Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 144 of 144

Thread: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

  1. #141
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    it's a sign of the president's increasing ineffectiveness that, with 60 democrats in the senate and 17 republicans on board, obama can not win this thru

    but then what self respecting parliament would ever allow the executive to appoint 6 of its commission's 18 members with authority to force up or down votes?

    a solid economic opportunity squandered by the president's political power grab

    and, of course, characteristically, he didn't get squat

    he always ends up having to bear all the political pain (health care, cap and trade, moving ksm) for no tangible gain

    what a loser

    the most incompetent politician at the national level america has ever produced

  2. #142
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    it's a sign of the president's increasing ineffectiveness that, with 60 democrats in the senate and 17 republicans on board, obama can not win this thru

    but then what self respecting parliament would ever allow the executive to appoint 6 of its commission's 18 members with authority to force up or down votes?

    a solid economic opportunity squandered by the president's political power grab

    and, of course, characteristically, he didn't get squat

    he always ends up having to bear all the political pain (health care, cap and trade, moving ksm) for no tangible gain

    what a loser

    the most incompetent politician at the national level america has ever produced
    But he knows how to give a speech at least.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #143
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    yeah, he's got style

    and the bobbysoxers swoon

    but his entire agenda is out of reach

    and his pivot is phony

    what happened to all the populist talk?

    it, typically, lasted mere days

  4. #144
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    You can't convince the unconvicnable.

    The Republican party has made it very clear that no matter how good a proposal might be or how often they get some conscensus on some issues they view as important, they'll still vote against just about every piece of legistlation that comes their way. On this debt commission, for example (and I apologize if this has already been mentioned), here's an article from PolitiFact.com where clearly up to 7 Republicans were for such a commission as far back as February/May 2009 yet when it came down to a vote, they all voted against the measure.

    Earlier this year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was gung-ho behind an amendment intended to improve federal fiscal health.

    The proposal -- a "Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action" -- was co-sponsored by the top Democrat and the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H. It would establish an 18-member bipartisan commission to study the current and future fiscal condition of the federal government and make recommendations about how revenues and expenses can be brought into line. Those recommendations would be fast-tracked to the House and Senate floors under a special procedure.

    In a May 12, 2009, Senate floor session to discuss the Medicare Trustees' Report, McConnell said, "We must address the issue of entitlement spending now before it is too late. As I have said many times before, the best way to address the crisis is the Conrad-Gregg proposal, which would provide an expedited pathway for fixing these profound long-term challenges. This plan would force us to get debt and spending under control. It deserves support from both sides of the aisle. The administration has expressed a desire to take up entitlement reform, and given the debt that its budget would run up, the need for reform has never been greater. So I urge the administration, once again, to support the Conrad-Gregg proposal. This proposal is our best hope for addressing the out-of-control spending and debt levels that are threatening our nation’s fiscal future."

    That's a pretty clear endorsement of a bill, even though McConnell was not a co-sponsor.

    ......

    But then, on Jan. 26, 2010, when the Conrad-Gregg bill, originally introduced as S. 2853, came for a vote in the Senate, it fell seven votes shy of the Senate's 60-vote threshold for passage, garnering 53 yeas and 46 nays, with one senator not voting.

    The measure would have passed with 60 votes if only seven additional Republicans who had co-sponsored S. 2853 had voted for it. Instead, those seven -- Robert Bennett of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona -- withdrew their co-sponsorship in the days before the vote and then voted against it on the floor.
    The argument, of course, will be "they must've had legitimate reason to pull their vote." Okay, why? If you're so much for being fiscally responsible and you continue to decree that the deficit and spending are out of control, why would you vote down a control measure such as this in the final seconds BEFORE the vote AFTER first having supported it?

    You can read the entire article here.

    Now, to be fair had 6 more Dems and only 1 Rep had voted in favor of the bill this wouldn't have been an issue at all. But even without looking at the voting record for this bill, I wouldn't be surprised if the vote was more along party-lines w/more Dems voting for rather than against this measure and most if not all Reps voting "nay".
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 02-04-10 at 12:50 PM.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •