Agreeing with Gingrich

Aunt Spiker said:

Hmm - I'm not quite sure which bill that is - there are actually several that currently have a similar title: "Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007" and so on. . . and the further back you go in time the more you find.

But that was actually an amendment to an existing bill - and it doesn't even matter anymore because that was in 2007 when Bush was president - so that's just old news and no longer applies to our current Congress and Administration (from the linked-to article):

Click to expand...

You're right. It has come up more than once. In fact, here seems to be the latest one:

H.R.2248 Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2011

Apparently nothing has been done on it yet and no doubt it will meet it's usual fate even though one of the 24 co-signers is a Republican, I'd be willing to wager that it will die in the GOP-led house. If it somehow miraculously didn't, there would be the usual anonymous GOP filibuster in the Senate.

poweRob said:

You're right. It has come up more than once. In fact, here seems to be the latest one:

H.R.2248 Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2011

Apparently nothing has been done on it yet and no doubt it will meet it's usual fate even though one of the 24 co-signers is a Republican, I'd be willing to wager that it will die in the GOP-led house. If it somehow miraculously didn't, there would be the usual anonymous GOP filibuster in the Senate.

Click to expand...

They're not even getting to the floor for a vote - they're dying in process like the majority of bills - not even leaving committee.

H.R. 2248: Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us)

112th Congress: S. 44 Introduced (this one is related to the Bill you just provided - both have been ushered to committee. Will they make it out for a vote?)
111th Congress: S. 3413 - Dead
111th Congress: H.R. 4752 - Dead
110th Congress: S. 3 - Dead
110th Congress: H.R. 4 - Passed House ()
109th Congress: H.R. 2685 - Dead
108th Congress: H.R. 3299 - Dead

During last Congress, even, it died before leaving committee.

So - if the House of Ways and Means, Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce keep getting tracked the same legislation - and they keep stalling on it and it dies with no vote - then that's where the problem is.

The two current bills in process are HR 2248 and S 44: These two have both been forwarded onto the same committees - and so I'll predict they'll be aborted as well.

Aunt Spiker said:

They're not even getting to the floor for a vote - they're dying in process like the majority of bills - not even leaving committee.

H.R. 2248: Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us)

112th Congress: S. 44 Introduced (this one is related to the Bill you just provided - both have been ushered to committee. Will they make it out for a vote?)
111th Congress: S. 3413 - Dead
111th Congress: H.R. 4752 - Dead
110th Congress: S. 3 - Dead
110th Congress: H.R. 4 - Passed House ()
109th Congress: H.R. 2685 - Dead
108th Congress: H.R. 3299 - Dead

During last Congress, even, it died before leaving committee.

So - if the House of Ways and Means, Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce keep getting tracked the same legislation - and they keep stalling on it and it dies with no vote - then that's where the problem is.

The two current bills in process are HR 2248 and S 44: These two have both been forwarded onto the same committees - and so I'll predict they'll be aborted as well.

Click to expand...

Well done and..

DAMMIT!

poweRob said:

Well done and..

DAMMIT!

Click to expand...

Well - the one that was voted on it was clearly a majority of Dems 'yea' and a majority of reps 'nay' (That would be the 110th Congress - H R 4)

However - being more specific . . . they want to take this part of the Existing Social Security Act:

(i) Noninterference.—In order to promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part, the Secretary—

(1) may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and PDP sponsors; and

(2) may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs.

Click to expand...

And replace it with this:

(i) Negotiation of Lower Drug Prices-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices (including discounts, rebates, and other price concessions) that may be charged to PDP sponsors and MA organizations for covered part D drugs for part D eligible individuals who are enrolled under a prescription drug plan or under an MA-PD plan.

‘(2) NO CHANGE IN RULES FOR FORMULARIES-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.

‘(B) CONSTRUCTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as affecting the Secretary’s authority to ensure appropriate and adequate access to covered part D drugs under prescription drug plans and under MA-PD plans, including compliance of such plans with formulary requirements under section 1860D-4(b)(3).

‘(3) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preventing the sponsor of a prescription drug plan, or an organization offering an MA-PD plan, from obtaining a discount or reduction of the price for a covered part D drug below the price negotiated under paragraph (1).

‘(4) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS- Not later than June 1, 2012, and every 6 months thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on negotiations conducted by the Secretary to achieve lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and the prices and price discounts achieved by the Secretary as a result of such negotiations.’.

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

What cracks me up is seeing you conservatives defend these slimeballs after you spent eight years blowing a gasket over the exact same kind of sh*t from Clinton. Literally tried to run him out of office for it!! The galactic scale of the hypocrisy is absolutely mindblowing.

Note: the question wasn't whether Gingrich's sliminess would prevent him from being a good President. It was just whether he is a slimeball. And he most certainly is. So is Clinton, for that matter.

Click to expand...

One big difference ma friend, Clinton did it WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Newt did not. Neither was right, but its way different committing a crime while POTUS.

EarlzP said:

It's totally impossible for anyone to make the statement that " Obama has miffed that one up royally". No one I know of could possibly know what the economy would be like if McCain or Clinton or anyone else was in the White House. President Obama has been shoveling s--t against the republican tide since he took office.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Democrats held both the House and Senate majorities starting in 2006. So, for 2006 and 2007 Bush would've been subject to the Democrat tide as a lame duck President. Then, in 2008 and 2009, President Obama had NOTHING to fight against - total and complete unfettered power as a President. It was a Democrat House, Democrat Senate, and Democrat Presidency. In 2010, the Republicans won the House, but the Democrats continue to hold the Senate.
So, from 2006 to the beginning of 2010, Democrats controlled all the spending with complete control from 2008 and 2009. When did the economy collapse again? When did the debt skyrocket? Oh, and when, exactly was it fixed? President Obama has had no tide to fight against except the failed policies of his own party.

I like a part of what Wiki says about 'ole Newt: A co-author of Contract with America, Gingrich was in the forefront of Republican Party success in the 1994 Congressional election and was elected House Speaker. In 1995, Time magazine named him "Man of the Year" for his role in ending 40 years of majority rule by the Democratic Party. During his four-year tenure as Speaker, Gingrich sometimes opposed President Bill Clinton but he worked with Clinton, in 1996, to limit public welfare, and, in 1997, to pass a capital gains tax cut and, in 1998, the first U.S. balanced budget since 1969.

Aunt Spiker said:

They're not even getting to the floor for a vote - they're dying in process like the majority of bills - not even leaving committee.

H.R. 2248: Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us)

112th Congress: S. 44 Introduced (this one is related to the Bill you just provided - both have been ushered to committee. Will they make it out for a vote?)
111th Congress: S. 3413 - Dead
111th Congress: H.R. 4752 - Dead
110th Congress: S. 3 - Dead
110th Congress: H.R. 4 - Passed House ()
109th Congress: H.R. 2685 - Dead
108th Congress: H.R. 3299 - Dead

During last Congress, even, it died before leaving committee.

So - if the House of Ways and Means, Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce keep getting tracked the same legislation - and they keep stalling on it and it dies with no vote - then that's where the problem is.

The two current bills in process are HR 2248 and S 44: These two have both been forwarded onto the same committees - and so I'll predict they'll be aborted as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this summary. Very helpful, and the research is appreciated.

I'm voting for Gingrich in the Primary.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Actually, the Democrats held both the House and Senate majorities starting in 2006.

Click to expand...

Actually they didn't. Democrats had a majority in the House, but the Senate was tied up at 49 Republicans and 49 Democrats, with two independents. Of the two independents, one was a reliable democratic vote, and the other supported McCain over Obama in '08.

AdamT said:

Actually they didn't. Democrats had a majority in the House, but the Senate was tied up at 49 Republicans and 49 Democrats, with two independents. Of the two independents, one was a reliable democratic vote, and the other supported McCain over Obama in '08.

Click to expand...

Wow, wonderful cherry picking.

Tell me, that person who supported McCain over Obama....what Party was he prior to being an independent? What party did he caucus with during that time? What's his voting record in regards to voting in line with the Democrats in Congress? What position was he on the ticket for in 2004?

Jesus that has to be one of the most dishonest spins I've seen in a long, long time.

Zyphlin said:

Wow, wonderful cherry picking.

Tell me, that person who supported McCain over Obama....what Party was he prior to being an independent? What party did he caucus with during that time? What's his voting record in regards to voting in line with the Democrats in Congress? What position was he on the ticket for in 2004?

Jesus that has to be one of the most dishonest spins I've seen in a long, long time.

Click to expand...

No, I think you actually just topped it, going away. :lol:

Lieberman caucused with the Democrats, of course ... even when he was actively campaigning for McCain and his name was being bandied about as a possible running mate on the Republican ticket. Lieberman consistently voted for Bush's Iraq measures. He was endorsed by many prominent Republicans in his '06 race (including ConservativesforLieberman06.com), and in the election Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans. He was and is more conservative than some Republican senators, and he is certainly far the right of most Democrats. He spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2008 -- not the Democratic National Convention.

You really should not throw stones when you're living in that eggshell-thin glass house.

Caucused with the Democrats, as did Bernie Sanders, giving them Operational Majority with 51 members of Congress Caucusing with them. So right off the bat, the Democratic Caucus held the majority in the Senate in the 110th Congress.

Lieberman voted with his caucus 87% of the time. To put this in perspective, that "independent" who you're not wanting to call a solid democratc vote voted in line with the Democrats more than 24 Republicans voted in line with their own party. That's right, out of 49 Republicans in Congress, 24 (essentially half) cast less votes in line with their party than Lieberman did with the Democrats. Yet you're trying to play him off as if he wasn't essentially a Democrat for all intents and purposes in voting on the vast majority of issues (indeed, almost 9 in every 10 issues).

You attempt to point out Lieberman's support for McCain 2 years after the 2006 congress starts, but ignore that he was put up as the NUMBER TWO position in the Democratic Party just 2 years prior. So apparently supporting a Presidential ticket on the other side is a bigger deal than actually being ON the Presidential ticket for your own side.

AdamT said:

Lieberman consistently voted for Bush's Iraq measures.

Click to expand...

Congrats, you've found one issue Lieberman sided with the Republicans on routinely. Care to deal with the other 87% of issues?

He was endorsed by many prominent Republicans in his '06 race (including ConservativesforLieberman06.com), and in the election Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans.

Click to expand...

Indeed, in a state where the Republican had no chance to win so the vote was for "Guy who won't win" / "Guy whose liberal but we like in one area" / "Guy whose REALLY liberal".

He was and is more conservative than some Republican senators

Click to expand...

Sorry, hate to throw those nasty things like "facts" out there, but in 2006 to 2008 at the very least you're just completely and utterly incorrect. The Republican who voted with the party the least in the 110th Congress...Roger Wicker...did so only 14% of the time. As horribly ABYSMAL as that is, its still better than Lieberman's 13% voting in line with the Republicans. There was not a single Republican senator that Lieberman voted greater than in terms of votes with the Republicans.

You really should not throw stones when you're living in that eggshell-thin glass house.

Click to expand...

I don't, I toss stones at people protecting themselves with strawman and wax paper like yourself. You tried to pathetically and ridiculously cherry picked, got called on it, and your only defense is attempting to hold McCain out as some kind of brilliant shield while denying that in the same distance of years he was the parties #2 guy, you ignored his voting record, and you ignored his own choice of what side he caucused with which gave operational majority.

I'm not the one in a glass house.

Zyphlin said:

Caucused with the Democrats, as did Bernie Sanders, giving them Operational Majority with 51 members of Congress Caucusing with them. So right off the bat, the Democratic Caucus held the majority in the Senate in the 110th Congress.

Lieberman voted with his caucus 87% of the time. To put this in perspective, that "independent" who you're not wanting to call a solid democratc vote voted in line with the Democrats more than 24 Republicans voted in line with their own party. That's right, out of 49 Republicans in Congress, 24 (essentially half) cast less votes in line with their party than Lieberman did with the Democrats. Yet you're trying to play him off as if he wasn't essentially a Democrat for all intents and purposes in voting on the vast majority of issues (indeed, almost 9 in every 10 issues).

You attempt to point out Lieberman's support for McCain 2 years after the 2006 congress starts, but ignore that he was put up as the NUMBER TWO position in the Democratic Party just 2 years prior. So apparently supporting a Presidential ticket on the other side is a bigger deal than actually being ON the Presidential ticket for your own side.



Congrats, you've found one issue Lieberman sided with the Republicans on routinely. Care to deal with the other 87% of issues?



Indeed, in a state where the Republican had no chance to win so the vote was for "Guy who won't win" / "Guy whose liberal but we like in one area" / "Guy whose REALLY liberal".



Sorry, hate to throw those nasty things like "facts" out there, but in 2006 to 2008 at the very least you're just completely and utterly incorrect. The Republican who voted with the party the least in the 110th Congress...Roger Wicker...did so only 14% of the time. As horribly ABYSMAL as that is, its still better than Lieberman's 13% voting in line with the Republicans. There was not a single Republican senator that Lieberman voted greater than in terms of votes with the Republicans.



I don't, I toss stones at people protecting themselves with strawman and wax paper like yourself. You tried to pathetically and ridiculously cherry picked, got called on it, and your only defense is attempting to hold McCain out as some kind of brilliant shield while denying that in the same distance of years he was the parties #2 guy, you ignored his voting record, and you ignored his own choice of what side he caucused with which gave operational majority.

I'm not the one in a glass house.

Click to expand...

Iraq was THE defining issue of Bush's eight years and with respect to that defining issue, Lieberman voted for Bush, if not 100% of the time, then nearly 100% of the time. Everything else paled in comparison, and you know it and are having a hard time telling the truth. That's why Lieberman lost the Democatic primary in '06 and it's why he was supported by so many conservatives, AND it's why he endorsed the Republican candidate in '08 and spoke at the Republican National Convention. These are the facts you want to gloss over, which is unfortunate.

However, even accepting, arguendo, that Lieberman should be counted as a Democrat, the claim that Democrats had a commanding majority in the Senate is patently false. At BEST they had a 51 - 49 majority, and with Republicans invoking cloture for every significant measure, even that purported majority becomes meaningles.

I can see you in your glass house. Please put on a robe to cover up your flabby arguments. It's disgusting.

AdamT said:

Iraq was THE defining issue of Bush's eight years and with respect to that defining issue, Lieberman voted for Bush, if not 100% of the time, then nearly 100% of the time. Everything else paled in comparison, and you know it and are having a hard time telling the truth.

Click to expand...

Goal post moving. (not to mention, I would agree the WOT as a whole is the defining issue of his PRESIDENCY, but the 110th congress was far more defined with Immigration, SCHIP, and TARP) Whether or not you think he was on the Republicans side on the "defining" issue, that doesn't change whether or not the Democrats controlled a majority of the senate.

However, even accepting, arguendo, that Lieberman should be counted as a Democrat, the claim that Democrats had a commanding majority in the Senate is patently false.

Click to expand...

Goal post moving. The suggestion was that they had a majority, not a commanding majority. You introduced the "Commanding" language in yourself just now.

I can see you in your glass house. Please put on a robe to cover up your flabby arguments. It's disgusting.

Click to expand...

Again. I've shown you actual facts, such as his voting record, showing perfectly clear that he voted by a large majority in line with the Democrats. I've taken statements you've stated as if they were facts and showed through ACTUAL facts that you were entirely wrong, like highlighting how even the weakest Republican in the Senate voted with Republicans more than Leiberman did. I've taken your ONE singular argument of significance...his support for McCain in an election 2 years later...and noted how you completely ignored that he was the Democrats nominee for VP in that same span of time going the other direction. And after I completely destroyed your ridiculous hyper partisan point, you swoop in to try and save face by moving the goal posts talking about a "commanding" majority when no one suggested such thing. The Democrats, due to their caucus of 51 people in the senate, had the majority. Dance around it all you want, but in terms of how the senate functions they had a majority due to their caucus.

Zyphlin said:

Goal post moving. (not to mention, I would agree the WOT as a whole is the defining issue of his PRESIDENCY, but the 110th congress was far more defined with Immigration, SCHIP, and TARP) Whether or not you think he was on the Republicans side on the "defining" issue, that doesn't change whether or not the Democrats controlled a majority of the senate.

Click to expand...

Iraq was still very much front and center in 2007, with continuing votes over the surge, funding and habeas protection for detainees (Lieberman being the only non-republican who voted nay).

Goal post moving. The suggestion was that they had a majority, not a commanding majority. You introduced the "Commanding" language in yourself just now.

Click to expand...

Uh, you actually moved the goal posts to include an independent. Strictly speaking the Democrats did not have a majority, period.

Again. I've shown you actual facts, such as his voting record, showing perfectly clear that he voted by a large majority in line with the Democrats. I've taken statements you've stated as if they were facts and showed through ACTUAL facts that you were entirely wrong, like highlighting how even the weakest Republican in the Senate voted with Republicans more than Leiberman did. I've taken your ONE singular argument of significance...his support for McCain in an election 2 years later...and noted how you completely ignored that he was the Democrats nominee for VP in that same span of time going the other direction. And after I completely destroyed your ridiculous hyper partisan point, you swoop in to try and save face by moving the goal posts talking about a "commanding" majority when no one suggested such thing. The Democrats, due to their caucus of 51 people in the senate, had the majority. Dance around it all you want, but in terms of how the senate functions they had a majority due to their caucus.

Click to expand...

What you've done is continually downplay the fact that Lieberman consistently voted with the Republicans on the most significant and contentious issue of Bush's presidency. You also have failed to address the fact that Lieberman got much more support -- roughly two to one -- from Republicans in the 2006 election, and the fact that he was endorsed by many conservative Republicans. All to try and prove that Democrats had a majority, when clearly the Senate consisted of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two independents, one very liberal and the other quite moderate. You've also completely ignored the most important point of all, which is that even if the Democrats did have a 51 seat majority it would have been meaningless, with Republicans obliterating the previous record for cloture votes. For all practical purposes, in this new world of Republican filibustering, the Democrats cannot be said to have a majority in the Senate unless they have 60 reliable votes.

AdamT said:

Uh, you actually moved the goal posts to include an independent. Strictly speaking the Democrats did not have a majority, period.

Click to expand...

The Democratic PARTY did not have a majority in the Senate, however the Democratic CAUCUS did. From a political stand point, the Democrats had an operational majority. The statement was that the Democrats held the majority in both houses. In this case, they did. A clear majority in the house, and an operational majority in the senate.

What you've done is continually downplay the fact that Lieberman consistently voted with the Republicans on the most significant and contentious issue of Bush's presidency.

Click to expand...

87%

Keep flapping your gums, I'll keep being happy to point out that almost 9 out of every 10 votes he sided with the Democrats.

You also have failed to address the fact that Lieberman got much more support -- roughly two to one -- from Republicans in the 2006 election, and the fact that he was endorsed by many conservative Republicans.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to his standing in the senate, where he caucused with democrats and voted consistantly in line with democrats.

All to try and prove that Democrats had a majority, when clearly the Senate consisted of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two independents, one very liberal and the other quite moderate.

Click to expand...

87%

So your determination of someone who is moderate is someone who votes with Democrats just under 90% of the time.

Well, I'll be happy to reference you the next time someone tells me that some liberals don't just use "moderate" for code for "liberal".

The Democrats had 51 members caucusing with them, the Republicans had 49. This gave the Democrats an operational majority and control of the senate.

Lets see what the Congresses own rules tell us, shall we? Tell me Adam...what position did Harry Reid hold during the 110th congress? Would you care for some help since its became obvious facts have such a hard time coming off your tongue. Harry Reid was the Senate MAJORITY Leader. Why was that? Because who has the majority in the Senate is determined by which caucus has the majority of members caucusing with it...in this case, the DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.

You've also completely ignored the most important point of all, which is that even if the Democrats did have a 51 seat majority it would have been meaningless

Click to expand...

First, its irrelevant to the argument of whether or not the Democrats had the majority, which is why I ignored it. It was a red herring thrown out by you to try and distract and derail from what the conversation was. I never once even talked about whether or not it was useful or helpful or beneficial to the Democrats to have the majority. I only pointed out that they did have the majority...which the facts and congresses own rules support me on.

Second, with only needing 9 more votes you'd think that the Democrats could've won enough to stop a fillabuster considering there were 24 Republicans who voted with Democrats more often than the "moderate" Joe Lieberman voted with Republicans.

For all practical purposes, in this new world of Republican filibustering, the Democrats cannot be said to have a majority in the Senate unless they have 60 reliable votes.

Click to expand...

Well, that's nice in the fantasy land you live in Adam where your changed goal posts become reality. However, in the real world, that's not how majority standing is determined in the senate. Forgive me, but I prefer to debate in reality.

Zyphlin said:

The Democratic PARTY did not have a majority in the Senate,

Click to expand...

Thank you. Case closed.

however the Democratic CAUCUS did. From a political stand point, the Democrats had an operational majority. The statement was that the Democrats held the majority in both houses. In this case, they did. A clear majority in the house, and an operational majority in the senate.

Click to expand...

Oh, an OPERATIONAL majority! There go those goal posts again.

Keep flapping your gums, I'll keep being happy to point out that almost 9 out of every 10 votes he sided with the Democrats.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that he generally votes with the Democrats on domestic issues, but he has a more conservative record on foreign policy issues than several Republican Senators. But the fact is that Bush's presidency was dominated by the WOT and foreign policy. He had a nearly nonexistent domestic agenda, and what there was usually did not come down to a close vote.

Irrelevant to his standing in the senate, where he caucused with democrats and voted consistantly in line with democrats.

Click to expand...

Again, he voted virtually unerringly with Republicans on foreign policy.

So your determination of someone who is moderate is someone who votes with Democrats just under 90% of the time.

Click to expand...

It really depends on the issue, and who you're asking. The ACLU, for example, gives Lieberman a liberal rating of 27% versus 48% for all senators.

The Democrats had 51 members caucusing with them, the Republicans had 49. This gave the Democrats an operational majority and control of the senate.

Click to expand...

Right, unless someone like Lieberman voted with the Republicans on a major issue like Iraq war funding or detainee rights. Then the Republicans had an OPERATIONAL majority, since Cheney would be the tie breaker and it would be 51-50 Republicans.

Lets see what the Congresses own rules tell us, shall we? Tell me Adam...what position did Harry Reid hold during the 110th congress? Would you care for some help since its became obvious facts have such a hard time coming off your tongue. Harry Reid was the Senate MAJORITY Leader. Why was that? Because who has the majority in the Senate is determined by which caucus has the majority of members caucusing with it...in this case, the DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.

Click to expand...

A technicality.

First, its irrelevant to the argument of whether or not the Democrats had the majority, which is why I ignored it. It was a red herring thrown out by you to try and distract and derail from what the conversation was. I never once even talked about whether or not it was useful or helpful or beneficial to the Democrats to have the majority. I only pointed out that they did have the majority...which the facts and congresses own rules support me on.

Click to expand...

In the real world it's about a 1,000 times more relevant than which side Lieberman usually voted with. Nor is it irrelevant to the argument. The poster I originally responded to was suggesting that the Dems should be blamed for (you name it) because the Democrats had the majority in Congress since 2006. But in reality, as opposed to this little game you want to play, the Democrats couldn't do a damned thing with 49, or 50, or even 51 seats in the Senate. They couldn't even get their agenda through with a 59 seat majority. Do I blame them for not being able to martial some support from the other side? Not really. The other side does not negotiate. In fact I blame the Republicans for turning the rules of the Senate on their head and requiring a super majority for every important vote. No government can function under those conditions.

Second, with only needing 9 more votes you'd think that the Democrats could've won enough to stop a fillabuster considering there were 24 Republicans who voted with Democrats more often than the "moderate" Joe Lieberman voted with Republicans.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't think that. I understand that Republicans generally vote in lock step on contentious issues, with only a handful who are willing to negotiate in good faith.

Well, that's nice in the fantasy land you live in Adam where your changed goal posts become reality. However, in the real world, that's not how majority standing is determined in the senate. Forgive me, but I prefer to debate in reality.

Click to expand...

Yes, well, I'll continue living in the actual reality and you can remain in your "functional" reality. :lol:

I feel the exact same way. Newt scares the **** out of me with some of the things he says (and it isn't a matter of intelligence, its a matter of beliefs), but I 100% agree that the separation of investment function and banking function are needed again. If I have the money to invest, let me put it in an investment bank, let me take the risk - don't regulate ALL banks and remove my option of making risky investments into these banks for possible great reward or great failure. Do NOT take the money from people who cannot afford to invest or do not wish to invest and use it for risky investments. I think this would help in the future when we have major economic down cycles - the people who lose money in the investment banks are doing so knowing the risks. The people who wish for traditional banking, while they aren't going to get near the return on the money in the bank, know that they have their money in a legitimate banking institution with the sole purpose of banking.

"The American people want an adult for president, and nobody knows as much about adultery as I do."

-Newt Gingrich

:mrgreen: