster, now they hate it.

 

[mneilmont]

That's ******** revisionist history.

The Affordable Care Act was modified numerous times to incorporate Republican suggestions.

You have a different version from the liberal side to offer? Would you care to share? Obama -led by Harry Reid - snookered the political process to pass Obamacare, IMO.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

How many Republicans voted for it? Obamacare was passed exactly as I wrote it. Through reconciliation without a single Republican vote. That's not compromise. That's domination.

Not that it matters how many Republicans voted for it, there was one, you are a liar and can't comprehend facts, my point is that the ACA was modified numerous times, which incorporated Republican aspects, which counters your OP. Have you ever heard of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment? Stay on topic, your topic.

 

[TarHeelEer]

That's ******** revisionist history.

The Affordable Care Act was modified numerous times to incorporate Republican suggestions.

That's an outright lie. It was modified multiple times to get Olympia and centrist Democrats bought off.

 

[Mntneer]

That's an outright lie. It was modified multiple times to get Olympia and centrist Democrats bought off.

It was how the insurance industry and special interests wrote it.

The Dems couldn't have re-written it for the GOP.... they didn't even know what was in it.

 

[WVPATX]

Not that it matters how many Republicans voted for it, there was one, you are a liar and can't comprehend facts, my point is that the ACA was modified numerous times, which incorporated Republican aspects, which counters your OP. Have you ever heard of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment? Stay on topic, your topic.

You're simply not very bright. And I'm being kind. Bipartisanship is when both sides vote for a measure.

 

[mneilmont]

Like the 40-some bills that repealed ACA. The Senate never took those up.

I know those bills aren't the only ones that the Senate didn't take up, but that was a 2-way street. The House sat on some bills the Senate passed over too. Both sides are at fault for that kind of stuff.

One of the rule changes that came into the Senate was one that allowed them to table bills that they couldn't agree to bring up for a vote. I heard an interview with Daschle a couple of years ago. He suggested that they remove that rule. His logic was that forces the Senate to do work - either work to continue a filibuster or work to actually take a vote on the bills that come to them. He said that the rule was intended to let the Senate get work done even if something contentious was passed to them, but now it's being abused in such a way that they don't get any work done anyway.

Don't remember how Repub Senate leaders operated before, but Harry Reid became a one man obstacle. He simply would not bring things to the floor that he opposed. I don't know the solution, but that is a whole lot of obstructionist power in the hands of one man in Senate and one man in the House. There may be a way to force a vote on the floor, but I haven't seen it tested recently.

 

[Keyser76]

I don't really understand where the hypocrisy thing comes in, I'm not criticizing the GOPs House tactics, I'm laughing at them. Hey let the "Freedom Caucus" shut down the Government next month, I'm sure Obama will be blamed.

 

[mule_eer]

I don't really understand where the hypocrisy thing comes in, I'm not criticizing the GOPs House tactics, I'm laughing at them. Hey let the "Freedom Caucus" shut down the Government next month, I'm sure Obama will be blamed.

They may be blamed nationally, but nearly all of them are safe in their gerrymandered districts. If we don't change how the districts are mapped - remove the politics from it - then we are going to have problems for a long time. This isn't a new problem though. Over a decade ago, there were about 100 of 435 Congressional seats that were considered competitive. For the upcoming election there are 35 seats that are considered competitive. Compare that with the overall approval rating of Congress as a whole or the House alone, and you know that the numbers don't add up. With approval numbers below the teens, more seats should be hot.

 

[mneilmont]

They may be blamed nationally, but nearly all of them are safe in their gerrymandered districts. If we don't change how the districts are mapped - remove the politics from it - then we are going to have problems for a long time. This isn't a new problem though. Over a decade ago, there were about 100 of 435 Congressional seats that were considered competitive. For the upcoming election there are 35 seats that are considered competitive. Compare that with the overall approval rating of Congress as a whole or the House alone, and you know that the numbers don't add up. With approval numbers below the teens, more seats should be hot.

My Reps are fairly secure and I will vote for them every time. Now, yours are a different matter. All should be voted out.

 

[mneilmont]

They may be blamed nationally, but nearly all of them are safe in their gerrymandered districts. If we don't change how the districts are mapped - remove the politics from it - then we are going to have problems for a long time. This isn't a new problem though. Over a decade ago, there were about 100 of 435 Congressional seats that were considered competitive. For the upcoming election there are 35 seats that are considered competitive. Compare that with the overall approval rating of Congress as a whole or the House alone, and you know that the numbers don't add up. With approval numbers below the teens, more seats should be hot.

My Reps are fairly secure and I will vote for them every time. Now, yours are a different matter. All should be voted out.

 

[mule_eer]

My Reps are fairly secure and I will vote for them every time. Now, yours are a different matter. All should be voted out.

I'm sure that's a part of the issue, whether the districting has been done politically or not. I'm sure there's some "stick with the devil you know" logic that gets applied too.

 

[mneilmont]

I don't really understand where the hypocrisy thing comes in, I'm not criticizing the GOPs House tactics, I'm laughing at them. Hey let the "Freedom Caucus" shut down the Government next month, I'm sure Obama will be blamed.

I don't really understand where the hypocrisy thing comes in, I'm not criticizing the GOPs House tactics, I'm laughing at them. Hey let the "Freedom Caucus" shut down the Government next month, I'm sure Obama will be blamed.

Who gets credit for a shut-down? About 40 Repub House members could change their stubborn vote, or two of the stubborn Dem Senators could change their vote. How do you want to resolve the standoff? It would be nice to go to conference committee to settle such with a little ?????? compromise? That is where both sides give a little an negotiate what is best for the country. Or maybe the Dems can win again with their historic practice. If you can do it the Dem way, we can call it compromise as they let Repubs have Dem way. Hmmmmmm?

 

[TarHeelEer]

Who gets credit for a shut-down? About 40 Repub House members could change their stubborn vote, or two of the stubborn Dem Senators could change their vote. How do you want to resolve the standoff? It would be nice to go to conference committee to settle such with a little ?????? compromise? That is where both sides give a little an negotiate what is best for the country. Or maybe the Dems can win again with their historic practice. If you can do it the Dem way, we can call it compromise as they let Repubs have Dem way. Hmmmmmm?

See that's it. Compromise means get it to conference and make the Republicans cave, as always. Democrats always get their way, and don't give anything. We're continually moving farther left, and half of the country isn't left. Stick to the guns, on a bigger issue. Don't shutdown the government over something piddly, go big or go home.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Every time someone on the left points to W when someone on the right complains about something Obama has done, the folks on the right jump on them about it. We aren't going to get anything accomplished until we get people who are willing to negotiate on both sides of the aisle. And thwarting someone else's political agenda and pushing to shut everything down are 2 completely different things. Our credit rating wasn't downgraded because we were borrowing lots of money. It was downgraded because our government dysfunctional while needing to borrow money to meet obligations. I see lots of blame to go around with respect to that, but the simple truth is that we should never be in a situation where we can't pay our bills. It's doubly worse when the reason we can't pay our bills is because we are arguing amongst ourselves.

AGREED! And WVPATX is the prime example of what's wrong in Washington. This guy hates Democrats, and then focuses on how Democrats won't work with Republicans.....hypocrite?

 

[MountaineerWV]

Who gets credit for a shut-down? About 40 Repub House members could change their stubborn vote, or two of the stubborn Dem Senators could change their vote. How do you want to resolve the standoff? It would be nice to go to conference committee to settle such with a little ?????? compromise? That is where both sides give a little an negotiate what is best for the country. Or maybe the Dems can win again with their historic practice. If you can do it the Dem way, we can call it compromise as they let Repubs have Dem way. Hmmmmmm?

Yeah, we could compromise like we did in the early-to-mid 1800's. That got the problem fixed didn't it?

 

[Keyser76]

Maybe ya'll should vote to repeal Obamacare one more time, lol. Shut er down, I know who will be blamed.